- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri V. C. Tewari, learned senior Counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate.
(2.) THE incident is said to have oc curred around 6. 15 a. m. and the First In formation Report is said to have been lodged at 7. 40 a. m. THE prosecution case is that the applicant was identified at the scene of occurrence and soon after the applicant caused firearm injuries to the victim, the victim was taken by the first informant and the witnesses to Yasoda hospital in an attempt to save his life but the victim succumbed to his injuries. Submission of Sri Tewari is that the applicant had no motive as he had already won the election; the First Information Report appears to be ante timed and from the injuries found on the person of the deceased it appears that the death would have been instantaneous and the theory of taking the victim to the hospital has been introduced to gain time. His submission is that it appears that the occurrence took place some time in dark hours early in the morning and nobody saw the incident. Learned Counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court towards the interpolation in the inquest report the name of the applicant being not disclosed in the inquest report as well as towards wireless message said to have been sent to Higher authorities. Learned A. G. A. , however, submits that there is prompt report, the dead body was found in the Yasoda hospital where inquest was held and the interpolation does not appear to have been done by the Investigating Officer. He also submits that the absence of the name of the applicant in the inquest report and wireless message are not sufficient circumstance to show that the report was ante-timed.
(3.) PERUSAL of inquest report and chal lan nash show that the time of inquest is shown to be between 12. 00 a. m. to 12. 45 a. m. There is interpolation of figure 2 in timing of 12. 00 a. m. and 12. 45 a. m. It ap pears that originally the figures were 10. 00 a. m. and 10. 45 a. m. The interpolation ap pears to have been made at some sub sequent stage either after submission of the charge sheet or during the investigation. It may be seen that on the back of challan nash the time of receipt of the dead body and papers sent at the Police Head Quarter is shown to be 12. 30 hours vide G. D. entry No. 32. The distance of the Police Head Quarter is stated to be 18 kms. If the inquest was completed at 12. 45 hours, the dead body could not have reached the Police Head Quarter at 12. 30 hours. Moreover, the time of completing the inquest would not have been 12. 45 a. m. It ought to have been 12. 45 p. m. This clear ly shows that the interpolations have been made in police papers some time after the dead body was received and dispatched from the Police Head Quarter vide G. D. entry No. 32. The prosecution was not gaining any advantage from the interpola tions. Therefore, interpolations have been made by some other interested persons. It will also be pertinent to observe that the interpolations in figures '2' which appear to have been made by some other person. Figure '2' has been used in the inquest report and the challan nash at other place also. This is where section of the offence (302) and the number of one of the con stables (275) is mentioned in the inquest report and the challan nash. Comparison of figure '2' at these places shows dif ference from figure 2 in the inquest in 12. 00 a. m. and 12. 45a. m. No doubt, the name of the ap plicant is not stated in the inquest report. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rang Bahadur Singh v. State of UP. , JT 2000 (2) SC 621, has observed in para 14 of the judgment 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. W; find it difficult to believe that even the general diary need not contain the names of the culprits whose iden tity was known by them. It is equally difficulty 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. It is 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. ";