GUIRAM MONDALversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

                 [2013] 2 S.C.R. 1107


                     GUIRAM MONDAL                                 A
                               v.
                STATE OF WEST BENGAL
            {Criminal Appeal No. 1268 of 2007)
                       APRIL 26, 2013
                                                                   B
   [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

    PENAL CODE, 1860:

      ss. 148 and 3021149- Double murder - Conviction of one       c
accused only by trial court for causing death of one of the
deceased- High Court convicting the appellant and four others
- Held: High Court has correctly appreciated the evidence
rendered by witnesses - It rightly came to the conclusion that
trial court was completely in error by over-looking some crucial
                                                                   0
and important evidence and placing much reliance on non-
mention of name of accused persons in inquest report - High
Court has rightly held the appellant guilty uls 302 read with
s. 148 and awarded him sentence of fife imprisonment -
Evidence - Evidence of related witnesses - Investigation -         E
Delay in despatch of special report to Magistrate.

     INVEST/GA TION:

     Inquest - Purpose of - Explained.

     The appellant and other accused persons wer~                  F
prosecuted for causing death of two persons, namely,
'AD' and 'SK'. The prosecution case was that the accused
persons took alongwith them the two victims and
assaulted them with deadly weapons causing their death.
PW1, the brother of 'AD', and other witnesses tried to             G
save the victims but in vain and in the process PW1 was
shot by a pipe gun and he sustained injuries. The trial
court convicted A-3 for causing the death of 'AD' and
acquitted all other accused. However, on appeal, the High
                             1107                                  H
    1108   SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A Court convicted the appellant alongwith four others while
  maintaining the acquittal of others.
      In the instant appeal, two other convicts had also
  joined the appellant, but as they did not comply with
  court's order for surrendering, the appeal with regard to
8
  them was dismissed.

       Dismissing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 PW 1, the brother of deceased 'AD', who
c is also an injured eye-witness, has clearly and
  unequivocally supported the prosecution case and
  deposed about the manner in which the accused had
  done away with the two deceased and his version is fully
  corroborated by other eye-witnesses, PWs 2, 3, 4, 8 and
0 11. The specific part played by the various accused
  persons, including the appellant, has been narrated by
  these witnesses. The High Court has correctly
  appreciated the evidence. [paras 7 and 8) [1113-D-E, H;
  1114-A-B]
E     1.2 The High Court has held that the trial court was
  completely in error by over-looking some crucial and
  important evidence and in placing much reliance on non-
  mention of name of accused persons in the inquest
  report. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to
F report regarding the cause of death, namely whether it is
  suicidal, homicidal, accidental etc. and non-mention of
  few accused persons therein is of no consequence.
  [paras 9 and 10) [1114-D-G]
G      Pedda Narayana and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh
                        =
  1975 Suppl. SCR 84 (1975) 4 SCC 153; Amar Singh v.
                                                 =
  Ba/winder Singh and Others 2003 (1) SCR 754 (2003) 2
  SCC 518; Radha Mohan Singh@ Lal Saheb and Others v.
  state of u.P. 2006 (1) SCR 519    =  (2006) 2 sec 450 -
H referred to.
  GUIRAM MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                1109


    1.3 Merely because the FIR was placed before the           A
Magistrate three days after registration of FIR, it cannot
be said that the FIR was anti timed, anti dated and
fabricated. In fact, no question was put to the
Investigating Officer as to the cause of delay in sending
FIR to the Magistrate.[para 11] [1115-E-F]                     B
    State of Jammu and Kashmir v. S. Mohan Singh and
Another (2006) 9 SCC 272 • referred to.

     1.4 Further, merely because a witness is a relative of
the deceased is not a reason for discarding his evidence. C
Evidence of relatives can be acted upon if the court finds
that the evidence of such a witness is reliable and
trustworthy. Besides, PW2 was not a relative of deceased
'AD'. A close scrutiny of the evidence rendered by the
eye-witnesses clearly establishes the involvement of the D
accused. Further, in their cross examination, there is no
serious contradiction, omission, infirmity, defect or
lacuna which can make their evidence unbelievable and
to make them untrustworthy witnesses. Their statements
have been fully corroborated by PW 12, the autopsy E
surgeon, relating to the nature of injuries and places of
injuries on the person of the deceased. [para 13-14]
[1116-B-C, E-G]

     Seeman @ Veeranam v. State by Inspector of Police
(2005) 11 SCC 142; Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi) 2002 (4)      F
Suppl. SCR 88 = (2003) 1 SCC 21; Dalbir Kaur and Others
                                      =
v. State of Punjab 1977 (1) SCR 280 (1976) 4 SCC 158;
State of U.P. v. Jodha Singh and Others (1989) 3 SCC 465;
Labh Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (1976) 1 SCC 181;
Visveswaran v. State represented by SDM 2003 (3) SCR 978       G
=(2003) 6 sec 73 • referred to.
    1.5 Considering the totality of the evidence and
circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that
the High Court has rightly held the appellant guilty u/s 302   H
    1110     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 2 S.C.R.


A   read with s.148 of IPC for the murder of 'AD' and awarded
    him the sentence of life imprisonment. [para 15) (1117-B]

                         Case Law Reference:
      1975 Suppl. SCR 84          referred to          para 10
B
      2003 (1) SCR 754            referred to          para 10
      2006 (1) SCR 519            referred to          para 10
      (2006) 9 sec 212            referred to          para 12
c     c2005) 11 sec 142           referred to          para 13
      2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 88      referred to          para 13
      1977 (1) SCR 280            referred to          para 13

0     1989 (3) sec 465            referred to          para 13
      1976 (1) sec 151            referred to          para 13
      2003 (3) SCR 978            referred to          para 13

E       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 1268 of 2007.

        From the Judgment and order dated 28.11.2006 of the
    High Court at Calcutta in G.A. No. 22 of 1987.

F      Rupali S. Ghosh, Sanjoy Kumar Ghosh, Deba Prasad
    Mukherjee for the Appellant.

          Chanchal Kr. Ganguli, Soumi Jundu, Avijit Bhattacharjee
    for the Respondent.

G       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. The appellant, the 10th
  accused in Sessions Case No.20 of 1986, was charge-sheeted
  along with others for the offences punishable under Section
H 147, 148, 149, 323 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
   GUIRAM MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                     1111
           [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court, after                A
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence vide its
judgment dated 22.4.1987 acquitted all the accused persons,
except Accused No.3 Tarun Mondal, who was convicted for the
offences punishable under Section148 and 302 of IPC for
causing the murder of Amrita Dome and sentenced him to               B
suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC.

    2. The State of West Bengal, aggrieved by the order of
acquittal, preferred G.A. No.22 of 1987 before the High Court
of Calcutta. The High Court vide its judgment dated
28.11.2006 partly allowed the appeal and convicted the               C
appellant along with four others, while maintaining the order of
acquittal passed by the trial Court, in respect of rest of the
accused persons. Tarun Mondal, 3rd accused, was further
found guilty of the murder of Sultan Khan.
                                                                     D
     3. We are, in this case, concerned only with the appeal filed
by Guiram Mondal, 10th accused. The prosecution case, in
short, is that on 26.4.1984 at about 12 hours the accused
persons formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons
and took along with them Amrita Dome and Sultan Khan                 E
through a kuchha road in village Pechaliya and, in the process,
assaulted both Amrita Dome and Sultan Khan. Some of the
witnesses, who are relatives of the deceased Amrita Dome,
tried to save him but they were also assaulted by the accused
persons and the informant Sadananda Dome (PW1) was shot              F
at by a pipe-gun and he sustained injuries. While the accused
persons were proceeding as such, Amrita Qome managed to
escape from their clutches and took shelter in the house of
Monohar Mondal @ Manu Mondal (PW2). The accused
persons, however, chased Amrita Dome and brought him out             G
of the house of Manu Mondal and killed him in the passage or
pathway lying between the house of Manu Mondal and his
nephew Sahadeb Mondal. Accused persons after murdering
Amrita Dome left the spot to chase Sultan Khan, who was left
injured in front of Durga temple which was close to the house
                                                                     H
    1112    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A   of Monohar Mondal. Sultan Khan was also murdered by them
    and they carried away his death body to the grazing field and
    left it there.

       4. Sadananda Dome (PW1) then passed this information,
  which was recorded in writing by PW 15 on 26.4.1984 at 6.05
8
  PM and the same was treated as the FIR. The same was sent
  to the police station and was received there at 7 .25 PM and
  on the basis of that FIR a case was registered against the
  accused persons and they were charge-sheeted for the
  offences, already mentioned earlier. PW 15, the Investigating
C Officer visited the place of occurrence and prepared the sketch
  map and conducted the inquest in the presence of PW 10, the
  Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and sent both the dead bodies
  for post-mortem examination through constable PW 13.

D      5. PW 12 Dr. S. Nath, conducted the post-mortem on both
  the dead bodies and opined that the death was due to effect
  of head injury and associated injuries which were anti mortem
  and homicidal in nature. PW 15 on 13.5.1984 arrested various
  accused persons including the appellant and were brought
E before the trial court. On the side of the prosecuti'on 16
  witnesses were examined. PW 1 Sadananda Dome, the first
  informant is the brother of the deceased Amrita Dome.
  Monohar Mondal, in whose house the deceased Amrita Dome
  took shelter, was examined as PW2. Menoka Dome, wife of
F deceased Amrita Dome, was also examined as PW 3 and
  Sankar Dome, the father of the deceased Amrita Dome was
  also examined as PW 5. On the side of the defence, Joydev
  Garian DW1 was examined.

       6. Dr. S. Nath was examined as PW12, who conducted
G the post-mortem on the dead bodies on 27.4.1984 deposed
  that on the dead body of Amrita Dome he found (1) one incised
  wound on right lateral aspect of forehead 2.5" x 2" x .5" (2) one
  incised wound in mid-region of forehead 3" x 2" x .5" (3) one
  incised would 3" below the midpoint of chin 4" x 2" x 2.5" laryns
H
  GUIRAM MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                         1113
          [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
and tranches cut off. He also noticed fracture of 4th, 5th 11 6th        A
ribs on the right side (2) fracture of 4th and 5th ribs on the right
side (3) right lung was found ruptured. Further, it was also
noticed a fracture of frontal bone. PW 12 has opined that the
death was due to the effects of head injury and associated injury
was ante mortem and homicidal in nature. PW12 conducted                  B
the post-mortem over the dead body of Sultan Khan and found
(1) one incised would 3" x 2" x 1" on back portion of head (2)
one incised would on left lateral aspect of neck 2" x 1.5" x 1"
and (3) one incised would 4" x 3" x 5" x4" aspect of neck 2" x
1.5" x 1". He also found fracture of 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th rib of        c
the right side and fracture of 4th, 5th and 6th ribs of the left side.
He found fracture of occipital bone and both the lungs were
ruptured. In his opinion, death was due to head injury and
associated injury ante mortem and homicidal in nature.

     7. PW 1, the brother of the deceased Amrita Dome, who D
is also an injured witness, had clearly and unequivocally
supported the prosecution case and stated that he had seen
the accused persons armed with deadly weapons like bhojali,
axe, pipe gun and dragger etc. catching hold of his brother
Amrita Dome and one Sultan Khan. Amrita Dome had E
managed to escape from the clutches of the accused persons
and took shelter in the house of Monohar Mondal. PW1 also
deposed that Sultan Khan in that process was half dead and
lying in front of Durga Temple. PW 1 deposed that the accused
persons took Amrita Dome out of the house of Monohar F
Mondal and assaulted with lathi, dagger, bhojali etc. PW 1
stated that he tried to save his elder brother but was shot at by
a pipe-gun which caused injury on his shoulder. PW 1 also
noticed that Kristo Gorain cut the throat of Sultan Khan and
thereafter brought Sultan Khan to a grazing field and left the G
body there.

      8. We have also gone through the evidence of the eye-
witnesses PWs 2, 3, 4, 8 and 11 and their versions corroborate
fully the version of PW 1, the first informant and eye-witness,          H
    1114    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A relating to the incident of assault and murder of Amrita Dome
  and Sultan Khan. The specific part played by the various
  accused persons, including the appellant, has been narrated
  by those witnesses. PW 2 had deposed that on the date of
  the incident he was in the cow-shed and as soon as he heard
B a hue and cry, he came out and found that some persons,
  including the appellant, forcibly taking away Amrita Dome from
  the house of Manu Mondal. PW 2 had also requested the
  accused persons to not to assault Amrita Dome but was.
  pushed away by the accused persons. Later he found Amrita
c Dome dead and the body was lying on the path-way between
  his house and the house of Sadananda Mondal.

        9. PW 3, the wife of Amrita Dome, also fully supported the
  prosecution case and also PWB, the mother of the deceased
  Amrita Dome and P. W .11, .the wife of the brother of the
D deceased. The High Court has correctly appreciated the
  evidence rendered by those witnesses. The High Court after
  examining the oral and documentary evidence came to the
  conclusion that the trial court was completely in error by over-
  looking some crucial and important evidence and placed much
E reliance on non-mention of name of accused persons in the
  inquest report. The High Court, in our view, correctly applied
  the legal. principle that non-mention of name of the few accused
  persons in the inquest report is of no consequence.

F      10. The inquest report normally would not contain the
  manner in which the incident took place or the names of eye-
  witnesses as well as names of accused persons. The basic
  purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the cause
  of death, namely whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental
G etc. Reference may be made to the Judgment of this Court in
  Pedda Narayana and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh
  (1975) 4 SCC 153 and Amar Singh v. Ba/winder Singh and
  Others (2003) 2 SCC 518. In Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal
  Saheb and Others v. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 450, this
  Court held that the scope of inquest is limited and is confined
H
  GUIRAM MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                     1115
          [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
to ascertainment of apparent cause of death. Inquest is              A
concerned with discovering whether in a given case the death
was accident, suicidal or homicidal, and in what manner or by
what weapon or instrument the injuries on the body appear to
have been inflicted. The details of overt acts need not be
recorded in the inquest report. The High Court has rightly held      B
that the manner and approach of the trial court in disbelieving
the prosecution story by placing reliance on the inquest report
was erroneous and bad in law.                  ·

     11. We also fully agree with the views expressed by the         C
High Court that the FIR was not anti dated, anti timed or was
subsequently created. The verbal submission of PW 1 was
reduced into writing by PW 15 and the same was treated as
the FIR (Ext.3). The formal FIR was marked ext.3/3. Those
documents would clearly indicate that the incident took place
on 26.4.1984 at about 12 hrs and the FIR was recorded at             D
village Pechaliya at 6.05 PM and after it was sent to the
Khairasole police station which was registered as Khairasole
P.S. Case No.10 dated 26.4.1984 at 7.25 P.M. There is
nothing to show that the FIR was anti dated, anti timed or
fabricated. Merely because the FIR was placed before the             E
learned Magistrate on 30.4.1984, three days after regist~ation
of FIR, it cannot be said that the FIR was anti timed, anti dated
and fabricated. In fact, no question was put to the Investigating
Officer as to the cause of delay in sending FIR to the
Magistrate.                                                          F

     12. This Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. S.
Mohan Singh and Another (2006) 9 SCC 272 held that the
mere delay in sending the First Information Report to a
Magistrate cannot be a ground to throw out prosecution case          G
if the evidence adduced is otherwise found credible and
trustworthy. We are of the view that the High Court has rightly
held that there is no reason to hold that the FIR was a fabricated
document or anti dated or anti timed.

                                                                     H
    1116    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 2 S.C.R.


A      13. We are also not impressed by the argument of Ms.
  Rupali S Ghose, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
  that not much reliance could be placed on the evidence of eye-
  witnesses as most of them are relatives of Amrita Dome and
  not a single independent witness was examined by the
B prosecution. In our view, merely because a witness is a relative
  of the deceased is not a reason for discarding his evidence.
  Many a time, strangers will not come forward depose as
  witnesses, even if they have witnessed the crime. Further,
  possibility of influencing such witnesses is also not uncommon.
c Evidence of relatives can be acted upon if the court finds that
  the evidence of such a witness is reliable and trustworthy. In
  this connection reference may be made to the Judgments of
  this Court in Seeman @ Veeranam v. State by Inspector of
  Police (2005) 11 SCC 142, Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi)
D (2003) 1 SCC 21, Dalbir Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab
  (1976) 4 SCC 158, State of U.P. v. Jodha Singh and Others
  (1989) 3 SCC 465, Labh Singh and Others v. State of Punjab
  (1976) 1 SCC 181, Visveswaran v. State represented by SOM
  c2003) 6 sec 73.

E       14. PW2, Monohar@ Manu Monda!, it may be noted, was
  not a relative of Amrita Dome. A close scrutiny of the evidence
  rendered by the eye-witnesses, some of which are relative of
  the deceased, clearly establishes the involvement of the
  accused. Further, in the cross examination of the eye
F witnesses, we have not noticed any serious contradiction,
  omission, infirmity, defect or lacuna which can make their
  evidence unbelievable and to make them untrustworthy
  witnesses. Further, the evidence of eye-witnesses have been
  fully corroborated by the evidence of PW 12, the autopsy
G surgeon relating to the nature of injuries and places of injuries
  on the person of the deceased. We notice that, earlier, the
  appeal was filed by Guiram Mondal along with Kisto Gorain and
  Madhusudan Mondal. Appeal was initially dismissed on
  17.9.2007 since they had not complied with the orders of this
H Court dated 19.4.2007 for surrendering. Later, the appellant
  GUIRAM MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL                    1117
          [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
herein was arrested and his case was restored on 28.11.2008        A
by this Court.

      15. Considering the totality of the evidence and
circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the High
Court has rightly reversed the judgment of the trial court after   8
finding the appellant guilty under Section 302 read with Section
148 of IPC for the murder of Amrita Dome and awarded the
sentence of life imprisonment. We, therefore, find no reason
to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The appeal
lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
                                                                   c
R.P.                                       Appeal dismissed.