Case Details Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh

Held: FIR being only a corroborative piece of evidence and not a substantive piece of evidence, mere delay in registering the FIR could not be held to be a ground adverse to the case of prosecution – In the present case, though the FIR was registered against the appellant on 03.11.2004 in respect of the incident which had taken place on 22.07.2003, a part of investigation had already started on the death of the deceased and on the Merg intimation no.43/03 – The explanation offered by the prosecution that the FIR was not registered as the cause of death was not stated by the Doctor who carried out the post-mortem and the report of Chemical examiner was awaited, seems to be reasonable and acceptable – It was the report of Chemical examination sent by the FSL, after one year, which caused the delay in the registration of the FIR – Thus, the entire delay as such could be attributed to the FSL which took almost one year in giving the report of Chemical examination of Viscera of the deceased – There was no mala fide intention on the part of any of the witnesses or the police not to register the FIR or to delay the registration of FIR – Further, on facts, having regard to the scanty evidence, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution had proved the four important propositions in case of allegation of murder by poisoning- the accused had a clear motive to administer poison to the deceased; the deceased died of poison said to have been administered; the accused had the poison in his possession and that the accused had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased – Findings recorded by the Trial Court as confirmed by the High Court against the appellant for his conviction u/s.302 set aside – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court as confirmed by the High Court, set aside – Appellant acquitted. [Paras 17, 18, 26 and 28] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32 – Dying Declaration:

Held: Though a statement made by a person who is dying is made exception to the rule of hearsay and has been made admissible in evidence u/s.32 – It would not be prudent to base conviction, relying upon such dying declaration alone – In the instant case, even if the so-called dying declaration of the deceased is believed, at the most it could be said that the deceased on 22.07.2003 had consumed liquor along with ‘HR’ and others, and that in the third glass of liquor, ‘HR’ had mixed some herb, and made the deceased to drink it – There is no evidence to show as to what kind of herb was allegedly mixed by ‘HR’, and whether such herb was poisonous or not – Chemical examination report of the Senior Scientific Officer, FSL (Ex. P/14) stated that the Viscera of the deceased contained Organophosphorous insecticide and Quinolphos – Though, the Organophosphorous insecticides and Quinolphos are considered to be poisonous substances, nonetheless the Court would be loathe in imputing personal knowledge and conclude that such poisonous substances found in the Viscera of the deceased was the cause of death of the deceased, more so when the said opinion of Chemical analyzer was received after more than one year of sending the Viscera of the deceased to the FSL – In absence of final opinion obtained from any medical expert, on the report of Chemical analyzer as to the cause of death, it could not be said that prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of death of the deceased was due to administration of poison. [Para 24] Evidence – FIR – Prompt lodging of – Object:

Held: FIR in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced during the course of the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as names of the eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence – However, the receipt and recording of information report by the police is not a condition precedent to set into motion a criminal investigation – First Information Report u/s.154, Cr.PC, as such could not be treated as a substantive piece of evidence – It can only be used to corroborate or contradict the informant’s evidence in the Court – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.154. [Para 9] Criminal Law – Delay in registration of FIR, not by itself sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution: Held: The delay in lodging an FIR by itself cannot be regarded as the sufficient ground to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution case, nor could it be treated as fatal to the case of prosecution – The Court has to ascertain the causes for the delay, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case – If the causes are not attributable to any effort to concoct a version, mere delay by itself would not be fatal to the case of prosecution. [Para 10]

Constitution of India – Article 136 – Findings recorded by courts below afflicted with infirmities – Exercise of jurisdiction u/Article 136: Held: This Court should be slow in reappreciating the evidence and in upsetting the findings recorded by the two courts below, particularly while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 136, however such exercise of jurisdiction is not prohibited, when the Court finds that such findings are afflicted with ex-facie infirmities. [Para 27]

LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116: [1984] 4 SCR 88; Ravinder Kumar and Another Vs. State of Punjab 2001 (7) SCC 690: [2001] 7 SCR 463 – relied on.

Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu 1972 (3) SCC 393: [1972] 3 SCR 622; Apren Joseph alias current Kunjukunju & Ors. Vs. State of Kerela 1973 (3) SCC 114: [1973] 2 SCR 16 – referred to.

The King Emperor vs. Khawaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18 – referred to.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES