Hi Guest, You are using a Trial - Expire on , Click Here to Subscribe to Upgrade your Plan!

2006 2 Crimes(HC) 48

2006 (2) Crimes 48
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (DB)
A.K. Gohil & S.A. Naqvi, JJ.
State of M.P.—Appellant
versus
Sant Ravindra Das Guru Swaroopanand & Ors.—Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 91
Decided on 10-11-2005

IMPORTANT POINTS
1.Recording of FIR by police officer in a cognizable offence is a mandatory requirement and it is not permissible that it should be recorded after due deliberations or after inspection of spot.
2.When two views are possible from same set of evidence and if it is found that view taken by trial court is also possible, scope of interference in such an appeal against acquittal is very limited and there cannot be any interference by Court unless findings recorded by trial Court are found to be perverse and contrary to evidence on record.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 154, 157 — Prosecution of respondents accused person for causing death of one person and injury to one other by firing gun shots — Acquittal by Trial Court on basis of evidence on record — Appeal against acquittal — Statements of PW 6 injured witness and PW 7 eyewitness recorded twice or thrice but contradictory versions found in each of them — Evidence of PW 6 and PW 7 not trustworthy and reliable — Recording of FIR by police officer in a cognizable offence is a mandatory requirement and it is not permissible that it should be recorded after due deliberations or after inspection of spot — Evidence on record to show that P7 went to police station to lodge report but Investigating Officer proceeded to spot to investigate matter without recording FIR — No documentary evidence placed on record by prosecution to prove compliance of Section 154 CrPC or 157 CrPC — No copies of Roznamcha entries produced by prosecution to prove on what information Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot — Prosecution case neither supported by First Investigating Officer nor by second Investigating Officer — No lathi injuries found on body of injured witness — No clinching, cogent or sufficient evidence regarding formation of unlawful assembly by respondents — Evidence of all witnesses contradictory to each other — Allegations against

       respondent not proved beyond reasonable doubt — Trial Court rightly recorded findings of acquittal — Impugned judgment of trial court not liable to be interfered with.(Paras 11, 12, 14 to 16)

       Facts of the case :

       A.The respondent herein in the instant case were prosecuted u/ss. 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC for causing death of one person and injuries to another by firing at them. The Trial Court acquitted respondents on appreciation of evidence on record.

       B.Present appeal has been filed against said judgment of

       Trial Court acquitting respondents.

       C.Findings of the Court : The Court held that recording of FIR by police officer in a cognizable offence is a mandatory requirement and it is not permissible that it should be recorded after due deliberations or after inspection of spot. Evidence on record to show that PW 7 went to police station to lodge report but Investigating Officer proceeded spot to investigate matter without recording FIR. No documentary evidence was placed on record by prosecution to prove compliance of Section 154 Cr.P.C. or 157 Cr.P.C. No copies of Roznamcha entries were produced by prosecution to prove on what information Investigating Officer proceeded to spot. Prosecution case was neither supported by first

       investigating officer nor by

       second investigating officer. No lathi injuries were found on body of injured witness. There was no clinching, cogent or sufficient evidence regarding formation of unlawful assembly by respondents. Allegations against respondents were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Trial Court rightly recorded findings of acquittal. Held, that impugned judgment of trial court was not liable to be interfered with.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

Act Referred :
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.154, S.157
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.147, S.148, S.302, S.149, S.307

Cases Referred:

Counsel for the parties :
For the Appellant : Shri C.S. Dixit, P.P.
For the Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 : Shri B.K. Kulshrestha, Advocate.
For other Respondents : Shri J.P. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Shri Atul Gupa, Advocate.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas