[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shrikant Kamal Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2026:BHC-AS:11238-DB
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
Digitally
signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PURTI
PURTI PRASAD
PRASAD PARAB
PARAB Date:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2026.03.07
15:06:28
+0530
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.762 OF 2021
Shrikant Kamal Chavan
Aged about 29 Years
Occupation : Labour,
R/o. Karnal Tanda, Tal. Sindgi,
District : Vijapur (Vijaypur)
State : Karnataka.
At present detained in
Central Prison Yerwada, Pune. ... Appellant
V/S
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Senior Inspector of Police,
Wanwadi Police Station, Pune) ... Respondent
_______
Ms. Anjali Patil a/w Mr. Tohin Shaikh for the Appellant.
Dr. Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyer, APP for Respondent-State.
_______
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 4th FEBRUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 7th MARCH 2026
JUDGMENT (PER SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT J ):
1. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the Impugned
judgment and order dated 17.03.2021, passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Pune, convicting the accused-appellant for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as under:
a. It is the case of the prosecution that on 01.04.2019, at about
11.29 am, Complainant Tarabai Jaywant Rathod lodged a complaint
at Wanawadi Police Station stating that she was residing at Wadkar
Mala, Laxmi Park, Mohammedwadi, Hadapsar, Pune, along with her
husband Jaywant, son Uttam and daughter Pallavi. Her elder
daughter Sangita Shrikant Chavan was residing since 29.03.2019 in
a temporary hut erected in an open space, along with her husband
Shrikant Kamal Chavan (the accused) and their two minor children.
It is further the case that the complainant and her family members
were working as labourers and were residing in temporary huts. It is
further the case that Sangita had married the accused about five
years prior to the incident and they had two children, Kartik aged
about three years and Aniket aged about one and a half years. It is
further the case that the accused was addicted to liquor and
frequently suspected Sangita's character, resulting in quarrels
between them. It is further the case that on 31.03.2019 at about
8:00 p.m. a quarrel ensued between the accused and Sangita, which
the complainant overheard from her adjacent hut. It is further the
case that after dinner, the accused and Sangita slept in the open
space beside their hut on a plastic sheet and the quarrel allegedly
continued until about 11:30 p.m., after which the complainant went
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
to sleep. It is further the case that the complainant woke up on
hearing her grandson crying and therefore she went to the place
where they were sleeping. She saw the accused running away and
found Sangita lying on her stomach on a plastic sheet with blood
oozing from below her left ear. It is further the case that despite
attempts being made to rouse her, Sangita did not respond and
therefore the complainant raised an alarm. It is further the case that
she noticed a wooden log and an iron axe lying nearby. She
thereafter reported that the accused had murdered Sangita and fled
from the scene. On the basis of her report, Crime No. 219 of 2019
was registered on 01.04.2019 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. The Appellant-Accused was arrested on 04.04.2019 from Vijapur.
Karnataka. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet came to be
filed on 27.06.2019 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Pune, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. As the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the
case was committed to the Sessions Court on 03.07.2019 and registered as
Sessions Case No. 562 of 2019.
4. The Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused-
appellant on 01.10.2019 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
Appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The evidence
of prosecution witnesses came to be recorded. Thereafter the statement of
the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was
recorded, wherein he denied the allegations and claimed that he had been
falsely implicated.
5. The following witnesses were examined by the prosecution during
the course of trial:
Rank Name Nature of Evidence
PW 1 Tarabai Jaywant Informant who saw the dead body
Rathod and informed the police; she is the
mother of the deceased and
mother-in-law of the accused.
PW 2 Shoukin Hakim Panch witness for recovery of Axe,
Sayyed Talwat and Shirt.
PW 3 Dr. Shishir Sunil Medical Officer who conducted the
Vidhate post-mortem examination.
PW 4 Asaram Eknath Investigating Officer.
Shete
PW 5 Bhagwan Dashrath Investigating Officer.
Kamble
6. We have heard Adv. Anjali Patil for the Appellant and
Dr.Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyer, APP for the Respondent-State.
7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the
Appellant has been falsely implicated. She has submitted that there is a
gross delay in registration of the FIR and therefore the possibility of the
Appellant having been falsely implicated cannot be ruled out. The Learned
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
Counsel has further submitted that although the statements of several
witnesses were recorded by the police, however, the prosecution chose
only to examine three witnesses excluding the Investigating Officer and
material witnesses have not been deliberately examined. The Learned
Counsel has further submitted that the Appellant was not present at the
site but was on his duty and he has submitted the same explanation even
in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., which the Trial
Court failed to consider. She has further submitted that the complainant
PW 1, who is the mother of the deceased, is an interested witness and had
an axe to grind against the Appellant as there were matrimonial disputes
between her daughter i.e., the deceased and the appellant and that is the
reason he has been falsely implicated. She has further submitted that the
appellant was not absconding, but had been to his native place at Vijapur,
Karnataka for some work and the police came and arrested him from his
native place just because they could not find the real culprit. She has
further submitted that the police have commenced the investigation even
before registration of FIR, whereas the law is that the FIR should be
registered immediately and thereafter the investigation should be carried
out, which rules out the possibility of any false implication and such a
procedure of carrying out investigation even before registration of FIR is
against the established principles of law. She has submitted that although
PW4, the I.O., had visited the spot of incident and had met PW 1, still no
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
FIR was registered till the next day and this time was utilized by the
mother of the deceased to falsely implicate the present Appellant and
therefore, considering the nature of evidence against the appellant and the
possibility of false implication, the Appellant deserves to be acquitted.
8. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the following
judgments in support of her contention.
(a) Prakash Nishad Alias Kewat Zinak Nishad V/s. State of
Maharashtra [(2023) 16 Supreme Court Cases 357]
(b) Narayan Yadav V/s. State of Chhattisgarh [Criminal Appeal
No.3343 of 2025] (Supreme Court).
(c) Mukesh Tiwari V/s. State of U.P. [Criminal Appeal No. 1876
of 2009] @ Indrajit Mishra and Anr V/s. State of U.P. [Criminal
Appeal No. 1541 of 2009]
(d) Sekaran V/s The State of Tamil Nadu [Criminal Appeal No.
2294 of 2010] (Supreme Court).
(e) State of A.P. V/s. Punati Ramulu and Ors [1994 Supp (1)
Supreme Court Cases 590] (Supreme Court).
(f) Manohar s/o Kondiba Waghmare V/s. The State of
Maharashtra ( Bombay High Court ).
9. Per contra, the learned APP has submitted that the trial court has
rightly convicted the Appellant as there is sufficient material which points
out towards the role of the Appellant in the commission of the offence. She
has submitted that there is no deliberate delay in registration of FIR. After
the information was received by the investigating officer, the investigating
officer visited this spot, and since the deceased was brutally assaulted
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
which had resulted in death, immediate steps were taken to remove the
deceased to the hospital. She has further submitted that even though the
Inquest panchnama has been conducted before the registration of FIR, the
same is not fatal to the prosecution. She further submitted that it is the
prerogative of the prosecution as to which witnesses and how many
witnesses are to be examined and if the prosecution is in a position to
prove the case by examining the relevant witnesses, it is not necessary that
all the witnesses whose statements have been recorded should be
examined. She has further submitted that PW 1 is a reliable witness as
PW1 has seen the Appellant at the spot, running away and she made an
attempt to apprehend the Appellant. She therefore submitted that the Trial
Court has rightly convicted the Appellant for the gruesome murder of his
wife and therefore the conviction be confirmed.
10. Ld. APP relied upon the following judgments in support of her
contention:
(a) Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao and Ors V/s. State Represented
by Public Prosecutor [(2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 722]
(Supreme Court)
(b) A. N. Venkatesh and Anr V/s. State of Karnataka [(2005) 7
Supreme Court Cases 714] (Supreme Court)
(c) Ravinder Kumar and Anr V/s. State of Punjab [2001 SCC
OnLine SC 1033] (Supreme Court)
(d) Appukuttan and Ors V/s. The State [1989 CRI. L. J. 2362]
(Kerala High Court)
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
(e) Asraf Ali V/s. State of Assam [(2008) 16 Supreme Court Cases
328] (Supreme Court)
BRIEF NARRATION OF THE EVIDENCE
11. PW 1 Tarabai Jaywant Rathod, who is the complainant and mother
of the deceased Sangita, deposed that at the relevant time she was residing
in tents at Hadapsar along with her family and other labour families. She
stated that the deceased Sangita was married to the accused and they were
residing in one of the tents along with their two minor children. The
accused and her husband were working as labourers doing excavation
work. She further deposed that the accused was addicted to liquor and
used to quarrel with Sangita on suspicion regarding her character. She
further deposed that on 31.03.2019, the accused had remained at home
and had consumed liquor. During the night Sangita was cooking in her tent
and the accused was quarreling with her. After dinner, the accused and
Sangita slept outside the tent along with their children. She stated that
sometime during the night the accused assaulted Sangita by giving a blow
of an axe on her neck and killed her. Upon hearing the children crying, she
went to the spot and saw the accused present there. She has deposed that
when she attempted to catch him, he ran away. She has further deposed
that thereafter she went to the police station and lodged the First
Information Report. She identified her thumb impression on the FIR
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
(Exh.20 and Exh.20-A) and also identified the axe shown to her in Court
(Art. A) as the weapon used in the incident.
12. In her cross-examination, PW 1 stated that the incident had taken
place sometime between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight. It was suggested
to her that she was sleeping inside the tent and that there was darkness at
the time of the incident, which she denied, stating that there was light
from two street lights and that a lantern was used inside the tent. She
stated that on that day her husband had gone to the village and only
women were present in the tents. PW 1 has admitted that she was sleeping
at the time when the accused inflicted the axe blow. She also answered in
cross examination that she had not intervened when the accused and
Sangita were quarreling. She has deposed that Sangita was asking the
accused not to quarrel, not to consume liquor and to behave properly. She
stated that since the accused and Sangita used to quarrel frequently, she
did not initially pay much attention to their quarrel that night.
13. PW 2 Shoukin Hakim Sayyed, is a spot panch witness. He deposed
that on 01.04.2019, while he was at the Madarsa, he received a call from
A.P.I. Kamble requesting him to come to Wadkar nagar, Mohammadwadi,
Pune, for carrying out a panchnama in connection with a murder.
Accordingly, he went to the spot along with another panch witness known
as Munna. He further deposed that the mother of the deceased showed
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
them the place of occurrence. He noticed several huts at the spot and
observed a plastic gunny bag sheet (Talwat) lying outside a hut with blood
stains on it. He also saw an axe and a shirt having blood stains and that
blood stains and hair were visible on the axe. He has further deposed that
the police seized the said articles, sealed them and prepared a spot
panchnama along with a map. He stated that the panchnama was
conducted between 11:45 a.m. and 12:45 p.m.
14. In his cross-examination, PW 2 stated that the distance between the
spot of incident and the police station was about 4 to 5 kilometers and that
the spot was about 3 kilometers from the Madarsa. He admitted that he
was acquainted with A.P.I. Kamble prior to the incident due to his social
work. It was suggested to him that he had earlier acted as a panch witness
and that he had gone for the panchnama only at the instance of the police,
which he denied.
15. PW 3 Dr. Shishir Sunil Vidhate, is a Resident Doctor attached to
Sassoon Hospital, Pune. He stated that on 01.04.2019 A.P.I. Bhagwan
Kamble attached to Wanawadi Police Station brought the dead body of a
woman, namely Sangita Shrikant Chavan, for postmortem examination
along with an Inquest panchnama and requisition form. He stated that the
postmortem examination was conducted between 10:15 a.m. and 11:15
a.m. by him. PW3 deposed that on examination he found a chop injury
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
over the left side of the face and neck, situated horizontally about 6 cm left
lateral to the midline and 1 cm below the left ear cartilage, measuring 4.5
cm x 2.5 cm and bone deep, with underlying bone fracture and
extravasation of blood. He further deposed that on dissection of the neck,
he found that the left sternocleidomastoid muscle, left jugular vein,
external carotid artery and the body and transverse process of the second
cervical vertebra on the left side were cut and fractured. He further found
that the larynx and trachea were cut with fracture of the second cervical
vertebra. He opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death, and that death was due to the
chop injury over the neck. He further stated that such an injury could be
caused by an axe and identified the axe shown to him as a weapon capable
of causing such injury.
16. In his cross-examination, PW 3 stated that such an injury could not
be caused by a fall on a roof sheet. He further stated that the injury could
be caused by a sharp, heavy weapon with a handle and that such an injury
would not be possible if a person fell on a sickle used for cutting grass. He
deposed that since the injury was reddish in colour, it had occurred within
24 hours prior to the postmortem examination.
17. PW 4 Asaram Eknath Shete, Assistant Police Inspector attached to
Wanawadi Police Station, deposed that he carried out investigation in
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
Crime No. 219 of 2019. He further deposed that he was on night round
duty from 9:00 p.m. on 31.03.2019 to 9:00 a.m. on 01.04.2019. He further
deposed that at about 2:30 a.m., he received a phone call from Police Naik
Dudhal from Mohammadwadi Police Outpost informing him that a woman
had been murdered at Wadkar Mala. He immediately proceeded to the
spot, where he saw the dead body of a woman with injuries caused by a
sharp weapon. He has further deposed that he informed his superior
officers and made a station diary entry, which he identified at Exh.32. He
stated before that he recorded the First Information Report of Tarabai
Jaywant Rathod. PW 4 deposed that after the dead body was sent to the
hospital, he conducted a spot panchnama in the presence of panch
witnesses He further deposed that he observed a pool of blood on a plastic
sheet outside one hut and at a distance of about 1 to 1 1⁄2 feet towards the
west of the sheet, an axe with blood stains and hair on its edge was lying.
He has further deposed that at a distance of about 8 to 10 feet towards the
east, a bluish shirt with a reddish stain below the left pocket, belonging to
the accused was found. He further deposed that he seized the axe, plastic
sheet and shirt, sealed them and affixed labels bearing the signatures of the
panch witnesses. He has deposed that blood samples from the spot were
collected for chemical analysis. He stated that the spot was shown by
Tarabai Rathod, mother of the deceased. He further deposed that a
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
photographer was called and photographs of the scene were taken. He
stated that further investigation was carried out by A.P.I. Kamble.
18. In his cross-examination, PW 4 stated that prior to the incident he
had not visited the exact spot, which was located about 300 to 400 feet
from nearby residential houses and about 1 1⁄2 to 2 kilometers from the
main Mohammadwadi road. He described the surrounding area and stated
that the dead body was lying about 1 to 1½ feet from the hut and that the
huts were situated about 30 to 35 feet from a rough road. He denied the
suggestion that there was total darkness at the spot. PW4 stated that he
received the call on his personal mobile while he was at Ghorpadi Bazar
Police Outpost and reached the spot before 3:15 a.m. and remained there
until about 1:00 p.m.. He denied the suggestions that the seized shirt did
not belong to the accused, that the panchnama was prepared at the police
station, or that habitual panch witnesses were used. He has further
admitted that the dead body was sent to hospital at sunrise. He has further
admitted that he had spoken to the mother of the deceased at the relevant
time and her other relatives were also present over there. He has further
stated that the FIR was prepared at Mohammadwadi police outpost and it
was recorded at 11:30 am.
19. PW 5 Bhagwan Dashrath Kamble, an Assistant Police Inspector
attached to Wanawadi Police Station, deposed that he was on duty at
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
Mohammadwadi Police Outpost on 31.03.2019. He has deposed that on
01.04.2019 at about 3:45 a.m., he received a call from A.P.I. Shete
informing him that a murder had taken place at Survey No. 85, Wadkar
Mala, Mohammadwadi, Pune and therefore he went to the spot and saw
the dead body of a woman who had sustained an injury below her left ear.
He has deposed that he sent the dead body to Sassoon Hospital and
conducted an Inquest panchnama. PW5 deposed that he submitted a report
dated 01.04.2019 to his superior officers and also sent a requisition to the
Medical Officer for collection of blood, nail and hair samples. He stated
that he took a photograph of the deceased prior to the Inquest, showing an
injury measuring approximately 8 x 3 x 3 cm. He further deposed that he
recorded the statements of witnesses and seized the clothes of the
deceased under a seizure panchnama. He has further deposed that on
03.04.2019 he arrested the accused He further deposed that on 20.04.2019
he forwarded the seized articles to the Chemical Analyzer under a
forwarding letter and upon completion of investigation, filed the charge-
sheet against the accused. He stated that investigation revealed that the
accused had murdered his wife by assaulting her with an axe on suspicion
of her character.
20. In his cross-examination, PW 5 stated that he reached the spot at
about 4:30 a.m., when it was dark but there was street light. He stated that
the accused was not present at the spot at that time and that the detection
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
branch team subsequently brought the accused from Vijapur. He denied
the suggestion that the panch witnesses to the arrest panchnama were
regular panch witnesses of the police station.
21. There are several issues which are raised by the learned Counsel for
the Appellant, however, the emphasis was laid on whether the
investigation could have been commenced before the registration of the
FIR, as it was the contention of the Ld. Counsel that under no
circumstances the investigation could have preceded registration of FIR.
22. To deal with this contention, it will be pertinent to see as to what
steps have been taken by PW 4 and PW 5 before the registration of FIR.
PW5 Bhagwan Kamble has deposed that on 1/4/ 2019 at about 3:45 AM,
he received a call from API Shete who informed him that murder had taken
place at Wadkar Mala. He has further deposed that he went there and saw
the dead body lying at the spot having an injury below her left ear. He has
deposed that he carried the body to Sasoon Hospital and thereafter carried
out Inquest Panchnama. He has further deposed that he also submitted a
report on 1/4/2019 to his superior. He has further deposed that he
submitted Report dated 1/4/2019 to medical officer for collecting blood,
nails and hair and had taken photograph of the deceased lady before
carrying out Inquest. If exhibit 35 is perused for the limited purpose of
corroboration, it can be seen that the said letter has been addressed to the
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
Medical Officer, Sasoon Hospital before carrying out the post-mortem of
the deceased and the Post Mortem was concluded at 11:15 am as can also
be seen at Exhibit 34 and PM Notes at Exhibit 25. Therefore, what has
been done by PW5 before registration of FIR is taking of the dead body to
the hospital, preparing the Inquest Panchnama and handing over the body
for the Post-mortem. Therefore, the issue which falls for the consideration
of this Court is whether the steps taken by the IO before the registration of
the FIR are such as would vitiate the entire trial and the resultant
conviction?
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harijan Jivrajbhai
Badhabhai Versus State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No.1694 of 2009 has
been pleased to observe as under:
"We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through Page
No. 8 of 10 the testimony of the eye witnesses and other material on
record. It is true that even before the registration of FIR the inquest was
undertaken and the postmortem was conducted. In this case, the assault
was made right in the Courtroom which called for immediate action on
part of the investigators to clear the Courtroom as early as possible. The
Investigating Officer had initially requested the Presiding Officer to lodge
a complaint. Upon his refusal, the Investigating Officer then had to make
enquiries and record the complaint of PW 30 Bhanji. In the meantime, if
inquest was undertaken and the body was sent for post mortem, we do
not see any infraction which should entail discarding of the entire case of
prosecution. We also do not find anything wrong if the first informant
soon after the recording of the assailant corrected himself, as a result of
which name of the third assailant came to be dropped. So long as the
version coming from the eye witnesses inspires confidence and is well
corroborated by the material on record, any such infraction, in our view
would not demolish the case of the prosecution in entirety."
(emphasis supplied)
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
24. It will also be pertinent to mention here that the Inquest report is
prepared under section 174 Cr.P.C. and the object of Inquest proceedings is
to ascertain whether a person has died under unnatural circumstances or
an unnatural death and to ascertain what is the cause of death. Inquest
report is prepared by the investigating officer to find out prima facie the
nature of injuries and possible weapon used in causing those injuries as
also the possible cause of death. The contents of Inquest report cannot be
termed as evidence. Therefore, even if the FIR is lodged after the Inquest
Panchnama is done, the same would not be fatal. In the present case the IO
who went to the spot has taken the deceased Sangita to the Sasson
Hospital. She was declared dead at about 7:30 am, thereafter the IO has
sent the body of the deceased for post mortem and had written letter to the
Medical officer to collect the blood, nail and hair samples. The FIR was
registered at 11:29 am. Thus in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that
conducting inquest panchnama before registration of FIR is fatal or that it
has caused any prejudice to the Appellant. In fact, the collection of
evidence has indeed commenced after the registration of the FIR as can be
seen from the deposition of PW 4. PW 4 in his deposition has narrated
about the investigation done by him like seizing of shirt, talwat, Axe after
the registration of the FIR. This Court is therefore of the opinion in the
peculiar facts of the case, that even if inquest panchanama was undertaken
and the body was sent for post mortem before the registration of the FIR,
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
there is no breach which should entail discarding of the entire case of
prosecution. What will have to be considered is whether the witnesses
inspire confidence and their version is well corroborated by the material on
record. Therefore, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant
deserves to be rejected.
25. The Ld. Counsel has further argued that there is an inordinate delay
in registration of FIR, as the FIR has been registered on 1/4/2019 at 11:29
am with respect to the incident that happened on the previous day
between 12:30 to 1 am at night. She has submitted that PW 1 has utilized
this time to falsely implicate the present Appellant. She has strenuously
argued that there is no explanation given about the delay and therefore
submitted that the benefit of doubt must go to the Appellant. She has
further submitted that even though PW 4 and 5 had visited the spot at
night after the incident, it has not come on record that she has disclosed
the name of the Appellant at the first available opportunity and it was only
when the FIR came to be registered that the name of the Appellant was
revealed and therefore it is her submission that there is every possibility
that the Appellant must have been falsely implicated after due deliberation
with her relatives. No doubt there is delay in registration of FIR. It is also
true that there is nothing on record to show that after PW 4 and PW 5
reached the spot PW 1 had disclosed the name of the assailant to either PW
4 or PW 5. However, just because it has not come on record that when PW
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
4 and PW 5 reached the spot she has not disclosed the name of the
assailant, by itself cannot be a ground to doubt her testimony or question
her conduct. It also needs to be considered that neither PW 4 nor PW 5
recorded the statement of PW 1 before registration of FIR. There is also
nothing on record to show that PW 1 was questioned about the name of
the assailant by PW 4 and PW 5 and she had not revealed the name of any
person and out of the blue, during the registration of FIR, she has
maliciously roped in the Appellant. In the absence of any such evidence her
conduct cannot be questioned. The first available opportunity was at the
time of registration of FIR when she had specifically narrated the name of
the Appellant. The Inquest Panchnama also could not have recorded the
name of the assailant. As stated above, the purpose of Inquest Panchnama
is also different and the name and the manner of the assault is not required
to be mentioned in the inquest report. Therefore, just because she has not
revealed the name of the assailant till the registration of FIR cannot be said
to be fatal so as to discard her testimony which is otherwise found to be
reliable. Further there is also no cross examination to that effect by the
defence which also needs to be considered.
26. On the point of delay in registration of FIR, the Ld. APP has rightly
relied upon the judgment of Ravinder Kumar and Anr V/s. State of Punjab
[2001 SCC OnLine SC 1033] wherein it is held as under :
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
"13. The attack on prosecution cases on the ground of delay in lodging FIR has
almost bogged down as a stereotyped redundancy in criminal cases. It is a
recurring feature in most of the criminal cases that there would be some delay in
furnishing the first information to the police. It has to be remembered that law
has not fixed any time for lodging the FIR. Hence a delayed FIR is not illegal. Of
course a prompt and immediate lodging of the FIR is the ideal as that would give
the prosecution a twin advantage. First is that it affords commencement of the
investigation without any time lapse. Second is that it expels the opportunity for
any possible concoction of a false version. Barring these two plus points for a
promptly lodged FIR the demerits of the delayed FIR cannot operate as fatal to
any prosecution case.
"14. When there is criticism on the ground that FIR in a case was delayed the
court has to look at the reason why there was such a delay. There can be a variety
of genuine causes for FIR lodgment to get delayed. Rural people might be
ignorant of the need for informing the police of a crime without any lapse of
time. This kind of unconversantness is not too uncommon among urban people
also. They might not immediately think of going to the police station. Another
possibility is due to lack of adequate transport facilities for the informers to reach
the police station. The third, which is a quite common bearing, is that the kith
and kin of the deceased might take some appreciable time to regain a certain
level of tranquility of mind or sedativeness of temper for moving to the police
station for the purpose of furnishing the requisite information. Yet another cause
is, the persons who are supposed to give such information themselves could be so
physically impaired that the police had to reach them on getting some nebulous
information about the incident.
"15. We are not providing an exhausting catalogue of instances which could
cause delay in lodging the FIR. Our effort is to try to point out that the stale
demand made in the criminal courts to treat the FIR vitiated merely on the
ground of delay in its lodgment cannot be approved as a legal corollary. In any
case, where there is delay in making the FIR the court is to look at the causes for
it and if such causes are not attributable to any effort to concoct a version no
consequence shall be attached to the mere delay in lodging the FIR. [Vide Zahoor
vs. State of UP (1991 Suppl.(1) SCC 372; Tara Singh vs. State of Punjab (1991
Suppl.(1) SCC 536); Jamna vs. State of UP (1994 (1) SCC 185). In Tara Singh
(Supra) the Court made the following observations:
"4. It is well settled that the delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a
ground to doubt the prosecution case. Knowing the Indian conditions as
they are we cannot expect these villagers to rush to the police station
immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin
who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act
mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report to the police.
At times being grief-stricken because of the calamity it may not
immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is
but natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to go to the
police station for giving the report."
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
27. A reference can also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Palani v. State of Tamilnadu [2018] 13 S.C.R. 658 wherein it
has been observed as under:
"16. Case of the prosecution is assailed on the ground that there was delay in
registration of FIR and that the FIR reached the court only at 05.00 AM on
the next day i.e. on 20.08.1996 after the inquest was over. Learned counsel
for the appellant submitted that only after the inquest was over, complaint
was prepared and FIR was registered and that is why, the FIR is verbatim
repetition of the inquest report. After referring to the prosecution evidence,
in particular, evidence of PW-10, the courts below rejected the arguments of
the defence as to the delay in registration of FIR. For the occurrence at
05.00/05.30 PM on 19.08.1996, FIR was registered at 08.00 PM. Of course,
there was a delay of two and half hours in registration of FIR; there was also
delay in receipt of FIR by the Judicial Magistrate that is at 05.00 AM on
20.08.1996. There was attack on PW-1's son-deceased Sankar in the first part
near the temple. Thereafter, in the second part, deceased was chased by
accused persons and on reaching the paddy field, accused persons
surrounded the deceased and attacked him. Therefore, it is quite clear that
the entire occurrence did not take place in a split second. The occurrence was
held in two parts and in those circumstances, it is quite natural that there is
some time gap before the complaint (Ex.-P1) was lodged at 08.00 PM.
Deceased Sankar was brutally murdered with eleven incised wounds;
naturally it must have taken some time for PW 1-sole eye witness to come to
her normal and then discuss with her relatives and then proceed to the police
station which is situated at a distance of four kilometres, to lodge the
complaint."
"18. Delay in setting the law into motion by lodging the complaint is
normally viewed by the courts in suspicion because there is possibility of
concoction of evidence against the accused. In such cases, it becomes
necessary for the prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay in registration
of FIR. But there may be cases where the delay in registration of FIR is
inevitable and the same has to be considered. Even a long delay can be
condoned if the witness has no motive for falsely implicating the accused. In
the present case, PW-1 had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. As
pointed out earlier, PW-1 seeing her own son being brutally attacked, the
effect of the incident on the mind of the mother cannot be measured. Being
saddened by the death of her son, it must have taken sometime for PW-1 to
come out of her shock and then proceed to police station to lodge the FIR.
The delay of two and half hours in lodging the complaint and registration of
FIR and the delay in receipt of the FIR by the Magistrate was rightly held as
not fatal to the prosecution case."
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
28. Therefore, as observed by the Apex Court that even a long delay can
be condoned if the witness has no motive for falsely implicating the
accused. In the present case from the evidence that has come on record,
this court does not find that PW 1 had any motive to falsely implicate the
Appellant. The PW 1 had seen the Appellant at the spot and who tried to
run away when PW 1 tried to apprehend him. PW 1 also saw her daughter
in a pool of blood having bleeding injuries on the neck. PW 1 being the
only lady in the house was thereafter saddled with the responsibility of
taking care of two minor children who were crying. The body of the
deceased was taken to the hospital and thereafter inquest panchanama was
conducted. What cannot be lost sight of is that the daughter of PW 1 was
brutally murdered. She saw her daughter in the pool of blood. The dead
body in such a state was in front of PW 1 the whole night. As a mother, the
happening of such a ghastly incident must have been severely traumatic
and she must have taken some time to recover from the shock and the
shattering trauma. The minor children aged about 3 years and 1.5 years
who had unexpectedly lost their mother had to be taken care of and
therefore even though there is delay, it cannot be said to be deliberate, just
to falsely implicate the Appellant who is her son-in-law. The most
important aspect here which weighs with the court is that she had seen the
Appellant at the spot running away and the daughter lying in a pool of
blood in an injured condition and therefore there is no reason for the PW 1
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
to falsely implicate the Appellant. Even in cross examination nothing has
been brought out to disbelieve PW 1. There is not even a suggestion put to
the witness that delay was exploited to falsely implicate the Appellant.
Further the defence counsel tried to put a suggestion that there was
darkness so as to raise a defence that the witness could not have seen the
Appellant, however that suggestion was denied and the witness has
volunteered that there was street light and they used to use lantern inside
the tent. Even PW 4 has denied the suggestion that there was total
darkness at the spot. This Court is therefore of the opinion that even
though there is delay in registration of FIR, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution
case.
29. The Ld. Counsel has further argued that the case of the prosecution
is that the Appellant was absconding after the incident and after 3 days he
came to be arrested from his native place at Vijapur at Karnataka. She
submitted that the Appellant was not absconding and even assuming that
he was absconding, mere abscondance should not be construed as a factor
which works against the innocence of the Accused.
30. It will be pertinent to refer to the latest judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Chetan Vs State of Karnataka reported in 2025 SCC Online
SC 1262 it is held thus:
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
"10.9.2 It is trite that mere absconding by itself does not constitute a guilty
mind as even an innocent man may feel panicky and may seek to evade the
police when wrongly suspected of being involvement as an instinct of self-
preservation. But the act of abscondence is certainly a relevant piece of
evidence to be considered along with other evidence and is a conduct under
Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which points to his guilty mind. The
needle of suspicion gets strengthened by the act [See : Matru @ Girish
Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1971) 2 SCC 75]."
31. Therefore, the very fact that the Appellant was absconding till the
time he was arrested from Vijaypur, Karnataka, is a relevant piece of
evidence and is a conduct to be taken into consideration under section 8 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Assuming that the Appellant was not
absconding, however his conduct of vanishing from the scene of the
offence when his wife has died is an additional factor which points towards
the guilt of the Appellant. The Appellant, being the husband of the
deceased, is presumed to be the protector of his wife and as such the
threshold of explanation and responsibility is on a higher pedestal than a
normal person. The lack of explanation of the Appellant with regard to the
circumstance under which the appellant had been to his native place even
after the death of his wife is a very crucial circumstance which points
towards the guilt of the Appellant.
32. Another tangent contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the
Appellant is that, at the time of incident the Appellant was at work. In
other words, the Appellant has raised a plea of alibi. However, although
such a plea is raised, the Appellant has not been in a position to
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
substantiate the same. Needless to mention that the burden to establish
the plea is on the person taking such a plea and the same must be
achieved by leading cogent and satisfactory evidence, which in the
present case is conspicuously absent. The Appellant has merely stated in
his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. that evidence
against him as deposed by PW 1 about his presence at the spot is false
and that he was at work. The Appellant has neither led any defence
evidence to substantiate his stand nor has produced any document to
show that he was at work. Therefore, the plea of alibi cannot be said to
be cogently proved.
33. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Kamal Prasad & Ors. V. The State Of Madhya
Pradesh (Now State Of Chhattisgarh) [2023] 13 S.C.R. 810 wherein it
is held as under:
"18. Another defence taken by the convict-appellants is that of the plea of alibi.
This Court in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar has noted the principle as:
"23. The Latin word alibi means "elsewhere" and that word is used for
convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when the
occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is
extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime."
"19. The principles regarding the plea of alibi, as can be appreciated from the
various decisions of this Court, are:
19.1 It is not part of the General Exceptions under the IPC and is instead a rule of
evidence under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
19.2 This plea being taken does not lessen the burden of the prosecution to prove
that the accused was present at the scene of the crime and had participated
therein.
19.3 Such plea is only to be considered subsequent to the prosecution having
discharged, satisfactorily, its burden.
19.4 The burden to establish the plea is on the person taking such a plea. The
same must be achieved by leading cogent and satisfactory evidence.
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
19.5 It is required to be proved with certainty so as to completely exclude the
possibility of the presence of the accused at the spot of the crime. In other words,
a standard of 'strict scrutiny' is required when such a plea is taken.
34. The Court therefore is of the opinion that in the absence of any
cogent material to support the theory of alibi, the said plea raised by the
Appellant cannot be said to be proved.
35. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has further argued that the
prosecution has only examined 5 witnesses although statements of several
witnesses were recorded and therefore submitted that serious prejudice is
caused to the Appellant.
36. It will be apposite to refer to the latest judgment of the Apex Court
in Central Bureau of Investigation v Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali in
SLP (cri) No(s) 969/2025 wherein it has been held that "Over a period of
time, this Court in many of its Judgments and Orders has said that it is the
quality of the evidence that is important and not the quantity. If
examination of unnecessary witnesses is delaying the trial, it would serve
no good purpose." Therefore, it is not the quantity but the quality of the
evidence which is of prime importance. The objection of the Ld. Counsel
for the Appellant that only 5 witnesses were examined out of 19 witnesses
does not hold any water. The prerogative of examining witnesses is of the
Public Prosecutor who is in charge of the criminal trial and therefore his
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
decision cannot be called in question at this stage in the absence of any
prejudice being shown as to number of witnesses being examined.
37. It is further the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that
statement under 313 Cr.P.C. has not been properly recorded and every
circumstance appearing against him has not been properly put to the
Appellant by the Trial Court thereby causing prejudice to the Appellant and
therefore the Appellant deserves to be acquitted on this count itself. It
cannot be gainsaid that the object of examination of the accused under
Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing
against him in the evidence and therefore keeping this principle in mind
we have gone through the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
On perusal, we do not find the submission to be correct. The trial court has
rightly put the circumstances which are appearing against him. The
Appellant, having understood the intelligible questions put to him, has
replied to it. We therefore do not find any merit in the submission of the
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C
has not been properly recorded and that any prejudice has been caused to
the Appellant.
38. The next contention raised is that no independent witness has been
examined by the prosecution and PW 1 being an interested witness, being
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
the mother of the deceased, her testimony has to be examined with caution
and should not be believed without corroboration.
39. The Ld. APP has relied upon the judgment of Kerala High Court in
the case of Appukuttan and Ors V/s. The State [1989 CRI. L. J. 2362]
"31. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution has not
examined the persons in the locality and that among the persons examined, none
of the witnesses who belong to the locality has identified the accused. He
submitted that it could have been easy for those witnesses to identify (he accused
if really the accused had attacked Muraleedharan. We are unable to accept this
contention of the learned Counsel. We have already pointed out that PWs. 1, 2
and 4 are not living far away from, the scene of occurrence and we do not find
any reason to reject their evidence that they identified A1 to A3 as the persons
who attacked Muraleedharan, We cannot also forget the fact that the attack and
counter-attacks made by R.S.S. and Communist Party factions have created terror
in the minds of the people living in the locality and that naturally they would be
very hesitant to come to the Court and give evidence for fear of violence from
these factions. In this context we can understand the reluctance of some of the
witnesses who have witnessed the occurrence to divulge out the fact that they
really identified the accused though they have witnessed the occurrence. Further
there is also no evidence to show that any person of the locality other than those
who have been examined in the case has witnessed the occurrence. In the
circumstances, we do not think that there is any substance in the contention of
the learned Counsel that the prosecution version has to be rejected for the failure
to examine the witnesses in the locality.
40. A reference could be made to the judgement of Mallikarjun And
Others V State Of Karnataka [2019] 11 S.C.R. 609 wherein it is held as
under :
"1.2 Evidence of a witness is not to be disbelieved simply because he/she
appears partisan or is related to the deceased/prosecution witness. It is to be
ascertained whether the witness was present or not and whether he/she is
telling the truth or not. The place of occurrence being the house of the
deceased, PW-5 mother of the deceased is a natural witness to speak about
the occurrence. PW-5-mother of deceased also explained that how she was
present in the house and how she happened to be in the place of occurrence.
As pointed out by the courts below, even after cross-examination, the defence
was not able to establish anything that can create doubt as to the evidence of
PW-5. That apart, PW-5 has no reason to falsely implicate the accused. Being
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
the mother of deceased, it is highly improbable that PW-5 would have falsely
implicated the accused at the instance of the police or anyone else.
41. In the present case also there is nothing to disbelieve the
testimony of PW 1. She appears to be a natural witness who has
deposed without inflating or embellishing her version. PW 1 has
candidly deposed what she has seen and therefore can be termed as a
'reliable witness' and her testimony can be believed without looking for
corroboration. The deposition of PW 1 cannot be viewed with suspicion
just because she happens to be the mother of the deceased.
42. The prosecution has also brought on record, motive for
commission of murder of the deceased. PW 1 has stated that the
Appellant used to take drinks and used to quarrel with her daughter.
She has also deposed that the Appellant used to suspect her character. It
has also come in her evidence that on 31.3.2019, he was at home and
was quarreling with her daughter. Even in her cross examination she
has stuck to her version that the Appellant was quarreling with her
daughter and that her daughter was telling him not to quarrel, not to
drink, to do work and behave properly. The defence counsel has not
been able to discredit this witness in the cross examination and
therefore the motive is duly proved.
43. The next argument of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant was that
the CA report does not indict the present Appellant, as the result of the
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
analysis is inconclusive. It was therefore submitted that there is no
material to correlate the involvement of the Appellant. No doubt it is
true that the analysis of blood on the shirt of the Appellant is
inconclusive, however the evidence of PW 1 is found to be totally
reliable and therefore even though the CA report is inconclusive, the
court cannot be oblivious to the evidence of PW 1 which inspires
confidence and PW 3 which corroborates the crime in question.
44. ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
(a) Prakash Nishad V. State Of Maharashtra (2023) 16 SCC 357
(Supreme Court) :
The reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Prakash Nishad v. State of Maharashtra is misplaced, as the
said decision turns entirely on its own peculiar facts and
circumstances and is not applicable to the present case. The
aforesaid judgment arose out of a prosecution case based purely on
circumstantial evidence wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court found
serious and fundamental infirmities in the investigation and
prosecution. The Court noted material contradictions in the
testimonies of witnesses, doubtful recoveries, improper recording of
disclosure statements, non-compliance with procedural safeguards
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
relating to language, serious lapses in maintaining the chain of
custody of scientific evidence, and unexplained irregularities in the
collection and preservation of DNA samples. The Court held that
these cumulative defects created wide gaps in the chain of
circumstances, rendering the prosecution case unreliable and
entitling the accused to benefit of doubt.
In the present case, the factual matrix stands on an entirely different
footing. The prosecution evidence is consistent and coherent, the
witnesses have supported the prosecution version without material
contradictions, and the recovery of the weapon from the scene of
offence is corroborated by medical evidence. The chain of
circumstances is complete and supported by credible testimony. No
comparable investigative lapses or procedural irregularities of the
magnitude noticed in the cited case are present here. The ratio of the
said judgment was founded upon the failure of the prosecution to
establish an unbroken chain of circumstances due to grave
investigative defects, which is not the situation in the present matter.
It is well settled that precedents based on appreciation of
circumstantial evidence are heavily dependent upon their own
factual context. The judgment in the cited case is therefore
distinguishable as one rendered on entirely different facts and
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
circumstances and does not govern the adjudication of the present
case.
(b) Narayan Yadav Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Criminal Appeal No.
3343 Of 2025 (Supreme Court)
The reliance placed upon paragraphs 42, 48, 49 and 50 of Narayan
Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh for invoking Exception 4 to Section
300 IPC is misplaced and factually inapplicable to the present case.
The cited case relates to a sudden fight arising out of a quarrel in the
heat of passion, where both parties participate and the offender does
not take undue advantage or act in a cruel or unusual manner.
Further, paragraphs 48 to 50 of the said judgment referred to by the
Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, dealt with the distinction between
Sections 300 and 304 IPC in the context of a case that ultimately
turned on absence of legally admissible and reliable evidence. The
Supreme Court itself recorded that the prosecution in that matter
suffered from evidentiary infirmities leading to acquittal. The
present case stands on an entirely different footing. Here, the
prosecution evidence is consistent and corroborated by recovery of
the weapon from the scene and supporting medical testimony. Since
the foundational requirements of Exception 4 are not satisfied and
the present case does not suffer from the evidentiary defects noticed
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
in the cited judgment, the ratio of the said decision is distinguishable
on facts and does not assist the defence.
(c) Mukesh Tiwari V/s. State of U.P. [Criminal Appeal No. 1876 of
2009] @ Indrajit Mishra and Anr V/s. State of U.P. [Criminal Appeal No.
1541 of 2009]
This judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts as well as on
evidentiary appreciation and therefore does not advance the case of
the defence in the present matter. In the aforesaid case, the
prosecution story concerned a group assault involving multiple
accused persons, including relatives and even an unrelated
individual. The High Court found that the possibility of false
implication could not be ruled out, particularly in light of strained
relations and absence of a cogent motive. In contrast, the present
case pertains to a homicide wherein the sole accused is the husband
of the deceased. The matrimonial relationship itself establishes
proximity, access, and opportunity, thereby eliminating concerns of
over-implication of unrelated persons. Further, in the said case the
alleged firearm was not recovered and there existed serious
inconsistencies between the ocular testimony and the medical
evidence. The High Court noted material contradictions in the
statements of prosecution witnesses, as well as investigative lapses,
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
including deficiencies in recovery and procedural irregularities. The
cumulative effect of these infirmities led to the grant of benefit of
doubt. In the present case, however, the prosecution evidence is
internally consistent and corroborated by material evidence. The axe
used in the commission of the offence was recovered from the scene
of occurrence itself. The medical evidence unequivocally supports
that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused
by the said weapon. There is no conflict between medical and ocular
evidence. The witnesses examined viz., the informant (mother of
the deceased), the doctor, the panch witness, and the investigating
officers have remained consistent and unshaken in their testimonies.
Moreover, unlike the cited case where motive was found weak and
speculative, the present case demonstrates a clear and established
motive arising from continuous domestic discord, suspicion cast by
the accused upon the character of the deceased, and habitual
quarrels fueled by alcoholism. The chain of circumstances is
therefore complete and coherent. It is also pertinent that in the cited
case, the delay in lodging the FIR was viewed in conjunction with
several other suspicious circumstances and evidentiary
contradictions. In the present case, the delay of approximately ten
hours in lodging the FIR stands as an isolated factor. The occurrence
took place in the late hours of the night within a hut, the informant
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
discovered her daughter's body in a pool of blood, and minor
children were present at the scene. In such circumstances, some
delay attributable to shock, trauma cannot be termed fatal,
particularly when the prosecution evidence is otherwise reliable and
corroborated. Therefore, the cited judgment is wholly misplaced and
distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the acquittal was based on
cumulative infirmities including contradictory eyewitness testimony,
absence of motive, non-recovery of the weapon, and serious
inconsistencies between medical and ocular evidence. In the present
case, the prosecution evidence is consistent and cogent. The murder
weapon, namely the axe, was recovered from the scene and
medically linked to the injuries. The informant is a natural witness
who discovered the body and saw the accused fleeing. A clear motive
arising from domestic discord is established. The only alleged
similarity is delay in lodging the FIR, which by itself is not fatal
when the prosecution case is otherwise trustworthy and supported
by medical and circumstantial evidence. Hence, the cited precedent
has no application to the facts of the present case.
(d) Manohar vs. The State of Maharashtra CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 38
OF 2022 (Bombay High Court)
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
The reliance placed upon the cited case is clearly distinguishable on
facts. In the said case, the High Court found that the incident arose
out of a sudden scuffle, the genesis and origin of which remained
unclear. The evidence suggested a mutual altercation, with injuries
on both sides, and it was not established who the aggressor was. The
medical evidence did not indicate assault, and the circumstances
showed that the occurrence was not a calculated attack but arose
during a quarrel. It was in that factual background of the fight,
uncertainty regarding the aggressor, and limited injuries that the
Court considered the case outside the ambit of murder.
In the present case, the factual matrix is materially different. There is
no evidence of a scuffle or injuries sustained by the accused. The
deceased was unarmed, and the fatal injury was a decisive axe blow
on a vital part of the body, namely the neck. Unlike the cited case,
where the origin of the incident and the role of the aggressor were
doubtful, the present case discloses a clear and direct homicidal act
supported by medical and corroborative evidence. The ratio of the
cited judgment, which turned upon scuffle and absence of clarity
regarding aggression, is therefore inapplicable and distinguishable
on facts.
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
(e) Sekaran Vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Criminal Appeal No. 2294 Of
2010 (Supreme Court)
The reliance placed on paragraphs 23 and 24 is wholly
distinguishable on facts and of no avail to the defence. In the cited
case, the Supreme Court treated abscondence as insignificant only
after finding serious infirmities in the prosecution case, including
unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, withholding of material
independent witnesses, contradictions in medical and ocular
evidence, and the possibility of an accidental cause of death. It was
in that backdrop of an already doubtful prosecution case that the
Court held that mere abscondence could not fill evidentiary gaps. In
the present case, however, the prosecution evidence is consistent
and corroborated by medical testimony and recovery of the weapon
from the scene, and there is no theory of accidental death or
evidentiary vacuum comparable to the cited matter. Unlike the
factual scenario in cited case, where the Supreme Court found that
the cumulative circumstances did not unequivocally point to the
accused and false implication could not be ruled out, the present
case presents a chain of incriminating circumstances supported by
reliable witness testimony. Abscondence of the accused here is not
being relied upon as a solitary incriminating factor but only as an
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
additional circumstance reinforcing otherwise cogent prosecution
evidence. Therefore, the principle stated in paragraphs 23 and 24 of
the said judgment, which was applied in the context of a
fundamentally weak prosecution case, is inapplicable to the present
facts and is clearly distinguishable.
(f) State Of A.P. Vs. Punati Ramulu And Others 1994 Supp (1) Scc 590
(Supreme Court)
The reliance placed on this ruling is also distinguishable on facts
and does not assist the defence. In the cited case, the Supreme
Court found that the investigating officer had deliberately failed
to record the earliest information of a cognizable offence in the
general diary and instead prepared the FIR only after reaching
the scene following deliberation and consultation. The Court
treated the purported FIR as a statement recorded during
investigation and held the entire investigation to be tainted,
thereby rendering it unsafe to rely upon the testimony of related
witnesses in the absence of strong independent corroboration.
The decision thus turned on a finding of deliberate suppression of
the earliest information and fabrication at the threshold of
investigation. In the present case, no such deliberate withholding
or fabrication of the FIR is established. The FIR, though lodged
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
after a delay, was registered on the basis of the informant's
complaint and there is no material to show that the police
suppressed prior information or conducted a clandestine
investigation before recording it. The prosecution evidence is
otherwise consistent and corroborated by recovery of the weapon
and supporting medical testimony. Unlike in the cited case, where
the investigation itself was held to be fundamentally tainted, the
present case does not suffer from comparable defects. The ratio of
the cited judgment, which is confined to cases of demonstrably
manipulated investigation at the inception, is therefore
inapplicable and clearly distinguishable.
45. Taking into consideration the entire evidence that has been brought
on record by the prosecution viz the evidence of star witness PW 1 who has
seen the Appellant running away from the spot, her daughter lying in the
pool of blood, finding the weapon near the body and corroborated by the
evidence of PW 3, the doctor who has given a clear opinion about the
injury mentioned in column 17 which is possible by Axe and that the injury
had occurred within 24 hours coupled with other witnesses, this Court
comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond
reasonable doubt and the resultant conviction is proper. The Appeal
therefore stands dismissed and the conviction of the Appellant is upheld.
APEAL- 762 OF 2021
46. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Pending Application is also
disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
