Gauhati High Court
Sri Joyram Choudhury vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 21 December, 2022
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010012022020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./82/2020
SRI JOYRAM CHOUDHURY
S/O- GOLOK CHOUDHURY, R/O- VILL.- DAGAOH, P.S. RANGIA, DIST.-
KAMRUP, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REP. BY P.P., ASSAM
2:SRI SUBAN CHOUDHURY
S/O- LATE DANDA RAM CHOUDHURY
R/O- VILL.- ATHARA
P.S. RANGIA
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
For the Appellant : Mr. N. Mahajan, Adv.
For the Respondents : Ms. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Adv. & APP, Assam
Mr. J. Das, Adv.
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
Date of hearing : 17/11/2022.
Date of judgement : 21/12/2022.
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Page No.# 2/13
Suman Shyam, J
1. Heard Mr. N. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel and APP, Assam, assisted by Mr. J. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Assam. None has appeared on behalf of the informant/respondent no. 2.
2. By the impugned judgement dated 21/12/2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Rangia, in connection with sessions case No. 238/2013, the sole appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the murder of deceased Danda Choudhury and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
3. On 26/10/2006, Smt. Suban Choudhury i.e. the wife of the deceased Danda Choudhury, had lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Rangia Police Station reporting that at about 9-30 p.m. on that day, accused Joyram Choudhury, accompanied by his first son Sri Kamal Choudhury, who were waiting in ambush in their gateway, had attacked her husband Danda Choudhury dealing blows on his head with a "bamboo lathi", causing grievous injury on him. The son of the victim i.e. Sri Digen Choudhury, who was accompanying his father, had screamed. Hearing him screaming, the neighbours as well as the family member of the injured rushed to the place of occurrence and found that the victim was lying there in a moribund state. The injured was then taken to the Rangia C.H.C. through the Police Station but he succumbed to his injuries at the hospital.
4. On receipt of the ejahar dated 26/10/2006, Rangia P.S. Case No. 497/2006 was registered against the appellant Joyram Choudhury and his son Kamal Choudhury under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the matter was taken up for investigation. On completion of investigation, Police had submitted charge sheet against the appellant Joyram Choudhury and his son Kamal Choudhury. Accused Kamal Choudhury was declared as an absconder. Based on the charge sheet submitted by the Police, charge was framed under sections 302/34 of the IPC which was read over and explained to the accused Joyram, to which, he had pleaded not guilty. As such, the accused was made to face trial. The son of the appellant Sri Kamal Choudhury is still absconding Page No.# 3/13
5. The prosecution case is heavily based on the testimony of Sri Digen Choudhury i.e. the son of the deceased, who was accompanying his father at the time of the occurrence. He was examined as PW-5. Apart from the PW-5, the prosecution had examined 7 (seven) other witnesses including the informant Smt. Suban Choudhury (PW-1), Dr. Rituraj Chaliha (PW-3) who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body, Sri Jatin Chandra Nath (PW-
7) and Md. Mukib Ali (PW-8), the Investigating Officers who had conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet in the aforesaid Police case.
6. After recording the evidence of the prosecution side, the statement of the appellant Joyram Choudhury was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., whereby, he had denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him. In his statement recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant had also stated that there was a dispute between him and the deceased Danda Choudhury over purchase of a plot of land and they wanted to oust him from that place. He was once severely beaten and injured but he did not file any case as it was settled by the village 'bichar'. All his valuables were looted and his house was burnt down. Danda Choudhury was cremated in his land i.e. the place in which his house was standing. The ornaments were also looted by them. However, he did not know how Danda Choudhury died as he was not in the village but was away in connection with his duty at Chandrapur Police Station, where he was posted. The appellant/accused had also taken the plea of alibi and examined two witnesses, viz. DW-1 and DW-2 in support of the above plea.
7. On consideration the evidence brought on record by the prosecution as well as the defence side, the learned trial Court was of the view that the charge brought against the appellant Joyram Choudhury under Section 302 of the IPC was established beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the appellant had failed to prove the plea of alibi. Consequently, by the impugned judgement dated 21/12/2019 passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant was convicted u/s. 302 IPC for committing the murder of Danda Choudhury and sentenced as aforesaid.
8. By referring to the materials available on record, Mr. Mahajan has argued that although PW-5 has been treated as an eye witness, yet, since he did not make any attempt to protect his father from the assailants, the conduct of PW-5, on the face of an attack made upon his father, is very un-natural and, therefore, raises a serious doubt as to the veracity of the testimony of this witness. Mr. Mahajan has relied upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Page No.# 4/13 Supreme Court rendered in the case of Meharaj Singh (L/Nk) Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1994) 5 SCC 188 as well as Amar Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 19 SCC 165, to contend that un-natural conduct of a witness would be sufficient ground to discard his testimony as unreliable.
9. By contending that there was un-explained delay of four days on the part of the learned Magistrate in putting his/her signature on the FIR, Mr. Mahajan submits that this is a clear case where the FIR dated 26/10/2006 has been ante-timed only to introduce an eye witness to the occurrence, although in reality, there was none. Mr. Mahajan has also argued that there is material contradiction in the testimony of PW-5 inasmuch as, although he has stated before the Police claiming to have seen the occurrence, yet, he has mentioned about only one blow being dealt on the head of his deceased father. However, during his deposition before the Court, this witness has mentioned about multiple injuries. Therefore, it is clear that this witness has changed his version after coming to know about the post-mortem report. As such, submits Mr. Mahajan, the testimony of PW-5 is liable to be discarded.
10. To sum up his argument, Mr. Mahajan has submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the evidence adduced by the other prosecution witnesses is not sufficient to establish each link in the chain of circumstances so as to establish the guilt of the appellant. On the contrary, the evidence of DW-1, according to Mr. Mahajan, has proved the plea of alibi raised by the appellant. Therefore, the present is a fit case for acquittal. To bring home his above arguments, Mr. Mahajan has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jurmi and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 11 SCC 355.
11. Responding to the above, Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned APP, Assam, appearing for the State, has argued that it is established from the evidence on recorded that PW-5 i.e. the son of the deceased, was accompanying him at the time of occurrence and, therefore, he was a natural eye witness to the occurrence. According to Ms. Bhuyan, the learned trial Court has rightly treated the PW-5 as an eye witness to the occurrence and relied upon his testimony to convict the appellant. Ms. Bhuyan has further argued that PW-1, upon hearing her son screaming, had immediately rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the accused persons. According to Ms. Bhuyan, the prosecution has succeeded in adducing sufficient evidence to establish the charge brought against the accused. On the contrary, although the Page No.# 5/13 accused/appellant had taken the plea of alibi, he could not prove the same in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgement dated 21/12/2019, passed by the learned trial Court.
12. By placing reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Umesh Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 15 SCC 393 as well as Narayan Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in (1997) SCC (Cri) 261, Ms. Bhuyan submits that the conduct of a witness in such situation would depend on several factors including the mental condition of the person and it is possible that being perplexed with the occurrence, some witnesses may behave in an unusual manner. Coming to the facts of this case, Ms. Bhuyan submits that there is nothing un-natural in the behavior of PW-5 and there is no valid ground to discard his testimony.
13. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the materials available on record.
14. We have already noted herein before that Smt. Suban Choudhury i.e. the wife of the deceased had lodged the ejahar on 26/10/2006. She was examined as PW-1. This witness has deposed that Ext. 1 is the ejahar lodged by her which bears her signature Ext.1(1). She has stated that on 26/10/2006, at around 9-30 p.m., her husband Danda Choudhury and son Digen had gone to the house of Kanteswar Choudhury who lives in front of their house. After spending a little time there, when her husband and son were returning home, at that time, Joyram Choudhury and his son Kamal Choudhury, who were waiting in an ambush in front of their house, came out and started beating her husband with a 3 feet long bamboo stick in front of the gateway of Phatik Choudhaury. When her son Digen Choudhury raised an alarm, she came out and saw that Joyram Choudhury and Kamal Choudhury were beating her husband. When she raised alarm, neighbours arrived and at that time, the accused persons fled away. Thereafter, she along with others, took her injured husband home. His head cracked and blood was oozing out. As such, head of her husband was wiped with water and then he was taken to the Police Station. The Police had sent him to the Rangia Medical College and from there, he was referred to the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH). However, the victim had died before he could reach the Rangia Hospital from the Police Station. Post-mortem examination on the dead body of the victim was conducted at the GMCH at Guwahati. This witness has also stated that her husband had sustained injuries in Page No.# 6/13 the head and chest and that there was a dispute with the accused persons regarding land. About three months prior to the incident, the villagers had made both parties amicably settle the dispute and accordingly, they had withdrawn their respective cases.
15. During her cross-examination, the PW-1 had remained firm and maintained that she had herself witnessed the presence of Joyram Choudhury and Kamal Choudhury at the place of the occurrence. PW-1 had denied the suggestion that someone else had killed her husband due to some previous grudge.
16. Sri Kanteswar Choudhury was examined as PW-2. He has deposed that on 26/10/2006 at around 9-30 p.m. Danda Choudhury and his son Digen Choudhury had come to his house. At that time, he was sleeping. They told him that they had some business with him but when he replied that he was sleeping, they left the place. After about three minutes, he heard cries of Digen saying that his father had been assaulted by Joyram Choudhury and his son. He immediately got up from the bed and went to the place of occurrence. This witness has stated that the incident took place on the road, in front of the doorway of Phatik Choudhury's house, which is situated at a distance of about 150 meters away from his house and the house of Joyram Choudhury was situated in front of Phatik Choudhury's house. On reaching the place of occurrence, he saw Joyram and Kamal were running away from there. Joyram had a stick in his hand. Another stick was lying at the place of the incident. Danda Choudhury was lying in the ground. There was blood coming out from the wounds he had sustained on his head. He saw injuries on his chest. At that time, the victim was breathing mildly but he was not in a position to speak. His son Digen was weeping by his side. Digen's mother, neighbour Madan Choudhury and Danda's younger brother Paresh Choudhury had also arrived at the place of occurrence. Others also reached the place. Thereafter, injured Danda was lifted and taken to his house. Later on, he was taken to Rangia Police Station in a car wherefrom, the victim was brought to the Rangia Bangaon Hospital. After examining him, the Doctor declared him dead. Later on, Danda was taken to GMCH for post-mortem examination.
17. During his cross-examination, PW-2 has admitted that he is an accused in a case instituted in connection with setting the house of Joyram on fire. He has, however, denied the suggestion that Danda was cremated in the court-yard of Joyram. PW-2 has admitted that Joyram's house was gutted in fire and after that, he (Joyram) was staying in his old house.
Page No.# 7/13
18. Sri Niren Choudhury i.e. the brother of the deceased, was examined as PW-4. He has also deposed that the incident took place on 26/10/2006 at about 9-30 p.m. At that time, he was watching TV in his house. The house of the deceased is situated by the side of his house. While he was watching TV, he had heard his nephew Digen screaming that his father has been assaulted. Hearing such scream, he came out of the house and saw that Danda Choudhury was lying in front of the gateway of Phatik Choudhury's house. He had also noticed injury on Danda's head. He had seen Digen inside the boundary of Phatik Choudhury's land. PW-4 has also stated that he had seen Joyram Choudhury and his son Kamal Choudhury running towards their house which is situated near his house. Neighbours had gathered there. Then they carried Danda to his house and bandaged his head with cloth. Then they arranged a vehicle to take Danda to the Rangia Police Station wherefrom, the Officer-in-Charge had sent him to the Rangia Civil Hospital under the supervision of a Constable. During his cross-examination, PW-4 has denied the suggestion that the dead body of Danda was cremated in the plinth of Joyram's house and that he was present there. He has also denied the suggestion that he did not see Danda lying in front of the gateway of Phatik Choudhury's house.
19. PW-5 Sri Digen Choudhury is the son of the victim and the star witness in this case. As mentioned above, the prosecution had examined him as eye witness to the occurrence. In his deposition, PW-6 has categorically stated that on 26/10/2006 (Thursday) at about 9-30 p.m., his father Danda Choudhury and he had gone to the house of Kanteswar Choudhury. When his father called Kanteswar from outside the house, the latter had replied that he was sleeping and then he and his father left the place. On their way back, he was being followed by his father. The house of Phatik Choudhruy is on the opposite side of Joyram's house. When they reached the place, Joyram and his son Kamal assaulted his father with a 'lathi' which was 3 feet long. PW-5 has stated that when they hit his father on his head, he fell on the ground and thereafter, both of them had dealt several blows on the chest of his father and on his abdomen. He cried and screamed. Hearing him screaming, Kanteswar Choudhury came out of his house. Madan Choudhury, the son of Phatik Choudhury, also came out from his house and his mother Suban Choudhry, Paresh Choudhury and Niren Choudhury had also reached there. Having noticed the people reaching that place, Kamal and Joyram left the place after throwing away the lathi. They took another lathi with them. When the people Page No.# 8/13 assembled, they took his father home. PW-5 has further stated that his father had sustained grievous injuries on his head and was bleeding profusely. After some time, they arranged a vehicle and took the victim to the Rangia Police Station wherefrom, he was shifted to the Rangia hospital. After examining his father, the doctors had declared him dead. During investigation, the Police had seized the 'lathi' with which, the accused had assaulted his father. Ext. 4 is the seizure list and Ext. 4(1) is his signature. This witness could not be shakened during his cross-examination.
20. Sri Madan Choudhury was examined as PW-6. He has also deposed in similar lines by stating that on the night of the incident, a cricket match was being telecast in the T.V. which he was watching in his house. At about 10 p.m. he heard Danda Choudhury's son Digen screaming that someone has assaulted his father. Then he came out of his house and saw that Danda Choudhury was lying on the ground and his son Digen was crying. While crying, Digen told him that Joyram Choudhury had assaulted his father. Noticing blood on Danda's head, he felt dizzy. The members of his family took him inside the house and then he felt better. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had shown the Police where the dead body was lying.
21. PW-7 Sri Jatin Chandra Nath was working as an attached officer at the Rangia Police Station on 26/10/2006 when the injured Danda Choudhury was brought to the Police Station by the members of his family. PW-7 has deposed that when Danda Choudhury was brought to the Rangia Police Station, he was present at the Police Station and had sent the injured, along with his staff, to the Rangia CHC. After a while, the Home Guard returned to the Police Station and informed him that Danda Choudhury has died. This witness has deposed that before sending the injured to the hospital, he has made a GD entry. Later on, wife of Danda Choudhury had lodged a written ejahar at around 11 p.m. on that night, based on which, Rangia Police Station case No. 497/2006 was registered under sections 302/34 of the IPC against Sri Joyram Choudhury and Kamal Choudhury. PW-7 has further deposed that he was entrusted with the job of carrying out investigation in the connected case. Therefore, he went to the place of occurrence, questioned the informant, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. PW-7 has further stated that Danda Choudhury's son Digen had produced the bamboo pole by means of which, Joyram Choudhury had beaten up Danda Choudhury. He had seized the bamboo pole vide seizure list Ext. 4 which bears his signature. Ext. 5 is the Page No.# 9/13 sketch map of the place of occurrence. After carrying out investigation, he had returned to the Police Station at around 1-30 a.m. and thereafter, he had carried out a search for the accused persons but they were not at home. On receipt of information from a source on 31/10/2006, he went to Rangia Bazar and apprehended Joyram Choudhury and brought him to the Police Station. After interrogating him, PW-7 had arrested Joyram Choudhury. He had also conducted inquest on the dead body of Danda Choudhury on 27/10/2006 and submitted inquest report Ext. 3. PW-7 has further deposed that he had sent the dead body for post- mortem examination to the GMCH and after the same was conducted, the body was handed over to the family members of the victim. However, after 31/10/2006, he did not investigate the case since he had received his transfer order. According to PW-7, he had handed over the Case Diary to the Officer-in-Charge and thereafter, his successor S.I. Mukib Ali had completed the investigation.
22. S.I. Mukib Ali was examined as PW-8. This witness has confirmed that he had taken over the investigation in connection with Rangia P.S. case No. 497/2006 from the previous I.O. PW-8 has stated that he had collected the post-mortem report and on completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against accused Joyram Choudhury and absconding accused Kamal Choudhury. Ext. 6 is the charge sheet, Ext. 7 is the search list and Ext. 8 is the GD Entry Book of the Rangia Police Station containing the entries from 05/10/2006 to 31/10/2006.
23. PW-3 Dr. Rituraj Chaliha was the Professor and HoD in the Forensic Department of the GMCH. He was on duty on 27/10/2006 when the dead body of Danda Choudhury was brought there for post-mortem examination. PW-3 had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body. He has proved the post-mortem report Ext. 2 by identifying his signature therein. According to the post-mortem examination, the following injuries were found in the dead body :-
"Injury:
(1) A bruise over the right anterior chest wall 10 x 3 cm. (2) A bruise over the right anterior chest wall 7 x 3 cm. (3) A lacerated injury over the right parietal region2 x 1 cm. (4) A lacerated injury over the right occipital region 1 x 0.5 cm."
Page No.# 10/13
24. PW-3 has opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injuries, as described. The injuries were ante mortem, caused by blunt force impact. Approximate time since death was 12 to 24 hours.
25. From a careful analysis of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution side, it is firmly established that the deceased Danda Choudhury had died a homicidal death due to grievous injuries sustained on his chest parietal region as well as the occipital region. It is also established from the post-mortem report (Ext. 2) that there were contusions on the right side of the skull indicating head injury. Therefore, the fact that the deceased had received grievous injuries on his head is well established from the medical evidence.
26. From the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, it has also been firmly established that the incident took place around 9-30 p.m. on 26/10/2006, in front of the house of Phatik Choudhury, which was on the opposite side of the house of the appellant Joyram Choudhury and his son. It has also come out from the evidence available on record that the appellant, the victim and the PWs- 2, 4 and 6 lived in the same neighbourhood.
27. PW-5 has given a vivid description as to the manner in which the appellant Joyram Choudhury and his son had attacked his father, first on the head and thereafter, on the chest and the abdomen. This witness has named Joyram Choudhury as the assailant while stating that his son Kamal Choudhury had also played a part in the occurrence. The evidence of PW- 5 is found to be consistent with his statement recorded before the IO and is also free from contradiction. The version of this witness is also consistent with the other evidence brought on record by the prosecution. He was not shaken during his cross-examination.
28. PWs 1, 2, 4 and 6 have proved that the son of the deceased i.e. Digen (PW-5) was present with his father at the place of occurrence. Evidence available on record establishes that these witnesses had reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident took place. Therefore, it is evident that PW-5 had seen the occurrence. As such, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly treated the PW-5 as an eye witness to the occurrence. If the testimony of PW-5 is to be believed, than there can be hardly any room for doubting that it was none other than the appellant Joyram Choudhury and his son Kamal Choudhury, who had attacked the victim on the night of the incident with a lathi and fatally injured him, leading to his death.
29. In her deposition, the informant PW-1 had also claimed to have seen the occurrence.
Page No.# 11/13 However, in her statement recorded before the IO, she has not said so. Therefore, we find that there is improvement in the testimony of the PW-1. She is not an eye witness. PW-1 had, however, stated before the IO that on reaching the place of occurrence, she had seen appellant Joyram Choudhury and his son Kamal Choudhury in the place of occurrence and on seeing them, they fled the scene. The above evidence of PW-1 finds due corroboration from the testimony of PWs-2, 4, 5 and 6. If the evidence adduced by PWs- 2, 4, 5 and 6 is read in conjunction with the evidence of PW-1, then it is firmly established, not only by direct evidence but even by circumstantial evidence that on the night of the incident, appellant Joyram Choudhury and his son Kamal Choudhury had attacked the victim with a bamboo stick sharing the common intention to cause grievous injury upon the victim.
30. In so far as the plea of alibi raised by the appellant is concerned, we find that in order to establish the said plea, the appellant had examined two witnesses, viz. DW-1 and DW-2. DW-1 Sri Bhupen Kalita is known to the appellant and he has deposed that in a particular night, in the month of October-November, 2006, the appellant had come to his place to recite religious texts. However, this witness could not mention the date on which the programme was held in his house. DW-1 has stated that at about 5 a.m. the following day, the appellant had come to know that his house had caught fire and he left at 6'O clock. However, there is neither any evidence to show as to on which date and at what time, the house of the appellant had caught fire nor is there any corroboration of the evidence adduced by the DW-1. That apart, the DW-1 had stated that the accused was working as a Policemen in the Chandrapur Police Station and when he made a call to the accused on that day, which was Thursday, he told that he had come to Chandrapur. However, DW-2, who is the mother of the appellant, has deposed that her son Joyram was under suspension and that Joyram worked at Guwahati. DW-2 has also admitted in her cross-examination that she did not know as to whether Joyram was at Chandrapur but she had said so only because Sarala had said so. The DW-2 could not say anything in her testimony which could establish that the appellant Joyram was not in his village on the night of the occurrence. As such, from an analysis of the evidence of DWs 1 and 2, it cannnot be held that the appellant had succeeded in establishing the plea of alibi. Therefore, the learned trial Court, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the plea of alibi taken by the appellant.
31. Coming to the argument of Mr. Mahajan that the conduct of the PW-5 in his failure Page No.# 12/13 to protect his father would raise serious doubt as regard the truthfulness of his testimony, we have noticed that there is evidence on record to show that immediately after the occurrence, PW-5 had not only screamed for help but was also crying by sitting by the side of his father. At the time of the occurrence, the age of the PW-5 was almost 14 years. What must be borne in mind that the incident happened in the neighbourhood of the victim and the assailants were known persons. Therefore, it is quite natural that the occurrence was totally unexpected for the PW-5 and as such, the same could have easily perplexed the 14 years old boy. The mere fact that instead of attacking the assailants, the PW-5 was screaming for help and crying at the spot, in our opinion, cannot be treated as an un-natural conduct on his part. Rather, we are of the opinion that in a situation like the one in hand, a minor boy, having seen his father being attacked by known assailants, would usually behave in the manner which he did. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to accept the above argument of Mr. Mahajan.
32. In the case of Narayan Singh and Umesh (Supra) relied upon by the learned APP, Assam, it has been categorically held that there is no set rule of natural reaction of a witness. Therefore, to discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in a particular manner, would amount to appreciating evidence in wholly unrealistic and unimagined manner. A witness can be perplexed by the incident and behave in an unusual manner.
33. In so far as the plea regarding delay and/ante-timing of the FIR is concerned, here also, we find that this is not a case where there was un-explained delay in lodging the FIR but it appears that the concerned Magistrate had put the signature on the FIR on 30/10/2006. There could be various reasons for such delay including late receipt of copy of the ejahar from the Police Station. Save and except pointing out the gap of four days between the lodging of the ejahar and signing of the same by the Magistrate, Mr. Mahajan has not been able to point out anything else from the record so as to indicate that there was some manipulation in registering the FIR. As a matter of fact, the entire episode of lodging of ejahar to registration of Police case as has been narrated by the IO (PW-7) appears to be very prompt. From the evidence of the IO, it is apparent that the ejahar was lodged on 26/10/2006 itself at 11 p.m., which is about an hour after the incident. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any un-explained delay in lodging the FIR in Page No.# 13/13 this case.
34. For the reasons stated herein above, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE JUDGE Sukhamay Comparing Assistant