STATE OF U.P. versus RAGHUVIR AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2017] 13 S.C.R. 293 · Decided: 13-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 13 S.C.R. 293 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
RAGHUVIR AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 2175-2177 of2017) 
DECEMBER 13, 2017 
[R. BANUMATHI AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 - Conviction and sentence under -
Correctness of - Prosecution case that accused in ambush extended 
exhortation and fired at the victim resulting in his death - Motive 
for the crime was enmity between the parties - Accused persons 
convicted u/s. 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment on the basis 
A 
B 
c 
of the credible and trustworthy evidence of eye witnesses, recovery 
D 
of the gun from accused 'P ', and opinion of the ballistic report -
High Court acquitted the accused - On appeal, held: Trial court 
had accepted the explanation offered by the prosecution for the 
delay in lodging FIR - High Court ought not to have interfered 
with the same - High Court did not properly appreciate the evidence 
of eye witnesses and recovery of gun from accused 'P' and the 
opinion of ballistic expert that empty cartridges recovered from the 
scene of occurrence were fired from the gun recovered from the 
accused 'P' - Grounds on which the High Court reversed the 
judgment of the trial court not adequate - High Court misdirected 
itself in appreciating the evidence before it and the reasonings 
for acquittal of accused 'P' not sustainable - Insofar as the other 
three accused no other substantial evidence corroborating the 
evidence of eye witnesses - In absence thereof. the High Court 
rightly extended the benefit of doubt to them - Conviction of 
accused 'P' u/s.302 and sentence of life imprisonment by the trial 
court upheld - Evidence - FIR. 
FIR: Delay in lodging of - Effect - Held: Delay in lodging of 
complaint and the registration of FIR is normally viewed with 
suspicion because there is a possibility of concoction and the courts 
should subject evidence as well as contents of FIR to carefid scn1tiny 
293 
E 
F 
G 
H 
294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
- Whether the case of the prosecution is to be registered on the 
ground of delay in FIR, depends upon facts and circumstances of 
each case. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Evidence: Opinion of the ballistic report, when not put to the 
accused uls. 313 Cr.P. C. - Effect, on prosecution case - Held: 
Object of s.313 Cr.P.C. is to put a circumstance against the accused 
so that he may meet out the prosecution case and explain the 
circumstances brought out by the prosecution to implicate him in 
the commission of the offence - If any circumstance had not been 
put to the accusfd in his statement, the same shall be excluded from 
consideration, subject to the condition whether omission to put the 
question u/s. 313 has caused miscarriage of justice or prejudice to 
the accused - Jn the instant case, recovery of gun from accused P 
and the ballistic expert's opinion is only a corroborative piece of 
evidence strengthening the prosecution case as established by the 
oral testimony of eye witnesses - Even assuming that the question 
regarding the ballistic expert's evidence was not put to the accused 
u!s.313, on facts, it caused no prejudice to the accused - Thus, the 
High Court not right in brushing aside this formidable circumstance 
against accused P - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 313. 
Pancho v. State of Haryana (2011) 10 SCC 165 
[2011) 12 SCR 1173 - distinguished. 
Case Law Reference 
[2011) 12 SCR 1173 
distinguished 
Para 11 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 2175-2177 of2017. 
From theJudgmentand Order dated 18.12.2012 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 745, 841and891 of2009. 
Ratnakar Das, Sr. Adv, Manoj K. Mishra, Ashutosh Kumar 
Sharma, Kamlendra Mishra, Advs for the Appellant. 
Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Atul Agarwal, Uday Ram Bokadia, 
Ms. Divya Garg, Rakesh Kumar Khare, Rahul Poonia, Alok Mohan, 
Sona! Jain, Advs for the Respondents. 
STATE OF U.P. v. RAGHUVIR AND ANR. 
The Order of the Court was passed by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. I. Leave granted. 
295 
A 
2. These appeals preferred by the State of U.P. challenges the 
judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 745 of 
2009, 841 of2009 and 891 of2009 acquitting the respondents under 
Section 302 lPC by setting aside their conviction and the sentence of life 
B 
imprisonment imposed upon them. 
3. Case of the prosecution is that on 30.07.2003, informant Bharat 
Singh along with his son Lallu Singh, Shivpati wife of Lal

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