BISHNU DEO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the order of conviction passed against the appellant under Sections 302, 201 and 506 of the I.P.C. with sentences of imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for two years and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the respective offences. The appellant, then working as the Gadidar of the liquor shop at village Dunga in the district of Kalahandi, had allegedly committed the murder of Shiva Bhagwan Sharma, then working as the Manager in that liquor shop (hereinafter described as the deceased) on the 30th May, 1976, at about 9 p.m., by means of the Tangi (M.O. I.), witnessed by Meta Harijan (PW 1), then working as a labourer also in the same liquor shop and had allegedly caused evidence of the commission of the offence of murder to disappear by carrying the dead body of the deceased with the help of PW 1, by intimidating and keeping him under grave threat to do away with his life in case he did not assist him and did not keep it a secret and burning it by the side of a Nala and burying the remnants thereof, burning the books of account and by cleaning M.O. I with water. The order of conviction of the appellant mainly rests on the evidence of PW 1, who did not disclose the occurrence to any one until the arrival of the Grama Rakshi (PW 2) of village Padadunga, on the 4th June, 1976, whereafter the first information report (Ext. 1) was got scribed on the information given by PW 1 and lodged at the police outpost at Jubarajapur, which was a little over two kilometres from the place of occurrence on the basis of which investigation was first taken up by the Assistant Sub -Inspector (not examined) attached to that police outpost and later by the Officer -in -Charge (PW 13) of the police station at Th. Rampur. Ultimately another police officer submitted charge -sheet against the appellant who, after commitment, stood trial, denying the charges made against him and pleading false implication in the case. The prosecution had examined fourteen witnesses to substantiate its case and the appellant had examined none in his defence.

(2.) WHILE according to the learned counsel for appellant, the prosecution evidence was highly unsatisfactory and could not sustain any of the charges, the learned Additional Government Advocate has pressed into service the evidence of PW 1 and other circumstances in support of the order of conviction.

(3.) IT may be kept in mind that this important witness chose not to disclose the occurrence to any one under a supposed grave threat administered to him by the appellant until the arrival of the Grama Rakshi (PW 2) and it is not understood as to how and why if the appellant had threatened PW 1 with serious consequences, this grave threat, after the presence of the Grama Rakshi who had reportedly absented himself from his village and had gone to Bhawanipatna to attend a case, a fact which the Investigating Officer (PW 13) could, but did not take care to verify from the records which could not be accepted in these circumstances and with out proper verification had suddenly vanished and the incident was reported. On his own showing, PW 1 was not an outsider and had been working as a labourer in the same liquor shop in which the appellant and the deceased had been working and he did not make any report to the owner or the checker (PW 9) of that liquor shop and he neither reported to the Ward Member of village Dunga nor to the Sarpanch residing in village Nangi about two miles away from the liquor shop. It would appear to us that the explanation given by PW 1 for not disclosing the occurrence was but a myth and such a serious incident, if really witnessed by PW 1, was not reported to the police authorities although the police outpost was at a distance of only over two miles from the scene of occurrence until five days thereafter and no reasonable and plausible explanation had been offered for this inordinate delay in lodging the first information report and for the non -disclosure by PW 1 about the occurrence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought and on account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation and for these reasons, it is essential that delay in lodging the first information report should satisfactorily be explained. (See AIR 1973 SC 501 : (1972 Cri LJ 1296), Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu). In the instant case, the unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the first information report would certainly affect the bonafides of the prosecution case.