P.K.JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Addi­tional Government Advocate.
(2.) THE applicant is said to have killed the victim by firing at him from a close range while the victim was in his house. The incident is said to have occurred around 5.00p.m. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the First Information Report is ante-timed and the applicant has been falsely nominated in the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court towards certain discrepancies in the FIR and other police papers. He points out that in the FIR the place of occurrence is stated to be the house of the victim in village Lohagara whereas in police papers it is stated to be village Jaggi Ka Pura hamlet of village Lohagara. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence, ac­cording to the FIR is 6 kms. whereas in the inquest report it is shown to be 7 kms. The name of the assailant in the site plan is shown to be Shankar Kol whereas in the FIR he has been described as Uma Shankar and that no blood was found at the alleged place of occurrence. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant's name is not disclosed in the inquest report. Learned A.G. A, submits that it is day light incident and the applicant and two unknown per­sons are said to have committed the crime and medical evidence corroborates the participation of the applicant.
(3.) AS regards absence of the name of the applicant in the inquest report a refer­ence is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in JT 2000 (2) SC 621,RangBahadur Singh and others v. State of U.P, 2000(2) JIC 123 (SC) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 14 of the judgment has observed as follows: "The second aspect is that names of the appellants did not figure in any of the papers prepared by the Investigating Officer on 2nd August. The argument was attempted to be made in defence of such non-inclusion of the appellants on the premise that no such document required mention the names of the accused. We find it difficult to believe that even the general diary need not contain the names of the culprits whose iden­tity was known by them. It is equally difficult to comprehend that the inquest prepared on the morning of 2nd August, 1978, should be totally silent about the names of at least the known culprits. Is it not more reasonable to presume that no names were mentioned in all the investigative records made on 2nd August, 1978, because the Investigating Officers had not come to know of the names of any of the dacoits till then." From the above observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it would appear that the names of the nominated accused persons were not mentioned in the G.D. entry which is prepared soon after lodging of the FIR as also in the inquest report prepared by the Investigating Officer. The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court further shows that in other police papers also, prepared on 2nd August, 1978, the names of the nominated accused persons did not figure any where. It was in these cir­cumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it would be reasonable to presume that no names were mentioned in all the investigative records made on 2nd August, 1978 because the Investigating Of­ficers had not come to know of the names of any of the dacoits till then. In the instant case on the basis of inquest report or on the basis of challan nash it could not be held that the name of the applicant in these documents was not mentioned as the name was not known till preparation of these documents.;