advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Mere Delay in sending FIR not fatal to the prosecution = where the FIR was actually recorded without delay and the investigation started on the basis of that FIR and there is no other infirmity brought to the notice of the Court then, however improper or objectionable the delay in receipt of the report by the Magistrate concerned be, in the absence of any prejudice to the accused it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution insupportable.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40473
Page 1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1020 OF 2004
Sheo Shankar Singh …. Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. ….Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1021 OF 2004
Sarvajit Singh @ Sobhu …. Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. ….Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated
26.09.2003, by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal
Nos.814 and 815 of 1981.
2. The appellant in Crl.A.No.814 of 1981 before the High Court is
the appellant before this Court in Crl.A.No.1021 of 2004. The
second appellant in Crl.A.No.815 of 1981 before the High Court is
the appellant before this Court in Crl.A.No.1020 of 2004. The
appellant in Crl.A.No.1020 of 2004, as well as one Harihar Singh
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 1 of 21Page 2
were tried in Sessions Trial No.164 of 1979 and the appellant in
Crl.A.No.1021 of 2004, was tried in Sessions Trial No.228 of 1979.
All the accused were charged for an offence under Section 302
read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The present appellant in
Crl.A.No.1020 of 2004, as well as the appellant in Crl.A.No.1021 of
2004 were further charged for an offence under Section 379 of
I.P.C. All the three accused were awarded life imprisonment for
the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and
the present appellants in these two appeals were further awarded
two years rigorous imprisonment for the charge under Section
379 of I.P.C. When Crl.A.No.815 of 1981 was pending before the
High Court, the first appellant Harihar Singh expired and his
appeal, therefore, stood abated as against him as per the order of
the High Court dated 11.02.2002.
3. It is in the above stated background, as on date, the appeal
relating to Sheo Shankar Singh, the appellant in Crl.A.No.1020 of
2004 and Sarvajit Singh @ Sobhu, appellant in Crl.A.No.1021 of
2004, only survive for consideration.
4. As the story of the prosecution goes, on 13.06.1979 at 3.30
p.m. at Badhwa Chau Muhanion Kachcha Road, by the side of the
godown of the Irrigation Department near the hovel of Vinod, the
deceased Lorik was travelling along with P.W.1 Rakesh Kumar his
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 2 of 21Page 3
son, in a motorcycle bearing No.UTH 1287 as a pillion rider. The
accused Ranjit Singh along with his father Harihar Singh, his
brother Sarvajit Singh @ Sobhu and cousin Sheo Shankar Singh
alleged to have pounced upon P.W.1 Rakesh Kumar and the
deceased Lorik and stopped their motorcycle by catching hold of
its carrier. While P.W.1 attempted to drive fast, the accused
Harihar Singh exhorted his associates to kill the deceased,
whereupon, Ranjit Singh is stated to have fired a shot and the
same hit the deceased Lorik on his back. After receiving the
injuries, the deceased Lorik stated to have jumped from the
motorcycle and ran away shouting for help. As the deceased
Lorik jumped from the motorcycle, P.W.1 Rakesh Kumar lost his
balance, fell down and got his leg injured. Ranjit Singh armed
with a revolver and the remaining three accused with country
made pistols, stated to have attacked the deceased Lorik by firing
at him with their weapons and on receiving the injuries, Lorik fell
down a few paces ahead and when Ranjit Singh fired again, the
deceased is stated to have succumbed to the injuries
instantaneously. Thereafter, Ranjit Singh and the appellants
stated to have fled away from the scene of occurrence in the
motorcycle belonging to P.W.1 Rakesh Kumar while Harihar Singh
stated to have ran away from the scene of occurrence.
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 3 of 21Page 4
5. On hearing the hue and cry, Ramjit (PW3) and Shyam Raj,
uncles of P.W.1 Rakesh Kumar and one Sheo Narain, who stated
to have witnessed the incident, reached the spot. P.W.1 lodged
the F.I.R. at Kotwali Police Station at 4.00 P.M., on the same day.
The police registered a case in the General Diary and the same is
marked as Exs.Ka12 and Ka13. The inquest report prepared by
the Investigating Officer (P.W.7) was marked as Ex.Ka14. The site
plan map was marked as Ex.Ka19. Dr.Virendra Srivastava at the
District Hospital, Ghazipur conducted the autopsy on the body of
the deceased on 14.06.1979 at 12.45 p.m. Blood stained clothes
and earth was sent for Serologist opinion and the blood group was
noted as ‘B’ as per Exs.Ka32 and Ka33.
6. P.Ws.1 and 3, Rakesh Kumar and Ramjit son and brother of the
deceased, were examined as eyewitnesses. Dr.P.N.Tandon,
Medical Officer at Ghazipur District Hospital, was examined as
P.W.2. P.W.2 examined P.W.1 at 4.30 p.m. and the injury report
was marked as Ex.Ka4. The postmortem report issued by P.W.4
Dr.Virendra Srivastava, was marked as Ex.Ka11. In the Section
313 questioning, while all the other accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be falsely implicated on account of enmity,
accused Sheo Shankar Singh contended that on the date of
occurrence, he had gone to attend a marriage in the house of
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 4 of 21Page 5
D.W.1 Kanhaiya Singh at Singheri village, falling within the limits
of Madganj Police Station, Ghazipur district.
7. Based on the evidence placed before the Trial Court, the Trial
Court convicted the accused. Aggrieved over the same, they
preferred appeals before the High Court in Crl.A.Nos.814 and 815
of 1981 and the High Court having dismissed the appeals, the
appellants are before us.
8. We heard Mr.Mahavir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant in Crl.A.No.1020 of 2004 and Mr.Nagendra Rai
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in
Crl.A.No.1021 of 2004. The State was represented by Mr.Vivek
Vishnoi learned Standing Counsel for the State.
9. The sum and substance of the submissions made on behalf of
the appellants was that the non-recovery of the weapons and the
motorcycle disproves the case of the prosecution. The nonexamination of the so-called other eyewitnesses whose
statements were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., would
belie the case of the prosecution. The non-consideration of the
evidence of P.W.8 about the motorcycle, also vitiates the case of
the prosecution. The serious discrepancies, such as nonmentioning of the crime number and name in the vital
documents, as admitted by the Investigating Officer, create
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 5 of 21
serious doubt about the case put-forth by the prosecution. Since,
admittedly the deceased Lorik was a history-sheeter and since no
independent eyewitnesses were examined who were stated to be
present at the time of occurrence, it will have to be held that the
prosecution roped in the appellants in a case of blind murder.
Therefore, it was contended for all the above discrepancies and
the evidence of the prosecution, not been properly appreciated
either by the Trial Court or by the High Court, the judgments
impugned are liable to be set aside.
10. As against the above submissions, the learned Counsel
appearing for the State would point out that none of the
submissions made on behalf of the appellants merit consideration,
inasmuch as, the Trial Court, as well as, the High Court have met
each one of the submissions effectively, while rejecting those
submissions.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the State also took us
through the evidence of eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 and 3, the evidence
of the Doctor P.W.2, the injuries sustained by P.W.1, as well as the
deceased and submitted that in the case on hand, the case of the
prosecution is supported by medical evidence as well and that,
the motive for the crime has been substantially established by the
prosecution. The learned State counsel, therefore, contended
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 6 of 21Page 7
that none of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants merited any consideration.
12. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the respective
appellants, the counsel for the State and having perused the
impugned judgments of the High Court, as well as that of the Trial
Court and all other material papers, before considering the
submissions made on behalf of the appellants, it will be necessary
to refer to the motive for the crime, as well as the injuries found
on the body of the deceased and P.W.1 for appreciating the
submissions.
13. As far as the motive is concerned, according to the
prosecution, one Raja of Ausanganj, a Zamindar, owned huge
properties with whom one Mukhchand, father of the deceased
Lorik, was employed as a gardener. On being satisfied with the
services of the said Mukhchand, the Zamindar gave him a land for
raising construction. Further as salary could not be paid to the
said Mukhchand by the Zamindar, the Zamindar allowed him to
segregate six bighas of land from the forest belonging to the
Zamindar for cultivation. The said Mukhchand cleared off six
bighas of land from the forest and stated to have started
cultivating the same and after his death, his son one Basu, started
working with the Zamindar. Since the price of the land increased
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 7 of 21Page 8
by metes and bounds, the Zamindar wanted to reclaim the land,
which ended in a prolonged litigation and ultimately the deceased
and his brother stated to have succeeded in retaining the land.
Irked by the above result, the Zamindar who was nurturing a
grievance stated to have set up the accused who were local
gundas to get rid of the deceased, his brother and his family
members from the lands. It is stated that the accused started
intimidating the family members of the deceased, which gave rise
to frequent confrontation among the accused party and the party
of the deceased, who wanted to protect their property.
14. On 13.08.1974, the deceased along with his associates is
stated to have assaulted the accused Harihar Singh and a criminal
case was also lodged against him. It was in the above stated
background, it is stated that the accused party headed by Harihar
Singh, who were nurturing a long-standing grievance against the
deceased, engineered a plot to eliminate him, which resulted in
the ultimate murder of the deceased. The above fact was brought
about in evidence through P.W.3 and the Courts below have noted
that while cross-examining him, the said narration of facts relating
to the motive could be ascertained.
15. Keeping the above factors in mind and the alleged crime
committed by the appellants, when we deal with the submissions
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 8 of 21Page 9
of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants,
according to the learned counsel, it was a case of blind murder
since the deceased Lorik himself was a history-sheeter, which has
come out in the evidence of P.W.7, the Investigating Officer
himself and, therefore, the appellants and the other accused were
conveniently roped in taking advantage of the earlier tussle as
between the appellants and the deceased. According to the
learned senior counsel, as per the evidence of the Investigating
Officer himself, at the time of inspection of the place of
occurrence, apart from P.Ws. 1 and 3, the statement of one
Somraj and Shiv Narayan were recorded, but both of them were
not produced before the Court. It was, therefore, contended that
by examining the close relatives of the deceased alone and by not
examining those independent witnesses, it will have to be held
that the case of the prosecution was manipulated and that the
reliance placed upon the so called eye witnesses viz., P.Ws. 1 and
3, should not have formed the basis for the ultimate conviction of
the appellants.
16. In fact, the Trial Court, as well as the High Court have
specifically dealt with this very contention. The Trial Court, while
considering the said submission, has noted that according to the
investigating officer, when he approached those other witnesses,
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004
9 of 21Page 10
none of them were prepared to come and give evidence in the
Court and that they were not even prepared to disclose their
names and that having regard to the background of the accused
party who were notorious criminals, none of them were prepared
to risk their life and give evidence in the Court. The Trial Court
has also noted that the crime committed by the appellants in
shooting the deceased to death in the broad day light was so
gruesome, there was a fear complex set in the minds of the
people around that place and, therefore, mere non-examination of
the other independent witnesses in the absence of any lacuna in
the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 3, cannot be held to be disastrous to
the case of the prosecution. The said view was fully approved by
the High Court and, in our considered opinion, there is no reason
to take a different view than what has been held by the Courts
below. The said submission of the learned senior counsel,
therefore, stands rejected.
17. It was then contended that the material evidence viz., the
motorcycle in which the deceased is stated to have travelled as a
pillion rider along with his son P.W.1, was not produced and that
in that context, the evidence of P.W.8 was not properly
appreciated by the Courts below.
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 10 of 21Page 11
18. When we refer to the evidence of P.W.8, we find that
according to him, he was the original owner of the vehicle and
that he sold the said vehicle to the deceased, which was
supported by Exs.Ka29, Ka30 and Ka31. In the cross-examination,
he stated that the vehicle was in the possession of the deceased
for 10 to 12 days and that due to non-payment of the remaining
amount, he took possession from the deceased and that
ultimately he dismantled the vehicle and disposed it of in
Kabarkhana.
19. The evidence of P.W.8, in so far as it related to the sale of the
vehicle in favour of the deceased is concerned, the same is borne
out by Exs.Ka29, Ka30 and Ka31. Ex.Ka29 is a receipt for
Rs.6,000/-. Ex.Ka30 is delivery proof by way of information to the
Regional Transport Officer and Ex.Ka31 is the transfer document.
Therefore, going by the initial statements of P.W.8 and the above
referred three documents, the fact was brought forth without any
scope of contradiction that the vehicle was sold to the deceased
Lorik. Insofar as the statement of P.W.8 that due to non-payment,
he took back the vehicle is concerned, except his ipse dixit, there
is nothing on record to support the said version. So far as nonproduction of the vehicle is concerned, even according to the
prosecution, the vehicle was stealthily removed by the accused
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 11 of 21
after committing the crime of killing of the deceased. P.W.8
stated that the vehicle was dismantled and disposed of in
Kabarkhana. Therefore, if the prosecution was not able to
produce the vehicle for the above stated reasons, no fault can be
found with the prosecution on that score. When it is brought out
in evidence through P.W.1, as well as P.W.3 and the injury found
on the body of P.W.1 as mentioned by the Doctor who examined
him viz., P.W.2 that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 were due to
his fall from a running motorcycle, we do not find any discrepancy
in the evidence placed before the Court in that respect.
Therefore, the said submission of the learned senior counsel also
does not impress upon us to take a different view than what has
been held by the Courts below.
20. As far as the plea made on behalf of the appellant in
Crl.A.No.1020 of 2004 that he was not present at the time of the
occurrence and that he was attending a wedding in the place of
D.W.1 is concerned, we find that it was a desperate attempt made
on behalf of the appellant by raising the plea of alibi, which was
rightly rejected by the Courts below.
21. We have perused the evidence of D.W.1. We find that his
evidence was not precise in its substance in order to rely upon the
same for accepting the plea of alibi. According to D.W.1, his
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 12 of 21Page 13
daughter got married on 12.06.1979 and that the marriage party
had arrived on 12.06.1979 and left his house on 14.06.1979. As
far as the appellant in Crl.A.No.1020 of 2004 is concerned,
according to D.W.1, though he was not related to him, his
acquaintance was through his grandfather and his father and
because of the said long standing friendship, the appellant stayed
in his house at 12.30 hours on 13.06.1979 and left his house only
by 5.00 P.M. on the said date. D.W.1 was tendered for
examination on 03.03.1981 i.e., nearly 1½ years after the date of
occurrence. In the cross examination, he admitted that nearly
400 people attended the wedding and that he is not in a position
to state as to who came at what time and remained in the
premises, where the wedding was held. He would further admit
that from the village to which the appellant belonged viz.,
Ghazipur, except the appellant, nobody else were known to him.
He also claimed that the appellant gifted Rs.51/- to his daughter,
which was recorded in a sheet of paper. He is stated to have
mentioned about the said fact to many others in his village.
22. When we considered the above version of D.W.1 in the
absence of any proof of wedding taken place either by way of
production of invitation card or the proof of registration of the
marriage of his daughter with any statutory authority or any other
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 13 of 21Page 14
supporting evidence, it will be highly risky to rely upon such a
feeble evidence in order to accept the plea of alibi to discharge
the appellant from the alleged crime. It will have to be borne in
mind that the eyewitnesses to the incident specifically made a
mention about the presence of the appellant in Crl.A.No.1020 of
2004 and the overt act alleged against him in the matter of killing
of the deceased. The appellant was closely related to the first
accused and was stated to have been hand in glove in the
elimination of the deceased. Having regard to the various missing
links and lack of sufficient materials to support the version of
D.W.1, the Trial Court rightly rejected the said defence plea on
behalf of the appellant in Crl.A.No.1020 of 2004, which was also
approved by the High Court in the impugned judgment. We are
also fully convinced of the above conclusion and we are not
inclined to disturb the same.
23. Submissions were made on behalf of the appellants that there
were serious lacunae in the registration of the F.I.R. and its
dispatch and, therefore, the Courts below should not have
accepted the case of the prosecution.
24. When we perused the F.I.R. placed before us in the additional
documents, we find that while the occurrence had taken place at
3.30 p.m. on 13.06.1979, the same was reported at 1600 hours on
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 14 of 21Page 15
the same date. The police station is hardly a mile away in the
western direction of the place of occurrence. It is also noted in
the F.I.R that after registration, it was dispatched from the police
station on 14.06.1979.
25. The learned counsel appearing for the State brought to our
notice that as far as the dispatch is concerned, even as per the
column found in the F.I.R., only the date of dispatch is required to
be noted and not the time, as compared to the date and time to
be recorded as regards the reporting of the crime. Therefore, due
to non-mentioning of the time of dispatch, no fault can be found
as regards the registration of the F.I.R.
26. The trial Court has noted that while the prosecution claimed
that the occurrence took place at 3.30 P.M., the medical records
and the evidence of P.W.2 Dr.P.N.Tandon, discloses that P.W.1
was examined by him on the same day viz., 13.06.1979 at 4.30
P.M. The Doctor has noted that the injury was fresh and that it
could have occurred within six-hour duration. The Doctor also
specifically answered to a question put to him that the injury
could have happened at 3.30 p.m. on that day. In the course of
cross examination, when the Doctor was asked as to how he was
so very definite as to the freshness of the injury, the Doctor
explained by stating that the freshness of the swelling can be
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004
known by the difference in the temperature at the spot of the
swelling, as compared to the temperature in the rest of the
portion of the body. The Doctor who is an independent
witness/officer can have no inner reason to depose against the
appellants. In the said circumstances, there can be no reason to
doubt the registration of the F.I.R., as contended on behalf of the
appellants. The said contention of the appellants also, therefore,
do not merit any consideration.
27. On behalf of the appellants, it was also contended that going
by the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased and P.W.1 started from
their residence as directed by the deceased towards the place of
occurrence and that P.W.1 was not aware for what purpose the
deceased started from the house and was proceeding in that
direction. The learned senior counsel contended that if in the said
situation, the occurrence had taken place, there could have been
no scope at all to invoke Section 34, as against the accused in
Crl.A.No.1021 of 2004, against whom there was no specific overt
act. In that context, the learned senior counsel contended that
while it was specifically alleged that the first accused Harihar
Singh and the other accused opened fire towards the deceased,
there was no reference to the appellant in Crl.A.No.1021 of 2004
to state that he used the weapon to the effect that he fired at the
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 16 of 21Page 17
deceased. The learned senior counsel referred to the evidence of
P.W.1, as well as P.W.3 and pointed out that while P.W.1 has
stated that in the F.I.R., all the accused fired towards the
deceased, P.W.3 made it clear that out of the four accused, two
alone indulged in firing and that the appellant in Crl.No.1021 of
2004 viz., Sarvajit Singh did not involve himself in any such firing
activity. The learned senior counsel, therefore, contended that
when out of several persons, only one person opened firing,
common intention cannot be held to have been made out. The
learned senior counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in Md.
Rustam alias Rustam vs. The State of Bihar reported in AIR
2003 SC 562 for that purpose.
28. Having perused the evidence of P.W.3, we find that he did not
state that all the accused, including Sarvajit Singh made his
brother Lorik to run, when Ranjit Singh was holding the revolver
and the remaining three were holding country made pistols in
their hands. He further stated that out of the four persons, two
were firing viz., Ranjit Singh and Shiv Shankar Singh and on
suffering the injuries the deceased fell down that while Ranjit
Singh continued to fire and that where after the deceased died.
After the above said firing and the death of the deceased, while
Harihar Singh is stated to have proceeded towards South by foot,
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 17 of 21Page 18
the other three stated to have fled away in the motorcycle in
which the deceased and P.W.1 travelled. Accepting the said
version of P.W.3, we find that there was a specific statement
made to the effect that the deceased was made to run by all the
four accused who were holding weapons and all the four of them
were firing towards the deceased. He would further state that
while initially all the four were firing towards the deceased,
subsequently two of them viz., Ranjit Singh and Shiv Shankar
Singh, continued to fire towards the deceased and at the end,
Ranjit Singh alone fired indiscriminately in order to ensure that
the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, it is not as if
P.W.3 has merely stated that except two of the accused, the
others did not fire at the deceased. According to him, all the four
accused opened fire towards the deceased, who started to run
and after the initial firing, two of the accused continued to fire
pursuant to which the deceased fell down and finally, Ranjit Singh
ensured that the deceased lost his breath.
29. Therefore, invoking of Section 34 was fully made out and the
submissions to the contrary cannot be countenanced. The
decision relied upon by the learned senior counsel, therefore,
does not in any way support the case of the appellants.
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 18 of 21Page 19
30. One other submission made on behalf of the appellants was
that in the absence of any proof of forwarding the F.I.R. copy to
the jurisdiction Magistrate, violation of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. has
crept in and thereby, the very registration of the F.I.R. becomes
doubtful. The said submission will have to be rejected, in as much
as the F.I.R. placed before the Court discloses that the same was
reported at 4.00 p.m. on 13.06.1979 and was forwarded on the
very next day viz., 14.06.1979. Further, a perusal of the
impugned judgments of the High Court, as well as the Trial Court
discloses that no case of any prejudice was shown nor even raised
on behalf of the appellants based on alleged violation of Section
157 Cr.P.C. Time and again, this Court has held that unless
serious prejudice was demonstrated to have been suffered as
against the accused, mere delay in sending the F.I.R. to the
Magistrate by itself will not have any deteriorating effect on the
case of the prosecution. Therefore, the said submission made on
behalf of the appellants cannot be sustained. In this context, we
would like to refer to a recent decision of this Court in Sandeep
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2012) 6 SCC 107
wherein the said position has been explained as under in
paragraph Nos.62 and 63 :
“62. It was also feebly contended on behalf of the
appellants that the express report was not
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 19 of 21Page 20
forwarded to the Magistrate as stipulated under
Section 157, Cr.P.C. instantaneously. According to
learned counsel FIR which was initially registered
on 17.11.2004 was given a number on 19.11.2004
as FIR No.116 of 2004 and it was altered on
20.11.2004 and was forwarded only on 25.11.2004
to the Magistrate. As far as the said contention is
concerned, we only wish to refer to the reported
decision of this Court in Pala Singh and Another v.
State of Punjab wherein this Court has clearly held
that (SCC p.645, para 8)
where the FIR was
actually recorded without delay and the
investigation started on the basis of that FIR and
there is no other infirmity brought to the notice of
the Court then, however improper or objectionable
the delay in receipt of the report by the Magistrate
concerned be, in the absence of any prejudice to
the accused it cannot by itself justify the
conclusion that the investigation was tainted and
the prosecution insupportable. 
63. Applying the above ratio in Pala Singh to the
case on hand, while pointing out the delay in the
forwarding of the FIR to the Magistrate, no
prejudice was said to have been caused to the
appellants by virtue of the said delay. As far as
the commencement of the investigation is
concerned, our earlier detailed discussion
discloses that there was no dearth in that aspect.
In such circumstances we do not find any
infirmity in the case of the prosecution on that
score. In fact the above decision was
subsequently followed in Sarwan Singh & Ors. Vs.
State of Punjab, Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar and
Aqeel Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.”
31. Having regard to our above conclusions, we do not find any
merit in these appeals. The appeals fail and the same are
dismissed.
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004

32. The appellants are on bail. The bail bonds stand cancelled and
they shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the
remaining part of sentence, if any.
………….……….…………………………..J.
[Dr. B.S. Chauhan]
...……….…….………………………………J.
 [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim
Kalifulla]
New Delhi;
July 02, 2013.
Criminal Appeal Nos.1020 & 1021 of 2004 21 of 21

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.