2013 Supreme(Raj) 900
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
R.S.Chauhan, J.
Kartar & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3882/2012.
Decided On : 01-03-2013
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Advocate.
The court held that the Magistrate had given sufficient reasons for disagreeing with the negative Final Report, that the police were duty-bound to conduct an inquest and post-mortem in the case of an unnatural death, and that the complainant was justified in filing a complaint before the court after the police failed to register a FIR.
Headnote:
COGNIZANCE - OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 201 READ WITH 34 IPC - TAKING COGNIZANCE - REASONS FOR DISAGREEING WITH NEGATIVE FINAL REPORT - SUFFICIENCY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 174 CR.P.C. - DUTY OF POLICE TO CONDUCT INQUEST AND POST-MORTEM IN CASE OF UNNATURAL DEATH - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 482 CR.P.C. - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF COGNIZANCE ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of killing Raman, the son of the complainant, by pushing him into a well along with his tractor. The police submitted a negative Final Report, but the Magistrate took cognizance of the offenses under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC. The petitioners challenged the cognizance order, arguing that the Magistrate had not given sufficient reasons for disagreeing with the Final Report.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Magistrate had given sufficient reasons for disagreeing with the Final Report. The court noted that the Magistrate had considered the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses, as well as the fact that the tractor was found in neutral gear when it was pulled out of the well. The court also noted that the Magistrate had found that the Investigating Officer had misused his powers in order to give a clean-chit to the petitioners.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had given sufficient reasons for disagreeing with the negative Final Report? 2. Whether the police were duty-bound to conduct an inquest and post-mortem in the case of an unnatural death? 3. Whether the complainant was justified in filing a complaint before the court after the police failed to register a FIR?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Magistrate had given sufficient reasons for disagreeing with the Final Report. The court noted that the Magistrate had considered the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses, as well as the fact that the tractor was found in neutral gear when it was pulled out of the well. The court also noted that the Magistrate had found that the Investigating Officer had misused his powers in order to give a clean-chit to the petitioners. 2. The court held that the police were duty-bound to conduct an inquest and post-mortem in the case of an unnatural death. The court noted that Section 174 Cr.P.C. imposes a duty on the police to conduct an inquest and post-mortem in the case of an unnatural death. The court held that the police could not avoid this duty simply because the deceased's father had given an application stating that he did not want an inquest or post-mortem to be conducted. 3. The court held that the complainant was justified in filing a complaint before the court after the police failed to register a FIR. The court noted that the complainant had filed a complaint with the police, but the police had refused to register a FIR. The court held that the complainant was justified in filing a complaint before the court in order to seek justice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the Magistrate's order taking cognizance of the offenses.
JUDGMENT
1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 26.5.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, District Bharatpur and by the order dated 25.9.2012 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Deeg, District Bharatpur, the petitioners have approached this court. By the former order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC. By the latter order, the learned Judge has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners challenging the cognizance order.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Smt. Angoori filed a criminal complaint before the learned Magistrate against the petitioners. In the complaint she claimed that on 30.8.2009 at 9.00 PM, Kartar (petitioner No.1 before this court) came to her house and asked her the whereabouts of Raman, her son. For, Kartar wanted Raman to plough his field. She told Kartar that since her son just had his dinner, he could not go with him. She told him that his son will come to his farm in the morning and plough the field. However, Kartar did not listen to her. He told her that he is taking her son and would drop him back. Saying so, he took her son alongwith their tractor. Around 10.30 at night, Kartar's nephew came to her house and told her that her son had fallen into a well alongwith the tractor. Hearing the noise, numerous villagers rushed to Kartar's farm. When they pulled out Raman's body, there was a sharp injury on his forehead. When they tried to pump-out the water from his stomach, there was no water in his stomach. But he had died. When the tractor was taken out, its gear was in neutral position and lights were off. She further claimed that Kartar and his family members pressurised her husband and her family members to agree that Raman should not be subjected to a post-mortem and that the case should not be reported to the police. She further claimed that on 2.9.2009, the villagers discovered a 4 ft. long iron rod from Kartar's farm. She further claimed that Manoj and Jeetu told her last night that it is Kartar and other petitioners who have killed her son. They also informed her that they saw Kartar, Chaman and two other persons sitting on Raman's tractor. Thus, she believes that the petitioners have killed her son. The said criminal complaint was sent to the Police Station, Deeg for further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the police registered a formal FIR, namely FIR No.612/09, against the petitioners.
3. However, after a thorough investigation, the police submitted a negative Final Report. The complainant filed a protest petition. Her statement was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The statements of her witnesses, Geetam @ Jeetu, Manoj Kumar and Kunwarpal were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. By order dated 26.5.2012, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for aforementioned offences. Since the petitioners were aggrieved by the said order, they filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. However, by order dated 25.9.2012, the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this petition before this court.
4. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, the incident is of intervening night between 30th and 31st August, 2009. The police was immediately informed. The police reached Kartar's farm in the night itself. Jasmat, the husband of the complainant and the father of the deceased, and his other family members gave an application to the police that they neither want to report the matter to the police, nor do they want Raman's body to be subjected to a post-mortem. According to the witnesses and according to the police, no external injury was visible on Raman's body. Thus, the police did not take any action.
5. Secondly, initially on 4.9.2009 Smt. Angoori filed a complaint only against Kartar and
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
