SRI SAMBHU DAS @ BIJOY DAS & ANR. versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2010] 11 S.C.R. 493 · Decided: 15-09-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 11 S.C.R. 493 
SRI SAMBHU DAS @ BIJOY DAS & ANR. 
v. 
STAIE OF ASSAM 
(Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 2007) 
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302134 - Murder -
Conviction 
based on evidence of eye-witnesses - Concurrent findings of 
courts below - Interference with ~ Held: No reason to upset C 
the concurrent findings of courts below - The evidence of eye~ 
witness was corroborated by the investigating officer and the 
post-mortem report and was found to be trustworthy and 
reliable - Merely because some persons were not examined 
would not corrode the vitality of the prosecution version, 
D 
particularly, when witnesses examined withstood the cross-
ex am ination and pointed to the accused persons as 
perpetrators of the crime -
Constitution of India, 1950 -
Art.136 - Evidence. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Art. 136 - Scope of - Held: 
Art. 136 only confers a discretionary power on the Supreme 
Court to be exercised sparingly to interfere in suitable cases 
where grave miscarriage of justice has resulted from illegality 
E 
or misapprehension or mistake in reading evidence or from 
ignoring; excluding or illegally admitting material evidence -
F 
When there are concurrent findings of facts and/or when there 
is no question of law involved and the conclusion is not 
perverse, the Supreme Court would not re-open the findings 
of the High Court. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.174 - Inquest report - FIR lodged after recording 
inquest report - Authenticity of - Held: The proposition that 
G 
493 
H 
494 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 11 S.C.R. 
A FIR loses its authenticity if it is lodged after the inquest report 
is a general proposition and may not be true in all cases and 
all circumstances - On facts, entry made in the general diary 
on the basis of telephonic message/information and on 
receipt of that information, the investigating officer went to the 
B place of incident, drew up the inquest report, made seizure of 
the material objects and recorded the statements of persons 
present - Formal FIR lodged after few hours - Lodging of FIR 
after recording the inquest report would not be fatal - FIR. 
s. 17 4 - Inquest report - Object of - Held: Is to ascertain 
C whether a person has died under unnatural circumstances or 
died an unnatural death and, if so, what was the cause of 
death. 
FIR: When information regarding a cognizable offence is 
D furnished to the police, that information is regarded as the FIR 
and all enquiries held by the police, subsequent thereto would 
be treated as investigation, even though the formal registration 
of the FIR takes place only later. 
E 
The prosecution case was that on 7 .6.1997, the 
deceased was returning home on a rickshaw driven by 
PW-2. On the way, the appellants and others assaulted 
the deceased and thereafter forcibly took him to a house 
where he was assaulted by all the accused persons. The 
wife of the deceased was informed about the assault on 
F her husband. She came to the place of occurrence and 
saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased. The 
police was informed by PW-8. The police came to the 
place of occurrence and took the injured to the hospital 
where he was declared dead. The appellants-accused 
G and two others were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC. 
H 
The order of trial court was upheld by the High Court. 
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the 
appellants that the Supreme Court can take a different 
SRI SAMBHU DAS @ BIJOY DAS & ANR. v. STATE 495 
OF ASSAM 
view and also come to a different conclusion than the one 
arrived at by the trial court and the High Court if it prima 
facie comes to the conclusion that the findings of fact 
reached by the trial court and confirmed by the High 
Court suffer from any patent error of law or have resulted 
in miscarriage of justice; that the FIR was lodged after the 
inquest was held and, therefore, the FIR was not reliable; 
and that the important witness was not examined by the 
prosecution which was fatal to prosecution story. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
r 
B 
c 
HELD: 1. This Court, in exercise of its powers under 
Article 136 of the Constitution will not re-open the 
findings of the High Court when there are concurrent 
findings of facts and when there is no question of law 
involved and the conclusion is not perverse. Article 136 
D 
of the Constitution does not confer a right of appeal on 
a party. It only confe

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