NARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will/also dispose of S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1071/89 moved by Kachuwa S/o Devaji and Satiya S/o Okaji under Section 439, Cr.P.C. The case against the applicants of this application, as well as of the application No. 1071/89, has been registered at Police Station, Barloot (district Sirohi) under Sections 302, 307, 325, 324, 380, 435, 436 147, 148 and 149, IPC. In that case, there are 24 accused including the seven applicants of this application and two applicants of application No. 1071/89. This case arises out of FIR No. 31 of 1989. According to this case, the applicants and their co -accused formed an unlawful assembly and they all went to village Jawal and caused injuries on the persons belonging to the other community, burnt the house of one Chunni Lal and also burnt the hut at burial ground of the minority community. In this incident, injuries were caused on some persons and gun of one person was looted. The case registered on the statement of Sabir Mohammed. Another case, bearing FIR No. 32 of 1989, was registered on the same date at the same Police Station on the basis of the report sent by one Mahaveer Singh and according to that report, Narendrasingh (applicant No. 1 in Application No. 1076/1989) was apprehended by some persons of the minority community and they tied him with a tree with the help of the rope and assaulted him, and learning about this incident some residents of village belonging to the majority community, came to rescues him, but they also received injuries at the hands of the members of the minority community. The case was, thus, registered against some persons of the minority community under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 324 and 323 IPC.

(2.) AFTER completing the investigation, the Police has filed challans in both the cases. The challans submitted by the police in the Court against both the parties show that the Police hardly investigation and gave no opinion about the correctness of any version. It cannot be disputed that the Police investigating Agency is the first Judge of the case and it is the duty of the Investigating Agency to give its own opinion about the correctness of the different versions reported by different people. It is also not disputed that both the cases will have to be tried together and it is not possible either for the prosecution or for the Court, at this stage, to say which version is correct. It is further not disputed that if the version given by the applicant's side that they had gone to rescue Narendrasingh, is correct then the object of the assembly, i.e. of rescuing of Narendrasingh, cannot be said to be unlawful and in such circumstances, if some members of that assembly burnt some houses or looted some property, that will be their individual acts and the report does not show who did that part of the offence. When the Police fails to do its duty of investigating and reporting the matter correctly to the Court, it becomes difficult for the prosecution as well as the Court to take any prima facie view at this stage. It is also brought to my notice that 16 co -accused of these applicants have already been admitted to bail.