1950 Supreme(Raj) 165
Rajasthan High Court
Gupta and Dutt, JJ.
Sheo Dan and others - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1950
Decided On : October 30, 1950
Than Chand, Advocate for Appellants; Laxmi Narain, Asst. Govt. Advocate for State
Headnote:Criminal P.C., Sec. 154-Failure to observe procedure will not make F.I.R. inadmissibleCriminal P.C., S. 154—F.I.R.—All statements to police before starting of investigations are F.I.Rs.Evidence Act. s. 32—Dying declarations, mode of proof—Absence of signature will not make it inadmissible.Criminal Practice—Benefit of doubt regarding one accused cannot become reason for acquittal of all.
Section 154 is a rule of procedure to be observed by the police in recording the first information report. If this rule of procedure is not adopted, the question of the admissibility of the report will not be affected. It may affect the credit that is to be given to the report but, nevertheless, the report will be admissible in evidence.
All statements whether one or more, relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, made to "the police before the commencement of the investigation, are admissible in evidence at an inquiry or trial for the purposes of corroboration or contradiction. All such statements can very well be defined as first information reports.
Where, however, the Sub-Inspector police, on receiving information of the crime started towards the place of occurrence but was met in the way by some persons who were taking the injured to the Police Station and there-v after a report was drawn up by one C who was called by the Sub-Inspector to act as a Motbir in the investigation, it was held that such report cannot be treated as the first information report.
The only satisfactory and reliable method of proving a dying declaration is to let the person who recorded it or in whose presence it was recorded, directly prove the writing itself by swearing that the dying declaration contains the words that were actually used by the deceased.
It is not necessary that it must be signed by the deceased though his signature will increase its evidentiary value.
2. The occurrence took place on the morning of the 7th of December 1948 in front of the main gate of the Raoli Pole, situated in the village of Tokarla. According to the story, as related by the prosecution witnesses, Ganesh Dan deceased and Kalyan Dan deceased, along with Fateh Dan, P.W. 6, and Jagannath Brahmin P.W. 8 were sitting on a Chabutri of the common fire place, just adjacent to the main gate of the Pole, inside which the houses of both the deceased are situated. Ganesh Dan was cleaning his teeth with a datoon. Mst. Kalyan Kanwar P.W. 16, Ganesh Dans daughters daughter, came out of the Pole and requested her maternal grand father to come to the he use and take his tea. Ganesh Dan asked her to wait so that he may finish with his datoon. After a few minutes she again asked Ganesh Dan to make haste. In the meantime, while she was pressing him to come to the house, all the four appellants, along with four others, Manohar Dan S/o Sumer Dan, Kan Dan S/o Mahesh Dan, Gurnan Dan S/o Pusa Dan and Badri Dan S/o Lal Dan, heavily armed with unsheathed swords in their hands, emerged from a lane just adjacent to (the Pole. No sooner these eight persons reached the spot, they began to strike blows with swords in their hands, on Ganesh Dan. Ganesh Dan tried to run away from the place, but he was over-powered by the assailants, was brought to the ground, and was very badly injured by the simultaneous sword blows given by all of them. Kalyan Dan and Fateh Dan rushed to rescue Ganesh Dan,but they were also attacked by the assailants, and were given severe sword cuts, as a result of which Kalyan Dans hand wan cut off and severed from his fore-arm; The assailants then ran away from the place of occurrence to their houses.
3. It is, more or less, admitted by both the parties, that there were two hostile camps at Tokarla, and that both the deceased and all the assailants, belong to the opposite camps. Although some litigation civil and criminal, was going on between the parties since a pretty long time, but the immediate cause, that annoyed and prompted the assailants to commit the offence, was the help given by Ganesh Dan deceased, to Bhura Ganchi P.W. 1, against Ram Dan convict, in the prosecution of the latter for an indecent assault committed by him on the niece of the former. It is stated by the prosecution witnesses that about twenty days before the occurrence, the above mentioned indecent assault was committed, and Ganesh Dan, in order to take his enemies, prompted Bhura to report the matter to the police, and he himself actually accompanied Bhura to the police station for lodging the report, the result of which was that Ram Dan was arrested by the police and challaned for the offence of outraging the modesty of the girl. Ram Dan was admitted to bail by the Magistrate and only one or two days after his admission to bail, the present occurrence took place.
4. About half an hour after the occurrence, Bhura Ganchi P.W. 1 and Badri Dan s/o Fateh Dan were sent by Ajit Dan P.W. 10 to the Police Station at Magartalao, to lodge the report of the incident. Ajit Dan is the brother of Ganesh Dan, who reached the spot just aft