SHIVLAL & ANR. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 19-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 11 S.C.R. 429 
SHIVLAL & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2007) 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
A 
B 
ss. 148, 302 and 3021149 - Fifteen persons accused of c 
murdering a co-villager - Held-Trial court recorded a finding 
that the wife of the deceased, claiming herself' to be the eye 
witness, roped in certain persons in the crime falsely and there 
were improvements in her statement in court - Disbelieving 
her statement, trial court acquitted six accused and High Court 
0 
acquitted four more - . The witness on whose information 
'Dehati Nalish' (not a formal FIR) was recorded, turned hostile 
-
Courts below have not given much credence to the 
statement of the witness on the basis of whose statement FIR 
was recorded and who claimed himself to be the eye-witness 
E 
- There were discrepancies in the statements of 10 and the 
Head Constable accompanying him - Further, proceedings 
at the investigation stage have been conducted without 
observing the provisions of Cr.P.C. - Besides, copy of FIR· 
was not sent to the 11/aqa Magistrate, and there were lapses/ 
suspicion in the investigation as regards recording of FIR, 
F 
recovery of weapons and inconsistencies in the statements 
of the witnesses - The accused in their statements uls s313 
Cr. P. C. have stated that they were falsely implicated because 
of the village factional rivalry - In the circumstances, the 
accused are to acquitted on benefit of doubt -
Code of G 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 154, 157(1) and 313 -
Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations - Regulation 710 -
Investigation. 
429 
H 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
INVEST/GA TION: 
FIR - Recording of - On the basis of information, a 
'Dehati Nalish' (and not a formal FIR) registered - FIR lodged 
later, but it did not contain signature of the author -
8 
Contradictions in statements of 10 and the Head Constable 
accompanying him, about recording of FIR in police station 
- Recoveries disbelieved by the High Court - Copy of FIR 
not sent to ///aqua Magistrate -
Held: Investigation I 
proceedings have. been conducted without observing the 
provisions of CrPC - Regulation 710 -cannot override the 
C requirement cf s.157(1) CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973 - s.157 -
Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations -
Regulation 710 . 
The appellants, along with thirteen others, were 
D prosecuted for causing the death of the husband of PW 
9. According to the prosecution case, the accused armed 
with deadly weapons, wHh a common object of 
murdering the husband of PW 9, attacked him causing 
his death on 12.10.1997 when he was proceeding 
E towards a tank along with his wife PW-9 and his 
grandson for taking bath. The incident occurred in the 
outskirts of the village. It is stated that PW-9 came back 
to the village and when she informed PW-1 about the 
incident, he told her that he himself had witnessed the 
F incident and came back to the village after the incident 
was over. PW 7 went to the police station and gave oral 
inform'ation of the incident on which the police was said 
to have registered a complaint ('Dehati Nalish'). The 
Investigating Officer (PW12) reached the village where 
G PW1 narrated the incident to him. It was on the basis of 
this information that Case Crime No. 236/97 was 
mentioned in the complaint (Dehati Nalish) mentioning 
offences punishable u/ss 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC. The 
accused in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C., denied their 
involvement and submitted that they had been falsely 
H 
SHIVLAL & ANR. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 
431 
implicated because of the village factional rivalry. The trial 
A 
court convicted and sentenced six of the accused 
persons of the offences charged and acquitted nine of 
all the charges giving them benefit of doubt. On appeal, 
the High Court acquitted four more accused more of all 
the charges. It convicted appellant no. 2 u/s 302 and 
B 
appellant no. 1 u/s 302/149 IPC and sentenced both of 
them to imprisonment for life. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, admittedly, C 
proceedings/ investigation had been conducted without 
observing the provisions of the Cr.P.C. PW.9 is the sole 
eye-witness, however, she being illiterate and rustic 
village woman, does not have any idea/impression of time 
and distance. Two other persons, namely, PW.1 and PW.7 
D 
also claimed to be the eye-witnesses of the incident. PW.1 
has been
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.