NAND LAL AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 14 March 2023

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2023] 2 S.C.R.

ANAND LAL AND OTHERS

v.

THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

(Criminal Appeal No. 1421 of 2015)

BMARCH 14, 2023

[B. R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 – Murder – Prosecution case thatprevious enmity between the accused persons and the complainant– Accused no. 11 assaulted the complainant and thereafter, theCcomplainant lodged an FIR – Said accused then alongwith the otheraccused armed with deadly weapons formed an unlawful assembly,and assualted the victim-complainant’s father along with theprosecution witnesses, resulting in the death of the victim –Conviction of the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s.D302 along with the other offences and sentenced to life imprisonmentby the courts below – Sustainability of – Held: Delay in lodging ofthe FIR by the injured person not explained at all – Prosecutionattempted to supress the real genesis of the incident – There wasnon-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused, whichcannot be considered to be minor or superficial – ProsecutionEsupressed the information that accused informed the police that hewas assaulted by the complainant, thus, the said accused entitled tothe benefit of doubt – As regards the remaining accused persons,their names were not mentioned in the merg report which was lodgedprior to the lodging of FIR, in the inquest panchnama and spotFpanchnama – Taking into consideration the delay in lodging theFIR, with the circumstance of their names not being mentioned inthe contemporaneous documents, the possibility of the said accusedbeing falsely implicated cannot be ruled out – Their conviction wasbased only on the oral testimony of the interested witness withoutsufficient corroboration, thus, would not be sustainable – JudgmentGand order passed by the High Court set aside – Evidence.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Believing the contents of the FIR that theincident has taken place at around 08.30 PM and that the injuredHpersons had reached the Bazar at around 10-11 PM where they were informed that they could not be treated unless a report waslodged, a further delay of around four to five hours in lodging theFIR has not been explained. The distance between the Bazarand the Police Station is approximately 15 Kms. It has come onrecord that there is an all-weather road connecting the two places.As such, at the most, it would take around 30-40 minutes to reachthe Police Station from the Bazar. This delay of four hours inlodging the FIR is not at all explained. [Para 25][286-F-G]

1.2 Undisputedly, the injuries sustained by accused No. 11cannot be considered to be minor or superficial. The witnessesare also interested witnesses, inasmuch as they are close relativesof the deceased. That there was previous enmity between thetwo families, on account of election of Sarpanch, has come onrecord. Previous enmity is a double-edged sword. On one hand,it can provide motive and on the other hand, the possibility offalse implication cannot be ruled out. [Para 28][288-D-E]

1.3 Much prior to lodging of the FIR at 03.15 AM on 4thNovember 2006 by K, the Police had taken accused No. 11 formedical examination. The memo forwarding accused No. 11 formedical examination to Medical Officer mentions that accusedNo. 11 had informed the police that at around 08.30 PM, he wasassaulted by PW-1. Undisputedly, the prosecution has suppressedinformation with regard to the said incident. The prosecution hasalso suppressed the FIR lodged by PW-1. It is thus clear that theprosecution has attempted to suppress the real genesis of theincident. Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter,coupled with the non-explanation of the injuries sustained byaccused No. 11, accused No. 11 is entitled to benefit of doubt.[Para 29][288-E-G]

1.4 No doubt that in each and every case, delay in lodgingthe FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution case. It will dependupon facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case,assuming that the incident had taken place at 08.30 PM and theinjured persons were at the Bazar between 10-11 PM, and takinginto consideration that the distance between the Bazar to thePolice Station is 15 Kms., a delay of four hours in lodging the FIR

ABC

D

EF

G

H

Awould cast a serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecutioncase. It becomes more glaring since accused No. 11 had, in anycase, informed the police about the incident prior to 11.45 PM.The suppression of the FIR lodged by him with respect to theattack on him by PW-1, so also the suppression of the FIR lodgedby PW-1 against accused No. 11, adds to the doubt. [Para 30][289-BB-D]

1.5 PWs 2 and 9 are injured witnesses. As such, theirpresence cannot be disputed. However, in case of proven previousenmity, a possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. Inthe instant case, it would be seen that the entire family of accusedCNo. 12 has been roped in. Though PW-2 has identified and namedthe accused in her cross-examination, she has stated that, thoughshe recognized the relatives of the accused persons, she doesnot remember their names. As such, the possibility of implicatingthe entire family of accused no.12 cannot be ruled out. [ParaD34][291-B-C]

1.6 The names of accused no.8, 9 and 10 are not mentionedin the merg report, which was lodged prior to the lodging of FIR,so also their names are not found in the inquest panchnama andspot panchnama. Taking into consideration the delay in lodgingEthe FIR, with the circumstance of their names not being mentionedin the contemporaneous documents, the possibility of the saidaccused being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out. Theconviction of these accused purely on the basis of oral testimonyof the interested witnesses, without sufficient corroboration,would not be sustainable. [Para 35][291-C-E]F

1.7 The prosecution has examined PW-3, PW-5, PW-6 andPW-8, none of whom have supported the prosecution case.According to PWs 2, 9 and 13, it was the witness PW-3 who hadarranged for the tractor to take the injured persons to the Bazar.However, he has stated that though PW-2 came to his place toGinform him about the incident, she had not informed him as towhich of the accused had assaulted the deceased and the injuredpersons. Thus, the said appellants would also be entitled to benefitof doubt. [Para 36][291-E-F]

H

Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar (1976) 4SCC 394; State of Rajasthan v. Madho and Another(1991) 2 Supp SCC 396; State of M.P. v. Mishrilal(Dead) and Others (2003) 9 SCC 426; Nagarathinamand Others v. State (Represented by Inspector of Police)(2006) 9 SCC 57 : [2006] 3 SCR 833; Ramashish Rayv. Jagdish Singh (2005) 10 SCC 498; Ramesh BaburaoDevaskar and Others v. State of Maharashtra (2007)13 SCC 501 : [2007] 11 SCR 197; Vadivelu Thevar v.The State of Madras [1957] SCR 981 – referred to.

A

B

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1421 of 2015.

E

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2014 of the High Courtof Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRLA No. 529 of 2008.

With

F

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1470 of 2017 and 775-776 of 2023.

Renjith. B. Marar, Shailendra Tiwary, (A. C.), Vikas Upadhyay,Ms. Ankita Kashyap, Renjith B., Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Ms. Ashu Jain,Davesh Kr. Sharma, Arun Poomulli, Advs. for the Appellants.

Sumeer Sodhi, Dhruv Wadhwa, Devashish Tiwari, Advs. for theGRepondent.

H

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B. R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted in SLP(Criminal) Nos. 6134-6135 of 2019.

2. These appeals assail the judgment and order dated 11[th]BNovember 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court ofChhattisgarh at Bilaspur, thereby dismissing the appeals filed by theappellants herein and confirming the judgment and order dated 24[th]May2008 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar,District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”),convicting the appellants along with other accused for the offencesCpunishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,“IPC”) along with other offences and sentencing them to undergo lifeimprisonment.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, as could be gathered from thematerial placed on record, is thus:D

On the night of 3[rd]November 2006, at around 07.30 PM, NareshKumar, accused No. 11 had assaulted Atmaram (PW-1). After the saidassault, Atmaram (PW-1) went to the Police Station, Suhela for lodginga report. Thereafter, Naresh Kumar, accused No.11 along with otheraccused, who were armed with deadly weapons, formed an unlawfulEassembly, entered the house of deceased Kartikram and assaulted himas well as Mangtin Bai (PW-2) and Khomlal (PW-9). As a result of thesaid assault, Kartikram died on the spot. Thereafter, Mangtin Bai (PW-2), Khomlal (PW-9) and Purnima Bai (PW-13), wife, son and daughter-in-law of deceased Kartikram respectively, along with neighbours BaliramFSahu (PW-3) and Jeevan Lal Sahu (PW-6) went in a tractor to BalodaBazar to see a doctor, who refused to treat them unless a report waslodged at the police station. Thereafter, a jeep was hired and they wentto the Police Station, Suhela. On the basis of the oral report (Ex. P-9), amerg report (Ex. P-10) came to be registered. Subsequently, the FirstInformation Report (for short, “FIR”) came to be registered.G

4. On the basis of the said FIR, Inspector Kamal Singh (PW-14),Investigating Officer (IO) conducted the investigation. After conclusionof the investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed against 12 accusedpersons before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar. Sincethe case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, the same wasHcommitted to the Sessions Court.

5. The learned Trial Judge, vide judgment and order dated 24[th]May 2008, convicted all the accused persons as aforesaid. The DivisionBench of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 11[th]November2014, dismissed the appeals filed by the accused persons. Challengingthe same, four appeals were filed before this Court, being Criminal AppealNo. 1421 of 2015 by Nand Lal, Bhagwat and Ramdular, accused No. 8to 10 respectively; Criminal Appeal No. 1422 of 2015 by Paltan Jangde,accused No. 12; Criminal Appeal No. 1470 of 2017 by Charandas Jangde,Chhannu Jangde and Charnu Jangde, accused Nos. 5 to 7 respectively;and appeals arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 6134-6135 of 2019, whichwere filed by Tulsi Jangde, Suresh Jangde, Dinesh Jangde, Rupesh Jangdeand Naresh Kumar, accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 11 respectively.

6. During the pendency of the appeals, Paltan Jangde, accusedNo.12 has died and as such, the said appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.1422 of 2015, has abated, vide this Court’s order dated 13[th]January2023. Tulsi Jangde, Suresh Jangde, Dinesh Jangde, Rupesh Jangde,Channu Jangde and Charnu Jangde, appellants in appeals arising out ofSLP(Criminal) Nos.6134-6135 of 2019, and Charandas Jangde, appellantin Criminal Appeal No. 1470 of 2017, have already been released oncompletion of their sentence. As such, we are concerned with theappellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1421 of 2015 and Naresh Kumar, oneof the appellants in appeals arising out of SLP(Criminal) Nos.6134- 6135of 2019.

7. We have heard Shri Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel appearingon behalf of accused Nos. 8 to 10, Shri Renjith B. Marar, learned amicuscuriae and Shri Sumeer Sodhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe respondent-State.

8. Shri Upadhyay submits that the names of accused Nos. 8 to10, i.e., Nand Lal, Bhagwat and Ramdular, have not been mentioned inany of the contemporaneous documents like the merg panchnama, inquestpanchnama and spot panchnama. He submits that, whereas the namesof all other accused have been specifically mentioned in the aforesaiddocuments, there is no mention of the names of accused Nos. 8 to 10 inthese documents. It is for the first time that the names of these threeaccused appear in the FIR. The learned counsel submits that though theincident had occurred at 08.30 PM on 3[rd]November 2006, the FIR wasalleged to have been lodged at 03.10 AM on 4[th]November 2006, whichcreates a doubt that the FIR is a fabricated document and the original AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AFIR has been suppressed by the prosecution. He further submits thatthe inordinate delay in registering the FIR has also not been explained bythe prosecution. The learned counsel submits that all the three witnessesi.e., Mangtin Bai (PW-2), Khomlal (PW-9) and Purnima Bai (PW-13)are interested witnesses. It is further submitted that the evidence ofthese three witnesses is also inconsistent. The learned Counsel, therefore,Bsubmits that the conviction was purely on the basis of such interestedwitnesses, whose testimony is not cogent and trustworthy, and is notsustainable unless there is some corroboration of their testimony.

9. Shri Upadhyay submits that, in any case, all the three eyewitnesses, i.e., Mangtin Bai (PW-2), Khomlal (PW-9) and Purnima BaiC(PW-13) have made only omnibus allegations against the appellantsherein and no specific overt act attributable to the present appellants ismentioned. The learned counsel further submits that the incident happenedat night and it is also admitted that there was a power cut. As such, thetestimonies of all the three witnesses that they had seen the incident inDthe moonlight and in the light of a lamp cannot be said to be trustworthy.It is further submitted that, since PW-9 himself had admitted that he hadhidden himself in a grain-store (kothi), it is improbable that he haswitnessed the incident.

10. Shri Marar submits that as a matter of fact, Naresh Kumar,Eaccused No. 11 has received grievous injuries. It is submitted that PW-14, IO has admitted that Naresh Kumar, accused No. 11 had injuries onhis head, ankle of left leg and the middle finger of his right hand. Hesubmitted that even the Trial Court has found that accused No.11 NareshKumar had received grievous injuries and that he had gone to PoliceStation, Suhela to lodge the report. He lodged the report at the saidFPolice Station and, thereafter, he was sent to Bhatapara Hospital fortreatment. It is submitted that the prosecution has not explained the injuriesreceived by accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar. It is submitted that, in anycase, the prosecution has suppressed the information received fromaccused No. 11 Naresh Kumar. It is further submitted that it is improbableGthat accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar, after receiving such grievous injuries,could have taken part in the assault against the deceased and PWs 2, 9and 13.

11. Shri Sodhi, on the contrary, submits that all the three eyewitnesses have clearly implicated all the appellants. It is submitted thatHPWs 2 and 9 have specifically implicated the present appellants. It is submitted that all the three witnesses are rustic villagers. Therefore,merely because there are some discrepancies in their evidence cannotbe a ground to reject their testimonies. He further submits that merelybecause the witnesses are interested witnesses cannot be a ground todiscard their testimonies, if their evidence is found to be trustworthy,reliable and cogent. Shri Sodhi submits that, in any case, the witnessesare injured witnesses and as such, their presence at the spot cannot bedisputed. It is further submitted that merely because there is some delayin lodging the FIR, it cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case,which has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

12. Shri Sodhi, relying on various judgments of this Court, submitsthat for a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC with the aid of Section149 of the IPC, what is relevant is whether the accused was a memberof unlawful assembly, and not whether he actually took active part in thecrime or not. He further submits that mere non-explanation of injurieson the person of the accused would not be fatal to the prosecution case.

13. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, wehave examined the material placed on record.

14. From the medical evidence, it cannot be disputed that thedeath of deceased Kartikram is homicidal. The injuries on PWs 2 and 9are also not seriously disputed by the appellants.

15. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it can be seenthat the incident has taken place in two parts. The first part is withregard to the assault on Atmaram (PW-1) by accused No. 11 NareshKumar, whereas the second part is with regard to the assault by theaccused persons on the deceased and PWs 2, 9 and 13. Atmaram (PW-1), in his evidence, states that on 3[rd]November 2006, when he was athis house, accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar came to his home and startedabusing him. PW-1 stated that accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar was underthe influence of liquor. Accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar told PW-1 thathe had gone to his house to make a complaint and he had extorted anamount of Rs.5,000/- from him after plying him with alcohol. Thereafter,accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar started assaulting PW-1 with the lathi inhis hand. Then, PW-1 states that accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar left hisplace with a threat that he would return along with other members of hisfamily. It is further stated by Atmaram (PW-1) that, thereafter, he wentto lodge a report to Suhela Police Station along with his wife, son anddaughter.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A16. Atmaram (PW-1) further stated that when he returned fromthe Police Station, his son came and told him that PW- 1’s father wasmurdered and PW-1 again went to the Police Station to lodge the report.As such, it is clear that PW-1 is not an eye witness to the second incident.

17. Mangtin Bai (PW-2) is the wife of the deceased Kartikram.BShe, in her evidence, stated that all the accused persons had entered herhouse and started abusing them. Her husband was in the TV room. Allthe accused persons started assaulting her husband in the said TV room.Thereafter, they came to the second room where nobody was there.Her son had hidden himself in a dhan kothi. The accused persons wentthere and started assaulting her son. Thereafter, she went to inform herCneighbour, Jeevan Lal Sahu (PW-6). She, along with PWs 9 and 13, thenwent by a tractor to Baloda Bazar. They could not get treatment theresince no report had been lodged with the police. They took a jeep fromthere and went to Suhela Police Station. From there, they were taken toBhatapara Hospital for treatment.D18. In the cross-examination of Mangtin Bai (PW-2), on beingasked as to whether she knows the relatives of the accused personspresent in the court, she stated that she knows them but she cannotname them.

19. Khomlal (PW-9) is the injured son of the deceased Kartikram.EHis evidence is also of similar nature. He, too, testifies about the earlierincident pertaining to Atmaram (PW-1). He states that after Atmaram(PW-1) went to the Police Station at around 08.30 PM, all the accusedpersons came to his house. He states that all the accused persons enteredthe room of his father and started assaulting his father. He, therefore,Fwent to hide himself in the dhan kothi. The accused persons camethere and assaulted him and thus, he received severe injuries. Thereafter,they went to Baloda Bazar for treatment. However, the doctor refusedto treat them. As such, they went to Suhela Police Station and lodgedthe report. In his cross-examination, he admits that in the merg reportlodged by him, there is no mention of Nand Lal, Bhagwant and Ramdular,Gi.e., accused Nos. 8 to 10 respectively. Though he states that he hadinformed the police of all the details, it is only the police who can saywhy the names of the aforesaid three appellants are not there.

20. Purnima (PW-13), wife of Khomal (PW-9), also states thatAtmaram (PW-1) was going to the Police Station to lodge a report atHaround 7:00 PM. She states that, between 8:00 PM to 8:30 PM, the accused persons, viz. Charandad Jangde, Tulsi Jangde, Charnu Jangde,Bhagwat and others, came to their house, where they first assaulted hermother-in-law, Mangtin Bai (PW-2), with a stick. Thereafter she repeatsthe same version as given by Mangtin Bai (PW-2) and Khomlal (PW-9).

A

21. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CriminalProcedure Code, 1973 (for short, “Cr. P.C.”), accused No. 11 NareshKumar specifically stated that he had received grievous injuries after hewas assaulted by Atmaram (PW-1) and, thereafter, he went to the PoliceStation with accused No. 7 Charnu Jangde, accused No. 12 Paltan Jangde,Ashwini and Vinod, from where he was sent to Bhatapara Hospital fortreatment.

B

C

22. It will be pertinent to refer to the medical examination ofaccused No. 11 Naresh Kumar conducted by Dr. Anita Verma(PW-10). The injuries sustained by him are thus:

•“Lacerated wound of 6x1x0.5 cm on the left parietal regionof scalp.D

•Multiple contusions on the back, left shoulder, left arm, varyingin size from 5 to 20 cm in length and 2 to 4 cm in breath.

•Abrasion of 3x0.5 cm on left leg.

•Swelling, tenderness and deformity on prox. Phalanx of rightEmiddle finger.

•Abrasion of 2x0.2 cm on the forehead.

•Abrasion of 1x0.2 cm on the left side of forehead.

•Abrasion of 2x0.5 cm on the right ankle.

F

•Fracture of left parietal bone,

•Fracture in left shoulder.

•Fracture of proximal phalanx of middle ring finger.

•Fracture of shaft of fibula at junction upper 1/3[rd]& middle 1/G3[rd].”

23. PW-14, IO admits that in the merg intimation report, the namesof Nand Lal, Bhagwat and Ramdular, i.e., accused Nos. 8 to 10respectively are not mentioned. He further admits that in the spotpanchnama also, their names are not mentioned. He admits in his cross- H

Aexamination that in Ex. D-9, the incident with accused No.11 NareshKumar is mentioned to have happened at 08.30 PM on 3[rd ]November2006. He further admits that accused No.11 Naresh Kumar had grievousinjuries on his head, ankle of left leg and the middle finger of the righthand. He further admits that Naresh Kumar was taken from PoliceStation to the doctor for examination at 11.45 PM.B

24. It can thus be seen from the evidence of PW-14, IO that thepolice had information about the incident at least prior to 11.45 PM on3[rd]November 2006. No doubt that mere delay in registering FIR wouldnot be fatal to the prosecution case. The effect of delay in lodging theFIR would differ in the facts and circumstances of each case. In theCpresent case, admittedly, accused No.11 Naresh Kumar had receivedgrievous injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution. Aspecific defence has been taken by accused No.11 Naresh Kumar thatwhen he was coming after consuming liquor, he was assaulted byAtmaram (PW-1). Thereafter, he went to the Police Station along withDaccused No. 7 Charnu Jangde, accused No.12 Paltan Jangde, Ashwiniand Vinod, whereafter he was referred for medical treatment. Lookingat the injuries of accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar, it appears difficult thathe could have taken part in the second part of the incident. The prosecutionhas suppressed the first report lodged by Atmaram (PW-1) as well as byaccused No.11 Naresh Kumar. If Naresh Kumar was examined at 11.45EPM, the police must have had some information about the incident atleast by 11.00 PM. As such, there is a delay of at least four hours inlodging the FIR.

25. Believing the contents of the FIR that the incident has takenplace at around 08.30 PM and that the injured persons had reachedFBaloda Bazar at around 10-11 PM where they were informed that theycould not be treated unless a report was lodged, a further delay of aroundfour to five hours in lodging the FIR has not been explained. The distancebetween Baloda Bazar and Suhela Police Station is approximately 15Kms. It has come on record that there is an all-weather road connectingGthe two places. As such, at the most, it would take around 30-40 minutesto reach Suhela Police Station from Baloda Bazar. This delay of fourhours in lodging the FIR is not at all explained.

26. We will first consider the issue with regard to non- explanationof injuries sustained by accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar. In the case of H

Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar[1], which case also aroseout of a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC,this Court had an occasion to consider the issue of non-explanation ofinjuries sustained by the accused. This Court, after referring to the earlierjudgments on the issue, observed thus:

“12. …….It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanationof the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of theoccurrence or in the course of altercation is a very importantcircumstance from which the court can draw the followinginferences:

“(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and theorigin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the trueversion;

(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of theinjuries on the person of the accused are lying on a mostmaterial point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;

(3) that in case there is a defence version which explains theinjuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable soas to throw doubt on the prosecution case.”

The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injurieson the person of the accused assumes much greater importancewhere the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses orwhere the defence gives a version which competes in probabilitywith that of the prosecution one. In the instant case, when it isheld, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received seriousinjuries which have not been explained by the prosecution, then itwill be difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to4 and 6, more particularly, when some of these witnesses havelied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person ofthe accused. Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Courtappears to have given due consideration to this important lacunaor infirmity appearing in the prosecution case. We must hasten toadd that as held by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima[(1975) 2 SCC 7 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 384] there may be cases wherethe non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may notaffect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Ato cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minorand superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, soindependent and disinterested, so probable, consistent andcreditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission onthe part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The present,however, is certainly not such a case, and the High Court was,Btherefore, in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in theprosecution case on unconvincing premises.”

A

27. A similar view with regard to non-explanation of injuries hasbeen taken by this Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan v. Madhoand Another[2], State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead) and Others[3]andCNagarathinam and Others v. State (Represented by Inspector ofPolice)[4].

28. Undisputedly, in the present case, the injuries sustained byaccused No. 11 Naresh Kumar cannot be considered to be minor orsuperficial. The witnesses are also interested witnesses, inasmuch asDthey are close relatives of the deceased. That there was previous enmitybetween the two families, on account of election of Sarpanch, has comeon record. As observed by this Court in the case of Ramashish Ray v.Jagdish Singh[5], previous enmity is a double-edged sword. On one hand,it can provide motive and on the other hand, the possibility of falseEimplication cannot be ruled out.

29. We have already seen herein above the injuries sustained byaccused No. 11 Naresh Kumar. Much prior to lodging of the FIR at03.15 AM on 4[th ]November 2006 by Khomlal, the Police had takenaccused No. 11 Naresh Kumar for medical examination. The memoFforwarding accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar for medical examination toMedical Officer mentions that accused No. 11 had informed the policethat at around 08.30 PM, he was assaulted by Atmaram (PW-1).Undisputedly, the prosecution has suppressed information with regard tothe said incident. The prosecution has also suppressed the FIR lodgedby Atmaram (PW-1). It is thus clear that the prosecution has attemptedGto suppress the real genesis of the incident. Taking into considerationthis aspect of the matter, coupled with the non-explanation of the injuries 2 1991 Supp (2) SCC 3963 (2003) 9 SCC 4264 (2006) 9 SCC 57H5 (2005) 10 SCC 498

sustained by accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar, we are of the consideredview that accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar is entitled to benefit of doubt.

30. That leaves us with the appeal of the other 3 accused, namelyaccused No. 8 Nandlal, accused No. 9 Bhagwat and accused No. 10Ramdular. For considering their case we will have to take intoconsideration the delay in lodging the FIR. No doubt that in each andevery case, delay in lodging the FIR would not be fatal to the prosecutioncase. It will depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. In thepresent case, as already discussed hereinabove, assuming that the incidenthad taken place at 08.30 PM and the injured persons were at BalodaBazar between 10-11 PM, and taking into consideration that the distancebetween Baloda Bazar to Suhela Police Station is 15 Kms., a delay offour hours in lodging the FIR would cast a serious doubt on thegenuineness of the prosecution case. It becomes more glaring sinceaccused No. 11 Naresh Kumar had, in any case, informed the policeabout the incident prior to 11.45 PM. The suppression of the FIR lodgedby him with respect to the attack on him by Atmaram (PW-1), so alsothe suppression of the FIR lodged by Atmaram (PW-1) against accusedNo. 11 Naresh Kumar, adds to the doubt.

31. We may gainfully refer to the following observations of thisCourt in the case of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar and Others v. Stateof Maharashtra[6]:

“19. In a case of this nature, enmity between two groups isaccepted. In a situation of this nature, whether the first informationreport was ante- timed or not also requires serious consideration.First information report, in a case of this nature, provides for avaluable piece of evidence although it may not be a substantialevidence. The reason for insisting on lodging of first informationreport without undue delay is to obtain the earlier information inregard to the circumstances in which the crime had beencommitted, the name of the accused, the parts played by them,the weapons which had been used as also the names ofeyewitnesses. Where the parties are at loggerheads and therehad been instances which resulted in death of one or the other,lodging of a first information report is always considered to bevital.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AAs held by this Court, the FIR is a valuable piece of evidence,although it may not be substantial evidence. The immediate lodging ofan FIR removes suspicion with regard to over implication of number ofpersons, particularly when the case involved a fight between two groups.When the parties are at loggerheads, the immediate lodging of the FIRprovides credence to the prosecution case.B

32. Undisputedly, the present case rests on the evidence ofinterested witnesses. No doubt that two of them are injured witnesses.This Court, in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras[7],has observed thus:C“11. ……Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-establishedrule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and notwith the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving ordisproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this contextmay be classified into three categories, namely:

D(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficultyin coming to its conclusion either way — it may convict or mayEacquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to beabove reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence orsubornation. In the second category, the court equally has nodifficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category ofcases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look forFcorroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, director circumstantial……”

33. It could thus be seen that in the category of “wholly reliable”witness, there is no difficulty for the prosecution to press for convictionon the basis of the testimony of such a witness. In case of “whollyGunreliable” witness, again, there is no difficulty, inasmuch as no convictioncould be made on the basis of oral testimony provided by a “whollyunreliable” witness. The real difficulty comes in case of the third categoryof evidence which is partly reliable and partly unreliable. In such cases,the court is required to be circumspect and separate the chaff from the H7 [1957] SCR 981

grain, and seek further corroboration from reliable testimony, direct orcircumstantial.

34. Undisputedly, in the present case, PWs 2 and 9 are injuredwitnesses. As such, their presence cannot be disputed. However, asalready observed hereinabove, in case of proven previous enmity, apossibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. In the present case, itwould be seen that the entire family of accused No. 12 Paltan Jangdehas been roped in. Though PW-2 has identified and named the accusedin her cross-examination, she has stated that, though she recognized therelatives of the accused persons, she does not remember their names.As such, the possibility of implicating the entire family of Paltan cannotbe ruled out.

35. As already discussed hereinabove, the names of Nand Lal,Bhagwat and Ramdular are not mentioned in the merg report, whichwas lodged prior to the lodging of FIR, so also their names are not foundin the inquest panchnama and spot panchnama. Taking into considerationthe delay in lodging the FIR, with the circumstance of their names notbeing mentioned in the contemporaneous documents, the possibility ofthe said accused being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out. In ourview, the conviction of these accused purely on the basis of oral testimonyof the interested witnesses, without sufficient corroboration, would notbe sustainable.

36. The prosecution has examined Baliram Sahu (PW-3), InderSahu (PW-5), Jeewan Lal (PW-6) and Budheram (PW-8), none of whomhave supported the prosecution case. According to PWs 2, 9 and 13, itwas the witness Baliram Sahu (PW-3) who had arranged for the tractorto take the injured persons to Baloda Bazar. However, he has stated thatthough Mangtin Bai (PW-2) came to his place to inform him about theincident, she had not informed him as to which of the accused hadassaulted the deceased and the injured persons. In our view, therefore,the said appellants would also be entitled to benefit of doubt.

37. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the appellantsNand Lal, Bhagwat, Ramdular and Naresh Kumar are entitled to benefitof doubt.

38. In the result, we pass the following order:

(i) The appeals are allowed;

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(ii)The judgment and order dated 11[th ]November 2014 passedby the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh atBilaspur, and the judgment and order dated 24[th ]May 2008passed by the trial court are quashed and set aside; and

(iii) The appellants are acquitted of the charges charged withBand are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not requiredin any other case.

39. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

40. Before we part with the judgment, we must place on recordour appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri VikasCUpadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Nos. 8 to 10and Shri Sumeer Sodhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondent-State. A special mention needs to be made of the painstakingefforts taken by Shri Renjith B. Marar, learned counsel, who wasappointed through the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority as anamicus curiae for accused No. 11.D

Nidhi Jain(Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.

E

F

G

H