Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18.In the instant case, the postmortem was conducted in the following morning at 9.30 a.m., therefore, this ground to disbelieve the time of origin of the FIR does not appeal to reason. It has also been argued that in the examination-in-chief PW-1 Smt. Usha Pandey has stated that after the incident she got the FIR scribed at the place of occurrence thereafter she has stated that logs of Babool wood were taken away by the police and after that she went to the police station alongwith written report and lodged the FIR. But when we scrutinized this part of the evidence of PW-1 Smt. Usha Pandey the conclusion is irresistible that in the examination-in-chief the questions were put in wrong seratum by the prosecutor. Because the logs of wood were taken into custody by the police on 13.03.2000 i.e. after more than two months of the incident. So it cannot be believed that the FIR came into existence after 13.03.2000 when the logs of wood were taken into custody by the police. Therefore, PW-1 Smt. Usha Pandey in her statement has proved the written report (Exhibit Ka-1) and has stated that after the incident she got it scribed by Bankey Lal who came after few minutes of the incident hearing the noise and by the time Bankey Lal reached at the place of occurrence accused persons had fled away so after getting the FIR scribed she must have gone to the police station to lodge the FIR it was only human error on the part of the prosecutor that before putting the question as to when she went to lodge the FIR he first preferred to prove the factum of recovery of the wood logs from the place of occurrence. So this was virtually a mistake and by no stretch of imagination it can be presumed that the FIR was lodged after 13.03.2000. So this argument to create doubt regarding the origin of the FIR also has no substance.