SUSHIL AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 294 · Decided: 08-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, FAIZAN UDDIN

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SUSHIL AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
NOVEMBERS, 1994 
(G.N. RAY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 157-Delay in despatching. 
FIR-No Prejudice caused to accused person-Whether every delay in 
sending FIRfatal to prosecution-Held, No 
C 
EVIDENCE-Murder Case-Motive-Relation witnesses-Evidence 
of-Admissibility-Rule of caution. 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302134-Murder Case-Motive-
Eye Witness-corroboration from medical evidence-It is fully and beyond 
all resonable doubt established that appellants as saulted deceased by their 
D 
knives which resulted in his death-Conviction u/s 302134 legally 
sustainable. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Indiun Penal Code, 1860-Section 302134-Common intention--
Murder Case-Assault by knives-Appellant not armed with an weapon-
No evidence that appellant was aware of fact that co-accused were armed 
with knives- Inconsistency and discrepancy with regard to actual part 
attributed to appellant-Benefit of doubt to appellant. 
Three accused were charged and prosecuted u/s 302/34 Indian 
Penal Code for murder of deceased. They were convicted and sentenced 
to undergo life imprisonment. The conviction and sentence has been 
affirmed by the high Court. This appeal after grant of special leave has 
been filed against the judgment of the High Court. 
The appellants submitted that the FIR has been recG!'tfed on 15-8-
1980 at 8-10 A.M. but it was despatched on 16-8-1980 and no 
explanation for this delay has been offered. It was therefore, alleged 
that non-explanation for this delay provides legitimate basis for 
suspicion that the FIR was recorded much later than the stated date 
and hour with a view to introduce improvements with distroyed version 
of tb~ occurrence. 
It was also contended that there was enmity between the complai-
nant and the appellants, and therefore, the appellants have been falsely 
294 
SUSHIL v. STATE OF U.P. 
295 
implicated. It was submitted that the prosecution witnesses are related A 
to the deceased and since they are interested witnesses their evidence 
should not be accepted. 
It was urged that the appellant T has been found guilty u/s 302/34 
IPC on the basis of written report lodged by PW l wherein the 
appellant was alleged to have caught hold the deceased all round and B 
accused caused knife injuries by their respective knives. It was 
submitted that the report was lodged on the basis of the information 
received from PW 2 and PW 3 and there was no mention in the report 
that the appellant T had raised both the hands of the deceased so as to 
enable the accused to inflict knife injuries on the victim. It was further 
submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to enmity C 
by stating that he had caught hold the deceased. 
Disposing of the matter, this Court 
HELD: l.l It is no doubt true that Section 157 Cr.P.C. requires the 
sending of report forthwith to the Magistrate empowered to take D 
cognizance of the offence, but every delay in sending the FIR is not 
fatal to the prosecution case unless some prejudice is shown to have 
been caused to the accused by such delay. In.the present case there is no 
material to indicate that there was any deliberate delay on the part of 
the Investigating Officer in dispatching the report. This apart no 
prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused persons by the E 
said delay. On the contrary it is clear that on 15-8-1980 both the Police 
Inspectors remained busy in the investigation at the place of occurrence 
and thereafter in sending the dead body to the Hospital for post 
mortem. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is satisfied 
that the report was lodged on the date and time mentioned in the FIR F 
and the sending of report by the prosecution was not delayed in order 
to introduce some improvement, embellishment or distorted version of 
the occurrence. (299-G, 300-C-D) 
State of U.P. v. Gokaran, AIR (1985) SC 131, relied on. 
1.2 There is no doubt that the relations between the complaint 
party and the accused persons were strained and they were on inimical 
terms. It goes without saying that enmity is a double edged weapon 
which cuts both ways. It may constitute a motive for the commission of 
G 
the crime and at the same time it may also provide a motive for false 
implication. In the present case there is evidence to establish motive H 
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
and when the prosecution adduced positive evidence showing the 

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