RAGHBIR SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 127 · Decided: 18-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

----~ 
RAGHBIR SINGH 
A 
" 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
APRIL 18, 2000 
[D.P. WADHWA AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
B 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Section 54-FIR-Filing of-Delay in-Credibility of eyewitnesses-
Effect on-Held: Rushing of victim to the hospital is more important than filing 
c 
the FIR-On facts, delay in filing FIR satisfactorily explained-Hence, such 
delay does not affect the credibility of eyewitnesses. 
Penal Code, 1860 : Section 302. 
Murder-Death due to bullet injury-Peritonitis, renal failure, septi-
D 
cemia etc., of the deceased were relatable to the bullet injury-Held : Trial 
Court rightly concluded that death is due to bullet injury and not due to the 
diseases-Hence, conviction upheld. 
' 
Criminal Trial : 
E 
Witness-Eye witnesses-Not seen by the police at the hospital where the 
victim was admitted-Credibility of-Effect on-Held : As the eye witnesses 
were busy buying medicines and arranging blood it is not surprising that the 
police did not see them at the hospital-Hence, credibility of eyewitnesses is not 
affected. 
F 
Witness-Eye witnesses-Absence of-At the scene of occurrence-In-
ference-Non-mentioning the names of-By the doctors-Held: It is unreason-
able to expect the doctors to name the persons accompanying the patients-It 
is illogical to infer absence of the eyewitnesses at the scene of occurrence by 
such non-mentioning. 
G 
-+· 
Practice and Procedure : 
Concurrent findings off act-Interference with-By Supreme Court-
Held : Will not interfere unless there is a manifest error of law or when the 
finding is perverse or is based on legally inadmissible evidence. 
H 
127 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant-accused was convicted by the trial court under Section 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
302 of the Penal Code, 1960, which was confirmed by the High Court. 
Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution, the accused fired at one A who was 
removed to the hospital by the two eyewitnesses (PWs 1 and 2), where A 
succumbed to his injuries. 
On behalf of the accused it was contended that there was delay in the 
finding of FIR; that the police did not find PWs 1 and 2 at the hospital; that 
the names of PWs 1 and 2 were not mentioned by the doctors in the records 
of the hospital and, therefore, the eyewitnesses were not present at the scene 
of occurrence; and that the death was in fact caused by peritonitis, renal 
failure, septicemia etc. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. This Court will not interfere with the concurrent find-
ings of fact unless there is strong reason to do so, such as a manifest error of 
law in arriving at the finding or when the finding is perverse in the sense 
that any material fact has been overlooked or is based on any legally 
inadmissible evidence. [129-G-H] 
1.2. The trial court found that the rushing of the victim to the hospital 
to save his life instead of first going to the police station was a satisfactory 
explanation for the delay in filing the FIR. This view was affirmed by the 
High Court and there is no reason to interfere with the same. [132-C] 
2. PW-1 stated that he was busy buying medicines etc.:, and for hiring 
a taxi for removal of the deceased to the hospital PW-2 was inside a 
laboratory in connection with arranging blood and also gave his blood. For 
the police not to have been PWs 1and2 when they arrived at the hospital, 
under these circumstances, is not surprising. [132-E-G) 
3.1. It would be unreasonable to expect the doctors to name the per-
sons accompanying the patients. Besides to infer the absence of PW-1 and 
PW 2 at the scene of occurrence only because their names might not have 
been noted by the doctors or in the medical registers of the places to which 
the deceased was taken for treatment, calls for an illogical inference which 
the High Court did not and indeed could not draw. [132-H; 133-A-B] 
~. 
-+ 
..* 
+ 
RAGHBIR SINGH v. STATE [RUMA PAL, J.] 
129 
-t-
3.2. Similarly, no inference of absence of PWs 1and2 from the scene 
A 
_,-. 
of the crime can be drawn merely because the police officers did not see 
PWs 1 and PW 2 when they went to the hospital. [133-B] 
4. The first challenge of the appellant regarding the credibility of the 
eyewitnesses' account is, therefore, unsustainable and is rejected. [133-C] 
B 
5. The evidence clearly shows that peritonitis, renal failure, septi-
cemia etc., were directly relatable to the bullet injury. The trial court's 
conclusion that the death was caused by a shot fired

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