TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no application in terms of Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') has been filed, the appeal abates so far he is concerned. In a nutshell the prosecution version is as follows: Gurdial Singh @ Kala (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') had five brothers, namely, Piara Singh, Swaran Singh, Charan Singh, Dev Singh and Kewal Singh. Piara Singh and the deceased used to reside in a Dera in their fields, where they had installed a tubewell. Accused Karnail Singh and Nirmal Singh belong to their village. They also used to reside in a Dera close to the Dera of Piara Singh and deceased. As deceased was having illicit relationship with Sito, wife of accused Karnail Singh, there was enmity between the accused persons and the deceased. On 26.1.92 in the night Piara Singh and deceased were taking rest at the Dera after taking meals. Their brother Swaran Singh also came there in order to irrigate his fields by using their tubewell. At about 11.00 p.m., Saran Singh asked deceased to have a round and to check up if the fields were properly irrigated. Deceased went out to check up the fields. After some time, Piara Singh and Swaran Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being the position, the accused persons were entitled to acquittal. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the time of occurrence was around 11.00 p.m. The FIR was lodged next day around 9.35 a.m. First the information was given at the police chowk around 8.00 a.m., and the FIR was registered at the Police Station at about 9.35 a.m. The FIR reached the Magistrate around 3.00 p.m. Undisputedly the police chowk was at a distance of 3 kilometers from the place of occurrence, while the police station was at a distance of 7 kilometers, and the distance of the court from the police station was 10 kilometers. Considering the distance there was no reason to discard the prosecution version. Further the conclusion of the High Court that there was unusual conduct in not informing the police or co-villagers at the night does not appear to be correct. Factual position s noted by the Trial Court is that that area was a terrorist infected area and terrorism was at its peak during the period. The post-mortem was conducted at 3.15 p.m. There was no explanation as to how the dead body was found in the field of the accused Karnail Singh and the severed head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that the FIR was lodged at 2.00 p.m. after deliberations and discussions. No material has been indicated for coming to this conclusion. On the contrary, evidence on record clearly shows that the information was lodged at 8.00 a.m. at the police chowk, and the FIR was registered at the police station at 9.35 a.m. and it reached the Magistrate at 3.00 p.m. It is baffling as to how and on what material High Court came to the conclusion that the FIR came into existence at 2.00 p.m. Additionally considering the distance between the place of occurrence, police chowk, police station and the court of the Magistrate, it cannot be said that there was any unexplained delay so far as registration of FIR and dispatch to the Magistrate area concerned. Merely because the information was not lodged at the police chowk or the police station in the night, that cannot be a suspicious circumstance in view of the factual position noted by the Trial Court. From the evidence it is clear that the area was a terrorist infected area and terrorism was its peak during the period. These factors weighed with the Trial Court, and in our opinion rightly. The High Court did not attach any importance to this vit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct. To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh 1973CriLJ1589 and Lehna v. State of Haryana [2002]1SCR377 . As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr. 1981CriLJ1012 , normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however, honest and truthful a witness may be, Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies to not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. These aspects were hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
