LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus DAUD KHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 13 S.C.R. 1131 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. DAUD KHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2010) NOVEMBER 4, 2015 [MADAN 8. LOKUR ANDS. A. BOBDE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860- s.304 (Part I) -Arms Act, 1959- A B ss. 3 and 25 - Prosecution for causing death of one person - c Conviction u/s.302 IPC and uls.3 rlw s.25 of Arms Act-High Court converted the conviction u/s. 302 to one u/s.304 (Part/)- Cross appeals by the State as well as the accused- Held: There was no delay in lodging the FIR- Delay in receipt of special report by the Magistrate is not fatal to prosecution D case - Eye-witnesses to the incident were reliable and trustworthy- On collective consideration of facts of the case, prosecution case cannot be doubled - Order of High Court upheld - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 157. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.157 - Delay in transmitting the special report to Magistrate - Effect of - Held: The purpose of "forthwith" communication of special report to Magistrate is to check the possibility of manipulation E - If there is no delay in lodging FIR, delay in communicating F special report to Magistrate would be of no consequence, since manipulation of FIR would then get ruled out- There is no universal rule that whenever there is delay in sending special report to Magistrate, prosecution version becomes unreliable. Test Identification Parade- Not conducting of- Effect of, on prosecution case - Heid: if witnesses of the case are trustworthy and reliable, mere not conducting of the Parade would not, by itself, be reason for discarding the evidence of G those witnesses. H 1131 1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 13 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. If the facts of the case are considered collectively, there is no room for doubt. On a consideration of the entire material, the view taken by B the High Court with regard to the offence committed by accused No.1 and his conviction for that offence is upheld. [Paras 47, 48] [1156-E-F; 1137-D-E] 2. There was no delay in lodging the FIR. The C incident is stated to have occurred at about 9.30 pm. The FIR was lodged at about 10.30 pm. There is hardly any 'delay' in lodging of the FIR. The plea that FIR was ante-· dated, which is apparent from the overwriting on the FIR is not correct. There is nothing to suggest any D semblance of any overwriting in the original FIR. [Paras 23, 24] [1144-B, D-E] Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 SCC 393 : 1972 (3) SCR 622 - referred to. E 3.1 The purpose of the "forthwith" communication of a copy of the FIR to the Magistrate (as required uls. 157 Cr.P.C.) is to check the possibility of its manipulation. Therefore, a delay in transmitting the special report to the Magistrate is linked to the lodging of the FIR. If there F is no delay in ~odging an FIR, then any delay in communicating the special report to the Magistrate would really be of little consequence, since manipulation of the FIR would then get ruled out. Nevertheless, the prosecution should explain the delay in transmitting the G special report to the Magistrate. However, if no question is put to the investigating officer concerning the delay, the prosecution is under no obligation to give an explanation. There is no universal rule that whenever there is some delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, H the pro~ecution version becomes unreliable. In other STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. DAUD KHAN 1133 words, the facts and circumstances of a case are A important for a decision in this regard. [Para 26] (1145- B-C; 1146-A-C] 3.2 It is no doubt true that one of the external checks against ante-dating or ante-timing an FIR is the B time of its dispatch to the Magistrate or its receipt by the Magistrate. The dispatch of a copy of the FIR "forthwith" ensures that there is no manipulation or interpolation in the FIR. If the prosecution is asked to give an explanation for the delay in the dispatch of a copy of the FIR, it ought C to do so. However, if the court is convinced of the prosecution version's truthfulness and trustworthiness of the witnesses, the absence of an explanation may not be regarded as detrimental to the prosecution case. It would depend on the facts and circumstances of the D case. (Para 28] (1148-D-E] 3.3 In the present case, there was no delay in lodging the FIR. Hence the question of its manipulation does not arise. Additionally, the officer in charge of the E polic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.