Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Gian Singh, on 11 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J., DWARKA
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SC No.30/10.
Unique Case ID No.02405R0366022009.
State Vs. 1. Gian Singh,
S/o Sh. Beer Singh,
R/o House No.1675-A/I,
Paprawat Road,
Najafgarh,
Delhi.
2. Jayant,
S/o Sh. Gian Singh,
R/o House No.1675-A/I,
Paprawat Road,
Najafgarh,
Delhi.
Date of Institution : 25.4.2009.
FIR No.220 dated 06.4.2008.
U/s. 323/326/308/506/34 IPC.
P.S. Najafgarh.
Date of reserving judgment/Order : 26.3.2012.
Date of pronouncement : 11.4.2012.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused No.1 is the father of accused No.2. Both are facing trial for having committed the offences punishable U/s. 308/34 IPC, 326/34 IPC, 323/34 IPC and 506/34 IPC.
2. As per the prosecution case, accused No.1 alongwith his family had been residing as a tenant in House No.RZ-1676/A-1, Paprawat Road, Najafgarh, Delhi. The house is owned by SC No.30/10. Page 1 of 19 deceased Chander Bhan, who was father of the complainant Usha Rani. Usha Rani alongwith her son had come to stay in this house about two years before the incident. It is also alleged that the parents of the complainant resided in a separate house in village Paprawat and by taking advantage of their absence, the accused intended to usurp the said house. It is also alleged that the ever since the complainant started residing in the aforesaid house, accused and their family members used to harass her and threatened her to vacate the house.
3. Further case of the prosecution is that on 06.4.08 at about 5 p.m. the mother of the complainant had come as usual alongwith the milk for the complainant. At about 6.45 p.m. the complainant and her mother were standing at the door of the house talking to each other. In the meanwhile, accused Gian Singh and his son accused Jayant started beating both these ladies with a cricket bat and a baseball bat. When the complainant's cousin Mukesh Kumar, who runs a scooter repair shop in front of the same house, came to intervene in the fight, he was hit by the accused, as a result of which he received injuries on his head and became unconscious. The incident was reported to PCR and an information in this regard was recorded in P.S. Najafgarh as DD No.42A, copy of which was handed over to ASI Surat Singh for suitable action. When ASI Surat Singh reached the spot of incident, he came to know that the injured has been removed to Metro Life Line Hospital, Najafgarh. He reached the aforesaid hospital and found that one Mukesh was admitted vide MLC No. 28/08 and complainant Usha was admitted vide MLC No.29/08 and the complainant's mother Sara Devi was admitted vide MLC No. SC No.30/10. Page 2 of 19 30/08. Injured Mukesh was in a state of unconsciousness. ASI Surat Singh recorded statement of complainant Usha Rani and on the basis of the same prepared a rukka and got the FIR registered. Further investigation of the case was carried on by ASI Surat Singh himself.
4. During further investigation of the case, ASI Surat Singh arrested two accused, recorded their disclosure statements and recovered the baseball bat, iron pipe and a cricket bat at their instance which had been used in the commission of offence. He also seized the blood stained T-shirt of injured Mukesh. All these articles were sent to FSL, Kolkata, for forensic examination.
5. After the completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet was laid before the concerned Ilaqa Magistrate.
6. On committal of the case to the court of Sessions, following Charges were framed against the accused on 05.7.2010:
"That on 6.4.2008 at 6.45 pm at Paprawat Road, Opposite House No. 1675/A, Najafgarh, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Najafgarh, you both in furtherance of your common intention caused grievous hurt to Mukesh with a baseball bat and a cricket bat and gave beatings to him with such intention and knowledge and under such circumstances that, if by that act you would have caused the death of Mukesh, you would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.308/34 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, SC No.30/10. Page 3 of 19 you both the accused persons, in furtherance of your common intention, voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Saara Devi with an iron pipe and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s. 326/34 IPC, and within my cognizance.
Thirdly, on the aforesaid date, time and place within the jurisdiction of PS Najafgarh, you both the accused persons in furtherance of your common intention, voluntarily gave beatings with a pipe and caused hurt to Usha Rani , and you both thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.323/34 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
Fourthly, on the above said date, time and place you both in furtherance of your common intention committed criminal intimidation by threatening Usha Rani to cause her death with intent to cause alarm to her and you both thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.506/34 IPC and within the cognizance of this court."
7. The accused pleaded not guilty to the Charges and accordingly, the prosecution was called upon to lead its evidence. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. The accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.PC on 08.8.2010, wherein he denied having beaten Mukesh, Usha Rani and Sara Devi. They also termed as incorrect the whole prosecution case and claimed their innocence. They also took the stand that in fact, they had been beaten by Mukesh and his 15/16 associates, who were their relatives. In their defence, they have examined four witnesses to establish that they were the victims and were beaten by Mukesh and his associates.
8. I have heard Ld. APP for State, Ld. Counsel for the SC No.30/10. Page 4 of 19 accused and have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of the accused. I have also perused the entire material on record.
9. PW1 Dr. Jitender had come to depose in place of Dr. Hans Raj, who had examined injured Mukesh, Usha Rani and Sara Devi when they were brought to Metro Life Line Hospital. He has proved the MLC of complainant Usha Rani as Ex.PW1/A, MLC of Mukesh as Ex.PW1/B and MLC of Sara devi as Ex.PW1/D. The MLC shows that all the three were brought to hospital by Satish Kumar, the brother of Mukesh at 7.30 p.m. Usha Rani had no external injury except swelling on right hand, haemotoma at left wrist joint near second and third fingers. No fracture was seen in her hand after X-ray. The injuries were opined to be blunt and simple.
10. The MLC Ex.PW1/B of Mukesh shows that he was having a CLW of 1 cm X 1 cm. on left fronto occipital region, swelling around left eye, swelling over nose and was bleeding through nose and mouth. He was in a semi conscious state. The injuries were opined to be grevious. He was discharged on 08.4.2008 vide Discharge Slip Ex.PW1/C. So far as Sara Devi is concerned, she had a sharp injury with active bleeding on left lower hand. She also had pain in right lower limb. However, no fracture was seen either in arms or in the leg. The injury was opined to be grevious and sharp in nature.
11. The prosecution has examined the complainant Usha Rani as PW3, Mukesh as PW4 and Sara Devi as PW2. Besides these three injured, the prosecution has also examined PW5 Satish SC No.30/10. Page 5 of 19 Kumar, PW6 Subhash Sharma and PW8 Sh. Satvir Mudgal and PW9 Sh. Rampal as eye witness to the incident. Before discussing the deposition of these witnesses, I think it necessary to reproduce the statement of complainant Usha Rani Ex.PW11/B, on the basis of which FIR has been registered in this case. The statement is as under :
"Statement of Smt. Usha Rani, wife of Late Sh. Ashok Sharma, R/o RZ-1675/A1, Paprawat Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
I reside at the aforesaid address alongwith my son and am earning my livelihood by doing the job of stitching. The aforesaid house is in the name of my father, in which Gian Singh alongwith his family is staying as a tenant. My father and my mother Sara Devi resided in a separate house in village Paprawat. Taking advantage of the same, Gian Singh intended to usurp the house and filed a civil case regarding the same against my father. Gian Singh had earlier also quarreled with my parents. I have come to stay in this house alongwith my son about one and a half years ago, after the death of my husband. Even since, I have to come in this house, Gian Singh and his family members have been harassing me and threatening me to vacate the house. My mother Sara Devi had come alongwith milk from village Paprawat at about 5 p.m. My cousin Mukesh does the job of scooter repair outside our house. Today at about 6.45 p.m. myself and my mother were standing at the door of the house and we saw that Gian Singh and his son Jayant with bats in their hands. Both started beating Mukesh with bats. Mukesh sustained injuries on his head and left eye and become unconscious. When I went to save Mukesh, I was attacked by Jayant by some pointed object, which was in his hand and I stopped him with my right hand. My mother came to intervene. Gian Singh attacked my mother and she suffered injuries on her right hand. On hearing the noise, the neighbours gathered at the spot. Gian Singh and his son went inside the house, Gian Singh brought out a can of oil, SC No.30/10. Page 6 of 19 poured the same over himself in front of all the persons present there and told that he will show how he shall get the house vacated from us. He also threatened to kill me. I and my mother took Mukesh to Metro Life Hospital with the help of neighbours. Myself and my mother got treatment in the hospital, whereas my brother Mukesh was admitted in the hospital. Legal action may be taken."
12. However, she has given a different version of the incident in her testimony as PW3. She deposed that on 06.04.08 at about 6.30 p.m. both the accused came to her house and started hurling abuses at her and her mother. Accused Gian Singh asked her to leave the house as the house belonged to him. After 5 - 10 minutes, both the accused went to their room. Gian Singh brought a bat while Jayant brought an iron rod. First of all, both gave beatings to her mother with bat and she sustained injuries on her hand. Thereafter, the accused beat her but could not say whether with a bat or a rod. After hearing the cries, Mukesh came inside the courtyard of the house and he was also given beatings. He fell down and became unconscious. The neighbours gathered and within their help, they removed Mukesh to Metro Hospital.
13. She was declared hostile by the Ld. APP on certain points and in the cross examination conducted by Ld. APP, she stated that it is not to her knowledge that Gian Singh brought a can of kerosene oil and poured the same over himself and threatened to implicate them and show them how he will get the house vacated. She deposed that she and her mother took Mukesh to hospital and by that time, accused Gian Singh had not poured kerosene oil on him. She was told by her sisters and neighbours SC No.30/10. Page 7 of 19 about the same, when she returned to her house from the hospital. She denied that the accused got recovered a baseball bat, a cricket bat and an iron rod in her presence. She had seen these objects only at the time of incident and not thereafter. She could not say whether they were beaten by a cricket bat, baseball bat or an object used to beat clothes while washing. She also denied the suggestion that accused were interrogated in her presence or that they made disclosure statement in her presence. She also stated that she cannot identify the iron rod but can identify the bat which was round in shape from top to bottom.
14. In the cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused, she admits having stated to the police that accused Jayant was having a pointed object in his hand with which he attacked her. The said object was like an iron rod about 2 feet or 2½ feet long. She was confronted with her statement to the police wherein she had not mentioned that she and her mother were standing at the door of their house and saw accused Gian Singh and Jayant passed in their hands and both started giving beatings to Mukesh; after about 5 to 10 minutes, accused went to their room, Gian Singh brought a bat and Jayant brought an iron rod and first of all, they gave beatings to her mother; after hearing hue and cry, Mukesh came inside the courtyard of the house and he was also given beatings, as a result of which he fell down unconscious. She further deposed that after the incident, police met her for the first time at her residence on her returning from the hospital and recorded her statement. She did not recollect how Mukesh was taken to hospital and surmised that he might have been taken in lap.
SC No.30/10. Page 8 of 1915. It is, therefore apparent that there are material contradictions between the two statements of PW3, one which had been recorded by the IO, on the basis of which the FIR was registered, and the other given by her before this court. In the statement Ex.PW11/B, PW3 has stated that she and her mother had seen the two accused with bats in their hands and both started beating Mukesh with bat. She further stated that when she went to save Mukesh, she was attacked by Jayant with some pointed object and later on, when her mother came to intervene, she was attacked by Gian Singh. In her testimony before this court, she stated that first there was a verbal altercation between herself and the two accused. Thereafter, both the accused went to their room, accused Gian Singh brought a bat whereas accused Jayant brought an iron rod. First of all, both gave beatings to her her mother with bats, thereafter to her and lastly to Mukesh, who came inside the courtyard on hearing hue and cry. Such glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in the statement of this witness render her deposition totally untruthful and unbelievable. It may also be mentioned that in the statement Ex.PW11/B, this witness PW2 had stated that accused Gian Singh brought out a can of kerosene oil from his room, poured the same over himself in front of all the persons present there and declaring that he will show how he shall get the house vacated from her, but in her testimony before this court, she deposed that she did not see accused Gian Singh pouring kerosene oil upon himself. She stated that her sister and her neighbours told her about the same when she returned to her house from the hospital. Thus, this witness has herself falsified her own statement given to the police. It may also be SC No.30/10. Page 9 of 19 noted that as per the testimonies of PW11, IO ASI Surat Singh and PW10 Const. Dharambir Singh, the statement Ex.PW11/B of PW2 was recorded in a Metro Hospital, where she was getting treatment for her injuries and by that time, admittedly she had not heard the version of the incident from her sister and neighbours. It therefore, intrigues this court as to how she mentioned to the police that accused Gian Singh had poured kerosene oil upon himself. It only goes on to show that this witness has been telling only lies and nothing except lies.
16. Examination in chief of PW2 is more or less identical to that of PW3, except that she stated that all the three i.e. herself, PW3 and PW4 became unconscious after being beaten by the accused, which is contrary to the testimony of PW3, who deposed that only Mukesh became unconscious and she alongwith her mother and other public persons present at the spot took Mukesh to a nearby Metro Hospital. In answer to a question put to her by Ld. APP with permission of the Court, she admitted that accused Gian Singh brought a kerosene oil and poured the same upon himself declaring that he will implicate them. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused, she was confronted with her statement u/s.161 Cr.PC Ex.PW2/DA, wherein she had not stated that accused Gian Singh asked his son to bring a weapon; that both the accused went to their room and brought a bat as well as an iron rod; that she was given beatings by bat and the rod by both the accused; that Mukesh was also given beatings by the cricket bat and iron rod and all three of them became unconscious. As per statements of PW3, PW10 and PW11, this witness PW2 also had reached Metro Hospital alongwith PW3 and SC No.30/10. Page 10 of 19 PW4. When PW3 did not see accused Gian Singh bringing out a can of kerosene oil and pouring the same upon himself, where was the occasion for this witness to observe the same. Besides that, this witness has also lied in saying that she as well as PW3 has also become unconscious, which is factually incorrect. It is also evident that she had made marked improvement upon her earlier statement. For this reason, her testimony also deserves to be discarded.
17. PW4 the injured Mukesh deposed that on 06.4.2008 when he was present at his shop, he heard cries and on peeping inside the house of the complainant, he saw accused Gian Singh beating his aunt i.e. PW2. He did not see, by which object, accused Gian Singh was beating to PW2. He went inside to save PW2 and was hit by a cricket bat on his head by accused Gian Singh. He became unconscious and did not note what happened thereafter. He was declared hostile by Ld. APP and in the cross examination conducted by Ld. APP, he denied having seen PW2 and PW3 sitting in the courtyard on a cot and the accused hurling abuses at them. He also denied the suggestion that accused Gian Singh asked Jayant to bring a baseball bat. Curiously he deposed that son of Gian Singh, who was with him on that day was heavily built and he is not the accused Jayant present in court. Thus, this witness has disputed the identity of Jayant to be the assailant, who beat him.
18. PW5 is the brother of PW4 and running an auto mobile shop at Roshanpura. He deposed that on 06.4.2008 at about 6.45 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. a boy came to him and told him that a quarrel has taken place between his brother Mukesh and tenants of Dr. SC No.30/10. Page 11 of 19 Chander Bhan. He immediately rushed to the spot and found large crowd at the house of Dr. Chander Bhan. He found Mukesh lying on the floor bleeding from his head. He also found Sara Devi (PW2) and Usha Devi (PW3) lying in injured condition. He took all the injured to Metro Hospital. According to him, the two accused, who are father and son were present at the spot and have been apprehended by public persons.
19. Thus according to this witness PW5, he had taken all the injured i.e. PW2, PW3 and PW4 to Metro Hospital. However, he does not explain how could he remove the three injured persons to nearby Metro Hospital without the help of any other person. Apparently, this witness is the cousin of PW3. PW3 and PW2 had nowhere stated that they were taken to hospital by PW5. PW3 has deposed that she with the help of some public persons removed PW4 to the hospital. A confusion has thus been created as to who in fact, removed which of the injured to the hospital and by what mode, which only creates a doubt in the prosecution case.
20. PW6, the owner of a medical store at Paprawat road under th name and style of M/s. Yogesh Medical Store, claiming to have reached the house of Dr. Chander Bhan upon hearing some noises, where he saw accused Gian Singh beating Mukesh with a baseball bat. Accused Jayant attacked Usha Rani and Sara Devi with a cricket bat. He intervened in the quarrel and tried to separate the rival parties. Thereafter, accused Gian Singh again attacked Sara Devi and Usha Rani with iron pipe, which he had brought from the roof. Thereafter, accused Gian Singh brought kerosene oil from the room and poured over himself declaring that SC No.30/10. Page 12 of 19 he will show how will get the house vacated. In the cross examination, he stated that PW5 Satish arrived at the spot five minutes after his arrival. Mukesh was taken to the hospital by Satish on his shoulder, whereas Sara Devi and Usha Rani walked to the hospital.
21. It is seen that PW6 has contradicted PW4 in saying that he saw accused Gian Singh attacking PW4 Mukesh with a baseball bat. PW4 has deposed in certain terms that he was hit by a cricket bat. He does not corroborate the version of PW2 either who deposed that she as well as PW3 also had become unconscious. He also contradicted PW5 Satish in stating that Sara Devi and Usha Devi had walked themselves to the hospital, whereas PW5 had stated that he removed all the three injured to the hospital. Moreover, neither PW2 nor PW3, PW4 and PW5 have stated about the presence of this witness at the spot.
22. Similarly, I find the testimonies of PW8 and PW9 also full of contradictions and hence not worth reliance.
23. If all the prosecution witnesses are to be believed, PW2 and PW3 were beaten severely by the two accused with cricket bat, baseball bat and an iron rod. Therefore, they must have suffered severe injuries on their body parts. However, MLC Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/D does not show that PW2 and PW3 had suffered any kind of severe injury. As noted herein-above, PW2 had just one injury on her left lower hand and PW3 also had just a swelling on her right hand and injury at her left wrist joint. Thus, the medical evidence on record does not corroborate and co-relate SC No.30/10. Page 13 of 19 with the testimonies of injured persons as well as other public witnesses. Such material inconsistencies and contradictions between the medical evidence and ocular evidence weaken the prosecution case and make it highly doubtful.
24. There is another disturbing feature of the case. The initial IO of the case ASI Surat Singh appearing as PW11 has admitted in his cross examination that accused Gian Singh and Jayant had also suffered injuries in the incident and had been removed to RTRM Hospital by PCR officials. He also visited RTRM Hospital on 06.4.2008 at 7.45 p.m. and found the two accused admitted there for treatment. He submitted an application Ex.PW11/DA to the CMO for permission to record the statement of the accused and the accused were declared fit for statement by the doctor vide endorsement at point C on the application. He further stated that accused were discharged from the hospital on 07.4.2008 and he did not try to arrest them in the night intervening between 06.4.08 and 07.4.08. DW5 Dr. Rajiv Solanki of RTRM Hospital, who was examined by the accused in their defence has proved the MLCs of the two accused as Ex.DW5/A and Ex.DW5/B. The MLC Ex.DW5/A is of accused Gian Singh and shows that he had two injuries on his head besides multiple bruise marks on upper chest, neck, left arm, right thigh, right leg and an injury on right leg. He was referred to surgery department. The MLC Ex.DW5/B of accused Jayant also shows that he had injuries on his head, left eyebrow, left eye and over the nose. He was also referred to surgery department. In the cross examination, DW5 deposed that it is very difficult to say that injuries found on the bodies of the two accused could be sustained by fall on a hard SC No.30/10. Page 14 of 19 surface.
25. From the aforesaid evidence, it is apparent that the two accused had also received severe beatings in the incident, as a result of which they suffered aforesaid injuries on their various body parts including the head. However, strangely the prosecution case is totally silent about the aforementioned injuries sustained by the two accused. More strangely, none of the prosecution witnesses has deposed about the said injuries received by the two accused and the manner and circumstances in which they suffered these injuries.
26. It is also necessary to refer to the testimony of DW2, who has proved the relevant entries in the call book of PCR van Zebra-91, who had reached the spot of incident in this case first of all. The photocopies of the relevant pages of the book are Ex.DW2/A, which show that the PCR Van Zebra-91 reached the spot of incident at 7.06 p.m. on 06.4.08. From the spot, it sent following messages to the police control room, which are mentioned in the call book :
(i) 7.06 p.m., Z-91 to Z1, Call Note - House No.1675, Paprawat Road, Najafgarh.
(ii) 7.06 p.m., Z-1 to Z-91, reached the spot, to wait for the situation.
(iii)7.08 p.m., Z-1 to Z-91, the tenant is saying from inside the house that the gate has been shut from outside. SHO be called to the spot. Public told that quarrel has taken place between the tenants and the SC No.30/10. Page 15 of 19 landlord and before our arrival, two injured have been removed to some unknown hospital. Local police be sent immediately.
(iv)7.12 p.m., Z-1 to Z91, we have also been manhandled and pushed out of the gate. Tenant is trying to break the door. Kerosene oil is being poured upon the tenant. About 100 - 125 public persons are present. Local police be sent immediately.
(v) 7.20 p.m., Z-1 to Z91, Sir, local police has not reached yet. The main gate of the house has been closed.
(vi)7.25 p.m., Z1 to Z91, we have come inside the house alongwith local police after jumping over the main gate. The tenants were being beaten by the public. The tenants have been saved from the public.
Both the tenants are refusing to be taken to hospital and are asking to call the SHO. ASI Surat Singh alongwith staff is also present at the spot.
(vii)7.30 p.m., Z1 to Z-91, both the injured have been handed over by ASI Surat Singh to PCR officials who have left for RTR Hospital.
(viii)7.55 p.m., Sir, injured Gian Singh, son of Sh. Beer Singh, R/o 1675, Paprawat Road, Najafgarh, aged 52 years and his son Jayant aged 20 years, have been admitted in the hospital by Duty Constable Parvesh, No.1593/PCR and ASI Surat Singh is also present at the call.
27. It is evident from the aforesaid messages that the two SC No.30/10. Page 16 of 19 accused had been locked inside the house and the main gate was closed from outside. Somebody was pouring kerosene oil upon the accused and the public beat them. It is also evident that ASI Surat Singh had reached the spot and had seen the two accused in injured condition. In fact, he had handed over the two accused to PCR officials to be taken to the hospital, but ironically, ASI Surat Singh did not say so in his testimony before the court. It is crystal clear that no investigation was carried out by ASI Surat Singh regarding circumstances, in which the two accused had suffered injuries. No effort has been made by him to ascertain as to who in fact, was the assailant and who was the victim. It appears that for some motivated reasons, ASI Surat Singh blindfoldly accepted as true, the statement of PW3 and got an FIR registered on her statement.
28. Close scrutiny of the material on record also reveals that the FIR registered in this case is not genuine one and the same was registered after due deliberations at a later point of time and has been ante timed. This is evident from the various aspects of this case. Firstly, the Duty Officer, who registered the FIR and made his endorsement on the rukka has not been examined as a witness, thus depriving the accused of an opportunity to cross examine him and to bring to light the illegalities committed in registering the FIR. Secondly, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the copies of the FIR were despatched to the concerned Ilaqa Magistrate and higher police officers within a reasonable time after registration of the FIR.
29. DW3 was the Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, SC No.30/10. Page 17 of 19 Ld. Magistrate at Patiala House Court, New Delhi, under whose jurisdiction the place of incident fell. He has proved the inspection application submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused in this case on 10.4.08 i.e. four days after the incident took place, wherein he made an endorsement at point A stating that the copy of FIR No.220/08 in this case was not received in the court till that date. It is therefore, manifest that the copy of the FIR in this case was not sent to the concerned Ilaqa Magistrate even till 10.4.08 whereas the incident is alleged to have taken place on 06.4.08 and the FIR is alleged to have been registered on the same day at about 10.50 p.m. There can be no clear evidence than this to demonstrate that the FIR in this case, though stated to have been registered on 06.4.08 at 10.50 p.m., was in fact registered sometime after 10.4.08. Therefore, it can very well be said that the FIR contains a coloured version of the incident and an exaggerated story.
30. The provisions of section 157 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are mandatory in nature. As held by the Supreme Court in Moti Lal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (7) SCC 454, there is a purpose behind enactment of section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The statutory requirements that the report has to be sent forthwith itself shows the urgency attached to sending of the report. On account of delay the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. In a given case it is open to the prosecution to indicate the reason for the delayed despatch or delayed receipt of the report u/s.157 Cr.PC. This has to be established by evidence.
SC No.30/10. Page 18 of 1931. However, in this case the prosecution has nowhere even tried to explain why the copy of the FIR was not sent to the concerned Ilaqa Magistrate or the higher police officials within the reasonable time after registration of the FIR. This leads to the only conclusion that the FIR is not genuine and contains false, coloured and exaggerated version of the incident.
32. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I have no difficulty in saying that the prosecution case is not based upon the truthful and correct version of the incident. It has failed to prove the charges against the two accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence both the accused are hereby acquitted of the charges framed against them, giving them benefit of doubt.
Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 11.4.2012. A.S.J. :Dwarka Courts
New Delhi.
SC No.30/10. Page 19 of 19