N.C. SHARMA, J.—The prosecution came with a case that on April 6,1981 at about 11 or 11.30 p.m. Mohd. Rafique P.W 1, after taking his meals, had gone to the shop of Ilias to purchase beetle and while he was returning after taking beetle to his house through a lane behind the house of Valiulla-khan, two persons were sitting upon a chabutra to whom he could not identify. He had proceeded about 3-4 steps forward that the two persons came on his back side and caught hold of him by their hands. They dragged Mohd. Rafique in the darkness in the lane. He gave kicks to release his both hands and kicked one of the persons and that person fell down. The other person thereupon inflicted injury on the neck of Mohd. Rafique by a dagger. He fell down. In the meanwhile wife of Bhoora Mistri and several other persons reached on the spot. The injured Mohd. .Rafique identified the appealllant as the assailant and when Rafique identified the appellant as the assailant and when the women-folk reached at the place of the incident, these three assailants took to their heels. The injured Mohd. Rafique was shifted to Government Hospital where he was given treatment. It was as late as on April 10,1981 that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Mohd. Rafique and on that basis registered a case under section 307 IPC.

2. The case was committed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge Tonk, after trial, decided the case on August 11.1982 and held the appellant guilty for the offence Under section 324 IPC and sentenced him to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of a Rs. 500/-. The convict Varis Ali has come on an appeal to this Court.

3. In para 13 of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Tonk, has mentioned that the Investigating Officer did not show any interest in the investigation of the case and was not responsible towards performance of his duties as a police Officer to properly investigate the crime. He has de-pored the tendency of the Investigating Officers to remain quiet and inactive in such serious offences and that he even did not attempt to recover the weapon from the possession of the appellant. The Investigating Officer also did not get the appellant identified in any identification proceedings. It is this attitude of the Investigating Officer and this height of irresponsibility, which results in the giving of benefit of doubt to the appellant. The investigation of the crime as well as its prosecution are wholly tainted.

4. It is clear from the evidence that the injured did not know the assailants from before. Two of the culprits had came from behind and one of them fell down as a result of the kick given by the appellant. One of the assailants, namely, the appellant inflicted dagger blow on the body of Mohd. Rafique. The prosecution did not examine Ilias shop-owner from where the injured had taken the beetle. It was a mere conjecture and speculation of the Sessions Judge that the assailant was the appellant. Admittedly the assailant had covered his mouth by a piece of cloth. There was no past enmity between the appellant and the injured. The woman-folk said to have assembled were not the least examined by the prosecution. As already stated, no identification proceedings were held. The Investigating Officer did not make any attempt whatsoever to recover the weapon of offence and the get chemical examination report about the presence of the blood of the injured on it and nor of the bloodstains on the dagger were got chemically examined. Even if non else was present at the time of the incident, the prosecution should have adduced corroborative evidence which was available to it like the testimony of Ilias, the holding of identification proceedings of the appellant and the recovery of the weapon of offence and sending it for chemical examination. Are these Station House Officers of Police Stations in this State paid their salary from the echequer only for s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document