MUNSHI PRASAD AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 25 · Decided: 10-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
MUNSHI PRASAD AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
OCTOBER 10, 2001 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.) 
Code qf Criminal Procedure, 1973 : 
Appeal against conviction-Offence of Murder-Concurrent finding of 
.fact-lntetference-When called for-Held, when .finding su:ffers .from some 
A 
B 
vice and violative qf.fundamental rules or there is de.finite procedural injustice 
C 
which goes to the root of the prosecution case-Penal Code, 1860-Section 
302. 
Section 154-FIR-Delay in .filing-Effect qf-Held, delay not .fatal if 
there is plausible explanation .for delay. 
Section I 57-Delay in sending report qf FIR to Magistrate-F:ffect of-
Held, it would not vitiate trial if delay is reasonable and there is acceptable 
explanation .for it. 
Criminal Trial : 
Technical plea-Trustworthy and credible evidence on record-Court 
convinced about trut~fulness of prosecution case-Helcl technicality ought not 
to outweigh the course of justice !f technicality does not go to roiJt of 
prosecution case. 
Appreciation of Evidence-Principles-Interested Witness-Credibility 
of evidence-Held, duty qf court to be more careful in scrutiny of evidence 
qf such witnesses-{fevidence .found trustworthy, rejection not justifiable-
Minor variations and discrepancies in evidence-Effect of-Held, court should 
not reject such evidence if not affecting the core of prosecution case-
Treatment qf witnesses-Held, defence witnesses entitled to equal respect and 
treatment as that of prosecution. 
Post-mortem report and Inquest report-D{fference between-Held, 
discrepancy between them neither.fatal nor even a suspicious circumstance-
Both reports cannot be termed basic or substantive evidence. 
Words & Phrases-'Alibi'-Meaning of in common parlance. 
25 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Prosecution alleged that informant (PWl) ·and his brother, the 
B 
c 
D 
E 
deceased, were returning to their village o_n bicycles, when they were 
surrounded by appellants-accused who were armed and hiding in bushes 
and sugar cane fields. However, informa~t extricted himself and ran away 
from the place of incident raising an alarm and witnessed the assault and 
killing of his brother by the appellants from some distance. Other witnesses 
(PW1-PW4) also arrived at the place of incident and saw the appellants 
running away from the place of incident. Trial court convicted the 
appellants for committing murder and sentenced them to rigorous 
imprisonment for life which was upheld in appeal by the "High Court. 
Hence the present appeals by the accused persons. 
Appellants contended that specific evidence tendered by defence 
witnesses presented an alibi in their favour; that there is some difference 
between inquest report and post-mortem report creating suspicious 
... ' 
circumstance warranting a benefit of doubt in their favour; that adverse 
presumption should have been drawn against the prosecution for non • 
production of sariah being the basic information sheet; that delay in filing 
FIR was·fatal to prosecution case; that it was a case of blind murder not 
witnessed by any person, prosecution case is fabricated and they have been 
falsely implicated by reason of enmity and hostile relationship between the 
family of informant and the appellants; that PWs 1 to 5 _are interested 
witnesses as they belong to the same village and are related to each other; 
that no independent witnesses have been examined; and that delay in 
sending FIR to Magistrate under Section 157 of Criminal Procedure Code, 
1973 vitiated the trial. 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : L lt is now a well-settled principle of law, that in an appeal 
against conviction for the offence of murder, Supreme Court would be 
rather slow to intervene, in the event of there being a concurrent finding · 
of fact, tiriless of course', the finding ·reached suffers from some vice ancl 
G 
thus violative of fundamental rules or even a definite procedural injustice 
going to the root of the prosecution case. [29-H; 30-A] 
Arjun Marik and others ~. State of 13ihar, [1994] Suppl. 2 SCC 372, 
relied on. 
H 
2.1. The word 'alibi', a latin expression means and implies in 
'--
> 
-
MUNSHI PRASAD v. ST ATE 
27 
common acceptation 'elsewhere'. It is a defence based on the physical 
A 
impossibility of participation of a cdme by an accused in placing the latter 
in a location other than the scene of crime at the relevant time, shortly 
put the presence of the accused elsewhe

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