Supreme Court of India
MOTILAL AND ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 676
- Decided
- 5 May 2009
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was set aside because the prosecution failed to explain the unexplained discrepancies in FIR timing and the undue delay in forwarding the report, thereby failing to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Summary
The case concerned the murder of Gyan Chand on 11 November 1993, for which eight persons were tried and several were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants challenged their convictions on the grounds that the First Information Report (FIR) was ante‑dated, showing a discrepancy with the inquest report that recorded the inquest as having begun before the FIR was lodged, and that there was an unexplained delay in forwarding the FIR report to the Elaqa Magistrate. The Supreme Court examined whether such timing discrepancies and the delay, without satisfactory explanation, violated the statutory requirement of Section 157 of the CrPC and undermined the prosecution's case. It held that the prosecution had failed to provide any plausible evidence to explain the inconsistencies, and the cumulative effect of these lapses meant the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 was set aside and the bail bonds were discharged. Related appeals were disposed of in accordance with this judgment.
Issues considered
- Whether the discrepancy between the time of lodging of the FIR and the commencement of the inquest creates a fatal defect in the prosecution's case.
- Whether the unexplained delay in sending the FIR report to the Elaqa Magistrate, contrary to Section 157 CrPC, warrants setting aside the conviction.
- Whether the prosecution's failure to explain these irregularities defeats the burden of proof required for a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 157
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 324, s. 34, s. 341
Subjects
murderFIR discrepancyinquest timingdelay in reportSection 157 CrPCconviction set asidecriminal procedureevidentiary standards
Judgment
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 303
MOTILAL AND ANR. A
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2003)
MAY 05, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
);
·1
..... Penal Code, 1860- s.302 rlw s.34- Murder- Conviction
of accused-appellants - Propriety of - Held: On facts, not C
proper- There was discrepancy in time of lodging of FIR and
conduct of the inquest - Also there was considerable delay
in sending the report to llaqa Magistrate - No explanation was
given in regard to the discrepancies - Prosecution failed to
establish the accusations - Conviction accordingly set aside D
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.157.
In a case involving murder of a person, the appellants
in Crl. A.No. 117 of 2003 were convicted by the Courts
below uls.302 rlw s.34 IPC.
E
In appeals to this Court, the appellants in Crl. A.t10.
117 of 2003 challenged their conviction inter alia o·n
.+ ground of discrepancy in the time of lodging of the FIR
' and conduct of the inquest and on ground of
considerable delay in sending of the report to the llaqa F
Magistrate.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court ·
HELD: 1. If the FIR is timely lodged and investigation
·is undertaken immediately, in a given case, tbe delayed G
-+ receipt of the report by the Elaqa Magistrate would not be
fatal to the prosecution. However it would depend upon
the facts of each case. There cannot be any
generalization. There is a purpose behind the enactment
303 H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 8 S.C.R.
A of Section 157 CrPC. The statutory requirement that the
report has to be sent forthwith itself shows the urgency
attached to the sending of the report. In a given case, it
is open to the prosecution to indicate reasons for the
delayed dispatch or delayed receipt. This has to be
B established by evidence. Apart from that, the unexplained
discrepancy in the timings as recorded in the inquest
report and the FIR has to be kept in view. [Para 6) [307-
A-C]
2. It is prosecution version that the FIR was lodged
C at 10.50 a.m. If it was so, it was required to be explained
by investigating officer by plausible evidence on record,
as to how the inquest was undertaken at 10.30 a.m. at a
point of time when the FIR was not in existence. The High
Court lightly brushed aside the plea of the appellants that
D it may be the lapse on the part of the investigating officer.
It is true that a faulty investigation cannot be a
determinative factor and would not be sufficient to throw
out a credible prosecution version. But in the instant case
there is no explanation offered even to explain the
E discrepancies. Cumulative effect of the factors
highlighted above would show that the p~osecution has
miserably failed to establish the accusations. [Para 6]
[307-C-E]
F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 117 of 2003.
From the Judgment & Order dated 02.4.2002 of the High
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur, Bench in D.B. Crl.
No. 429. of 96.
G
WITH
Crl. Appeal Nos. 118 of 2003, 119 of 2003, 120 of 2003.
Dinesh Kumar Garg, V.K. Biju, Vikrant Yadav, Sibu S.
H Mishra, M.C. Dhingra and Praveen Swarup for the Appellant.
MOTILAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 305
......
Manish Singhvi, AAG, Milind Kumar, Dinesh Kumar Garg A
and K. Sarada Devi for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was dc:ivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High 8
Court, Jaipur Bench holding the appellant guilty of offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian
.,>.
Penal Code, 1860 ( in short 'IPC'). Eight persons faced trial
for allegedly committing murder of one Gyan Chand (hereinafter
referred to as the 'deceased') on 11.11.1993 which happened c
to be on the election day for the one Assembly election
constituency. One of the accused persons was acquitted by the
trial court and seven persons were convicted in terms of
Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). They were also convicted D
of some minor offences. During the pendency of the appeal
before the High Court, one of the accused-appellants died. By
the impugned judgment three of the appellants before the High
Court were acquitted. Two persons were convicted in terms of
Section 302 read with Section 34 while in case of one accused, E
the conviction was altered to Sections 324 and 341 IPC. He
was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period of
custody already undergone.
i'..
2. The prosecution version primarily rested on the evidence
of three eye-witnesses. One of them was the mother of the F
deceased and the other two were the injured witness. The
accused persons pleaded innocence. According to them the
deceased and two purported eye witnesses were causing
disturbance on the polling day and therefore the members of
the public were agitated and in the process they may have been G
~
beaten; but because of political rivalry the accused persons
were falsely implicated. The trial court placed reliance on the
three eye-witnesses and recorded conviction and imposed·
sentence as aforesaid. In appeal,, the stand basically taken was
that there was ante dating of the first information report. The H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 8 S.C.R.
A report was purportedly lodged on 11.11.1993 at about 10.50
a.m. The Elaqa Magistrate received it on 16.11.1993. The
delay has not been explained. Apart from that the place of
incident has been shifted. It was also pointed out that the ante
dating of the FIR it is evident from the fact that the admitted
B case of the prosecution is that the FIR was lodged on
11.11.1993 at 10.50 a.m., but strangely, the inquest report
shows that the inquest was started at 10.30 a.m. The stand of ..
the State before the High Court was that merely because there '
was delay in despatch of the FIR to the Elaqa Magistrate that
cannot throw any doubt on the credibility of the prosecution
c version. There were two injured witnesses even if there was a
discrepancy between the time indicated in the FIR and the
inquest, that was a lapse on the part of the Investigating officer
and it cannot be a factor in favour of the accused persons.
....
D 3. The High Court accepted the stand of the State and
record the conviction as afore noted.
4. !:.earned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
prosecution version is so brittle that no credence can be put
E on it. There was not one but several factors which show that
the prosecution had not come out with clean hands. The High
Court should not have brushed aside the discrepancy in time
of the lodging of the FIR and the conduct of the inquest report.
The fact that there was considerable delay in sending the report
• •
_,
to the Elaqa Magistrate and the absence of blood on alleged
F
spot of incide11t have great relevance. According to the
prosecution version, the deceased suffered 19 injuries but the
blood stains which were supposedly collected from the spot of
occurrence were so small that same could not be sent for a
foresenic examination.
G
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
hand supported the judgment. It is his stand that even if there
was a deficiency in the investigation that cannot be a factor ir.
favour of the accused.
H
MOTILAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 307
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
6. It is true as observed by the High Court that if the FIR is A
timely lodged and investigation is undertaken immediately, in
a given case, the delayed receipt of the report by the Elaqa
Magistrate would not be fatal to the prosecution. It would
depend upon the facts of each case. There cannot be any
generlisation. There is a purpose behind the enactment of 8
Section 157 of the Code of Criminc;il Procedure, 1973 ( in short
the 'Code'). The statutory requirement that the report has to be
sent forthwith that itself shows that the urg~mcy attached to the
sending of the report. In a given case it is open to the
prosecution to indicate reasons for the delayed despatch or C
delayed receipt. This.has to be established by evidence. Apart
from that, the unexplained discrepancy ih the timings as
recorded in the inquest report and the FIR has to be kept in
view. It is prosecution version that the FIR was lodged at 10.50
a.m. If was so it was required to be explained by investigating
0
officer by plausible evidence on record, as to how the inquest
was undertaken at 10.30 a.m. at a point of time when the FIR
was not not in existence. The High Court has lightly brushed
aside the plea of the appellants that it m·ay be the lapse on the
part of the investigating officer. It is true that a faulty
investigation cannot be a determinative factor and would not E
be sufficient to throw out a credible prosecution version. But in
the instant case there is no explanation offered even to explain
the discrepancies cummulative effect of the factors highlighted
above would show that the prosecution has miserably failed to
establish the accusations. The appeal succeeds. The bail F
bonds executed to give effect to the order of bail dated
12.7.2004 shall stand discharged.
The following Orders of the court was delivered:
Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2003. G
NANO KISHORE @ NANDA APPELLANT(S)
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN RESPONDENT(S)
H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
A In view of judgment passed in Crl. Appeal No. 117/2003
this appeal deserves to succeed which we direct.
Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 2003.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN APPELLANT(S)
B Versus
PHOOL CHAND AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
..,
ORDER
c In view of judgment passed in Crl. Appeal No. 117/2003
this appeal deserves to be dismissed which we direct.
Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2003.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN APPELLANT(S)
D Versus f
MOTi LAL AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
E In view of judgment passed in Crl. Appeal No. 117/2003
this appeal deserves to be dismissed which we direct.
B.B.B. Appeals disposed of.
t
•
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search