GIRIJA TIWARI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 30-11-2000, after going through the case diary, this Court had made number of observations. This Court recorded that the accused persons were taken into custody and were kept in lock-up on 13-11-2000 but their arrest memos were prepared on 14-11-2000. This Court also recorded that on 13th, no information was given to the parents/relations of the accused persons that they have been taken into custody. This Court also recorded that in relation to accused Neeraj Tiwari, two arrest memos were available on the record. One was showing that the arrest was effected at 1600 hours while the other was showing the arrest at 1530 hours. This Court also noticed that in each of the arrest memo, there was overwriting in the column provided for time of arrest. The said two Police Officers were given number of opportunities to explain their conduct and to explain before this Court as to why such actions were taken by them, but every time they submitted to the Court that in haste they committed certain mistakes which are bona fide.

(2.) WHILE going through the case diary, I found that atleast 3 accused were taken into custody on 13th itself, hut no arrest Panchnama was prepared on the said date. Mr. Satish Bajpai, Town Inspector, Bemetara, on being asked as to why the arrest Panchnama was not prepared on 13th itself, he says that but for the S.D.O. (P) none other had right to make investigation into the matter, therefore, he did not prepare the Panchnama. The explanation is false because the very first line of the case diary says that the matter was taken up for investigation by Mr. Bajpai. The very first line recorded on 14-11-2000 again says that the diary was opened on 14-11-2000 for investigation. In open Court in the presence of learned Deputy Advocate General, Shri Bajpai stated that two of the accused persons were caught on the spot and were brought to the Police Station and third came to the Police Station later on, but unfortunately the diary says that a search was made for these three accused persons and they were arrested or apprehended in the market. These three persons were available to the Police and were kept in the lock-up on 13th itself. Undisputedly, no arrest Panchnama was prepared on 13th and no information was sent to the relations of the accused persons on 13th itself. The diary of 14th says that Mr. Bajpai sent a wireless message to Gurubachan Singh, S.D.O. (P) regarding the report on which Mr. Gurubachan Singh assured him that he would come back immediately and proceed with the investigation. From the diary, it appears that Mr. Gurubachan Singh came to Police Station at about 1400 hours and called the complainant and his sister, recorded their statements under Section 161, Cr.PC and proceeded to the spot. On being asked, in open Court Mr. Gurubachan Singh says that he was informed by Mr. Bajpai that all the accused persons were in the police lock-up right from 13th. The case diary contains as many as 5 arrest memos. 4 are in original while the 5th is a photostat copy. The photostat copy shows that the time of arrest of Neeraj Tiwari was 1600 hours while the original with the overwriting says that said Neeraj Tiwari was taken into custody at 1530 hours. It also conspicuously appears from the arrest memorandums that each of the memorandum contains over-writing in the column provided for the time of arrest. I repeatedly asked Mr. Gurubachan Singh as to why there is over-writing in each of the arrest memo. He simply stated that by some mistake he made over-writing in the arrest memorandums. It is also to be seen that in the diary of 14-11- 2000 the time of arrest was shown as 1600 hours, but it was later on deleted and was shown as 1530 hours. Mr. Gurubachan Singh says that after making corrections in the arrest memos he made the corrections in the case diary. I am at a loss to understand as to why corrections in each of the memorandum and case diary were required. Mr. Gurubachan Singh admitted in the Court that after preparation of the Panchnamas, the daily proceedings or the actions taken are recorded in the case diary. The Panchnamas if already had the over-writings at the time of preparation before writing the diary, then, the time as shown in the corrected arrest memorandums could be mentioned in the case diary. Once it is found that the time of arrest was corrected in the memorandum and thereafter, a correction was made in the case diary, then there is no escape, but to hold that the entries were made in the Panchnama and the case diary at a subsequent stage.

(3.) BEMETARA is at a distance of 70 K.Ms. from the District Headquarters at Durg. On a vehicle the distance could be covered within two hours, these two police officers did not produce the accused persons before the CJM, Durg, but produced these 4 accused persons before the ACJM, Bemetara. The officers admit before me that they knew well that the son of the said Judicial Officer was the complainant. I do not know that what persuaded these two officers to produce these 4 accused persons before the Judicial Officer whose son was the complainant and unfortunately these officers are not ready to assign any reason. Mr. Gurubachan Singh says that he knew that the said Judicial Officer could not try the offence, but he did not know whether such officer could grant remand or not. The case diary does not say that being in the horns of dilemma, these two police officers ever sought any advice from their superior officers. The records show that the accused persons were produced before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara, at 7 P.M, who in his turn granted the transitory remand and required the Police to produce the accused persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, I am again at toss and am unable to understand as to why within 3 1/2 hours from the time of alleged arrest, the accused persons could not be produced before the CJM. Undisputedly, one of the accused is below 16 years of age. He was required to be produced before the Juvenile Court, but these Police Officers did not produce that juvenile before the competent authority, for the reasons best known to them. I repeatedly enquired from Mr. Gurubachan Singh that if the accused persons were in custody on 14th as they were already taken into custody on 13th by Shri Satish Bajpai, then, why he did not record this fact in the case diary, he simply stated that they were in custody, but were not arrested. Such a reply from a Police Officer having 35 years of service, is not palatable. Once the movements of a person are restricted and he is put in the lock-up, then, he is deemed to be arrested and a formal arrest memo is not required.