A Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence without properly considering the evidence and reasoning, and must have jurisdiction to do so.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 190(1)(B) - SECTION 228(1)(A) AND (B) - SECTION 302/149 IPC - SECTION 326 IPC - SECTION 307 IPC - SECTION 147 IPC - SECTION 148 IPC - SECTION 323 IPC - SECTION 325 IPC - SECTION 169 CRPC - FINAL REPORT - COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - POST-MORTEM INJURIES - BLUNT WEAPON INJURIES - SHARP EDGED WEAPON INJURIES - INDOOR PATIENT - REFERRAL TO HOSPITAL - SUSPICION OF FOUL PLAY - MEDICAL BOARD OPINION - CAUSE OF DEATH - HYPOVACLUMIC AND SHOCK DUE TO DEHYDRATION - NO CLOTTED BLOOD OR HAEMORRHAGE - EYES SHRUNKEN AND DRY - DE-HYDRATION - OCCULAR EVIDENCE - FINAL REPORT - NEGATIVE REPORT - REVISION PETITION - ADMISSION STAGE - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE - POWER TO TAKE COGNIZANCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION - REASONING AND ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE - DIRECT TESTIMONY - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - CONFLICT BETWEEN MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND OCCULAR EVIDENCE - RELIABILITY OF EVIDENCE - CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES - FINAL DECISION - PARTIAL ALLOWANCE OF REVISION PETITION - SETTING ASIDE OF COGNIZANCE ORDER FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 302/149 IPC - NO MATERIAL FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 326 IPC - OTHER OFFENCES TO BE DECIDED BY SESSIONS COURT UNDER SECTION 228(1)(A) AND (B) OF CRPC.
Fact of the Case:

A revision petition was filed challenging the order of a Magistrate taking cognizance of various offences, including murder (Section 302/149 IPC), against the petitioners. The petitioners argued that the police had submitted a final report after investigation, and the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance without properly considering the evidence and reasoning.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Magistrate had not correctly appreciated the evidence on record, particularly with regard to the offence of murder. The medical evidence indicated that the injuries on the deceased's head were post-mortem injuries, and there was no evidence to support the allegation that the petitioners had caused those injuries. The court also noted that the deceased had been admitted as an indoor patient at a government dispensary and was advised to be taken to a hospital for further treatment, but this was not done.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence of murder (Section 302/149 IPC) without properly considering the evidence and reasoning. 2. Whether the medical evidence supported the allegation that the petitioners had caused the deceased's injuries. 3. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the other offences charged against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Magistrate had erred in taking cognizance of the offence of murder, as there was no evidence to support the allegation that the petitioners had caused the deceased's injuries. The court also held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the other offences charged against the petitioners, but that it would be for the Sessions Court to decide whether the case fell under Section 228(1)(a) and (b) of the CrPC and to pass an order accordingly.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the revision petition and set aside the Magistrate's order taking cognizance of the offence of murder. The court also directed that the other offences be decided by the Sessions Court under Section 228(1)(a) and (b) of the CrPC.

JUDGMENT

1. - I am of the opinion that this revision petition should be disposed of the stage of admission

2. This revision petition arises out of the order dated 10th March, 1989, of the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City, in F.l R. No. 69 of 1986 in Criminal Case No. 94 of 1938, taking cognizance of the offence against the accused petitioners in a case in which police after investigation had filed a final report.

3. The revision petition arises on the following circumstances:-

4. First Information Report No. 69/1986, under S. 397 IPC had been registered against the Ramkhilari, who is the informant in this case. It appears that Ramkhilari and few other remained in judicial custody for about 11 years and they had been released on bail. Complainant Ramkhilari, filed a report on 3rd June, 1986, i.e. next date of his release on bail, in the police station, in which it has been stated that as a result of previous enemity on 3 6.1986, in the afternoon all the accused persons, after forming unlawful assembly with the common object in kill him and the members of his family came to his house and encircled the house. Mahendra, his wife was given a blow by sharp edged weapon by Jagan and other accused persons gave lathi blows. Lathi blows were also given to his sister namely Harpati. In the said report, it was also stated by Ramkhilari, that a pharsi blows was given by Jagan to his brother Mukesh, as a result of which he died on the spot. Ramkhilari, has also stated in the said report that his brother had gone to Toda Bhim to attend a marriage caremony. On hearing hues Bharosi, Nihal Singh and Vishram, came for the rescue.

5. A case was registered, the investigation was set in motion and the Medical Officer, Government Dispensary, Mahua, suspected some foul play in so far as the death of Munesh aged about 4 to 5 years is concerned, and therefore, he refused to conduct the post-mortem examination and instead he advised that the post-mortem examination should be conducted by a Medical Board. A Medical Board, was constituted in the General Hospital, Karauli, and the Medical Board, examined the deceased and found the following injuries on his person:-

(1) Oblique lacerated wound 3 c. m. 1/2 cm. upto bone deep on left parietals paet of scalp with no clotting of blood around the wound No gaping of wound. No clotting of blood over the hairs of scalp around the wound with irregular margins. No clotted cover over the surrounding area of wound.

(2) Oblique lacerated wound 1 c. m. x # c. m. upto bond deep of right parietal part of scalp with no dotting of blood around the wound and surrounding areas. No gapping of the wound. No clotting of blood over the hairs of scalp around the sound with irregular margin.

6. All injuries are post-mortem in nature and caused by blunt object.

7. The Medical Board, has opined that the cause of death is hypovaclumic and shock due to dehydration. The bead injuries are post-mortem in nature (after death). The Medical Board, was also of the opinion that the deceased has died as a result of post-mortem injuries caused by blunt weapon.

8. The injuries of Smt. Mahendra wife of Ramkhilari, and Mst. Harpati, his sister were also examined on 3-t--1986. As many as 10 injuries were found on the person of Mrs. Mahendra. All injuries were caused by blunt weapon. All the injuries are simple in nature. X-ray, was advised. One of the injury according to Mr. Tibrewal, learned counsel for the petitioners i.e. injury No. 8, was found to be grievous. Mst Harpati, received as many as two injuries and all are simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon. X-ray was also advised by the Doctor, for one of the injury of Smt. Harpati, which was injury No. 1, on the fore-arm.

9. The police investigated the case and submitted the negative report under S. 169 Cr. P.C. which in this country is know as a final report. Learned Magistrate, considered the final report and under the impugned order dated 10th March, 1988, took the cognizance o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1990 Supreme(Raj) 406

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTM.B.Sharma, J.Shri Phal and anr. - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentS.B. Cr. Rev. Pet. No. 126 of 1988 (Against the order dated 10-3-1989 passed by Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate Hindaun in Cr. Case No. 94 of 1986).Decided On : 17-01-1990

A Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence without properly considering the evidence and reasoning, and must have jurisdiction to do so.

Judicial Analysis

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.B.Sharma, J.
Shri Phal and anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Rev. Pet. No. 126 of 1988 (Against the order dated 10-3-1989 passed by Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate Hindaun in Cr. Case No. 94 of 1986).
Decided On : 17-01-1990