Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal Nos. 239 of 1983 and 388 of 1985. The case arose from an incident on 29.7.1981 at about 6 A.M. where enmity between two families led to a fatal assault. The prosecution alleged that 21 accused attacked Buddha, son of Harbhajan, and when Harbhajan and his brother Babu Singh came to his rescue, the accused encircled Babu and beat him with lathis. Accused Hari Singh gave blows on Babu's head, Heera Singh on legs, and Brijendra on person, causing Babu to fall; many accused further beat him. Babu was taken to Bayana Hospital but died. The accused also allegedly entered Babu's house and took his gun and belt of cartridges, injuring his wife. An F.I.R. (Exh. P-1) was registered at 6:45 A.M. based on complaint of Harbhajan. The trial court convicted Hari Singh, Heera Singh, and Brijendra under Section 302 IPC, and Hari Singh, Heera Singh, and Ramphool under Section 307 IPC, while acquitting others. The High Court confirmed conviction of Hari Singh and Brijendra under Section 302 IPC, acquitted Heera Singh and all accused under Section 307 IPC, and dismissed the State's acquittal appeal. In the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the F.I.R. could not have been recorded at 6:45 A.M., that Exh. D-5 was the first information, that P.W.3 Bharosey was interested, and that they acted in right of private defence. The Supreme Court found no substance in any contention. It held that the F.I.R. was first in point of time considering time, distance, and registration number; the evidence of eye-witnesses was reliable and corroborated; and the right of private defence was not established in view of the large number of injuries on the prosecution side. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of Hari Singh and Brijendra under Section 302 IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - First Information Report - Evidentiary Value - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 307, 149 - The court examined whether Exh. P-1 was first in point of time and could be treated as F.I.R. Held that considering time, distance, and registration number (Crime No. 230 before accused Gopal's cross-complaint Crime No. 231), Exh. P-1 was rightly treated as F.I.R. and could be used for corroboration (Paras Not mentioned). B) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Reliability of Interested and Hostile Witnesses - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The court upheld reliance on evidence of P.W.1 Harbhajan, P.W.2 Mathalli (hostile but partly supporting), and P.W.3 Bharosey (not interested as relationship not established), finding their evidence consistent and corroborated by F.I.R., and no error in appreciation to justify interference (Paras Not mentioned). C) Criminal Law - Right of Private Defence - Availability and Burden - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The court rejected the accused's defence of right of private defence, noting that the defence version was not believable in view of large number of injuries on prosecution side and the accused failed to establish the right (Paras Not mentioned). D) Criminal Law - Conviction under Section 302 IPC - Sufficiency of Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The court held that the evidence justified conviction of Hari Singh and Brijendra for murder as their roles were clearly established by consistent testimony; the appeal was dismissed (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the F.I.R. Exh. P-1 was first in point of time or whether Exh. D-5 should be treated as F.I.R.; whether the conviction could be sustained based on evidence of interested and hostile witnesses; whether the accused acted in exercise of right of private defence; whether the evidence justified conviction under Section 302 IPC
Final Decision
The Supreme Court found no substance in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. It upheld the High Court's conviction of Hari Singh and Brijendra under Section 302 IPC and dismissed the appeal.
Law Points
- F.I.R. must be first information in point of time to be treated as F.I.R.
- reliability of interested witness if corroborated by F.I.R. and other witnesses
- right of private defence not available when accused caused large number of injuries
- conviction under Section 302 IPC justified on consistent evidence
