KUKAPALLI MOHAN RAO v. STATE OF A.P

The deceased had sustained bleeding head injuries. PW4, the father of the deceased, informed about the death of the deceased to PW1, the Village Administrative Officer, who scribed the report Ex.P1, and presented the same to the police and, on the basis of the same, PW14, D Sub Inspector of Police issued the FIR Ex. P14. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High Court. E In the instant appeal, the appellant contended that the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 could not be believed since they were interested witnesses; that the names of PWs 2 and 3 did not find any place in Ex.P1 report and, as such, their testimony be considered only with suspicion; that omission to mention the names of the eye-witnesses in the FIR and unexplained delay in despatch of FIR would throw serious doubt on the prosecution case; that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the alleged motive for the commission of the offence and, as such, G the appellant be given the benefit of doubt; and further that there was considerable delay in registering the FIR, and thus the appellant was entitled to be acquitted. F Dismissing the appeal, the Court H 1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S C.R A HELD: 1. PWs 2 and 3 are crucial witnesses in this case to establish that it was the accused-appellant who had committed the crime. PW2, wife of the deceased, had clearly deposed that she herself and daughter were sleeping on a cot and the deceased was sleeping on the B other cot in the same room. PW3, brother of the deceased, and other family members were sleeping inside the house. In the midnight on 13.6.2001, the deceased raised a cry as "Ammo". On hearing the cries of the deceased, she woke up and switched on the light and C found the appellant near the deceased with an axe. Out of fear, she called PW 3 and he rushed in. On seeing PW 3, the appellant ran away from the place throwing the axe used for the commission of the offence. The evidence of PW2 is trustworthy and it cannot be said that she is implicating the appellant. She has no motive to do so as well. PW3, in his deposition, has categorically stated that he has chased the appellant, but when PW2 had inforri1ed him that the blood was bleeding from the head of the deceased, he came back. PW3 then informed the incident to the brother-in-law of the deceased. PWs 3 and E 5 shifted the deceased to a private hospital in a tractor and the dead body of the deceased was brought back at 3.00 am on 14.6.2001. PW3 then informed the incident to the brother of the deceased - PW 4 through telephone. PW3 has categorically stated that the appellant had F hacked the deceased with an axe and ran away and he found the axe at the scene of occurrence. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW 3. PW 3 also had no reason to implicate the appellant in this crime. [Para 9) [1095-B-G) 0 G

#2. PWs 8 and 9 stated that the appellant had indicated to them that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with his wife. It was stated that the appellant had informed them that he was even prepared to go to jail by beating H the deceased, if the deceased had not stopped that illicit KUKAPALLI MOHAN RAO v. STATE OF A.P. 1089 intimacy. PW13, the doctor, who conducted the post- A mortem, opined that the deceased died due to shock and the head injury. PW15, the Investigating Officer, stated that he had visited the scene of offence at about 12.45 am on 14.6.2001 and seized the blood stained earth, material objects and conducted the inquest over the dead B body of the deceased and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. PW14, Sub-Inspector of Police, stated that he had registered the crime and issued the FIR. Ex.P1 report clearly discloses the commission of the offence by the appellant. There is no necessity of the c detailed narration of the incident, as to how PWs2 and 3 saw it, in the FIR. PWs 2 and 3 after all are not the authors of the complaint. Their statements cannot be disbelieved on the ground that their finding the appellant on the scene of occurrence with an axe, has not found any 0 place in the FIR. [Para 10] [1095-H; 1096-A-D]

#3. FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under Section 161 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him under Section 145 of the Act. It is not the requirement E of the law that the minutest details be recorded in the FIR lodged immediately after the occurrence. [Para 11] [1096- E-F] Surjit Singh @ Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab 1993 F Supp. (1) SCC 208: 1992 (2) SCR 786 and Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab (2005) 9 SCC 315: 2005 (2) SCR 548 - relied on.

#4. The appellant submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the alleged motive for the G commission of the offence, however, EtVen assuming that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the motive for the commission of the offence, when there is un-impeachable oral evidence, the motive would be irrelevant. [Para 12] [1096-G; 1097-B] H 1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R. A