HARI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 1012 · Decided: 23-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2ob'9]4 §:C~R'.~f012 
A 
HARi 
V. 
... 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
1 
Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2007 
B 
MARCH 23, 2009 
[S.B.SINHA AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 -Appeal against conviction -
Plea of delay in lodging FIR, non-explanation of injuries on 
accused and eye-witnesses being related - Held: Police did 
.. 
c not lodge FIR immediately and gave greater attention to 
'fo 
ensure prompt treatment to injured persons - Therefore, delay 
of few hours would not vitiate prosecution case - Accused 
never brought on record nature of injuries sustained by them 
- In the absence of injury report and in view of the facts, it 
D cannot be urged that prosecution tried to suppress the genesis 
of the case - Deceased was cousin of accused - Occurrence 
took place within the house at the instance of close relatives 
"" -
and therefore relations were likely to be most appropriate 
witnesses- Concurrent findings of guilt by courts below against 
E the accused do not warrant interference - FIR - Evidence -
Related witness. 
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950: 
Article 136 - Consideration weighing with Supreme Court 
--! 
... 
F 
while deciding State's appeal against acquittal by High Court 
vis-a-vis concurrent findings by courts below about guilt of 
accused - Held: In a case leading to an appeal against 
acquittal, Court is to consider whether the view taken by the 
High Court was possible - But that is not the position where 
G 
there are concurrent findings of guilt against the appellant -
Criminal Law. 
Prosecution case was that appellant and accused 2 
.. " 
came to the house of complainant and assaulted his 
father and brother with a knife. Due to knife blow, 
H 
1012 
HARi V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
1013 
I 
complainant's father died on the spot. The trial court A 
~ 
ordered conviction of appellant and accused 2 under 
-t 
s.302 IPC. High Court affirmed the same. 
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the 
appellant that there was delay in lodging FIR; that the B 
injuries on the accused persons were not explained; and 
that the eyewitnesses were relatives and their evidence 
was not reliable. 
-'\ 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
"' 
c 
HELD : 1. In so far as the delay in lodging the FIR 
was concerned, High Court came to a conclusion that PW1 
went to the police station with PW2 immediately after the 
incident and there was nothing wrong on the part of the 
police in giving greater attention to ensure prompt 
D 
treatment to the injured person and in not lodging the FIR 
,~ ,._ 
immediately. There was thus a delay of few hours but this 
would not vitiate the prosecution case, rather this was 
consistent with normal human conduct. It would be the 
effort of everyone to try to first save the life of a severely 
injured person rather than spend time in anything E 
else.[Para 19] (1020-C-E] 
2. So far as injuries on the accused persons were 
.,... 
~ 
concerned, it was recorded by High Court that accused 
persons never brought on record the nature of injuries F 
sustained by them. No injury certificates were produced. 
PW1 did not dispute that there was counter case which 
was registered against them and the same was pending 
in the Sessions Court. PW12 also admitted that two of the 
accused persons who were acquitted sustained injuries G 
but the nature of injuries were not brought on record. In 
" ~ 
the absence of an injury report and especially in view of 
the facts, it cannot be urged that the prosecution tried to 
suppress the genesis of the case. In Lakshmi Singh's 
case* no general principles were laid down that non-
explanation of injury on accused person shall in all cases H 
,... 
r 
1014 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 4 S.C.R. 
.. 
A vitiate the prosecution case. It depends on the facts.[Paras 
20, 31] [1020-F-H; 1021-A; 1024-E-F] 
t 
*Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 
394; State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh - AIR (1998) SC 
B 2554 - Distinguished. 
State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima and Anr (1975) 2 SCC 7 -
relied on. 
3. Both the trial court and the High Court found that 
c 
the presence of eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence 
'f 
was natural and nothing was elicited from them in cross 
examination to show that these witnesses were elsewhere 
and not where the occurrence took place. It may be true 
that all the vital witnesses, namely, PW1, 2 and 8 were 
relations of the deceased but that by itself would not 
D discredit their evidence. The appellant was the cousin of

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