ANJAN DASGUPTAversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

                             [2016) 12 S.C.R. 90


A                           ANJAN DASGUPTA
                                       v.
                 THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
                      (Criminal Appeal No. 298 of2006)
B                           NOVEMBER25, 2016
    (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
          Criminal Law:
          Murder Case - Re-appreciation of evidence - Two possible
c   views - Prosecution case that the victim was shot at, on the indication/
    instruction of appellants-accused - Trial court acquitted appellants
    - High Court after re-appreciating the evidence set aside the order
    of acquittal of appellants - On appeal, held: While entertaining an
    appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible on appreciation
    of evidence the view in favour of the accused has to be given
D
    importance - In case an order of acquittal has been made 011
    improper and erroneous appreciation of evidence, it is always open
    to the court of appeal to make proper and reasonable appreciation
    of evidence and differ from the order of acquittal - On facts,
    discarding of evidence by the trial court was on flimsy grounds and
E   based on surmises and conjectures which was correctly re-
    appreciated by the High Court - High Court after re-appreciating
    the evidence rightly came to the conclusion that the occurrence as
    well as participation of appellant was proved - Penal Code, 1860
    - s.302 rlw s.34, s.212 - Arms Act - ss. 25, 27 - Code of Criminal
    Procedure, 1973 - s.164.
F
           FIR - Ante-dated and ante-timed FIR - Allegations of - Held:
    On facts, PW-29, AS! proved the FIR and also his signature thereon
    - He denied the suggestion that the FIR was written subsequently -
    Thus, no case of ante-dating of the FIR - Further, no inconsistencies
    in the FIR so as to come to the conclusion that the FIR was ante-
G   timed.
           FIR - Delay in dispatching FIR from Police Station to
    Magistrate - Effect of - Held: It is only extraordinary and
    unexplained delay, which may raise doubts regarding the authenticity
    of the FIR - In the present case, where recording of FIR itself has
H
                                      90
       ANJAN DASGUPTA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                            91


been proved and accepted by the trial court also, mere delay in          A
dispatch of the FIR from the police station to the Magistrates' court
has no bearing on the basis of which any adverse presumption can
be drawn:
       Investigation - Criminal investigation - Held: Receipt and
the recording ofFIR is not a condition precedent for setting in motion   8
of criminal investigation - On facts, when infor111ation was received
that the victi111 was shot dead, police was duty bound to start
investigation.
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 There is e~i~ence of PW 1 (son of victim) that           c
he went to the police station between 7.30/8.00 PM and the First
Information Report was written by PW 5 on his dictation. Both
the above facts have been proved by the statement of PW 1 and
PW 5; both have signed the written complaint. Further, ASI PW
29 proved the recording of the FIR on the basis of written               D
complaint given by son of victim-deceased. No suggestion was
put to PW 29 regarding the date or time of recording of the FIR.
PW 29 has proved the FIR, he further proved that he received
the FIR on 16th June, 2000, he proved his signature on th~ FIR
also. He denied the suggestion that FIR was written on
subsequent to 161• June, 2000. Thus there is no case of ante-            E
dating the FIR, even the trial court did not accept the submission
that FIR was ante-dated. [Paras 12, 13] [97-F-ll; 98-A]
       1.2. In the present case, the FIR was registered before
the inquest report of dead body started. The evidence indicates
that information of death was received by the police station before      F
17 .15 hours and police officials arrived at the spot immediately
and the 1.0. arrived at the spot at 17.45 PM, by that time other
police officials had already reached. The receipt and the recording
of First Information Report is not a condition precedent for setting
in motion of a criminal investigation. When the information was          G
that the victim was shot dead, police was duty bound to start
investigation. Though much UJ1ph~sis has been laid down by
the appellant on the fact that "time 17.35" was noted in the FIR,
however, from the cross-examination of ASI, it does not appear
that any question was asked regarding the recording time 17.35
                                                                         H
92           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    r20l6l 12 S.C.R.


A    in the FIR. The possibility cannot be ruled out that while
     registering the FIR on the basis of written complaint, the ASI
     recorded the time when he received the information in the
     police station of the death of the victim. In any view of matter,
     the above in no manner diminishes the value or credibility of
     the FIR. The mention of the time at 17.35 can be treated as the
B
     time of receipt of the information of the offence in the police
     station and there is no such inconsistencies in the FIR so as to
     come to the conclusion that FIR was ante-timed. [Paras 16, 17,
     18)    (99-C-D, F-H; 100-A-C]
           1.3. The I.O. after receipt of the information of an offence
c    by R. T. message had arrived at the scene on 17.40 hours, which
     clearly proves the prompt commencement of the investigation.
     FIR was dispatched on 22nd June, 2000 which has also been
     accepted by trial court. When no questions were put to 1.0. in
     his cross-examination regarding the delay in dispatch, at the
D    time of hearing, the accused cannot make capital of the said
     delay in forwarding the FIR. The present is the case, where
     recording of the FIR on 16th June, 2000 itself has been proved,
     accepted by the trial court also, thus mere dispatch of the FIR
     on 22nd June, 2000 from the police station to the Magistrates'
     Court has no bearing on the basis of which any adverse
E    presumption can be drawn. It is thus clear that the FIR was
     genuine FIR and trial court committed an error in drawing
     adverse inference against the prosecution and refusing to attach
     value to the FIR. [Paras 20, 21) [100-F-H; 101-A-B)
           Arren Joseph alias Current Kunjukunju and Ors. v. The
F          State of Kera/a 1973 (3) SCC 114 : 1973 (2) SCR
           16; Rabindra Mahto and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand
           (2006) 10 SCC 432 : 2006 (1) SCR 248 - relied on.
           Pala Singh v. State of Punjab (1972) 2 SCC 640 : 1973
           (1) SCR 964; - referred to.
G
          2. In facts and circumstances of the case, the appreciation
     of evidence of eye-witnesses and discarding of the evidences
     by the Sessions Judge was on flimsy ground and based on
     surmises and conjectures which has been correctly re-
     appreciated by the High Court. The High Court after re-
H
      ANJAN DASGUPTA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL


appreciating the evidence has rightly come to the conclusion           A
that the occurrence as well as participation of the appellant
was proved. The High Court was conscious that the case where
acquittal has been made, while entertaining an appeal over an
order of acquittal, if two views are possible on making proper
appreciation of available evidence, the view going in favour of
                                                                       B
accused has to be given importance. It is well settled that in
case where an order of acquittal has been made on improper
and erroneous appreciation of evidence, it is always open to
the court of appeal to make proper and reasonable appreciation
evidence and differ from the order of acquittal and in such
event, it shall never hesitate in reversing the same. The              c
findings and conclusion recorded by the High Court are based
on the correct appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from
any error. The judgment of the High Court reversing the
acquittal recorded by Sessions Judge needs no interference.
[Paras 32, 35, 36 and 37) (103-E; 104-D, F-H; 105-B-C)
                                                                       D
                      Case Law Reference
      1973 (2) SCR 16          relied on              Para 16
      1973 (1) SCR 964         referred t!)           Para 19
    ~ 2006 (1)   SCR 248       relied on              Para 20          E
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
298of2006.                                           ·
      From the Judgment and Order dated 16.02.2006 of the Division
Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in Government Appeal No. I 0 of
2002 and C.R. R. No. 2263 of2003.                                      F
      Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., D. N. Ray, Aamir Khan, Aadit Pujari,
Sangram Singh, Ms. Palla vi Langar, Advs. for the Appellant.
       Mrinal Kanti Mandal, Parijat Sinha, Rohit Dutta, Tara Chandra
Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Rupesh Kumar, Advs.
for the Respondent.                                                    G

      The Judgment of the Court was deli"vered by
      ·ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. I, This appeal has been filed against
the judgment dated 16.02.2006 of Calcutta High Court, by which
                                                                       H
94            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        r2o 161 12 s.c.R.


A    judgment, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal granted by
     Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court convicted the appellants
     Anjan Dasgupta and one Biswanath Paul under Section 302/34 of IPC
     by awarding life sentence and a fine of Rs. 2000.00.
            2. The prosecution case in brief is that, at 4.50 PM ofl 61h June,
B    2000 Debo! Kumar Ghosh, the deceased was sitting inside the Party
     Office of     CPl(M) at R.B.C. Road, Naihati, North 24-Paraganas at
     which time a maruti gypsy car stopped, from which the appellants got
     down. At the same time, four persons on two bicycles came from the
     direction of the Mitra Bagan Road and stopped right in front ofCPI(M)
     Party Office. The appellant by hand indicated Debo! Kumar Ghosh to
c    four persons who had arrived there on two bicycles, and one of them
     fired from pipe gun on Debo! Kumar Ghosh. Leaving two cycles, all
     four persqns got in the Maruti Gypsi which speed up towards Gauripur.
     Sandip Ghosh, the son ofDebol Kumar Ghosh who was sitting inside his
     medicine shop, namely, "Ma Medical Stores" at R.B.C. Road, Naihati,
D    North 24-Parganas situated at 5 cubits from CPI(M) Office saw the
     above incident and rushed to CPI(M) Party Office and found his father
     Debo! Kumar Ghosh had sustained bullet injuries on his chest and was
     lying on the floor. The elder brother ofSandip Ghosh, upon hearing the
     sound, also came to the Party Office. The victim, Debo! Kumar Ghosh
     was thereafter taken to Green View Nursing Hom~ where he was
E    declared dead by the doctors at 5.00 PM.
         3. The information of murder of Debo! Kumar Ghosh was received
  by the Police Officials of the Naihati Police Station, who immediately
  rushed to the scene of occurrence. After receiving an R. T. message at
  17 .15 hours, the Sub Inspector Tapan Kumar also arrived at the scene
F at 17.40 hrs and remained at the scene till 21.05 hours. Sandip Ghosh
  went to the police station at about 7.30-8.00 PM alongwith one Arun
  Dey. Arun I)ey wrote the .complaint at dictation ofSandip Ghosh and a
  written complaint was submitted to the police station. The FIR No. 99
  of2000 was registered under Section 302/34 of the !PC and Section 25/
G 27 Arms Act, naming accused Anjan Dasgupta, Biswanath Paul, Sintu
  alias Saroj Roy and Bhola Kundu.
             4.Tapan Kumar, Sub Inspector received the FIR while he was
     still at the scene of occurrence. Sub Inspector Manick Chakraborty, on
     dictation ofTapan Kumar with a Constable prepared the inquest report
H    of the dead body at Green View Nursing Home at 22.35 hours. After
       ANJAN DASGUPTA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                               95
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

the inquest report was prepared late in the evening, the dead body was      A
sent for postmortem. After completion of the investigation, accusedAnjan
Dasgupta, Bhola Kundu, Sintu alias Saroj Roy and Biswanath Paul were
charged for the commission of the offence under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the IPC and Basudev Paul was charged for offence under
Section 212 of the IPC.
                                                                            B
      5. Prosecutiony-l'amined thirty one witnesses in support of its
case; prosecution also produced documentary evidences, namely,
statements recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and certain other
documentary evidences. Accused persons adduced no oral evidences.
Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C.
                                                                            c
       6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused
Biswanath Paul for offence under Section 212 and all other accused
from charge of Section 302/34. State filed an appeal against the acquittal
order. The complainant also filed a Revisional Application CRR No.
2263 of 2002, challenging the order of the acquittal. The High Court
vide its judgment dated 16.02.2006 set aside the order of the acquittal as D
regards toAnjan Dasgupta and Biswanath Paul. It, however, confirmed
the acquittal with regard to the Sintu alias Saroj Roy and Bhola Kundu.
Acquittal ofBasudev Paul was also affirmed. Appellant Anjan Dasgupta"
was sentenced to undergo life impri~~l!?ent with a fine of Rs. 2000.00/-.
Anjan Dasgupta has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and E
sentence.
       7. We have heard Shri Kapil Sibal learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant, Shri Rupesh Kumar learned senior counselii'ppearing
for the Respondent No. 2 and Parijat Sinha learned counsel for the State
of West Bengal.                                                             F
       8. Shri Kapil Sibal learned senior counsel for the appellant, in
support of the appeal contends that learned Sessions Judge after
considering entire evidence on record had rightly come to the conclusion
that evidence led by prosecution contradicts the prosecution story, as to
the genesis of occurrence, hence did not commit any error in acquitting G
the appellant. It is contended that FIR was ante-dated and ante-timed as
rightly held by the trial court. He S'ubmitted that from the evidence of
PW 1 who gave the written complaint for lodging an FIR, it is clear that
he went to the police station after 7.30 PM, hence the F.IR could not
have been lodged before 7.30-8.00 PM and mention of time ofreceiving .
                                                                          H
96            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         r20161 12 S.C.R.


A. the information in the FIR as 17.35 hour clearly proves that it was ante-
   timed.
         9. Shri Kapil Sibal further submits that FIR, in fact was lodged
  after inquest report and inquest report according tu the evidence was
  prepared after the 22.35 hours. It is submitted that ante-timing and
B ante-dating of the FIR was with object to falsely implicate the accused
  since by that time prosecution story was still in vacuum. Shri Sibal referred
  to various contradictions in the statement of witnesses as noticed by trial
  court. He submits that High Court committed error in reversing the
  order of acquittal. It is well settled that if on an evidence two views are
  possible and the trial court exercises its discretion in having acquitted
c the accused, High Court ought not to interfere with the acquittal order.
  The FIR was dispafched from the police station with great delay, which
  could be placed before the Magistrate only on 22"d July, 2000, which
  also clearly proves that FIR was not registered at the time and the date
  when it is claimed. Mention ofU.D. Case No. 43/2000, in FIR causes
D suspicion and serious doubts with regard to the authenticity of the FIR
  and subsequent inquest report. Prosecution failed to prove any motive
  for the murder and in absence of any motive, .appellant could not have
  been convicted.
         I 0. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as complainant
E have refuted  submissions oflearned counsel for the appellant. High Court,
  while reversing the acquittal order has properly reappraised the evidence
  and finding the guilt of the accused, convictionhas been recorded. There
  are more than one eyewitnesses who have proved by their evidence,
  place of occurrence, death by bullet injury, presence and participation of
  the appellant in the crime, which has been established beyond any
F reasonable doubt. There was no delay or discrepancy in the FIR. FIR,
  being a genuine document, trial court committed error in holding that
  FIR is ante- timed and anti-dated. The High Court after correctly ·
  appreciating the entire evidence on record has rightly rever~ed the
  acquittal order. With regard to the delay in sending the copy of the FIR
G to the Magistrate, nothing was asked in the cross-examination of the
  1.0. Further, although much argument was raised before the trial court
  regarding ante-timing and ante-.dating of FIR but no questions were put
  before the 1.0. and the sub inspector who recorded the FIR, when they
  appeared before the.~ourt.

H          11. First, we proceed to consider the submissions of the learned
       ANJAN DASGUPTA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                               97
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

counsel for the appellant regarding ante-timing and ante-dating of the A
FIR. The trial court had formulated point No. 3 as 'was the real FIR
suppressed and the FIR proved as ante-dated'. Trial court had observed
that PW 1 went to the police station at about 7.30/8.00 PM but in the
formal FIR Exh. 9, it is recorded that information of the commission of
offence was received at 17.35 hours on 16'h June, 2000. This entry in
                                                                          B
Exh. 9 contradicts the aforesaid evidence of the PW 1 as regard to the
time oflodging of complaint to the police station. Argument was raised
before the trial court that FIR was, not only ante-timed but also ante-
dated, as such no reliance should be placed on the Exh. 3. Magistrate
had perused both the written complaint and the FIR, which bore the
endorsement "seen" dated 22nd July 2000. Trial court held that FIR was c
dispatched from the police station on 22nd June, 2000 and was received
at the Magistrate Court on 23'ct June, 2000. The trial court had recorded
 its conclusion in following words at Page No. 107:
      "'As the FIR was antetimed and there was abnormal
      unexplained delay in dispatching the FIR to the office                D
      of the learned Magistrate as well as putting up the same
      before the learned Magistrate, adverse inference should
      be drawn against the prosecution. The FIR cannot be
      attached with much value. "
      Following observations were made by trial court at Page No. l 06:      E
      "Even if the FIR was lodged after 7-3018 p.111. as stated
      by the P. W.1 it would not lose it's value in it's entirety
      because it is not established that the FIR proved at the
      trial was a subsequent one or that it was written on any
      date after 16.6.2000"                                                  F
        12. Now, coming to the evidence on record, there is evidence of
PW I that he went to the police station between 7.30/8.00 PM and the
First Information Report was written by Arnn Dey on his dictation. Both
the above facts have been proved by statement of PW 1 Sandip Ghosh
and PW S Arun Dey; both have signed the written complaint. Shri Sun ii      G
Giri ASI PW 29 proved the recording of the FIR on the basis of written
complaint given by Sandip Ghosh. No suggestion was put to PW 29
regarding the date or time of recording of the FIR.
       13. Shri Su nil Giri has proved the FIR, he further proved that he
received the FIR on 16'" June, 2000, he proved his signature on the FIR     H
98            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016] 12 S.C.R.



A    also. He denied the suggestion that FIR was written on subsequent to
     J61h June, 2000. Thus there is no case of ante-dating the FIR, even the
     trial court did not accept the submission that FIR was ante-dated.
             14. Now we come to the main submissions, that is, ante-timing of
     the FIR and delayed dispatch of the FIR to the court of the Magistrate.
B    The sequence of the events, as it emerges from the evidence brought
     before the court, i.e. the evidence of PW I and PW 30, there is no
     doubt that PW I went to the police station at about 7.30 PM. The
     statement of PW 30, in this context, is very relevant. PW 30 in his
     statement has stated that on l 61h June, 2000, when he was posted at
     Police Station, Naihati, he was at village Shibdaspur, in connection with
c    another case, when at 17 .15 hours he received an RT Message that at
     Mitra Bagan Crossing one Debo I Kumar Ghosh had been shot dead. He
     ,arrived at the spot at about 17.40 hours and remained there till 21.05
     hours. He further stated that he prepared the sketch map on the spot
     and seized the certain articles including two bicycles from the entrance
D    of the party office room. The statement in his examination-in-chief
     following was stated by I.O.:
           "While I was at village Shibdmpur under P S. Naihaati
           in connection with another case at 17. l 5hrs. 1 received
           an R. T. message that at Mitrabagan crossing one Debal
E          Kr. Ghosh had been shot dead. 1 then directly rushed to
           Mitrabagan More. I arrived there at 17-40 hrs. There
           was law and order problem over the murder. There was
           blockage of road. I received the FlR from the Police
           Station at the said Mitrabagan crossing. I had been
           engaged with law and order maintaing job upto 21.05
F          hrs. I went to the C.PI.M party office at Mitrabagan
           crossing and prepared a sketch map thereof with index."
            15. In the cross-examination, he has stated thatASI Sun ii Giri had
     send him the R.T. message. Sunil Giri AS! thus had received the
     information of the murder of Debol Kumar Ghosh before 17 .15 hours,
G    arrival of Sub Inspector Tapan Kumar Mishra I.O. on the scene at the
     time as claimed is proved; I.O. also went to the Green View Nursing
     Home, accompanied by S.I. Manick Chakraborty where dead body of
                                                     .
     the deceased, Debo! Kumar Ghosh was laid. Under the dictation of the
     1.0., the inquest report was prepared by Manick Chakraborty Sub
     Inspector of Police, which has started on 22.35 hours. The inquest report
H
        ANJAN DASGUPTA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                               99
                 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

which has been proved by witnesses and 1.0. clearly records the following:   A
      '"Investigation report over the dead body of Deceased
      Debo! Kumar Ghosh (48) years son of late Kiran
      Chandra Ghosh of 21211 R.B.C. Road P.S. Naihati
      District North 24-Paraganas (Illegible)in CIW Naihati
      P.S. U.D. Case No. 43/2000 dt. 16.62000 and Naihati                    B
      P.S. Case No. 99 of 16.6.2000 under Section 302134
      I.P.C. & 25127 Arms Act."
       16. The inquest report thus mentioned both unnatural death case
(U .D. No. 43/2000) dated l 6'h June, 2000 and P.S. Case No. 99 of l 61h
June, 2000 under Section 302/34 oflPC and 25/27 Arms Act. From the C
above, there can be no doubt that FIR was registered before the inquest
report of dead body started. The evidence indicates that information of
death was received by the police station before 17 .15 hours and police
officials arrived at the spot immediately and the 1.0. arrived at the spot
at 17.45 PM, by that time other police officials had already reached ..
The receipt and the recording offirst Infonnation Repott is not a condition D
precedent for setting in motion of a criminal investigation. When the
information that Debo I Kumar Ghosh is shot dead, police was duty bound
to start investigation. This Court in APREN JOSEPH ALIAS
CURRENT KUNJUKUNJU AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE
OF KERALA 1973 (3) SCC 114 stated following in paragraph 11:                E
        "As observed by the Privy Council in K. E. •: Khwaja,
       the receipt and recording of information report by the
       police is not a condition precedent to the setting in
       motion of a criminal investigation. "
       17. Much emphasis has been laid down by the learned counsel           F
for the appellant on the fact that, FIR notes in Column C, 'time 17.35'.
The time 17.35 hours, we have already noted that Sunil Giri Sub Inspector
of Police has recorded in the First Information Report. He had already
received the information before 17. IS hours since he had sent the R. T.
message to the 1.0. Information of cognizable offence having been            G
received by the ASI, with regard to the mention of time at 17 .35 in the
FIR, which was recorded after 17.30 PM could have been explained if
any questions were put to ASI Sunil Giri. From the cross-examination of
ASI Sun ii Giri, it does not appear that any question was asked regarding
the recording time 17.35 in the FIR. The possibility cannot be ruled out
                                                                             H
100             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          r20l6l 12 S.C.R.



 A    that while registering the FIR on the basis of written complaint, theASI
      recorded the time when he received the information in the police station
      of the death of Debo I Kumar Ghosh. In any view of matter, the above in
      no manner diminishes the value or credibility of the FIR.
             18. The information of murder was received before 17.35 hours
 B    atthe police station which is fully proved by arrival of the police officers
      much before -17.40 hours as proved by 1.0. Hence mention of the time
      at 17.35 can be treated as the time of receipt of the information of the
      offence in the police station and there is no such inconsistencies in the
      FIR so as to come to the conclusion that FIR was ante-timed.

 c           19. FIR as well as the inquest report both mentioned the accused
      Anjan Dasgupta. The inquest report has not been questioned on any
      account. The offence, having been committed at around 4-5 PM,
      registration of the FIR at the police station between 7.30 to 8.00 PM
      does not cause any reason to draw any adverse inference, more so,
      when after the occurrence, the deceased was taken to the nearby nursing
·D
      home where .he was declared dead and body remained there till the
      inquest was over. The another circumstance, which have been heavily
      relied by trial court and reiterated before us by learned counsel for the
      appellant is dispatch of the FIR to the Magistrate with delay. This Court
      in Pal" Singh v. St"te ofPunj"b 1972 (2) SCC 640 has held that delay
 E    in forwarding the FIR to court is not fatal in a case in which investigation
      has commenced promptly on its basis.
            20. The I.O. after receipt of the information of an offence by
      R.T. message had arrived at the scene on 17.40 hours, which clearly
      proves the prompt commencement of the investigation. FIR was
 F    dispatched on 22"d June, 2000 which has also been accepted by trial
      court. When no questions were put to 1.0. in his cross-examination
      regarding the delay in dispatch, at the time of hearing, the accused cannot
      make capital of the said delay in forwarding the FIR. This Court in
      R"bi11dr<1 M"llto "ml Another v. St"te of Jlwrklwml 2006 (10) SCC
      432 has held that in every case from the mere delay in sending the FIR
 G    to the Magistrate, the Court would not conclude that the FIR has been
      recorded much later in time than shown. It is only extraordinary and
      unexplained delay, which may raise doubis regarding the authenticity of
      th~ FIR.                                    .
             21. The present is the case, where recording of the FIR on J 6•h
 H
       ANJAN DASGUPTA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                                  101
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

June, 2000 itself has been proved, accepted by the trial court also, thus      A
mere dispatch of the FIR on 22"d June, 2000 from the police station to
the Magistrates' Court has no bearing on the basis of which any adverse
presumption can be drawn. From the above discussion, we are of the
clear view that the FIR was genuine FIR and trial court committed an
error in drawing adverse inference against the prosecution and refusing
                                                                                B
to attach value to the FIR.         -
      22. The con'clusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the FIR
was manipulated is thus found to be erroneous. FIR has been proved by
the evidence as noted above. Thus, one of the basis of the decision of
the Sessions Judge for discarding the prosecution case is knocked out.
                                                                                c
      23. Now, we came to the consideration of oral evidence by Sessions
Judge. Both the deceased and accused belong to the same locality. The
occurrence was witnessed by several persons, including the eye-
witnesses who appear<:d before the court and proved the prosecution
case, PW. I Sandip Ghosh, PW.2 Yijay Das, PW.3 Kamal Nath, PW.4
Manabendra Nag, PW.6 Prasanta Ghosh, PW. I 0 Shashanka Nath and                 D
PW I Shankar Ghosh.
       24. PW. I Sandip Ghosh, the son of the deceased was in his medical
shop "Maa Medical Stores" which is at the distance of about 5 cubits
from CPl(M) office. In his eye-witness account, he stated that at 04:50
PM when he was at his shop, he found a motor vehicle, a Maruti Gypsy            E
to come from side ofNaihati Station and got itself parked on R.B.C.
Road after crossing Mitrapara and R.B.C. Road Crossing. He saw
Biswanath Paul and Anjan Dasgupta got down from the said motor
vehicle and at that very moment, four boys about age 22/23 years came
in front of aforesaid party.office from side of Mitra Bagan by two Bicycle.     F
He further saw Anjan Dasgupta and Biswanath Paul to point out his
father sitting inside the party office. One of the said boys took out a pipe
gun and shoot Debo! Ghosh. Anjan Dasgupta further observed that "Hay
Gechi Tara Tari Chale Aiy". Thereafter, the said vehicle left. In the
cross-examination, the witness stood firm with his eye- witness accound
and could not be shaken.                                                        G

       25. PW 2 Vijay Das on the fateful day was standing at the gate of
the party office inside of which Debol Ghosh was sitting. Debo! Ghosh
after taking the tea asked him to bring the beetle leave. He went to the
beetle shop fo front of the party's office on the other side ofroad, where
                                                                                H
102            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         r20l6l 12 S.C.R.



A     he saw Anjan Dasgupta and Biswanath Paul to get down from Maruti
      Gypsy at the crossing ofR.B.C. Road. At that time four persons by two
      bicycles came from the Mitrapara side. One of the said four boys brought
      a shooter machine and fired Debal Ghosh. Thereafter, all left towards
      Gouripur.
B             26. PW 3 Kamal Nath, who has a shop on the footpath in front of
      the CPI(M) party office, stated in his evidence that in the afternoon of
      l 61h June at 03:00 PM to 04:00 PM, he was sitting inside the party office
      and he went out of the office room and was standing outside smoking a
      'cigarette'. At that time, a red Gypsy came and stationed at the distance
      of3 cubits from him, from which Anjan Dasgupta and Biswanath Paul
c     got down. At that very time, 4 persons came by 2 Bicycles from the side
      of Mitra Bagan. Two of the said persons fired from outside the party
      office and shot Debo I Ghosh. They left the bicycles and left the place by
      Gypsy towards Gouripur.
            27. The almost similar eye-witness account has been narrated by
D     other eye-witness who were examined by Prosecution.
            28. Learned Sessions Judge pointing out certain discrepancy/
      contradiction in the statement held that the evidence by eye-witnesses
      does not inspire confidence. Learned Sessions Judge had also made
      observation that no explanation had been offered by the prosecution as
 E    to why statement of witnesses under Section 164 Cr. P.C. was recorded
      with delay. The statement given by the eye-witness in the court cannot
      be discarded merely on the grounds that statement which got recorded
      under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution was not immediately
      recorded.
 F           29. The cross-examination of 1.0. PW.31 does not indicates that
      the any explanation was asked from him regarding delayed recording of
      the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
            30. The High Court has also re-appraised the entire oral evidence
      and had observed that eye-witnesses stick to their earlier statements
G     except one or two witnesses who attempted to add something during the
      statements. Following had been recorded by the High Court at Page 22:
            " ... We have carefully examined the statement of the
            witnesses and also their statement recorded under
            Section 164 C1:P. C. and we find that there was attempt
H
       ANJAN DASGUPTA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                            103
                [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      on the part of one or two witnesses to add something               A
      more during their statement recorded before the learned
      Magistrate, but, as a whole all the eye-witnesses sticked
      to their earlier statements given before the l 0. and they
      made the same statement before the trial Court during
      their examination ... ··
                                                                         B
      31. After looking to the evidence of eye-witnesses, High Court
has observed that all of them had deposed of arrival of Maruti Gypsy
Vehicle, Presence of Anjan Dasgupta and Biswanath Paul on the place
of occurrence and about giving instructions to shoot Debo! Ghosh and
subsequently helping the persons to flee from the place of occurrence
by getting inside the Maruti Gypsy Vehicle. Following are the findings
                                                                         c
recorded by the High Court:
      " ... From the statements of PWl, PW2, PW3, PW4,
      PW.6, PWlO and also from PW.21 we find that all of
      them deposed about arrival of a maruti gypsy vehicle,
      presence of Anjan Dasgupta and Biswanath Paul on                    D
      the place of occurrence and also about giving of
      instruction to shot at Debal Ghosh and subsequently
      for helping the persons to flee from the place of
      occurrence by getting inside the maruti gypsy vehicle... "
      32. The appreciation of evidence of eye-witnesses and discarding    E
the aforesaid evidences by the learned Sessions Judge was on flimsy
ground and based on surmises and conjectures which has been correctly
re-appreciated by the High Court. For instance, with regard to eye-
witness PW 2 Vijay Das, learned Sessions Judge discard the evidence
of PW 2 by giving fol lowing reasons:                                     F
      " .. .In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P. C.
      marked Exhibit 1 this gentleman told that on hearing
      sound of firing he rushed and found that Debal Ghosh
      was shot and one was going to pick up the bicycle. At
      that time he tried to catch the said man and Anjan said             G
      "be quickly the pigs". In the statement recorded under
      Section 164 Cr.P. C. which was made more than two
      months after the alleged date of occurrence did not
      name the person whom he tried to catch. So this omission
      contradicts the aforesaid evidence of the PW.2. The
                                                                          H
104            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2016112 S.C.R.



A           PW2 s evidence being contradicted by his earlier belated
            statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C as well as suffers
            from improbability cannot be relied on ... "
             33. The mere fact that the witness did not name the person whom
      he tried to catch does not lead to any contradiction since all eye-witness
B     have stated that four persons came by 2 bicycles one of whom shoot
      Debo! Ghosh.
             34. PW 2 stated that he tried to catch one person of the aforesaid
      and omission not to name the person does not lead to any contradiction
      nor can result in discarding the evidence. The observation of learned
c     Sessions Judge thatthe evidence suffers from the improbability and cannot
      be relied is also not based on any valid reason.
            35. Some minor contradiction has been pointed out by learned
      Session Judge in the evidence of other eye-witnesses which have rightly
      been discarded by the High Court and the High Court after re-
D     appreciating the evidence has rightly come to the conclusion that the
      occurrence as well as participation of Anjan Dasgupta, the appellant
      was proved. Following conclusion has been recorded by the High Court:
            " ... Thus from the evidence on record we get that several
            witnesses of the locality who were present on the place
 E          of occurrence had noticed Anjml' Dasgupta and
            Biswanath Paul on the place of occurrence and also
            noticed their active participation in the 111atter of murder
            of Debal Ghosh and in this context we want to record
            that the learned trial Court totally misdirected itself in
            the 111atler of appreciation of the evidence of the eye-
 F          witness. "
          36. High Court was conscious that the case where acquittal has
   been made, while entertaining an appeal over an order of acquittal if two
 . views are possible on making proper appreciation of available evidence
   the view going in favour of accused have to given importance. It is well
G settled that in case where an order of acquittal has been made on
   improper and erroneous appreciation of evidence, it is always open to
   the court of appeal to make proper and reasonable appreciation evidence
   and differ from the order of acquittal and in such event, it shall never
   hesitate in reversing the same. Ultimately, the High Court concluded:
H           " .. .Fro111 scanning of the entire prosecution evidence and
        ANJAN DASGUPTA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                                  105
                 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      having regard to submission of the respectivi parties,                    A
      we are constrained to hold that the learned trial Court
      was totally wrong both in law and, in fact, in making its
      observation that the FIR was antedated and anti timed
      and a manipulated one. The trial Court also erred in
      law by discarding the FIR for delay in dispatching the
                                                                                B
      same in the Court of the Magistrate."
       37. We are of the opinion that the findings and conclusion recorded
by the High Court are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and
do not suffer from any error. The judgment of the High Court reversing
the acquittal recorded by learned Sessions Judge needs no interference.
There are no merits in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant      C
is on bail his bail bonds are cancelled and the appellant is directed to be
taken into custody forthwith.


Ankit Gyan                                                  Appeal dismissed.