Holding

A defective investigation or alleged irregularities in the FIR do not, by themselves, defeat the prosecution case where witness testimony, ballistic expert analysis, and post‑mortem evidence collectively establish the guilt of the accused, and thus the conviction under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC is upheld.

Summary

Budhsingh was convicted for murder under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the IPC. He appealed to the Supreme Court alleging that the FIR was not ante‑timed, that the investigation was defective, that the ballistic evidence was unreliable, and that the post‑mortem timing and lack of blackening of the wound cast doubt on the prosecution case. The Court examined the FIR, finding it recorded promptly and containing all material particulars, and held that minor discrepancies in the date of occurrence did not affect the case. It accepted the ballistic expert’s identification of the appellant’s gun and the post‑mortem report indicating death within 36 hours, noting that exact time of death cannot be precisely fixed. The Court also ruled that a defective investigation alone cannot lead to acquittal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

Issues considered

The FIR was ante‑timed and whether any delay affected its evidentiary value
Whether alleged defects in the investigation warranted acquittal
Reliability of ballistic evidence linking the accused’s gun to the crime
Interpretation of the post‑mortem report and the time of death in relation to the alleged date of occurrence
Significance of the absence of blackening of the wound regarding the distance of firing
Impact of improvements made by the complainant on the prosecution case

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307, s. 34

Subjects

murderFIRante‑timed FIRballistic evidencepost‑mortemtime of deathcriminal investigationconviction upheldSection 302 IPCSection 34 IPC

Judgment

- BUDHSINGH
v.
A
STATE OF M.P.

MAY 18, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B

>
Penal Code, 1860-Murder-Conviction-Upheld by High Court-
Interference with-Held: Evidence of prosecution witnesses reliable and the
prosecution case stands proved-FIR was lodged at quickest possible time C
and not anti timed-Essential material facts disclosed in FIR-Also date of
occurrence as stated in FIR correct-Improvements by complainant not of
much significance-Also report of ballistic expert established participation
of accused-Thus, order of courts below calls for no interference-Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 154-Criminal Trial.
D
According to the prosecution case, appellant and the other two accused
armed with guns surrounded D. At exhortation of K, appellant fired a shot at
D. G-Brother ofD and M shouted and accused A and GL fired on them and
they lay down on the ground. Villagers came to the spot. G lodged an FIR.
Dead body of the deceased was brought to the police station. Head constable
made inquest of the dead body and sent it for post mortem. Doctor gave the E
report. Bullet found in the body of the deceased was sealed and handed over to
the constable. Accused were arrested and guns were recovered at their
instance. Ballistic expert gave his report. Witnesses were examined. Trial
Court convicted the appellant. High Court upheld the conviction. Hence the
present appeal F
Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. A defective investigation by itself cannot be a ground for
acquittal. Witnesses examined on behalf of the 'prosecution have been believed
both by the Trial Judge as also by the High Court. There is no reason to differ G
from the order of conviction of the appellant. [Para 26) [395-C, D]

2.1. The prosecution case stands proved from the evidence of first
informant and M. It appears that a confusion in regard to date of occurrence
arose and only a Xeroxed copy of the FIR was produced before this Court.
385 II

......
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A Res~ndent however produced another Xeroxed copy of FIR, from a perusal
whereof it appears that the date of occurrence is also written in Hindi to be
31st July. (Para 11) (391-C, D)

2.2. The question as to whether FIR is an ante timed one or not must be
considered having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Having
B perused the FIR, although the same was transcribed by head constable from
the ocal statement made by the co_mplainant, it contained all the material
particulars. The very fact that it was recorded almost immediately after taking
place of the occurrence, the question of its being an ante timed one would not
arise. (Para 23) (394-F, G)
c Meharaja Singh (UNk.) v. State of UP., (1994) 5 SCC 188, relied on.

2.3. The purported improvement made by the complainant is not ofmuch
significance. FIR was lodged at the quickest possible time and was recorded
by the Head Constable. FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of the entire
D event. It cannot contain the minutest details of the events. The essential
material facts were disclosed in the FIR.
[Paras 20 and 21) (394-At BJ
'·
2.4. The dead body was sent for post mortem immediately to the hospital
Doctor noted in his post mortem report, the time when the dead body had been
E received at the mortuary. Duration of time between the actual death and the
post mortem examination has been stated to be within 36 hours. Had the
occurrence taken place on 30th July, it would have been stated by the doctor
to be more than 36 hours. [Para 11) (391-E, F; 392-A)

Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (2007) SC 132; Ramreddy
F Rajeshkhanna Reddy and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR (2006) SC
1656; Ramjee Rai and Ors. v. State ofBihar, (2006) 8 SCALE 440 and Baso
Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2006) 12 SCALE 354, referred to.

2.5. P.W. 11-police personnel incharge of chouki recorded the
statements of prosecution witnesses on the same day. He carried out the
G investigation. The manner in which the occurrence had taken place is clearly
corroborated by the medical evidence. [Para 12] (391-F, G)

2.6. Blackenning of the wound can be found only when the shot is fired
from a short distance namely at about 3 to 4 feet and not beyond the same.
H Absence of any blackening of the wound has rightly been not found in the
BUDH SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. [S.8. SINHA, J.) 387
post mortem examination. (Para 19) (393-G; 394-AJ A
2.7. Investigation was taken over by police personnel and thereafter the
accused were arrested. Seizure of the gun belonging to the appellant is proved
by two police perso. tel Indisputably the gun as also the empty cartridge found
at the spot was sent .o the Forensic Science Laboratory. Qualification of the
ballistic expert has not been doubted. Although there appears to be some B
confusion with regard to the marking of the parcel containing the empty '
cartridge, evidently the same had correctly been marked by ballistic expert.
He found it in a sealed condition. Only because the head constable in his
evidence did not state that the recovered empty cartridge was sealed at the
spot, the same w9uld not mean that it was planted later on, particularly when
recovery of the gun and the report of the expert has not be disputed.
c
(Para 22) (394-C, D, E]

Chandu v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 9 SCC 408 and Gorle S. Naidu
v. State ofA.P. and Ors., AIR (2004) SC 1169, distinguished.
D ,,;
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 769 of
-4 2007.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2005 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Criminal Appeal No. l 05 of 1992.
E
T.N. Singh, Sr. Adv., S.K. Bansal, Savitri Bansal and Kailash Chand for
the Appellant.

Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant was accused No. l before the trial Court. He alongwith
three others namely Guiab Singh, Ashok Yadav and Kalyan Singh were tried
for commission of offences under Section 302/34 and 307/34 oflndian Penal
G
Code. The occurrence took place at Village Jonhar at about 4'o clock in the
evening of3 l.7.1989 near a well belonging to one Dangal Singh Yadav. The
first informant was the brother of the deceased Durgsingh.
>--,;
3. In the First Information Report, it was alleged that the deceased went
to take bath. First Informant was also going there to take his bath. When he H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A was at a little distance from the said well, he found him taking bath. Appellant
came with a 12 bore double barrelled gun. Kalyan Singh and Ashok Yadav
were also anned with guns. Kalyan Singh, Ashok Yadav and Guiab Singh
surrounded the well. At the exhortation of Kalyan Singh, appellant fired a
shot from his 12 bore double barrel gun on the deceased. Munnalal Yadav
B had ·also come therewith his cattle. Complainant Gyansingh and Munnalal
shouted whereupon Ashok and Guiab fired on them. They, however, Jay down
on the ground. Other villagers came to the spot immediately thereafter. The
dead body of Durgsingh was brought to Baroni Police Station at about 5.45
in the evening. P. W. 8, Virendra Singh was the head constable attached to the
said Police Station. The Station House Officer was absent. On the oral report
C made by the first infonnant Gyansingh, he recorded the First Information
Report. P.W. 11, Pramal Singh was in charge ofSonagir Chouki. He had come
to the police station for some administrative works. As the S.H.O. had gone
out of the police station and the head constable was in-charge thereof, the
First Information Report was given to him. At his instance, P.W. 8 made an
inquest of the dead body. It was sent for post-mortem. The dead body was
D received at the hospital by Dr. A.K. Sharma at about 7.55 P·!!!, on the same
day. Post mortem examination, however, was carried out at I 0.30 on the next
day. The said Dr. A.K. Shanna examined himself as P.W.16.

4. In his post-mortem report, it was opined that the death of Durg Singh .:
E occurred due to a gun shot, hemorrha9e and rupture of both the lungs.
Duration of death was said to be within 36 hours. A bullet which was marked
as Art C was found in the body of the deceased. It was sealed and handed
over to the constable concerned.

5. The bullet was found to have ruptured the lung and thereafter hit the
F ribs, as a result whereof, ribs had broken down. It had ruptured the other lung
also,

6. The accused having been arrested, the guns, in question, at their
instance, were recovered. The bullets as also the guns were sent to a ballistic
expert. The bullet, in question, was found to have fired from the glin belonging
G to the appellant. Before the learned trial Judge, Gyansingh examined himself
as P.W. I. Munnalal also deposed as P.W. 2 before the learned Trial Judge.
The accused were also seen running away from the spot by Sughar Singh,
P.W.5.

7. The learned Trial Judge convicted the appellant but acquitted the
H others. Against such judgment and order of acquittal, the State, however
BUDHSINGHv. STATEOFM.P. [S.B. SINHA,J.] 389

preferred an appeal before the High Court only against the judgment of A
acquittal acquitting Kalyan Singh. No appeal was filed against judgment of
acquittal passed in favour of Babula! and Dashrath Singh.

8. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment not only upheld
the judgment of conviction passed against the appellant by the learned Trial
Judge but also set aside the judgment of acquittal of the learned Sessions B
Judge in favour of the said Kalyan Singh. This Court, however, found the
approach of the High Court in reversing the judgment of acquittal passed
against Kalyan Singh not in accordance with law. His Special Leave Petition
has been allowed by this Court by an Order dated 2 t. t t .2006.

9. Mr. T.N. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the C
appellant would submit:

(i) The First Information Report is an ante timed one. From a perusal
thereof, it would appear that occurrence had taken place on 30th
July, 1989, but in the post mortem report, the time of death found
to have been occurred within 36 hours therefrom and, thus, the D
,,., ... occurrence must be held to have taken place on 30.7.1989 itself.
The empty cartridge which was recovered was not sealed at the
spot. It was marked with the words "KF". The same was not of
Indian origin but it bore the mark "RF" manufactured at Elekaina
Company which was a British Company. E
(it) Although, Appellant was not declared as an absconder, he was
arrested on 20.8.1989 and the gun was seized only on 30.8.1989.
(fu) P.W. I has made improvements in his deposition before the Court
as the details of the occurrences had not been disclosed in the
First Information Report. F
JO>
~

(iv) In the post mortem report, no blackening or tattoing having been
found, it was likely that the manner in which the occurrence is
said to have taken place, would be incorrect.

(v) The learned Trial Judge had acquitted Kalyan Singh and two G
others, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained as the
appellant is similarly situated.

10. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State on the other hand would submit :
H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A (i) the occurrence took place on 31st July and not on 30th July, as
would appear from the First Information Report itself.

(ii) The duration of occurrence, having been found in the post mortem
report, to have occurred 'within 36 hours', it cannot be said that the
occurrence could not have taken place on 31st July.
B
(iii) The Ballistic Expert Dr. J.P. Nigam, Assistant Director of Forensic
Science Laboratory in his. report having categorically stated that the
shot was fired from the gun in question, the participation of the _..

appellant in commiting the crime has clearly been established.

c In its report, the ballistic expert opined:-

"Ex. EC-I. It is an empty Kartoosh of 12 Bore already fired. For filing
pin impression it was compared with TC's RB(A-1) and TC'sLB (A-
I). Similarity was found between Ex. A-I and TCLB(A-1)
ph,otoinicrography of one condition of its similarity was taken and
D equal points were marked. Ex. P-1 This is a piece of iron whose weight
is 4.550 gm. Its length is 0.5'' and width is 0.3" on one edge and on
other edge is 0.45" "'·
It was opined:-

E "Ex. A-I is a gun of 12 bores of two barrel and Ex. A-2 is a gun of
two barrels. Both these are in running condition. After chemical
examination of the rest portions of barrel it has been confirmed that
these were fired earlier, but it is not possible to say the last firing date
of this on the basis of scientific certainty. Ex. EC I is an empty Kartoosh
of 12 bores already fired. For firing pin impression it was compared
F with TCS (A-I) by microscope similarity was found between ECI and ,,...
TCLB (A-I). Therefore Kartoosh of Ex. ECI has been fired from left >o..

barrel of Ex. A-I."

(iv) In the receipt marked as Ext. A-I, the empty cartridge was marked
G as Articles Ext. EC- I in a sealed and packed condition and thus there cannot
be any doubt whatsoever that the cartridge, in question, was the one which
was recovered from the place of occurrence. In his evidence also, the said Dr.
J.P. Nigam stated:-
\ .....
"Exhibit EC- I: This is an empty cartridge fired from 12 bore and for
its firing pin impression, its comparison by microscope TC A- I, the
H
BUDHSINGHv. STATEOFM.P. [S.B. SINHA,J.] 391
similarity of EC-I and TCLB (A-1) was found. Therefore, Ex EC-1 A
cartridge Ex A-l has been fired from left barrel.",

which also show the involvement of the appellant.

(v) Although there appeared to be some confusion with the gun bearing
mark KF or RF but the same was clarified by P.W. 11 in his evidence stating B
that he identified the cartridge in question. In regard to the wrong marking,
he had stated;

"On spot there was no piece of Karatoosh but there was a Khokha
of Karatoosh there. It is not written as R-F and K-F on Article B
Karatoosh but I understood it as K-F and accordingly, I had written C
on Ex. P-5 panchnama as K.F. l has seen point 3 in sketch from the
place A,B."

I I. The prosecution case in our opinion stands proved from the evidence
of first infonnant 'Gyansingh' and PW. 2 'Munnalal'. It appears that a confusion
in regard to date of occurrence as contended by Mr. Singh arose and only D
a Xeroxed copy of the F.I.R. was produced before us. Ms. Makhija, however,
has produced before us another Xeroxed copy of the first information report,
from a perusal whereof it appears that the date of occurrence has therein also
written in Hindi to be 31st July. Even otherwise, the 1.,riginal First Information
Report categorically shows that the dead body was brought in a tractor E
directly to the police station on 30.07.1989. P.W. 8 and P.W. II also are
witnesses to prove that the F.I.R. was recorded on 30.07.1982. Those witnesses
were not cross-examined on the question as to whether the occurrence had
taken place on 31st July or 30th July. We have noticed hereinbefore that the
dead body was sent for post mortem immediately to the hospital. Dr. A.K.
Sharma noted in his post mortem report, the time when the dead body had F
been received at mortuary. P.W. I I recorded the statements of Ram Prasad,
Jagdish Singh, Sughar Singh, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 respectively on the same
day. He visited the spot on that day itself, but could not carry out the further
investigation due to darkness. He visited the place of occurrence on the next
day and drew the sketch map, found clots of blood and recovered pieces of
plastic and a 12 bore 'kartoosh'. He seized blood stained water in a bottle. G
12. As noticed hereinbefore, in the Court, he identified the cartridge in
question. Identity of the blank cartridge recovered from the spot is not in
question. The manner in which the occurrence had taken place is clearly
corroborated by the medical evidence, the correctness whereof again is not H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A in question.
13. Duration of time between the actual death and the post mortem
examination has been stated to be within 36 hours. Had the occurrence taken
place on 30th July, it would have been stated by Dr. Sharma to be more than
36 hours.
B
14. It is now well settled that the lapse of time of taking place of death
cannot be accurately stated.

15. In Amrit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (2007) SC 132], it was held:-

c " .. Exact time as to when the occurrence took place is not known and
it would be hazardous to make any guess in this beh~lf....."

16. In Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy and Anr. v State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR (2006) SC 1656, this Court opined:-

D "20. In this case, the time of actual offence having regard to the
different statements made by different witnesses may assume some
importance as one of the grounds whereupon the High Court has
based its judgment of conviction is the time of death of the deceased
on the basis of the opinion rendered by Dr. P. Venkateshvarlu (P.W.13).
In Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, 22nd edition, as regard duration of
E rigor mortis, it is stated:
Average Minimum Maximum
Hours Minutes Hours Minutes Hours Minutes
Duration 19 12 3 0 40 0
of rigor
F mortis
It was, therefore, extremely difficult to report the exact tinie of death
of the deceased, more so when no sufficient reason was assigned in
the post- mortem report."

G 17. In Ramjee Rai and Ors. v. State ofBihar, (2006) 8 SCALE 440, this
Court held:-

"A contention was raised that autopsy surgeon opined that the death
must have taken place I 0 days prior to the post mortem examination
and in that view of the matter the prosecution case should be
disbelieved. The murder allegedly took place on a boat. The dead
H
BUDHSINGHv. STATEOFM.P. [S.B. SINHA,J.) 393
body was thrown in the water. It remained under water for more than A
five days. Rigor mortis was absent and the body was fully decomposed.
The soft tissues of some of the parts of the body had been eaten
away by fish. Medical science has not achieved such perfection so
as to enable a medical practitioner to categorically state in regard to
the exact time of death. In a case of this nature, it was difficult to B
pinpoint the exact time of death. The autopsy surgeon told about the
approximate time lag between the date of post mortem examination and
the likely date of death. He did not explain the basis for arriving at
his opinion. This Court on a number of occasions noticed that it may
not be possible for a doctor to pinpoint the exact time of death."

18. In Baso Prasad and Ors. v. State ofBihar, (2006) 12 SCALE 354, this
c
Court observed:-

"We may deal with the question as regards presence of rigour mortis.

In 'Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology',21st D
Edn., at page 171, it is stated:

Rigor mortis generally occurs, while the body is cooling. It is in no •
way connected with the nervous system, and it develops even in
paralyzed limbs, provided the paralyzed muscle tissues have not
suffered much in nutrition. It is retarded by perfusion with normal E
saline.

Owing to the setting in of rigor mortis all the muscles of the body
become stiff, hard, opaque and contracted, but they do not alter the
position of body or limb. A joint rendered stiff and rigid after death,
ifflexed forcibly by mechanical violence, will remain supple and flaccid,
but will not return to its original position after the force is withdrawn; F
whereas a joint contracted during life in cases of hysteria or catalepsy
will return to the same condition after the force is taken away.

*** ••• ••• •••
The exact time of death, therefore, cannot be established scientifically G
and precisely, only because of presence of rigour mortis or in the
absence of it."

19. Blackenning of the wound can be found only when the shot is fired
from a short distance namely at about 3 to 4 feet and not beyond the same.
Absence of any blackening of the wound has rightly been not found in the H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A post mortem examination.
20. The purported improvement made by P.W. I is not of much
significance. First Information Report, as noticed hereinbefore, was lodged at
the quickest possible time. A First Information Report is not supposed to be
an encyclopedia of the entire event. It cannot contain the minutest details of
B the events.

2 I. The essential material facts were disclosed in the First Information
Report. Even presence of P.W. 2, Munnalal had also been stated. Statements
of the other witnesses namely P.W. 3, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 had also been
C recorded by the investigating officer on 3 I st July itself. It is, therefore,
'r
difficult to accept the contentions of the learned co~nsel.

22. The First Information Report was recorded by the Head Constable.
Investigation w'as taken over from P.W. I I by P.W. I2, R.S. Raghuvanshi and
thereafter only the accused were arrested. Seizure of the gun belonging to the
D appellant is proved not only by P.W. 12 but also by Murat Singh P.W. 9. We
may notice that even Kalyan Singh had surrendered in the Police Station on
20.8. I 989. Indisputably the gun as also the empty cartridge found at the spot
was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Qualification of Shri J.P. Nigam
as a ballistic expert has not been doubted. Although, there appears to be
some confusion with regard to the marking of the parcel containing the empty
E cartridge, evidently the same had correctly been marked by Shri Nigam. He
found it in a sealed condition. Only because P.W. 8 in his evidence did not
state that the recovered empty cartridge was sealed at the spot, the same
would not mean that it was planted later on, particufarly when recovery of the
gun and the report of the expert has not been disputed.
F 23. The question as to whether the First Information Report is an ante
timed one or not must be considered having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case as has been opined by this Court in Meharaj Singh
(UNk) v. State ofU.P., [I994] 5 SCC I88, whereupon Mr. Singh placed strong
reliance. Having perused the first information report, we are of the opinion
G that although the same was transcribed by P.W. 8 from the oral statement
made by P.W. I, it contained all the material particulars. The very fact that it
was recorded almost immediately after taking place of the occurrence, the
question of its being an ante timed one would not arise.

24. In Chandu v. State of Maharashtra, [2002] 9 SCC 408, whereupon
H again reliance has been placed by Mr. Singh, the High Court therein found
BUDHSINGH v. STATEOFM.P. (S.B. SINHA,J.]
,<'
395
the story of recovery of weapon of the offences as not believable. Even there A
was a serious discrepancy in regard to the alleged weapon of offence used,
as according to the eye witnesses, a spear-blow had been given on the chest
after the deceased struck against a cycle, whereas the medical evidence
showed that the weapon must have entered the body from 'upward to
downward laterally to right side', only on that basis the prosecution story B
was not believed. Such is not the case here.

25. Reliance has also been placed on Gorle S. Naidu v. State ofA.P. and
Ors., [A.LR. 2004 SC 1169], wherein not only the eye witnesses who were said
to have received injuries did not get themselves medically examined, the
accused persons were also not specifically named during investigation. The C
said decisions, therefore, are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

26. A defective investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have been believed both
by the learned Trial Judge as also by the High Court. So far as the appellant
is concerned, we do not find any reason to differ therefrom. D
27. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal
which is dismissed accordingly.

NJ. Appeal dismissed.