NARENDER SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 867 · Decided: 29-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 12 S.C.R. 867 
NARENDER SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2110 of2009 etc.) 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2015. 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
UDAY UMESH LAUT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 rlw ss. 148 and 149 -
c 
Prosecution under - Of 6 accused - Convicted by courts 
below and sentenced to life imprisonment - Appeal to this 
court by 5 of the accused - Held: Prosecution case is 
supported by the evidence of the two eye-witness which was 
fully corroborated bY. other witnesses- Other circumstances 
D 
of the case read along with .the version of the eye-witnesses 
also sufficiently establish that the occurrence took place as 
deposed by the eye-witn.esses -
Involvement of the 
appellants-accused was fully established - Hence, conviction 
and sentence confirmed. 
E 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. It cannot be said tha1 registration of FIR 
could not have been made at 10:45 p.m. inasmuch as 
other consequential steps taken thereafter with 
F 
particular reference to Exhibit P7, P1 A to Band P10 which 
were all contemporaneous documents disclose that 
immediately after the registration of FIR at 10:45p.m., P.W. 
15 reached the place of occurrence anc! proceeded with G 
further course of action. [Para 11] [875-D] 
2. The injuries sustained by P.W. 3 could not be said 
to have been fake and his presence doubtful, inasmuch 
it is· evident from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.1) who 
examined P.W.3 on the night of the date of the event itself. 
1-1 
867 
868 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
A There was a broad reference to the nature of injuries 
sustained by P.W.3 in Exhibit P1A. Therefore, reading 
Exhibits P1 A and P1 B together with the oral evidence of 
P.W.1, it has come out in evidence that P.W.3 sustained 
the injuries, in the night on the date of the event. 
B Therefore, it is not correct to say that P.W. 3 could not 
have been present at the place of occurrence. Evidence 
. of P. W.3 as an eye-witness was cogent in every respect. 
His account was fully supported by the version of P.W.6, 
c and also fully corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 7 
and 11. [Paras 12, 13] [875-E-F; 876-A-B, D-E] 
3. There is no serious discrepancy or infirmities in 
the preparation of the statutory records as well as any 
serious lacuna in the oral version of the witnesses 
D examined in support of the charges. Non-mention of 
PW.3 in Column 6 of Crime Details Form (Exhibit P7) 
would not in any way vitiate the case of the prosecution 
.'by virtue of the other cHnching evidence which 
E established the presence of P.W.3 at the place of 
occurrence. Therefore, it is not correct to say that.P.W.15 
was not truthful in registering the FIR as well as 
launching the prosecution case against the appellants. 
[Paras 14 and 15] [876-F; 877-A-B; E-F] 
F 
4. Having regard to the features, namely, the 
registration of FIR at 10:45 p.m. on the date of the event, 
the inspection made by P.W.15at11 :10 p.m. on the same 
date; the sending of P.W. 3 for medical examination 
which was concluded by 1 :30 a.m. on next day of the 
(I 
incident; and the shifting of the body of the deceased 
from the place of occurrence to the hospital by 7:30 a.m. 
on the next date to the event read along with the version 
of P.Ws. 3, ·6 and other supporting witnesses, it was 
sufficiently established that the occurrence took place 
H as spoken to by P.W. 3, 6 and others and the involvement 
NARENDER SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA 
869 
PRADESH 
of the appellants was, therefore, fully established. A 
Therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be faulted. 
[Paras 17 and 18] [878-C-E; 879-A] 
5. On a detailed reading of evidence of P.W. 10, it is 
found that his evidence fully supported the case of the B 
prosecution in regard to the nature of injuries inflicted 
upon the deceased on \1is hand by the appellants and it 
was also further supported by the weapons which were 
recoverec! at the instance of the appellants. [Para 20] 
[880-H; 881-A] 
c 
6. So far as the delay in forwarding the Express 
Report to the lllaka Magistrate was concerned, even 
assuming the delay did really happen in forwarding the 
Express Report, such a delay has not caused any 0 
serious prejudice to the appellants. [Para 18] [879-D] 
Pala Singh v. State of Punjab (1972) 2 SCC 640: 
1973 (1) SCR 964; State of Kamataka v. Main 
Patel (1996) 8 sec 167: 1996 (2) SCR 919; 
Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. State 
E 
of Haryana (2011)

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