LAKHI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel for the respondents.

(2.) PETITIONER , Lakhi Ram seeks issuance of a direction for registration of FIR for the offence of murder of his son Ram Kumar. The dead body of Ram Kumar was found lying on the heaps of dung in the fields of the petitioner on 28.4.1997. Petitioner approached for registration of the case but the same was not done. The dead body of Ram Kumar had been sent by A.S.I., Jagat Singh for post-mortem examination to General Hospital, Kaithal and thereafter it was handed over to the petitioner and other relatives for cremation which was done on the same day at village Sirsal. Two days later on 30.4.1997 witness Mai Chand son of Mansa Ram, resident of Sirsal told the petitioner about his witnessing the murder of Ram Kumar and the version given by him has been reproduced in para 5 of the petition which reads as under :-

(3.) NOTICES were issued to the State of Haryana and other respondents namely Director General of Police, Panchkula, Superintendents of Police, Karnal, Superintendent of Police, Kaithal, Station House Officer, Police Station, Pundri, Disrict Kaithal, Station House Officer, Police Station Asandh, District Karnal as also two respondents 7 and 8. Reply has been filed by respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5. In the reply it was mentioned that A.S.I. Jagat Singh and other police officials visited the village and recorded the statement of the petitioner Lakhi Ram wherein he stated about his finding the body of his son Ram Kumar in his fields. He also stated that he apprehended that the injuries had been caused due to the accidental slipping by getting down from a vehicle. Primarily this statement of Lakhi Ram was considered by the police in holding that the death of Ram Kumar was accidental and the police ruled out the possibility of murder. However, it may be mentioned that in para 5 of the reply it was admitted that Mai Chand aforesaid had made a statement to the S.H.O. concerned during the enquiry of the case and which was said to be approximately the same as stated by the petitioner. It may be pointed out that the statement of Mai Chand which has been referred to in para 5 of the petition was not categorically denied in the reply and as such it cannot be said that the version of occurrence as contained in the statement of Mai Chand did not show the offence of murder allegedly committed by the culprits. At this stage reference may be made to the provisions of Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. which, inter alia, reads as under :-