OM PARKASH ALIAS OMLA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 26th May, 1970 of the High Court of Delhi, confirming the sentence of death passed on the appellant by the Sessions Judge on a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The charge against the appellant was that on or about 13 December, 1968 at about 9.15 p.m. at Ram Nagar Nai Basti, Delhi, the appellant committed murdrer by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Lachman Dass and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that Lachman Dass son of Raja Ram a young man of aobut 23 years of age was running a tea shop at Ram Nagar, Nai Basti, Delhi. He had his residence in the same Katra. Adjacent to his shop was the shop of his uncle Bahadur Chand who also resided in that Katra. On 13 December, 1968 at about 9.15 p.m. Om Prakash came to the shop of Lachman Dass and asked for tea and eggs on credit. Lachman Dass told Om Prakash that he should first clear his previous account. Om Prakash took it as an insult and told Lachman Dass that he would teach him a lesson. Om Prakash took out a knife and inflicted two stab-wounds, one on the abdomen and the other on the chest of Lachman Dass. Lachman Dass cried "Lala, Omla Chaku mar gaya", (father, Omla has stabbed me with a knife). After inflicting the injuries Om Prakash took to his heel Some persons who had witnessed the occurrence ran after him but as soon as Om Prakash entered Arakashan Road, he boarded a three wheeler scooter which was already standing there with its engine on and escaped. Raja Ram telephoned the Police Control Room. The Flying Squad van reached the spot and Lachman Dass was removed to the Irwin Hospital, where he was declared dead at 10.05 p.m.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant submitted that the First Information Report was made on 13 December, 1968, and it did not reach the Magistrate till 16 December, 1968 and the delay was against the Punjab Police Rules and the prosecution did not explain the delay. The High Court that 14 and 15 days of December, 1968, were holidays and the First Information Report therefore could not be sent to the Magistrate before 16 December, 1968. No question was put to the Investigating Officer to ascertain the cause for delay as to whether it was occasion by the Police or by the magistrate. The signature of the Magistrate bore the date 16th December, 1968. The High Court correctly held that in the absence of any definite evidence it was not possible to fix the responsibility for the delay on the Police alone, because it might be that the F.I.R. was sent to the residence of the Magistrate but the latter took note of it only after the holidays. It is needless to stress the obvious that the Police shold not cause any delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Magistrate and the Magistrate should also take notice of it as soon as it reaches him.