Summary
Twelve members of one family were convicted under Section 302 IPC with other offences for a 2006 night attack in Chhattisgarh that killed a man and injured his wife and son, following an earlier quarrel in which one accused had assaulted a neighbour and himself suffered fractures of the skull, shoulder, finger and leg. Four appellants remained before the Court: three whose names appeared in none of the contemporaneous documents, and the injured accused. A three-Judge Bench acquitted all four: the prosecution suppressed the first reports lodged by the neighbour and by the injured accused and never explained his grievous injuries, the FIR was lodged at least four hours late though the police knew of the incident earlier, the eyewitnesses were close relatives with proven enmity who roped in the whole family, and three names surfaced for the first time in the FIR.
Issues
- Whether convictions for murder with the aid of Section 149 IPC can rest on interested eyewitnesses where the prosecution failed to explain grievous injuries on an accused, suppressed the earliest reports, lodged the FIR after unexplained delay, and three accused were not named in the merg report, inquest or spot panchnama.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860Membership of the unlawful assembly itself was doubtful for the three accused not named in contemporaneous documents, and the injured accused could hardly have participated in the attack; all four acquitted on benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 12, 29, 35, 37)
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The FIR is a valuable though not substantive piece of evidence whose prompt lodging removes suspicion of over-implication where two groups are at loggerheads; here a delay of at least four hours, with the earlier reports suppressed, cast serious doubt on the prosecution case. (¶¶ 24, 25, 30, 31)
Held
- Following Lakshmi Singh, non-explanation of injuries on an accused is a very important circumstance suggesting that the prosecution suppressed the genesis of the occurrence, especially where the witnesses are interested; the injured accused's fractures were neither minor nor superficial, the police had taken him for medical examination before the FIR was lodged, and the memo recorded his version of being assaulted by the neighbour, which the prosecution concealed along with the neighbour's own report. He is entitled to benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29)
- Following Vadivelu Thevar, evidence of witnesses who are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable needs corroboration; the injured eyewitnesses were close relatives with proven enmity over a Sarpanch election, one could not name the relatives she claimed to recognise, the entire family of one accused was roped in, independent witnesses did not support the prosecution, and the names of three accused appeared for the first time in a delayed FIR. Their conviction on uncorroborated interested testimony is unsustainable. (¶¶ 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
Result
Appeals allowed; Chhattisgarh High Court judgment dated 11.11.2014 and trial court judgment dated 24.05.2008 quashed; appellants Nand Lal, Bhagwat, Ramdular and Naresh Kumar acquitted and directed to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.