In Brief
A murder case arising from a land dispute concerning a pathway resulted in the death of Devi Singh. The prosecution alleged that 18 accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and attacked him with deadly weapons. While the Trial Court convicted four respondents, the High Court acquitted them. The Supreme Court affirmed the acquittal, finding that the prosecution suppressed the earliest FIR filed by the deceased himself, eye witnesses gave conflicting and inconsistent accounts of the incident's location, and the injuries sustained (only four, mostly minor) were wholly inconsistent with an attack by 18 armed persons. The evidence was found to be fabricated and unreliable, failing to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.", <parameter name="cited_cases">[ { "raw_citation": "(1973) 3 SCC 114", "case_name": "Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala", "cited_year": "1973", "paragraph": "4", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "This Court, in Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, (1973) 3 SCC 114, emphasised that since a promptly filed FIR reflects reduced chances of embellishment, fabrication or distortion in memory, in cases of delay in filing the FIR it is important to assess the explanation therefore, to look for possible ulterior motives, and to assess its effect on the credibility of the prosecution version." }, { "raw_citation": "AIR 1945 PC 18 : ILR 1945 Lah 1 : 71 IA 203", "case_name": "K.E. v. Khwaja", "cited_year": "1945", "paragraph": "4", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "(1974) 4 SCC 201", "case_name": "Ram Jag v. State of U.P.", "cited_year": "1974", "paragraph": "4", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "(2013) 6 SCC 348", "case_name": "Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation", "cited_year": "2013", "paragraph": "5", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "As emphasised by this Court in Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 6 SCC 348, only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154, and consequently there cannot be a second FIR." }, { "raw_citation": "(2009) 14 SCC 415", "case_name": "Subramaniam v. State of T.N.", "cited_year": "2009", "paragraph": "5", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "(2014) 12 SCC 261", "case_name": "Nallabothu Ramulu v. State of A.P.", "cited_year": "2014", "paragraph": "5", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court" } ]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.