HARILAL ETC. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH)

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 138 · Decided: 05-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
HARILAL ETC.
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW CHHATTISGARH)
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2216-2217 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2023
[J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justifi ed in 
upholding the order of the Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the 
appellants to imprisonment for life u/s 302 IPC. 
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Murder – Conviction of the accused u/s. 
302 and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the courts below – Ocular 
account of two prosecution witness that the assault on the deceased took 
place at night, however, neither of them lodged the FIR, rather, a named 
FIR lodged next day by the village chowkidar of neighbouring village, 
even though she was not an eye witness – Correctness:
Held: Trial court as well as the High Court while appreciating the 
evidence did not properly address various aspects – Neither the trial court 
nor the High Court carefully considered the deposition of the village 
chowkidar who lodged a named FIR – Two eye witness were chance witness 
– Testimony of one inconsistent with his previous statement – His statement 
inconclusive as regards the assault being cause of death, thus cannot be 
relied upon to convict the accused for off ence of murder – Testimony of 
the other one not such that it may on its own form the basis of conviction 
of the accused for the off ence of murder – More so, it leaves many gaps in 
the prosecution story – Furthermore, the seizure of lathi and clothes from 
the accused cannot be considered as a clinching circumstance warranting 
conviction – In view thereof, prosecution not able to convincingly prove 
the genesis of the crime as also the manner in which the murder took place 
and by whom, inasmuch as the evidence led by the prosecution gives rise 
to a strong probability of the killing being a consequence of mob action on 
[2023] 12 S.C.R. 138 : 2023 INSC 801
138
139
the deceased for his alleged involvement with a lady of the village – Thus, 
taking into account the various circumstances, the accused entitled to benefi t 
of doubt – Judgment and order of the courts below set aside. [Paras 14, 16, 
18 and 19-26]
Delay/laches – FIR – Delay in lodging FIR – Absence of proper 
explanation – Duty of the court:
Held: Courts must be on guard and test the evidence meticulously 
to rule out possibility of embellishments in the prosecution story – Delay 
gives opportunity for deliberation and guess work especially when there is 
high probability of no one witnessed the incident at night in an open place 
or a public street. [Para 19]
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 
2216-2217 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2010 of the High Court of 
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRLA Nos.864 and 865 of 1991
Appearances:
D. N. Goburdhun, Sr. Adv., Aakarsh Kamra, Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, 
Advs. for the Appellants.
Mrs. Prachi Mishra, AAG, Mahesh Kumar, Amanpreet Singh Rahi, 
Nikhilesh Kumar, Ms. Devika Khanna, Mrs. V D Khanna, M/s. Vmz 
Chambers, Advs. for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
MANOJ MISRA, J.
1.  These two appeals are directed against a common judgment and 
order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (in short, “the High 
Court”), dated 17.02.2010, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 864 and 865 
of 1991, whereby the appeals of Harilal and Parasram @ Rangnath (the 
appellants herein) were dismissed and the order of the third Additional 
HARILAL ETC. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(NOW CHHATTISGARH)
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
140
Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, dated 13.07.1991, passed in S.T. No.153 of 1990, 
convicting and sentencing the appellants to imprisonment for life under 
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, “I.P.C.”) was affi  rmed.
Introductory Facts
2. Three accused, namely, Anshram, Parasram alias Rangnath and 
Harilal, were tried for committing murder of Ellahabadiya alias Vijay (the 
deceased) on 25.08.1989 at about 8.00 pm. Based on information received, 
a fi rst information report (Ex.P-7) (in short, “the FIR”) naming the aforesaid 
three accused was lodged by Smt. Jugmatibai (PW-9) at P.S. Hirri, District 
Bilaspur (M.P.) on the next day of the incident i.e. on 26.08.1989 at about 10 
am. On 26.08.1989 itself, the inquest was conducted and the police collected 
blood-stained earth/plain earth from the spot and also seized a lathi,

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