SURESH RAI AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 796 · Decided: 30-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SURESH RAI AND ORS. 
V. 
STATEOFBIHAR 
MARCH 30, 2000 
B 
[S. SAGHIRAHMAD, A.P. MISRA AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 and 34-Appreciation of evidence-
Murder-Three eye-witnesses-Trial Court sentencing accused to life impris-
onment-Confirmed by High Cou1t-On appeal Held, entire investigation was 
C 
wholly tainted and there was possibility of false imputation due to long enmity 
between families-Time of occurrence and information to Investigating Officer 
contradicted by prosecution witnesses-Presence of eye-witnesses at scene of 
occurrence not proved-Conviction, not justified. 
Cr.P.C., 1973-Sections 174and178-lnquest Report-Scope of inves-
D 
tigation limited to prima f acie nature of injuries, possible weapons used and 
possible cause of death. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
There was a long standing enmity between families of the appellants 
and the deceased. Appellants allegedly murdered the deceased in presence 
of P.W. 10, the informant, P.W. 16 and P.W. 17 at about 5.30 A.M. The 
incident, was stated to have been reported to the police at 7 A.M. after 
which investigation began. Appellants were sentenced to life imprison-
ment under Sections 302, 34 and 109 JPC and Section 27 of the.Arms Act 
by Trial Court, which was confirmed by High Court. Hence this appeal. 
The appellants contended before this Court that the alleged eye 
witnesses were never present at the scene of occurrence; that the occur-
rence took place in the proceedings night; that due to bitter enmity be-
tween the families there was a possibility of false imputation; and that 
witnesses of inquest did not name the assailants. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. Under Section 174 read with Section 178 Cr.P.C. Inquest 
Report is prepared by the Investigating Officer to firld out prima facie the 
nature of injuries and the possible weapon used in causing those injuries 
as also possible cause of death. (803-G-H] 
796 
--
... -
SURESH RAI v. STATE 
797 
Podda Narayan v. State of A.P., [1975) Supp. SCR 84; George v. State 
A 
of Kerala, [1998) 4 SCC 605; Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P., [1987) 3 
SCR 59; Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of M.P., [1991) SCR 1 and Kuldip 
Singh v. State of Punjab, [1992) Supp. 3 SCC 1, relied on. 
2. It is apparent that the names of the appellants were introduced in 
the statement of P.W. 10 recorded after the Inquest Report was prepared, 
B 
on account of the bitter enmity between their families. It was but natural 
that they would have been implicated at the instance of P.W. 10 in the 
incident which was not witnessed by him nor P.W. 16 and P.W. 17. The 
entire investigation was wholly tainted and appellants were implicated on 
the collective mischief of P.W. 10, the informant and P.W. 15, the lnvesti-
C 
gating Officer. [805-A; 806-A-B] 
3. The Investigating Officer (P.W.15) directly and effectively contra-
dicted the statement of P.W. 10 that he had gone to the Police Station at 7 
A.M. and reported the matter. He had stated that P. W. 10 had not come to 
the Police Station nor had met him there. He admitted that he got the 
D 
information at 8.15 A.M. from some other person after who did not dis-
close the name of the assailant. On scrutiny of the statement of P.W. 15 
and P.W. 10 it comes out that P.W. 10 did not know the name of the 
assailant; therefore he was not in a position to disclose the name to the 
Investigating Officer at the Police Station. (801-B-E] 
E 
4. All three eye witnesses stated that they had gone to scrape grass 
along with the deceased. Their presence at the spot could be justified on 
the basis of the grass they had scraped, but the Investigating Officer was 
neither shown the grass nor did he come across any portion of land from 
where grass had been scraped. The explanation that large quantity of 
blood was spread over the field would not obliterate the evidence of the 
grass having been cut from the field. Circumstances indicate that no grass 
bad been scraped and none of the eye-witnesses were present at the scene 
of occurrence. It is unbelievable that the three persons who were scraping 
the grass with the deceased would meekly move away so as to facilitate the 
killing of deceased. Their conduct is unnatural. (801-G; 802-B; 804-F] 
5. P.W. 2 stated the time of occurrence at about 4.30 A.M. and that 
he heard the noise at his house which was about half a kilometer away the 
scene of occurrence. He had no knowledge as to how the deceased died 
F 
G 
and was not an 

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