Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. There are also material lapses in the investigation also. During the cross examination of PW3, statement Mark 'X' has been put to him and stated to bear his signature. This statement was recorded on 27.03.2018 whereas accused was arrested on 28.03.2018. PW5 has not disputed this statement. The date of this statement has proved that statement Mark 'X' had already been recorded one day prior to the arrest of the accused persons in this CA No. 98/19 Salman Vs. State 21/23 case and the prosecution has not tendered any explanation to it. Rather it has casted a doubt on the story of the prosecution. Besides it, the charge-sheet against the accused filed by IO has material defect. Chargesheet got forwarded from ACP concerned on 11.06.2018, whereas SHO concerned signed it on 11.08.2018. This fact reflects that SHO and ACP Khajuri Khas Mr. Rajnikant Awadhiya have not discharged their responsibility sincerely. The power to forward chargesheet has been conferred upon ACP concerned in terms of Section 158 Cr.P.C keeping in view his senior position and also to keep check on misuse of power by SHO and IO, but in this case, ACP concerned itself has failed to discharge this obligation and blindly signed the charge-sheet on 11.06.2018 i.e. before signing the SHO concerned who forwarded it on 11.08.2018 i.e. after two months of forwarding by ACP. This lapse cannot be said just a routine lapse and has serious consequences. In fact, charge-sheet was filed in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Even the cognizance ought not to be taken on such chargesheet. As such, it is again lapse on the part of prosecution.