VARIS ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution came with a case that on 6/04/1981 at about 11 or 11.30 p.m. Mohd. Rafique P.W. 1 after taking his meals, had gone to the shop of Ilias to purchase beetle and while he was returning after taking beetle to his house through a lane behind the house of Valiulla-khan, two persons were sitting upon a chabutra to whom he could not identify. He had proceeded about 3-4 steps forward that the two persons came on his back side and caught hold of him by their hands. They dragged Mohd. Rafique in the darkness in the lane. He gave kicks to release his both hands and kicked one of the persons and that person fell down. The other person thereupon inflicted injury on the neck of Mohd. Rafique by a dagger. He fell down. In the meanwhile wife of Bhoora Mistri and several other persons reached on the spot. The injured Mohd. Rafique identified the appellant as the assailant and when the women-folk reached at the place of the incident, these three assailants took to their heels. The injured Mohd. Rafique was shifted to Government Hospital where he was given treatment. It was as late as on 10/04/1981 that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Mohd. Rafique and on that basis registered a case under Section 307, I.P.C.

(2.) The case was committed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, after trial, decided the case on 11/08/1992 and held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced him to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 500/-. The convict Varis Ali has come on an appeal to this Court.

(3.) In para 13 of the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Tonk, has mentioned that the Investigating Officer did not show any interest in the investigation of the case and was not responsible towards performance of his duties as a Police Officer to properly investigate the crime. He has deplored the tendency of the Investigating Officer to remain quiet and inactive in such serious offences and that he even did not attempt to recover the weapon from the possession of the appellant. The Investigating Officer also did not get the appellant identified in any identification proceedings. It is this attitude of the Investigating Officers and this height of irresponsibility, which results in the giving of benefit of doubt to the appellant. The investigation of the crime as well as its prosecution are wholly tainted.