LexTHANEDAR SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. •I THANEDAR SINGH v. ST ATE OF MAD HY A PRADESH OCTOBER 30, 2001 [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 and 148: Murder-Accused acquitted by trial court-High Court convicted the accused-On appeal held, High Court erred in reversing the verdict as it failed to appreciate certain important factors like the credibility of eye"witness account and the correctness of FIR regarding time and date of the recording. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Sections 154 and 157-First Infom1.ation Report (FIR)-Correctness of time and date of recording-Delay in sending FIR to Magistrate-Prosecution failed to clear doubt-Held, defence version that FIR would have probably come much later is correct. Criminal trial : Ideni1ftcation of accused at night-Occurrence took place at a dark night and in open place-Held, in certain circumstances lack of moonlight or arti- ficial light does not per se preclude ident(fication of the assailants. Appellant and others were charged under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC for committing murder of one 'R'. According to the prosecution, the deceased and his father (PW6) were sleeping at the thrash- ing floor of their field. At about midnight, seven persons including the appellant and his father came to the spot, whereafter the appellant fired at A B c D E F the deceased from close range and the deceased died instantaneously. The G Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and doubted the correctness of the prosecution version regarding the record- ing of FIR and acquitted all the accused. On appeal by the respondent, High Court held that there was sufficient evidence that the appellant had shot the deceased, and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. Hence the H 579 580 SUPREME COURt REPORTS [2001] SUPP'. 4 S.C.R. A present appeal. B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. An analysis of various factors relied upon by the Trial Court and those which cast doubt on the prosecution version shows that the High Court was not justified in making the comments that the trial court did not give reasons on certain important aspects or misdirected itself in the appreciation of evidence. Though the Judgment of the trial court is somewhat perfunctory and lacking clarity in certain respects, on the whole, the approach and conclusions of the trial court cannot be said to C be perverse or vitiated by any serious error warranting interference with the verdict of acquittal. The view taken by the trial court, is a reasonably possible view and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in reversing th~ acquittal insofar as the appellant is concerned. The High Court failed to add.ress itself to certain crucial factors concerning the credibility of eye D witness account and the correctness of the FIR, especially the time and date of its recording. [588-G-H; 589-A] E F 1.2. On the point of correctness of the FIR, the defence version that the FIR in which the names of accused were mentioned would have prob- ably come into existence much later is supported by certain material factors. [583-G] Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P., (1994] 5 SCC 188, relied on. 1.3. Ofi the question of identification of accused where the occur· rence took place on a dark night and at an open place it is .observed that the approach .of trial court in this regard is not correct. [586-H] Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998] 9 SCC 238, relied on. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1123. G of 2000. H From the Judgement and Order dated 6.7.2000 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 168 of 1986. Dr. T.N. Singh, J.P. Pandey, L.S. Chauhan and Somilath Mukherjee for the Appellant. I \ .. ' I I ,, I > THANEDAR SINGH v. STATE [VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.] 581 Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija and Uma Nath Singh for the Respondent. A The Judgment of the Court delivered by -p, VENKATARAMA REDDI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judg- I ment of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) dated 6. 7 .2000 revers- ing the verdict of acquittal recorded by the first Additional Session Judge, Morena, in Sessions Case No. 178/83. The accused herein was charged alongwith six others for committing murder of one Rajbahadur Singh. The appellant wa'> charged under Section 148 and Section 302 IPC whereas others were charged under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.