BRIJ MOHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONCE a citizen of this country of this State is elected by popular vote from his constituency and takes oath as Member of Legislative Assembly, his dedicated concentration should be in making the Executive accountable to the Legislature by putting questions, by moving motions for discussion and by attending himself to the legislative business which is the function of the Legislative Assembly to discharge.

(2.) HOW ever, it is very unfortunate position in this State that even for lodging a First Information Report at Police Station, Chandan Singh PW 8 had to approach Shri Banwari Lal, Member of Legislative Assembly either in order to get the report lodged at Police Station, Kotwali, Dholpur or sinisterly to pressurise the Officer -in -charge of the Police Station to implicate the appellant Brij Mohan in an alleged offence Under Section 307 IPC. Either may be the reason. It is, bow ever, very clear that a Member of the State Legislative Assembly had no business what so ever to meddle in functioning of the Investigating Machinery in the State. Chandan Singh PW 8, who is the father of Jagdish alias Jaggo and against whom the appellant is said to have been aimed and firmed a gun -shot, himself tells the story that he reached at Chhawni Police Outpost on tie day of the incident at 5 or 6 P.M. and wanted to lodge a report but s one heard him. He had therefore, to approach Shri Banwarilal M.L.A. and he told to the latter that the report had not been accepted by the Police. Then the M.L.A. sent Chandan Singh to Dholpur Police Station and the report was accepted. What business this Banwarilal M.L.A. had to pursue or pressurise the Police officials to accept a First Information Report? It is every day affair in the administration that for every work of a citizen of this country or this State even if that work be legitimate or it be illegitimate, he has to rush and approach to a Member of the Legislative Assembly and that member involves himself in all legitimacies and illegitimacies.

(3.) HE was a investigating a case in which allegations were that the appellant dismantled the water course in the filed and fired a gun -shot. He mentioned that the Nali was broken on account of flowing of water. He did not find any pellet marks impact on the wall of the house of Chandan Singh. He neither reported whether he could find any empties and nor he recovered the gun from which the shot -was alleged to have been fired. Was this all a fake or a serious investigation in a grave offence like that which is punishable Under Section 307, IPC. Is this the lamentable condition of investigation of crime in this State that the criminal law has been made mockery and none can be sure from the manner in which investigations are carried out so to where actually lies the truth? Some time the Investigating Officers are extra -ordinarily zealous to create evidence and some time they themselves destroy the prosecution case. The Code of Criminal Procedure has reposed absolute trust and confidence in an Officer -in -Charge of Police Station but they are betraying this confidence and trust more and more and in an even increasing manner.