REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINIAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 669 OF 2006

CHUNNI LAL       …APPELLANT    

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P.       …RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma

1.  The  present  appellant  has  preferred  this  appeal  being  

aggrieved  by  the  judgment  and  order  dated  10.02.2006  

passed by the Allahabad High Court upholding the order of  

conviction and sentence passed by the Second Additional  

Sessions Judge, Banda against the appellant under Section  

302 of the Indian Penal Code [for short ‘IPC’] and sentencing  

him to life imprisonment.

1

2. The  aforesaid  Sessions  Trial  case  was  registered  for  an  

offence  punishable  under  Section  302  IPC  for  allegedly  

committing murder by the present appellant Chunni Lal of  

his uncle Heera Lal at about 8.00 p.m. on 07.05.1978 in  

village Baramafi, Police Station Pahari, District Banda.

3. The First Information Report [for short ‘FIR’] was lodged by  

Juggi  Lal  [PW-1]  who  is  allegedly  an  eyewitness  to  the  

occurrence and the same was lodged at 08.05.1978 at 6.30  

a.m. The deceased Heera Lal was the uncle of the accused  

Chunni Lal inasmuch as both Ramdeo and Heera Lal were  

sons  of  Ram  Ratan.  Heera  Lal  was  unmarried  but  was  

keeping one Kainya alias Chandrakaliya as his mistress or  

concubine  for  the  last  about  25-26  years  preceding  the  

incident.  She was earlier married to one Jagannath Kalar  

but  sometime  prior  to  the  incident  Heera  Lal  performed  

marriage  with  her  and  a  document  in  that  regard  was  

executed on 15.02.1978 before the Marriage Officer.    In  

view of the aforesaid position the appellant Chunni Lal who  

was hoping to succeed to the estate of the deceased Heera  

Lal  thought  that  his  hopes  of  succeeding  to  this  estate  

2

would be lost and, therefore, it is alleged that the accused  

had  committed  the  aforesaid  offence  by  going  to  the  

agricultural field of deceased Heera Lal when deceased was  

processing the harvest of mustard crop in his field.   It is  

alleged that after going there the accused fired two rounds  

of  bullets  from  the  DBBL  gun  of  the  deceased  in  the  

presence of  Juggi  Lal  [PW-1]  and Ram Sakh [PW-2].  The  

incident happened at 8.00 p.m. on 07.05.1978 and the FIR  

was lodged on 08.05.1978 at 6.30 a.m. The investigating  

officer who is the Sub-Inspector of the Police Station went to  

the village at 7.15 p.m. for investigation. During the course  

of  investigation  he  took  a  DBBL gun and other  material  

exhibits into his custody and recorded the statements of the  

witnesses and thereafter submitted a chargesheet against  

the appellant herein.  

4. During the trial seven witnesses were examined on behalf of  

the prosecution whereas none was examined on behalf of  

the defence. The appellant was also examined under Section  

313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter the  

Second  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Banda,  who  was  the  

3

trial  Judge,  passed  a  judgment  and  order  of  conviction  

against the appellant finding him guilty of committing an  

offence under Section 302 IPC. By a separate order dated  

21.12.1981 the learned trial Court sentenced the appellant  

to life imprisonment.  

5. Being  aggrieved  by  the  said  judgment  and  order  the  

appellant filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court  

which was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court.  

The Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment and  

order dated 10.02.2006 upheld the order of conviction and  

sentence and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.  

Appellant  therefore  filed  the  present  appeal  on which we  

have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

6. The learned counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  took up  

several pleas during the course of his arguments in support  

of his stand that the appellant is innocent. We propose to  

deal  with  each  of  the  submissions  made  by  the  counsel  

appearing for the appellant.  

4

7.  The  first  submission  which  was  made  by  the  counsel  

appearing for the appellant was with regard to the motive  

for the crime alleged against the appellant.  The appellant  

contended through his counsel that there was absolutely no  

motive for the appellant to commit the crime as he was a  

natural heir being the nephew of the deceased as both PWs  

1 & 2 are illegitimate sons of the deceased and therefore  

there  was  a  motive  for  the  PWs  1  &  2  to  implicate  the  

accused in the offence.    

8. In the instant case it is established from the records that  

PWs 1 & 2 were born out of the relationship between the  

deceased and their mother Chandrakaliya who earlier was  

kept as a mistress or concubine by the deceased Heera Lal  

for about 25-26 years. PW-1 at the time of deposition was  

20 years of age whereas PW-2 was aged about 25 years. It is  

established from the aforesaid fact that both of them were  

born out of the relationship between the deceased Heera Lal  

and Chandrakaliya as their relationship started about 25-

26 years preceding the incident.   It is also established from  

the evidence adduced that about three months prior to the  

5

incident Heera Lal performed marriage with the said lady  

and a document was executed in that regard on 15.02.1978  

before the Marriage Officer.  It is to be noted that incident  

took place occurred only a few months thereafter that is on  

07.05.1978. On having found that his chance of inheriting  

the estate of the deceased was practically lost due to the  

aforesaid  marriage,  the  accused  might  have  thought  of  

taking revenge on his uncle for depriving him of his right to  

inherit  his  estate  and  therefore  immediately  went  to  the  

place of occurrence on the night of 07.05.1978 picked up  

the  DBBL  gun,  loaded  the  same  and  fired  upon  the  

deceased twice.   

9. This,  in  our  estimation  is  the  reason and motive  for  the  

crime and not the one which was advanced by the counsel  

appearing for the appellant, for by the time the incident had  

taken place, the deceased had legalized his relationship and  

married said Chandrakaliya thereby giving legal status to  

PWs 1 & 2 as his  sons.   In that situation there was no  

possibility at all of the appellant inheriting the property of  

his  uncle  and  therefore  the  plea  taken  by  the  appellant  

6

regarding motive appears to be without any merit.  Rather  

on the other hand, we find a clear motive on the part of the  

appellant- accused for committing the murder of his uncle.  

10.In this regard we wish to refer to the decision of this Court  

in the case of Raghubir Singh & Others v. State of Punjab  

reported in [1996] 9 SCC 233 which is as follows: -  

“7.  …………………..  The motives may be minor but  nonetheless they did provide an occasion for attack   on the deceased by the appellants. That apart, even  in the absence of motive, the guilt of the culprits can  be established in a given case if the other evidence  on the record is trustworthy and the absence of proof   of motive has never been considered as fatal to the   prosecution case where the ocular evidence is found  reliable………………… “

11. The same is also corroborated by the fact that after the  

death of the deceased the family of the accused including the  

accused  himself  took  several  steps  to  get  the  land  of  the  

deceased transferred and mutated in their names instead of  

PWs 1 & 2 and their brothers. Even in the cross-examination  

of the prosecution witnesses examined in the present criminal  

case of murder, an effort was being made to dislodge the claim  

of PWs 1 & 2 to inherit the property of the deceased. Both PWs  

1 & 2 have been extensively cross-examined in that regard but  

7

their evidence in support of their  claim of inheritance could  

not be shaken.   The submission of  the appellant therefore  

that there was no motive to kill his uncle cannot be accepted  

in view of the aforesaid extensively discussed clear facts and  

circumstance of the case.  

12. The  second  submission  which  was  advanced  by  the  

counsel appearing for the appellant was that the prosecution  

had examined only the interested witnesses who were closely  

related to the deceased.   It was contended by the appellant  

that the only independent witness who was examined was PW  

5, and PW5 having turned hostile, the conviction and sentence  

passed against the appellant is required to be set aside and  

quashed. It is no doubt true that PWs 1 & 2 are the sons of  

the deceased and they are brothers. They have been examined  

in  the  trial  as  the  eye-witnesses  to  the  occurrence.  The  

evidence  adduced by  PWs 1 & 2  also  indicate  that  besides  

them there was another witness namely Jagdeo Pradhan who  

was also present at the place of occurrence when the incident  

had occurred.   It has also come in evidence that said Jagdeo  

Pradhan  who  otherwise  would  have  been  an  independent  

8

witness died during the trial and before his evidence could be  

recorded. Both PWs 1 & 2 were cross-examined at length by  

the defence but not even a single question was put in such  

cross-examination that said PWs 1 & 2 were not present at the  

place  of  occurrence.    They  are  natural  witnesses  as  their  

presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time was  

usual and expected.

13.   Both PWs 1 & 2 have given a vivid account of the incident  

and the  manner  in which the incident  had occurred.   It  is  

proved from the records that when there father was doing the  

cleaning work of the mustard at about 8.00 p.m. on the fateful  

day, accused Chunni Lal came there and immediately picked  

up the DBBL gun belonging to the deceased, loaded both the  

barrels  with  cartridge  and  fired  twice  at  Heera  Lal,  as  a  

consequence of which, Heera Lal died.   PW-2 has also given a  

vivid description of the incident including the fact that when  

he chased Chunni Lal and caught his leg after 6-7 feet he even  

managed to snatch the gun from the hand of the accused.   It  

is  also disclosed from evidence recorded that despite  falling  

down the accused stood up immediately and ran away with  

9

the belt of cartridges towards the South.  There was another  

independent witness Sri  Keshan [PW-5] who was present at  

the time of the occurrence. He, however, turned hostile in the  

trial during his examination-in-chief.  

14. Having considered the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 who were  

the eye-witnesses to the occurrence we are satisfied that they  

were present at the place of occurrence in a usual and natural  

manner  when  the  incident  had  taken  place  and  they  had  

actually seen the occurrence. The incident had happened at  

8.00 p.m. in the night in the field of the deceased which was  

not only an agricultural field but also a dacoit infested area  

and  therefore  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  even  the  

deceased kept a gun with him with a belt of bullets in open for  

security reasons.  The accused knew that a gun is always kept  

in the field and at the place of work, for he used to visit them  

at the field occasionally and even at night.  That was also the  

reason why he did not carry any weapon with him, so as to  

avoid a suspicion in the mind of the deceased.    

15. The accused used the weapon of the deceased himself for  

firing upon him. Two bullets were fired which resulted in two  

10

injuries  which  are  established  from  the  medical  evidence  

available  on  record.  The  ocular  evidence,  therefore,  fully  

corroborates the medical evidence. In that view of the matter it  

cannot  be  said  that  the  evidence  of  PWs 1  & 2  should  be  

discarded as they are interested witnesses particularly when  

their evidence adduced could not be shaken by the defence in  

the cross-examination.  

16. In Jayabalan Vs. U.T. of Pondicherry reported in 2010  

(1) SCC 199, this Court while dealing with the evidence of the  

interested witnesses held as under:-

“……………..We  are  of  the  considered view that  in  cases where the Court is called upon to deal with the  evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of  the  Court,  while  appreciating  the  evidence of  such  witnesses must not be pedantic. The Court must be  cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence  given by the interested witnesses but the Court must  not  be  suspicious  of  such  evidence.  The  primary  endeavour  of  the  Court  must  be  to  look  for  consistency.  The  evidence  of  a  witness  cannot  be  ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from  the mouth of a person who is closely related to the   victim.”

17. Another  submission  which  was  made  by  the  counsel  

appearing for the appellant was that there was a delay in both  

lodging the FIR as also in initiating the investigation by the  

11

police. It was submitted that although the incident had taken  

place on 07.05.1978 at about 8.00 p.m., the FIR was lodged  

on 08.05.1978 at 6.30 a.m. only whereas the investigation was  

started by the police only in the evening.  

18. On  proper  appreciation  of  the  evidence  we  find  that  

although  the  incident  had  happened  at  8.00  p.m.  on  

07.05.1978 PWs 1 & 2 have clearly stated that they did not  

dare to go out of the place of occurrence due to fear. It has  

also come in evidence that the entire area was dacoit infested  

area and police station was also about eight kilometers away  

from  the  place  of  occurrence  and  therefore  it  was  quite  

possible that PWs 1 & 2 who were the eye-witnesses and the  

sons of the deceased thought it fit to travel out of the place of  

occurrence at about 4.00 a.m. in the morning to lodge the FIR  

which was accordingly lodged at the police station at 6.30 a.m.  

Although it was stated in the evidence that the investigating  

officer  namely  the  Sub-Inspector  was  present  at  the  police  

station in the morning hours when the informant reached the  

police station but it  has also come in evidence that he was  

required to go to the Court which was functioning from 6 a.m.  

12

in the morning.   Therefore the constable took the statement of  

the informant and carried the records to the Court to apprise  

about the case to the Sub-Inspector, the Investigating Officer.  

The Investigating Officer had clearly stated in his deposition  

that he came back from the Court at about 1’o clock.   The  

Court was located at quite a distance from the police station  

and after going back to the police station and after doing the  

needful he went to the village in the evening for carrying out  

his investigation. It is, therefore, established that there is well  

reasoned  and  proper  explanation  for  the  delay  both  in  the  

lodging of the FIR as also in starting of the investigation by the  

Investigating Officer.  In this regard we would like to refer to a  

decision of this Court in the case of Silak Ram & Another v.  

State of Karnataka reported in [2007] 10 SCC 464 relevant  

portion of which is as follows: -  

“12.  ……………..Delay  in  lodging  FIR  by  itself   would not be sufficient to discard the prosecution   version unless it is unexplained and such delay  coupled  with  the  likelihood  of  concoction  of   evidence.  There  is  no  hard-and-fast  rule  that   delay in filing FIR in each and every case is fatal   and  on  account  of  such  delay  the  prosecution  version should be discarded. The factum of delay  requires  the  court  to  scrutinise  the  evidence  

13

adduced with greater degree of care and caution.   In this case the eyewitnesses have given a vivid  description of the events. The evidence of PW 11  as noted above, is cogent and consistent and the  version given by this  witness  fits with  medical   evidence. …………….”  

The  aforesaid  delay  which  was  caused  due  to  reasonable  

factual  situation  cannot  destroy  the  prosecution  case  nor  

creates any suspicion with regard to the prosecution case. It  

also cannot be said under any circumstance and particularly  

because of the aforesaid explanation available on record that  

the FIR is ante-timed as submitted by the counsel appearing  

for the appellant.  

19. There is another very vital and important factor in this  

case, which is the fact of the accused absconding immediately  

after the occurrence.   PWs 1 & 2 stated that immediately after  

the accused opened fire on the deceased through the gun and  

after PW-2 was able to snatch away the rifle from the accused  

the accused got up and ran away from the place of occurrence  

and  thereafter  he  was  not  available  either  at  the  place  of  

occurrence or in the village. It is established from the evidence  

of the Investigating Officer that on 20.05.1978 he received an  

14

information that the accused surrendered in the Court of Chief  

Judicial Magistrate. The said information received by him was  

noted in the case diary. The fact that the accused ran away  

from the place of occurrence and was not traceable thereafter  

in  the  village  and  the  fact  that  he  surrendered  only  on  

20.05.1978 although the incident had occurred on 07.05.1978  

clearly  indicate  that  the  appellant  was guilty  of  the  offence  

alleged against him.  

20. All the aforesaid discussions and facts, therefore, lead to  

one and the only conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the  

offence alleged against him.  

21. In our considered opinion, the accused has been rightly  

convicted of the offence under Section 302 IPC.   This appeal,  

therefore, has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.

……….……………..…………J.  [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

…..…………………………….J.      [H.L. Dattu]

15

New Delhi July 5, 2010.

16