DHALA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th June, 1980, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, convicting the accused-appe!lants under section 396 & 397, IPC, and sentencing each of them to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment under section 396, IPC; and to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo* 3 months, rigorous imprisonment under section 397, IPC, respectively. Both the substantive sentences, were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) PARMA, son of Genda submitted a written report on 27th June, 1979, at PS Uchhain, alleging that on the intervening night of 26th & 27th June, 1979 he was sleeping out of his house. At that time, he woke up hearing some cries (Ghighhi), arid saw 10-15 miscreants armed with deadly weapons. When he forwarded with a Lathi, the miscreants fired a gun shot at him, but, he escaped by shielding behind a pillar. The villagers of Ajitpura then raised hue and cry, and hearing the same, the villagers of Villages-Nagla Peelu and Bhaisa also raised alarming-voices. The miscreants then fired one more gun-shot, to which his nephew Ramjilal died at the spot, and Charan sustained pellet-injuries. They also caused injuries by Lathis and Ballams to Mst. Ramdei, Bissi and Vamniram; and snatched away, the ornaments of Mst. Kalawati, Mst Saraswati, Mst Hukmi, Mst. Bindo and Mst. Phoolwati. They also looted ornaments from his house and from that of Nathi and Charan. He (informant) also stated in the report that he had identified the accused-appellants in the light of torches, and that he could also identify the rest of the miscreants, if they were brought before him. The report further says that seeing the villagers of villages -Nagla Peelu and Bhaisa coming towards them, the said miscreants ran away.

(3.) IN the present case also, the incident had taken place on the intervening night of 26th & 27th June, 1979, and the report was lodged at the Police Station that very night or say on the early morning of 27th June, 1979, at 3. 15 am. The distance from Village - Ajitpura and the Police Station was about 6 miles, as is clear from the FIR (Ex. P 8 ). Thus, according to the FIR, the report was lodged immediately. But, this is no ground to claim correctness, or truthfulness of the report of the prosecution story. So passing judgment on this aspect that the report of the incident was lodged promptly and basing the conviction of the accused persons, is not correct. A written report was submitted by one Parma, which is Ex P 1. There is no endorsement on this report (Ex. P 1) about its presentation at the Police Station. When, the report (Ex. PI) was submitted at the Police Station, it was the duty of the SHO, to make an endorsement on this report. Thus, it is not clear that the report (Ex. P 1) was. submitted at the Police Station (Uchhain) on 27th June, 1979, at 3. 15. a. m. No doubt, the FIR (Ex P. 8) is a copy of the report (Ex. P. 1), and thereon, the SHO had made an endorsement as 'karyavabee-Police', but, this was not the way of entertaining a report. I find that the original report can be got changed and substituted in this way, by a new one. What is the guarantee that the report submitted by Parma is this very report (Ex. P. 1 ). It may be possible that he might have submitted some other report, and the report (Ex. P. 1 ). has been prepared later on by the police and taken on record.