SUNIL SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition challenging the charge sheet annexure P-1, dated 29-10-2006.

(2.) THE petitioner also challenged the order of suspension, Annexure p-2, dated 16-9-2006 that order has been revoked subsequently by the respondent vide another order dated 13-11 -2006, Annexure, hence the petition of the petitioner with regard to suspension has become infructuous.

(3.) THE petitioner was working in the police department as Sub inspector. At the relevant time he was posted as In- charge Police Station, unnao, District Datia. A cognizable offence under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 was registered at Crime No. 38/06 at Police Station, Unnao on the report of one raghubir Singh son of Pratap Singh Dangi, resident of Village Devra that on 8-5-2006 at around 7. 30 in the evening Khushali Dangi, Vinod Dangi, Charan dangi, Santosh Dangi and Maithilisharan Kushwaha murdered his son-in-law, mulayam Singh Dangi. On the basis of the aforesaid First Information Report a case under Sections 302,147 and 148, IPC was registered against the aforesaid five persons. The case was registered on 8-5-2006 and from 8-5-2006 to 23-5-2006 the investigation of the case was conducted by Assistant Sub inspector Mr. P. S. Yadav. Thereafter, Khushali Dangi submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police that he and other persons had been falsely implicated in the case. It has further been stated by him that the deceased and complainant had earlier also tried to implicate them in a false case. The complainant put forth cogent evidence with regard to non-involvement in the case. Hence, the Superintendent of Police directed the Additional superintendent of Police to conduct inquiry. The Additional Superintendent of police conducted a detailed investigation and examined number of witnesses and also the fire-arm which was said to be used in the offence and after investigation he found that the accused persons which were mentioned by the, complainant in the FIR were not the real culprits of the crime and opined that maniram Dangi, Maithilisharan Dangi and Balli alias Balvir Singh were the suspected persons who may had committed crime. He further opined that both the arms recovered from Maniram Dangi and other fire arm be sent for investigation to FSL, Sagar and thereafter further investigation be carried out in the case. Copy of the report has been filed along with the return as Annexure r-5. Thereafter the investigation of the case was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner recorded statements of Parmeshwari, Hardas, Gayadeen, harimohan, Ramesh Choubey, Brijkishore, Mukundilal, Suresh Gupta, Karan singh, Tala @ Shripat, Vishnu Swami, Satish Dangi, Vinod Vanskar, devkinandan Dangi, Sitaram Kushwaha, Bablu Ahirwar, Maniram and prajapati. He also received FSL report and consulted then Superintendent of police. After the examination of FSL report the petitioner found that there was a contradiction between the version of Raghubirsingh Dangi and the FSL report, medical report and statements of other witnesses, then the petitioner came to the conclusion that complainant, Raghubirsingh along with other person committed murder of deceased Mulayam Singh and lodge false FIR against other persons. As per the order of Superintendent of Police, Datia and after perusal of the report of Additional Superintendent of Police petitioner arrested Raghubirsingh and Maithili Dangi and also lodged a First Information report against them. On the memorandum under Section 27 he seized the weapon from the above accused persons and they were produced before the court.