LexGIRISH YADAV AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. ' • GIRISH Y ADAY AND ORS. ETC. \'. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH MARCH 29, 1996 [DR. AS. ANAND AND S.B. MA.IMUDAR, JJ.j Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302 read with 148 and 149. Murder--Unlawful asse111bly--Conviction fm~Validity of Constitution of India, 1950: A11icle 136. Appeal by s11ecial leave--Concwrent findings off acts by Cowts below-- Power of Supreme Cowt to intofere with-Held not to be inte1fered with unless found unreasonable or shown against 1veight of evidence. Code of Oiminal Procedure, 1973: A B c Section 154----F.I.R.--Delay in lodging of-Ame timed F.J.R.---Checks D for dete11ninatio11 of-On facts held F.l.R. was promptly lodged--Evidentiary value of promptly lodged F.l.R.-Non-mel1lioning of names of accused in post-n101ten1 requisition-Held not by itself a circuntstance ntling out pronipt lodging of F.I.R. Section 174----Jnvestigaticn--Duty of police to se11d copy of F.I.R. to E conce111e'd Magistrat~Investigation t1iggered off inunediately after lodgnzent of F.l.R.-Held copy of F.l.R. was sent to Magistrate as a matter of fact and not by way of 011ly presumption. Section 319----Murdei~Eight accused---chmge sheet filed by Police only against four--Evidence against other four accused found by trial co1u1 F p1i1na facie sufficient enough su11po11ing their involven1ent in the conunission of offence-Process against other four accused issued by Cowt held justified. l'riniinal trial-Witnesses-Version of-Consistent with ntedica/ evidence--Held established on facts--Version of eye witnesses found sufficient to establish the prosecution cas~Non-exan1ination of neighbours as wit- G ncsses held not fatal. Oiminal tlial--Murde1-!11vestigation----Site Plan Recitals in--Eviden- timy value of The appellants (eight accused) were prosecuted under section 302 read with sections 148and149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The prosecu- H 1021 1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R. A tion story was that on 4th September 1982 at about 4.30 P.M. seven accused, appellant 1 and appellants 3 to 8, armed with deadly weapons chased one G; surrounded him and then assaulted hhn severely \Vith their w·eapons as a _,,,........,. B c result of which G fell d•nvn on the ground. The incident \\'as n·itnessed by the younger brother of the deceased; PW-2, as well as by PW-I and PW-5. The evidence of these \Vitnesses sho\\' that each one of them had come on his own to the spot. They had seen the incident when they were very near the deceased. Their version was that after the attack the accused persons ran away with their weapons. Immediately after witnessing the attack on his brother by seven persons, PW-2 rushed to the Police Station for lodging the F.l.R. After the departure of PW-2 from the scene of the incident, appellant 2 was alleged to have arrived on the scene of the incident who asked other appellants to move away and then threw a bomb towards the fallen G. The bomb exploded and whole orthe back of deceased 'G' was injured with burns and glass pit~ces. In the }"';I.R. names of the seven accused were mentioned except that of the eighth accused viz. appellant-2. After the F.I.R. was recorded its contents were also recorded in 'Rojnamcha Sanha' maintained D by police. lt furnished a conten1poraneous record of what was mentioned in the F.l.R. This document also contained the recital that a copy of the F.l.R. was being sent by the police station to the concerned Magistrate. The Inves- E F tigating Ollicer who visited the scene of offence prepared the Panchnama of the dead body as well as the site map. The site map contained names of only three accused. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem. In the requisition for post mortem, names of seven accused were not men- tioned. A weapon with a broken handle which was used for committing the offence was recovered by the Investigation Otlicer at a little distance from the place where dead body was found. ()n conclusion of investigation charge-sheet \\'as tiled only against ap- . pellants I to 4. Appellants 4 to 8 were not charge-sheeted on the ground that no case was found to be plinza facie proved against them. However, on ap- plication from the complainant the Trial Judge exercised his powers under section JI 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 holding that appellants 4 to 8 \\''ere also plinia facie guilty of the alleged offences. On revision G preferred by appellants 4 to 8, the High Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.