Guiram Mondal vs. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 1268 of 2007 (Decided on
26.04.2013)
The
Court observed:
“The inquest report normally would not
contain the manner in which the incident took place or the names of eyewitnesses
as well as names of accused persons. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is
to report regarding the cause of death, namely whether it is suicidal,
homicidal, accidental etc.” [Para 10]
The High Court has rightly held that the
manner and approach of the trial court in disbelieving the prosecution story by
placing reliance on the inquest report was erroneous and bad in law. [Para
9]
The
court referred the judgment of Pedda Narayana and others v. State of Andhra
Pradesh (1975) 4 SCC 153 and Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and Others (2003) 2
SCC 518.
The
Court also quoted the following case law:
Radha
Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and Others v. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 450, this
Court held that
“the
scope of inquest is limited and is confined to ascertainment of apparent cause
of death. Inquest is concerned with discovering whether in a given case the
death was accident, suicidal or homicidal, and in what manner or by what weapon
or instrument the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. The
details of overt acts need not be recorded in the inquest report.”
On
other subjects the Court also held:
A.
Delay in sending FIR to Magistrate
“Merely because the FIR was placed before the
learned Magistrate on 30.4.1984, three days after registration of FIR, it
cannot be said that the FIR was anti timed, anti dated and fabricated. In fact,
no question was put to the Investigating Officer as to the cause of delay in
sending FIR to the Magistrate.” [Para 11]
In
this respect court referred following case law:
‘State
of Jammu and Kashmir v. S. Mohan Singh and Another’ (2006) 9 SCC 272, wherein
it was held that the mere delay in sending the First Information Report to a
Magistrate cannot be a ground to throw out prosecution case if the evidence
adduced is otherwise found credible and trustworthy.
B.
Evidence of relative
“In
our view, merely because a witness is a relative of the deceased is not a
reason for discarding his evidence. Many a time, strangers will not come
forward depose as witnesses, even if they have witnessed the crime. Further,
possibility of influencing such witnesses is also not uncommon. Evidence of
relatives can be acted upon if the court finds that the evidence of such a
witness is reliable and trustworthy.” [Para 13]
In
this respect court referred following case law:
Seeman
@ Veeranam v. State by Inspector of Police (2005) 11 SCC 142,
Alamgir
v. State (NCT, Delhi) (2003) 1 SCC 21,
Dalbir
Kaur and Others v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158,
State
of U.P. v. Jodha Singh and Others (1989) 3 SCC 465,
Labh
Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (1976) 1 SCC 181,
Visveswaran
v. State represented by SDM (2003) 6 SCC 73.
Please see the full judgment by following link