SHIVLAL & ANR.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

                    [2011] 11 S.C.R. 429


                     SHIVLAL & ANR.                            A
                             v.
               STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
            (Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2007)
                  SEPTEMBER 19, 2011
                                                               B
    [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

    PENAL CODE, 1860:

      ss. 148, 302 and 3021149 - Fifteen persons accused of    c
murdering a co-villager - Held-Trial court recorded a finding
that the wife of the deceased, claiming herself' to be the eye
witness, roped in certain persons in the crime falsely and there
were improvements in her statement in court - Disbelieving
her statement, trial court acquitted six accused and High Court 0
acquitted four more - .The witness on whose information
'Dehati Nalish' (not a formal FIR) was recorded, turned hostile
- Courts below have not given much credence to the
statement of the witness on the basis of whose statement FIR
was recorded and who claimed himself to be the eye-witness E
- There were discrepancies in the statements of 10 and the
Head Constable accompanying him - Further, proceedings
at the investigation stage have been conducted without
observing the provisions of Cr.P.C. - Besides, copy of FIR·
was not sent to the 11/aqa Magistrate, and there were lapses/
suspicion in the investigation as regards recording of FIR, F
recovery of weapons and inconsistencies in the statements
of the witnesses - The accused in their statements uls s313
Cr. P. C. have stated that they were falsely implicated because
of the village factional rivalry - In the circumstances, the
accused are to acquitted on benefit of doubt - Code of G
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 154, 157(1) and 313 -
Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations - Regulation 710 -
Investigation.

                            429                                H
    430     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A         INVEST/GA TION:

       FIR - Recording of - On the basis of information, a
  'Dehati Nalish' (and not a formal FIR) registered - FIR lodged
  later, but it did not contain signature of the author -
8 Contradictions in statements of 10 and the Head Constable
  accompanying him, about recording of FIR in police station
  - Recoveries disbelieved by the High Court - Copy of FIR
  not sent to ///aqua Magistrate - Held: Investigation I
  proceedings have. been conducted without observing the
  provisions of CrPC - Regulation 710 -cannot override the
C requirement cf s.157(1) CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure,
  1973 - s.157 - Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations -
  Regulation 710 .

         The appellants, along with thirteen others, were
D   prosecuted for causing the death of the husband of PW
    9. According to the prosecution case, the accused armed
    with deadly weapons, wHh a common object of
    murdering the husband of PW 9, attacked him causing
    his death on 12.10.1997 when he was proceeding
E   towards a tank along with his wife PW-9 and his
    grandson for taking bath. The incident occurred in the
    outskirts of the village. It is stated that PW-9 came back
    to the village and when she informed PW-1 about the
    incident, he told her that he himself had witnessed the
F   incident and came back to the village after the incident
    was over. PW 7 went to the police station and gave oral
    inform'ation of the incident on which the police was said
    to have registered a complaint ('Dehati Nalish'). The
    Investigating Officer (PW12) reached the village where
G   PW1 narrated the incident to him. It was on the basis of
    this information that Case Crime No. 236/97 was
    mentioned in the complaint (Dehati Nalish) mentioning
    offences punishable u/ss 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC. The
    accused in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C., denied their
    involvement and submitted that they had been falsely
H
  SHIVLAL & ANR. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                 431


implicated because of the village factional rivalry. The trial   A
court convicted and sentenced six of the accused
persons of the offences charged and acquitted nine of
all the charges giving them benefit of doubt. On appeal,
the High Court acquitted four more accused more of all
the charges. It convicted appellant no. 2 u/s 302 and            B
appellant no. 1 u/s 302/149 IPC and sentenced both of
them to imprisonment for life.

     Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, admittedly, C
proceedings/ investigation had been conducted without
observing the provisions of the Cr.P.C. PW.9 is the sole
eye-witness, however, she being illiterate and rustic
village woman, does not have any idea/impression of time
and distance. Two other persons, namely, PW.1 and PW.7 D
also claimed to be the eye-witnesses of the incident. PW.1
has been treated to be the author of the FIR, though no
formal FIR has been lodged in respect of the incident.
PW.7 turned hostile and it is he, who reached the police
station and informed the police about the incident. It is E
on this information, the police recorded the "Dehati
Nalish" and without lodging a formal FIR, proceeded to
the place of incident. Admittedly, no copy of the FIR has
been sent to the llaqa Magistrate, which is mandatory u/
s 157 Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer (PW.12), has F
explained that information about the incident was given
by PW-7 in the police station, however, no FIR was
lodged formally. He immediately rushed to the place of
incident apprehending further incidents because of
factional rivalry in the village. He has further deposed that G
on reaching the place of occurrence, PW.1 met him and
it was on his statement that the FIR was lodged. However,
'1e admitted that the said document did not contain
Signature of PW.1. [para 5] [438-C-H]

 . _ l2 Head Constable (PW .13), had deposed just H
-~
   432     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011) 11 S.C.R.


A contrary to what had been stated by the 1.0. ( PW.12) as
  he stated that the FIR was lodged in the police station
  itself and he went along with the 10 in the police jeep. He
  did not know who was the driver of the jeep, as it was
  being driven by a private person. He further deposed that
B when they reached the place of occurrence, dead body
  of the victim was lying there and no one el.se was present
  there. After reaching the place of occurrence, certain
  people were called from the village through Chowkidar.
  Such a factual situation is improbable. Dead body is not
c left unattended. [para 6) [438-H; 439-A-B]
      1.3 The trial court itself held that PW-9 had enroped
  certain persons in the crime falsely and disbelieving her
  statement to that extent, some accused had been
  acquitted by the trial court. Same remained the position
D in appeal as disbelieving her statement, four persons
  were acquitted by the High Court. The trial court found
  improvements in her statement in court as she had not
  stated in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P .C. that the two
  appellants had caused injuries to her husband with
E 'tabbal' and spear. [para 7) [439-C-E]

       1.4 PW.1 claimed himself to be the eye-witness who
  instead of informing any other person, went to the village
  and when PW.9 met him and told about the incident, he
F told PW9 that he had also witnessed the incident. The
  courts below have not given much credence to his
  statement. [para 7) [439-E-F]

      1.5 The trial court recorded a finding that there were
  material contradictions/ improvements in the statement of
G witnesses. It held that the information given by PW.7 to
  the police after reaching the police station was an FIR u/
  s 154 Cr.P.C. though, the High Court took a.contrary view.
  There has been serious doubt about the recovery of
  weapons and the High Court has disbelieved the said
H recoveries. More so, there was no report of chemical
  SHIVLAL & ANR. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH               433


analysis that the weapons so recovered contained stains        A
of human blood. [para 7] [439-F-G]

     2. Copy of the FIR was not sent to the Magistrate at
all as required u/s 157 (1) Cr.P .C. In such a case, the
absence of any explanation furnished by the prosecution        8
to that effect, would definitely cast shadow on its case.
[Para 1O] [442-A-B]

    Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. State of
Harycrna, (2011) 7 SCC 421, Shiv Ram v. State of U.P., 1997
( 4) Suppl. SCR 531 =AIR 1998 SC 49; arid Arun Kumar C
Sharma v. State of Bihar, 2009 (14) SCR 1023 = (2010) 1
sec 108 - referred to
     3. The instant appeal has come from Chhattisgarh
which has been carved out from the State of Madhya             o
Pradesh. It has not been brought to the notice of the
Court whether Regulation 710 of the Madhya Pradesh
Police Regulations (whereunder copy of the FIR is
required to be sent to the District Magistrate and not to
the lllaqa Magistrate) is applicable in Chhattisgarh. Even     E
otherwise, this Court has held* that the said Regulation
710 cannot override the statutory requirements u/s 157(1)
Cr.P.C. which provide for sending the copy of the FIR to
the lllaqa Magistrate. Thus, in such a fact-situation, this
Court can simply hold that in spite of the fact that any       F
lapses on the part of the 1.0., would not confer any benefit
on the accused, the case of the .prosecution may be seen
with certain suspicion when examined with other
contemporaneous circumstances involved in the case.
[para 1O] [442-B-E]
                                                               G
    *State of"Madhya Pradesh v. Ka/yan Singh 2011 (9)
sec 569 - referred to
   4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants are     H
    434      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A entitled to the benefit of doubt. The judgments and orders
  of the courts below are set aside and the appeliants are
  acquitted. [para 12) [443-F]

        State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. N.
8   Rajamanickam & Ors., 2008 {13 ) SCR 596   (2008) 13=
    sec 303 - relied on
                          Case Law Reference:
          (2011) 1 sec 421         relied on               para 9
c         1997 ( 4 ) Suppl. SCR 531      relied on         para 9
          2009 (14 ) SCR 1023      relied on               para 9
          2011 (9 > sec 569        relied on               para 10

D         2008 (13 ) SCR 596       relied on               para 12
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 610 of 2007.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 25.08.2006 of the High
E Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur in Crl. A. No. 973 of 2000.

          Tanuj Bagga (A.C.) for the Appellants.

          Atul Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Singh for the Respondent.

F         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been
  preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.8.2006 of
  the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal
G No.973 of 2000, wherein the High Court has .confirmed the
  conviction and sentence, so far as the present appellants are
  concerned, awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge,
  Semetara, Durg dated 31.3.2000 in Sessions Trial No.147 of
  1999 by which the appellants stood convicted under .Section
H 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called "IPC")
  and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and pay a fine of
   SHIVLAL & ANR. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                    435
             [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.)
Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for   A
one month. Sukhsagar, appellant no.2 stood convicted under
Section 302 IPC and Shivlal, appellant no.1 stood convicted
under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and both were
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of
Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo       B
R. I. for two months. All the sentences had been directed to run
concurrently.

     2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:

      A. According to the prosecution, the appellants along with      C
13 other accused persons armed with deadly weapons, with a
common object of murdering Shankar Satnami attacked him
on 12.10.1997 at about afternoon near the house of Tijwa Sahu
when Shankar Satnami, deceased, was proceeding towards
a tank for taking bath along with his wife Sukhbai (PW.9) and         D
his grandson Anil, as a result of which he sustained numerous
injuries and died on the spot.

     B. The incident had occurred in the outskirts of the village.
Sukhbai (PW.9) came back to the village and when she                  E
informed Beer Singh (PW.1) about the incident, he told her that
he himself witnessed the incident and came back to the village
after the incident was over. Ramkhilawan (PW.7) went to the
Police Station at a very far distance and gave oral information
about the incident to the police. Instead of lodging a formal FIR
                                                                      F
on the basis of oral information by Ramkhilawan (PW.7), the
police only registered a complaint (Dehati Nalish). Mr. J.S.
Dhurve, 1.0. (PW.12) proceeded for the village Dara. After
reaching the place of occurrence, he met Beer Singh (PW.1)
who narrated the incident to him. It was on the basis of this
information Case Crime No. 236/97 was mentioned in the                G
aforesaid complaint (Dehati Nalish) mentioning offences under
Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC.

    C. After reaching the place of occurrence, the 1.0., Mr. J.S.
Dhurve (PW.12) performed. the inquest over the body of the            H
    436     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A deceased vide Ex.P-6 in the presence of the witnesses and
  sent the body for autopsy to Govt. Hospital, Semetara, where
  Dr. K.L. Dhruv (PW.14), conducted the post mortem and
  submitted the report Ex.P-15. Mr. J.S. Dhurve, S.I. (PW.12),
  prepared the Site plan Ex.P-6 and another Site plan Ex.P .13-
8 A was prepared by the Halka Patwari, Tuganram Sahu. The
  accused were apprehended and at their disclosure statements,
  blood stained weapons were recovered. Plain soil and blood
  stained soil was taken into possession from the place of
  incident. Blood stained underwear, Lungi and pair of slippers
c and a knife were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-29.
         D. The weapons used for commission of the offence
  seized from the accused persons were sent for examination,
  first to the Doctor who opined that the injuries to the deceased
  could be caused by the recovered weapons. The said weapons
D were subsequently sent for chemical examination along with
  plain and blood stained soils. The Forensic Science Laboratory
  vide its report Ex.P-9 confirmed the presence of blood over all
  those articles.

E     E. After completing investigation, chargesheet was filed
  against fifteen accused persons in the Court of Judicial
  Magistrate, First Class, Semetara, who in turn committed the
  case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Durg. The Trial Court
  framed the charges under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC
F against all the accused persons who abjured their guilt.

      F. The prosecution in order to establish the charges
  against the accused persons, examined 13 witnesses and after
  completion of their depositions, the court examined all the
  accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
G Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called "Cr.P.C."), wherein they
  denied their involvement and submitted that they had falsely
  been implicated because of the village factional rivalry. The Trial
  Court vide judgment and order dated 31.3.2000 acquitted nine
  persons of all the charges giving them benefit of doubt, however,
H convicted and sentenced the remaining six accused persons
    SHIVLAL & ANR. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                       437
              [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

 including the appellants.                                                A

      G. The said six convicts preferred Criminal Appeal No.973
 of 2000 in the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur wherein
 the High Court vide impugned judgment and order acquitted
 four persons, however, upheld the conviction and sentence of             8
 the two appellants as awarded by the trial Court.

      Hence, this appeal.

        3. Ms. Tanuj Bagga, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for
  the appellants, has submitted that the dispute arose because            c
  of a factional rivalry in the village and unending dispute over
  the land meant for community use on which Shankar Satnami,
  deceased, had illegally encroached upon. In the oral complaint
  made by Ramkhilawan (PW.7), not even a single accused had
  been named. There had been no eye-witness except Sukhbai                o
  (PW.9) whose evidence itself is not worth reliance. The courts
  below erred in convicting the appellants on the basis of the
  evidence on which a large numbers of accused had been
. acquitted. There had been material irregularities in the trial itself
  as no report as required under Section 157(1) Cr.P.C., has              E
  been sent to the Haqa Magistrate which was mandatory. The
  High Court brushed aside all legal submissions advanced on
  behalf of the appellants. Once the High Court came to the
  conclusion that recovery of weapons itself was doubtful, the
  appellants were equally entitled for benefit of doubt. Both the
                                                                          F
  appellants have served for more than 11 years and are still in
  jail. The appeal deserves to be allowed.

      4. Mr. Atul Jha, learned counsel appearing for the State,
 has opposed the appeal contending that there are concurrent
 findings of fact by the two courts which do not require any              G
 interference by this Court. In case, the provisions of Section
 157(1) Cr.P.C. had not been complied with, it may be treated
 as a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer and should
 not adversely affect the prosecution case. The recovery of
 weapons had been made on the basis of disclosure statements              H
    438     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2011] 11 S.C.R.


A   made by the appellants and sent for chemical analysis. The
    courts below have considered the issue elaborately and does
    not require further consideration by this Court. The appeal lacks
    merit and is liable to be dismissed.

8        5. We have considered the rival submissions made by
    learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

         This is a unique case wherein, admittedly, proceedings/
    investigation had been conducted without observing the
    provisions of the Cr.P.C. Sukhbai (PW.9) is the sole eye-
C   witness, however, she being illiterate and rustic village woman,
    does not have any idea/impression of time and distance. In this
    case, two other persons, namely, Beer Singh (PW.1) and
    Ramkhilawan (PW.7) also claimed to be the eye-witnesses of
    the incident. However, Beer Singh (PW.1) has been treated to
D   be the author of the FIR, though no formal FIR has been lodged
    in respect of the incident. Ramkhilawan (PW.7) turned hostile
    and it is he, who reciched the police station and informed the
    police about the incident. It is on this information, the police
    recorded the "Dehati Nalish" and without lodging a formal FIR,
E   proceeded to the place of incident. Admittedly, no copy of the
    FIR has been sent to the llaqa Magistrate, which is mandatory
    under Section 157 Cr.P.C. Mr. J.S. Dhurve, the Investigating
    Officer (PW.12), has explained that information about the
    incident was given by Ramkhilawan (PW. 7) in the police station,
F   however, no FIR was lodged formally. He immediately rushed
    to the place of incident apprehending further incidents because
    of factional rivalry in the village. The 1.0. (PW.12) has further
    deposed that on reaching the place of occurrence, Beer Singh
    (PW.1) met him and it was on his statement, FIR was lodged.
G   However, he admitted that the said document did not contain
    signature of Beer Singh (PW.1 ).

        6. Harpal Singh, Head Constable (PW.13), had deposed
  just contrary to what had been stated by Mr. J.S. Dhurve
  (PW.12) as he stated that FIR was lodged in the police station
H itself and he went along with the Investigating Officer in the
      '
   SHIVLAL & ANR. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                 439
             [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
police jeep. He did not know who was the driver of the jeep as     A
it was being driven by a private person. He further deposed that
when they reached the place of occurrence, dead body of
Shankar Satnami, deceased was lying there and no one else
was present there. After reaching the place of occurrence,
certain people were called from the village through Chowkidar.     B
Such a factual situation is improbable. Dead body is not left
unattended.

      7. The Trial Court itself held that Sukhbai (PW.9) had
 enroped certain persons in the crime falsely and disbelieving C
 her statement to that extent, some accused had been acquitted
 by the Trial Court. Same remained the position in appeal as
 disbelieving her statement, four persons were acquitted by the
 High Court. The Trial Court found improvements in her statement
 in court as she had not stated in her statement under Section
 161 Cr.P.C. that Sukhsagar and Shivlal, appellants, had caused D
 injuries to her husband Shankar Satnami, deceased with
 'tabbal' and spear. Beer Singh (PW.1) claimed himself to be
 the eye-witness who instead of informing any other person, went
"to the village and when Sukhbai (PW.9) met him and told about
 the incident, he told Sukhbai that he had also witnessed the E
 incident. The courts below have not given much relevance to
 his statement. The Trial Court had recorded a finding that there
 had been material contradictions/ im.provements in the
 statement of Witnesses. The Trial Court held that information
 given by Ramkhilawan (PW.7) to the police after reaching the F
 police station was an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. though,
 the High Court had taken a contrary view. There has been
 serious doubt about the recovery of weapons and the High
 Court has disbelieved the said recoveries. More so, there was
 no report of chemical analysis that the weapons so recovered G
 contained stains of human blood.

    8. While dealing with the issues, the High Court observed
as under:

      I.    "In the instant case, admittedly the prosecution has   H
     440          SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A                  failed to prove that information as mandated under
                   Section 157(1) of the Cr.P.C. was sent to the
                   concerned Magistrate. We have already noted
                   above that from the evidence available on record
                   four persons had immediately gone to the police
B                  station to lodge report but no FIR was registered
                   on their report."

           II.     "Sukhbai (PW.9) has also stated that the incident
                   was witnessed by Mulchand, Khilawan, Ohan Singh
                   and Baburam. None of the independent witnesses
c                  has supported the case of the prosecution.
                   However, in her statement before the Court she had
                   added the name of Ganga. She had not made any
                   specific allegations against appellants Hemkumar,
                   Brijlal, Aasan and Ashwani."
D
           Ill.    "PW.1 Beer Singh, PW.'"' Dharambai and PW.5
                   lshwaribai are not the eyewitnesses according to
                   the case of the prosecution. However, PW.1 and
                   PW.2 have claimed themselves to be the
E                  eyewitnesses and therefore, the Court below has
                   rightly disbelieved the account given by these two
                   witnesses. n

           IV.     "Thus the evidence on which the conviction is
                   based is the memorandum of arrest of the accused
F                  persons and the recovery of weapons of offence on
                   their statements. We find from the evidence on
                   record that only one witness namely Sitaram,
                   PW.10, the witness of memorandum and recovery
                   has been examined and he has stated in his cross
G                  examination that he was summoned by the police
                   near the tank and from there the dead body was
                   taken to the school and his signature was obtained
                   on various papers for two days in the school at a
                   time. He has also admitted that he had encroached
rf                 upon the Government land which was grazed by the
   SHIVLAL & ANR. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                   441
             [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
            villagers and therefore, we are of tbe considered        A
            opinion that the evidence of memorandum of the
            accused persons and recovery of the weapon of
            offence in pursuance of the said memorandum,
            does not inspire confidence."
                                                                     B
      V. "Even otherwise, there is no evidence available on
            record to establish on record that the seized
           weapons contained human blood."

                                             (Emphasis added)
                                                                     c
     9. This Court in Bhaj"an Singh@ Harbhajan Singh & Ors.
v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421, has elaborately dealt
with the issue of sending the copy of the FIR to the lllaqa
Magistrate with delay and after placing reliance upon a large
number of judgments including Shiv Ram v. State of U.P., AIR         D
1998 SC 49; and Arun Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar,
(2010) 1 sec 108 came to the conclusion that Cr.P.C.
provides for internal and external checks: one of them being
the receipt of a copy of the FIR by the Magistrate concerned. It
serves the purpose that the FIR be not ante-timed or ante-dated.     E
The Magistrate must be immediately informed of every serious
offence so that he may be in a position to act under Section
159 Cr.P.C., if so required. The object of the statutory provision
is to keep the Magistrate informed of the investigation so as
to enable him to control investigation and, if necessary, to give
                                                                     F
appropriate direction. However, it is not that as if every delay
in sending the report to the Magistrate would necessarily lead
to the inference that the FIR has not been lodged at the time
stated or has been ante-timed or ante-dated or investigation
is not fair and forthright. In a given case, there may be an
explanation for delay. An unexplained inordinate delay in            G
sending the copy of the FIR to lllaqa Magistrate may affect the
prosecution case adversely. However, such an adverse
inference may be drawn on the basis of attending
circumstances involved in a case.
    442     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A      10. In the instant case, copy of the FIR was not sent to the
  Magistrate at all as required under Section 157 (1) Cr.P.C. In
  such a case, in absence of any explanation furnished by the
  prosecution to that effect, would definitely cast shadow on the
  case of the prosecution. This Court dealt with the issue in
B Criminal Appeal No. 1062 of 2003 in State of Madhya Pradesh
  v. Kalyan Singh, decided on 26.6.2008, wherein this Court was
  informed by the Standing counsel that in Madhya Pradesh,
  police is not required to send the copy of the FIR to the lllaqa
  Magistrate, but it is required to be sent to the District Magistrate.
c It was so required by the provisions contained in Regulation 710
  of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations. This Court held that
  Regulation 710 cannot override the statutory requirements
  under Section 157(1) Cr.P.C. which provide for sending the
~ copy of the FIR to the lllaqa Magistrate.

D       The instant appeal has come from Chhattisgarh which has
  been carved out from the State of Madhya Pradesh. Learned
  Standing counsel for the State, is not in a position to throw any
  light on this issue at all. Thus, in such a fact-situation, we can
  simply hold that in spite of the fact that any lapses on the part
E of the 1.0., would not confer any benefit on the accused, the
  case of the prosecution may be seen with certain suspicion
  when examined with other contemporaneous circumstances
  involved in the case.
       11. In State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. N.
F Rajamanickam & Ors., (2008) 13 SCC 303, this Court dealt
  with a similar case wherein a lot of lapses had been noted on
  the part of the prosecution. In the said case, originally 16
  persons were named in the chargesheet out of which one had
  died, one had absconded and the rest 14 persons faced trial.
G Th'e Trial Court convicted only six out of them. Those six persons
  preferred the criminal appeal and the High Court found that
  there were certain vital factors which rendered the prosecution
  version improbable. One of the factors noted was delay in
  dispatch and receipt of the FIR and connected documents in
H the court of Magistrate. The factional village rivalry was shown
   SHIVLAL & ANR. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH                     443
             [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

~o be the cause of concern therein also. The High Court found          A
that evidence of some of the prosecution witnesses lacked
credibility and credence and, thus, all the persons were
acquitted. This Court dismissed the appeal of the State
observing as under:
                                                                       B
      "Delay in receipt of the FIR and the connected documents
      in all cases cannot be a factor corroding the credibility of
      the prosecution version. But that is not the only factor which
      weighed with the High Court. Added to that, the High Court
      has noted the artificiality of the evidence of PW 1 and the
      non-explanation of injuries on the accused persons which         C
      were very serious in nature. The combined effect of these
      ·factors certainly deserved consideration and, according to
      us, the High Court has rightly emphasised on them to hold
      that the prosecution has not been able to establish the
      accusations. Singularly, the factors may not have an             D
      adverse effect on the prosecution version. But when a
      combined effect of the factors noted by the High Court are
      taken into consideration, the inevitable conclusion is that
      these are cases where no interference is called for."
                                                                       E
                                               (Emphasis added)
     12. The case at hand is, by no means different from the
case above referred to and in the facts and circumstances of
the case, we are of the considered -opinion that the appellants
are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Appeal stands allowed. The       F
judgments and orders of the courts below dated 31.3.2000 and
25.8.2006 are set aside and the appellants are acquitted. In
case the appellants are not wanted in some other case, they
be released forthwith.
     Before parting with the case, we would like to record our         G
appreciation for Ms. Tanuj Bagga, learned Amicus Curiae, for
rendering valuable assistance to the Court in spite of not having
the full documents/papers.

RP.                                               Appeal allowed       H