* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

Crl. Appeal No.09/2007

Reserved on: 20

th August 2007

Date of Decision : 5

th March, 2008

K.P. SINGH

.... Appellant

Through

Mr. Manmohan, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Adv.

versus

STATE & ANR.

.... Respondents

Through

Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State.

Mr. J. P. Dhanda, Adv. for complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers

may be allowed to see the judgment?

Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

%

JUDGMENT

05-03-2008

: MUKUL MUDGAL

,J .

1.

The trial court had delivered the impugned judgment dated 13^th

December, 2006 by which the accused SHO, R.P. Tyagi along with Sub

Inspector Tej Singh and Inspector K.P. Singh were convicted. The appellant in

the present appeal Inspector K.P. Singh was convicted under Section 217 IPC

by judgment and order dated 13^th December, 2006 and sentenced to one year

rigorous imprisonment as well as fine of Rs.25,000/-, by the Additional

Sessions Judge, Karkar Dooma, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “trial

court”) on the ground that there was a 5-1/2 months delay in registering the

FIR.

2.

As per the facts of the case, in the intervening night of 24

th and 25

th

August 1987, two persons Mahender and Ram Kumar were admitted in SDN

hospital having sustained injuries ostensibly due to beatings. Mahender was

shifted to LNJPN hospital where he died at about 2.00 pm on 25

th August

1987. As it appeared an unnatural death, area SDM S.S. Rathore conducted

inquest proceedings and found involvement of the police in the crime and

recommended registration of FIR on 26

th August 1987 against the police of PS

Vivek Vihar for offence under Section 304 IPC. Shri S.S. Rathore, SDM was

then subsequently transferred from the post of SDM. Shri Parimal Rai, the

next SDM submitted his report and after recording statements of several

witnesses. Shri Parimal Rai did not agree with his predecessor SDM and

reached a conclusion in his inquest report that Mahender Kumar had sustained

injuries on being beaten by the public. Though the FIR about this happening

was registered by the accused K. P. Singh himself being FIR No.59/88 but this

was done only when the order of the Lt. Governor of Delhi, was

communicated through the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi. This FIR was

registered on 11

th February 1988 while Mahender Kumar died on 25

th August

1987. Thus, there was a delay of 5 ½ months in the registration of the FIR.

3.

The main plea of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr.

Manmohan is that there were no documents to show that the order of the

superior officer was addressed to and served upon the appellant for the

registration of the FIR. Though the appellant was charged under Section 218

IPC for preparing false documents with the intent to save the accused but

conviction was only recorded under Section 217 IPC which was for 5-1/2

months' delay in registration of FIR.

4.

The learned counsel for the appellant in order to strengthen the

aforementioned plea submitted as under:

(a)

The letter dated 28^th August, 1987 was not addressed to the SHO, Vivek

Vihar whereby directions appear to have been issued by the then SDM,

Shahdara Mr. S.S. Rathore to the SHO, Police Station Shahdara, to register an

FIR. The said letter was never received by the appellant and the same was

endorsed only to the DCP (East).

(b)

It is contended that on 29^th September, 1987, the Lt. Governor, Delhi

issued a direction to the DCP (HQ) to register a criminal case against the

concerned errant police officers. However, a copy of the same was not marked

to the appellant though it was marked to DCP (East).

It is further