HEMRAJ AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 09-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HEMRAJ AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 
B 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Criminal Trial : 
Conviction-Appeal against-Evidence adduced by prosecution 
C inconsistent-Truthfulness of prosecution case doubtful-In such 
circumstances trial court acquitted accused-However, High Court reversed 
order of acquittal-Correctness of-Held : If on the basis of the same 
evidence two views are reasonably possible and the trial court takes the 
view in favour of the accused, the appellate court, in an appeal against 
D acquittal, will not be justified in reversing the order of acquittal, unless 
it comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court was wholly 
unreasonable or perverse-Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 302134. 
E 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 : 
Section 154-First Information Report-Requirements of-Held : 
FIR must disclose the commission of cognizable offence to set the 
investigating machinery into motion-It is neither necessary for the person 
lodging the report to witness the commission of the offence nor all details 
F about the manner of occurence, the participants in the crime, the time and 
place of occurrence etc. need be mentioned 
The appellant-accused were acquitted by the trial court for an 
offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, I 840. 
However, High Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and 
G convicted the appellants. Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution, the appellants-accused had assaulted 
the members of the prosecution party killing one and injuring PWs 2 
and 3 and some other persons. Subsequently a first information report 
H was lodged. 
466 
HEMRAJ v. ST ATE 
467 
According to the defence, another occurrence had taken place on A 
the same day and at the same time, in whi~h members of the 
prosecution party had injured DW-2 and on the report of DW-2, a 
criminal case had been registered and after investigation, PW-2 was 
facing prosecution. It was the further case of the defence that the 
prosecution had not referred to the injuries sustained by DW-2 and B 
that the father of the deceased, an injured witness, was not examined 
by the prosecution. 
The trial court concluded that the case of the prosecution was 
doubtful and that there was considerable doubt about the time when 
ilie~~s~~ 
C 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The view taken by the trial court is also a possible, 
reasonable view of the evidence on record. The evidence adduced by D 
the prosecution is rather inconsistent and creates a serious doubt about 
the truthfulness of the prosecution case. Even if it may be possible to 
take a different view, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial 
court is not a reasonable view of the evidence on record. If on the basis 
of the same evidence two views are reasonably possible and the trial 
court takes the view in favour of the accused, the appellate court, in E 
an appeal against acquittal, will not be justified in reversing the order 
of acquittal, unless it comes to the conclusion that the view taken by 
the trial court was wholly unreasonable or perverse and it was not 
possible to take the view in favour of the accused on the basis of 
evidence on record. [482-B-D] 
F 
2. It is not correct that unless the manner in which the occurrence 
took place is stated in the report, the same cannot be treated as First 
Information Report (FIR). The law is very clear and well settled that a 
report, which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, must be 
treated as FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It G 
does not matter whether the person lodging the report had witnessed the 
commission of the offence or not, nor is it necessary that all the details 
should be mentioned in the report about the manner of occurrence, 
the participants in the crime, the time and place of occurrence etc. 
The requirement of Section 154 Cr. P.C. is only that the report must H 
468 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and that is sufficient to 
set the investigating machinery into action. [474-C, D[ 
B 
c 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 
702 of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.2002 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in Crl. A. No. 302-DBA of 1993. 
R.K. Jain, Ranji Thomas, Ms. Bharti Upadhyay and V.N. Raghupathy 
for the Appellants. 
Sudhir Walia and Bimal Roy Jad for the Respondent. 
The Ju

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