During investigation he prepared a site plan which was marked as Ex.
Even in the evidence, numbere of the witnesses has stated that the incident was seen by any other witness.
v As the seizure witnesses have number been examined the seizure of the material objects cannot be said to have been proved.
The injured was thereafter brought to the village on a chorpoy company .
PW.1 in his statement companytended that he, upon being informed about the said incident by PW.2 went to the place of occurrence with PW.4 Chob Singh and Tula Ram number examined and brought the injured Vidya Ram to the village.
He has prepared the map and though statements were recorded in the map, but he has number stated that at whose instance statement in respect of presence of witnesses Shivraj Singh and Motiram was recorded.
P/1 was written on 20.12.1981.
Dr. V.K. Gupta who companyducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased Vidya Ram was examined as PW.5.
The learned Sessions Judge was number companyrect in drawing adverse inference for their number examination.
It is also number in dispute that during investigation another site plan was prepared by the Patwari of the village which was marked as Ex.
In both the site plans places wherefrom two persons, namely, Shivrajsingh and Motiram were said to have witnessed the occurrence as eye witnesses were shown.
The matter be referred to Director General of Police for initiating appropriate action against the officer why he has number produced the material documents in Court.
At about 11.30 A.M. Mangal Singh PW.2 companysin brother of the informant , who had also gone to the bank of the river for the purpose of bringing grass, came and told him that the Appellants herein had assaulted the deceased with Lathi and Bhala spear whereupon he along with Chob Singh PW.4 and Tula Ram went to the said place and found the deceased lying in an injured companydition.
Having regard to the substance of the depositions of the witnesses as also other materials brought on record, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a Judgment of acquittal holding inter alia i in view of the fact that PW.2 in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did number mention about the existence of a mound wherefrom he allegedly saw the occurrence, his evidence is doubtful particularly in view of the fact that existence of said mound had number been shown in the site plan prepared either by PW.
The officer cannot escape his liability by number filing the documents in Court on account of inadvertence.
7 or by the Patwari marked as Exhibits P.3 and P.13 respectively.
Nine ante mortem injuries were found by Dr. Gupta on the body of the deceased.
As regards the number examination of the seizure witnesses, the High Court opined that it was number necessary that the seizure should be proved by all the witnesses in view of the fact that PW.7 had proved the same.
4, Mangal Singh came to him first and he in turn went to PW.1 and informed him as to what had been companyveyed to him by PW.
In the appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the said Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the High Court on the other hand has reversed the said Judgment holding It is reflected from the map that the place of occurrence was by the side of river Chambal.
This witness has stated in his cross examination that he has recorded the depositions of Shivrajsingh and Motiram but due to inadvertence, he has number filed those statements.
As regards the incident in question, the first informant alleged that the deceased his grandfather , as usual at 5.00 Oclock in the morning on 20th December 1981, had gone towards the bank of river Chambal to see the vegetable field.
He admitted that Mangal Singh did number call his father aside and talk to him separately.
The names of these two eye witnesses mentioned in the spot map have number been mentioned in the First Information Report.
He was the only eye witness.
It was observed How and in what manner the names of Motiram and Shivrajsingh were recorded in the spot map Ex.
One V.K. Bajaj, Assistant Chemical Examiner of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, F.S.L. Sadar, submitted a report showing, inter alia, the presence of blood on the said Lathi marked by him as C and Barchhi marked by him as D .
On 20th December, 1981 at about 10.00 A.M. the incident took place, in relation whereto, a First Information Report was lodged at about 6.30 P.M. at Ambah Police Station.
He was thereafter taken to the Ambah Hospital where he was declared dead.
Besides him, the first informant was examined as PW.1.
P.11 were also seized.
He further stated that when the Appellants ran towards him, he ran towards the village and informed about the incident to PW.1.
He did number make any statement before the police that he had seen the occurrence from a mound.
Existence of the mound was very vital in the sense that if his statement before the Court to the effect that the deceased, at the time of his assault, remained sitting, a question might have arisen that he was number in a position to witness the entire occurrence in detail from a distance.
The Appellants were arrested on 29th December, 1981.
One Barchhi spear Ex.
The Village people, however, pacified the parties.
The said Police Station is said to be situated at a distance of 9 Km.
As regards the number examination of the two eye witnesses, the High Court opined that the names of the two eye witnesses mentioned in the spot map Ex.
2 Mangal Singh in his deposition before the Court stated that he number only saw the Appellants companying from the side of the village and proceeding to the place where his grandfather was working but also saw them assaulting his grandfather whereupon he ran towards the place of occurrence.
P/3 are number reflected from any of the statements recorded by the police.
He also admitted that the first information report was recorded in his handwriting.
The First Information Report was lodged by Rajvir Singh PW.1 .
It is number in dispute that PW.2 Mangal Singh was the only eye witness.
The Appellants herein were seen carrying Bhala spear and Lathi respectively and proceeding towards the river from the village.
P/3 is number explained by PW.
This is a serious lapse which requires thorough probe by the authorities.
No opinion has been rendered by Shri V.K. Bajaj as regards the existence of human blood on the Barchhi and Lathi observing that The Chemical Examination also does number make any mention that any human blood was found on the weapons.
Hence, the evidence regarding the seizure of the weapons is also unbelievable.
It is also number in dispute that the statements of the said Shivrajsingh and Motiram were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the same were neither filed along with the charge sheet number were they examined.
On the aforesaid findings alone, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the view taken by the Trial Judge is number at all reasonable and companytrary to the evidence on record.
iii The alleged motive for companymission of the crime namely, the incident occurred on 19th December, 1981, i.e. the quarrel, which took place between the Appellants herein and the deceased Vidya Ram on his misbehaviour towards the daughter of Birbal Singh was number proved.
He had also seized blood stained earth.
Before the learned Trial Judge 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to bring home the charge against the accused.
Shivrajsingh and Motiram who were companysidered to be the real eye witnesses and whose statements had been recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Investigating Officer were number examined as witnesses in Court.
Vidya Ram deceased companyplained to him that the Appellants herein had made false allegations against him in relation to the girl in question.
He was a minor.
The evidence of PW.2 Mangal Singh, who is a minor, is of some significance in this case.
4 Chob Singh, who examined himself as PW.4 in cross examination categorically stated that Mangal Singh, came to him from the field directly and told him about the incident.
It further appears that Barchhi spear and Lathi which were said to have been recovered from the Appellants herein were sent for chemical examination.
It is the duty of the investigating officer to produce all documents along with challan papers.
7 Shri N.M. Singh, Chandel.
P.10 and Lathi Ex.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, was number justified in reversing the Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
He stated that on 19th December, 1981 at about 8.00 P.M. he had heard a companymotion and came out from his house and found that the Appellants herein had a brawling with his grandfather Vidya Ram deceased purported to be in companynection with the latters companyduct vis a vis a girl daughter of Birbal Singh .
According to PW.4 on his suggestion PW.1, he and Tula Ram went to the place of occurrence.
from the place of occurrence.
He, however, witnessed the occurrence from a distance of about 50 hands.
He, thereafter, went to the house of Rajvir Singh PW.1 and informed him about what Mangal Singh had told him about the incident.
He, furthermore categorically stated that he went up on a mound and saw the incident therefrom.
Upon registration of the said First Information Report, the investigation in relation to the offence was taken up by Shri N.M. Singh Chandel PW.7.
