Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1268 (MP)

State Of M. P. v. Ramkrishna

2000-11-30

C.K.PRASAD, USHA SHUKLA

body2000
JUDGMENT : C. K. PRASAD, J. Respondents were put on trial for offence under Sections 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Additional Sessions Judge, Harda, by his judgment dated 16-12-1988 passed in Sessions Trial No. 171/1986 acquitted them of all the charges. State being aggrieved by acquittal of the respondents, has preferred this appeal. 2. According to the prosecution, on 9-5-1986 at 9 a.m. Sugna Bai (P.W. 1), who happens to be the daughter of the deceased Brijlal was informed by the sons of Rajaram Teli and Randhir Singh that his father is being assaulted by Ram Krishna, Jagdish Gujar and other persons. Hearing this information, Sugna Bai along with P.W. 5 Ram Pyari Bai, wife of the deceased, Gulab, Basu Bai (PW 2); the daughter in law of the deceased, Kamal (PW 3); the son-in-law of the deceased, Bharat and Shyam (PW 7) reached the place of occurrence and saw the accused Ram Krishna, Jagdish, Chanda, Komal, Gokul, Mullu Singh and Ram Niwas assaulting Brijlal by Lakdi. According to the prosecution; seeing these persons, accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. According to the prosecution witnesses saw ankles of the deceased broken by stone and blood coming out from that. Witnesses also saw injuries over the entire body of the deceased. Thereafter, Brijlal was taken to the Harda Hospital but he succumbed to the injuries. His body was subjected to post-mortem examination by PW 12 Dr. R. K. Garg. 3. During the course of investigation, Police seized blood stained earth of the place of occurrence and the stone used in the crime. On the memorandum of accused Jagdish, Ramesh, Ramdayal and accused Ramchandra Lakdi were seized from them. The Patwari prepared the sketch map of the place of occurrence and the articles seized were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After investigation, Police submitted charge sheet against the accused persons who were ultimately committed to the Court of Session. 4. Prosecution in support of its case has altogether examined 16 witnesses of which P.W. 1 Sugna Bai, P.W. 2 Basu Bai, P.W. 3 Kamal Singh, P.W. 4 Murat Singh and P.W. 5 Ram Pyari Bai are the daughter, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, nephew and wife of the deceased respectively. Other two witnesses namely Ram Narayan and Shyam have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 12 Dr. Other two witnesses namely Ram Narayan and Shyam have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 12 Dr. R. K. Garg has conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased Brijlal and had found 16 injuries on his person. In the opinion of the doctor, Brijlal died on account of multiple injuries sustained by him. On the basis of the evidence of the witnesses, the prosecution intended to prove that the death of Brijlal was homicidal in nature and the same has been committed by the accused persons in furtherance of their common object as a member of unlawful assembly. 5. The learned Judge on consideration of the material placed before it held that the death of Brijlal was homicidal in nature but it found that the prosecution has not been able to proof its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the offence has been committed by the accused persons. 6. Mr. S. K. Gangrade, P. L. appears on behalf of the State. Shri Rajendra Singh appears on behalf of the respondents. In fairness to Shri Rajendra Singh, we must state that he has not challenged the finding recorded by the learned Judge while acquitting the accused persons that the death of Brijlal was homicidal in nature. On a perusal of the post-mortem report as also the evidence of P.W. 12 Dr. R. K. Garg, who has conducted the post-mortem examination, there is no doubt that deceased sustained 16 injuries and he died of syncope because of the multiple injuries sustained by him. In view of aforesaid, the finding arrived at by the learned Judge that death of Brijlal was homicidal in nature is correct and the same is affirmed. 7. Mr. Gangrade submits that the trial Court ought not to have disbelieved the evidence of the eye-witnesses only on the ground that they are related to the deceased. Mr. Rajendra Singh, however, appearing on behalf of the accused persons submits that the very assumption of the prosecution that the trial Court had disbelieved the evidence of eye-witnesses on the ground that they are related to the deceased is misconceived. From the reading of the judgment of the learned Judge, it is apparent that he has not rejected the testimony of the eye-witnesses solely on the ground that they are related to the deceased. From the reading of the judgment of the learned Judge, it is apparent that he has not rejected the testimony of the eye-witnesses solely on the ground that they are related to the deceased. Infact, the learned Judge has found various infirmities in their evidence and on that ground rejected their testimony. Infact, the learned Judge was conscious of the correct legal position and has stated that as witnesses are closely related, their evidence has to be assessed with care and caution. We do not find any merit in this submission of Shri Gangrade. 8. It is relevant here to state that in the first information report lodged by P.W. 1 Sugna Bai; she has stated that she was informed by sons of Ram Krishna and Jagdish that accused persons were assaulting her father. However, during the trial, this witness in paragraph 2 has stated that her brother Murat Singh had informed her that their father is being assaulted by the accused persons. It is relevant here to state that occurrence had taken place on 9th May, 1986 and although Murat (PW 4) has stated that he was in the village but his statement was recorded on 15-5-1986. Further, in the statement before the Police, this witness Murat Singh has not stated that he informed P.W. 1 about the incident. According to the first information report, P.W. 1 Sugna Bai was informed about the incident by the sons of Rajaram and Randhir and as such, they are the natural eye-witnesses to the occurrence, but the prosecution has not examined them. Therefore, the claim made by Sugna Bai that she is an eye-witness to the occurrence does not seem probable. P.W. 2 Basu Bai, P.W. 3 Kamal Singh, P.W. 4 Murat Singh and P.W. 5 Rampyari Bai according to their own evidence reached the place of occurrence on the alarm being raised by P. W. 1 Sugna Bai. Having found that Sugna Bai's claim that she is an eye witness to the occurrence; is not true, the evidence of these witnesses who have admittedly gone to the place of occurrence; hearing the alarm of Sugna Bai cannot be accepted. These were the reasons assigned by the learned Judge to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses. Having found that Sugna Bai's claim that she is an eye witness to the occurrence; is not true, the evidence of these witnesses who have admittedly gone to the place of occurrence; hearing the alarm of Sugna Bai cannot be accepted. These were the reasons assigned by the learned Judge to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Judge is one of the possible views which does not call for interference by this Court in appeal against the Judgment of acquittal. 9. While acquitting the accused persons the learned Judge has held that there is undue delay in lodging of the first information report. According to the evidence brought out by the prosecution, Sugna Bai, her father deceased Brijlal along with family members reached Harda Hospital on 9-5-1986 at 12 O' clock and Dr. Garg informed about the incident to the Harda Police Station at 12.10 p.m. P.W. 14 Babulal Gaur the Sub-Inspector of Police has admitted in paragraph 3 of his cross-examination that he reached Harda Hospital at 2 p.m. However, from the perusal of the first information report it is apparent that it was registered on 10-5-1986 at 7 p.m. The learned Judge found that the prosecution has not been able to explain the delay in lodging the first information report. It has further found that copy of the first information report has not been forwarded to the learned Magistrate under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Infirmities aforesaid persuaded the learned Judge to hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. Shri Gangrade, P. L. submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court that copy of the first information report was not sent to the learned Magistrate under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short, is erroneous. In this connection, Shri Gangrade has drawn our attention to the communication dated 10-5-1986 (Ex. P. 31) in which it has been stated as follows :- He has further drawn our attention to the evidence of P.W. 15 K. M. Vyas the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who has stated in paragraph 3 of his Examination-in-Chief that copy of the first information report was forwarded to the concerned Magistrate. 11. P. 31) in which it has been stated as follows :- He has further drawn our attention to the evidence of P.W. 15 K. M. Vyas the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who has stated in paragraph 3 of his Examination-in-Chief that copy of the first information report was forwarded to the concerned Magistrate. 11. There is no evidence as to on what date the aforesaid information was sent to the Magistrate. Nothing has been produced by the prosecution to show that infact the said information was received by the Magistrate. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge is right when he concludes that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the copy of the report was sent to the Magistrate as required under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. We are further of the opinion that the report purportedly sent to the Magistrate and quoted above does not fulfil the requirement of Section 157 of the Code. Section 154 of the Code inter alia provides that every information relating to the commission of cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer incharge of the Police Station shall be reduced in writing and shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. Here in the present case, the first information report was registered on the basis of report given by P.W. 1 Sugna Bai orally. Report (Ex. P/21) contains the manner, the names, the weapons as also the names of the eye-witnesses who had seen the crime. As stated earlier, the report purportedly sent to the Magistrate in compliance of Section 157 of the Code only indicates the person who has committed the crime. The information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, parts played by them, the weapons used and names of the eye-witnesses do not find place in the said report. Section 157 of the Code inter alia provides that an officer incharge of the Police Station when receives information as regard to the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate. Thus, Section 157 of the Code requires an officer incharge of the Police Station to send the report to the learned Magistrate forthwith. 13. Thus, Section 157 of the Code requires an officer incharge of the Police Station to send the report to the learned Magistrate forthwith. 13. Section 158 of the Code inter alia confers power on the State Government to direct submission of the report under Section 157 of the Code through such superior officer of Police as the State Government by general or special order appoints in this behalf. It is relevant here to state that information as regard to the cognizable case is required to be entered in a book as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. Section 157(1) of the Code no where provides that the State Government has been conferred with the power of prescribe a particular mode for submission of the report. Section 157 of the Code requires the officer incharge of the Police Station to forthwith send a report to the Magistrate. Therefore, in our opinion, the information given to the officer incharge of a Police Station under Section 154 of the Code and which is entered in the book prescribed by the State Government has necessarily to be forwarded to the Magistrate under Section 157 of the Code. The information sent to the Magistrate under Section 157 of the Code cannot be different then the information entered in the book prescribed by the State Government under Section 154 of the Code. 14. Regulation 710 of the M. P. Police Regulations provides the procedure for lodging the first information report and compliance of Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It reads as follow :- "710. First Information Report. - When information relating to the commission of any cognizable offence, however, petty, is given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, it will be recorded by him, or in his absence, by the police station writer, in the first information book in the following manner :- (a) In the foil, which must be entered up by the police station officer, when present, the complaint will be recorded word for word as dictated by the informant. This does not mean that the police station officer is prohibited from putting questions to elucidate any point. He must, however, be careful to record the actual words of the informant meant to say. The statement will then be read over to the informant and will be attested by him by signature or thumb impression. This does not mean that the police station officer is prohibited from putting questions to elucidate any point. He must, however, be careful to record the actual words of the informant meant to say. The statement will then be read over to the informant and will be attested by him by signature or thumb impression. It will also be signed by the recording officer. The carbon duplicate of the complaint will be forwarded with the roznamcha to the Superintendent. The original will be attached to the charge sheet if the case is prosecuted. (b) In the counterfoil, which may be entered up by the police station writer, will be entered the details required for the intimation report (Section 157, Criminal Procedure Code). The carbon duplicate will be sent direct to the Sub-Divisional Officer or the magistrate having jurisdiction. The original will remain in the register for record." A plain reading of Regulation 710(b) reveals that the officer incharge of the Police Station is required to enter in the counter foil the details required for the intimation report under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This also provides that the carbon duplicate will be sent direct to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Thus, according to Regulation 710(a) of the Police Regulation, the information given by the informant is to be entered in a foil whereas the details required for intimation report under Section 157 of the Code is required to be entered in the counter foil. 15. With a view to determine whether the first information report was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded the Legislature has provided for certain external checks. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the first information report is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used as also the names of the eye-witnesses if any. One of the external checks is to send the copy of the first information report to the local Magistrate. The need to prompt forwarding of the first information report to a Magistrate is not a mere formality and Section 157 of the Code has been enacted to deny time and opportunity to the prosecution to make improvement and embellishment in the prosecution case. The need to prompt forwarding of the first information report to a Magistrate is not a mere formality and Section 157 of the Code has been enacted to deny time and opportunity to the prosecution to make improvement and embellishment in the prosecution case. It has the solemn function of keeping the Magistrate concerned informed of the investigation of a cognizable offence, to be able to control the investigation and if required to handover direction under Section 159 of the Code. We fail to understand how this external check provided by the Legislature can be achieved if instead of sending the report registered under Section 154 of the Code, officer incharge of the Police Station is allowed to send report other than what has been recorded under Section 154 of the Code. We are of the considered opinion that in case the officer incharge of the Police Station is allowed to send report other than the report recorded under Section 154 of the Code, the whole object underlying Section 157 of the Code shall be frustrated. We would, however, like to observe that non-compliance of Section 157 of the Code itself shall not ipso result into throwing out the prosecution case on this ground alone and it shall depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. We are further astonished to find that statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code has been recorded by the Investigation Officer in plain papers. It is our experience that in majority of the cases, the Investigation Officers do so. Statement made during course of investigation under Section 161 of the Code is used to contradict a prosecution witness and is of utmost importance in criminal prosecution. In case investigation agency is allowed to record statement in plain paper having no definite identity, possibility of its misuse cannot be ruled out. 17. From what has been stated above, we are clearly of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Judge was right in acquitting the accused persons of all the charges. 18. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. 19. 18. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. 19. We further direct that a copy of this Judgment be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Madhya Pradesh and Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, for information.