SHAFI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Mohd. Shafi was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide his judgment of 6th May, 1985 for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By a separate order of the same date, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further R.I. for one month. The prosecution case which bas been found to have been proved was that the appellant had murdered Sharmim Ara on 21st July, 1983 at about 10 A.M. by inflicting cut injuries with a razor (Ustra). The motive for this crime, however, bas not been established.

(2.) It is unnecessary to deal with the prosecution case in detail. We may at the outset notice that anumber of infirmities have been brought to our notice by Mr. HR. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, appointed at State expense. The First Information Report, it is apparent, was not recorded at the time it is stated to have been record As per Ex. PW 18/B the time shown therein of the report is 11.30 A.M-.on 21st July, 1983. This F I R.is stated to have been recorded on the statement of Public Witness .I, Mst Zarina. That statement has been proved as Ex. Public Witness . I/A and according to the endorsement made thereon by Sub. Inspector Manohar Lal, it was recorded at 11.15 A.M. at the place of occurrence itself, i.e., House No 7138/5 Bari Wali Bagh, Delhi and despatched to the Police Station, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi at 11.30 A.M. on that very day. However, a copy of this report was sent to the llaka Magistrate on the next day, i.e., 22nd July 1983 It is admitted that as per the requirement of Section 157of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, this report termed as 'Special Report' was required to be sent forthwith to .the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence. No explanation whatsoever is offered by the prosecution for the delay in sending the report.

(3.) Public Witness . 21, Inspector Randhir Singh, while admitting that the said report was a special report, stated that: "Special report of this case was sent to the Magistrate in routine next day". Thereafter the Court asked a question. The said question and his answer are reproduced below: "C 0 Why it was sent in routine although case having been ' registered u/s 307 Indian Penal Code initially the injured bad died when you were still at the spot ? Ans I did not come to the police station before 10 or 11 p.m. and it was the duly of the duty officer to send the report himself".