Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Cr. A. No. 1294/2011.

38. Saleem (PW/10) stated that Police has arrested the accused Kalu alias Chandrshekhar and Ramu alias Ramlal and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P-12 & Ex. P-13). He further said that at the time of interrogation by Police the accused Kalu alias Chandrashekhar disclosed about knife and stated that he has kept the knife in his yard. Police prepared a disclosure memo (Ex.P-14) and at the time of interrogation accused Ram Lal disclosed that he has kept the sickle inside his house. Police has prepared seizure memo (Ex.P-15). He also stated that he does not know what weapon seized from the accused Ram Lal and Kalu has also not supported the prosecution case and the prosecution has declared him hostile and cross examined him. In paragraph 3 of cross examination he denied the suggestion of prosecution that accused Chandrashekhar disclose about Sickle (Darati) and the accused Ram Lal disclosed about knife. He further denied that the accused Chansrashekhar produced sickle (Darati) from his house and the accused Ramlal produced a knife behind his house. Therefore, it clear that this witness has also not supported the prosecution case but has admitted his signature on arrest memo (Ex.P-12 & 13) disclosure statement (Ex.P-14 & 15) and seizure memo (Ex.P-16&17).

Cr. A. No. 1294/2011.

42. Virendra Singh Gurjar (PW/11) stated that he sent the seized articles in the case to Forensic Science Laboratory along with letter (Ex.P-26) for chemical examination, wherefrom FSL report (Ex.P-27) was received. This witness in paragraph 9 of cross examination admitted that he has not mentioned in seizure memo (Ex.P-16&17) that he sealed the seized articles and has also not mentioned that the weapons were blood stained. Dr. D.P.Agrawal (PW/6) also admitted in paragraph 7 of cross examination that there were no blood stain on sickle (Darati) and knife. Therefore, it appears that both the aforesaid witnesses have not seen blood stains on the weapons, but if the witnesses had not seen blood stains on the seized weapons by their naked eyes then it can not be presumed that there was no blood stain on the weapons but it can be examined in the concerning laboratory.

43. From the statement of Dr. D.P Agrawal (PW/6) it also appears that the seized weapons produced before him in sealed condition and subsequent to the examination he resealed the weapons and resent to the Police. From the perusal of FSL report (Ex.P-27), it is clear that the seized articles were presented before Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jhumarghat (Rau), Indore in sealed packet. Hence, it is clear that the seized articles have been sealed by Police and the concerning doctor. Therefore, not mentioning about fact of sealing of seized articles in seizure memo, no adverse inference can be drawn.

Ramlal. Blood group could not be traced due to negligible amount of blood on seized sickle and knife. Since only blood was found on the weapons seized from the accused persons, therefore, it can not be said with certainty that the seized weapons had been used in the crime, hence, the trial Court has erred in drawing an inference that the use of the weapons in committing the crime is substantiated. But the case is based on the evidence of eye witnesses, hence, the confirmation of the presence of human blood on the weapons is not material.