RAJESH @ RAJU CHANDULAL GANDHI AND ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 304 · Decided: 07-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJESH @ RAJU CHANDULAL GANDHI AND ANR. 
v. 
~ 
ST ATE OF GUJARAT 
MARCH 7, 2002 
B 
[R.P. SETHI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, I860: Sections I20B, and 302 
c 
Murder_:_ Testimony of eye witnesses-Cogent reliable and confidence 
inspiring-Concurrent findings of Court below as to guilt of accused-
Conviction held justified-Held, no interference called for with impugned 
judgment on facts FIR was not ante-timed-Non-mentioning of FIR No. and 
name of eye witnesses in Inquest Panchanama insignificant-Withholding of 
report of finger print expert facts not relevant. 
D 
The appellants were prosecuted under Sections 120B, 452 and 302 of 
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 25(l)(b) of the Arms Act 
All the three accused who are related to each other were alleged to have 
. 
committed a murder pursuant to criminal conspiracy hatched by them. The 
~-
motive for the crime was enmity between deceased and accused as the 
E deceased was considered an impediment in love affair between 'N' and 'M', 
the former being daughter of sister of one of the accused. The prosecution 
case was that on 7.2.1993 at about 1.00 p.m. accused persons came in their 
maruti car to the farm of the deceased. They assaulted the deceased with sharp 
edged weapons and gave several blows one after the other. The incident was 
F 
witnessed by PW 1, nephew of the deceased and PW 12, the cook. First 
Information Report was lodged by PW 1 on 7.2.1993 at 2.40 p.m. in which 
the time of occurrence was stated to be 1.15 p.m. After taking his statement 
PW 1 was sent to the police station where detailed complaint was recorded. 
Therefore, in the inquest panchanama (Exh. P 37) which was stated to have 
started at 3 p.m. and completed at 3.45 p.m., the name of the complainant or 
G the number of the FIR was not mentioned. However, in the Panchanama (Exh. 
P. 32) stated to have been recorded between 4 to 6 p.m., the name of PW 1, 
r·-
and FIR no are specifically mentioned. Trial Court convicted the appellants 
of the offences charged and the High Court upheld their conviction. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that 
H 
304 
RAJESHv. STATE OF GUJARAT 
305 
I
circumstances of the case probabilise that the FIR was ante-timed for planting A 
;~ 
introduction of eye-witnesses; (ii) the statement made by Doctor in his cross-
examination that death had occurred within 9-12 hours before the post-
mortem examination shows that deceased must have died much before 1.15 
p.m.; (iii) the FIR number and the name of witnesses are not mentioned in 
the Inquest Panchanama; (iv) Adverse inference should be drawn against B 
prosecution because the opinion of finger print expert has been withheld; (v) 
the deceased was indulging in satta betting for riots by anti-social elements 
and therefore there was a probability of some other people having committed 
the offence. For this reliance was placed on an advertisement for satta as well 
as on the fact that blood stains were found on a number of places in the house 
- \.-
of the deceased which suggested that occurrence had not taken place outside c 
the house as alleged. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
-
HELD: 1. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings 
of fact arrived at against the accused holding them guilty for which they have D 
been convicted and sentenced. [317-G] 
. 
2. In the instant case all requi<ite details are mentioned in Panchanama . 
~ 
Mere omission to mention the number of the FIR and the name of the 
complainant in Panchanama is not a ground to come to the conclusion that 
the FIR was ante-timed in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of E 
the case. [316-Bj 
3. There is nothing on the record to show that the investigating officer 
had known the FIR number of the case at the time when he recorded the 
inquest Panchana ma (Exh. P. 37) or at the time of recording of the aforesaid F 
Panchanama PW I was present at the place of occurrence. Inquest 
Panchanama was recorded during the period when PW I wns at the police 
station. Otherwise also non-mentioning of the number of FIR or name of 
prosecution witness in panchanama would not lead the court to believe that 
the FIR had been ante-timed in view of the unequivocal, reliable and 
confidence inspiring testimony of PW l. [311-F] 
G 
~ 
4. In view of the cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring testimony of 
the prosecution witnesses particularly those of PWs 1and14, and 

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