LexN.H. MUHAMMED AFRAS versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B - [2008] 16 S.C.R. 560 N.H. MUHAMMED AFRAS v. ST ATE OF KERALA (Criminal Appeal No. 1234 of 2006) NOVEMBER 25, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.34 - Conviction of C accused, by courts below - Held: On facts, there· was marked contradiction between statement of witnesses and documents - Also there was unexplained delay between the time the FIR was lodged and the time special report reached the Court - Prosecution failed to establish the accusations ,..... Conviction o set aside. E Investigation - Mode of - When unidentified body is brought to the hospital and when a known person's body is brought - Held: Mode of investigation is different in the two situations. According to the prosecution, the victim was stabbed to death by three accused. PW1 allegedly witnessed the incident in the headlight of his scooter. Two of the accused were convicted by the trial court under s.302 r/ F w s.34 IPC. The appeals filed by the convicts were dismissed by the High Court. In the instant appeal, the appellants challenged their conviction contending that the evidence of PW1 was not G acceptable and that there was unexplained delay of 15 hours between the time the FIR w~s lodged and the time the special report reached the Court. - Allowing the appeals, the Court H 560 + > N.H. MUHAMMED AFRAS v. STATE OF KERALA 561 HELD: 1.1. There are sever~I factors which corrode A the credibility of the prosec"tion v.ersion. Firstly, the combined effect of the .~vidence of PW 4, (police constable) Ext.C1 and the e.vidence of .P.W17 (Investigating Offi!=~r) and PWs.1 and 3 is that there ,is marked contradiction b.etween the statements .of the 1 B witnesses and the documents. If in Ext. C1 it was stated that an unidentified body was brought to the hospital, it is not explained as to how and why PW 4 did not tell the doctor that the identity was known. The modes of investigation of the police would be in different directions c if an unidentified body is brought and when a known · person's body is brought. It is strange that PW 4 who is supposed to have known the name of the deceased from PWs 1 and 3 chose not to tell the name of the deceased to the Doctor. Further PW 17's statement is full of 0 contradictions. Initially he denied to have received Exh.C1, but later on he accepted to have received the 1 same. Even thereafter he did not offer any explanation as to how and why it was stated in the Doctor's intimation · that an unidentified body was brought. This could have E been clarified had the doctor been examined. For reasons known to the prosecution, he was not examined as a witness. [Para 5) [565-B-F] 1.2. Though the High Court noted that there was no dispute that the FIR was lodged at 10.45 PM, that is F factually incorrect. In fact from the very beginning the accused persons have been taking the stand that the FIR was not lodged at 10.45 PM as claimed, otherwise special report would not have reached the Court which is· situated at a distance of 250 yards after about 15 hours. G No explanation has been offered as to why this delay had occurred. Had any explanation been offered by the prosecution the Court could have considered acceptability or otherwise of the explanation. That has not been done. Though ignorance of PW1- about the scooter H 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. · A number, model and other relevant factors may not in all ·cases· ·be suspicious circumstance,. but iri·the present ·case this· assumes·' importance.· Hence, the inevitable conclusion is that prosecution has faiied-to establish the accusations, and appellants are' entitled tcvacquittal. 'B [Paras 5' and 6] ·[56S-F-H; 566-A~B] . ' ' ' . ' ' · CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal f No. 01234- of 2006 ... ;. ' ' _ From the Judgment and Order dated 4.4.2006 of the. High C Cpurt of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. A No. 413 of 2006. D M. Karpaga Vinayagam, K.P. Kylasanatha Pillay, Ch. Leela SarVeswar, A Venayagam Balan and G. Ramakrishna Pra·s_ad _for the Appellant. .· · · ' ·· · · · .. . R. Sathish and George K. Jose for the Respondent. The J_udgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.' 1.'Challenge in these appeals E is to the judgm_ent of a Division Bench of the Kerala High ·court dispo-sing of two separate appeals by a common order. The two appeals were filed by the present app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.