SATISH NARAYAN SAWANT v. STATE OF GOA

#2. The submission that there was violation of s. 157 Cr.P.C is without any basis for the defer.ce never cross- examined PW-21 on the aforesaid issue. So long the defence is not able to establish from the records by cogent evidence that there was any delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, it cannot be held that there was any such delay. There is no evidence on record to hold either way for no such issue was raised either before the trial court or before the High Court nor any evidence was led J.. ~ G H SATISH NARAYAN SAWANT v. STATE OF GOA 467 " 'T -1 .... + by the defence in respect of the said issue which is A sought to be raised at this stage. From the evidence on record it does not appear that any suggestion was given to the said witness to the effect that the copy of the FIR was not sent or that it was dispatched late, which if given, would have given an opportunity to the witness to afford B some explanation or to show as to when the FIR was sent to and received by the Magistrate. It cannot be said that delay in transmitting the FIR to the Magistrate stands proved. [Para 17] [484-E-H; 485-A]

3.1. PWs. 1, 2, 8 and 18 as eye-witnesses to the c occurrence stated that the incident had happened initially in the hall where there was some light for accused no. 3 has brought a lamp to the hall and apart from that another lamp was also burning which was attached to the ceiling. - Blood was found by the police on the wall of the ..J \ ----\ D verandah and in the courtyard. It is also established from the evidence on record that the street light having tube light was giving sufficient light to the place of occurrence and that it was directed towards the house which was the place of occurrence; Besides, all the said eye-witnesses E were inmates of the house and they would know as to who had given the blows for they specifically stated that initially the appellant did not have the knife in his hand but when the deceased and others went to the balcony then he went inside the house and brought a knife with F which he gave stab injuries to the deceased which became fatal and as a result of which the deceased died while he was being taken to the hospital. [Para 18 and 19] [485-8-F] '<, ,j .{ i

3.2. The eye-witnesses, although, are related ~ witnesses, were natural witnesses for they were the inmates of the house where the incident had taken place. The said eye-witnesses are consistent about the principal act of the appellant in stabbing the deceased. The G H 468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A discrepancies which were sought to be pointed out are minor discrepancies without in any manner affecting the substratum of the prosecution case and therefore, minor discrepancies in the evidence of the eyewitnesses are immaterial. [Para 20] [485-G-H] B Dinesh. Kumarv. State of Rajasthan (2008) 8 SCC 270, referred to. .

3.3. The eye-witnesses were cross-examined at length but even after such lengthy cross-examination c these eye-witnesses account could not be shaken. The postmortem report indicates that there were sixteen injuries as against the two as adduced in ocular evidence. A perusal of record clearly shows that the doctor who conducted the postmortem (PW-7) stated in his evidence D that there were total 16 injuries when external examination was done by him and the knife could have caused the injuries no. 1, 2, 3 and 4. He further stated that the death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of stab injury. He further stated that injury no. 1 E was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. On being cross-examined, PW-7 categorically stated that death due to stab injury was in consequence of injury no. 1 and all other injuries were superficial in nature. There is no doubt that four injuries are indicated in the post mortem report shown to have been received by the deceased but the fact that the deceased was given stab injuries by the appellant with the help of a knife brought by him from inside the house is clearly established from the ocular evidence. There is therefore one particular injury, being injury no. 1 caused because of stabbing and the rest being superficial in nature could be caused during scuffle. Therefore, the alleged discrepancy cannot be said to be very vital. Ocular evidence cannot be brushed aside only because, to some extent, it is not in consonance with the medical evidence. F G H ~ ~ " - + > ,.., ,-\- ).- \, .. )'II } \. SATISH NARAYAN SAWANT v. STATE OF GOA 469 [Para 21) [486-G-H; 487-A-D]