OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1983] 2 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 11-03-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.D. TULZAPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
S64 
OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
March II, 1983 
(V.D. TOLZAPURKAR AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973-Section 157-First InfornJOJion Report-
Time of despatch- Whether should be noted in it. 
Penal Code-Section 396-Murder and dacoity-Evidence-Appreciation of. 
The deceased was the Pradhan of his village. There were feuds of 
various kinds and political rivalries between the party of the deceased on the 
one hand and the accused on the other and a number of cases were pending 
before the Courts. 
The prosecution case against the accused was that on the night of the 
occurrence, which was a moonlit _night, the deceased was sleeping in the 
western room of his house while his wife and children were sleeping in the 
eastern room, between the two of which there was a barotha. In the room 
in which the wife was sleeping there was a lighted lantern hanging from a 
peg on the eastern wall of that room about 6 feet high from the floor. P.W. 8. 
the brother-in-law of the deceased was 5leeping in a tin shed situate to 
tte west of the western room. Sometime late in ·the night the deceased. and 
his wife woke up on hearing some commotion. They found that a number 
of armed men entered the eastern room and started breaking open the northern 
door whereupon the wife of the deceased raised the wick of the lantern to see 
what was happening. By the time the deceased entered the eastern room the 
accused who were armed with pistols and other deadly weapons had entered 
the room aftt:r breaking open the northern door. The 9 accused persons 
severeiy assaulted the deceased who as a result of the injuries felJ down dead. 
The accused also assaulted the wife of the dece1sed (P.W. 2) and her brother 
(P.W. 8) and ran away with or~aments, cash and clothes. In the meantime, 
some of the prosecution witnesses, who heard the coinmotion went towards 
the house of the deceased and saw in the moon light the assailants leaving the 
scene of occurrence. The first information report was lodged by P.w: 1 in 
the police station which was six miles away from the viltage at 6.05 a.m. on 
that day. 
Before the Sessions Judge the accused contended that the dacoity was 
committed by an armed gang not known to the pro~ecution witnesses but that 
they had been falsely implicated on ac.:ount of enmity between them and the 
deceased. 
The Ses~ions Judge found that the first information report had been 
lodged at the police station without any inordinate delay or that there was 
l 
A 
, .... 
B 
c 
D 
E 
.... 
F 
T 
G 
H 
/ 
-or 
OM PRAKASH v, U.P. STATE 
nothing on record to show that there was any oblique mot've for concocting ·a 
false story of the occurrence. He, however, doutted the veracity of the 
A 
evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7, that these witnesses could not have had sufficient 
glimpse of the miscreants to be able to identify them. He also disbelieved the 
evidence of P.W. 8, the brother~in·law of the deceased. He, however, believed 
the evidence of the wife of the deceased (P.W. 2) that she saw the accused in 
light of the lantern hanging on the easter·n walJ both when they entered her 
room as weJl as when they attacked her husband and thereafter carrying away 
B 
properties from the house. The Sessions Judge also accepted the evidence 
that P.Ws. 2 and 8 were present in the house at the time of the occurrence 
and since they had received injuries at the hands of the assailants they could 
•ee what had taken place and that the light of the lantern and moon light 
were sufficient to identify the assailants. He, therefore, acquitted some of 
tb.e accused afld convicted the appellants and sentenced the1n to undergo 
imprisonment fo~ life. 
C 
On appeal the High Court c1id not think it safe to rely on any part of 
the evidence of P.W. 8 but believed the evidence of P.W. 2 on the ground that 
she had given straight-forward evidence without an attempt at making any 
improvements to fit it with the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses. 
The High Court confirmed the cop.v!ction and sentences awarded to the 
D 
appellants. 
Dismissing the appeals, 
HELD : There is no 5Ubstance in the contention that the first informa-
tion report was ante-timed;· nor is there any requirement in section 157 of 
the Code of Crirriinal Procedure that the first ioformation report should be . E 
despatched forthwith or that the time of despatch must be noted thereon. The 
Sessions Judge found that the first information report 

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