# NAND LAL AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

- **Citation:** [2023] 2 S.C.R. 276
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-03-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1421 of 2015
- **Bench:** B. R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/nand-lal-and-others-v-the-state-of-chhattisgarh-36813
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 - Murder - Prosecution case that
previous enmity between the accused persons and the complainant
- Accused no. 11 assaulted the complainant and thereafter, the
complainant lodged an FIR - Said accused then alongwith the other
accused armed with deadly weapons formed an unlawful assembly,
and assualted the victim-complainant's father along with the
prosecution witnesses, resulting in the death of the victim -
Conviction of the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s.
302 along with the other offences and sentenced to life imprisonment
by the courts below - Sustainability of - Held: Delay in lodging of
the FIR by the injured person not explained at all - Prosecution
attempted to supress the real genesis of the incident - There was
non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused, which
cannot be considered to be minor or superficial - Prosecution
supressed the information that accused informed the police that he
was assaulted by the complainant, thus, the said accused entitled to
the benefit of doubt - As regards the remaining accused persons,
their names were not mentioned in the merg report which was lodged
prior to the lodging of FIR, in the inquest panchnama and spot
panchnama - Taking into consideration the delay in lodging the
FIR, with the circumstance of their names not being mentioned in
the contemporaneous documents, the possibility of the said accused
being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out - Their conviction was
based only on the oral testimony of the interested witness without
sufficient corroboration, thus, would not be sustainable - Judgment
and order passed by the High Court set aside - Evidence.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Believing the contents of the FIR that the
incident has taken place at around 08.30 PM and that the injured
persons had reached the Bazar at around 10-11 PM where they
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 276
276
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
277
were informed that they could not be treated unless a report was
lodged, a further delay of around four to five hours in lodging the
FIR has not been explained. The distance between the Bazar
and the Police Station is approximately 15 Kms. It has come on
record that there is an all-weather road connecting the two places.
As such, at the most, it would take around 30-40 minutes to reach
the Police Station from the Bazar. This delay of four hours in
lodging the FIR is not at all explained. [Para 25][286-F-G]
1.2 Undisputedly, the injuries sustained by accused No. 11
cannot be considered to be minor or superficial. The witnesses
are also interested witnesses, inasmuch as they are close relatives
of the deceased. That there was previous enmity between the
two families, on account of election of Sarpanch, has come on
record. Previous enmity is a double-edged sword. On one hand,
it can provide motive and on the other hand, the possibility of
false implication cannot be ruled out. [Para 28][288-D-E]
1.3 Much prior to lodging of the FIR at 03.15 AM on 4th
November 2006 by K, the Police had taken accused No. 11 for
medical examination. The memo forwarding accused No. 11 for
medical examination to Medical Officer mentions that accused
No. 11 had informed the police that at around 08.30 PM, he was
assaulted by PW-1. Undisputedly, the prosecution has suppressed
information with regard to the said incident. The prosecution has
also suppressed the FIR lodged by PW-1. It is thus clear that the
prosecution has attempted to suppress the real genesis of the
incident. Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter,
coupled with the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by
accused No. 11, accused No. 11 is entitled to benefit of doubt.
[Para 29][288-E-G]
1.4 No doubt that in each and every case, delay in lodging
the FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution case. It will depend
upon facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case,
assuming that the incident had taken place at 08.30 PM and the
injured persons were at the Bazar

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
276
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
NAND LAL AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1421 of 2015)
MARCH 14, 2023
 [B. R. GAVAI, VIKRAM NATH AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 - Murder - Prosecution case that
previous enmity between the accused persons and the complainant
- Accused no. 11 assaulted the complainant and thereafter, the
complainant lodged an FIR - Said accused then alongwith the other
accused armed with deadly weapons formed an unlawful assembly,
and assualted the victim-complainant's father along with the
prosecution witnesses, resulting in the death of the victim -
Conviction of the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s.
302 along with the other offences and sentenced to life imprisonment
by the courts below - Sustainability of - Held: Delay in lodging of
the FIR by the injured person not explained at all - Prosecution
attempted to supress the real genesis of the incident - There was
non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused, which
cannot be considered to be minor or superficial - Prosecution
supressed the information that accused informed the police that he
was assaulted by the complainant, thus, the said accused entitled to
the benefit of doubt - As regards the remaining accused persons,
their names were not mentioned in the merg report which was lodged
prior to the lodging of FIR, in the inquest panchnama and spot
panchnama - Taking into consideration the delay in lodging the
FIR, with the circumstance of their names not being mentioned in
the contemporaneous documents, the possibility of the said accused
being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out - Their conviction was
based only on the oral testimony of the interested witness without
sufficient corroboration, thus, would not be sustainable - Judgment
and order passed by the High Court set aside - Evidence.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Believing the contents of the FIR that the
incident has taken place at around 08.30 PM and that the injured
persons had reached the Bazar at around 10-11 PM where they
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 276
276
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
277
were informed that they could not be treated unless a report was
lodged, a further delay of around four to five hours in lodging the
FIR has not been explained. The distance between the Bazar
and the Police Station is approximately 15 Kms. It has come on
record that there is an all-weather road connecting the two places.
As such, at the most, it would take around 30-40 minutes to reach
the Police Station from the Bazar. This delay of four hours in
lodging the FIR is not at all explained. [Para 25][286-F-G]
1.2 Undisputedly, the injuries sustained by accused No. 11
cannot be considered to be minor or superficial. The witnesses
are also interested witnesses, inasmuch as they are close relatives
of the deceased. That there was previous enmity between the
two families, on account of election of Sarpanch, has come on
record. Previous enmity is a double-edged sword. On one hand,
it can provide motive and on the other hand, the possibility of
false implication cannot be ruled out. [Para 28][288-D-E]
1.3 Much prior to lodging of the FIR at 03.15 AM on 4th
November 2006 by K, the Police had taken accused No. 11 for
medical examination. The memo forwarding accused No. 11 for
medical examination to Medical Officer mentions that accused
No. 11 had informed the police that at around 08.30 PM, he was
assaulted by PW-1. Undisputedly, the prosecution has suppressed
information with regard to the said incident. The prosecution has
also suppressed the FIR lodged by PW-1. It is thus clear that the
prosecution has attempted to suppress the real genesis of the
incident. Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter,
coupled with the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by
accused No. 11, accused No. 11 is entitled to benefit of doubt.
[Para 29][288-E-G]
1.4 No doubt that in each and every case, delay in lodging
the FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution case. It will depend
upon facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case,
assuming that the incident had taken place at 08.30 PM and the
injured persons were at the Bazar between 10-11 PM, and taking
into consideration that the distance between the Bazar to the
Police Station is 15 Kms., a delay of four hours in lodging the FIR
NAND LAL AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
would cast a serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution
case. It becomes more glaring since accused No. 11 had, in any
case, informed the police about the incident prior to 11.45 PM.
The suppression of the FIR lodged by him with respect to the
attack on him by PW-1, so also the suppression of the FIR lodged
by PW-1 against accused No. 11, adds to the doubt. [Para 30][289B-D]
1.5 PWs 2 and 9 are injured witnesses. As such, their
presence cannot be disputed. However, in case of proven previous
enmity, a possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. In
the instant case, it would be seen that the entire family of accused
No. 12 has been roped in. Though PW-2 has identified and named
the accused in her cross-examination, she has stated that, though
she recognized the relatives of the accused persons, she does
not remember their names. As such, the possibility of implicating
the entire family of accused no.12 cannot be ruled out. [Para
34][291-B-C]
1.6 The names of accused no.8, 9 and 10 are not mentioned
in the merg report, which was lodged prior to the lodging of FIR,
so also their names are not found in the inquest panchnama and
spot panchnama. Taking into consideration the delay in lodging
the FIR, with the circumstance of their names not being mentioned
in the contemporaneous documents, the possibility of the said
accused being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out. The
conviction of these accused purely on the basis of oral testimony
of the interested witnesses, without sufficient corroboration,
would not be sustainable. [Para 35][291-C-E]
1.7 The prosecution has examined PW-3, PW-5, PW-6 and
PW-8, none of whom have supported the prosecution case.
According to PWs 2, 9 and 13, it was the witness PW-3 who had
arranged for the tractor to take the injured persons to the Bazar.
However, he has stated that though PW-2 came to his place to
inform him about the incident, she had not informed him as to
which of the accused had assaulted the deceased and the injured
persons. Thus, the said appellants would also be entitled to benefit
of doubt. [Para 36][291-E-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
279
Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar (1976) 4
SCC 394; State of Rajasthan v. Madho and Another
(1991) 2 Supp SCC 396; State of M.P. v. Mishrilal
(Dead) and Others (2003) 9 SCC 426; Nagarathinam
and Others v. State (Represented by Inspector of Police)
(2006) 9 SCC 57 : [2006] 3 SCR 833; Ramashish Ray
v. Jagdish Singh (2005) 10 SCC 498; Ramesh Baburao
Devaskar and Others v. State of Maharashtra (2007)
13 SCC 501 : [2007] 11 SCR 197; Vadivelu Thevar v.
The State of Madras [1957] SCR 981 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1976) 4 SCC 394
referred to
Para 26
(1991) 2 Supp SCC 396
referred to
Para 27
(2003) 9 SCC 426
referred to
Para 27
[2006] 3 SCR 833
referred to
Para 27
(2005) 10 SCC 498
referred to
Para 28
[2007] 11 SCR 197
referred to
Para 31
[1957] SCR 981
referred to
Para 32
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1421 of 2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.2014 of the High Court
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRLA No. 529 of 2008.
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1470 of 2017 and 775-776 of 2023.
Renjith. B. Marar, Shailendra Tiwary, (A. C.), Vikas Upadhyay,
Ms. Ankita Kashyap, Renjith B., Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Ms. Ashu Jain,
Davesh Kr. Sharma, Arun Poomulli, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sumeer Sodhi, Dhruv Wadhwa, Devashish Tiwari, Advs. for the
Repondent.
NAND LAL AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B. R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted in SLP(Criminal) Nos. 6134-6135 of 2019.
2. These appeals assail the judgment and order dated 11th
November 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, thereby dismissing the appeals filed by the
appellants herein and confirming the judgment and order dated 24th May
2008 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court"),
convicting the appellants along with other accused for the offences
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,
"IPC") along with other offences and sentencing them to undergo life
imprisonment.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, as could be gathered from the
material placed on record, is thus:
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. Thereafter, Mangtin Bai (PW2), Khomlal (PW-9) and Purnima Bai (PW-13), wife, son and daughterin-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. On the basis of the oral report (Ex. P-9), a
merg report (Ex. P-10) came to be registered. Subsequently, the First
Information Report (for short, "FIR") came to be registered.
4. 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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
281
5. 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. Challenging
the same, four appeals were filed before this Court, being Criminal Appeal
No. 1421 of 2015 by Nand Lal, Bhagwat and Ramdular, accused No. 8
to 10 respectively; Criminal Appeal No. 1422 of 2015 by Paltan Jangde,
accused No. 12; Criminal Appeal No. 1470 of 2017 by Charandas Jangde,
Chhannu Jangde and Charnu Jangde, accused Nos. 5 to 7 respectively;
and appeals arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 6134-6135 of 2019, which
were filed by Tulsi Jangde, Suresh Jangde, Dinesh Jangde, Rupesh Jangde
and Naresh Kumar, accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 11 respectively.
6. During the pendency of the appeals, Paltan Jangde, accused
No.12 has died and as such, the said appeal, being Criminal Appeal No.
1422 of 2015, has abated, vide this Court's order dated 13th January
2023. Tulsi Jangde, Suresh Jangde, Dinesh Jangde, Rupesh Jangde,
Channu Jangde and Charnu Jangde, appellants in appeals arising out of
SLP(Criminal) Nos.6134-6135 of 2019, and Charandas Jangde, appellant
in Criminal Appeal No. 1470 of 2017, have already been released on
completion of their sentence. As such, we are concerned with the
appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1421 of 2015 and Naresh Kumar, one
of the appellants in appeals arising out of SLP(Criminal) Nos.6134- 6135
of 2019.
7. We have heard Shri Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of accused Nos. 8 to 10, Shri Renjith B. Marar, learned amicus
curiae and Shri Sumeer Sodhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent-State.
8. Shri Upadhyay submits 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 submits 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
NAND LAL AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
282
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
FIR has been suppressed by the prosecution. He further submits that
the inordinate delay in registering the FIR has also not been explained by
the prosecution. The learned counsel submits 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 learned Counsel, therefore,
submits that 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.
9. Shri Upadhyay submits that, in any case, all the three eye
witnesses, i.e., Mangtin Bai (PW-2), Khomlal (PW-9) and Purnima Bai
(PW-13) have made only omnibus allegations against the appellants
herein and no specific overt act attributable to the present appellants is
mentioned. The learned counsel further submits that the incident happened
at night and it is also admitted that there was a power cut. As such, the
testimonies of all the three witnesses that they had seen the incident in
the moonlight and in the light of a lamp cannot be said to be trustworthy.
It is further submitted that, since PW-9 himself had admitted that he had
hidden himself in a grain-store (kothi), it is improbable that he has
witnessed the incident.
10. Shri Marar submits that as a matter of fact, Naresh Kumar,
accused No. 11 has received grievous injuries. It is submitted that PW14, IO has admitted that Naresh Kumar, accused No. 11 had injuries on
his head, ankle of left leg and the middle finger of his right hand. He
submitted that even the Trial Court has found that accused No.11 Naresh
Kumar had received grievous injuries and that he had gone to Police
Station, Suhela to lodge the report. He lodged the report at the said
Police Station and, thereafter, he was sent to Bhatapara Hospital for
treatment. It is submitted that the prosecution has not explained the injuries
received by accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar. It is submitted that, in any
case, the prosecution has suppressed the information received from
accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar. It is further submitted that it is improbable
that accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar, after receiving such grievous injuries,
could have taken part in the assault against the deceased and PWs 2, 9
and 13.
11. Shri Sodhi, on the contrary, submits 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. It is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
283
submitted that 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. He further submits that 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. Shri Sodhi submits 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.
12. Shri Sodhi, relying on various judgments of this Court, submits
that for a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC with the aid of Section
149 of the IPC, what is relevant is whether the accused was a member
of unlawful assembly, and not whether he actually took active part in the
crime or not. He further submits that mere non-explanation of injuries
on the person of the accused would not be fatal to the prosecution case.
13. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we
have examined the material placed on record.
14. From the medical evidence, it cannot be disputed that the
death of deceased Kartikram is homicidal. The injuries on PWs 2 and 9
are also not seriously disputed by the appellants.
15. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it can be seen
that the incident has taken place in two parts. The first part is with
regard to the assault on Atmaram (PW-1) by accused No. 11 Naresh
Kumar, whereas the second part is with regard to the assault by the
accused persons on the deceased and PWs 2, 9 and 13. Atmaram (PW1), in his evidence, states that on 3rd November 2006, when he was at
his house, accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar came to his home and started
abusing him. PW-1 stated that accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar was under
the influence of liquor. Accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar told PW-1 that
he had gone to his house to make a complaint and he had extorted an
amount of Rs.5,000/- from him after plying him with alcohol. Thereafter,
accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar started assaulting PW-1 with the lathi in
his hand. Then, PW-1 states that accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar left his
place with a threat that he would return along with other members of his
family. It is further stated by Atmaram (PW-1) that, thereafter, he went
to lodge a report to Suhela Police Station along with his wife, son and
daughter.
NAND LAL AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
284
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
16. Atmaram (PW-1) further stated that when he returned from
the Police Station, his son came and told him that PW- 1's father was
murdered and PW-1 again went to the Police Station to lodge the report.
As such, it is clear that PW-1 is not an eye witness to the second incident.
17. Mangtin Bai (PW-2) is the wife of the deceased Kartikram.
She, in her evidence, stated that all the accused persons had entered her
house and started abusing them. Her husband was in the TV room. All
the accused persons started assaulting her husband in the said TV room.
Thereafter, they came to the second room where nobody was there.
Her son had hidden himself in a dhan kothi. The accused persons went
there and started assaulting her son. Thereafter, she went to inform her
neighbour, Jeevan Lal Sahu (PW-6). She, along with PWs 9 and 13, then
went by a tractor to Baloda Bazar. They could not get treatment there
since no report had been lodged with the police. They took a jeep from
there and went to Suhela Police Station. From there, they were taken to
Bhatapara Hospital for treatment.
18. In the cross-examination of Mangtin Bai (PW-2), on being
asked as to whether she knows the relatives of the accused persons
present in the court, she stated that she knows them but she cannot
name them.
19. Khomlal (PW-9) is the injured son of the deceased Kartikram.
His evidence is also of similar nature. He, too, testifies about the earlier
incident pertaining to Atmaram (PW-1). He states that after Atmaram
(PW-1) went to the Police Station at around 08.30 PM, all the accused
persons came to his house. He states that all the accused persons entered
the room of his father and started assaulting his father. He, therefore,
went to hide himself in the dhan kothi. The accused persons came
there and assaulted him and thus, he received severe injuries. Thereafter,
they went to Baloda Bazar for treatment. However, the doctor refused
to treat them. As such, they went to Suhela Police Station and lodged
the report. In his cross-examination, he admits that in the merg report
lodged by him, there is no mention of Nand Lal, Bhagwant and Ramdular,
i.e., accused Nos. 8 to 10 respectively. Though he states that he had
informed the police of all the details, it is only the police who can say
why the names of the aforesaid three appellants are not there.
20. Purnima (PW-13), wife of Khomal (PW-9), also states that
Atmaram (PW-1) was going to the Police Station to lodge a report at
around 7:00 PM. She states that, between 8:00 PM to 8:30 PM, the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
285
accused persons, viz. Charandad Jangde, Tulsi Jangde, Charnu Jangde,
Bhagwat and others, came to their house, where they first assaulted her
mother-in-law, Mangtin Bai (PW-2), with a stick. Thereafter she repeats
the same version as given by Mangtin Bai (PW-2) and Khomlal (PW-9).
21. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, "Cr. P.C."), accused No. 11 Naresh
Kumar specifically stated that he had received grievous injuries after he
was assaulted by Atmaram (PW-1) and, thereafter, he went to the Police
Station with accused No. 7 Charnu Jangde, accused No. 12 Paltan Jangde,
Ashwini and Vinod, from where he was sent to Bhatapara Hospital for
treatment.
22. It will be pertinent to refer to the medical examination of
accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar conducted by Dr. Anita Verma
(PW-10). The injuries sustained by him are thus:
•
"Lacerated wound of 6x1x0.5 cm on the left parietal region
of scalp.
•
Multiple contusions on the back, left shoulder, left arm, varying
in size from 5 to 20 cm in length and 2 to 4 cm in breath.
•
Abrasion of 3x0.5 cm on left leg.
•
Swelling, tenderness and deformity on prox. Phalanx of right
middle finger.
•
Abrasion of 2x0.2 cm on the forehead.
•
Abrasion of 1x0.2 cm on the left side of forehead.
•
Abrasion of 2x0.5 cm on the right ankle.
•
Fracture of left parietal bone,
•
Fracture in left shoulder.
•
Fracture of proximal phalanx of middle ring finger.
•
Fracture of shaft of fibula at junction upper 1/3rd & middle 1/
3rd."
23. PW-14, IO admits that in the merg intimation report, the names
of Nand Lal, Bhagwat and Ramdular, i.e., accused Nos. 8 to 10
respectively are not mentioned. He further admits that in the spot
panchnama also, their names are not mentioned. He admits in his crossNAND LAL AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
examination that in Ex. D-9, the incident with accused No.11 Naresh
Kumar is mentioned to have happened at 08.30 PM on 3rd November
2006. He further admits that accused No.11 Naresh Kumar had grievous
injuries on his head, ankle of left leg and the middle finger of the right
hand. He further admits that Naresh Kumar was taken from Police
Station to the doctor for examination at 11.45 PM.
24. It can thus be seen from the evidence of PW-14, IO that the
police had information about the incident at least prior to 11.45 PM on
3rd November 2006. No doubt that mere delay in registering FIR would
not be fatal to the prosecution case. The effect of delay in lodging the
FIR would differ in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the
present case, admittedly, accused No.11 Naresh Kumar had received
grievous injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution. A
specific defence has been taken by accused No.11 Naresh Kumar that
when he was coming after consuming liquor, he was assaulted by
Atmaram (PW-1). Thereafter, he went to the Police Station along with
accused No. 7 Charnu Jangde, accused No.12 Paltan Jangde, Ashwini
and Vinod, whereafter he was referred for medical treatment. Looking
at the injuries of accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar, it appears difficult that
he could have taken part in the second part of the incident. The prosecution
has suppressed the first report lodged by Atmaram (PW-1) as well as by
accused No.11 Naresh Kumar. If Naresh Kumar was examined at 11.45
PM, the police must have had some information about the incident at
least by 11.00 PM. As such, there is a delay of at least four hours in
lodging the FIR.
25. Believing the contents of the FIR that the incident has taken
place at around 08.30 PM and that the injured persons had reached
Baloda Bazar at around 10-11 PM where they were informed that they
could not be treated unless a report was lodged, a further delay of around
four to five hours in lodging the FIR has not been explained. The distance
between Baloda Bazar and Suhela Police Station is approximately 15
Kms. It has come on record that there is an all-weather road connecting
the two places. As such, at the most, it would take around 30-40 minutes
to reach Suhela Police Station from Baloda Bazar. This delay of four
hours in lodging the FIR is not at all explained.
26. We will first consider the issue with regard to non- explanation
of injuries sustained by accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar. In the case of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
287
Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar1, which case also arose
out of a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC,
this Court had an occasion to consider the issue of non-explanation of
injuries sustained by the accused. This Court, after referring to the earlier
judgments on the issue, observed thus:
"12. .......It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation
of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the
occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important
circumstance from which the court can draw the following
inferences:
"(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the
origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true
version;
(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the
injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most
material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;
(3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the
injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so
as to throw doubt on the prosecution case."
The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries
on the person of the accused assumes much 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. In the instant case, when it is
held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received serious
injuries which have not been explained by the prosecution, then it
will be difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of PWs 1 to
4 and 6, more particularly, when some of these witnesses have
lied by stating that they did not see any injuries on the person of
the accused. Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court
appears to have given due consideration to this important lacuna
or infirmity appearing in the prosecution case. We must hasten to
add that as held by this Court in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima
[(1975) 2 SCC 7 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 384] there may be cases where
the non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not
affect the prosecution case. This principle would obviously apply
1(1976) 4 SCC 394
NAND LAL AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
to cases where the injuries sustained by the accused are minor
and superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent, so
independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent and
creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the omission on
the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries. The present,
however, is certainly not such a case, and the High Court was,
therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious infirmity in the
prosecution case on unconvincing premises."
27. A similar view with regard to non-explanation of injuries has
been taken by this Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan v. Madho
and Another2, State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead) and Others3 and
Nagarathinam and Others v. State (Represented by Inspector of
Police)4.
28. Undisputedly, in the present case, the injuries sustained by
accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar cannot be considered to be minor or
superficial. The witnesses are also interested witnesses, inasmuch as
they are close relatives of the deceased. That there was previous enmity
between the two families, on account of election of Sarpanch, has come
on record. As observed by this Court in the case of Ramashish Ray v.
Jagdish Singh5, previous enmity is a double-edged sword. On one hand,
it can provide motive and on the other hand, the possibility of false
implication cannot be ruled out.
29. We have already seen herein above the injuries sustained by
accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar. Much prior to lodging of the FIR at
03.15 AM on 4th November 2006 by Khomlal, the Police had taken
accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar for medical examination. The memo
forwarding accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar for medical examination to
Medical Officer mentions that accused No. 11 had informed the police
that at around 08.30 PM, he was assaulted by Atmaram (PW-1).
Undisputedly, the prosecution has suppressed information with regard to
the said incident. The prosecution has also suppressed the FIR lodged
by Atmaram (PW-1). It is thus clear that the prosecution has attempted
to suppress the real genesis of the incident. Taking into consideration
this aspect of the matter, coupled with the non-explanation of the injuries
2 1991 Supp (2) SCC 396
3 (2003) 9 SCC 426
4 (2006) 9 SCC 57
5 (2005) 10 SCC 498
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
289
sustained by accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar, we are of the considered
view that accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar is entitled to benefit of doubt.
30. That leaves us with the appeal of the other 3 accused, namely
accused No. 8 Nandlal, accused No. 9 Bhagwat and accused No. 10
Ramdular. For considering their case we will have to take into
consideration the delay in lodging the FIR. No doubt that in each and
every case, delay in lodging the FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution
case. It will depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. In the
present case, as already discussed hereinabove, assuming that the incident
had taken place at 08.30 PM and the injured persons were at Baloda
Bazar between 10-11 PM, and taking into consideration that the distance
between Baloda Bazar to Suhela Police Station is 15 Kms., a delay of
four hours in lodging the FIR would cast a serious doubt on the
genuineness of the prosecution case. It becomes more glaring since
accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar had, in any case, informed the police
about the incident prior to 11.45 PM. The suppression of the FIR lodged
by him with respect to the attack on him by Atmaram (PW-1), so also
the suppression of the FIR lodged by Atmaram (PW-1) against accused
No. 11 Naresh Kumar, adds to the doubt.
31. We may gainfully refer to the following observations of this
Court in the case of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar and Others v. State
of Maharashtra6:
"19. In a case of this nature, enmity between two groups is
accepted. In a situation of this nature, whether the first information
report was ante- timed or not also requires serious consideration.
First information report, in a case of this nature, provides for a
valuable piece of evidence although it may not be a substantial
evidence. The reason for insisting on lodging of first information
report without undue delay is to obtain the earlier information in
regard to the circumstances in which the crime had been
committed, the name of the accused, the parts played by them,
the weapons which had been used as also the names of
eyewitnesses. Where the parties are at loggerheads and there
had been instances which resulted in death of one or the other,
lodging of a first information report is always considered to be
vital."
6 (2007) 13 SCC 501
NAND LAL AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
As held by this Court, the FIR is a valuable piece of evidence,
although it may not be substantial evidence. The immediate lodging of
an FIR removes suspicion with regard to over implication of number of
persons, particularly when the case involved a fight between two groups.
When the parties are at loggerheads, the immediate lodging of the FIR
provides credence to the prosecution case.
32. Undisputedly, the present case rests on the evidence of
interested witnesses. No doubt that two of them are injured witnesses.
This Court, in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras7,
has observed thus:
"11. ......Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established
rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not
with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or
disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context
may be classified into three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty
in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may
acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be
above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or
subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no
difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of
cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for
corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct
or circumstantial......"
33. It could thus be seen that in the category of "wholly reliable"
witness, there is no difficulty for the prosecution to press for conviction
on the basis of the testimony of such a witness. In case of "wholly
unreliable" witness, again, there is no difficulty, inasmuch as no conviction
could be made on the basis of oral testimony provided by a "wholly
unreliable" witness. The real difficulty comes in case of the third category
of evidence which is partly reliable and partly unreliable. In such cases,
the court is required to be circumspect and separate the chaff from the
7 [1957] SCR 981
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
291
grain, and seek further corroboration from reliable testimony, direct or
circumstantial.
34. Undisputedly, in the present case, PWs 2 and 9 are injured
witnesses. As such, their presence cannot be disputed. However, as
already observed hereinabove, in case of proven previous enmity, a
possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. In the present case, it
would be seen that the entire family of accused No. 12 Paltan Jangde
has been roped in. Though PW-2 has identified and named the accused
in her cross-examination, she has stated that, though she recognized the
relatives of the accused persons, she does not remember their names.
As such, the possibility of implicating the entire family of Paltan cannot
be ruled out.
35. As already discussed hereinabove, the names of Nand Lal,
Bhagwat and Ramdular are not mentioned in the merg report, which
was lodged prior to the lodging of FIR, so also their names are not found
in the inquest panchnama and spot panchnama. Taking into consideration
the delay in lodging the FIR, with the circumstance of their names not
being mentioned in the contemporaneous documents, the possibility of
the said accused being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out. In our
view, the conviction of these accused purely on the basis of oral testimony
of the interested witnesses, without sufficient corroboration, would not
be sustainable.
36. The prosecution has examined Baliram Sahu (PW-3), Inder
Sahu (PW-5), Jeewan Lal (PW-6) and Budheram (PW-8), none of whom
have supported the prosecution case. According to PWs 2, 9 and 13, it
was the witness Baliram Sahu (PW-3) who had arranged for the tractor
to take the injured persons to Baloda Bazar. However, he has stated that
though Mangtin Bai (PW-2) came to his place to inform him about the
incident, she had not informed him as to which of the accused had
assaulted the deceased and the injured persons. In our view, therefore,
the said appellants would also be entitled to benefit of doubt.
37. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the appellants
Nand Lal, Bhagwat, Ramdular and Naresh Kumar are entitled to benefit
of doubt.
38. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i)
The appeals are allowed;
NAND LAL AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
[B. R. GAVAI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
(ii)
The judgment and order dated 11th November 2014 passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at
Bilaspur, and the judgment and order dated 24th May 2008
passed by the trial court are quashed and set aside; and
(iii)
The appellants are acquitted of the charges charged with
and are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required
in any other case.
39. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
40. Before we part with the judgment, we must place on record
our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri Vikas
Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Nos. 8 to 10
and Shri Sumeer Sodhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State. A special mention needs to be made of the painstaking
efforts taken by Shri Renjith B. Marar, learned counsel, who was
appointed through the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority as an
amicus curiae for accused No. 11.
Nidhi Jain
Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA)