BRAHM SWAROOP & Anr. v. STATE OF U.P

1.3 In the instant case, it cannot be said that any omission or discrepancy in the inquest is fatal to the prosecution's case and such omissions would necessarily lead to the inference that FIR is ante-timed. The Sub Inspector (PW.7) had denied the suggestion made by defence that till the time of preparing the report, the names of the accused persons were not available. He further stated that the column for filling up the nature of weapons used in the crime was left open as it could be C ascertained only by the Doctor what weapons had been used in the crime. [Para 1 O] [22-B-C] 8 Bairam Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (2003) 11 SCC 286; State of Rajasthan v. Teja Singh and Ors. (2001) 3 SCC D 147; Ramesh Baburao Devaskar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 13 SCC 501 ; Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh and Ors. AIR 2008 SC 320; Aqeel Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2009 SC 1271 - relied on. Badam Singh v. State of M.P. (2003) 12 SCC 792 - E referred to.

2.1 The report to the Magistrate is indispensable and absolute and it must be sent at the earliest, promptly and without any undue delay as the purpose is to avoid the F possibility of improvement in the prosecution's case and the introduction of a distorted version by deliberations and consultation and to enable Magistrate concerned to keep a watch on progress of investigation. However, no rule of universal application can be laid down that G whenever there is some delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, the prosecution version becomes unreliable. It would depend upon the facts of each case. If there has been some lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer H 6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 15 (ADDL.) $.C.R. A that would not affect the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses. In case the prosecution offers a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the court has to test it. An unexplained delay by itself may not be fatal, but it is certainly a relevant aspect which can be taken note of B while considering the role of the accused persons for the offence. [Paras 15 and 16] [23-F-H; 24-A-D]

2.2 In the instant case, the prosecution had not been asked to explain the delay in sending the special report. More so, the plea that the FIR was ante-timed, cannot be C accepted in view of the evidence available on record which goes to show that the FIR had been lodged promptly within 20 minutes of the incident as the Police Station was only 1 k.m. away from the place of occurrence and names of all the accused had been D mentioned in the FIR. [Para 18] (25-B] State of Kera/a v. Anilachandran @ Madhu and Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1866; Pala Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1972 SC 2679; Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1976 SC 2304; E PandurangChandrakant Mhatre and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 10 SCC 773; Akbar Sheikh and Ors. v. State of WB. (2009) 7 sec 415 - relied on.

#3. Courts attach great importance to the prompt lodging of FIR and prompt interrogation of a witness u/ F s. 161 Cr.P.C. as the same substantially eliminates the chances of embellishment and concoction creeping into the account contained therein. The prompt lodging of the FIR is proved from the chik report and the statement of the complainant u/s. 161 Cr.P.C., which was recorded immediately after lodging the FIR. Any defect in the preparation of the inquest report by the investigating officer cannot lead to an inference that the FIR was not registered at the alleged time. The FIR contains all the essential features of the prosecution's case including H names of eye-witnesses, time and place of incident, G BRAHM SWAROOP & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. 7 names of the victim, motive, name of the accused A persons, weapons in their hands and manner of assault. Thus, all these things lend a seal of assurance not only to the presence of eye-witnesses at the place of the incident, but also to the participation of the appellants in the crime. [Para 18] [25-F-H; 26-A] B

#4. The eye-witnesses have been cross-examined thoroughly, but nothing useful to the accused could be elicited from them. The testimony of the eye- witnesses is credible and worthy of confidence. If the evidence of the eye-witnesses is trustworthy and believed by the C court, the question of motive becomes totally irrelevant. [Para 37] [35-E; 36-B] E

#5. The plea of the accused that the place of occurrence is not free from doubt as it has been stated D by the Investigating Officer (PW.10) that on receiving the phone call purported to have been made from the residence of D.1 that dacoits had attacked them, he made an entry in the General Diary, and proceeded to that place and recorded the statement of some persons there; and that vehicle in which D.2 and D.4 were sitting did not have any blood marks and no blood stains were. found near the jeep and no pellets had been recovered from the said place, is not acceptable. If this plea is accepted then the question of collecting the blood stained cement from the counter of the repairing shop could not arise. The 1.0. (PW.10) has stated that the tool box was found marked with splinters and badly damaged. More so, the statement of PW.1, the informant, cannot be ignored as he has stated that 0.3 was bleeding but blood did not fall on the G ground as his clothes absorbed all the blood. He had further stated that D.1 was sitting at the counter and there was quite a lot of blood from the wounds of D.1 which fell on the ground and not on the counter. [Paras 19 and 20] [26-8-H] F H 8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A

#6. Merely because the witnesses were close relatives of the deceased, that cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. Their relationship to one of the parties is not a f<1ctor that effects the credibility of a witness, more so, a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make B allegations against an innocent person. A party has to lay down a factual foundation and prove by leading impeccable evidence in respect of its false implication. However, in such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible evidence. [Paras 21) [27-B-C] C