Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 315 (MP)

SOBARAN SINGH v. STATE OF M. P.

2012-03-16

G.D.SAXENA, S.K.GANGELE

body2012
JUDGMENT : G. D. SAXENA, J. 1. This appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 preferred by the accused/appellants is directed against a Judgment dated 26th March, 2004 in Sessions Trial No. 8/97 by the Additional Sessions Judge Gohad district Bhind (M.P.), convicting thereby all the accused for causing homicidal death of Narendra in furtherance of their common intention, which is an offence punishable under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing each one of them to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which they were further directed to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment of one-one month. 2. The facts, in short, as came out from the evidence adduced before the learned trial Judge are that on 6th September, 1994 at about 8-9 a.m., in the agricultural fields of village Shekhupura, all the accused surrounded Narendra and pulled him down him on the earth. Thereafter, accused Sardar Khan put his knee on the chest of Narendra and accused Sobaran Singh and Suraj Singh tied his neck by means of a muffler. The said incident was witnessed by Om Prakash (PW-10). On his cry, other witnesses Vishva Nath Sharma (PW-11) and Uday Singh (PW-6) also reached on the spot. Seeing the witnesses coming on the spot, all the accused fled away from the place of incident. After the incident Om Prakash went to the police station, Mau, district Bhind and lodged a report which was registered in the shape of Marg under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code, by Balram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector of the Police Station Mau, who was not examined before the trial Court. Thereafter the Marg was investigated and during investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. After due inquiry on the Marg on 7th August, 1995, an FIR was written by Assistant Sub Inspector Ram Naresh Singh Kushwah (PW-9) and Crime No. 76/1994 was registered against the accused-appellants for commission of offence under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal Court. After committal and trial, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants, as mentioned above, hence this appeal. 3. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the criminal Court. After committal and trial, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants, as mentioned above, hence this appeal. 3. The contention on behalf of the accused/appellants is that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Judge is against the factual aspects as came out from the evidence of the case and also against the settled principles of law. It is contended that at the preliminary stage, the informant lodged the Marg Intimation Report which shows that he was not sure about involvement of the present accused in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the conviction of the accused has been rested merely on the evidence of the informant and other eye-witnesses, who were none else but the family members of the deceased having animus against the accused prior to the incident. It is also pointed out that the statements of the material witnesses were recorded after registration of the FIR probably after one year of the incident which postulates an ulterior motive on the part of the investigation to implicate the accused. Further there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses which whose statements were recorded during inquiry on 6/9/94 and after registration of the crime. Therefore, it is requested that by allowing the appeal, the accused be acquitted of the offences. In support of the arguments aforesaid, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Maharaj Singh vs. Kalu. (1994) 5 SCC 188 , Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur vs. State of Karnataka. AIR 2004 SC 4148 , State Represented by Inspector of Police Tamilnadu vs. Sait @ Krishna Kumar, 2009 AIR (Suppl.) SC 284, Govind vs. State of M. P., AIR 1994 SC 826 and M. C. Ali vs. State of Kerla AIR 2010 SC 1639 . 4. Per contra, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State assisted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court. It is contended that the earlier Inquiry Officer of the case was biased who did not conduct the inquiry properly resultantly, the FIR which should have been lodged at the initial stage, had to wait for a year. It is contended that the earlier Inquiry Officer of the case was biased who did not conduct the inquiry properly resultantly, the FIR which should have been lodged at the initial stage, had to wait for a year. It is submitted that even then such lapse, the offence against the accused is proved by the ocular evidence of the witnesses which duly finds support by the medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence on record. Hence, according to the learned counsel the accused should not be allowed to take the plea of dented investigation for raising their acquittal. Ultimately, by opposing the prayer of the accused, the dismissal of the appeal is prayed for. 5. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the offence against accused/appellants is proved beyond all reasonable doubts justifying thereby findings recorded by the learned trial Judge for convicting and sentencing the appellants in a given case? 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the impugned judgment and evidence on record and the law applicable to the case at hand. 7. In order to appreciate the rival submissions of the parties, let us examine the evidence led before the trial Court. 8. Satyendra Singh (PW-5) deposed that on 6th September 1994 at about 8 a.m., in the morning he and his cousin brother Brijendra Singh went for natural call. During that time, they heard the sound of weeping. When they came out from outskirts of Nalah, they saw accused Sardar Khan placing his knee on the chest of Narendra after holding his both hands tight, who was lying on the ground. He further stated that accused Sobaran Singh and Suraj Singh with intention to kill Narendra were pressing his neck with a muffler. He stated that accused Sobaran Singh was having 12 bore gun with him and due to fear the witnesses did not raise any alarm for help nor did they try to go near to Narendra for saving his life. At that juncture, Om Prakash suddenly came and on his cry to save Narendra from the clutches of accused Sobran Singh, Suraj Singh and Sardar Khan who were intending to kill him, the witness, Brijendra, Vishvanath Sharma dared to rush the place. Seeing the witnesses coming forward, all the accused named above, ran away. At that juncture, Om Prakash suddenly came and on his cry to save Narendra from the clutches of accused Sobran Singh, Suraj Singh and Sardar Khan who were intending to kill him, the witness, Brijendra, Vishvanath Sharma dared to rush the place. Seeing the witnesses coming forward, all the accused named above, ran away. As they reached on the spot, they saw that the neck of the injured was tied with a muffler. They also saw injuries on his neck, chest and right knee. Thereafter, they put Narendra on a tractor-trolley and shifted him to the hospital where the doctor after examining declared him dead. 9. Uday Singh (PW-6), the informant deposed that on 6th September 1994 at about 8-9 a.m., in the morning, he proceeded from his house to the tube-well where he met with Vishwa Nath (PW-11). His elder brother Om Prakash (PW-10) also used to reside near the tube-well, who at that time left away towards the field of Banjara with she-buffaloes. When Om Prakash cried to save Narendra, he and Viswanath Sharma rushed to him. By that time, Brijendra Singh and Satyendra Singh also reached there. Then they saw from a distance that Narendra was lying on the ground and accused Sardar Khan was sitting on the body of Narendra after holding his both hands tight. Accused Sobaran Singh and Suraj Singh were pressing his neck by tying a muffler. At that time, accused Sobaran Singh was having 12 bore gun on his shoulder. When they reached on the spot, all the accused fled away. By that time, Narendra was alive. Then the witnesses lifted Narendra and placed him at the nearby place. The witnesses also saw the injuries on the neck, chest and left knee of the injured. They shifted Natendra on a tractor-trolley to the hospital Mau. The doctor on duty after examining him declared dead. Then the witness Uday Singh (PW-6) went to Police Station Mau and lodged the report. Police prepared Safina Form (Ex.P/8), the memo of dead body (Ex.P/9) and also prepared the spot map vide Ex.P/10. In cross-examination, Uday Singh (PW-6) admitted that during inquiry/investigation, his statements were recorded twice. He denied the contents which were mentioned in his Marg diary statement (Ex.D/1). He also stated that the case was also inquired into by the CID. 10. Police prepared Safina Form (Ex.P/8), the memo of dead body (Ex.P/9) and also prepared the spot map vide Ex.P/10. In cross-examination, Uday Singh (PW-6) admitted that during inquiry/investigation, his statements were recorded twice. He denied the contents which were mentioned in his Marg diary statement (Ex.D/1). He also stated that the case was also inquired into by the CID. 10. Om Prakash (PW-10) deposed that on 6th September 1994 in the morning, he was on the tube-well. At 8 a.m, his nephew Narendra after untying his she-buffaloes carried them for grazing to Banjara field. He also carried his buffaloes from his tube-well for grazing to Banjara field where he saw that accused were beating his nephew Narendra at Banjara field. On his cry, Vishwa Nath Sharma, Uday Singh, Brijendra Singh and Satyendra Singh immediately rushed to the place. Seeing them, the accused fled away from the place of scene. He stated that at that time, accused Sobaran Singh was having 12 bore gun. He saw the injuries on the chest and left rib and left knee of the injured. He stated that when the injured was brought to the hospital on a tractor-trolley, the doctor declared him dead. On his report, the police reached on the spot and prepared the map. This witness was declared hostile to some extent as he denied the seizure of towel cloth belonging to deceased in his presence. Further in cross-examination, he specifically denied the contents of Marg diary-statement (Ex.D/2-A). However, he admitted that firstly he reached on the spot and after him other witnesses had reached there. 11. Vishwa Nath Sharma (PW-11) deposed that on 5th September 1994, just one day before incident, he came to his agricultural field situated within the periphery of Roopavai and Shekhupura area. Due to feeling discomfort he stayed in night at the residence of Om Prakash at tube-well. On 6th September 1994, at about 8 a.m., Om Prakash went to the field of Banjara for grazing his buffaloes. Just after some moments, he heard cry of Om Prakash and so he rushed to the spot. By that time Satyendra, Brijendra Singh and Uday Singh also reached there. He saw that accused were proceeding from Nalah towards village and Narendra was lying seriously injured. They shifted Narendra to the hospital where doctor on duty declared him dead. He also visualized the injuries on the body of Narendra. By that time Satyendra, Brijendra Singh and Uday Singh also reached there. He saw that accused were proceeding from Nalah towards village and Narendra was lying seriously injured. They shifted Narendra to the hospital where doctor on duty declared him dead. He also visualized the injuries on the body of Narendra. However, the witness was declared hostile for limited purpose. On the directions by this Court, his further examination was held on 24th January 2004. In his re-examination he denied filing of the complaint against Investigating Officer and stated that on instigation of Uday Singh, he signed on the papers for submitting a complaint before the Court. 12. Brijendra Singh (PW-16) deposed that on dated 6th September 1994 at about 8 a.m., in the morning, he along with his brother Satyendra went for natural call at Nalah, a place outskirt of the village. On hearing weeping, he went towards the place. Then he saw that Narendra was lying on the earth known as Banjara field and accused Sardar Singh had put his knee on his chest after holding his both hands tight. Other accused Sobaran Singh and Suraj Singh were pressing his neck by tyeing with a muffler (Safee). At that time, accused Sobran Singh was armed with a 12 bore gun. Due to fear the witness, could not raise any shout for help. In the meantime, Om Prakash reached on the spot and on his raising alarm, he Uday Singh, Vishwa Nath Sharma and Satyendra Singh rushed to the spot. Seeing the above persons, all the accused fled away from the spot. The witness stated that when he reached on the spot, he saw that the neck of the injured was tied with a Safee. He shifted injured Narendra to the hospital where he was declared dead by the doctor. 13. Dr. O. P Tengar (PW-14) stated that while he was posted in the Community Health Centre Mau, he conducted the post-mortem on 6th September 1994 at about 12.30 p.m. in the noon over the body of Narendra Singh, s/o Hanumant Singh, aged 15 years, resident of village Shekhupura, district Bhind (M.P.), which was brought by a constable B. R. Singh Kushwaha of Police Station Mau and identified by Uday Singh s/o Man Singh Rajput. On external examination he found : (i) Abrasion admeasuring 3.0 cm. x 1.0 cm. On external examination he found : (i) Abrasion admeasuring 3.0 cm. x 1.0 cm. on calf mussels of right leg; (ii) Abrasion multiple in number size varies from 2.5" to 3.0" in length and linear in width over right side of neck 2" below the ear lobule and 2.2" above the clavicle; (iii) Abrasion 2 in number size 2.2", 2.0" x linear just over the cricoid cartilage; (iv) Contusion 1.5" x 1.0" on the middle sternum. 14. As per the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was strangulation (Asphyxia) and the duration was 4-6 hrs. since death. On dissection of the body, contusion on sternum and echymosed underneath the contusion (rupture of small capillaries and ventricles) with tracheal rings and cricoid cartilage were also found fractured. Pharynx and larynx were congested. The said post-mortem report is Ex.P/10, written and signed by the doctor. 15. Dr. O. P Tengar (PW-14) further deposed that on inquiry by the In-charge of the Police Station in response to a letter No. 2060/1994 dated 5th October 1994 on the two points referred to therein, he gave the same opinion as was given in his post-mortem report. However, the doctor was not sure about nature of death. According to him, mostly strangulations are homicidal for which he made a reference to a Text Book of Forensic Medical and Toxicology, 20th Edition Page No. 157. He further stated that the ligature material used in this case may be soft silky a like Safee or towel. The quarry report is Ex.P/17. 16. Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW-15) Junior Forensic Specialist Medico-legal Institute Gandhi Medical College Bhopal deposed that in reference to a Letter No. 19/94/Bhind dated 28th November 1994 of the Superintendent of Police Bhind seeking his expert opinion in connection with the Query No. 8/94, he after perusing the post-mortem report, all material collected, photographs of the dead body and case-diary statements of the witnesses, was of the view that there was no scientific basis to dis-agree with the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeon. However, as per him, for decision the entire/circumstantial evidence should be taken into consideration. The opinion is Ex.P/18, written and signed by him. 17. However, as per him, for decision the entire/circumstantial evidence should be taken into consideration. The opinion is Ex.P/18, written and signed by him. 17. Ram Naresh Singh Kushwah (PW-9) deposed that on 7th August 1995 about one year after incident, he lodged the FIR (Ex.P/13) after inquiry into Marg No. 8/94 and registered the Crime No. 76/1995 against the accused-appellants for commission of offence under section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. He stated that the investigation in this case was conducted by the In-charge of the Police Station, Mau. 18. Bharat Singh Sikarwar (PW-12) deposed that on 6th September 1994, he was posted as In-charge of the Police Station Mau. On 6th September 1994 he prepared the spot- map (Ex.P./10). On that day he prepared the memo on the spot about the disputed foot-prints vide Ex.P/11. He also seized two pairs of shoes found at a some distance of spot belonging to accused Sobaran Singh and Sardar Khan vide seizure memo Ex.P/7. On 7th September 1994 on production by Om Prakash, he seized the Towel of the deceased having two blood spots by recovery memo Ex.P/12. The witness requested the S.P. Bhind for seeking a detailed opinion on the post-mortem by a Specialist of the Forensic Science. He admitted that on 7th September 1994 when he prepared the spot map (Ex.P/10) he was having Marg report with him. He also admitted that by the time of inquiry, he could not ascertain the names of culprits nor could register the crime. Hakim Singh (PW-13) deposed that the police on 6th September 1994 prepared the spot map (Ex.P/10). On next day on 7th September 1994, the police seized the towel of the deceased having blood spotted in his presence from the spot vide recovery memo (Ex.P/12). On 13th September 1994, the police seized the torn shoes and Chappal by memo (Ex.P/7). The police also prepared the memo of photography of spot on 15th September, 1994. 19. On next day on 7th September 1994, the police seized the towel of the deceased having blood spotted in his presence from the spot vide recovery memo (Ex.P/12). On 13th September 1994, the police seized the torn shoes and Chappal by memo (Ex.P/7). The police also prepared the memo of photography of spot on 15th September, 1994. 19. On perusal of the entire ocular evidence of the witnesses as well as the statement of the Inquiry Officer, namely, Bharat Singh Sikarwar (PW-12) Sub- Inspector/In-charge of the Police Station Mau, district Bhind, it gives an impression that despite report made by Uday Singh (PW-6), he did not attempt to lodge the FIR against the named accused which could ultimately be filed by Ram Naresh Singh Kushwah (PW-9), Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Police Station, Mau after the indulgence by the Higher Authority of the police and then investigation set into motion. It is further taken note of the fact that the Marg Intimation report which was recorded was neither exhibited nor proved by the investigation. Not only that, the Investigating Officer Santosh Singh Gaur who conducted the part of investigation did not appear before the trial Judge for recording his statement to unveil the truth. It is also true that after the incident of murder, the matter was reported immediately to the concerned Police Station but the mandatory provisions of law for recording the FIR under section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code were ignored by the author of the Marg report. This act on his part shows that he was having an ulterior motive to save the culprits and therefore could not lodge the FIR and waited for the instructions of his superiors. 20. At this juncture, it would be apposite to consider the legal provisions of law casting mandatory duty on the Officer-in-charge of the police station in registering information relating to commission of cognizable offences with recent case laws on the subject involved. "Section 154. Information in cognizable cases. 20. At this juncture, it would be apposite to consider the legal provisions of law casting mandatory duty on the Officer-in-charge of the police station in registering information relating to commission of cognizable offences with recent case laws on the subject involved. "Section 154. Information in cognizable cases. - (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in-charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction and be read over to the informant whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) xxxx xxxx xxxx (3) xxxx xxxx xxxx Section 156. Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable cases. - (1) Any officer in-charge of a police station may without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable offence which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XII. (2) xxxx xxxx xxxx (3) xxxx xxxx xxxx Section 157. Procedure for investigation.- (1) if from information received or otherwise an officer in-charge of a police station has reason to suspect 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 empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not below such rank as the State Government may by general or special order prescribe in this behalf, to proceeded to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and if necessary to measures for discovery and arrest of the offender. 21. In the case of Chirra Shivraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 604 , the Hon. Apex Court held :- "So far as the submission with regard to the filing of second FIR is concerned, in our opinion, the said submission cannot be accepted. First Information Report is a report which gives first information with regard to any offence. First Information Report is a report which gives first information with regard to any offence. There cannot be second FIR in respect of the same offence/event because whenever any further information is received by the investigating agency, it is always in furtherance of the First Information Report. Learned counsel appearing for the accused relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of T. T. Antony ( AIR 2001 SC 2637 ) (supra). This Court had examined the said Judgment in the case of Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and others on 26th August, 2010, in Criminal Appeal No. 1599 of 2010 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2077 of 2010 (Reported in 2010 AIR SCW 5126). In the said Judgment, after considering T. T. Antony's (supra) Judgment, this Court observed in para 13 as under : 13. ".......the investigating agency has to proceed only on the information about commission of a cognizable offence which is first entered in the Police Station diary by the Officer In-charge under section 158 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter called the Criminal Procedure Code) and all other subsequent information would be covered by section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the reason that it is the duty of the Investigating Officer not merely to investigate the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and the Investigating Officer has to file one or more reports under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Even after submission of the report under section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the Investigating Officer comes across any further information pertaining to the same incident, he can make further investigation, .........." Even the learned counsel for the appellant could not show that the information with regard to the death of the deceased, which was recorded as second FIR No. 152/99 caused any prejudice to the accused. In the aforestated circumstances, we do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that merely because second FIR was filed, the entire investigation was defective and that should result into acquittal of the accused." 22. In the aforestated circumstances, we do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that merely because second FIR was filed, the entire investigation was defective and that should result into acquittal of the accused." 22. Regarding preparation of the inquest report under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code and its impact with object, the Apex Court in the case of Sambhu Das vs. State of Assam, 2010 AIR SCW 5489 has come to hold :- "The Inquest Report is prepared under section 174, Criminal Procedure Code. The object of the inquest proceedings is to ascertain whether a person has died under unnatural circumstances or an unnatural death and if so, what the cause of death is? The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted, is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under section 174, Criminal Procedure Code. The names of the assailants and the manner of assault are not required to be mentioned in the inquest report. The purpose of preparing the inquest report is for making a note in regard to identification marks of the accused. The inquest report is not a substantive evidence. Mention of the name of the accused and eye-witness in the inquest report is not necessary. Due to non-mentioning of the name of the accused in the inquest report, it cannot be inferred that FIR was not in existence at the time of inquest proceedings. Inquest report and post-mortem report cannot be termed to be substantive evidence and any discrepancy occurring therein can neither be termed to be fatal nor even a suspicious circumstance which would warrant a benefit to the accused and the resultant dismissal of the prosecution case. The contents of the inquest report cannot be termed as evidence, but they can be looked into to test the veracity of the witnesses. When an officer in-charge of Police Station receives information that a person had committed suicide or has been killed or died under suspicious circumstances, he shall inform the matter to the nearest Magistrate to hold Inquest. The contents of the inquest report cannot be termed as evidence, but they can be looked into to test the veracity of the witnesses. When an officer in-charge of Police Station receives information that a person had committed suicide or has been killed or died under suspicious circumstances, he shall inform the matter to the nearest Magistrate to hold Inquest. A criminal case is registered on the basis of information and investigation is commenced under section 157 of Criminal Procedure Code and the information is recorded under section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code and, thereafter, the inquest is held under section 174, Criminal Procedure Code." 23. Again in Brahm Swaroop vs. State of U. P., AIR 2011 SC 280 , it has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the following words :- "The whole purpose of preparing an inquest report under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') is to investigate into and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds as may be found on the body of the deceased and stating as in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument such wounds appear to have been inflicted. For the purpose of holding the inquest it is neither necessary nor obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to investigate into or ascertain who were the persons responsible for the death. The object of the proceedings under section 174, Criminal Procedure Code is merely to ascertain whether a person died under suspicious circumstances or met with an unnatural death and, if so, what was its apparent cause. The question regarding the details of how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of such proceedings i.e. the inquest report is not the statement of any person wherein all the names of the persons accused must be mentioned. Omissions in the inquest report are not sufficient to put the prosecution out of Court. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery etc. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report. The basic purpose of holding an inquest is to report regarding the apparent cause of death, namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental or by some machinery etc. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report. Evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be discarded if their names do not figure in the inquest report, prepared at the earliest point of time. The inquest report cannot be treated as substantive evidence but may be utilised for contradicting the witnesses of inquest. (See Podda Narayana and ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1252 ; Khujji vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853 ; George and ors. vs. State of Kerala and anr., (1998) 4 SCC 605 : ( AIR 1998 SC 1376 ); Shaikh Ayub vs. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 9 SCC 521 : ( AIR 1998 SC 1285 ); Suresh Rai vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 84 : ( AIR 2000 SC 2207 ); Amar Singh vs. Balwinder Singh and ors., (2003) 2 SCC 518 : ( AIR 2003 SC 1164 ); Radha Mohan Singh alias Lal Sahab and ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2006) 2 SCC 450 : ( AIR 2006 SC 951 ); and Aqeel Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 1271 )." In Radha Mohan Singh (supra), a three Judge bench of this Court held : "No argument on the basis of an alleged discrepancy, overwriting, omission or contradiction in the inquest report can be entertained unless the attention of the author thereof is drawn to the said fact and he is given an opportunity to explain when he is examined as a witness in Court." (Emphasis added) Even where, the attention of the author of the inquest is drawn to the alleged discrepancy, overwriting, omission or contradiction in the inquest report and the author in his deposition has also admitted that through a mistake he omitted to mention the crime number in the inquest report, this Court has held that just because the author of the report had not been diligent did not mean that reliable and clinching evidence adduced by the eye-witnesses should be discarded by the Court. (Vide: Dr. Krishna Pal and anr. (Vide: Dr. Krishna Pal and anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1996) 7 SCC 194 ) : ( AIR 1996 SC 733 )." In view of the law referred to hereinabove it cannot be held that any omission or discrepancy in the inquest is fatal to the prosecution's case and such omissions would necessarily lead to the inference that FIR is ante-timed. Shri N. K. Sharma Sub Inspector (PW.7) had denied the suggestion made by defence that till the time of preparing the report the names of the accused persons were not available. He further stated that the column for filling up the nature of weapons used in the crime was left open as it could be ascertained only by the Doctor what weapons had been used in the crime. Thus, the submissions made in this regard are preposterous." 24. Having gone through the afore-cited cases, their bare perusal clearly enlightens that the object of the proceedings under section 174 is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased is assaulted or who has assaulted him or under what circumstances he is assaulted appears to us to be foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under section 174. In these circumstances, therefore, neither in practice nor in law is it necessary for the police to have mentioned these details in the inquest report. 25. Now considering the entire ocular evidence and statement of Inquiry Officer Bharat Singh Sikarwar, it is manifestly clear that he with an ulterior motive travelled out of the limits of section 174 to section 176 of Criminal Procedure Code. After the Marg Report was recorded, he was expected to follow the procedure as contemplated in section 157 of Criminal Procedure Code but he failed to do so. It is further clear from the decisions adumbrated above that even if he had made an inquiry from the witnesses so summoned under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code and had reduced in writing their statements, but those statements would not come within the preview of the statements recorded under section 162 of Criminal Procedure Code and they cannot be used for the purpose of assailing contradictions or omissions crept therein by the defence. It is also pertinent to mention here that after lodging of the formal FIR the author have not recorded the case-diary statements of any of the eye-witnesses. He did not pay any heed to the post-mortem report and the opinion of the Scientific Expert. His only aim appeared to be to save the real culprits. The reality came out after interference in the matter by the Inspector General of the division and only after his direction, the investigation could be completed and the charge-sheet could be filed before the criminal Courts. 26. It is well settled that when information regarding a cognizable offence is furnished to the police such information has to be regarded as the FIR and all enquiries held by the police subsequent thereto would be treated as investigation, even though the formal registration of the FIR takes place only later. The provisions under section 175 of Criminal Procedure Code, clearly mention that a police officer proceeding under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code may by writing summon two or more persons as aforesaid for the purpose of the said investigation and any other person who appears to be acquainted with the facts of the case and every other person so summoned shall be bound to attend and to answer truly all questions other than questions the answer to which would have a tendency to expose him to a charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. Further the provisions under section 161 make it clear that no statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of investigation shall if reduced to writing be signed by the person making it. 27. At this stage, facing the unfortunate episode of the present case, we could not restrain to ourselves by observing that not only fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 21 (sic : 22) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in all cases, the investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. The investigation agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. The Investigating Officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspension as to its genuineness. The investigation agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. The Investigating Officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspension as to its genuineness. He is not merely to bolster-up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth. 28. Considering the scenario of the case at hand, the question calls for consideration is whether the defective tainted investigation conducted with ulterior motive to save the accused will help the accused for their honourable acquittal ? 29. In the case of C. Muniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2010 SC 3718 it has been held :- "Serious issues have been raised by learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, submitting that inquest report was defective as there has been much irregularity in the inquest itself. Undoubtedly, three Investigating Officers, namely, T. Shanmugaiah, Police Inspector (PW. 116); S. Palanimuthu (PW.121); and John Basha (PW.122) had conducted the investigation at the initial stage. The occurrence was so ugly and awful that the I.Os. had conducted the investigation under great anxiety and tension. The seizure memos were also prepared in the same state of affairs. Therefore, when the investigation had been conducted in such a charged atmosphere, some irregularities were bound to occur. There is ample evidence on record to show that after burning of the University bus, when the students came to know that three girls had been charred and large number of girl students had suffered burn injuries, they became so violent that they damaged the ambulance which had been brought to take bodies of the deceased girls for conducting autopsy. The State Authorities, after keeping all these factors in mind and realizing that the investigation had not been conducted in proper manner, had taken a decision to transfer the investigation to the CBCID. Therefore, the irregularities committed in the investigation by the earlier I.Os. has too little relevance on the merits of the case. The evidence collected by the said three I. Os. was not worth placing reliance on and has rightly been not relied upon by the subsequent Investigating Officer. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. Therefore, the irregularities committed in the investigation by the earlier I.Os. has too little relevance on the merits of the case. The evidence collected by the said three I. Os. was not worth placing reliance on and has rightly been not relied upon by the subsequent Investigating Officer. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the I.O. and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the Court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. (Vide Chandra Kanth Lakshmi vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 220 ; Karnel Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1995) 5 SCC 518 : ( AIR 1995 SC 2472 : 1995 AIR SCW 3644); Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 1850 : (1998 AIR SCW 1647); Paras Yadav vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1999 SC 644 : (1999 AIR SCW 296); State of Karnataka vs. K. Yarappa Reddy, AIR 2000 SC 185 : (1999 AIR SCW 4276); Amar Singh vs. Balwinder Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1164 : (2003 AIR SCW 717); Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2002 SC 1051 : (2002 AIR SCW 781); and Ram Bali vs. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 2329 : (2004 AIR SCW 2748). 30. 30. After due consideration on factual aspects and the law, it appears that despite of the defective investigation which supports the accused the Court statements of the eye-witnesses are fully supported by the medical evidence (particularly statements of the doctor performing post-mortem and the expert opinion of the State Forensic Science Institute Bhopal). Thus, according to us, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses taken as a whole after giving due premium to the defence version inspires confidence and we have no hesitation in the facts and circumstances of the case that the charge against the appellants has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is significant to notice that except a stout denial, the defence has not put forward any positive case. Eventually, we are of the considered view that the prosecution succeeded to prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The Judgment of conviction and sentence is confirmed in toto and appeal of the accused/appellants are dismissed hereby. The bailed out accused shall surrender before the trial Court within a course of one month else the trial Court will adopt all measurements for sending the bailed out accused into gallows for serving the rest period of their sentence as awarded by the learned trial Judge under the impugned judgment.