LexHARPAL SINGH ETC versus DEVINDER SINGH AND ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A HARPAL SINGH ETC. v. DEVINDER SINGH AND ANR. ETC. JULY 9, 1997 B [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 154-Delay in lodging FlR-Occu"ence taking place at 1.30 C PM and the FIR recorded at 4.50 PM -Time taken by the First Informant in shifting the injured to the hospital and making efforts to save his life-Held, delay not unreasonable. Sections 162 and 154-Supplementary statement of the first infomiant recorded by the I 0-Vse of-Such statement cannot be used for comparing D it with FIR-Merely because the IO elicited more details during further inte"ogation his evidence does not become suspect. E F G Section 157--Delay in dispatching the FIR-Held, does not affect the testimony of the person who lodged the FIR-Delay of 4 hours in lodging the FIR with the Magistrate, in the circumstances, not unreasonable. Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 114(g)-Presumption under, if optional-Held, it is pem1issible and not a necessary inference-Hence Court should not mechanically draw an adverse inference merely 011 ground of non-examination of a witness even if the witness is a material witness-17iere must be circumstances to facilitate the drawing of an adverse inference-Non-examination of a witness to avoid duplication does not lead to an adverse inference. Criminal Trial : Role of Public Prosecutor-During the criminal trial-May give up witness during trial to avert proliferation of evidence which could save much time of the Court. Witnesses-Eyewitness-Failure of Police to seize clothes worn by a H witness which were smeared with blood during the rescue operation-Held, 648 HARP AL SINGH ETC. v. DEVINO ER SINGH AND ANR. ETC. 649 not a ground to discard his evidence. Witnesses-Partisan witness-Reliability" of-Held, testimony of such a witness cannot be made sole basis of conviction unless it is wholly reliable-lt A is not safe to make the unco"oborated evidence of such a witness the sole basis for reversing the order of acquittal-On facts, held, testimony of injured B partisan witness is fully co"oborated by the other eye-witness making the prosecution version worthy of acceptance. Political Activities: Participation of young students in politics-Role of Political Par- C ties---Deprecated-Need for Legislative interference stressed-Students and politics--<.:ampus rivalry. In an University students union election, A-9 won the election for presidentship with the support of a particular political party defeating the D candidate of the rival students wing owing allegiance to another political party. There used to be constant fight between the rival students group. On the previous day of occurrence, the victorious group made all efforts to get their budget proposals approved by the general body were thwarted by the stiff resistance the deceased and his followers. On the subsequent day, at about 1.30 p.m. the deceased, PW-3 and one R were standing outside E the hostel canteen. Suddenly, A-9 caught hold of deceased and then A-6 gave a knife blow on the left chest of the deceased followed by A-1 inflicting another knife blow to the left side of the chest. PW-6 intervened to rescue his. colleague, but he was prevented from nearing the victim by A-8 and A-10. But right at that time A-5 gave a stab injury to PW-6 on his front F costal margin. The other assailants also attacked the deceased with iron rods, clubs and hockey sticks etc. Deceased died soon whereas PW-6 survived following an emergency operation. A case was registered on the strength of the statement provided by PW-3 and PW-6 was also examined as eye witness. The Trial Court pointed G out certain anomalies in the evidence of PW-3 and declined to believe that he had witnessed the occurrence. Since PW-6 was injured in the occurrence and was loyal to opposite students wing, the Trial Court found his evidence insufficient for establishing the guilt of the accused and acquitted all the accused. Hence this appeal. H 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. The reason advanced by the trial court against the evidence of the first informant was that when he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer subsequently, he gave more details regarding the occurrence. Firstly, the said supplementary statement recorded by the B Jnvestigating Officer could only have been used to contradict the witness in view of the interdict contain
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.