LexSATISH NARAYAN SAWANT versus STATE OF GOA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 464 A SATISH NARAYAN SAWANT v. STATE OF GOA (Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 2002) B SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 304 (Part II) and 302 - Murder + c of one and injuries to others by accused persons - Acquittal by trial court u/ss. 302, 323, 143, 147 and 149- Set aside by High Court - Conviction of main accused uls. 302 and s(f!ntenced to life imprisonment - On appeal, held: Fatal injury was caused by stabbing and other injuries were superficial in D nature - There was no intention to kill or to inflict an injury of a particular degree of seriousness - There wasi provocation . -\. and incident happened at the spur of the moment - No delay in recording FIR nor in sending it to the magistrate - FIR not hit by provisions of s.162 Cr.P.C. - Eye-witnesses though E related witnesses, were natural witnesses - Discrepancies between ocular evidence vis-a-vis medical evidence, not very vital - Thus, conviction of accused altered to s. 304 (Part-II) and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 162 and 157 - Evidence. F According to the prosecution, appellant along with the other accused and two children had formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the common object stabbed the deceased resulting in his death and assaulted PW1, PW2, PWS and PW18. Accused persons G were tried for commission of offence u/ss. 302, 323, 143, 147 and 149 IPC. The Trial Court acquitted the accused persons. High Court convicted the appellant-accused no.1 uls. 302 IPC and accused nos.2 and 3 for offence punishable u/s. 323 read with s. 34 IPC. Hence the H 464 SATISH NARAYAN SAWANT v. STATE OF GOA 465 " r present appeal by the appellant. A Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is quite clear from the evidence on record that PW-1- Investigating Officer received the information about the death of the deceased from PSI of 8 the Police Station without any detail as to how the incident had happened and who had caused the incident. _... It was a very cryptic information received by him regarding the death of a person residing within the jurisdiction of his police station pursuant to an incident C taking place on 10.04.1988 between 8.30 p.m. to 8.45 p.m. and, therefore, it appears that there was not enough information available to him either to get a G.D. entry ... recorded or to get an FIR lodged. In order to verify the ·J information received, PW-21 went to the place of D occurrence and found the entire house in total darkness. He went around the house and saw blood marks on the walls of the verandah and also in the courtyard and came to learn about the incident by using torch light. When he reached at the place of occurrence even the complainant E party was not available there but at a .later stage they came ,/ _. there. Therefore, he brought them along with the residents of the house who were found to be there namely accused no. 3 and the two juvenile offenders who were all ladies. After reaching the police station and at the F request of PW-1, FIR was recorded at 3.00 a.m. in the morning. He received the information about the incident ( on telephone at about 10.45 p.m. and reached the place of occurrence at about 11.30 p.m. and he must have been there for quite some time and thereafter returned to the G ....._ police station which must have taken another about 1.30 to 2 hours. Therefore, recording of the FIR at about 3.00 a.m. in the morning was justified and properly explained and it cannot be said that there was any delay in H 466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL) S.C.R. A recording the FIR. Besides, the fact of his going to the ~ ~ place of occurrence would not amount to making an investigation. There is no evidence to show that at that point of time, PW-21 seized any articles or interrogated any witnesses or took any other action in initiating or in B furtherance of investigation. [Para 14] [481-G-H; 482-A-F] 1.2. Even assuming that PW-21 could have entered ·, the said information received from PSI of the Police + Station in the general diary, yet the said entry could not c have been held or treated to be an FIR. The information received by him was very cryptic and without any detail about the incident in question and, in any case, there was no possibility of recording an FIR at that stage. The place of occurre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.