LexDILAWAR SINGH versus STATE OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' -t DILA WAR SINGH v. STATE OF DELHI SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 [DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDD.K.JAIN,JJ.) Penal Code, 1860: s.397-0ffence under-Injury not inflicted by accused-Hence, offence under s.397 not established A B Cri11.1inal trial: Delay in lodging FIR-Effect--Held: Fata! to prosecution C case if not satisfactorily explained Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s.2 JO-Object of-Discussed Prosecution case was that on 8.8.1984 at 9.30 P.M. the appellant, Rand 3 persons who were Sikhs entered into the temple where complainant-PW-I 0 pujari of the temple was doing meditation. They tied PW-1 with a rope and ran away containing the donation box with cash of about Rs.5000/-. Appellant was carrying a knife, R was having a lathi and one of the other 3 was having a revolver. PW-1 cried for held whereafter two local person came to the temple and saw 5 persons running. Both of them identified appellant and R. On E 9.8.1984, PW-1 made a written complaint to the Prime Minister, police official but to no avail. Thereafter, the complaint was filed on 31.8.1984. Trial Court convicted appellant under ss.452, 392, 397 IPC. The appeal before the High Court was dismissed on the ground that PW-l's evidence was clear and cogent. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the alleged incident· F took place on 8.8.1984 and the complaint was lodged on 31.8.1984; that except a bare statement that representations were made to various persons, no material in that regard was adduced. Further, the modalities to be adopted when the police does not register the FIR are indicated in s.154 (3) Cr.P.C. Admittedly, that has not been done. In any event, the ingredients of s.397 IPC G have not been established. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The evidence of PWl is the only material on which the 695 H 696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 9 S.C.R. A conviction has been recorded. In court, his statement was that accused appellant and 'R' were holding knives and other Sikh accused were holding lathi. But in the complaint it was stated that 'R' was carrying a Iathi and one of the accused Sikh was holding a revolver. It was accepted that no injury.was inflicted on the complainant by any of the accused. B (Para 6) (699-G, H; 700-A) 2.1. In criminal trial, the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the C unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case. D (Para 8).1700-C) Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR (1973) SC 501 and 'Ram Jagand Ors. v. The State ofU.P., AIR (1974) SC 606, relied on. 2.2. The complainant has attempted to explain the delay by stating that the matter was reported to the police but the police did not take any action. E Such statement can hardly be taken to have explained the delay. It is the simplest of things to contend that the police, though report had been lodged with it, had not taken any steps. But it has to be established by calling for the necessary records from the police to substantiate that in fact a report with the police had been lodged and that the police failed to take up the case. The F principle has been statutorily recognised in s.210 Cr.P.C. which enjoins upon the Magistrate, when it is made to appear before him either during the inquiry or the trial of a complaint, that a complaint before the police is pending investigation in the same matter, he is to stop the proceeding in the complaint case and is to call for a report from the police. After the report is received from the police, he is to take up the matter together and if cognizance has G been taken on the police report, he is to try the complaint case along with the G.R. Case as if both the cases are instituted upon police report. Tlie aim of the provision is to safeguard the interest of the accused from unnecessary harassment. The provisions of s.210 Cr.P.C, are mandatory in nature. It may be true that non-compliance of the provisions ofs.210, Cr.P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.