JAGDISH ALIAS TEMPU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed u/sec. 374 Cr. P. C. by accused appellant Jagdish alias Tempu against the he judgment dated 13. 7. 1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 21/97 (15/97) by which he has been convicted u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) CHARGES against the accused appellant were that at about half past 3. 00 P. M. on 23. 9. 1996 in village Rampuria under police station Tibi District Hanumangarh in his own residential house accused appellant Jagdish alias Tempu murdered his wife Sayara, his five years' old son Salim and him 2-1/2 years' old daughter Bala by burning them through kerosene oil.

(3.) IT is an admitted fact that PW-1 jalaluddin, PW-2 Sharif and PW-3 Ranjit are the brothers of the deceased and PW-8 Bismilla is sister of deceased. PW-8 Bismilla was resident of Rampuria. Had she been present on the site atleast her name should have appeared in FIR Ex. P/1. Similarly, had PW-1 Jalaluddin and PW-2 Sharif were on the site at 3. 30 P. M. , when the occurrence took place the FIR should have been lodged immediately thereafter, why should they wait on the site for the police to come there and thereafter lodged the report Ex. P/1. Even assuming that Ex. P/1 was handed over to the Station House Officer at site at 6. 30 P. M. the same should have reached to police station Tibi at the earliest opportunity for registering the FIR. But the perusal of FIR Ex. P/1 indicates that it reached at 8. 00 P. M. in the police station. No cause for the delay worth the name was mentioned either by the prosecution witnesses or in the FIR Ex. P/1 itself. Similarly, if the FIR was registered on 23. 9. 1996 at 8. 00 P. M. its copy should have been immediately sent to the Magistrate whose residence was in Tibi itself and within a radius of one kilometer. The copy of FIR was sent to the Magistrate on 24. 9. 1996 at 12. 30 P. M. No reasonable explanation of this delay has come from the prosecution witnesses. Inspite of above infirmities the trial court has not dealt with this important aspect of the matter even the slightest.