PETITIONER: NARAYAN NATHU NAIK Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/03/1970 BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) GROVER, A.N. CITATION: 1971 AIR 1656 1971 SCR (1) 133 1970 SCC (2) 101 ACT: Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898)--High Court--Recording of reasons in appeals. First Information Report--Written on plain paper, and then copied into register--Propriety. HEADNOTE: The first information report in a murder case was written on a piece of paper, and was copied into the register for first information reports. The Sessions Judge convicted the appellant on the evidence, even though the first information report was not recorded in the prescribed form. His appeal to the High Court was summarily dismissed although the High Court recorded a brief note of the arguments which were raised before it and the replies to those arguments repelling them. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : The High Court need not have recorded reasons if it was satisfied that the case was one for dismissal but if it thought that it had to go into the evidence and had to discuss it, the proper course would have been to set the case down for a proper bearing and to give a considered judgment in the case. The first information report was properly written. Several first information reports are recorded on plain pieces of paper and then transcribed into the first information report register. In fact if a written report is brought, it is verbatim copied into the first information report register. In this case there was no time to bring a false case against the appellant and to let the real assailant escape. [134 C; 135 E-F] On the evidence, the appellant was rightly convicted. JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal. No.97 of
1968.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
April 24, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 317 of 1967.
R. M. Hazarnavis, K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapoor, for the
appellant.
M. S. K. Sastri and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah C.J.-This is an appeal by Narayan Nathu Naik
who was tried by the Sessions Judge, Thana for the murder of
one Rattan on the night following 18th March, 1966 at about
midnight. He was convicted by the Sessions Judge under S.
302.
134
of the Indian Penal code and sentenced to imprisonment
for .life. His appeal to the High Court was summarily
dismissed .although the High Court recorded a brief note of
the arguments which were raised before it and the replies to
those arguments repelling them. It is contended in this
case that the appellant was entitled to at least one appeal
and that his first appeal should have been properly
considered in the High Court and the judgment of the High
Court,, which according to the .learned counsel, reads like
a dialogue between the court and counsel, is no judgment at
all. It appears that special leave was probably granted in
this case, because of the unsatisfactory manner in which
reasons were recorded. The High Court need .not have
recorded reasons if it was satisfied that the case was ,one
for dismissal but if it thought that it had to go into the .
evidence and to discus it, the proper course would have been
to set the case down for a proper hearing and to give a con-
sidered judgment in the case. We have considered this case
on the evidence brought against the appellant and we are
satisfied that the appeal must fail. We give our reasons
briefly.
There is some evidence that the appellant Narayan Nathu Naik
and the deceased Rattan had some quarrel over property.
This, it is contended, was somewhat old and not very serious
and that nothing untoward had happened, for the appellant
to .have suddenly embarked upon the murder of rattan. We
need not consider the question of motive in this case if we
are ,satisfied that the evidence that Narayan Nathu Naik was
the assailant of Rattan, is acceptable. The Medical
evidence showed that Rattan died of a single injury which
was a stab wound through the heart. The left ventricle was
cut and the heart was drained of all blood. The pericardium
had also a tear but on its upper reach and the evidence of
the doctor who performed the autopsy shows that the
pericardium was full of blood. The clothes of the deceased
were also profusely stained but no blood was found inside
the house where the deceased was first sleeping, but some
blood was found at the Ota where the dead body was found but
the source of the blood could not be identified. From this
the learned counsel raised the contention that the scene of
offence was probably not what the prosecution case described
and his contention is wound up with the rest of the story
given by the eye witnesses particularly the wife who named
the appellant as one of the assailants. Therefore we must
turn to that story.
On the day in question, the deceased Rattan had gone to make
some purchases. At night he had not returned when the
family took their meals and lay down to sleep. In the house
at that time were Rattan’s mother, Rattan’s wife and
Rattan’s
135
‘brother. There were three students who had .,come to this
house and were staying to appear at the S.S.L.C.
examination. The family distributed themselves as follows.
Inside the house Rattan’s wife lay down on the ground on a
bed with her infant child. The bed for Rattan was made on a
swing nearby. A lantern was burning and the door of the
house was open. Rattan returned at about 10 P.M. in the
night. As food had been taken by the rest of the family, a
portion was set apart for Rattan. According to his wife,
Vimalabai, he took his meals without waking her up and after
he had washed his hands, he threw some water on her face
which woke her up. He then lay down on the swing to sleep.
Vimalabai says that she also lay down to sleep and
presumably she must have slept, because she says that she
was woken up in the middle of the night by shouts from her
husband. Vimalabai’s evidence is that when she woke up, she
found that her husband was in the grip of the appellant
Narayan Nathu Naik at the door near the ota. Rattan’s
brother Kamlakar who had also been awakened by the shouts of
the deceased also arrived there, but the appellant had
stabbed Rattan. Kamlakar caught hold of the appellant from
behind around his waist, but when Rattan fell on the ground
the appellant broke loose and ran away. On their shouting
and wailing, Jairam the uncle of Rattan (P.W.1.) and two
other brothers of Rattan came on the scene. They were
living at a distance of about 1-1/2 furlongs from the house
of Rattan. Rattan is said to have spoken to his mother
before he died that it was Narayan Nathu Naik who had
attacked him. The evidence is that it was Narayan Nathu
Naik and this is brone out by the statements of Kamlakar
(P.W.3), Manibai (P.W.4) and Vimlabai (P.W.5). The two
students who were also witnesses in the case made a state-
ment before the police involving Narayan Nathu Naik, but
they later changed in the court and were declared hostile
and cross-examined. We shall refer hereafter to their
testimony in so far as they have admitted facts in support
of the prosecution case.
The story therefore is of an attack in the middle of
the .night upon Rattan by the appellant at the door of his
hut. The incident is said to have been witnessed by three
persons whom we have mentioned and who are close relations
of the deceased. The argument is that the evidence of these
witnesses should not be accepted because of their interest
in Rattan and also because of certain contradictions in
their testimony.
Apart from the fact that the High Court and the Court of
Session have accepted their testimony and this Court does
not go into evidence for the third time, we have read the
evidence
136
of these witnesses and we have thoroughly checked it and we
are satisfied that what has been stated by these witnesses
is the true version of what happened on that fateful night.
The story is a simple one, of an attack in the middle of the
night by an ,assailant who was not only grappled with but
was seen and identified in the light. The witnesses who
have resiled have also stated that die occurrence took place
at the door of the cottage. They have also stated that
there was sufficient light for them to see although they
changed that they did not see the assailant nor heard what
the victim stated to his mother about the appellant having
assaulted him. This version comes from the witnesses who no
doubt are interested, but they are not interested enough to
let the real assailant escape and charge someone else.
Report of this case was made almost immediately and in fact
the police arrived within a couple of hours and the state-
ments were recorded the very next morning. There was no
time available to concoct a false case with such details
against the appellant.
It was argued that the first information report was not pro-
perly recorded in the prescribed form but was writen down on
a piece of paper and it was copied into the register for
first information reports. At first it was suggested that
the first information report in the printed form was not
produced in the case, but we find that it was so produced
and that the Sub-Inspector stated that he had copied it from
a plain paper. In our experience, we have seen several
first information reports recorded on plain pieces of paper
and then transcribed into the first information report
register. In fact if a written report is brought, it is
verbatim copied into the first information report register.
There is no doubt that this was the first version of the
incident given out by P.W. 1 Jairam when he went to the
police station house to report about the occurrence. There
was no time to bring a false case against the appellant and
to let the real assailant escape. On the whole, we are
satisfied that the evidence of the eye witnesses is
believable.
The witnesses who resiled were the two students who were
present at the house for the purpose of appearing at an
examination. They have answered a number of questions which
clearly corroborate the evidence of the other witnesses.
For example, P.W. 7-Chintaman Gangaram Kulkarni stated that
the light of some lamp was coming outside the door of the
house and that when Kamlakar caught hold of the assailant
Rattan fell down on the ground near the door of the Ota. He
also stated that Rattan’s mother went inside the house,
brought water, tried to give water to Rattan, but he did not
drink. He also stated
137
that after hearing the cries,, Rattan’s uncles, his sister
and her husband came there. He admitted that Kamlakar told
his uncle what had happened, he did not hear it. He admited
that it was true also that thereafter one of the uncles of
the deceased Rattan. went to the police station to make a
report. The other witness (P.W. 10) also stated quite
clearly that at about 3 or 4 A.M. the police came to the,
house and that his statement and those of two companions
were recorded by the police at 7 A.M. the next morning. He
also admited that they all woke up when they heard the cry
in the middle of the night and that Rattan’s, wife had also
awakened and she had stood in the door of the house. He
admitted that the light was burning in the house and the
door of the house was open and that the light of the lamp.
had spread over the ota of the house through the open door..
He also admitted that Rattan’s mother brought water from the
house and poured in into the mouth of Rattan but he did not
drink and all the inmates were crying aloud with the result
that Rattan’s uncle Jairam, his two brothers, Rattan’s
sister and her husband came there immediately after the
crime. Jairam made enquiries with Kamalakar and Naibai how
it had happened and that Kamlakar told something to Jairam
but he said that he did not hear it. All this corroborates
the evidence of the, three eye witnesses except as to the
identity of the appellant. We accept the evidence of the
eye-witnesses.
The medical evidence was used to challenge the scene of
offence on the ground that there were no blood marks found,
but, in our opinion, the man might bleed internally after
receiving, stab wound in the heart. The witnesses have
stated that Rattan was stabbed on the spot where the body
was found after the occurrence took place. Blood was in
fact found at the spot but the source of the blood could not
be ascertained There is no, reason to think that it was
blood of some animal. On the whole we are satisfied that
this case was proved satisfactorily.- The appeal. therefore,
fails and is dismissed.
Y.P. Appeal dismissed'.
11sup.CI-10
138