The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehraj Singh v. State of U.pe, observed that the delay in lodging the FIR would result in

PetitionunderSection3Bg(1)ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pi"rilO to suspend the execution of sentence passed in S'C No'276 of 2015' "oi,itzi istottzoiS on the fite of Judge, Famity court-cum- V1t Additional Sessions JrOgl "t Mahabubnagar and [leate ihe petitioner/A1 on bail pending Crl.A.No.'l 440 of 201 B. Counsel for the Appellant :Sri P Prabhakar Reddy Corn""f forthe Reipondent: Sri Arun Kumar, Dodla Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1440 0F 2018 JUDGMENT: (per lhe Hon,ble Sri Justice K.SURENDER) This appeetl is hled by appellant/A1, aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the -tudge, Family Court, Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.276 of 2075, dated :29.01.201g. The appellant was convic,:ed for the offence under se:ction 302 of the Indian penal code, and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/_ for the offence under ser:tion 302 of IpC.

2. The appelta,nt, who was arrayed as Accused No. 1, was prosecuted along; .with A2 to A6 for the offences under Se,:tio ns 147, 148, arrd 3o2 rlw.149 of the Indian penai code. The rearne,d Sessions Judge found that .A2 to A6 were not complicit in the offence committed, and eiccordingly, acquitted them. The convlction was recorded only against the appellant who is now before this oourt. 3' PW. 1 lodged a complaint with the porice at 9.30 hours on 06.06.2O74, allegirrg that there were disputes between the appellant ard his family. The husband of pW. 1, namely Adrushtam (deceased), went to his fields on the previous day, i.e., on O5.O6.2O1zL at about .$.--

10.00 P.M., and ploughed their agricultural land- While the deceased was returning in the morning around 5'50 A'M', the appellant-A1 and A2 to A6 (acquitted) attacked the deceased with an intention to kill him. He was caught and his vehicle was stopped' A1 ald A2 dragged him. The appellant and others attacked the deceased with sticks and Axes. In the complaint, PW. 1 further narrated that PW'3' PW'4' and other relatives were present. On witnessing the incident' the relative' B.Ramulamma (not examined), went and informed PW'l about the incident. PW. 1 further narrated that the appellant and all the other accused threw chilli powder into the eyes of the deceased and hacked 4:. him.

4. PW.2 stated that A1 and' A2 dragged the deceased from his bike' and A2 hacked the deceased with an axe which was brought from the house of A2. PW.2 did not mention about the presence of any of the other accused

5. PW.3 is not an eye-witness to the incident and speaks about being informed by his grand-son about the murder of the deceased'

6. PW.4 is another eye-witness' According to her' A1 and A2 stopped the deceased, and A5 threw chilli powder on the face of the deceased, and then the appellant beat the deceased with an axe on 3 his head, and the deceased fell down. A2 also tried to beat pW.4, and A4 abused PW.4 in a frlthy language. PW.4 did not spe:tk about the presence ofA3, A5, and A6.

7. PW.5 stat,eri that on the date of the incident, while he was going to attend naturrr's ca1l, he heard a noise from the house of A2. He saw A1 beating thc,leceased with an axe on his head, and all the accused who were prese:rt left the spot.

8. PW.6 statecl that on the date of the incident he woke up around

5.30 A.M., an.d rsaw aII the accused beating the deceas;ed, and A1 hacking the deceased with an Axe in front of the house ol'A1 and A2. PW.6 further stated that when the deceased was coming back from his fields, the ar::cused stopped the deceased, and threw c,hilli powder on his face and attacked him.

9. All the witnesses, PWs.l to 6, also speak about the disputes between the far:ri ly of the appellant and the family of the deceased. The dispute was; regarding a piece of agricultural land purchased by the deceased and A2. The disputes arose when the deceased insisted that ,{2 sell the part of the land that was purchased by both of them. \ ,-r:.{ 4

10. The Inspector of Police-PW. 14 went to the scene of offence' arrd the incriminating rnaterial rwas seized frorn the scene' He took the photographs of the scene, and shifted the body to the Government Hospital for postmortem. I 1 . PW. f Z, conducted postmortem examination and found four injuries, which are as follows: 'i. laceration above right eye measuring 2 x 1 c'ms' ii. laceration of scalp from left temporal perital region extending till occiPital region. iii. Fracture scalp left temporo parital region extending till occipital region with protrusion of brain matter' iv. fracture scalp right temporal region'" li: According to the opinion of PW.12, the cause of death is "head injury leading to cardio pulmonary arrest"'

12. The main argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there was a inordinate delay in the FIR reaching the Court' Though the incident happned at 5'30 A'M' in the morning' the complaint was Iiled at 9 30 A.M with a delay of four hours' and therea-fter, the complaint reached the Court al 9 '45 P'M' The inrod.iante delay of 16 hours was not explained by the prosecution' // 5

13. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the Jucigment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thulia Kali u. The State of Tannil Nadut, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court found favour with the defence vers:ion that there was a delay of 20 hours i. rodging the complaint with the police station, and herd that the ci rcumstances give rise to a srgnificant amount of doubt regarcling the delay of 20 hours in lodging the complaint, especially when the police: station was at a distance of 2 miles.

14. In Rajeeuan and another a. State oJ Keralaz, the Honlcle supreme court LLeld that when there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay i, fbrwarding the FIR to the Magistrate, lt wourd have an adverse effect o:n the prosecution case. In the said case, there was a 12 hours delal.in sending the FIR to the concerned Magistrate.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehraj Singh v. State of U.pe, observed that the delay in lodging the FIR would result in embellishment, rLaking the complaint an afterthought. The delay in the FIR not only deprives it of the advantage of spontane Lty but arso creates a danger of introducing a coloured or exaggerated riersion. t 11972;3 Supreme Court alases 393 '2003(3) scc 355 ' ree+1s; scc raa 5* 6 76 . l,earned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that when the disputes are admitted, the likelihood of the appellant causing death is more probable.

17. In the complaint frled at 9.30 a.m by P.W. 1, he has implicated six accused, and stated that all the accused have inflicted injuries on the deceased with sticks and axes. The complaint was based on the information provided by Ramulamma, who was not examined, however, the names of P.Ws.3,4, and others are mentioned'

18. P.W.2 is an eye-witness to the incident' According to him, A1 atdA2draggedthedeceasedfromhismotorcycle,andA2inflicted injuries on the deceased with an axe, which was brought from his house. lg. P.W. t4/ Investigating Officer admitted that none of the eye- witnesses have spoken about the presence of P'W'2 when the incident happened. Further, P.W.4 admitted that P.W.2 did not state about the assault by A4 to A6, and that P.W.4/Ananthamma requested the appellants not to kill the deceased

20. The version in the complaint is that all the appellants had beaten the deceased with axes and sticks, after sprinkling chilli i I i t I I ) 7 powder in the eyes of the deceased. During the postmortem examination, only four injuries were found, and the Doctor did not find any chilli pcrwder on the body or in the eyes of the deceased. The scene of offence panchanama also does not reflect that anv chilli powder was found at the scene. 2l . In the bar;l: ground of the pending disputes regardrng the land, the case has to L,e examined considering the ongoing quarrel, the role attributed to the six appellants, and the delay in the FIR reaching the Court, all of which must be collectively analysed. '' 22. All the wi1-nesses admit that the deceased and. A2 v,,ere hghting over the agricultural land they had purchased together. 'rhis quarrel resulted in enmity between the family of the appella.t and the family of the deceasecl. The complaint was not given by any of the eye_ witnesses, alleger1ly present at the scene. The complairrt was filed nearly four hours after the incident, naming p.Ws.3 an,1 4 as eye_ witnesses. Horvever, the name of p.W.2 was not mentione<l as an eye_ witness. Two c,tl-rer witnesses, p.Ws.5 and 6, were independent witnesses who u,ere examined three days after the incident, and their names were not rnentioned in the FIR. \ ,.l! -'t 8

23. The Investigating Officer/PW. 13 admits that the complaint was immediately dispatched to the Magistrate, however, the complaint reached the Magistrate after 12 hours and 15 minutes. Adrnittedly, the Court was at a distance of 2O kms. The maximum time the constable would take to reach the Court would not exceed 1 'Z hours to cover a distance of 2O kms.

24. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehraj Singh's case (supraf, the delay in the FIR reaching the Court must be justified to the satisfaction of the Court. On account of the delay, r there is a danger of the complaint being lodged with an exaggerated or a false version, or a version created after the due deliberation' In such situations, the actual happenings may be suppressed, may come up with a version according to their desire to falsely .and witnesses implicate persons against whom they fuave enmit5r. Admittedly, there were inimical terms on account of property disputes between the family of the deceased and the accused.

25. Though, the witnesses narrated that all the accused attacked the deceased, however, they have selectively attributed the overt act of hacking with an axe against A1 in the Court. That, in itself, speaks volumes about the incorrect version given by the witnesses' This ,'.i']:..' 9 narration, coupled with the delay in the FIR reaching th. court, leads us to the opinion that the actual happenings were suppressed and a fa-lse version was projected by the prosecution. Accordinlgly, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants.

26. Accordingl.y, Criminai Appeal is allowed, and th e conviction recorded by the Judge, Family Court, Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.276 of 2075, datecl 29.01.2018, is set aside, and the app,ellant/Al is acquitted' sinc': the apperlant is in jail, he shalr be rereased forthwith, if he is not reqtrired in any other case. t I l To,

1. The Judge Family [\/ahabubnagar //TRUE COPY// SD/. K SRINIVAS RAO, RAR. JOINT REGI SEC'TION OFFICER court-cum-Vlll Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (Ol.JT)

2. rwo ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of 1-erangana at 3. The S uperintr:nd ent, Central prison, Cherlapally, Ranga Reddy District 4. The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Kalvakurthi 5. One CC to Sri P Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies AD

6. HIGH COURT DATED:2010312025 / 4 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1440 of 2018 $" -l '1 € STATS U L) ?1 tt\rH 2$?5 ( \ 'l .,/ t Ds:pr,' ^r,, r.tv,./ ,,:j/ ALLOWING HE CRLA J I i I