We have meticulously
perused the materials on record and considered the contentions advanced
at the Bar with the care and attention the same deserve.
In cases of the
present nature, where material witnesses are withheld by the prosecution and it
is the positive case set up by the defence that he has been falsely
implicated for murder though death of the victim could be for reasons attributable
to an accidental fall from a tree and such a case in defence finds some
amount of corroboration from the other evidence on record, coupled with
the fact that the appellate court has100 imposed a lesser sentence upon reversal of the finding of
murder returned by the trial court, this Court as the120 court of last resort has a duty to
separate the grain from the chaff and after sieving the untruth
or unacceptable portion of the evidence, to also examine whether the residue
is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.
There seems to be no legal bar in convicting an accused resting on part of the
evidence, which is primarily found to be credible and acceptable. However,
where the evidence is so inseparable that any attempt to separate them
would200 destroy the substratum
on which the prosecution version is founded, then this Court would be
within its legal limits to discard the evidence in its entirety. Bearing this
settled principle in mind, we proceed to assess the evidence on record.240
We start with the
FIR, to which exception has been taken by the appellant urging that there
has been no satisfactory explanation for its belated registration.
It is trite that merely because there is some delay in lodging an FIR,
the same by itself and without anything more ought not to weigh in the mind
of the courts in all300 cases as fatal for the prosecution.
A realistic
and pragmatic approach has to be adopted, keeping in mind the peculiarities
of each particular case, to assess whether the unexplained delay in
lodging the FIR is an afterthought to give a coloured version of the
incident, which is sufficient to corrode the credibility of the
prosecution version. In cases where delay360 occurs, it has to be tested on the anvil of other
attending circumstances.
If on an overall
consideration of all relevant circumstances it appears to the court that
the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained, mere delay cannot400 be sufficient to disbelieve
the prosecution case. However, if the delay is not satisfactorily explained and
it appears to the court that cause for the delay had been necessitated
to frame anyone as an accused, there is no reason as to why the
delay should not be considered as fatal forming part of several
factors to vitiate the conviction.
We have heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the480 respondents. The learned
Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the reasoning given by the Division
Bench of the High500 Court is totally perfunctory. He submits that the learned
Single Judge, by an elaborate well-reasoned order, found that the writ
petitioners were not entitled for absorption. He further submits that as per
the scheme, four conditions were required to be fulfilled and the writ
petitioners did not comply with the said conditions. Finding this, the learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. He submits that the Division Bench,
however, on a ground that, the report of the Committee was signed by only one
member and not all the three members, has erroneously reversed the
well-reasoned order passed by the600 learned Single Judge. He further submits that the personal affidavit
filed by the Additional Chief Secretary of the State Government dated 6th
December 2022 would reveal that the report of the Committee was accepted by the
Cabinet of the State of Bihar and as such, the reasoning that the report was
not signed by all the three officers, is totally without substance.
The learned Senior
Counsel for the respondents-employees, on the contrary, submits that the writ
petitioners have been continuously working from 1999 till 2017. He
submits that the writ petitioners have continuously700 worked for a period of almost 18
years. He submits that all the writ petitioners complied with all the four720 conditions, as stipulated in the
Scheme of 2012. He further submits that the learned Single Judge, in the first
round of litigation, has also found that the writ petitioners complied with
all the four conditions.
In the peculiar
facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to go into the legal
issues. At the outset, we may say that we are not satisfied with the manner
in which the Division Bench has dealt with the matter in the present800 litigation. When the Division
Bench was considering the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Single
Judge, the least that was expected of it was to give reasonings as to why it disagreed
with the findings given by the learned840 Single Judge.
Insofar as the
finding of the Division Bench that the report was not signed by three members
is concerned, it ought to have taken into consideration that much water had
flown subsequently, inasmuch as the affidavit of the Additional
Chief Secretary dated 6th December 2022 would have shown that the report of
the Committee was900 accepted by the State Government, which was fructified in
the scheme dated 12th July 2012, which was published in the gazette
notification. As such, the High Court, at the most could have examined
the correctness of the scheme as notified in the gazette notification. It
appears that the Division Bench found an easy way to deal with the960 litigation.
In any case, if the directions as issued by the Division Bench are to be
complied with, it will lead to more than one complication. The Division
Bench has granted liberty to the State Government to again start the1000 process and in the meantime
directed the writ petitioners to be taken back to work. It has further directed
honorary benefits to be calculated and disbursed for the intervening
period.
We are of the
considered view that if the order, as passed by the Division Bench, is
permitted to continue, it will give rise to third round of litigation
and would not provide any solace to the employees, who have been
fighting for justice since 2017. 1078
