CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtFull Bench(2009) 04 SC CK 0274

State of Kerala vs Suresh @ Subhash and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 1 April 2009 · Citation: (2009) 14 JT 440 : (2009) 6 SCALE 612 : (2009) 15 SCC 121 : (2009) 7 SCR 10

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mukundakam Sharma, J · D. K. Jain, J · Arijit Pasayat, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 1207 of 2004

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 356 words

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

The Kerala High Court by the impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the State questioning acquittal of five accused persons who faced trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. The trial court acquitted them of the charges relatable to Sections 143, 147, 148, 109, 449 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short 'IPC').

3.

The basic reason which weighed with the trial court to direct acquittal was the unexplained delay relating to the FIR reaching the concerned Magistrate. Added to that the authenticity of the report given by PW1 was doubtful. The High Court found that the evidence of PW1 was not believable. There was doubt about the authenticity of Ex.P1 and the unexplained delay in FIR reaching the Magistrate Court. Because of the aforesaid factors the High Court found that there was no scope for any interference, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that PW1 was an injured witness and merely because the investigation was not done in proper manner, the acquittal should not have been directed. learned Counsel for the respondent supported the judgment.

4.

We find that both the trial court and the High Court have analysed the evidence in great detail to find the prosecution version to be not cogent and credible. According to PW1 she gave Ext. P1 FIR before ASI PW17 at 2.30 A.M. on 6.9.1996. According to PW17 he recorded at 3.00 A.M. on 6.9.1996. But Ext. P1 reached the Ilaga Magistrate at 10.30 A.M. on 7.9.1996. The Investigating Officer has not explained the delay. Further the trial court found if impossible physically for giving a lengthy report (Ext. P1) while in Intensive Care Unit. The occurrence is stated to have taken place on 5.9.1996 at 8.15 P.M. According to PW5, he examined the injured and deceased at 9.30 P.M. If that be so, it has not been explained as to how the FIR came to be lodged at 2.30 A.M. on 6.9.1996. That being so, we find no scope for interference in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.