Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[AIR 2011 SC 2552] in which it is held that every delay under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. is not fatal but unexplained inordinate delay may affect the case adversely. Reliance is

17 Criminal Appeal No.172/2007 also placed upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of "Arjun Marik and others Vs. State of Bihar" [1994 SCC (Cri.) 1551] and "L/NK Meharaj Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh" [1995 Cri.L.J. 457] in support of the aforesaid submissions. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants Suresh Singh and Rajesh Singh cannot be accepted. If various columns of marg intimation and FIR are examined then column about date and time of intimation is shown in both the documents. In that column, it is not mentioned that date and time of document be mentioned when the document was written. When FIR was lodged by complainant Bhupendra Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-1) then during writing of that FIR police officer knew that Govind Singh had expired and therefore while recording the FIR he had received the information about the death of the deceased Govind Singh and therefore in the column of date and time of intimation, date and time when information received by the police should be written and hence it would be the same in the FIR as well as in the marg intimation. It is not accepted by the police officer who had written the FIR that marg intimation was written prior to the FIR. Hence, when intimation of crime committed by the appellants and death of the deceased Govind Singh was received by the police at the same time then the police is bound to write down the same date and time in both the documents. This fact is immaterial that how much time was consumed in recording the FIR and how much time was consumed in recording the marg intimation because there was no such column in either document so that such time be mentioned which was consumed in writing of 18 Criminal Appeal No.172/2007 document. Under these circumstances, contention of learned counsel for the appellants Suresh Singh and Rajesh Singh has no effect on the prosecution's case. (21) So far as compliance of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is the settled view of the Apex Court that it would be hyper-technical for the trial court or the appellate court to reject every FIR if compliance of provision under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. is not established. It is held in the case of "State of U.P. Vs. Gokaran and others" [AIR 1985 SC 131] that if soon after the lodging of FIR, investigating machinery starts its functioning i.e. its investigation then it cannot be said that the FIR was written ante-time. Learned counsel for the appellants Suresh Singh and Rajesh Singh has submitted that since no complete data is given in the marg intimation Ex.P-1, therefore, it shall be presumed that the FIR Ex.P-22 was ante-time and written much after the marg intimation. However, according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure while recording the marg intimation, only sufficient facts relating to death of the deceased are required to be shown and it is not necessary to give the description of any crime committed whereas in the FIR the description is to be given as to how the crime was committed. When the marg intimation Ex.P-1 and the FIR Ex.P-2 were written at the same time then only by the fact that no detailed description is given in the marg intimation, it cannot be said that FIR was ante time. In the present case, the injured persons were present at the time when marg intimation and the FIR were being recorded. Those were immediately sent for their medico-legal examination and the dead body of the deceased Govind 19 Criminal Appeal No.172/2007 Singh was recovered by the police and it was also sent for post mortem. If MLC reports given by Dr. Manish Jain (PW-

15) who examined the victim Raghuveer Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-2) in his MLC report Ex.P-65 did not find any such injury and therefore it cannot be accepted that appellant Chandu @ Chandrabhan assaulted the victim Raghuveer Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-2) with ballam. Witness Raghuveer Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-2) has also stated that Hukum Singh fired with a gun and he sustained so many injuries of pellets. This version was proved by Dr. P.K. Sharma (PW-15) in MLC report Ex.P-65 where 10 to 11 firearm injuries were found on his person viz. near the left eye, on the right chest, left upper arm and right arm. Such version was also mentioned in the FIR and therefore it is proved beyond doubt that appellant Hukum Singh fired with a gun causing simple injuries to the victim Raghuveer Singh Raghuvanshi (PW-2). Hence, in the light of the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of "Pashora Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab"

2), the appellants Lallu @ Surendra Singh and Pancham Singh would be liable for offence under Section 324 of IPC only, however, since the appellant Pancham Singh has expired during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, only appellant Lallu @ Surendra Singh shall be liable for offence under Section 324 of IPC for the injuries caused to the victim Vijay Singh @ Mannu (PW-11).

(32) Victim Uttam Singh (PW-8) has stated that appellants Vishnu Raghuvanshi and Bhure Singh fired with 12-bore guns causing injuries to him and one Banti @ Hindu Singh assaulted him with Farsa causing injury on left elbow, however, according to the MLC report Ex.P-64 proved by Dr. P.K. Sharma (PW-15) the victim Uttam Singh (PW-8) sustained 9-12 injuries of pellets caused on his right buttock, chest, abdomen, left forearm and right elbow but no injury of Farsa was found on his person and therefore on the basis of aforesaid judgments passed by the Apex Court his evidence cannot be accepted that appellant Banti @ Hindu Singh assaulted him with a Farsa, however, due to corroboration of other witnesses, FIR Ex.P-2 and 31 Criminal Appeal No.172/2007 medical evidence it is proved that appellants Vishnu Raghuvanshi and Bhure Singh fired upon the victim Uttam Singh (PW-8) causing simple injuries and therefore on the basis of logic as mentioned above, these two persons shall be liable for offence under Section 324 of IPC. (33) If the case of Shivram Singh (PW-4) is examined then he has stated that Hariom fired with a gun causing injury to him on his left heel and Dalup @ Dilip Singh assaulted him by means of a stick causing injury. Dr. Manish Jain (PW-5) proved the MLC report of victim Shivram Singh (PW-4) as Ex.P-8. He found one lacerated wound 7 cm above the left heel and one lacerated wound below the left knee. The size of the first wound was 1/2 x 1/2 cms and the size of second wound was 2 x 1 cms. Hence, the wound caused below the left knee could not be caused by firing. It could be caused by assault done by Dalup @ Dilip Singh with a stick. Though Dr. Manish Jain (PW-5) did not express as to whether the injury found 7 cms above left heel was caused by firearm and whether blackening or charring would be found, if fire was done from a distance of more than 5 ft. If pellet would not have struck directly in the deep skin then doctor cannot say definitely as to whether injury was caused by firearm or not. Thus, corroboration of medical report Ex.P-8 Shivram Singh (PW-

4).

(34) None other victim was considered for offence under Section 307 of IPC, however, the other injured witnesses may also be considered for their injuries and the co- relative accused who assaulted them. Dr. Manish Jain (PW-

5) has proved the MLC report Ex.P-10 relating to victim Parmal Singh (PW-13) and found a lacerated wound on his right palm between the palm and thumb. According to Dr. Manish Jain (PW-5) the injury found to the victim Parmal Singh (PW-13) was simple in nature. Parmal Singh (PW-13) has stated that accused Radheshyam assaulted him with ballam which caused injury on his right palm near thumb and there was a wound which was stitched by the doctor. He did not state that appellant Radheshyam stabbed the ballam on his right palm and therefore it is possible that pointed portion of ballam would not have caused any injury to the victim Parmal Singh (PW-13), however, if pointed portion of the ballam had touched the skin of victim Parmal Singh (PW-13) so that skin was lacerated then wound could be caused. Evidence of Parmal Singh (PW-13) is corroborated by other eyewitnesses along with FIR Ex.P-2 and medical report Ex.P-10 proved by Dr. Manish Jain and therefore it is established that the accused/appellant Radheshyam is liable for offence under Section 323 of IPC causing simple injuries to victim Parmal Singh (PW-13). (35) Dr. Manish Jain (PW-5) has proved the MLC report Ex.P-13 of victim Manna (PW-3). According to Dr. Jain, 33 Criminal Appeal No.172/2007 there were two simple injuries to the victim Manna (PW-3); one was lacerated wound on his right palm and second was a blunt injury on right temporal and occipital region of size 12x1 cms. Manna (PW-3) has stated that Setu @ Satendra Singh gave a blow of Farsa on his head and Neta @ Narendra gave a blow of ballam causing injury on his right palm. It is true that the Farsa and Ballam are the sharp cutting and stabbing weapons respectively and it is not mentioned by Manna (PW-3) that Neta @ Narendra stabbed the ballam in his palm and therefore if ballam was not stabbed and it was used to cause injury otherwise then such injury could be caused to the victim Manna (PW-3) as proved by Dr. Manish Jain (PW-5). Similarly, if farsa was not so sharp, such lacerated wound would have been caused on his right temporal and occipital region. Looking to the size of wound it is also possible that if Farsa was not so sharp such lacerated wound could be caused. Evidence given by Manna (PW-3) is duly corroborated by MLC report Ex.P-13 proved by Dr. Manish Jain (PW-5). His statement is also corroborated by other eyewitnesses. Hence, on the basis of aforesaid logic, appellant Setu @ Satendra Singh and Neta @ Narendra shall be liable for offence under Section 323 of IPC to voluntarily cause hurt to the victim Manna (PW-3).