Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(31) Pukhraj (P.W.18) is the brother of the deceased Chunnilal.

He stated that Ishwarpuri was employed as a servant to assist Chunnilal. The keys of the almirah were also known to Ishwarpuri. The witness could not identify any accused other than Ishwarpuri. He stated that he participated in the funeral etc. He was also associated in the preparation of the list of stolen articles with Sachin. He went to the tehsil office for identifying the recovered articles and claimed to have correctly identified the articles of Chunnilal before the Tehsildar. He proved the test identification memorandums (Ex.P/58 to Ex.P/68). The iron box containing the articles recovered from the accused was opened in the presence of this witness. The Presiding Officer took note of the fact that the chits appended on the box were torn. The lock did not have any seal. 14 of the 15 cloth bags kept in the box were in a sealed condition. One handkerchief like pouch was unsealed. It was having a watch, which the witness identified to be of deceased Chunnilal, along with a tobacco packet and a comb. The sealed cloth bags were opened. The silver articles were exhibited and the witness identified the same in the court to be of Chunnilal.

(42) Durgaram (P.W.28), Constable, posted at the Police Station Sanchore, gave evidence regarding the first transmission of samples from the Police Station Sanchore, which proved abortive because of onsetting Government holidays.

(43) Pradeep Kumar (P.W.29) was posted as the Executive Magistrate, Sanchore on 11.12.2008. He stated that on that day, the SHO, Police Station Sanchore submitted an application (Ex.P/85) to him for conducting test identification of the stolen articles. The witness stated that the articles were to be identified by Pukhraj and Chhogaram. The witness conducted the identification proceedings in his office on 11.12.2008. The Head Constable Hem Singh brought some articles to mix in the stolen articles and thereafter the test identification proceedings of the articles sealed in respective packets (allegedly seized from the accused) were conducted. (44) Rajuram (P.W.30) was posted as the SHO, Police Station Sanchore. He conducted investigation of the case and is (33 of 54) [CRLA-1012/2016] the most important prosecution witness. On receiving a telephonic information of the incident on 17.09.2008 at 09.00 a.m., he proceeded to the spot with the investigation box after making the entry in the Roznamcha (Ex.P/87). Dinesh Kumar submitted the written report (Ex.P/1) to the witness at the spot. He acknowledged the same and forwarded it to the police station with Constable Chhatararam for registration of the formal FIR. He entered the house of Chunnilal and saw his denuded dead body lying on a cot. Marks of strangulation were clearly visible on the body, which was covered by a towel. The vest and Dhoti of the deceased and the bed- sheet were stained in blood. The Investigating Officer conducted the requisite steps of investigation. He claimed that while going away after committing the loot and the murder, the accused had locked the door of house, which was broken open by him. The safe was open. The household articles were lying scattered here and there. The Investigating Officer claims to have arrested the accused in the following order :

The Investigating Officer also deposed regarding the preparation of the fresh finger prints of the accused, recording of the statements of the various witnesses, forwarding of the incriminating articles to the FSL, the test identification proceedings of the accused etc. The recovered articles were exhibited during evidence of the Investigating Officer. Prolonged cross-examination was carried out from the Investigating Officer. He admitted that the names of the accused other than Ishwarpuri and Kailashnath were not mentioned in the FIR, but he mentioned names of all the accused in the Roznamcha entry (Ex.P/133-A), which he recorded immediately after returning from the place of incident. He explained that these names were mentioned on the information of a reliable source informer. He stated that he arrested accused Kalyanpuri, Ghewaram and Shankarlal on the same day, (39 of 54) [CRLA-1012/2016] i.e. on 17.09.2008, whereas, by that time, no witness had taken the names of these accused. However, the Investigating Officer insisted that the source informer had named the accused persons. He admitted that the safe was not broken into, but had been opened. No books of accounts or other record pertaining to the articles pledged with Chunnilal were recovered during the course of investigation and accordingly, Rajuram, the Investigating Officer, expressed sheer ignorance on the aspect as to how many people had pledged their articles with Chunnilal and the amount Chunnilal had given by way of loan. He admitted that he made no attempt to try out the keys recovered at the instance of the accused Kalyanpuri on the safe. A pertinent suggestion was given to him that the safe was duly opened after arrival of Sachin, the articles were laid out at the police station and the recoveries were planted upon the accused, who were already confined in proceedings under Section 151 CrPC. The Investigating Officer denied this suggestion. (45) After having narrated the circumstances as appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we now propose to deal with the rival submissions and discuss and evaluate the evidence available on record. (46) The first and foremost contention of the learned defence counsel was regarding the introduction of the car number (40 of 54) [CRLA-1012/2016] in the FIR leading to the inference that the document is fabricated. In this regard, it may be mentioned here that as per the evidence of the concerned witnesses viz. Dinesh Kumar, Tejraj and Devilal; it is clear that none of them managed to see or note the number of the car, in which, some of the suspects allegedly came to the spot before the incident was perpetrated. Rather, the first informant Dinesh Kumar (P.W.1) emphatically stated in cross-examination that he did not give out the number of the car while lodging the report. The SHO Shri Raju Ram (P.W.30) claimed that Dinesh Kumar got the report drafted on his own and the same was submitted to him at the place of incident at about 10.00 a.m. In this background, introduction of the number of car in the FIR creates a strong doubt that the FIR itself must have been drafted on the instructions of the Investigating Officer himself because the knowledge of the car's number could be attributed only to the Investigating Officer, who claims to have acted on some secret source information for arresting the accused Kalyanpuri, Ghewaram and Shankarlal on the very day of the incident, even though they were not named in the FIR. The over-zealousness of the Investigating Officer in this case is also portrayed from the fact that the names of the unknown accused are mentioned in the Roznamcha entry (Ex.P/133-A), which was recorded on arrival of the SHO at the police station at 05.00 p.m. on 17.09.2008. In this Roznamcha entry, the Investigating Officer, clearly mentioned that after handing (41 of 54) [CRLA-1012/2016] over the dead body to the family members, the source informers were sounded at Sanchore, Gundou etc. and from them, he got information that the incident was perpetrated by Ishwarpuri, Kailashnath, Kalyanpuri, Ghewaram, Shankarlal and Ashok Kumar. In this background, it is clear that the Investigating Officer had his sight set on these accused even though they had not been named by any witness.

(50) If these recoveries are excluded from consideration, manifestly, the other circumstances, which remain on record would be of matching finger prints, the recovery of bulk of silver articles and the blood-stained clothes of the accused. We have elaborated upon the statement of Pukhraj (P.W.18), who was made to undertake the exercise of the test identification of the articles of the deceased which were allegedly looted by the accused on the fateful night. For the purpose of identifying the ornaments, allegedly looted from the house and the safe of the deceased, the Investigating Officer got conducted (45 of 54) [CRLA-1012/2016] test identification proceedings through witness Pukhraj (P.W.18). The trial court, took note of the fact that some slips etc., which were appended on the packets of articles were broken. The witness Pukhraj stated that he used to visit Chunnilal, who would, often show to him the articles lying in his safe, therefore, the possibility of the witness having correctly identifying some of the articles of the deceased is probablized, but it is beyond comprehension that he would be able to identify each and every article belonging to or pledged with the deceased. Thus, the procedure of test identification of the ornaments/articles recovered at the instance of the accused becaomes doubtful.