NARENDER SINGH & Ors. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

HELD:

It cannot be said tha1 registration of FIR could not have been made at 10:45 p.m. inasmuch as other consequential steps taken thereafter with F particular reference to Exhibit P7, P1 A to Band P10 which were all contemporaneous documents disclose that immediately after the registration of FIR at 10:45p.m., P.W. 15 reached the place of occurrence anc! proceeded with G further course of action. [Para 11] [875-D]

The injuries sustained by P.W. 3 could not be said to have been fake and his presence doubtful, inasmuch it is· evident from the evidence of the doctor (P.W.1) who examined P.W.3 on the night of the date of the event itself. 867 1-1 868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 12 S.C.R. A There was a broad reference to the nature of injuries sustained by P.W.3 in Exhibit P1A. Therefore, reading Exhibits P1 A and P1 B together with the oral evidence of P.W.1, it has come out in evidence that P.W.3 sustained the injuries, in the night on the date of the event. B Therefore, it is not correct to say that P.W. 3 could not have been present at the place of occurrence. Evidence . of P. W.3 as an eye-witness was cogent in every respect. His account was fully supported by the version of P.W.6, c and also fully corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 11. [Paras 12, 13] [875-E-F; 876-A-B, D-E]

There is no serious discrepancy or infirmities in the preparation of the statutory records as well as any serious lacuna in the oral version of the witnesses D examined in support of the charges. Non-mention of PW.3 in Column 6 of Crime Details Form (Exhibit P7) would not in any way vitiate the case of the prosecution .'by virtue of the other cHnching evidence which E established the presence of P.W.3 at the place of occurrence. Therefore, it is not correct to say that.P.W.15 was not truthful in registering the FIR as well as launching the prosecution case against the appellants. [Paras 14 and 15] [876-F; 877-A-B; E-F] F (I H

Having regard to the features, namely, the registration of FIR at 10:45 p.m. on the date of the event, the inspection made by P.W.15at11 :10 p.m. on the same date; the sending of P.W. 3 for medical examination which was concluded by 1 :30 a.m. on next day of the incident; and the shifting of the body of the deceased from the place of occurrence to the hospital by 7:30 a.m. on the next date to the event read along with the version of P.Ws. 3, ·6 and other supporting witnesses, it was sufficiently established that the occurrence took place as spoken to by P.W. 3, 6 and others and the involvement NARENDER SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 869 of the appellants was, therefore, fully established. A Therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be faulted. [Paras 17 and 18] [878-C-E; 879-A]

On a detailed reading of evidence of P.W. 10, it is found that his evidence fully supported the case of the B prosecution in regard to the nature of injuries inflicted upon the deceased on \1is hand by the appellants and it was also further supported by the weapons which were recoverec! at the instance of the appellants. [Para 20] [880-H; 881-A] c

So far as the delay in forwarding the Express Report to the lllaka Magistrate was concerned, even assuming the delay did really happen in forwarding the Express Report, such a delay has not caused any serious prejudice to the appellants. [Para 18] [879-D]