MAHMOOD AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 15-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MAHMOOD AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATEOFU.P. 
NOVEMBER 15, 2007 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY,JJ.) 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-s.302 rlw s.149 and ss.147, 148 and 379-
Murderous assault on father of PWJ with fire-arms and lat his-Five 
accused-Prosecution case entirely resting upon direct evidence of PWs C 
1,2 and 3-PW 1 stating details of the incident in his F'/R-Conviction 
of all accused by Courts below-On appeal by two convicts, held: 
Sequence of events clearly indicate that FIR was not ante-timed and 
unte-dated as alleged by defence-Nothing unnatural about conduct 
of PW-1-He gave detailed version as to manner of assault and role D 
played by each accused-PW-2 and PW-3 were independent witnesses 
and their testimony fully corroborated with testimony of PW-1-
Presence of PW-1 at the scene of offence cannot be considered doubtful 
merely because he made no attempt to save his father from being 
further assaulted-PW-I may not have mustered courage to risk his E 
own life-Response in such situations may differ from person to 
person-Common object of unlawful assembly is evident from fact 
that some of them were armed with deadly weapons-None of them 
were curious onlookers or spectators-Conviction maintained. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3-s.15 7-Despatch of Special F 
Report bySHO to local Magistrate- Time limit for-Held: No universal 
rule as to within what time Special Report required to be despatched-
Each case turns on its own facts- Delay in despatch of FIR by itself 
not a circumstance which can throw out prosecution case in its entirety, 
particularly when cogent and reasonable explanation for such delay G 
is provided. 
Evidence- Medical opinion v. Ocular evidence-Held: Ocular 
evidence if otherwise acceptable has to be given importance over 
51 
H 
52 
SUPREME COURT REPOR1S 
\2007] \2 S.C.R. 
A medical opinion. 
According to the prosecution, five persons including the two 
Appellants assaulted the father of PWl with guns and lath is while 
he was returning to his village on a motorcycle which resulted in his 
B death. Both Trial Court and the High Court convicted all the accused 
persons including the Appellants. Appellant No.I was convicted 
under Section 302 r/w 149 and Section 148 IPC, while Appellant 
No.2 was convicted under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC and under 
Sections 147 and 379 IPC. 
c 
D 
In appeal to this Court, the conviction of Appellants was 
primarily challenged on the ground that the FIR lodged by PW-1 
was ante-timed and ante-dated and brought into existence after due 
deliberations and considerations with the police. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. FIR in a criminal case and particularly in murder 
case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of 
appreciating evidence led by the prosecution at the trial. FIR is the 
earliest information regarding the circumstances under which the 
E crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and 
the part played by them, the weapons, if any, used as also the names 
of the eye-witnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR may result in 
embelishment, which is a creature of an after thought. With a view 
to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to 
F have been recorded, the Courts generally look for certain external 
checks. One of the check is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called 
as a Special Report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. 
[Para 8) [59-E-H; 60-A] 
1.2. It is the duty of the Station House Officer to despatch 
G Special Report to the Illaqua Magistrate as is required under 
Section 157(2), CrPC. But there may be variety of factors and 
circumstances for delay in despatch of the FIR and its receipt by 
the local Magistrate. [Para 13) [61-E-F] 
H 
1.3. Delay in despatch of FIR by itself is not a circumstance 
MAHMOODv. STATE 
53 
which can throw out the prosecution's case in its entirety, particularly A 
in cases where the prosecution provides cogent and reasonable 
explanation for the delay in despatch of the FIR. 
[Para 10] 
1.4. It is not possible to lay down any universal rule as to within B 
what time the special report is required to be despatched by the 
Station House officer after recording the FIR. Each case turns on 
its own facts. [Para 12) [61-D) 
Meharaj Singh v. Stale of UP. [1994] 5 SCC 188; Anil Rai v. Stale 
of Bihar, (2001] 7 SCC 318; Alla China Apparao & Ors. v. State of C 
A.P., JT (2002) 8 SC 167; Balaka Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, 

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