FAZAR ALI & ORS. versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 646 · Decided: 21-04-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 646 
FAZARALI & ORS· 
y 
STATE OF ASSAM 
(Criminal Appeal No. l 062 of 2007) 
APRIL21,2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.J 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.149 - Murder -
Prosecution 
case that the accused persons armed with various weapons attacked 
complainant, his father, brother and mother-in-law and after 
inflicting injuries, did not allow the injured to be taken to hospital 
for about 3 hours - Consequently, complainants brother died -
Trial court convicted accused-appellants ulss. 302 r/w. 149 and 
sentenced them to life imprisonment - Appeal dismissed by High 
Court - Appellants contended that complainant had mentioned name 
of only five accused persons in FIR, whereas charge sheet was 
submitted against twelve accused and further, there were 
contradictions in evidence of eye-witnesses - Held: FIR from the 
beginning itself mentions that the number of accused persons were 
twelve, although mentions name of five persons only - During 
investigation, names of seven others had surfaced and charge sheet 
was submitted against twelve accused - Informant clearly mentioned 
in his cross- examination that he had told the name of other seven 
accused as well to the writer of FIR as he is illiterate - No substance 
in the plea that since other accused were not mentioned in the· FIR 
except five, others could not have been convicted - Further, all the 
eye-witnesses, in their statements had assigned the role of all the 
accused of causing injuries - Two independent witnesses also proved · 
the incident and role of accused - Mere fact that, there are certain 
inconsistencies with regard to the manner of causing injuries, cannot 
shake the entire evidence or make the statement of witnesses 
G unreliable - It is unreasonable to expect from a witness to give picture 
perfect report of the incident - Thus, the findings of trial court are 
based on correct appreciation of evidence. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it 
H is clear: Firstly, FIR although mentions name of only five accused 
646 
FAZAR ALI & ORS. v. STATE OF ASSAM 
647 
but FIR clearly mentions that seven more accused persons were A 
there. Thus, FIR clearly mentions that the number of accused 
persons were twelve. Thus present is not a case where only those 
five persons who were named, were accused, but FIR from the 
very beginning is claiming that apart from those five, seven others 
are also accused. In the investigation, when names of seven others 
had surfaced, the charge-sheet was submitted against twelve 
accused. The submission that since in the FIR, names of seven 
other accused were not disclosed, they could not have been charge-
sheeted, can not be accepted. Secondly, in his cross-examination 
informant clearly mentioned that he had told the names of other 
seven accused persons also to the person who had written the 
FIR but, informant being illiterate had put only thumb impression 
on the FIR. Not naming other seven accused although, number 
B 
c 
of seven other accused were mentioned in the FIR is 
inconsequential and on this ground, there is no substance in the 
submission of the appellants that since names of other accused D 
were not mentioned in the FIR except five names, others could 
not have been convicted. [Para 15) [652-D-G] 
2. All the eye-witnesses have assigned the role of all the 
accused of causing injuries in their statements. PW.1 and PW.4 
are two independent witnesses who have also proved the incident 
and role of the accused. The mere fact that, there are certain 
inconsistencies with regard to the manner of causing injuries to 
father and brother of complainant by the witnesses as deposed in 
the court and as noted in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 
can in no manner shake the entire evidence or make the 
statement of witnesses unreliable. [Para 20) [654-C] 
3.1 There are two reasons for not accepting the arguments 
of appellants; firstly, before the Police also the role of accused 
was mentioned by eye-witnesses. In their statements under 
Section 161 Cr.P C and before the Court also eye-witnesses 
proved the role of the accused and presence of the accused. 
Hence, the eye-witness account of witnesses proves the presence 
of the accused. They have been rightly convicted under Section 
302 read with 49 IPC. [Para 21) (654-D-E) 
3.2 Secondly, there is clear evidence of eye-witnesses that 
E 
F 
G 
H 
648 
SUPREME COURT REPOR

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.