MOTILAL AND ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 303 · Decided: 05-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

); 
·1 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 303 
MOTILAL AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2003) 
MAY 05, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
A 
B 
..... 
Penal Code, 1860- s.302 rlw s.34- Murder- Conviction 
.+ ' 
of accused-appellants - Propriety of - Held: On facts, not C 
proper- There was discrepancy in time of lodging of FIR and 
conduct of the inquest - Also there was considerable delay 
in sending the report to llaqa Magistrate - No explanation was 
given in regard to the discrepancies - Prosecution failed to 
establish the accusations - Conviction accordingly set aside D 
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.157. 
In a case involving murder of a person, the appellants 
in Crl. A.No. 117 of 2003 were convicted by the Courts 
below uls.302 rlw s.34 IPC. 
E 
In appeals to this Court, the appellants in Crl. A.t10. 
117 of 2003 challenged their conviction inter alia o·n 
ground of discrepancy in the time of lodging of the FIR 
and conduct of the inquest and on ground of 
considerable delay in sending of the report to the llaqa 
F 
Magistrate. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court · 
HELD: 1. If the FIR is timely lodged and investigation 
·is undertaken immediately, in a given case, tbe delayed 
G 
-+ 
receipt of the report by the Elaqa Magistrate would not be 
fatal to the prosecution. However it would depend upon 
the facts of each case. There cannot be any 
generalization. There is a purpose behind the enactment 
303 
H 
304 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009) 8 S.C.R. 
A of Section 157 CrPC. The statutory requirement that the 
report has to be sent forthwith itself shows the urgency 
attached to the sending of the report. In a given case, it 
is open to the prosecution to indicate reasons for the 
delayed dispatch or delayed receipt. This has to be 
B established by evidence. Apart from that, the unexplained 
discrepancy in the timings as recorded in the inquest 
report and the FIR has to be kept in view. [Para 6) [307-
A-C] 
2. It is prosecution version that the FIR was lodged 
C at 10.50 a.m. If it was so, it was required to be explained 
by investigating officer by plausible evidence on record, 
as to how the inquest was undertaken at 10.30 a.m. at a 
point of time when the FIR was not in existence. The High 
Court lightly brushed aside the plea of the appellants that 
D it may be the lapse on the part of the investigating officer. 
It is true that a faulty investigation cannot be a 
determinative factor and would not be sufficient to throw 
out a credible prosecution version. But in the instant case 
there is no explanation offered even to explain the 
E discrepancies. Cumulative effect of the factors 
highlighted above would show that the p~osecution has 
miserably failed to establish the accusations. [Para 6] 
[307-C-E] 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
G 
No. 117 of 2003. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 02.4.2002 of the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur, Bench in D.B. Crl. 
No. 429. of 96. 
WITH 
Crl. Appeal Nos. 118 of 2003, 119 of 2003, 120 of 2003. 
Dinesh Kumar Garg, V.K. Biju, Vikrant Yadav, Sibu S. 
H Mishra, M.C. Dhingra and Praveen Swarup for the Appellant. 
MOTILAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
305 
...... 
Manish Singhvi, AAG, Milind Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Garg 
A 
and K. Sarada Devi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was dc:ivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High 
8 
Court, Jaipur Bench holding the appellant guilty of offence 
>. 
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian 
., 
Penal Code, 1860 ( in short 'IPC'). Eight persons faced trial 
for allegedly committing murder of one Gyan Chand (hereinafter 
referred to as the 'deceased') on 11.11.1993 which happened c 
to be on the election day for the one Assembly election 
constituency. One of the accused persons was acquitted by the 
trial court and seven persons were convicted in terms of 
Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Indian 
Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). They were also convicted 
D 
of some minor offences. During the pendency of the appeal 
before the High Court, one of the accused-appellants died. By 
the impugned judgment three of the appellants before the High 
Court were acquitted. Two persons were convicted in terms of 
Section 302 read with Section 34 while in case of one accused, 
E 
the conviction was altered to Sections 324 and 341 

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