Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. It is quite obvious that the investigation was completed and the charge sheet was signed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 17.06.2002 and the same was submitted before the committal magistrate on 08.07.2002. In the charge sheet Ellappan had been shown to be a witness to corroborate P.W.1 regarding the occurrence. There is nothing in the charge sheet to indicate either he had produced such letters of the deceased or that he was cited as a witness in proof of such production of the above said letters. It seems the said charge sheet was returned, as seizure mahazar was not filed along with the charge sheet and the same was re-presented along with a copy of the Mahazar and Form '95'. It does not contain any reference to the recovery of the letters of the deceased. If at all those letters were produced by the brother of the deceased, the same should have been received and submitted to the court under Form '95'. Instead of issuing an acknowledgement, a Mahazar should have been prepared for the recovery of those letters. In addition to that the acknowledgement was said to be issued by the Inspector of Police who was not the Investigating Officer. In such circumstances, it is contended on behalf of the first respondent/accused that have failed in their attempt to secure a conviction of the first first respondent/accused, the petitioner (P.W.1) with the active connivance of the Inspector of Police has made an attempt to introduce an antedated document as acknowledgement and that the same is nothing but an after thought to fill up the lacuna found in the prosecution case. This court is able to find force and substance in the above said contention of the learned counsel fro the first respondent/accused.