Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
12. That the other grounds will be narrated at the time of arguments."
On the basis of the above grounds, as raised in the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the named FIR was lodged by complainant against the accused-appellants on the basis of the information as given to him by one Raja Ram Nayak and Bhani Ram who stated that the deceased was killed by the accused-appellants. They snatched his bag and then fled away.
According to learned counsel for the appellants, a perusal of the FIR shows that the servant of the complainant namely Kumbha Ram informed him that he heard about the incident orally around 6:00 a.m. in morning which he (servant Kumbha Ram) further communicated to complainant around 08:00 a.m. and thereafter he (complainant) reached the spot where already persons gathered. The complete case/ FIR was instituted by complainant who is not an eye-witness, but on the basis of narrations of Raja Ram Nayak and Bhani Ram. Learned counsel pointed out that though the informant Raja Ram Naik and Bhani (Uploaded on 09/10/2025 at 06:35:45 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:42692-DB] (5 of 26) [CRLA-73/1996] Ram stated to have witnessed the incident, as per complainant, but they did not inform the police about the incident, rather it is complainant, who on his own lodged the oral report on which FIR bearing No. 232/1991 was registered. The learned counsel seriously questioned the conduct of the complainant as even though he was not an eye-witness but his act of lodging the named FIR reflects that the it was lodged with ulterior motives. He submitted that as the oral report was lodged by the complainant based on narration of Raja Ram Nayak whose statement was recorded as PW-1, therefore, the statement, being relevant, are reproduced as under:-