HARI SINGHversusSTATE OF M. P.

                        [2010) 9 S.C.R. 610


A                           HARi SINGH
                                  v.
                          STATE OF M. P.
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 2007)
                          AUGUST 3, 2010
B
         [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.)

        Penal Code, 1860:

c      s.302 - Murder - Conviction of accused by trial court -
  Affirmed by High Court - HELD: Two courts below have
  accepted the presence of two eye-witnesses - There is no
  reason to differ with the findings recorded - It is also true that
  in case of evidence recorded after a long period of time, some
D discrepancies are bound to occur - It is significant that the
  evidence was recorded after 8-9 years of the incident - The
  eye witness account is fully corroborated by the medical
  evidence which fully corresponds with the injuries on dead .
  body - The very promptitude with which the FIR was
E registered supports the veracity of prosecution story - Appeal
  of accused dismissed - Evidence - Recording of evidence
  after lapse of long time - Effect of- FIR - Promptitude in FIR
  - Effect of.

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
F   No. 898 of 2007.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 17 .05.2004 of the High
    Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh bench at Gwalior in
    Criminal Appeal No. 269 of 1997.
G       Dr. Sushi! Balwada, Sattri Pillania, Arun K. Singh for the
    Appellant.

        Siddharth Dave, Vibha Datta Makhija, Jemtiben Ao for the
    Respondent.
H                              610
            HARi SINGH v. STATE OF M. P.                   611


     The following order of the Court was delivered                A

                            ORDER

     1. This appeal by way of special leave is directed against
the concurrent findings of the Additional Sessions Judge and
the High Court whereby the appellant stands convicted for an       B
offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500 and
in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of two months.
                                                                   c
     2. The prosecution story is as follows:

      2.1 The father of P.W. 1 Ramesh Chander, the first
informant, and the deceased Ashok Kumar, was murdered
several years earlier by the gang of Makhan Singh Daku and
the suspicion was that it had been done at the instance of the     D
family members of Hari Singh Thakur, the appellant herein. At
about 11 :OOa.m. On 22/05/1989, P.W. 1 - Ramesh Chander
ahd Ashok Kumar went to the village well to draw water and
were carrying a rope and a bucket with them for that purpose.
At that very moment, the appellant Hari Singh also reached the     E
well carrying his licensed muzzle loading shot gun (Topidar shot
gun) and after hurling abuses at Ashok and saying that as he
had often insulted him he would have his revenge, fired a shot
hitting him in the chest. Ramesh Chander ran to save his
brother but the appellant threatened him with dire                 F
consequences on which he ran away. The incident was seen
by several other persons including Kalawati, the mother of
Ramesh Chander and the deceased from the house of Captain
Patel and in !addition several other persons as well. Ramesh
Chander, however, made his way to police post Kanhar about         G
7 kms. distant and the formal FIR was registered at Police
Station, Pahargarh at about 1:30p.m. The police thereafter
reached the site of incident and the necessary investigations
were made. The dead body was also sent for the post mortem
examination. The accused was taken into custody on 16th June,      H
    612      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A   1989 and his licensed muzzle loading shot gun, the alleged
    murder weapon, was also seized. During the course of the
    investigation, it also transpired that in addition to the above
    named witnesses Bharat, P.W. 2 son of Ramesh Chander had
    also witnessed the incident from the house of Captain Patel.
B   On the completion of the investigation, the appellant was
    charged and brought to trial as already mentioned above. The
    trial court observed that there was absolutely no reason to doubt
    the presence of Ramesh Chander, P.W. as his presence was
    natural in the light of the fact that the incident had happened in
c   broad day light when the two brothers had gone to the village
    well to draw water. The argument that Bharat P.W. 2 had not
    been named in the FIR creating a doubt as to his presence was
    also repelled by observing that Ramesh Chander had
    apparently not seen him, as the house of Captain Patel was
D   some distance away. The Court also observed that though in
    the FIR it had been mentioned that the injury had been inflicted
    on the right side of the chest but the post mortem report showed
    the injury on the left side, was not a material circumstance as
    it was impossible for any witness to make out as to where a
    bullet had hit after it had been fired.
E
        3. The trial court, accordingly, convicted the appellant. The
    judgment aforesaid stands maintained by the High Court as well.

         4. Dr. Sushil Balwada, the learned counsel for the
F   appellant has raised several arguments before us today. He has
    pointed out that the uncertainty with regard to the site of the
    injury cast a doubt on the presence of Ramesh Chander, P.W.
    He has also submitted that P.W. 2 was the son of P.W. 1 and
    as his name did not figure in the FIR his presence had not been
G   explained. In addition, it has been urged that as several other
    persons though cited as witnesses had not been examined, the
    very substratum of the prosecution story was in doubt.

         5. Mr. Siddharth Dave, the learned counsel for the State
    of Madhya Pradesh has, however, supported the judgments of
H   the courts below. He has pointed out that in case of a single
             HARi SINGH v. STATE OF M. P.                    613

 accused false implication was to be ruled out more particularly A
 because of the admitted animosity between the parties going
 back several years. He has also submitted that even assuming
 that there was some uncertainty with regard to site of the injury
 in the ocular evidence, the same had been removed by the
 medical evidence as the post mortem examination indicatea B
 the dispersal of pellets right across the chest both to the right
 and left side, as both lungs had been damaged.

      6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
. perused the record.
                                                                   c
       7. Two courts have accepted the presence of the two eye
 witnesses. We see no reason to differ with the findings
 recorded. It is also true that in the case of evidence recorded
 after a long period of time some discrepancies are bound to
 occur. It is significant that the present incident happened in May, D
 1989 and the Additional Sessions Judge recorded the
 conviction in July, 1997 meaning thereby that the evidence had ·
 gone on for eight or nine years. We also find that the eye
 witness account is fully corroborated by the medical evidence.
 It is the case of the prosecution that the shot had been fired E
 from about 2 metres. The post mortem report indicates that this
 is the correct position. We see that there are several wounds
 of entry spread across the chest and left upper arm with
 blackening and burning around some of them. The dispersal
 of pellets and the uneven blackening and burning over the bullet F
 holes suggests that a primitive weapon, (a "topidar" shot gun,
 a muzzle loading weapon, which is often a primitive weapon,
 and when used with gun powder and shot of uncertain quality
 and quantity, is likely to give uneven and uncertain pellet
 patterns) could have been used. The doctor also opined that G
 the shot had been fired from about 2 metres from a shot gun.
 This fully corresponds with the injuries on the dead body. We
 also observe that the very promptitude with which the FIR had
 been registered at the police station supports the veracity of
 the prosecution story. The place of incident was 7 kms. away H
    614        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A   from police station, Kanhar. The FIR had been lodged within 2
    Yi hours after the incident by the brother of the deceased, and
    as a close relative of the family had been murdered an hour or
    so would have been taken at the place of incident before
    Ramesh Chander had left for the police station. We, therefore,
s   find that the promptitude of the FIR supports the prosecution
    story.

           8. We find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed.
    R.P.                                        Appeal dismissed.