LexLAL BAHADUR & ORS. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 5 S.C.R. 744 A LAL BAHADUR & ORS. B V. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) (Criminal Appeal No. 1794 of 2008) APRIL 8, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss.1471149/4491436!302!395/396 - Assassination of the Prime Minister of India - Communal riots c - Violent mob attacks on Sikh community - Mob killing husband and father-in-law of PW1 and also looting articles - Acquittal .of accused-appellants - Reversal of acquittal by High Court - Justification - Held: Justified -The witnesses consistently deposed with regard to the offence committed by 0 the appellants and their evidence remained unshaken during their cross-examination - Mere marginal variation and contradiction in their statements not a ground to discard the testimony of the eye-witness who was none else but widow of one deceased - Further, relationship not a factor to affect E credibility of a witness - Discovery of dead body of the victim not the only mode of proving the corpus delicti in murder - In fact, there are very many cases of such nature like the present one where the discovery of the dead body was impossible, especially when members of a particular community were murdered in such a violent mob attack on F Sikh community in different places and the offenders tried to remove the dead bodies and also looted articles - High Court correctly appreciated the evidence and reversed the findings of the trial court. G H Criminal Trial - Evidence - Appreciation - Assassination of the Prime Minister of India - Communal riots - Mob ki//ing husband and father-in-law of PW1 - Delay in filing of FIR and in recording of the statements of witnesses 744 LAL BAHADUR & ORS. v STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 745 by the police - Held: Did not affect the prosecution case - . A Instant incident was not solitary, such incidents took place in almost all parls of the country - Circumstances of the case were extraordinary - The city was in turmoil and persons having witnessed crimes would naturally be apprehensive and afraid in coming forward to depose against the perpetrators, B till things settled down; the State machinery was overworked; and in such circumstances, delay in recording the statements of witnesses cannot be a ground to reduce its evidentiary value or to completely ignore it - Furlher, witnesses prior to the incident were residents of the same area and knew the c assailants and it was not the case of the appellants that the delay could have resulted .in wrong identification of the accused - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.147/149/4491436130213951 396. Appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Power of the D appellate Court to re-appreciate evidence - Held: The appellate courl has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded - High Coult is entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence in order to find out whether findings recorded by the trial courl are perverse or E unreasonable. Riots followed the assassination of late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 31st October, 1984. A mob including appellant No. 1 alongwith appellant No. 2- F allegedly attacked the house of PW1 and looted household articles. PW1 alongwith her husband and father-in-law took shelter at the residence of PW-5. On 3rd November, 1984, a mob of more than 500 persons, including and led by the appellants, came and attacked G the house of PW-5. The appellants allegedly broke the windowpane and entered the house and set the house on fire. PW1 's husband and father-in-law were burnt alive and their half burnt bodies were put in gunny bags. PW1 's house was also burnt. H 746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 5 S.C.R. A The trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted them. The State preferred appeal before the High Court which reversed the findings of the trial court and convicted the accused- B appellants under Sections 147/149/449/436/302/395/396, IPC, and therefore the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. The instant incident as alleged is not the C solitary incident, but such incidents took place in almost all parts of the country, especially in Delhi where many innocent persons of one community had been murdered and their properties had been looted because of the assassination of the Prime Minister of this country, which D took place on 31st October, 1984. After hearing the sh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.