Holding

The FIR was not ante‑timed, the omissions in the panchanama are not fatal, no fingerprint report was suppressed, and the eye‑witness testimony is reliable, so the convictions stand.

Summary

The appellants Rajesh and others were convicted under IPC sections 120B, 452 and 302, and the Arms Act for the murder of Girish Namdar, alleged to have been motivated by a love‑affair dispute. They appealed, claiming the First Information Report (FIR) was ante‑timed to plant eye‑witnesses, that the inquest panchanama’s omission of the FIR number and complainant’s name indicated tampering, that a fingerprint expert report was suppressed, and that the deceased’s alleged involvement in satta betting and bloodstains suggested other perpetrators. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the timing of the FIR and panchanama, the existence of any fingerprint report, and the relevance of the satta betting allegation. It found the eyewitness accounts cogent and confidence‑inspiring, noted that the omission in the panchanama did not prove ante‑timing, and observed that no fingerprint report existed to be suppressed. Consequently, the Court upheld the trial and High Court findings and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

The FIR was ante‑timed to introduce fabricated eye‑witnesses.
The omission of FIR number and complainant name in the inquest panchanama warrants setting aside the conviction.
The non‑production of a fingerprint expert report creates a presumption against the prosecution.
The deceased's alleged satta betting and bloodstains indicate alternative perpetrators.
The reliability and sufficiency of eye‑witness testimony to sustain conviction.
The medical expert's opinion on time of death contradicts eyewitness accounts.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1955s. 25(1)(b)
Bombay Police Act, 1951s. 135(1)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 157
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 302, s. 452

Subjects

murdercriminal conspiracyFIR ante‑timinginquest panchanamaeyewitness testimonyfingerprint evidencesuppression of evidencesatta bettingbloodstainsIndian Penal CodeArms Act

Judgment

A RAJESH @ RAJU CHANDULAL GANDHI AND ANR.
v.
~
STATE OF GUJARAT

MARCH 7, 2002

B [R.P. SETHI AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.]

Indian Penal Code, I860: Sections I20B, and 302

Murder_:_ Testimony of eye witnesses-Cogent reliable and confidence
c inspiring-Concurrent findings of Court below as to guilt of accused-
Conviction held justified-Held, no interference called for with impugned
judgment on facts FIR was not ante-timed-Non-mentioning of FIR No. and
name of eye witnesses in Inquest Panchanama insignificant-Withholding of
report of finger print expert facts not relevant.
D The appellants were prosecuted under Sections 120B, 452 and 302 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 25(l)(b) of the Arms Act
All the three accused who are related to each other were alleged to have
committed a murder pursuant to criminal conspiracy hatched by them. The
.
~-

motive for the crime was enmity between deceased and accused as the
E deceased was considered an impediment in love affair between 'N' and 'M',
the former being daughter of sister of one of the accused. The prosecution
case was that on 7.2.1993 at about 1.00 p.m. accused persons came in their
maruti car to the farm of the deceased. They assaulted the deceased with sharp
edged weapons and gave several blows one after the other. The incident was
witnessed by PW 1, nephew of the deceased and PW 12, the cook. First
F Information Report was lodged by PW 1 on 7.2.1993 at 2.40 p.m. in which
the time of occurrence was stated to be 1.15 p.m. After taking his statement
PW 1 was sent to the police station where detailed complaint was recorded.
Therefore, in the inquest panchanama (Exh. P 37) which was stated to have
started at 3 p.m. and completed at 3.45 p.m., the name of the complainant or
G the number of the FIR was not mentioned. However, in the Panchanama (Exh.
P. 32) stated to have been recorded between 4 to 6 p.m., the name of PW 1, r·-
and FIR no are specifically mentioned. Trial Court convicted the appellants
of the offences charged and the High Court upheld their conviction.

In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that
H 304
RAJESHv. STATE OF GUJARAT 305 I-

circumstances of the case probabilise that the FIR was ante-timed for planting A
;~
introduction of eye-witnesses; (ii) the statement made by Doctor in his cross-
examination that death had occurred within 9-12 hours before the post-
mortem examination shows that deceased must have died much before 1.15
p.m.; (iii) the FIR number and the name of witnesses are not mentioned in
the Inquest Panchanama; (iv) Adverse inference should be drawn against
prosecution because the opinion of finger print expert has been withheld; (v) B
the deceased was indulging in satta betting for riots by anti-social elements
and therefore there was a probability of some other people having committed
the offence. For this reliance was placed on an advertisement for satta as well
as on the fact that blood stains were found on a number of places in the house
- \.- of the deceased which suggested that occurrence had not taken place outside c
the house as alleged.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

- HELD: 1. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings
of fact arrived at against the accused holding them guilty for which they have
been convicted and sentenced. [317-G]
D

.
~
2. In the instant case all requi<ite details are mentioned in Panchanama .
Mere omission to mention the number of the FIR and the name of the
complainant in Panchanama is not a ground to come to the conclusion that
the FIR was ante-timed in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of E
the case. [316-Bj

3. There is nothing on the record to show that the investigating officer
had known the FIR number of the case at the time when he recorded the
inquest Panchana ma (Exh. P. 37) or at the time of recording of the aforesaid
Panchanama PW I was present at the place of occurrence. Inquest F
Panchanama was recorded during the period when PW I wns at the police
station. Otherwise also non-mentioning of the number of FIR or name of
prosecution witness in panchanama would not lead the court to believe that
the FIR had been ante-timed in view of the unequivocal, reliable and
confidence inspiring testimony of PW l. [311-F] G
~
4. In view of the cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring testimony of
the prosecution witnesses particularly those of PWs 1and14, and the record
including FIR. Inquest Panchana ma and Panchana ma of scene of occurrence
the plea of ante-timing of the FIR is the figment of imagination of the defence
and not a reality. Assuming that the FIR number and the name of the H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A complainant was known at the time of recording of inquest panchanama and
it was not mentioned therein, such circumstance would not probabilise the
defence version that the FIR had been ante--timed. (314-E]

Meharaj Singh (UNk.) v. State ofU.P.; (1994] 5 SCC 189, distinguished.

B 5. The events of circumstances narrated by the witnesses do not leave
any doubt that the occurrence had actually taken place at about 1.15 p.m. in
cons~quence of which death occurred and the FIR was registered on the basis
of the statement of PW 1 at 2.40 p.m. There is, no medical expert opinion
about the exact time of death. Otherwise also the opinion of the doctor cannot
C be substituted for the statement of the eye--witnesses who have been believed
by both the courts. From the statements of witnesses it is established that
deceased was alive upto 1.15 p.m. and had died after receiving about 30
injuries on his person mostly with sharp edged weapons. Even on this ground
also it would not be probable to hold that the First Information Report had
been .ante-timed. (315-B]
D 6. The withholding of the report of the finger-print expert, if any, would
definitedly cast a doubt on the prosecution version and presumption of such
report being against the prosecution has to be drawn. However, in the facts
of the case despite taking doubted finger prints from the spot, the investigating
officer had not taken finger prints of any of the accused. In the absence of
E finger prints of the accused persons no finger print expert could have given
any opinion regarding the chance prints found on glasses and other articles.
As no finger prints for comparison were taken or sent, there is no possibility
of any report of the expert being in existence in that regard, which was
allegedly suppressed warranting the drawing of a presumption against the
F prosecution. It might have been a lapse on the part of the investigating agency
for not taking the finger prints of the accused persons but merely because
the finger print expert had taken some prints from the glasses would not
justify the holding that there existed a comparative finger print expert report
which was allegedly suppressed or withheld by the prosecution. (316-D-GJ

7. There is no evidence on the record to show that the deceased had
G
ever indulged in satta business. Advertisement which, according to the defence,
probabilised that the deceased was indulging in Satta betting for riots by anti-
social elements, with reference to riots of Ayodhya has not been duly proved.
All such evidence refereed to by the defence with respect to the alleged
indulgence of the deceased in betting is based upon hearsay and not legally
H admissible in evidence. Therefore, no inference on that basis can be drawn
RAJESHv. STATE OF GUJARAT [SETHI, J.] 307
against the prosecution. [317-D-E) A
8. Both the Trial Court and the High Court have found cogent
explanation and reasons for the presence of blood at various places in the
house of the deceased. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary there is
no occasion for this Court to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at on
proper appreciation of evidence. (317-F) B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
252 of 2001.

".- From the Judgment and Order dated 5/6. 7.2000 of the Gujarat High C
Court in Crl. A. No. 153 of 1995.

Sushi! Kumar Adolf Mathew and Sanjay Jain, for the Appellants.

Yashank Adhyaru and Ms. Alka Agrawal for Mis. J.M. Nanavati
Associates for the Respondent. D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SETHI, J. Fairly conceding that in a criminal case while hearing- an
appeal by special leave this Court cannot ordinarily embark upon a re-
appreciation of evidence, in view of concurrent findings Mr. Sushi! Kumar, E
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has contended that without
appreciating afresh their testimony, the statements of Rakesh Pravinchandra
Kinarivala (PWl) and Satish (PWl2), the alleged eye-witnesses cannot be
accepted as their presence on spot is highly improbable. In support of his
contention he has referred to circumstances which allegedly show that the
FIR had been ante-timed only for the purposes of planting the aforesaid F
witnesses as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Non-mention of the FIR number
and the name of the witnesses in the inquest panchanama (Exh. 37) has been
cited as an instance to probabilise that the aforesaid witnesses were introduced
later. Learned counsel has further submitted that as despite taking finger
prints from the place of occurrence and sending it to the expert for his G
--~-
opinion, the prosecution did not produce the opinion of the expert in the
court, which amounted to withholding of evidence, the courts should have
drawn an inference against the prosecution. It is submitted that the well
settled position of law is that where suppression of evidence is proved, a
presumption of law has to be drawn that if such an evidence was actually
produced, the same would have gone against the party withholding it. Presence H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 2 S.C.R.

·A of blood at various places insi'de the house of the deceased is suggested to
be a strong ground to hold that occurrence had not taken place outside the
house as deposed by eye-witnesses but the deceased was killed inside the
house by some miscreants. The appellants are alleged to have been implicated
merely on suspicion and convicted completely ignoring the submissions made
B on their behalf.

In order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellants, it is necessary to ..have a resume of the facts of the case leading
to the conviction and sentence of the appellants. Montu a young lad, nephew
of deceased Girish Namdar, had allegedly abducted damsel Namrata, daughter
C of Mukesh Chandulal Gandhi and sister of Accused Sachin (A2) and Accused
Duniya (A3). According to the prosecution, seeds of enmity between the
families of complainant and the accused-party had been sown on account of
love affair between Namrata and Montu. The enmity thus conceived is stated
to be the motive for the ghastly and macabre killing of Girish Namdar.

D On 7.2.1993 at about 1.00 p.m. Girish Namdar @ Girish Ambalal
Gandhi is stated to have come to his farm known as Namdar Farm which is
situated near Vatva Village about 10-15 kilometers from the metropolitan
city of Ahmedabad. The accused are stated to have hatched a conspiracy, in
furtherance of which they committed the crime .. The accused persons came
E at the farm in a Maruti Fronti Model car. On hearing the blow of horn, the
deceased called the visitors inside his house through his Cook Satish (PWl2).
Rajesh (Al) and Duniya (A3) came inside the house whereas Sachin (A2),
remained in the car. Accused Rajesh and Duniya initiated the talk about the
proposed marriage of Montu with Namrata. The issue was hotly debated but ~
as the deceased allegedly did not agree to the proposal, Al and A3 got
F enraged and agitated. When A-1 started to leave the house, the deceased
persuaded him to sit by catching hold of him and offered him wine but Al
refused to oblige him. As Al went out, the deceased also came out of his
house. to see him off near the sitting portion in front of the house. Again there
was some talk between the deceased and Al about Namrata. A-1 felt that the
G deceased was the only obstruction and impediment between the relationship
of Namrata and Montu. The deceased consoled him that some conciliation
and settlement shall be reached by calling the fathers of the two lovers. It is
alleged by. the prosecution that A- I called the deceased on the side and took
him near the Maruti car where A- I called Sachin (A-2) and Duniya (A-3) to
take out weapons from the car. Rajesh (Al) took out revolver from his
H pocket and Sachin (A2) and Duniya (A3) took out sharp edged weapons from
RAJESH v. STATE OF GUJARAT [SETHI, J.] 309
the rear side of the Maruti car with which they started assaulting the deceased. A
Girish Namdar was given several blows one after the other by the accused
persons. Rakesh (PWI) who was standing there was threatened at the point
of revolver by Rajesh (Al) to get out therefrom and get into the house, since
he happened to be the son of sister of the deceased, to which he obeyed. The
cook, Salish (PWl2) who was talking on phone to the wife of the deceased B
Uma, was intercepted and the complainant Rakesh took the telephone from
the hands of Salish and told Uma, his aunt, about the assault on Girish by the
accused persons requesting her to immediately rush to the spot with somebody.
When Rakesh again came out of the house, he was threatened and directed
to go inside. He received another telephOne call from Smt. Uma, his aunt
who was enquiring from him as to what was earlier told to her was correct C
or not. Salish (PWl2) who was a cook was threatened by the accused to run
away from the spot. Sachin (A-2) came inside the house of the deceased and
snapped the telephone connection and broke the telephone instrument. By the
time Rakesh (PWI) came out from the house, Girish had virtually succumbed
to the injuries received by him from the accused persons who had by that
time fled away from the scene of occurrence. D
First Information Report was lodged by Rakesh (PW!) at Vatva Police
Station which was registered as No. 49/93 (Exhibit 68) at about 2.40 p.m.
After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was presented against
the accused persons before the Metropolitan Magistrate who committed them E
to the Comt of Sessions for standing the trial for the offences punishable
under Sections l 20B, 452, 302 !PC and also under Section 25( I )(b) of the
Arms Act and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act. The accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to prove its case the prosecution produced 14 witnesses and F
relied upon documentary evidence. The defence of the accused was of total
denial. No evidence was led in defence.

After the conclusion of the trial and on appreciation of evidence, the
trial court found the accused persons guilty for all the offences wiih which
they were charged except the charge under Section 135 (I) of the Bombay G
Police Act. The trial court held that prosecution had successfully established
that the deceased Girish died a homicidal death. The injuries sustained by
him were inflicted by the accused persons which they had caused after hatching
a conspiracy. Rajesh (A-1) was established to be in possession ofa revolver
without having a licence though the same was not used during the occurrence.
The motive for commission of the crime was held established. In .appeal, the H
310 SUPREMI;: COURT REPORTS [2002) 2 S.C.R.

A High Court re-appreciated the whole of the evidence and held that "we have
no hesitation to accord our con,currence with the impugned judgment and
order, while rejecting the appeal at the instance of the original accused. It
has, evidently, been emerged from the proved set of facts and circumstances,
which preceded the main incident coupled with the deep-seated motive
B generated out of the cordiality and close relationship between Namrata and
Montu that all the three accused persons, who are related to each other had
hatched a criminal conspiracy and they are the real authors of macabre
murder".

FIR (Exhibit 68) is shown to have been recorded on 7.2.1993 at 2.40
C p.m. in which the time of occurrence is stated to be 1.15 p.m. The distance
between the place of occurrence and the police station has been mentioned
as 4 kilometers. The said information had been recorded on the basis of the
statement ofRakesh (PWl) who vividly explained the details of the occurrence.
In the inquest Panchanama (Exh. P37) which is stated to have started at 3
p.m. and completed at 3.45 p.m., the name of the complainant or the number
D of the FIR is not mentioned. However, in the Panchanama (Exh. P32) stated
to have been recorded between 4 to 6 p.m., the name of Rakesh (PWI) and
FIR No. 49193 are specifically mentioned. In his statement, recorded· in the
court, Rakesh (PWI) has stated that after about 30-35 minutes of the

E
occurrence, the police came on spot. The police took him and others to the
police station and recorded his complaint marked Exhibit 24/l. He claims to
have shown the place of incident to the police. The police had made
..
Panchanama of the scene of offence and collected articles from the said place
and seized the Maruti car.
._....( I

According to the statement of this witness, he left the place of occurrence
F in the company of the police after about 30 to 40 minutes of the occurrence,
i.e. l.45-2.00 p.m. He claims to be at the police station upto 4.30 p.m. The
Panchanama Exh. 37 was started to be drawn at 3 p.m. and completed at 3.45
p.m., obviously when the aforesaid witness was not on .the spot and the FIR
was being recorded at the police station. Panchanama Exh. P-37 only refers F
I
G to the message received from the Control Room regarding some scuffle having
taken place in the Namdar Farm. When the police came on the spot consequent
upon the information, they found the dead body of Girish lying there. PWI
and others were sent to the police station for the purpose of recording the
statement of PWI and registering a case and Panchanama was prepared during
the aforesaid period. Non mentioning of the name of the aforesaid witn_es:S
H and the FIR number is, therefore, obvious. Learned counsel for the appellants
RAJESH v. STATE OF GUJARAT [SETHI, J.] 311
referred to the statement of Abdul Rehman Munshi (PWl4) who has stated A
on oath that he received information from the Con.trol Room at 2.10 p.m. that
in Namdar Farro near Vatva there has been a big quarrel. He along with other
police officials came on the spot where they saw dead body of Girish Namdar.
On inquiry, nephew of the deceased lodged a detailed complaint which was
sent to Vatva police station for registration. The report was written by one B
Mr. Jadhav. The complaint was sent through policeman at the police station.
After recording the complaint and registering it scene, of occurrence was
visited and inquest panchanama of the dead body was made which is Exhibit
P-37. In cross-examination, the witness has denied the suggestion that the
recording of the complaint in the case started at 4.00 p.m. and was over by
4.45 p.m. Pointing out to the contradiction in the statement of PW I and C
PW14, the learned senior counsel submitted that the circumstances of the
case probabilised that the FIR was ante-timed to facilitate the introduction of
the alleged eye-witnesses.

It is true that PW!, in his statement, has stated .that he was taken to the
police station where the complaint was recorded. There does not appear to be D
any material contradiction between his statement and the statement of PW 14
except that 10 has stated that complaint though lodged before him was sent
through policeman at the police station. He has not contradicted the version
of the PW 1 that he had gone to the police station alongwith other policemen.
There is nothing on the record to show that the investigating officer had E
known the FIR number of the case at the time when he recorded panchnama
Exh. P-37 or at the time of recording of the aforesaid panchnama PW! was
present at the place of occurrence. Possibly, it appears that after taking his
statement PW! wa.s sent to the police station where detailed complaint marked
24/1 was recorded and he remained there at the police station upto 4.30 p.m.
or 4.55 p.m. and during that interval Panchnama Exh. 37 was recorded at the F
spot. Otherwise also merely non mentioning of the number of crime registered
upon FIR or name of prosecution witness in Exh. P-37 would not lead the
court to believe that the FIR had been ante-timed in view of the unequivocal,
reliab~ and confidence inspiring testimony of PWI. The trial court in para
39 of its judgment dealt with this aspect of the matter and found that on the G
.... date of incident firstly police staff of Aslali police station and thereafter
persons of Ahmedabad city (Vatva) Police Station had come which means
police from Aslali and Vatwa Police station had come at the scene of
occurrence. Before recording the complaint there was some discussion whether
the complainant would go to Vatva police station or Aslali police station. At
the time of recording the complaint Salish (PW12) and family members of H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A Girish were stated to be present. Abdul Rehman (PW14) in his cross-
examination has stated that before he reach~d Namdar Farm, police of Aslali
Police Station had come there. The Namdar farm is situated where the
jurisdiction of two police stations, namely, Aslali and Vatva meets. It was
decided on spot to get the complaint recorded at Vatva Police Station. In this
B regard the trial court held:

"A question has been raised in this case why in inquest panchnama,
there is no mention of name of Rakesh and Crime Register number.
If we look to the inquest Panchnama which is completed at 3.45,
there is no mention of crime Register number. But thereafter within
c 15 minutes, the panchnama of scene of offence is prepared, there is
mention of Crime Register No. and the sections of offences and who
is the complainant is given. From this, it cannot be said that inquest
panchnama is First Information Report. In that there is possible that
on inquiry from Rakesh, the complaint was recorded, it was sent to I' '
Vatva Police Station for registration of the offence and on the other
D side, the work of preparing inquest panchnama was immediately
started. What is correct and what is wrong, can be decided from the
facts. In this case at that time the complainant was started recording,
and where it was recorded and where it was started recording and in
that if there is some miscalculation of time in recording complaint,
E preparing inquest panchnama and panchnama of scene of offence, of
where or at which place the complaint was recorded, in that there is
no scope for saying that looking to the facts of the case, a false case
has been concocted and therefore, the facts stated by Umaben,
complainant and Satish Maharaj get support from medical evidence.
As stated above, when police came, all the information is received,
F cannot be said to be incorrect or wrong. Police had reached the farm
on the information received from Control room that there is quarrel
in the farm. When they reached the farm, there was truth in it. And
the persons who can give information regarding the incident were
present at the scene, so there was no question of asking as to who had
informed the control room. And the persons present there, on asking
G
as to who was know about the incident, it was known that Rakesh
was knowing about the incident, it can be said that police had received
First Information Report from Rakesh. Again in this case, it transpires
that there was message from control room, does not mean that there
was telephonic message or information. But the information was given
H by wireless, that fact is disclosed. Therefore, why message was not
•

RAJ ESH v. STATE OF GUJARAT [SETHI, J.] 313
noted down and what was message on phone. There is no scope for A

-·· ~\ receiving other particulars and thereafter concocting false story. There
is no scope for the same. If message is received that there is quarrel
on the farm and if police reaches there and so that particular message
is only the First Information and if thereafter any if any complaint is
recorded, it cannot be said that the same cannot be treated as First
Information. It also cannot be said that in this case the inquest B
panchnama Ex.3 7 was started and completed, that is the first
information. Because there is sufficient evidence that before the same
was started writing, before that police had received so much
information. In this inquest panchnama, there is no name of the
complainant or accused and before recording complaint, directly C
inquest panchnama cannot be prepared. Lastly if no body is present
and if Rakesh or Satish Maharaj would not have been present there,
even complaint of Umaben would also be recorded. In this case when
there is mention of presence of Umaben in Inquest Panchnama, it
cannot be said that no complaint was recorded and only panchnama
was drawn. To the most, it can happen that after recording the D
complaint, Rakesh can be sent for registration of the complaint to the
police station, which is nearby as complainant. The person who has
to lodge a complaint, he has to lodge the complaint, put his signature,
receive its copy and that would take sometime and after Rakesh was
sent there, in the meanwhile inquest panchnama might have started. E
And after Rakesh must have returned from police station after lodging
the complaint, the panchnama of scene of offence must have been
drawn and after starting panchnama of scene of offence, it is known
that complaint is registered, in the said panchnama note about it must
have been made. In this connection when inquest was started, police
has stated one fact that what is the reason for doing inquest? On what F
basis or information the said deadbody was found at that place? and
only fact is noted in that. On 7.2.93 they were present at Vatva Police
Station, Police Inspector, who had given particulars about this inquest,
as per his say, when he was present at Vatva Police Station, at about
I4.40 they have received message from Control room that there is a G
quarrel in Namdar Farm in Vatva village. So they would reach there.
Therefore, immediately they came to Vatva in Namdar farm. On
reaching Namdar farm, they saw that there was murder of Girish
Ambalala and his dead body is lying there. In that, the facts which
are stated that when they reached the farm and the dead body was
lying in murdered position and the particulars regarding the same H
•
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A were noted down and not the particulars about the dead body lying
at the time and was seen by them at that time. In that i~quest also, •
the injuries caused to Girishbhai are noted .. And there is opinion to
know the definite reason about the death of Gfrishbhai, the dead body
is: .sent. to Civil Hospital for post mortem ·examination. An opinion in
that· regard is given, by panchs and panchnama is prepared to know
B the exact reason for which injuries death of Girishbhai is caused. For
that medical evidence is necessary. For that it was decided to send
dead body for P.M. - Examination. In this way, inquest panchnama
is FIR which cannot be mean like that. In this way considering the
timely evidence, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution case against
c the acc;:used is false."
On this aspect the High Court held that merely, "on account of some
irregularities in mentioning the names or noting the t~ming during the course
of investigation by the prosecution or some discrepancies and contradictions,
which are at the micro-level could not be said to be sufficient and efficient
D to· discard and dislodge the· otherwise weighty and very important, serious
and sound testimony of eye-witness;· PW I, R~kesh, one of the close relatives
of the deceased, whose presence, we have found, quite natural and whose
evidence is, also, found to be quite reliable and dependable and, rightly,
accepted by the trial court". After going through the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses particularly those of PWsl and 14, perusing the rec'"ord
E including FIR No. 49/93, Exhibits 37 and Exhibit 32, we are of the opinion
that the plea of ante-timing of the FIR is the figment of imagination of the
defence and not a reality. Assuming that the FIR number and the name ·of the
complainant was known at the time of recording of P11nchrtama (Exh. P-37)
and it was not .mentioned therein,· such circumstance would not probabiHse
F the defence version that the FIR had 9een ante-timed, in view of the cogent,
reliable and confidence inspiring testimony of Rakesh (PWl ), Satish (PW12)
and Umaben (PWIO).
Taking advantage of the statement of Dr. Pratik Navjibha Patel (PW9)
in which, during cross-examination, he had stated that the death had occurred
G within 9-12 hours before the post-mortem examination, the learned counsel
has submitted that the deceased must have died' much before 1.15 p.m. as >
conc;:ededly the post mortem examination was conducted between 6.10 p.m.
to 7.0Q p.m. A perusal of his statement shows that in reply to a further
question.in the cross-examination the aforesaid witness had stated "it may be
that the. death might have occurred between 9-12 hours. This 9 to 12 hours
H means the 9 to 12 hours before the time I started the post mortem and
RAJESH v. STATE OF GUJARAT [SETHI, J.] 315
completed the post-mortem". At another place the said witness had stated "I A
can say that probably the death of the deceased might have occurred within
about 12 hours from the time of starting the post-mortem examination". The
doctor had formed his opinion on the basis of rigor mortis and the lividity
found at the time of post-mortem. There is, therefore, no medical expert
opinion about the exact time of death. Otherwise also the opinion of the
doctor cannot ~~ul>stituted for the statement of the eye-witnesses who have B
been believed tiy both the courts. From the statements of Rakesh (PWI),
Umaben (PWIO) and Satish (PW\2) it is established that deceased was alive
upto 1.15 p.m. and had died after receiving about 30 injuries on his person
mostly with sharp edged weapons. Even on this ground also it would not be
probable to hold that the First Information Report had been ante-timed. C

Both the trial court as well as the High Court have found on facts that
the First Information Report was lodged without delay and its copy despatched
to the Magistrate. The delay of receipt of the copy of the FIR by the magistrate,
if any, was held to have been properly accounted for by the prosecution.
Abdul Rehman (PWl4) who is the investigating officer had stated that after D
registration of the case a report under Section 157 Cr.P.C. was also sent. The
circumstances emerging from the prosecution evidence show that the
occurrence had taken place at about 1.15 p.m., the information of the scuffle
was received by the police at 2.10 p.m., Smt. Umaben (PWIO) reached on the
spot at 2.30 p.m. and Rakesh (PWI) sent to the police station for recording E
the FIR at 2.40 p.m. The Inquest (Exh.P•37) was prepared between 3.00-3.45
p.m. and Inquest (Exh. P-32) between 4 to 6 p.m. The events of circumstances
narrated by the witnesses do not leave any doubt in our mind to hold that the
occurrence had actually taken place at about 1. I 5 p.m. in consequence of
which Girish Namdar died and· the FIR was registered on the basis of the
statement of Rakesh (PWI) at 2.40 _p.m. in Police Station Vatva. F
. Relying upon the judgment of Meharaj Singh (UNk.) v. State of U.P.,
(1994] 5 sec 189, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has
submitted that FIR in a criminal case is a vital and valuablt piece of evidence
for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led in the trial. The object of G
insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain information regarding
the circumstances in which the crime was committed including the names of
actual culprits and the part played by them, the weapon of offence used as
also the names of the witnesses. One of the external checks which the courts
generally look for is the sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead
body and its reference in the inquest report. The absence of details in the H
·316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 2 S.C.R.

A inquest report may be indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was
still in embryo and had not given any shape and that the FIR came to be f- ----
recorded later on after due deliberations and consultation and was then ante-
timed to give it a colour of prompt lodged FIR. The reliance of learned
counsel for the appellant on Meharaj Singh 's case is of no help to him in the
B instant case inasmuch. as· all requisite details are mentioned in Panchnama
Exhibit P-32. Mere omission to mention the number of the FIR and the name
of the complainant in Exh. P-37 has not persuaded us to hold that the FIR
was ante-timed in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as
noticed by the trial court, the High Court and by us hereinabove. ·

c It has also been argued on behalf of the appellants that for withholding
of opinion of finger print expert, adver~e inference be drawn against the
prosecution. It has come in evidence (Exh. 32) that finger print expert was
present on spot who had taken the prints from the pieces of broken glass and
some other articles lying in the farm of the deceased. It is also not disputed
that the report of the finger print expert has not been produced in the case.
:D The withholding of the report of the finger-print expert, if any, would definitely
cast a doubt on the prosecution version and presumption of such report being
against the prosecution has to be drawn. However, in the facts of the case we ,
.>-
find that despite taking doubted finger prints from the spot, the investigating
officer had not taken finger prints of any of the accused. The investigating
E officer has stated in ~he court that on 25.2.1993 total 31 items were sent for
examination. In Exh. 64 there is a note at Item No. 9 of having sent broken
pieces of glass at No. 11 having found chance print and Item No. 12 of
having found another chance print. The pieces of glass sent show that there
was "B" group blood which was the blood group of the deceased. In the
absence of finger prints of the accused persons no finger print expert could
F have given any opinion regarding the chance prints found on glasses and
other articles. It appears that as no finger prints for comparison were taken
or sent, there is no possibility of any report of the expert being in existence
in that regard, which was allegedly suppressed warranting the drawing of a
presumption against the prosecution. It might have been a lapse on the part
G of the investigating agency for not taking the finger prints of the. accused
persons but merely because the finger print expert had. taken some prints
from the glasses would not justify in holding that there existed a comparative
--
finger print expert report which was allegedly suppressed or withheld by the
prosecution.

H Learned counsel then drew our attention to the fact that blood stains
RAJESH v. STATE OF GUJARAT [SETHI, J.] 317
were found on a number of places in the house of the deceased which suggested A
that occurrence had not taken place outside the house as alleged by the
prosecution and that as the deceased was indulging in gambling there was a
probability of some other people having committed the offence. In this regard
our attention was drawn to an advertisement (Exh. P31) which, according to
the defence, probabilised that the deceased was indulging in Salta betting for
riots by ante-social elements, with reference to riots of Ayodhya. He is stated B
to be living in the area where people belonging to muslim community lived.
His indulgence in satta relating to riots with respect to Ayodhya is suspected
to have infuriated the muslim community who might have committed the
crime in his house and the prosecution wrongly involved the appellants in the
crime merely on suspicion allegedly on account of the dispute existing with C
respect to the love affair between Montu and Namrata and some complaint
earlier filed against the accused. Such a plea cannot be accepted because the
advertisement and the public notice (Ex. P.31) has not been duly proved.
There is no evidence on the record to show that the deceased had ever
indulged in satta business. PWl in his statement has admitted that a news was
published in the newspaper that deceased used to bet as to whether and when D
the riot incident would break and in turn notice was published allegedly on
his behalf that such allegations were false and if anyone proved the same, he
would be paid Rs. I 0 lakhs. All such evidence referred to by the defence with
respect to the alleged indulgence of the deceased in betting is based upon
hearsay and not legally admissible in evidence. Therefore, no inference on E
that basis can be drawn against the prosecution. Otherwise also both the trial
court and the High Court have found cogent explanation and reasons for the
presence of the blood at various places in the house of the deceased. In the
absence of any evidence to the contrary there is no occasion for this Court
to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at on proper appreciation of
evidence. F

After going through the whole of the evidence, the other record produced
in the case and the judgments of the trial court and the High Court we find
no reason to interfere in the concurrer.t findings of fact arrived at against the
accused holding them guilty for which they have been convicted and sentenced. G
There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.