REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.554-555 OF 2002

Balmiki Singh …Appellant

Versus

Ram Chander Singh and Ors. …Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. These  appeals  have  been  filed  by  the  informant

questioning the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge

of the Patna High Court directing acquittal of the respondents

1 & 2. Each of the accused persons was found guilty for the

1

offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to

undergo  RI  for  5  years.   Additionally,  respondents  were

convicted for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms

Act, 1959 (for short ‘Arms Act’) and sentenced to undergo RI

for 3 years.   

2. Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:  

On 11.8.1992 at 7.00 a.m. the informant was going to

see his transplanted paddy in the field and when he reached

near the Ahari Payin, he saw the appellants behind palm tree

armed with Garasa and country made rifle.   The appellants

began to abuse him, which was protested by the informant.

Thereupon,  accused  Ramchandra  ordered  his  son  accused

Shravan to fire and Sravan fired upon the informant which hit

his  right  chest.   It  has  been  stated  that  prior  to  this

occurrence two days earlier an altercation had taken place in

between  the  informant  and the  accused  persons  on  use  of

irrigational water.  The informant after sustaining injuries sat

2

down and thereafter he was taken to Magadh Medical Hospital

where he was treated and his Fardbeyan was recorded by the

S.I. of police.  On the basis of Fardbeyan, F.I.R. was drawn up.

After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted,

cognizance  was  taken  and  the  case  was  committed  to  the

court of Sessions.  Finally the trial concluded with the result

as indicated above.  

The  appellant  pleaded  not  guilty  and  stated  that  they

had been falsely implicated in this case.

3. 8  witnesses  were  examined  to  further  the  prosecution

version of whom PWs. 1, 5 and 6 were stated to be the eye

witnesses. But ultimately it was noted that PWs. 1 and 5 were

not eye witnesses and the prosecution version primarily rested

on  the  evidence  of  PW-6,  the  injured  informant.  The  Trial

Court  found  the  evidence  to  be  cogent  and  accordingly

sentenced the accused persons.

3

4. In appeal, the High Court found that the prosecution has

not  been  able  to  establish  the  accusations  and  directed

acquittal.  The informant has filed these appeals questioning

acquittal.  

5. In  support  of  the  appeal  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant  submitted  that there  was no basis  to  discard the

evidence of PW-6 and, therefore,  the High Court should not

have directed acquittal.

6. Though the judgment of the High Court is very sketchy,

we find that vital facts have been noted by the High Court.

The incident is supposed to have taken place on 11.8.1992.

The  first  information  report  was  lodged  on  13.8.1992.

Strangely,  the  doctor  (PW-7)  stated  that  on  the  basis  of

requisition  received  from  the  police,  he  had  examined  the

informant on 11.8.1992 at 11.30 a.m.

7. Learned counsel  for the appellant tried to explain that

the fardbeyan was recorded on 11.8.1992.  Even if that be so,

4

it is not explained as to why the first information report was

recorded on 13.8.1992.   In fact, the first information report

shows that the fardbeyan was on 11.8.1992 at 1400 hrs. and

the first information report is registered at 13.8.1992 at 1130

am.  The occurrence according to first information report took

place  at  7.00  a.m.  on  11.8.1992.   Additionally,  the  report

reached Court on 14.8.1992. The IO was not examined who

could  have  explained  the  delay  in  registering  the  FIR  and

dispatching  the  same  to  the  Court  and  no  reason  was

indicated  as  to  why  he  was  not  examined.  Additionally,

evidence of PW-6 is also contrary to the medical evidence in a

sense  that according  to him there  was one shot.  But there

were three injuries. The High Court noted that there was no

explanation for the third injury.  Even doctor’s evidence shows

that the two injuries cannot be treated as an entry and exit

rooms.  According  to  PW-6  the  first  information  report  was

recorded through Jamin Khan at the medical college. If that

be  so,  there  was no reason as to why the first  information

came to be lodged after two days.

5

8. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies highlighted by the

High Court, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment

of acquittal recorded.

9. The appeals are dismissed.                     

……………………………….……J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………………….……J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

New Delhi: September 18, 2008

6