2016 (11) TMI 1755 - SC - Indian Laws

Murder - Reversal of acquittal - Manipulated FIR - Ante-timing of the FIR and delayed dispatch of the FIR to the court of the Magistrate - reliability on eye-witnesses - HELD THAT - The present is the case where recording of the FIR on 16th June 2000 itself has been proved accepted by the trial court also thus mere dispatch of the FIR on 22nd June 2000 from the police station to the Magistrates Court has no bearing on the basis of which any adverse presumption can be drawn. From the above discussion it is clear that the FIR was genuine FIR and trial court committed an error in drawing adverse inference against the prosecution and refusing to attach value to the FIR - The conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the FIR was manipulated is thus found to be erroneous. FIR has been proved by the evidence. Thus one of the basis of the decision of the Sessions Judge for discarding the prosecution case is knocked out. The mere fact that the witness did not name the person whom he tried to catch does not lead to any contradiction since all eye-witness have stated that four persons came by 2 bicycles one of whom shoot Debol Ghosh. PW 2 stated that he tried to catch one person of the aforesaid and omission not to name the person does not lead to any contradiction nor can result in discarding the evidence. The observation of learned Sessions Judge that the evidence suffers from the improbability and cannot be relied is also not based on any valid reason. High Court was conscious that the case where acquittal has been made while entertaining an appeal over an order of acquittal if two views are possible on making proper appreciation of available evidence the view going in favour of accused have to given importance. It is well settled that in case where an order of acquittal has been made on improper and erroneous appreciation of evidence it is always open to the court of appeal to make proper and reasonable appreciation evidence and differ from the order of acquittal and in such event it shall never hesitate in reversing the same. The findings and conclusion recorded by the High Court are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any error. The judgment of the High Court reversing the acquittal recorded by learned Sessions Judge needs no interference. There are no merits in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ante-timing and ante-dating of the FIR.
2. Credibility of eye-witness testimonies.
3. Delay in dispatching the FIR to the Magistrate.
4. High Court's reversal of the acquittal order.

Summary:

1. Ante-timing and Ante-dating of the FIR:
The trial court formulated the point whether the FIR was suppressed and ante-dated. It observed that PW 1 went to the police station at about 7.30/8.00 PM, but the formal FIR recorded the information at 17.35 hours on 16th June, 2000. The trial court concluded that the FIR was ante-timed and dispatched with abnormal unexplained delay, thus drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution. However, the Supreme Court found no case of ante-dating the FIR, as the evidence indicated that the information of the murder was received before 17.15 hours, and the police officials promptly arrived at the scene. The Court held that the FIR was genuine and the trial court erred in drawing adverse inference.

2. Credibility of Eye-witness Testimonies:
The trial court pointed out discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses, leading to the conclusion that their evidence did not inspire confidence. It also noted the delayed recording of statements u/s 164 CrPC. However, the Supreme Court observed that the eye-witnesses consistently deposed about the arrival of the Maruti Gypsy, the presence of the accused, and the shooting incident. The High Court re-appraised the evidence and found the eye-witnesses credible, noting that minor contradictions did not undermine their overall testimonies. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's assessment, stating that the trial court's dismissal of the evidence was based on flimsy grounds.

3. Delay in Dispatching the FIR to the Magistrate:
The trial court and the appellant's counsel emphasized the delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate. The Supreme Court noted that the investigation commenced promptly upon receiving the information, and the FIR was dispatched on 22nd June, 2000. The Court cited precedents stating that mere delay in dispatching the FIR does not necessarily imply fabrication, especially when the investigation had already begun. The Court concluded that the delay did not affect the credibility of the FIR.

4. High Court's Reversal of the Acquittal Order:
The High Court set aside the trial court's acquittal of the accused, finding that the trial court had misappreciated the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, stating that the High Court's findings were based on a correct appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any error. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to be taken into custody.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, reversing the acquittal of the accused and affirming their conviction u/s 302/34 IPC, with a life sentence and a fine of Rs. 2000. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's bail bonds were canceled.