BALMIKI SINGHversusRAM CHANDER SINGH AND ORS.

                         [2008) 13 S.C.R. 628


A                         BALMIKI SINGH
                                v.
                RAM CHANDER SINGH AND ORS.
              (Criminal Appeal Nos. 554-555 of 2002)
                       SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
B
     [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

         Penal Code, 1860/Arms Act, 1959 - s. 307 rlw s. 34/s.
    27 - Prosecution under - Delay in lodging FIR and in dis-
c patch of the same to Court - Non-examination of lnvestigat-
    ing Officer - Medical evidence as well as evidence of doctor
    contrary to evidence of the prime witness, on the basis of whose
    testimony conviction recorded by trial court-Acquittal by High
    Court - On appeal, held: In view of the discrepancies in the
D
    case, acquittal justified.                                         ..,      ~




       Respondents-accused were prosecuted u/s 307 r/w
  s. 34 IPC and u/s 27 of Arms Act, 1959. On the basis of
  fardbeyan of the injured informant (PW 6), FIR was lodged.
  There was delay of two days in lodging FIR. Investigating
E Officer was not examined during trial. Trial court convicted
  the accused relying on the evidence of PW 6. High court,
  in appeal, acquitted them. Hence the present appeals by
  the informant.
         Dismissing the appeals, the Court                                   ,,.._
F
       HELD: 1.1 In view of the discrepancies in the case,
  there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of ac-
  quittal. Vital facts have been noted by the High Court. The
  incident is supposed to have taken place on 11.8.1992.
G
  The first information report was lodged on 13.8.1992.
  Strangely, the doctor (PW-7) stated that on the basis of
  requisition received from the police, he had examined the
  informant on 11.8.1992at11.30 a.m. It is not explained as
  to why the first information report was recorded on
H                                 628
              BALMIKI SINGH v. RAM CHANDER SINGH                 629
                 & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

    13.8.1992. In fact, the first information report shows that A
    the fardbeyan was on 11.8.1992at1400 hrs. and the first
    information report is registered at 13.8.1992 at 11.30 a.m.
    The occurrence according to first information report took
    place at 7 .00 a.m. on 11.8.1992. Additionally, the report
    reached Court on 14.8.1992. The 10 was not examined B
    who could have explained the delay in registering the FIR
    and.dispatching the same to the Court and no reason was
    indicated as to why he was not examined. [Paras 6 to 8]
    (631-G] (631 8-E]
           1.2 Evidence of PW-6 is also contrary to the medical        c
      evidence in a sense that according to him there was one
    · shot. But there were three injuries. The High Court noted
      that there was no explanation for the third injury. Even
      doctor's evidence shows that the tw.o injuries cannot be
~     treated as an entry and exit rooms. [Para 7] [631-E-F]           D
         CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    Nos. 554-555 of 2002
         From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.8.2001 of
    the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Crl. Appeal (S.I.) Nos. E
    185 and 204 of 2000
         AK. Pandey, Sudhanshu Saran, Shefali Jain, Shalini Chandra,


,   Ranjana Narayan and Rajesh Prasad Singh for the Appellant.
         Sandhya Goswami and Gopal Singh for the Respondents.
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                       F


           DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. These appeals have been
    filed by the informant questioning the judgment passed by the
    learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court directing acquit- G
    tal of the respondents 1 & 2. Each of the accused persons was
    found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 read
~   with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC')
    and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years. Additionally, respon-
    dents were convicted for offence punishable under Section 27
                                                                    H
    630       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 13 S.C.R.


A of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'Arms Act') and sentenced to
  undergo RI for 3 years.
          2. Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:
         On 11.8.1992 at 7.00 a.m. the informant was going to see
B his transplanted paddy in the field and when he reached near
  the Ahari Payin, he saw the appellants behind palm tree armed
  with Garasa and country made rifle. The appellants began to
  abuse him, which was protested by the informant. Thereupon,
  accused Ramchandra ordered his son accused Shravan to fire
c and Sravan fired upon the informant which hit his right chest. It
  has been stated that prior to this occurrence two days earlier
  an altercation had taken place in between the informant and
  the accused persons on use of irrigational water. The informant
  after sustaining injuries sat down and thereafter he was taken
  to Magadh Medical Hospital where he was treated and his
0
  Fardbeyan was recorded by the S.I. of police. On the basis of
  Fardbeyan, F.l.R. was drawn up. After completion of investiga-
  tion charge sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and
  the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Finally the
  trial concluded with the result as indicated above.
E
         The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that they had
    been falsely implicated in this case.
        3. 8 witnesses were examined to further the prosecution
  version of whom PWs. 1, 5 and 6 were stated to be the eye
F witnesses. But ultimately it was noted that PWs. 1 and 5 were         •·-
  not eye witnesses and the prosecution version primarily rested
  on the evidence of PW-6, the injured informant. The Trial Court
  found the evidence to be cogent and accordingly sentenced
  the accused persons.
G
          4. In appeal, the High Court found that the prosecution has
    not been able to establish the accusations and directed acquit-
    tal. The informant has filed these appeals questioning acquittal.
        5. In support of the appeal learned counsel foi the appel-
H lant submitted that there was no basis to discard the evidence
              BALMIKI SINGH v. RAM CHANDER SINGH                631
                 & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

    of PW-6 and, therefore, the High Court should not have directed A
    acquittal.
         6. Though the judgment of the High Court is very sketchy,
    we find that vital facts have been noted by the High Court. The
    incident is supposed to have taken place on 11.8.1992. The
    first information report was lodged on 13.8.1992. Strangely, the 8
    doctor (PW-7) stated that on the basis of requisition received
    from the police, he had examined the informant on 11.8.1992
    at 11.30 a.m.
         7. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to explain that    c
    the fardbeyan was recorded on 11.8.1992. Even if that be so, it
    is not explained as to why the first information report was re-
    corded on 13.8.1992. In fact, the first information report shows
    that the fardbeyan was on 11.8.1992 at 1400 hrs. and the first
    information report is registered at 13.8.1992 at 1130 am. The
                                                                        0
    occurrence according to first information report took place at
    7.00 a.m. on 11.8.1992. Additionally, the report reached Court
    on 14.8.1992. The 10 was not examined who could have ex-
    plained the delay in registering the FIR and dispatching the
    same to the Court and no reason was indicated as to why he
    was not examined. Additionally, evidence of PW-6 is also con- E
    trary to the medical evidence in a sense that according to him



,
    there was one shot. But there were three injuries. The High Court
    noted that there was no explanation for the third injury. Even
    doctor's evidence shows that the two injuries cannot be treated
    as an entry and exit rooms. According to PW-6 the first infor- F
    mation report was recorded through Jamin Khan at the medi-
    cal college. If that be so, there was no reason as to why the first
    information came to be lodged after two days.
         8. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies highlighted by 'G
    the High Court, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment
    of acquittal recorded.
         9. The appeals are dismissed.
    K.K.T.                                     Appeals dismissed.      H