NAGAJI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amara son of Dhoolaji, meena of village Fatehpura lodged a First Information Report at police Station, Aaspur (District Dungarpur) at 11.00 p.m. of September 25, 1980 to the effect that as usual his mother named Ratan had gone to the jungle known as Kamla Aaba to graze her herd of goats. At about 5 or 6 p.m. the goats, but not Ratan, returned home. While Amara, after crossing the embankment of Naya Talab, was passing on the way leading to village Fatehpura in search of her mother, he heard her cry coming from a place near the Vid of Prabat Singh Rajput, P.W. 1 Amara, therefore, paced forward towards that direction and witnessed that his mother Ratan was lying on the ground and the appellant Nagji was assaulting her with an iron kosT. On alarm being raised by Amara, the cultivators of nearby field named Parbat Singh, Shambhu Singh and Nathu rushed towards the scene of occurrence whereupon the appellant took to his heels and despite chase could not be intercepted. Amara found that Ratan had sustained injuries on her throat, abdomen and eyes. Ratan succumbed to these injuries.

(2.) Station-House Officer Bansidhar Mishra of Police Station, Aaspur, P.W. 14 has deposed that as it was about midnight when the First Information Report was lodged, he deputed a constable to guard the corpse of Ratan during the night. He himself went to the spot next morning and prepared the inquest report Ex. P/i, site plan Ex. P/2 and memo of site inspection Ex. P/3. Certain articles as blood smeared and sample sand, clothes, a pair of shoe and thuat wood were seized from the spot and police statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded. In pursuance of an alleged information given by the appellant to Bansidhar Misra after his arrest and while in police custody, the weapon of offence Iron kos (Article 5) was seized under seizure memo Ex. P/S from inside the beerT of Parbat Singh P.W. 1 where it was hidden under the grass near the thuar bar. Autopsy of the dead body of Ratan was carried out by Dr. Laxman Singh Chauhan of Government Dispensary, Bankera. Inter alia the doctor found a lacerated wound 4 x 2 x 1 on anterior surface of the right lobe of the liver with oblique direction Poral vein was also ruptured. This wound and other injuries, according to Dr. Chauhan, were ante-mortem and could be caused by iron rod (Tkos). Individually the liver injury, by itself, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Ratan. On the completion of the investigation, the Station House Officer, P.S. Aaspur charge-sheeted the appellant under section 302 I.P.C. and after trial the Sessions Judge Dungarpur by his convicting judgment dated May 8, 1981, sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs. 200/- under section 302 I.P.C. which has, by this Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 1981, been appealed against in this Court by Nagji.

(3.) There are substantial and compelling reasons to hold that the investigation conducted by Station House Officer Bansidhar Misra of Police Station, Aaspur was shady and shabby. The original tahreer (requisition) sent to the Medical Officer, Bankora for conducting postmortem examination of the dead body of Ratan was not produced by the prosecution. However, during the cross-examination of Investigating Officer Misra, copy of requisition (Ex. D/1) sent to Dr. Chouhan by the Head Moharrir of the Police Station, Aaspur was got produced by the appellant from the police case diary. In Ex. D/1 it was mentioned to the doctor that some person had thrown the dead body of Ratan after murdering her. Firstly, It was not at law required by law nor at all necessary to - mention in it that Ratan was murdered or that her dead body had been thrown by somebody after murdering her; and secondly, If at all it was necessary intention such a lack in the requisition to the doctor, there was no bitch before Bansidhar Mishra or the Head Moharrir to mention that T1Nagji (appellant) had thrown the dead body of Ratan after murdering her especially more- so when the requisition Ex. D/1 had been sent to Dr. Chouhan after the lodging of the First Information Report Ex. P/33. Use of the words some person In Ex. D/1 is undoubtedly likely to create more doubts in the mind of the court than the non use of such words. A question mark can be put whether the First Information Report was an ante-dated document andparticularly so when it was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 157 Cr. P.C. not at the earliest on September 26, 1980 but after unreasonable delay on September 27, 1980; This is not the only Infirmity in the prosecution case. There are many more.