The prosecution story, in brief, as could be gathered from the material placed on record, is thus: On the night of 3 November 2006, at around 07.30 PM, Naresh Kumar, accused No 11 had assaulted Atmaram (PW-1). Thereafter, Mangtin Bai (PW-2), Khomlal (PW-9) and Purnima Bai (PW-13), wife, son and daughter-in-law of deceased Kartikram respectively, along with neighbours Baliram Sahu (PW-3) and Jeevan Lal Sahu (PW-6) went in a 3 tractor to Baloda Bazar to see a doctor, who refused to treat them unless a report was lodged at the police station. 1422 of 2015 by Paltan Jangde, accused No 12; Criminal Appeal No 1470 of 2017 by Charandas Jangde, Chhannu Jangde and Charnu Jangde, accused Nos.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/remand-of-writ-petition-for-restoration-and-decision-on-merits/
As such, we are concerned with the appellants in Criminal Appeal No 1421 of 2015 and Naresh Kumar, one of the 5 appellants in appeals arising out of SLP(Criminal) Nos.6134- 6135 of 2019. The learned counsel submits that though the incident had occurred at 08.30 PM on 3 November 2006, the FIR was alleged to have been lodged at 03.10 AM on 4 November 2006, which creates a doubt that the FIR is a fabricated document and the original FIR has been 6 suppressed by the prosecution. It is submitted that PW-14, IO has admitted that Naresh Kumar, accused No 11 had injuries on his head, ankle of left leg and the middle finger of his right hand.
He submitted that even the Trial Court has found that accused No.11 Naresh Kumar had received grievous injuries and that he had gone to Police Station, Suhela to lodge the report.
He further submits that merely because the witnesses are interested witnesses cannot be a ground to discard their testimonies, if their evidence is found to be trustworthy, reliable and cogent. The first part is with regard to the assault on Atmaram (PW-1) by accused No 11 Naresh Kumar, whereas the second part is with regard to the assault by the accused persons on the deceased and PWs 2, 9 and 13. Atmaram (PW-1) further stated that when he returned from the Police Station, his son came and told him that PW- 1’s father was murdered and PW-1 again went to the Police Station to lodge the report.
The accused persons went there and started assaulting her son. He states that after Atmaram (PW-1) went to the Police Station at around 08.30 PM, all the accused persons 12 came to his house. Purnima (PW-13), wife of Khomal (PW-9), also states that Atmaram (PW-1) was going to the Police Station to lodge a report at around 7:00 PM.
She states that, between 8:00 PM to 8:30 PM, the accused persons, viz. The injuries sustained by him are thus: • “Lacerated wound of 6x1x0.5 cm on the left parietal region of scalp. • Multiple contusions on the back, left shoulder, left arm, varying in size from 5 to 20 cm in length and 2 to 4 cm in breath.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/presumption-of-genuine-endorsements-in-cheque-case/
He further admits that accused No 11 Naresh Kumar had grievous injuries on his head, ankle of left leg and the middle finger of the right hand. The prosecution has suppressed the first report lodged by Atmaram (PW-1) as well as by accused No 11 Naresh Kumar. Believing the contents of the FIR that the incident has taken place at around 08.30 PM and that the injured persons had reached Baloda Bazar at around 10-11 PM where they were informed that they could not be treated unless a report was lodged, a further delay of around four to five hours in lodging the FIR has not been explained. …….It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences: “( 1 ) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; ( 2 ) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; ( 3 ) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.”
In the instant case, when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received serious injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution, then it will be difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly, when some of these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of the accused.
Undisputedly, in the present case, the injuries sustained by accused No 11 Naresh Kumar cannot be considered to be minor or superficial. The memo forwarding accused No 11 Naresh Kumar for medical examination to Medical Officer mentions that accused No 11 had informed the police that at around 08.30 PM, he was assaulted by Atmaram (PW-1). In the present case, as already discussed hereinabove, assuming that the incident had taken place at 08.30 PM and the injured persons were at Baloda Bazar between 10-11 PM, and taking into consideration that the distance between Baloda Bazar to Suhela Police Station is 15 Kms., a delay of four hours in lodging the FIR would cast a serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution case.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/medical-negligence-and-compensation-a-landmark-decision/
The reason for insisting on lodging of first information report without undue delay is to obtain the earlier information in regard to the circumstances in which the crime had been committed, the name of the accused, the parts played by them, the weapons which had been used as also the names of eyewitnesses.
Where the parties are at loggerheads and there had been instances which resulted in death of one or the other, lodging of a first information report is always considered to be vital.” As held by this Court, the FIR is a valuable piece of evidence, although it may not be substantial evidence. In case of “wholly unreliable” witness, again, there is no difficulty, inasmuch as no conviction could be made on the basis of oral testimony provided by a “wholly unreliable” witness. In the present case, it would be seen that the entire family of accused No 12 Paltan Jangde has been roped in. According to PWs 2, 9 and 13, it was the witness Baliram Sahu (PW-3) who had arranged for the tractor to take the 25 injured persons to Baloda Bazar. Before we part with the judgment, we must place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Nos. No 11.
Case Title: NAND LAL Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (2023 INSC 224)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001421-001421 / 2015
