LexYANAB SHEIKH@ GAGU versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 1150 A YANAB SHEIKH@ GAGU B v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 905 of 2009) DECEMBER 13, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.154 and 162 - FIR - Requirements - Held: A FIR normally should give the c basic essentials in relation to the commission of a cogrJizable offence upon which the Investigating Officer can immediately start his investigation - On facts, Ex. 7 was not a FIR its proper construction in law but was a mere telephonic information inviting the police to the place of occurrence - It gave no 0 details of the commission of the crime as to who had committed the crime and how the occurrence took place - In fact, it was only upon reaching the place of occurrence that the Investigating Officer got particulars of the incident and even the names of the persons who had committed the crime E - A written complaint with the basic details was thereafter given by PW1 under his signatures to the police officer, who then made endorsement as Ex. 111 and registered the FIR as Ex. 11 3 - In the circumstances, it cannot be said that Ex. 7 was the FIR and that Ex. 113 was a second FIR for the same incident! F occurrence with similar details and was hit by s. 162 CrPC. Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 - Indian Explosives Act - s.9(b)(ii) - Prosecution case that throwing of bomb by appellant-accused led to instantaneous death of PW1's brother - Conviction of appellant - Sustainability - Held: PW1 G (complainant), PWS(wife of the deceased) and PW6(cousin of the deceased) clearly supported the case of the prosecution - Their statements, examined in conjunction with the statement of PW11, the doctor and the Investigating Officer, H 1150 YANAB SHEIKH@ GAGU v. STATE OF WEST 1151 BENGAL PW14, clearly established the case of the prosecution beyond A any reasonable doubt - Direct and circumstantial evidence against the appellant - Conviction accordingly upheld. Criminal Trial - Acquittal of co-accused - Effect - Held: Where prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused 8 by cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence, mere acquittal of one accused would not automatically lead to acquittal of another accused - It is only where the entire case of the prosecution suffers from infirmities, discrepancies and where the prosecution is not able to establish its case, the acquittal of co-accused would be of some relevance for deciding the C case of the other accused. Evidence - Appreciation of - Held: It is not always the quantity but the quality of the prosecution evidence that weighs with the Court in determining the guilt of the accused D or otherwise - In order to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence produced by the prosecution has to be qualitative and may not be quantitative in nature. The prosecution case was that appellant-accused had a heated altercation with PW1 and his brother while E they were drawing water from the village pond (water tank); that thereafter, appellant suddenly went running to his house and came back with the other accused who had a cloth bag in his hand and that thereafter appellant took out a bomb from the said cloth bag and threw the same F towards PW1 's brother which hit him on his chest causing his instantaneous death. PW6 gave information with regard to the incident to the Police Station through telephone based on which G G.D. Entry No.708, Ex.7 was lodged. Subsequently when the police officials, PWs14 and 15 arrived at the spot, PW1 submitted a written complaint, Ex.1, whereupon a formal FIR, Ex.1/3, was registered. The trial court convicted appellant u/s 302 IPC and Section 9(b)(ii) of the H 1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 13 S.C.R. A Indian Explosives Act but acquitted the other accused. In appeal, High Court affirmed the conviction of appellant. In the instant appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction inter a/ia on grounds:- 1) that Ex.7, the G.D. 8 Entry No. 708, lodged at Police Station by PW6 was, in fact, the FIR whereas Ex.1/3 was a second FIR of the occurrence which was impermissible in law and in fact, was hit by Section 162 CrPC; 2) t~at the copy of the FIR was sent to the Court of SDJM ten days after the date of occurrence and, therefore, was violative of Section 157(1) · C CrPC; 3) that the prosecution had not examined all the witnesses and 4) that acquittal of the other accused should necessarily result i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.