Summary
The Court dismissed the murder appeals of Pappu Tiwary and Law alias Upendra Tiwari. Law failed to substantiate his fracture-based alibi with the relevant medical evidence. For Pappu, credible eyewitness accounts and the prompt investigative sequence defeated claims of an ante-timed FIR and material medical contradictions. Differences between the inquest and post-mortem reports did not displace the prosecution case.
Issues
- Whether Law Tiwari established his asserted alibi.
- Whether the FIR chronology, injury descriptions or eyewitness evidence created reasonable doubt in Pappu Tiwary’s case.
Provisions considered
- Section 157, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Prompt recording and investigation followed by forwarding the FIR to court the next morning satisfied the purpose of guarding against manipulation on these facts. (¶ 25-28)
- Section 174, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The limited inquiry concerns the apparent cause of an unnatural or suspicious death; an inquest report is not substantive medical evidence. (¶ 29-32)
Held
- Law’s appeal was confined to alibi. Despite opportunities to lead evidence, he did not produce or summon the treating doctor, prove the advice or x-ray plate, or supply hospital admission and treatment records. The concurrent rejection of that plea required no interference. The Court did not rely on the separate conviction subsequently reversed in appeal. (¶ 12-21)
- The brother’s testimony was not rejectable merely for relationship, and the other accepted eyewitness explained his presence and ability to identify the accused. No major discrepancies undermined their accounts; the High Court had already declined to rely on the third eyewitness whose examination was delayed. (¶ 23-24)
- The closely recorded sequence of hospital information, statement, inquest, FIR and post-mortem, followed by the FIR reaching court the next morning, did not support ante-timing. A decision involving unexplained dispatch and a suspicious FIR was distinguishable. (¶ 25-28)
- Even the substantial difference in injury counts between the inquest and post-mortem was not fatal in this case. The inquest’s limited purpose differed from a medical expert’s scientific examination, which established firearm injuries. The claimed ocular-medical contradictions did not undermine the credible account of the shooting and multiple knife attacks. (¶ 29-36)
- The unsupported description of the accused as dangerous had not weighed with the courts below; the objection based on antecedents therefore did not undermine the conviction. Both appellants failed to establish a basis for disturbing the judgments, and their appeals were dismissed with parties bearing their own costs. (¶ 37-38)
Result
Appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences left undisturbed. Parties to bear their own costs.