LexHIMANSHU @ CHINTU versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 1 S.C.R. 48 .. A HIMANSHU @ CHINTU v. ~ STATE OF NCT OF DELHI (Criminal Appeal No. 560 of 2010) 8 JANUARY 4, 2011 [AFTAB ALAM ANO R.M. LODHA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss.302134 - Murder - Previous ).. enmity of A-2 with the. victim-deceased - A-2 came on the spot c with other accused and pointed towards the deceased - One of the boys accompanying A-2 fired a shot at the deceased - Conviction of A-1 to A-4 by courts below -Appeal by A-2 and A-3 - Held: Evidence of eye-witness was duly corroborated by other witnesses - Discrepancies in the D depositions of the prosecution witnesses were minor and not material to shake their trustworthiness and involvement of A- ,F· 2 and A-3 - Complicity of A-2 and A-3 was dwy eitablished by medical and other evidence - Conviction upheld. FIR: Delay in lodging - Plea that FIR was registered E belatedly and the time was used .to falsely implicate the accused because of previous enmity - On facts, held: Plea not tenable - The sequence of facts did not lead to an inference that there was delay in registration of FIR or it lacked spontaneity. F Witness: Hostile witness - Testimony of - Admissible value - Held: The evidence of a hostile witness remains the admissible evidence and it is open to the court to rely upon the dependable part of that evidence which is found to be G acceptable and duly corroborated by some other reliable evidence available on record. )\, The prosecution case was that on the day of incident, the deceased was standing with his brother (PW-11 ), PW- 7 and PW-8. A-2 came on a motor cycle at 9.20 p.m. with H 48 HIMANSHU @ CHINTU v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 49 one person and threatened the deceased that he would kill him. After about 5-10 minutes, A-2 came again with his associates and pointed towards the deceased. One of the boys accompanying A-2 took out a revolver and fired a shot at the deceased. Thereafter all the accused ran away from the spot. PW-11 telephoned at the police station at 9.34 p.m. The head constable (PW-3) received the telephonic message. The message was communicated to concerned police Station. On receiving A B the said communication, Sub-Inspector (PW-24) left immediately for the place of incident along with the Head c Constable (PW-19). PW-11 was present at the spot. PW- 24 recorded his statement (Exhibit PW-11/A) which took about 10 minutes. PW-24 and PW-19 rushed to the hospital where they came to know that the deceased was brought dead. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged at 11.50 p.m. The trial court held A-1 to A-4 guilty under Section 302 IP''.: r.w. Section 34 IPC. A.-4 was convicted under Section 27 of Arms Act as well. A-5 was acquitted. The High Court maintained the conviction. In so far as the appeal of A-4 was concerned, his conviction under Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959 was altered to the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The instant appeals were filed by A-2 and A-3 challenging the. order of the High Court. Dismissing the appeals, the Court D E F HELD: 1. It was incorrect to say that the FIR was registered belatedly and the said time was used to falsely implicate the accused because of their previous enmity. The sequence of facts did not lead to an inference that there was delay In the registration of FIR or it lacked G spontaneity. As a matter of fact, in Exhibit PW-11/A, which was recorded within 20-25 minutes of the receipt of the communication of the incident, the details of the incident were narrated and the specific names of A-2 and A-3 H 50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A figured with A-1 :md A-4. It cannot, therefore, be said that the time of two hours was used to falsely implicate the accused due to their previous enmity. [Para 15) [57-E-G; 58-A-C] 8 Rajendra and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 13 sec 480 - referred to. 2.1. The evidence of PW-7, PW-8 and PW-11 was thoroughly examined and analysed by the trial court and also by the High Court at great length. The High Court c was alive to the situation that PW-8 was declared hostile and PW-7 and PW-11· were subjected to leading questions by the public prosecutor. The High Court took into - consideration the discrepancies, omissions and contradictions pointed out by- defence and on careful 0 consideratiQI) af their evidence held that the presence of • these three witnesses at the time and place of occurrence --was._n.oLdoubtful and the evidence of PW
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.