Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 740 (AP)

Boya Pedda Madduleti v. State Of A. P.

2004-07-27

G.BIKSHAPATHY, S.R.K.PRASAD

body2004
G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants, who are A1 to A6 in Sessions case No. 387 of 1998 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, kurnool, were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 324 and 302 read with 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of explosive SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908. As they were found guilty, they were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. ( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the appellants hereinafter are referred to as accused as they are arrayed in the Trial court. ( 3 ) A1 to A6 were tried for the offence under Section 148 I. P. C. and found guilty and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Under the second charge, Al and A2 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the explosive SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908 and were found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Under the third charge, Al and A2 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908 and were found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Under the fourth charge, Al to A6 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 ipc and were found guilty and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Under the fifth charge, Al and A2 were tried for the offence under section 324 IPC and were found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. ( 4 ) AGAINST the said conviction and sentences awarded by the learned Sessions judge, the present appeal has been preferred by all the accused. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, the accused on 7. 10. 1997 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with country-made bombs and deadly weapons, caused the death of one boya Mandla Sarai Pullaiah, Al and A2 further caused hurt to one Suman, who is the grandson of the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that about two years prior to the incident, from the time of panchayat Elections, there were serious factions between the groups of accused and deceased. One Venkata Subba Reddy was the leader of the deceased group. It is the case of the prosecution that about two years prior to the incident, from the time of panchayat Elections, there were serious factions between the groups of accused and deceased. One Venkata Subba Reddy was the leader of the deceased group. There were series of murders in between bom the groups. Earlier, one T. Kondanna, father of Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6, was killed by the deceased group, in which, P. Ws. 2 and 3, apart from others, were accused. Earlier to that, one Venkata Subba Reddy was murdered which was alleged to have been committed at the instance of the accused party. Thus, the entire village was suffering from faction and fights. After those two murders, police bandobust was also arranged in the village to maintain law and order. ( 6 ) ON the date of incident i. e. , on 7. 10. 1997, at about 11. 00 a. m. , it is alleged that the accused came to the house of the deceased and at that time, P. W. 1, who is the wife of the deceased, was cleaning redgram dal. The deceased and his grandson were sitting on one side of the pial while p. Ws. 2 and 3, who are son and brother of the deceased were sitting on the other pial. According to the prosecution case, A1 and a2 hurled bombs on the deceased saying that "champandira Eena kodukunu", and the bombs exploded wherein the deceased and Suman received splinter injuries. The deceased ran towards the top of his house through steps and then all the accused chased him and A3 alleged to have hacked the deceased on his forehead with a sickle, A4 stabbed him on his chest and Al and A2 caught hold the hands of the deceased, A5 and A6 cut his throat with knives. When P. Ws. l to 3 tried to rescue the deceased, they were threatened with dire consequences. Thereafter, the accused threw the dead body from the terrace on the manure heap and A1 and A2 dragged the deceased towards bore-well by holding his legs. In the meanwhile, on hearing the sound of explosion, P. W. 5 telephoned to nandivargam Police Station. l to 3 tried to rescue the deceased, they were threatened with dire consequences. Thereafter, the accused threw the dead body from the terrace on the manure heap and A1 and A2 dragged the deceased towards bore-well by holding his legs. In the meanwhile, on hearing the sound of explosion, P. W. 5 telephoned to nandivargam Police Station. P. W. 6, Police constable, who was on bandobust duty in the village, on hearing the bomb explosion, rushed to the scene of offence and found A1 to A6 carrying the dead body and when he asked them to stop and when they did not stop, he opened fire, but it was mis-fired. When he tried to catch hold of them, he could not succeed. Thereafter, the accused threw the dead body of the deceased into the bushes. ( 7 ) ON receiving the information, the sub-Inspector of Police, Nandivargam Police station, rushed to the scene of offence and recorded the statement of P. W. I under ex. P1 and sent the same to Police Station through P. C. No. 686, T. Satyanarayana, for registration. Then Station House Officer registered the same as Cr. No. 51 of 1997 and issued the First Information Report Ex. P7. P. W. 10, the Inspector of Police, rushed to nandivargam Police Station, where he received express FIR. From there, he rushed to the scene of offence and conducted panchnama, in the presence of P. W. 7, which is marked as Ex. P4. He then drew the sketch of the house under Ex. P8 and the sketch under Ex. P9 where the dead body of the deceased was found. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 5 which is marked as ex. P2. During the course of investigation , he recorded the statements of P. Ws. l to 4. He also examined P. W. 6 and obtained a special report marked as Ex. P3. On the same day, at 6. 45 p. m. , he sent a requisition to the Medical Officer for conducting the autopsy over the dead body. The postmortem was conducted on the morning of 8. 10. 1997 and the doctor opined that the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock. Ex. PS is the post-mortem certificate. P. W. 9, the Government doctor, examined the child Suman and issued wound certificate ex. P6. The postmortem was conducted on the morning of 8. 10. 1997 and the doctor opined that the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock. Ex. PS is the post-mortem certificate. P. W. 9, the Government doctor, examined the child Suman and issued wound certificate ex. P6. On 21. 7. 1997, Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 were apprehended and two country-made bombs were recovered from their possession. ( 8 ) AFTER completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial magistrate of First Class, Banaganapalle and the same was registered as PRC No. 10 of 1998. As the offence under Section 302 pc is exclusively triable by the Court of session, the same was committed to the court of III Additional Sessions Judge, kumool. Learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused referred to above. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 9 ) ON behalf of prosecution, 10 witnesses were examined and Exs. P12 to P14 and m. Os. l to 7 were marked. Ex. D1 is the relevant portion in Section 161 Cr. PC statement of P. W. 6. ( 10 ) LEARNED Trial Judge, after considering the evidence available on record, held that the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as follows: a1 to A6 were convicted for the offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Al to A6 were convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also liable to pay Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. A1 and A2 were convicted for the offence punishable under section 3 of EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Al and A2 were convicted for the offence under Section 5 of the explosive SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908 and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Al and A2 were further convicted for the offence under Section 324 ipc and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. ( 11 ) THE said conviction and sentence awarded on the accused is called in question in this appeal by the accused. ( 12 ) THE learned Senior Counsel Mr. Al and A2 were further convicted for the offence under Section 324 ipc and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. ( 11 ) THE said conviction and sentence awarded on the accused is called in question in this appeal by the accused. ( 12 ) THE learned Senior Counsel Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy appearing for the accused submits that the entire case was foisted by the prosecution and that there is any amount of inherent defects in the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel would submit that right from the inception of the case till the completion of the evidence, there are variations in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and therefore the learned Trial judge ought not to have relied on such evidence. The learned Counsel also submits that the entire edifice case stands on the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses P. Ws. 1 to 3, who are none else than the close relatives of the deceased. P. W. I is the wife of the deceased, P. W. 2 is the son of the deceased and P. W. 3 is the brother of the deceased and their evidence cannot be relied on as they are most interested and partisan witnesses and that too in the teeth of bitter factions and series of murders in both prosecution group and accused group. P. W. I herself had categorically stated that there are factions in the village and people belonging to both factions were killed on previous occasions and it is also admitted that P. Ws. 2 and 3 are the accused in a criminal case, in which one mr, Kondanna, father of Accused 1,2 and 6, was murdered. If that is the situation, even though the deceased was the leader of the opposite party, inasmuch as PWs. 2 and 3 were alleged to have killed the father of accused No. 1, 2 and 6, they were left untouched, which is most improbable and inconceivable. He further submits that the statement given by P. W. 1 is most inconsistent and incoherent in all respects. It is further contended that there is inordinate delay of seven hours in despatching the First information Report to the Magistrate. He further submits that the statement given by P. W. 1 is most inconsistent and incoherent in all respects. It is further contended that there is inordinate delay of seven hours in despatching the First information Report to the Magistrate. In this process there is every possibility that the accused have been roped to wreak vengeance and to retaliate against the opposite party and thus the accused have been falsely implicated in this case on account of the factions which are brewing in the village for the last several years and also the murder which took place between the parties. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the evidence of P. W. 6, basha, cannot be relied on, inasmuch as he tried to implicate the accused without having seen the offence. He further submits that when a special report was submitted by p. W. 6 to the Inspector of Police, who thereafter only conducted further enquiry, that special report is not forthcoming, but only the true copy of the said report was filed into the Court, which cannot be admitted in evidence and non-filing of the original special report is fatal to the case of the prosecution and it has to be presumed that had the original of the special report been filed, it would have gone in favour of the accused. Even in Section 161 Cr. P. C. statement recorded by the Investigating officer, P. W. 6 stated that he did not see the accused at the scene of offence where the blast has taken place. Learned Counsel would submit that even though the Trial court disbelieved the evidence of P. W. 6, yet the fact remains that the prosecution witnesses also stated in their evidence the presence of P. W. 6. On that basis, the prosecution witnesses have to be wholly regarded as false witnesses and the entire evidence adduced by the eye-witnesses ought to be rejected in toto. Another distinguishing feature, which is brought out by the learned Counsel for the accused is that the evidence adduced is contrary to the medical evidence on record. On that basis, the prosecution witnesses have to be wholly regarded as false witnesses and the entire evidence adduced by the eye-witnesses ought to be rejected in toto. Another distinguishing feature, which is brought out by the learned Counsel for the accused is that the evidence adduced is contrary to the medical evidence on record. P. W. I had categorically stated mat a few minutes prior to the incident, the deceased has taken morning meals and in the post-mortem report when the abdomen was opened, the presence of the food particles was not found by the doctor, except the statement of the doctor that the abdomen was distended with gas. Therefore, the absence of either un-digested or semi-digested food would indicate that a false case has been foisted by p. W. I against the accused to wreak vengeance of the rivalries in the village. ( 13 ) ON the other hand the learned public Prosecutor tried to sustain the judgment of the Trial Court on the ground that the evidence of P. Ws. l to 3 was consistent, coherent and corroborative in all material aspects. He submits that merely because they are related and interested witnesses, their evidence cannot be totally eliminated. He further contends that mere delay did not defeat the case of prosecution. The delay has been satisfactorily explained. He submits that when the evidence is cogent and consistent, the same can be relied on. He took the assistance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhamaj Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 687 (SC) = 2004 SCC (Crl.) 851 and Amar Singh v, balwinder Singh, 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 508 (SC) = 2003 Crl. LJ 1282. He further submits that even assuming that the evidence of p. W. 6 is totally discarded as unreliable and false, yet the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused by the evidence adduced by P. Ws. 1 to 3. The statement made by P. W. 1 under Section 161 Cr. PC and also the evidence adduced before the court as corroborated by P. Ws. 2 and 3 would clearly identify the overt acts on the part of accused Nos. 1 to 6 and in such a situation it cannot be said that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 is partisan and interested and can be allowed to be discarded. 2 and 3 would clearly identify the overt acts on the part of accused Nos. 1 to 6 and in such a situation it cannot be said that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 is partisan and interested and can be allowed to be discarded. He refers to the overt acts as stated by P. Ws. l to 3 with reference to the injuries sustained by the deceased as observed by the Medical officer. With regard to me hurling of bombs, learned Public Prosecutor refers to Injury no. 6, while the overt act attributed to A3 refers to Injury No. 1, and A4 to Injury No. 3 and A5 and A6 to Injury No. 2. With regard to the medical evidence referring to the absence of food particles, the learned Public prosecutor submits that the doctor did not say anything about the presence or absence of the food available in the abdomen, therefore, it cannot be presumed that there was no food at all in the abdomen. What the doctor has stated in the P. M. report is that after the abdomen is opened, it was found to be distended with gas. By that it cannot be construed that there was no food at all in the stomach. The absence of noting down the remnants of food in the abdomen by the doctor can only be attributable as inadvertent omission, but it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. ( 14 ) WE have heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellants and the learned public Prosecutor at length. ( 15 ) THE point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is sustainable on facts and law. ( 16 ) THE entire case, as urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants rests on the evidence adduced by P. Ws. l to 3 and P. W. 6. But as far as P. W. 6 is concerned, the Trial Court itself observed that his evidence is totally unbelievable and eschewed the same. Therefore, the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused on the basis of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3. ( 17 ) IT is also not in dispute that P. Ws. But as far as P. W. 6 is concerned, the Trial Court itself observed that his evidence is totally unbelievable and eschewed the same. Therefore, the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused on the basis of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3. ( 17 ) IT is also not in dispute that P. Ws. 1 to 3 are the close relatives of the deceased. The relationship has already been referred to in preceding paragraphs. The evidence of the witnesses is that on the date of incident, the accused entered from Northern side and they hurled two bombs, on account of which, the splinters hit the deceased and also the boy, who was not examined, but, however, he was subjected to medical examination. Immediately thereafter the deceased, in order to protect himself, climbed the steps and went to terrace and the accused followed him, thereafter, P. Ws. l to 3 also followed them, where it is stated that A1 to A6 indiscriminately caused injuries to the deceased as referred to earlier. P. W. I also categorically stated that there is strong rivalry between the groups of accused and the deceased for the last several years and two persons in deceased group were killed, so also some persons including one Mr. Kondanna was killed by the deceased group. It is also stated by P. W. I that they are the witnesses in the murder case of their group persons and it is also on record that P. Ws. 2 and 3 are the accused in the murder case of father of Al, A2 and A6 viz. , Kondanna. ( 18 ) THE situation as available, when the alleged incident had taken place on the terrace, is worth noticing. It is stated that the deceased was the leader of the group, but, however, it is to be seen that p. Ws. 2 and 3 are the accused, who alleged to have killed Kondanna and who were there in front of the Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 6 and no injuries were caused to them even though they are prime accused, who killed their fathier. In such a situation, can it be said that Accused Nos. l, 2 and 6 whose father was killed by P. Ws. 2 and 3 would keep quiet when they were in their hands more especially when they were having all deadly weapons. In such a situation, can it be said that Accused Nos. l, 2 and 6 whose father was killed by P. Ws. 2 and 3 would keep quiet when they were in their hands more especially when they were having all deadly weapons. It was sought to be explained by the prosecution that they were threatened with same situation as met by the deceased if they interfered. Therefore, they did not intervene and they were only silent spectators. But the natural conduct of human being has to be pressed into service at this point of time. Whatever may be the cause, when the deceased was brutally murdered, the mother, the son and the brother would keep quiet without even causing least interference in the action of the accused, who are alleged to be indiscriminately beating and causing injuries to the deceased with deadly weapons. Hence their evidence has to be swallowed with a pinch of salt. ( 19 ) THE second issue that arises for consideration is immediately after the incident, the dead body was alleged to have been thrown on the manure heap and it was dragged on to some distance and at that point of time, Basha, P. W. 6, who was on guard duty to maintain law and order in the faction village, appears to have rushed to the place, where the blast had taken place and found that the dead body was being dragged on. On seeing this, he tried to open the fire, but for various technical reasons, it was not fired and when the matter was informed to Nandivargam Police station, the Sub-Inspector of Police came immediately and recorded the statement of p. Ws. 1 to 3. As far as the statement of p. W. I is concerned, it was recorded between 11. 30 p. m. , and 12. 00 hours. Immediately thereafter, the First Information Report was issued. It is the categorical statement of p. W. 6 that a special report was furnished to the Inspector of Police, on the directions of the Sub-Inspector of Police, but that special report is not to be seen in the record. Only the true copy of the special report was tried to be pressed into service by P. W. 6. It is the categorical statement of p. W. 6 that a special report was furnished to the Inspector of Police, on the directions of the Sub-Inspector of Police, but that special report is not to be seen in the record. Only the true copy of the special report was tried to be pressed into service by P. W. 6. It is to be noted that the accused is entitled for all the documents more especially a special report, which is of earliest point of time, which could throw light on the incident and the happenings on the relevant date. Non-filing of the original report would create any amount of suspicion and the filing of true copy without filing original could not be admitted in the evidence and could not be relied upon. Be that as it may, an adverse inference has to be drawn for non-filing the original special report, which has been submitted to the Inspector of Police. Even the Inspector of Police (P. W. 10) had categorically stated that he received the special report of P. W. 6 and thereafter he took further action. It has to be necessarily construed that since the prosecution failed to furnish the original of the special report, the adverse inference that has be to drawn is that had the said document been filed, it could have been gone in favour of the accused [see Kota pedda Nagesh v. State ofandhra Pradesh, 1999 (1) ALDCrl. 519 (AP)]. ( 20 ) THE third point that arises for consideration is whether the ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses i. e. , p. Ws. l to 3 can be said to be reliable so as to find the guilt of the accused for the offences and to maintain the conviction and sentence. It is not in dispute that these three witnesses are close relatives of the deceased. Two of them are also accused in the murder case of father of Accused nos. 1, 2 and 6. They are also witnesses in the murder case of their supporters. The supreme Court has been very categorical on the issue with regard to the consideration of the interested, partisan and relating witnesses. Two of them are also accused in the murder case of father of Accused nos. 1, 2 and 6. They are also witnesses in the murder case of their supporters. The supreme Court has been very categorical on the issue with regard to the consideration of the interested, partisan and relating witnesses. While there is no prohibition to consider and rely on the evidence of interested and partisan witnesses, yet the supreme Court gave a word of caution that their evidence has to be scanned very meticulously, cautiously and if it is found to be consistent, reliable, cogent and corroborative in all respects, their evidence cannot be discarded. ( 21 ) IN Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 506 (SC) = (2003) 7 scc 643 , the Supreme Court observed that the relationship is not a factor to effect the credibility of the witness. It cannot also be a ground that a witness is a close relationship and being a partisan witness should not be relied on. But, however, the court has to adopt careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent or credible. ( 22 ) SIMILAR view was expressed by the supreme Court in Hardev Singh v. Harbaez singh, 1997 (1) ALD (Crl.) 232 (SC) = (1997) 1 SCC 80 , B. S. Singh v. State of gujarath, 1990 (1) Crimes 640 (SC ). ( 23 ) IN Bijay Singh v. State of Bihar, 2002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 53 (SC) = (2002) 9 scc 147 , the Supreme Court observed thus: "in cases of party factions and group rivalries there is a tendency on the part of the prosecution witnesses to implicate some of the innocent persons along with the guilty ones. Generally in such cases the witnesses of the prosecution cases are prone to exaggerating the culpability of the actual assailants and to extend the participation in the occurrence of some possible innocent members of the opposite party as well. In such cases, a duty is cast upon the Court to sift the evidence and after a close scrutiny with proper care and caution to come to a judicial conclusion as to who out of the accused persons can be considered to have actually committed the offence. But in the instant case, it has to be considered how far the evidence of P. Ws. But in the instant case, it has to be considered how far the evidence of P. Ws. l to 3 can be relied on. Their evidence right from the inception till the date of evidence before the court is shrouded with full of suspicions. As we have already observed in Ex. P1, there are inconsistencies and contradictions. So also the evidence of the eye-witnesses p. Ws. l to 3 is not inconsonance with the medical evidence, as found with regard to the un-digested food. When P. W. I categorically stated that her husband has taken morning meals and within a few minutes, the incident has taken place. Obviously there should have been the traces of the food either un- digested or semi-digested, but this is totally lacking in this case. It is unthinkable that the doctor, after opening the abdomen, could not have noticed it. But, there were no such traces of un-digested or semi-digested food. There was no mention in the post-mortem report with regard to the presence or absence of the food particles in the abdomen of the deceased. If really, the incident has taken place immediately after taking the meals, there should be definite presence of the food in the stomach in a most undigested form. If two views are possible, the view that goes in favour of accused has to be accepted. This is yet another instance which goes to discredit the testimony of p. W. I. Further, we find no neighbours were examined in this case. When the incident had taken place in the broad day light at about 11. 00 hours, it is incomprehensible that nobody in the neighbouring houses were there. P. W. 4 is only a chance witness. According to him, he along with another krishna Reddy after attending the work at banaganapalle came to Ramathirtham to see the deceased and they saw the accused dragging the deceased. Thereafter they went to another house and stayed till the police came. The evidence of P. W. 4 is unnatural. He did not give the reasons for meeting the deceased and when he saw the deceased being dragged, he did not react and also states that he saw Police Constable (P. W. 6) along with P. Ws. 1 to 3. Thereafter they went to another house and stayed till the police came. The evidence of P. W. 4 is unnatural. He did not give the reasons for meeting the deceased and when he saw the deceased being dragged, he did not react and also states that he saw Police Constable (P. W. 6) along with P. Ws. 1 to 3. ( 24 ) ADDED to this, we are also of the considered view that there is an unexplained delay in sending the First information Report to the Court. Admittedly, between 11. 30 and 12. 00, the First information Report was recorded and it is also in the evidence that the village is on the main highway and the Court is at a distance of 20 K. Ms, from the Police Station and no reasons are forthcoming as to how the delay of seven hours has taken place. It has been held by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions that mere delay in despatching the First Information Report to the Court it would not cause any prejudice to the prosecution case if the delay has been properly explained. ( 25 ) THE delay in filing the FIR and its consequences are well laid out by the supreme Court in numerous decisions. In Thulika Kali v. State of Tamilnadu, 1972 (3) SCC 393 , the Supreme Court observed thus:". . . . . . . . . FIRST Information Report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witness present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the First information Report quite often results in embellishment, which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. Delay in lodging the First information Report quite often results in embellishment, which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is therefore, essential that the delay in lodging the First information Report should be satisfactorily explained. . . . . . " (Emphasis supplied) (P. 397)" ( 26 ) THE said view was followed in maharaj Singh v. State of U. P. , (1994) 5 scc 188 and Tanedar Singh v. State of m. P. , (2002) 1 SCC 487 . However, mere delay in filing F. I. R. before the Magistrate is not by itself fatal to the case of the prosecution if the delay has been satisfactorily explained by the Police Officer. One of the reasons for ensuring the FIR reaches the Magistrate at the earliest opportunity without any loss of time is to avoid possibility of subsequent implication of the accused as a result of afterthought on account of the ill-feelings, factions, political bitterness etc. However, the Supreme court in Marudanal Augusti v. State of kerala, (1980) 4 SCC 425 , cautioned that such delay would throw a serious doubt on the prosecution s case. ( 27 ) IN Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, air 1991 SC 63 , the Supreme Court observed thus:the delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, one cannot expect these villagers to rush to the Police Station immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report to the police. At times being grief stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is but natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to go the Police Station for giving the report. Of course, in cases arising out of acute factions there is a tendency to implicate persons belonging to the opposite faction falsely. In order to avert the. After all it is but natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to go the Police Station for giving the report. Of course, in cases arising out of acute factions there is a tendency to implicate persons belonging to the opposite faction falsely. In order to avert the. danger of convicting such innocent persons the courts should be cautious to scrutinize the evidence of such interested witnesses with greater care and caution and separate grain from the chaff after subjecting the evidence to a close scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR also will have to be scrutinized carefully. However, unless there are indications of fabrication, the Court cannot reject the prosecution version as given in the FIR and later substantiated by the evidence merely on the ground of delay. These are all matters for appreciation and much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. " ( 28 ) AGAIN in Zahoor v. State of U. P. , air 1991 SC 40 , it was held by the Supreme court that mere delay by itself is not enough to reject the prosecution case unless there are clear indications of fabrication. This principle was again reiterated in Jamna v. State of U. P. , AIR 1994 SC 79 , that delay by itself is not a circumstance to doubt the prosecution s case. ( 29 ) IN Arun Marik v. State of Bihar, (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 372, the Supreme Court again observed thus:". . . . . . THE forwarding of the occurrence report is indispensable and absolute and it has to be forwarded with earliest despatch which intention is implicit with the use of the word forthwith occurring in Section 157 cr. P. C. which means promptly and without any undue delay. The purpose and object is very obvious which is spelt out from the combined reading of Sections 157 and 159 cr. P. C. It has the dual purpose, firstly to avoid the possibility of improvement in the prosecution story and introduction of any distorted version by deliberations and consultation and secondly to enable the magistrate concerned to have a watch on the progress of the investigation. . . . . . . . P. C. It has the dual purpose, firstly to avoid the possibility of improvement in the prosecution story and introduction of any distorted version by deliberations and consultation and secondly to enable the magistrate concerned to have a watch on the progress of the investigation. . . . . . . . " ( 30 ) IN Bijay Singh s case (supra), the supreme Court observed that the delay in sending the copy of the FIR may by itself not render the whole of the case of the prosecution as doubtful but it shall put the court on guard to find out as to whether the version as stated in the Court was the same version as earlier reported in the FIR or was the result of deliberations involving some other persons who were actually not involved in the commission of the crime. Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution and if the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the Court to minutely examine the prosecution version to ensure whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. ( 31 ) IN Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, 2003 (1) AID (Crl.) 508 (SC) = 2003 Crl. LJ 1282 = AIR 2003 SC 1164 , the Supreme court observed thus:"there is no hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would automatically render the prosecution case doubtful. It necessarily depends upon facts and circumstances of each case whether there has been any such delay in lodging the FIR which may cast doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case and for this a host of circumstances like the condition of the first informant, the nature of injuries sustained, the number of victims, the efforts made to provide medical aid to them, the distance of the hospital and the police Station, etc. have to be taken into consideration. There is no mathematical formula by which an inference may be drawn either way merely on account of delay in lodging of the FIR. " ( 32 ) IN the absence of any explanation for delay in FIR the version of the prosecution is weakened. Though mere delay is not fatal in every case, but delay has to be satisfactorily explained. " ( 32 ) IN the absence of any explanation for delay in FIR the version of the prosecution is weakened. Though mere delay is not fatal in every case, but delay has to be satisfactorily explained. FIR in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the evidence adduced at the time of 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 prior permission regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them and the names of eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. The delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is the creature of an afterthought. ( 33 ) BUT in the instant case, it is to be seen that the village is situate on the main highway and the distance is only 20 K. Ms, and the delay is nearly seven hours. In such a situation, the delay ought to have been explained properly by the prosecution as to under what circumstances such a delay had occurred, but no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming except stating that the First Information Report was sent to the Court, which was received by the magistrate at 7. 00 p. m. This is yet another doubtful instance where the prosecution tried to mulct as many persons as possible, who belong to the rival faction group. ( 34 ) YET we find another infirmity in the prosecution case. Even if the presence of p. W. 6 was totally discarded and he was found to be most untruthful witness, yet, the fact remains that P. Ws. 1 to 3 had categorically stated that he was present and saw when the dead body was being dragged on and he also opened fire which resulted in mis-fire. This is the evidence of the prosecution. Though the learned sessions Judge has completely disbelieved the presence of P. W. 6, yet the fact as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses has to be taken note of and it has be to be dealt with in accordance with law. In Section 161 cr. P. C. statement, P. Ws. This is the evidence of the prosecution. Though the learned sessions Judge has completely disbelieved the presence of P. W. 6, yet the fact as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses has to be taken note of and it has be to be dealt with in accordance with law. In Section 161 cr. P. C. statement, P. Ws. l to 3 did not state about this aspect at all, but only in their evidence it is sought to be mentioned, and thus we find any amount of improvements and embellishments in the evidence adduced by P. Ws. 1 to 3. ( 35 ) UNDER those circumstances we are of the considered view that the case of the prosecution suffers with inherent improbabilities and creates innumerable doubts which cast insurmountable shadow on the investigation undertaken by the prosecution and the evidence adduced. Thus, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 36 ) ACCORDINGLY, the criminal appeal is allowed and the judgment passed by the hi Additional Sessions Judge, Kumool in sc No. 387 of 1998 is set aside and the accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.