Why this delay when all officers were present, and eye witnesses were present at the spot and the police station was at a distance of two furlongs.
P. 17 on the same day.
Tohid PW 16 to accompany him on his return journey as he sensed danger to his life.
The prosecution further alleged that Rajendra Singh and Chhotey Bhaiya on hearing the gun shot saw the appellant Brajendra armed with a .315 rifle and Awadhesh armed with a 12 bore gun running away along with an other person named Kailash who was also armed with a gun.
Since the Sub Inspector, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police had reached the place of occurrence within few minutes of the incident, the delay in lodging the first information report is highly suspicious.
On reaching the spot he wrote Marg intimation drew up panchnama of the dead body and sent the dead body for post mortem examination and thereafter he recorded Dehati Nalishi Ex.
P. 8 was sent at 5.00 p.m. His statement clearly indicates that the first information report was written after 17.00 hours and it was number recorded at the time it purports to have been lodged.
On hearing the gun shot fire V.P. Pathak, Sub Inspector of Police PW 20 accompanied by Constable Lakhan Singh PW 12 rushed to the spot.
P. 12 at 3.10 p.m. V.P. Pathak, the Sub Inspector sent the Dehati Nalishi to Kot vali Panna through Lakhan Singh, Constable, for recording the first information report.
He asserted that first information report had been recorded at the place of occurrence.
Since names of the assailants were number known the F.I.R. was lodged with delay after deliberation.
According to the prosecution the deceased Ram Pratap Singh had sent Tohid to purchase bus tickets and had directed him to meet him at the Chungi Naka on Ajaigarh Road.
While the deceased, Rajendra Singh and Chhotey Bhaiya were waiting for Tohid near the octroi Post one bus arrived, but the deceased told Rajendra Singh and Chhotey Bhaiya number to travel by that bus as he had apprehension that Raghvendra and his associates may be inside the bus.
He had further told Tohid PW 16 that he was apprehending danger from the accused persons so he would get into bus at the Toll barrier.
1982 one day after the occurrence, iv nature and position of injuries on the body of the deceased were number companysistent with the testimony of eye witnesses having regard to the local site v empty cartridges of .315 rifle which were alleged to have been fixed by Brijesh and 12 bore cartridge was alleged to have been fired by Awadesh accused causing injuries to the deceased, but the same were number sent to ballistic expert for his opinion number he was examined to support the prosecution case, vi unnatural and inconsistent testimony of eye witnesses Rajendra Singh PW 14 and Chhotey Bhaiya PW 15, vii a large number of persons were available at the scene of occurrence at the octroi Toll barrier but numberindependent witness, either employee of the Toll barrier or of Home Guard or any other person was examined to support the prosecution.
Kailash one of the accused was shown absconding.
Before the trial companyrt Rajendra Singh PW 14 and Chhotey Bhaiya PW 15 supported the prosecution case as eye witnesses, they claimed to have witnessed the assault, they further claimed that they had recognised the accused persons.
The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the testimony of these two eye witnesses, be referred to a number of circumstances which made the prosecution story doubtful, therefore, he acquitted the accused.
From the Judgment and order dated 3.9.1986 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
He further stated that Dehati Nalishi was recorded by him after the dead body of the deceased had been sent by him for post mortem examination which according to the document Ex.
Rajendra Singh PW 14 who was armed with a. 275 rifle and Chhotey Bhaiya was armed with a 12 bore gun fired shots towards the assailants.
Rajendra Singh PW 14 gave him information about the incident which was recorded by Pathak, Dehati Nalishi Ex.
There are material companytradictions in the testimony of Rajendra Singh PW.
The assailants also fired towards them, but they escaped.
After drawing the water from the well while the deceased was in the process of drinking water at that precise moment gun shots were fired towards him from the Northern side from the Bari boundary, causing injuries to him in his chest and hand.
The trial companyrt held that the cumulative effect of the following circumstances made the prosecution case doubtful, these are i first information report was number recorded or lodged at the time it purports to have been lodged, ii Rajendra Singh PW 14 and Chhotey Bhaiya PW 15, the two eye witnesses did number give the names of assailants to Tohid, recovery of two cartridges on 5th January.
According to him he was on duty at Collectorate and there he got the news at about 2.30 or 3.00 p.m. that gun shots were fired at Toll barrier on the Ajaigarh Road, he reached there with few minutes along with Lakhan Singh, Constable.
The trial companyrt held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and numberreliance companyld be placed on the testimony of the Rajender Singh PW 14 and Chhotey Bhaiya PW 15.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
After holding inquest, Pathak, the Sub Inspector prepared Panchnama and sent requisition for post mortem examination of the dead body and he also prepared the spot map Ex.
After companypletion of investigation a charge sheet was submitted against five accused persons including the two appellants Brajendra and Awadhesh for trial for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Panel Code.
P. 12.
537 of 1986.
Ram Pratap Singh the deceased sent Tohid to purchase tickets for Bus with a direction that he should meet him at the octroi Toll barrier on the Ajaigarh Road from where he proposed to take the Bus, thereafter the deceased along with Rajendra Singh, PW 14, and Chhotey Bhaiya PW 15 proceeded on foot to Chungi Chowki, octroi Post situate at about two furlongs away from the Collectorate on the Ajaigarh Road.
Rajinder Singh, Ranjit Kumar, N. Jain, and Wasim A. Qadri for the Appellants.
The prosecution further alleged that after the occurrence took place Ram Pratap Singhs dead body was lying near Takhat at the Octroi barrier when Thiod arrived at the scene.
14 and the investigating officer.
On receipt of injuries the deceased ran towards his associates and fell on a takhat near Rajendra Singh and Chhotey Bhaiya.
The prosecution case in brief is that on 4.1.1982 Ram Pratap Singh deceased resident of village Kharoni P.S. Ajaigarh, District Panna had gone to Collectorate Panna to file reply to a show cause numberice issued to him for the cancellation of his gun licence.
936 of 1983.
He met Rajendra Singh PW 14 and Chhotey Bhaiya PW 15 who were waiting.
He requested Rajendra Singh PW 14, Chottey Bhaiya PW 15, and Mohd.
While they were waiting for Tohid, the deceased went for drinking water from a well which was near the road at the octroi Post.
While he was at the Collectorate he numbericed Om Prakash and Raghvendra who were inimical to him, were shadowing him in the Collectorate.
Uma Datta and T.C. Sharma for the Respondents.
After giving instructions to Tohid he proceeded to Chungi Chowki Octroi Post along with Rajendra Singh and Chhotey Bhaiya.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINGH, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 3.9.1986 setting aside the trial companyrts order acquitting the appellants herein and companyvicting them for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Panel Code and sentencing each of them to undergo imprisonment for life.
This view finds support from testimony of Tohid PW 16 and other circumstances.
P. 12 was made by Rajendra Singh at Kotwali.
On appeal by the State Government the High Court disagreed with the reasons recorded by the trial companyrt and placing reliance on the testimony of the eye witnesses, i.e., Rajendra Singh and Chhotey Bhaiya, it allowed the States appeal and set aside the acquittal of the appellants and companyvicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of imprisonment for life to each of them.
The obvious reason appears to be that the names of the assailants were number known as most likely the alleged two eye witnesses had number seen the assailants and they were number present at the scene of occurrence, at the time the shooting took place, in all likelihood, they like, others arrived at the scene after the incident.
The trial companyrt referred to a number of circumstances creating doubt on the credibility of the prosecution story but the High Court differed from those findings and on appraisal of evidence it came to the companyclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
