Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 933 OF 2009
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9155 of 2008]
SUBHASH KUMAR … APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated
27.08.2008 holding the appellant guilty for commission of offence under
Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for
short) and sentencing him to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment
and fine of Rs.1,000/- only.
3. One Surendra Kumar Sehgal was a student of D.B.S. (P.G.)
College. Appellant herein also was a student of B.A. Part II of the same
2
college. On 31.1.2000, when Surendra Kumar Sehgal was entering the
college through its gate to attend his N.C.C. class, appellant along with
three other persons who were armed with “Khukries” (a sharp edged
weapon) assaulted him on instigation made by the appellant as a result
whereof he suffered five injuries, which are as under:
“i. Incised wound 6 cm x 1.0 cm muscle
deep on back side of head 11 cm above
right ear. This injury was fresh and it was
bleeding.
ii. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep backside of
the head and 7 cm below the injury no.1 and the blood
was oozing from this injury.
iii. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep, on the left
of head and 6 cm above the left ear.
iv. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.1. cm x muscle deep. In the
left upper forearm of index finger of left hand from
which blood is coming out.
v. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the side
of middle finger of left hand and blood is coming out
this.”
4. Appellant was tried for commission of an offence under Sections
307, read with Section 34 of the IPC along with Surendra @ Sonu, Manoj
@ Monu and Hargopal. Surendra and Manoj are brothers of the appellant
whereas Hargopal is their maternal uncle.
3
5. The learned trial judge recorded a judgment of conviction finding
the accused persons guilty of commission of offence under Section 324
read with Section 34 of the IPC.
However, by reason of the impugned judgment whereas the other
accused, namely, Surendra, @ Sonu, Manoj @ Monu & Hargopal were
given the benefit of doubt, the judgment of conviction and sentence
passed by the learned trial judge as against the appellant was upheld.
However, his sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year
from three years.
6. Mr. Sanjeev Bhatnagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would urge:
(i) On a plain reading of the First Information Report (“FIR” for
short) it would appear that the appellant was not armed with
any “Khukri”; no overt act was attributed to him and his
involvement in the matter both in regard to possession of an
arm as also an instigation to others to assault him being an
outcome of improvement in the depositions of the
complainant before the court, the impugned judgment is
liable to be set aside.
4
(ii) Out of four accused, three having been acquitted, appellant in
any event could not have convicted with the aid of Section 34
of the IPC.
7. Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State, on the other hand, would support the impugned judgment.
8. The occurrence took place at about 1.00 p.m. on 31.1.2000. The
FIR was lodged on the same day at about 3.15 p.m. The statement of the
informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer. It was hand written.
Before us, the finding of fact arrived at by both the courts below that the
informant received injuries inflicted on him by “Khukri (s)” is not in
dispute. It also stands admitted that the first informant was assaulted with
a sharp edged weapon by more than one person. In the FIR, it had
categorically been stated that the appellant along with three others who
were armed with “Khukri” accosted him at about 1’O clock when he
entered in the College through a gate.
9. It is also not in dispute that he sustained injuries on his head as also
on his hand. He named Narendra Singh (P.W.1) as one of the eye-
witnesses. He, however, was declared hostile. It has, however, not been
disputed that the said Narendra Singh and one Shailly brought him to the
hospital. He claimed to have identified the other three accused.
5
The High Court, however, accorded benefit of doubt to the three
accused as no test identification parade was held.
The first informant, who examined himself as P.W.2, in his
evidence stated:
“2. The incident is of 31.1.2000, day Monday
and time about 1 p.m. At that time I was going
to attend my NCC class in DBS College. As
soon as I parked my scooter outside on the stand
and entered in college, in the meantime
Subhash, Surender @ Sonu, Manoj and their
maternal uncle (Mama) Hargopal came behind
me. They had been holding Khukhries in their
hands. As these people came and Subhash put
his hand on my shoulder. I saw behind and in
the meantime Subhash said kill him “Jaan se
Maar Dalo Saley ko” after this Hargopal
assaulted with Khukhri on my head and
thereafter Subhash also started assaulting with
Khukhri and then all four people started very
badly to me. All the four accused are present in
the court.”
Paragraph 9 of his evidence to which our attention has been drawn
by Mr. Sanjeev Bhatnagar reads as under:-
“9. The inspector enquired from me with
regard to this case. I had written in the report
that Subhash was having Khukri. It is wrong to
suggest that it is not written anywhere in the
report that Subhash was holding Khukhri in
hand.”
6
We may place on record that our attention has also been drawn to
the deposition of Mr. R.K. Kanojiya, SI of P.S. Dalanwala, Dehradun who
examined himself as P.W.4, which reads as under:
“17. I recorded the statement of Surendra
Kumar on 1.2.2000. When I went to take the
statement of injured to hospital then because of
his unconsciousness and did not record
statement of the doctor on 31.1.2000. I did not
write in the case diary that on 31.1.2000, the
injured was admitted on which bed and in which
ward. It is incorrect to suggest that I had not
gone to take the statement of the injured to
hospital on 31.1.2000. In the investigation, the
subscribe which I received in that all the
accused persons are shown having Khukri in
their hands, only Subhash is having Khukhri in
hand is not written.”
From his evidence, it appears that he had gone to record the
statement of the informant in the hospital on 31.1.2000; when he reached
the hospital, the informant had become unconscious and was in a serious
condition. His statement could be recorded only on 1.2.2000. It was on
that date the other accused persons were named.
10. Appellant surrendered in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on
7.2.2000. Manoj and Surendra were arrested on 11.2.2000. It is only on
7.3.2000, Hargopal had surrendered before the court.
7
11. FIR as is well known is not to be treated to be an encyclopedia.
Although the effect of a statement made in the FIR at the earliest point of
time should be given primacy, it would not probably be proper to accept
that all particulars in regard to commission of offence in detail must be
furnished.
The prosecution has brought on record that four persons assaulted
the injured. P.W. 2 sustained serious injuries. He felt unconscious but
must have regained consciousness for some time. After he was brought to
the hospital then he could get the FIR lodged. If the deposition of P.W. 4
is to be believed, the prosecution must be held to have proved that he
became unconscious again as a result whereof his statement could not be
recorded on that date.
12. Not only the courts below but also the parties proceeded on the
basis that the FIR disclosed that the appellant was also armed with
“Khukri”. We say so because we do not find that the contention raised
before us by Mr. Bhatnagar, viz., that the FIR did not disclose the same
had been raised before the courts below. The only suggestion given to the
Investigating Officer, as noticed hereinbefore, was that it was written that
all accused were shown having Khukri in their hands and not Subhash
alone.
8
13. The testimony of Surendra (P.W.2) – informant – had been relied
upon by both the courts below. We do not think that any case has been
made out to take a different view.
All the four accused were convicted by the learned trial judge. The
High Court, however, having regard to the fact that the other accused had
not been named in the FIR and no test identification parade was held
thought it fit to extend the benefit of doubt in favour of three of them.
That would not mean that on the same analogy, a judgment of acquittal
should have been recorded in favour of the appellant also.
Keeping in view the place of occurrence, it will not be hazardous to
presume that the incident had taken place within a very short time. P.W. 2
in his evidence stated that three persons came from behind. He might not
have been able to remember their names at the time when the FIR was
lodged. But, in our opinion, as the offence must have been committed by
more than one person and the appellant having been named in the FIR and
specific overt act having been attributed to him by P.W. 2 in his
deposition, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out to
interfere with the impugned judgment.
14. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
9
.……………………………….J.
[S.B. Sinha]
...…………………………..…J.
[Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]
New Delhi;
May 06, 2009