Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a criminal trial concerning the murder of Ramesh Haribhau Himane, popularly known as Ramesh Patil, in village Bhari, District Yavatmal, Maharashtra, on the evening of January 6, 1984. The appellant, Naresh Mohanlal Jaiswal, was original accused No.2 in Sessions Case Trial No.45 of 1984, along with six other accused. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were charged under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, while the remaining three accused were charged under Sections 201, 202 and 212 IPC. Accused No.1 died during the trial, and proceedings abated against him. The prosecution case was that Ramesh Patil and his associates had been on inimical terms with the appellant and Udey Shankar Dixit since a previous prosecution under Section 307 IPC in 1978 ended in acquittal. On the day of incident, while returning from his fields to Yavatmal at about 6.00 p.m., Ramesh Patil was attacked near Malani Park. Two eye-witnesses, Arvind Mangrulkar (PW6) and Dadarao Thakre (PW7), saw the appellant and co-accused assaulting Ramesh Patil with knives. They did not immediately disclose the assault due to fear, but came forward after the appellant's arrest on January 8, 1984. The FIR was lodged by Suresh (PW1), a cousin of the deceased, at 7.55 p.m. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000, while acquitting the other accused. The High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, dismissed the appellant's appeal on 13 February 1988. In the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the eye-witnesses were partisan and unreliable, that their statements under Section 161 CrPC were recorded after a delay, that there was delay in lodging the FIR, that the investigation was tainted because no independent panch witnesses were examined, and that there was insufficient light at the scene to identify the accused. The prosecution relied on the ocular testimony of PWs 6 and 7, supported by the circumstance of human blood of group 'A' on the co-accused's Luna motorcycle, matching the deceased's blood group. The Supreme Court rejected all contentions. It held that the delay in recording witness statements was satisfactorily explained by the witnesses' fear of the appellant and his associates, a finding concurrently accepted by both lower courts. It found no delay in lodging the FIR, as the incident occurred at 6.30 p.m. and the complaint was lodged at 7.55 p.m. when the assailants' names were unknown. The court held that non-examination of independent panch witnesses did not vitiate the investigation because the courts below had carefully scrutinised the evidence and found it credible. It also upheld the finding that there was sufficient light from a lamp post at Malani Park. The court observed that the blood stains on the co-accused's motorcycle constituted a corroborative circumstance. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's affirmation of conviction and sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant, who was on bail, was directed to surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the remaining period of sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Eye-Witness Evidence - Delay in Recording Statements under Section 161 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 161 - The court considered whether the delay in recording statements of PW6 and PW7 until after the appellant's arrest made their testimony unreliable; the witnesses explained that they were scared of the appellant and his associates, and both courts below accepted this explanation. Held that concurrent findings of fact on credibility of witnesses could not be interfered with under Section 136 of the Constitution. (Para 10) B) Criminal Law - First Information Report - Delay in Lodging FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 154 - The court examined whether the FIR was lodged with undue delay; the incident occurred at about 6.30 p.m. and the complaint was lodged at 7.55 p.m. when the assailants' names were unknown. Held that there was no delay in lodging the First Information Report. (Para 10) C) Criminal Law - Investigation - Allegation of Tainted Investigation - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 161 - The court rejected the contention that investigation was tainted because panch witnesses were from a rival group and no independent witnesses were examined; it held that mere non-examination of independent witnesses did not vitiate the investigation when the courts below had carefully scrutinized the evidence and found it credible. Held that the investigation was not tainted. (Para 11) D) Criminal Law - Identification Evidence - Sufficiency of Light at Scene - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 9 - The court considered whether there was sufficient light at the place of occurrence for the eye-witnesses to identify the appellant; the witnesses stated that there was sufficient light from a lamp post at Malani Park. Held that there was no reason to disagree with the factual finding of the courts below. (Para 13) E) Criminal Law - Corroborative Evidence - Blood Stains on Co-Accused's Motorcycle - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302/34 - The court considered whether the presence of human blood of group 'A' on the co-accused's Luna motorcycle, matching the deceased's blood group, constituted corroboration; it held that although no blood stains were found on the appellant's Luna, the blood stains on the co-accused's Luna were a corroborative circumstance in favour of the prosecution. Held that the courts below committed no error in relying on this circumstance. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC could be sustained based on the evidence of eye-witnesses whose statements were recorded after delay, and whether the courts below correctly appreciated corroborative evidence and rejected allegations of tainted investigation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302/34 IPC, and directed the appellant, who was on bail, to surrender to his bail bonds to serve out the remaining period of his sentence.
Law Points
- Delay in recording statements under Section 161 CrPC not fatal if explained by fear of accused
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered under Section 136 of the Constitution
- delay in FIR not fatal when assailants unknown
- non-examination of independent witnesses does not vitiate investigation
- sufficiency of light is a factual finding
- corroborative evidence such as blood stains on co-accused's vehicle can support ocular evidence
