The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of recording evidence of all witnesses, the necessity of material indicating guilt of the accused, and the duty of the court to protect and promote citizen's rights and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

G.R. Moolchandani, J.

1. Petitioners have assailed order dated 21.06.2011 passed by Judge, Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar, whereby cognizance order dated 20.04.2011 passed by CJM, Alwar in Criminal Case (Protest Petition) No. 131/2011, has been upheld.

2. Brief facts of the complaint case relates to a protest petition, which was filed by Smt. Beena Gupta wife of Om Prakash Gupta against FR No. 122/2008 arising out of FIR No. 55/2008 registered with Police Station Kotwali, Alwar. Investigating Agency conducting thorough investigation, submitted a negative FR and did not find any offence to have been committed, earlier to it, an inquest was also conducted at the time of unnatural demise of deceased Om Prakash, who was found to have died after consuming organochloro- phosphorus poison since same was detected by FSL and pungent smell of the said poison was also observed, while the patient was admitted and such are the notings on the BHT [Bed Head Ticket].

3. Inquest concluded with a conclusion that nothing abnormal was found and after satisfying, the Investigating Agency submitted a report under Section 174 of CrPC that the death was suicidal and not homicidal, similar was the conclusion of Investigating Agency conducting investigation in respect of FIR No. 55/2008 that nothing abnormal was found and the said death was found to have taken place in suicidal manner, though factum of suspicion that poison was given to the deceased while he was doing chaukidari (night surveillance) at the premises of the accused-persons was expressed.

4. The deceased was a rickshaw-puller, who used to ply rickshaw in the day hours and was occasionally assigned night surveillance i.e. job of chaukidar at the abode of petitioners, lot of evidence is there that deceased was not able to earn handsomely and somehow managing his livelihood by rickshaw-pulling besides doing job of night chaukidari.

5. In the wee hours of 9th August 2007, deceased was found under precarious condition and was found trembling, subsequently was sent to his house by the petitioners. Evidence collected at the time of morgue inquest does show that the patient/deceased was given treatment by some physician and tablet Crocin with a capsule was given to him, surprisingly, no evidence of that physician, who gave primary treatment to the patient/ deceased, has been recorded, even evidence of physician treating the patient/deceased at General Hospital, Alwar, has been recorded by the Court of CJM, Alwar, prior taking cognizance against the accused-persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners has given thrust mainly upon the following:-

(i) The FIR has been lodged belatedly after a lapse of four and a half months, without any cogent explanation.

(ii) That the trial court has taken cognizance without examining all the prosecution witnesses, which was a condition precedent in matters relating to offences triable by sessions, as such, has ignored mandate of law as enshrined under the provisions of Section 202(2) of CrPC.

(iii) Initially at the time of inquest pertaining to morgue enquiry, no allegation was even suspected that the cause of death was homicidal but in order to usurp and extort money from the employer, a bogus story has been concocted to fulfill unlawful ends.

(iv) Nature of poison organo-phosphorus poison (Sulfas) is highly reactive, pungent, emanating offensive smell and its mixture with liquid, leaves fumes, so, it is not possible that it could be given to anybody in clandestine way, without notice of the victim and has relied upon following precedents:-

(i) Ram Gopal vs. State of Maharashtra, (1972) 4 SCC 625

(ii) Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab, (1993) AIR (SC) 151

(iii) Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, (1998) 5 SCC 749

(iv) Rosy and Another vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 230

(v) Inder Mohan Goswami and Another vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1

(vi) Harishchandra Prasad Mani and Others vs.