STATE OF U.P. versus HARI RAM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 885 · Decided: 07-09-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
885 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
HARI RAM AND OTHERS 
September 7, 1983 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND M. P. THAKKAR, JJ.] 
Criml!fa/ Proceedings-F.l.R. is not supposed to contain minute details. 
Evidence of interested witness-Manner in which it should be dealt with; 
The respondents were convicted and sentenced under s. 302 read with 
s. 34 I.P.C. for having caused the death of· one Rajinder Kun1ar by assaulting 
hi1n with knives and ba:tan1s (spears). The F.I.R. \Vas lodged withit.1 an hour 
of the occurrence and .the Investigating Officer reached the spot within three 
hours of the lodging of the FJ.R. and im1nediately thereafter examined, among 
others, PWs I and 2 who were eye witnesses to the occurrenc'e. According to 
the post~mortem report the deceased had sustained one stab wound, one 
incised wound~ two lacerated wounds and two abrasions. 'The central.evidence 
against the respondents- consisted of the statements of PWs 1, 2 and 3 which 
was accepted by the trial court. 
A 
c 
D 
The respondents preferred an appeal to the High Court which acquitted 
ll 
them inter alia on the ground that there was inconsistency between medical 
and ocular evi,Pence inasmuch as the respondents who were alleged to have 
been armed with sharp cutting weaPons li~e knives and ha/lams could not ha.,.;e 
caused the lacerated wounds and abrasions; that the explanation, given by 
PWs 1, 2 and 3 in their statements that the lacerated wounds and abrasions 1 
had beeri caused by the deceased having been struck by the lathi portion of 
the ballams was an afterthought since there 
was no mention in the F.I.R. 
of the fact that balla1ns had been used like lathis; that the evidence of witnesses 
PWs 1 and 3 could not be relied upon as they were .interested Witnesses; and 
that the circumstance that PW 2 was called fron1 the house of his uncle three 
hours after the occurrence indicated that he was not present at the scene of the·: 
cr~me and therefore his evidence also could not be felied upon. 
Allowing the appeal, 
F 
G 
HELD : 1. An F.I.R. is not supposed to contain minute detai!s of an 
incident; it is merely meant to narrate in brief the facts which led to the 
~ncident, viz., the place of occurrence, the' names of assailants, etc. [891 C-D] 
H. 
In. the instant case the High Court was not justified in coming to the 
conclusion that the statements of eye witnesses regarding the deceased having 
A 
B 
c 
·o 
.E 
F 
G 
B 
886. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(198313 s.c.k. 
been assaulted with the lathi portions of the ._ballams was an afterthought just 
because there was no mention in the F.I.R. of the fact that ballan1s had been 
used like lathis. There was no occaSion for the complainant to have mentioned 
such detailed facts as to how the various arms were wielded and in what 
manner and to what extent. The witnesses had clearly explained. in their 
statements that the accused had plied and struck the deceased with the lathi 
portions of the ballams on the front side and this was fully. corroborated by 
the medical eyidence which showed that the two lacerated wounds were on the 
right side of the front portion of the head. Thus far front being inconsistent 
the ocular evidence fully corroborated the medical evidence. 
I~ can safely be 
presumed that the copies of statements recorded by the Investigating Officer 
had been supplied to the respondents long before the trial started. If there 
was any omission in their statements regarding thQ fact that ba/lams were uSed 
as lathis, it is inconceivable that the defence would not have drawn the attention 
of the witnesses to this omission which would have disclosed a manifest defect 
in the prosecution eviderice. Further, the Investigating Offic·er had categori-
cally denied the suggestion that the statements of witnesses had been recorded 
after the receipt of the post-mortem report. (891 H, 892 A, 890 F-H, 891 A·B] 
2. The mere fact that witnesses ar.e interested is no ground for throwing 
out their evidence overboard. All that is necessary is that in such cases the 
evidence of the 'vitnesses should be examined with caution and, having ·done. 
that, if the court feels that the evidence does not suffer from any other legal or 
factual infirmity, there· is no reason to distrust the evidence of such a witness. 
The evidence of an interested witness is not like the ev.idence of an appro.Ver 
which would need corroboration and the rule of caution cannot be confirmed 
in a strait-jacket. 894 F'G] 
In the ins

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