NAND LAL AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 276 · Decided: 14-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
276
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
NAND LAL AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1421 of 2015)
MARCH 14, 2023
 [B. R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 – Murder – Prosecution case that
previous enmity between the accused persons and the complainant
– Accused no. 11 assaulted the complainant and thereafter, the
complainant lodged an FIR – Said accused then alongwith the other
accused armed with deadly weapons formed an unlawful assembly,
and assualted the victim-complainant’s father along with the
prosecution witnesses, resulting in the death of the victim –
Conviction of the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s.
302 along with the other offences and sentenced to life imprisonment
by the courts below – Sustainability of – Held: Delay in lodging of
the FIR by the injured person not explained at all – Prosecution
attempted to supress the real genesis of the incident – There was
non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused, which
cannot be considered to be minor or superficial – Prosecution
supressed the information that accused informed the police that he
was assaulted by the complainant, thus, the said accused entitled to
the benefit of doubt – As regards the remaining accused persons,
their names were not mentioned in the merg report which was lodged
prior to the lodging of FIR, in the inquest panchnama and spot
panchnama – Taking into consideration the delay in lodging the
FIR, with the circumstance of their names not being mentioned in
the contemporaneous documents, the possibility of the said accused
being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out – Their conviction was
based only on the oral testimony of the interested witness without
sufficient corroboration, thus, would not be sustainable – Judgment
and order passed by the High Court set aside – Evidence.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Believing the contents of the FIR that the
incident has taken place at around 08.30 PM and that the injured
persons had reached the Bazar at around 10-11 PM where they
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 276
276
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
277
were informed that they could not be treated unless a report was
lodged, a further delay of around four to five hours in lodging the
FIR has not been explained. The distance between the Bazar
and the Police Station is approximately 15 Kms. It has come on
record that there is an all-weather road connecting the two places.
As such, at the most, it would take around 30-40 minutes to reach
the Police Station from the Bazar. This delay of four hours in
lodging the FIR is not at all explained. [Para 25][286-F-G]
1.2 Undisputedly, the injuries sustained by accused No. 11
cannot be considered to be minor or superficial. The witnesses
are also interested witnesses, inasmuch as they are close relatives
of the deceased. That there was previous enmity between the
two families, on account of election of Sarpanch, has come on
record. Previous enmity is a double-edged sword. On one hand,
it can provide motive and on the other hand, the possibility of
false implication cannot be ruled out. [Para 28][288-D-E]
1.3 Much prior to lodging of the FIR at 03.15 AM on 4th
November 2006 by K, the Police had taken accused No. 11 for
medical examination. The memo forwarding accused No. 11 for
medical examination to Medical Officer mentions that accused
No. 11 had informed the police that at around 08.30 PM, he was
assaulted by PW-1. Undisputedly, the prosecution has suppressed
information with regard to the said incident. The prosecution has
also suppressed the FIR lodged by PW-1. It is thus clear that the
prosecution has attempted to suppress the real genesis of the
incident. Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter,
coupled with the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by
accused No. 11, accused No. 11 is entitled to benefit of doubt.
[Para 29][288-E-G]
1.4 No doubt that in each and every case, delay in lodging
the FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution case. It will depend
upon facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case,
assuming that the incident had taken place at 08.30 PM and the
injured persons were at the Bazar between 10-11 PM, and taking
into consideration that the distance between the Bazar to the
Police Station is 15 Kms., a delay of four hours in lodging the FIR
NAND LAL AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
would cast a serious doubt o

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