Nand Lal v State of Chhattisgarh

Criminal Appeal No. 1421 Of 2015

Dated – 14th March 2023

Court – The Supreme Court of India
Bench – Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol

Facts of the case

1. On the night of 3rd November 2006, at around 07.30 PM, Naresh Kumar,
accused No. 11 had assaulted Atmaram (PW-1). After the said assault,
Atmaram (PW-1) went to the Police Station, Suhela for lodging a report.
Thereafter, Naresh Kumar, accused No.11 along with other accused, who
were armed with deadly weapons, formed an unlawful assembly, entered
the house of deceased Kartikram and assaulted him as well as Mangtin Bai
(PW-2) and Khomlal (PW-9). As a result of the said assault, Kartikram died
on the spot.

2. Thereafter, Mangtin Bai (PW-2), Khomlal (PW-9) and Purnima Bai (PW-13),
wife, son and daughter-in-law of deceased Kartikram respectively, along
with neighbours Baliram Sahu (PW-3) and Jeevan Lal Sahu (PW-6) went in
a tractor to Baloda Bazar to see a doctor, who refused to treat them unless
a report was lodged at the police station. Thereafter, a jeep was hired and
they went to the Police Station, Suhela. Subsequently, the First Information
Report came to be registered.

3. On the basis of the said FIR, Inspector Kamal Singh (PW-14), Investigating
Officer (IO) conducted the investigation. After conclusion of the
investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed against 12 accused persons
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar. Since the case was
exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, the same was committed to the
Sessions Court.

1
4. The learned Trial Judge, vide judgment and order dated 24th May 2008,
convicted all the accused persons as aforesaid. The Division Bench of the
High Court, vide judgment and order dated 11th November 2014, dismissed
the appeals filed by the accused persons. Impugned by the judgment,
accused filed appeals before the Supreme Court.

Issue

 Whether conviction of accused purely based on the oral testimony of

interested witnesses, without sufficient corroboration, would be
sustainable?

Appellant’s Arguments

 The Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the names of
accused Nos. 8 to 10, i.e., Nand Lal, Bhagwat and Ramdular, have not been
mentioned in any of the contemporaneous documents like the merg
panchnama, inquest panchnama and spot panchnama. He submits that,
whereas the names of all other accused have been specifically mentioned in
the aforesaid documents, there is no mention of the names of accused Nos.
8 to 10 in these documents. It is for the first time that the names of these
three accused appear in the FIR.

 The learned counsel submitted that though the incident had occurred at
08.30 PM on 3rd November 2006, the FIR was alleged to have been lodged
at 03.10 AM on 4th November 2006, which creates a doubt that the FIR is a
fabricated document and the original FIR has been suppressed by the
prosecution. The inordinate delay in registering the FIR has also not been
explained by the prosecution.

2
 The learned counsel further submitted that all the three witnesses i.e.,
Mangtin Bai (PW-2), Khomlal (PW-9) and Purnima Bai (PW-13) are
interested witnesses. It is further submitted that the evidence of these
three witnesses is also inconsistent. The conviction was purely on the basis
of such interested witnesses, whose testimony is not cogent and
trustworthy, and is not sustainable unless there is some corroboration of
their testimony.

Respondent’s Arguments

 The Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that all the three eye
witnesses have clearly implicated all the appellants. It is submitted that
PWs 2 and 9 have specifically implicated the present appellants. All the
three witnesses are rustic villagers. Therefore, merely because there are
some discrepancies in their evidence cannot be a ground to reject their
testimonies. Merely because the witnesses are interested witnesses cannot
be a ground to discard their testimonies, if their evidence is found to be
trustworthy, reliable and cogent.

 The Counsel further submitted that, in any case, the witnesses are injured
witnesses and as such, their presence at the spot cannot be disputed. It is
further submitted that merely because there is some delay in lodging the
FIR, it cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case, which has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Supreme Court’s Observation

1. The Supreme Court observed that in the category of “wholly reliable”

witness, there is no difficulty for the prosecution to press for conviction and
likewise in case of “wholly unreliable” witness, there is no difficulty,
inasmuch as no conviction could be made. The real difficulty comes in case
3
 of the third category of evidence which is partly reliable and partly
unreliable. The Court held that in such cases, the court is required to be
circumspect and seek further corroboration from reliable testimony, direct
or circumstantial.

2. The Top Court noted that the death of the deceased was homicidal and the
injuries on prosecution witnesses were not disputed by the appellants.
However, the man who went to report the FIR of the murder was not an
eyewitness to the incident but was rather informed by the son that his
father had been murdered. The accused in his statement under Section 313
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had stated that he had received grievous
injuries upon being attacked by the respondent. He had gone to the police
station from where he was sent to the hospital. The IO had confirmed that
he had grievous injuries on his head, finger and leg, the explanation of
which was not provided by the prosecution.

3. The Supreme Court further observed that the evidence of prosecution

witnesses that the incident had taken place in two parts wherein the first
was in regard to the assault of the respondent and the second part was
with regard to assault of the deceased. It was opined that considering the
nature of injuries that the accused had suffered, made it difficult for him to
take part in the second instance wherein the deceased was killed, and his
family members were assaulted.

4. The Top Court referred the case of Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4
SCC 394 had stated that the omission on the part of the prosecution to
explain injuries on the accused would assume greater importance where
the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the
defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the
prosecution one.

5. The Supreme Court took note of the fact that there was a previous enmity
between the two families on account of election of Sarpanch which could
act as a double-edged sword. It can be used to establish motive but also
opens up the possibility of false implication. There was a delay of about 4-5
hours in lodging the FIR and the reason for the same was not explained by

4
 the prosecution, therefore, it was fit to give the benefit of doubt to the
accused.

6. The Top Court further observed that there was neither any mention of
accused 8-10 in the intimation report nor in the spot panchnama. The said
delay casted a serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution's case.
The case of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 13
SCC 501 assisted the Court in emphasising on the fact that when there is a
pre-existing enmity amongst the parties, immediate lodging of FIR provides
credibility to the prosecution's case.

Judgement

The Supreme Court bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice
Sanjay Karol held that omission on part of the prosecution to explain injuries
on the accused indicated that they had suppressed the genesis of the
occurrence and therefore assumed greater importance where the evidence
considered was of interested witnesses or where the case of defence chalks
down another probability with that of the prosecution. Accordingly acquitted
the appellants from charges imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the
Chhattisgarh High Court on grounds that:
1. Prosecution had not explained injuries on the accused.
2. Delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR).
3. Evidence consisted of interested witnesses.

All the grounds persists especially when a case of rivalry was pre-existing
between the parties.