Back
Rajasthan High Court
Tyagi & Sharma, JJ.
Pratap Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 831 of 1971
Decided On : November 02, 1973
It appears that the people had got scared due to the bold and dashing action of the assailants in the broad day light and therefore it was not an easy task far the investigating agency to pick out such persons from the market who could have taken courage to depose against such formidable criminals who could take the life of a man in such a busy locality and that too in broad day light, especially when the accused persons were not by then apprehended and were free to take revenge against any one who could act as eye witness of this incident. It is in this background that we find no substance in the argument of Mr. Mulla that the absence of the witnesses from that locality who must be present at or near the scene of occurrence must create a doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. In these circumstances it is difficult to hold that the absence of the eye witness from the locality where the crime was committed lends a different colour to the prosecution story and makes it doubtful. ( paras 7 & 8 )
Held = Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins a duty on the Police Officers to send the copy of the first information report immediately to the Magistrate concerned. This provision has been enacted by the legislature to provide a safeguard against the danger of introducing coloured version about the incident in the first information report which is undoubtedly a very valuable document in a cognizable offence. But the delay in submitting the first information report before the court in the present case in the light of other circumstances which we will presently discuss is not likely to create a suspicion about the unfairness on the part of the investigating agency.
Held = It is not open to the prosecution to take resort to the provisions of the old Regularations of 1948 to justify the delayed submission of the copy of the Report before the Magistrate which should be promptly presented by the Investigating agency to ensure that the safeguards provided by the Code may not be rendered nugatory The procedure which is being followed by the police authorities to send copies of the first information report to the court of the Magistrate is not consonance with the mandate contained in section 157 Criminal Procedure Code or the Rules made by the State Government under the Police Act. The investigating Officers is must observe meticulous care in sending the copy of this important document to the Magistrate promptly and should not unnecessarily delay the transmission thereof. The Prosecuting Inspector attached to the court of a Magistrate is the representative of the prosecuting agency and not that of the court. Therefore delivery of the copy of the document to such an officer cannot be said to be the submission of the report before the court. ( paras 11 & 12)
2. Both Pratap Singh and Surjaram were the residents of Village Mehrana under Police Station, Bhadra. Surjaram was the Sarpanch of Mehrana village Pan-chayat. It is clear from the evidence that there were two parties in village Mehrana, one headed by Surjaram and the other by Pratap Singh. Criminal as well as civil litigation was going on between Pratap Singh and Surjaram and, therefore, they were obviously on inimical terms. On 5th of October, 1970, P.W. 2 Nanu Singh, Tehsil-dar of Bhadra Tehsil visited Mehrana to check up the electoral rolls which were to be used for the coming panchayat elections. It is said that hot words were exchanged in the presence of the Tehsildar between Pratap Singh and Surjaram on the question of inclusion and deletion of certain names from the voters list. According to the prosecution story, the names of the sons of Kurdaram (P.W. 1) and Maduram (P.W.4) were deleted. On 6th of October, 1970, Surjaram alongwith Kurdaram and Maduram went to Bhadra in his jeep with a view to get the names of the sons of Kurdaram and Maduram again included in the voters list. Of these three persons Surjaram went inside to see the Tehsildar while the other two, namely, Kurdaram and Maduram kept sitting on a Chabutra outside the tehsil building. After 15 or 20 minutes, Surjaram returned from the Tehsildars room and informed Kurdaram that the Tehsildar was busy in some other work and, therefore, they would come to the tehsil after some time. All the three then started for going to the market. According to the prosecution, when the complainant party reached the shop of Surjeet Singh Sethi (P.W. 3) they saw Pratap Singh armed with a .12 bore double barrel gun and Adaram having a Barchhi in his hand coming towards them from eastern side while Budhram, who was armed with a single barrel gun and Juglal who had a Barchhi in his hand, came from the northern side and surrounded Surjaram. Pratap Singh at the point of his gun threw a challenge to Surjaram to be ready to court death. Surja Ram in order to save himself immediately rushed into the shop of Surjeet Singh Sethi, but he was closely followed by Pratap Singh When Surjaram was trying to enter the inner compartment of the shop, Pratap Singh opened a gun fire towards Surjaram from a very close range with a result that the pellets hit the neck of Surjaram and he immediately dropped dead on a durri which was spread in that shop. It is said that Adaram at that time was guarding the eastern door of that shop while the other two associates of Pratap Singh, namely, Budhram and Juglal were standing on the northern door of that shop. Soon after Surjaram died, the assailants left the spot and went towards the north. This incident took place at 11.30 a.m. in the busy commercial locality of Bhadra town. When the assilants left the shop of Surjeet Singh Sethi, Kurdaram and Maduram entered the shop and having found that Surjaram was lying dead, Kurdaram directed Maduram to proceed to Mehrana to inform the relations of deceased Surjaram and he directly went to the Police Station, Bhadra which was hardly 1 Km away from the spot of occurrence to lodge the report of the incident. The first information report (Ex P. 1) was taken down by P.W 10 Anar Singh, Station House Officer and after taking down the report he immediately proceeded to the, spot for further investigation. Shri Anar Singh prepared a panchayatn
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
