LexSTATE OF U.P. versus HARBAN SAHAI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B STATE OF U.P. le HARBAN SAHA! AND ORS. APRIL 20, 1998 [M.M. PUNCHHI, C.J.1., K.T. THOMAS AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.) Criminal law : C Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 154-FIR-Contents of-Held : FIR need not contain minor particulars of events-Merely because informant mentioned in Fl R that assailants were armed with lathis and guns does not mean that the possibility of Kanta (a stick with a knife-like portion on one end) being used by D assailants cannot be ruled out. Section I 54-FIR-Promptness in flling--Held : Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details give an assurance regarding truth·of his version. Section I 62-0mission to send bloodstained earth collected from place E of occurrence to the Chemical Examiner-Effect of-Held : Does not vitiate investigation-Criminal Trial. Evidence Act, 1872: Section 45. Evidence-Medical evidence or testimony of eyewitness-Preference- F Held: Testimony of eyewitness is preferable unless medical evidence is so conclusive as to rule out even the possibility of the version of eyewitness to be true. Criminal Trial : Witnesses-Eyewitness-Reliability of-Occurrence took place near the G field of eyewitness-His name was mentioned in FIR-Investigating Officer examined him at the earliest point of time-Trial court found his evidence quite reliable-Held: There is a fair possibility of the eyewitness being present at the scene of occurrence-Hence, High Court not justified in rejecting his testimony. H Motive-Accused believed his close relative was murdered by 1056 \ ' '?' STATE OF U.P. v. HARBAN SAHA! 1057 deceased-Despite conviction and sentence passed by trial court deceased A released on bail by High Court-Held : In the circumstances of the case, motive put forward by prosecution proved. The respondents-accused were convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. However, the High Court reversed the B conviction. Hence this appeal. y ' According to the prosecution, the trial court convicted PW-1 and the ' deceased of the murder of a close relative of the accused persons. However, during the pendency of their appeal the High Court suspended their sentence c and released them on bail just a couple of days prior to the incident in this case. On the fateful day the deceased and his nephew (PW-1), while walking through a sugarcane field, were chased by the accused who fired upon them. The deceased fell dead on the ground while PW-1 escaped. The First lnformatil''I Report (FIR) was lodged by PW-1 promptly in which he mentioned all the details of the occurrence including the name of PW-2 who was the D owner of a field situated adjacent to the place where the occurrence happened. -< - The Investigating Officer examined PW-2 at the earliest point of time and cited him as an eyewitness. The trial court found the evidence of PW-2 quite reliable. The High Court reversed the finding of the trial court on the following E grounds:- (a) Both the eyewitnesses, PWs 1 and 2, said in court that one of the lathis was a kanta (a stick with a knife-like portion on one end) whereas in the FIR, the informant had said th~t the assailants employed only lathis and guns. Therefore, their testimony was not reliable. F (b) The doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination denied in cross-examination the possibility of gunshot injury being caused while the deceased was running away and the accused fired from behind. (c) The bloodstained earth collected by the Investigating officer from G ,,.. the place of occurrence was not sent to the Chemical Examiner to test the origin of the blood. )-- / Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : I First Information Report (FIR) is not a chronicle of the H 1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S.C.R. A exhaustive details of the occurrence, nor is it a catalogue of everything including minor particulars of the events, which took place. Picking out an insignificant discrepancy regarding description of one of the weapons for jettisoning an otherwise sturdy account of the eyewitnesses is not a commendable approach in evaluation of evidence. It is understood that "ka11ta" B without a sharp projection at the end would be a mere stick or lathi. If the informant mentioned in the FIR that the assailants were armed with lathis and guns there is no reason
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.