SHANMUGAM AND ANR. versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T. NADU

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 99 · Decided: 11-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 10 S.C.R. 99 
SHANMUGAM AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T. NADU 
(Criminal Appeal No.1623 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 11, 2013 
[T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
FIR - Delay in lodging - Effect - Held: Delay in lodging 
A 
B 
of FIR is not by itself fatal to the case of the prosecution nor 
can delay itself create any suspicion about the truthfulness 
C 
of the version given by the informant just as a prompt lodging 
of the report may be no guarantee about its being wholly 
truthful -
So long as there is cogent and acceptable 
explanation for the delay it loses its significance - Whether 
or not the explanation is acceptable will depend upon the facts 
D 
of each case -
On facts, no reason to disbelieve the 
prosecution case only because the FIR was delayed by a few 
hours especially when the delay was satisfactorily explained. 
Evidence - Witness - Related witness - Appreciation of E 
- To be undertaken in the facts of each case having regard 
to ordinary human conduct prejudices and predilections - On 
facts, the deposition of PW-1 found reliable by the Trial Court 
as a/so the High Court, no matter he was related closely to 
the deceased -
Version given by PW1 corroborated by 
medical evidence - Prosecution case as to the m.anner in 
F 
which assaults started and the place of occurrence proved by 
the deposition of PW-1. 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 I 304 Part fl - Assault with 
sticks and stones leading to death of a person - Conviction 
G 
of accused-appellants uls. 302 - Plea for altering the 
conviction from s.302 to s.304 Part If - Held: Not tenable -
The manner in which the deceased was assaulted and the 
brutRfity of the assault shows that the accused formed an 
99 
H 
100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A unlawful assembly with the object of killing the deceased -
The blow landed on the deceased had brought him to the 
ground whereupon the accused continued brutalising th'e 
deceased with the help of stones, in the process crushing his 
head and squeezing his testicles - Nature of injuries caused 
B to the deceased clearly indicative of the accused having had 
the intention of killing him. 
The prosecution case was that the accused-
appellants and three other accused persons caught hold 
of the brother of PW1 and assaulted him with stick and 
C stones and also squeezed his testicles which led to his 
death on the spot. The Trial Court convicted the accused 
persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 
sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. The 
conviction and sentenced was upheld by the High Court . 
. D The Trial Court as also the High Court both placed 
reliance upon the deposition of PW-1 who was an eye 
witness to the occurrence. The Courts below also noted 
that while PW-4 and PW-5 turned hostile, they had 
nevertheless supported the prosecution case in the past. 
E The Courts also found that enmity between the deceased 
and the accused persons was the motive for the 
commission of the crime which motive was satisfactorily 
established on the evidence adduced at the trial. 
F 
In the instant appeal, a three-fold submission was 
made on behalf of the appellants. Firstly, it was 
contended that there was un-explained delay not only in 
the lodging of the FIR but also in dispatching a copy of 
the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Secondly, it was 
G contended that the prosecution case rests entirely on the 
deposition of PW-1 who was closely related to the 
deceased and the evidence of PW-1 did not inspire 
confidence. Thirdly, it was contended that even if the 
prosecution case was accepted in toto the offence could 
not go beyond Section 304 Part II of the IPC. 
H 
SHANMUGAM AND ANR. v. STATE REP. BY 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T. NADU 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
101 
A 
HELD:1.1. Delay in the lodging of the FIR is not by 
itself fatal to the case of the prosecution nor can delay 
itself create any suspicion about the truthfulness of the 
version given by the informant just as a prompt lodging 8 
of the report may be no guarantee about its being wholly 
truthful. So long as there is cogent and acceptable 
explanation offered for the delay it loses its significance. 
Whether or not the explanation is acceptable will depend 
upon the facts of each case. There is no cut and dried 
formula for determining whether the explanation is or is C 
. not acceptable. [Para 7] (108-H; 109-A-B] 
1.2. There is, in the instant case, delay of hardly a few 
hours wh

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