Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The question that the signed statement of Rajinder Singh (PW-4) was recorded by a police is also inconsequential as Rajinder Singh (PW-4) had signed various recovery memos and since he had signed the same, he had taken it that the police must have got his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C signed as well; whereas, this was not the position and only a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Harjinder Singh was recorded and the same is not a signed statement. On the record there is an unsigned statement under Section 161 CrPC of Harjinder Singh son of Tarlok Singh. In fact as already discussed above, this was to be Rajinder Singh son of Amar Singh which is only a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer and the same did not occasion any failure of justice to the appellants. Therefore the mere fact that a signed statement of Rajinder Singh (PW-4) has not been supplied which he though states he had signed is inconsequential. The fact that it is stated by Rajinder Singh (PW-4) that there is no statement of Rajinder Singh son of Amar Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is also inconsequential as the Investigating Officer, Ravinder Singh SI (PW-5) had inadvertently and as a result of lapse or casualness recorded that statement of Rajinder Singh (PW-4) as that of CRA No. D-1026-DB of 2011 and Harjinder Singh son of Tarlok Singh. SI Ravinder Singh (PW-5) in his deposition in Court has denied the suggestion as in correct that the statement of Harjinder Singh son of Tarlok Singh was recorded on 08.09.2008 and it was ante dated as 06.09.2008. Thereafter, he voluntarily stated that the name was wrongly mentioned as Harjinder Singh instead of Rajinder Singh and the father's name of Harjinder Singh had been wrongly mentioned as Tarlok Singh instead of Amar Singh. Therefore, this aspect is clarified by SI Ravinder Singh (PW-5) even in his deposition. He, further denies as incorrect the suggestion that he recorded the statement of Rajinder Singh son of Amar Singh only or that there was no statement of Rajinder Singh son of Amar Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he further states that the statement of Harjinder Singh son of Tarlok Singh was recorded at the spot. This in fact would connect with his earlier statement and would mean that the statement of Harjinder Singh son of Tarlok Singh was incorrectly mentioned and in fact the statement of Rajinder Singh son of Amar Singh was recorded.