L.S.MEHTA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal emerges from the judgment, dated April 17, 1972, of Mr. Devi Singh, Sessions Judge, 'Ganganagar, convicting accused Mahender Singh and Vichiter Singh of the offence under Section 304/34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.
(2.) SUCCINCT facts of this case are that Shiv Karan and deceased Udram were brothers. They had a command and, situate at the outskirts of village Bhuranpura, in Chak No. 13, RWD Shiv Karan had sold his land to Santa Singh, father of accused Mahender Singh and Vichiter Singh. Udram had filed a pre -emption suit in respect of this land in the court of Civil Judge, Hanumangarh. An application under Section 145, Cr. P.C. was also made by, Udram, to the court of sub -Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh On account of the litigation between the parties, the two accused bare enmity against, Udram deceased. It is alleged that a few days prior to the occurrence Mahendersingh had told Udram that he would some day retaliate On October 23, 1971, at 2 p.m. Mahender Singh and Vichiter Singh came out of their 'Dhani. They reached at Killa Nos. 7 and 8 marked in the site plane Ex -P 11 Udram at that time was ploughing his land Mahander; Singh was armed, with a 'Gandasi' and Vichiter Singh with a lathi. Mahender Singh inflicted, a 'Gandasi' blow as a result thereof he fell down. Thereafter both Mahender Singh and Vichiter Singh inflicted several blows with the weapons with which they were equipped. The incident was alleged to have been seen by PW 4 Shri Ram and PW 5 Ram Jas from point No. 3 given in the site plan Ex -P. 11. Gome Khan and one Gopi, who was the owner of an adjacent, field, had also arrived there. On their challenge both the accused took to their heels. The witnesses found Udram unconscious and bleeding on account of multiple injuries. He was taken on a camel back to village Bauranpura and from there he was shifted to Rawatsar Hospital for treatment in a jeep -car. Because of his serious condition he was subsequently removed to Ganganagar Hospital Soon after Shri Ram went back to his village Bhuranpura. He then contacted Nand Ram, PW 3, Sarpanch Chahuwali and than bath Shri Ram and Nand Ram went to police station, Tibbi and lodged first information report Ex -P 1 at 2,10 a.m. on October 24, 1971. Nasir Ahmed, PW 10, incharge of the police station, Tibbi, registered a case under Sections 307 and 447, I.P.C. and took over investigation. Subsequently Udram died' in Ganganagar Hospital on October, 24, 1971, at 3.30 p.m. The police then altered the offence from Section 307, 302, I.P.C. Postmortem examination of the dead body of Udram was conducted by Dr. A.R. Das, PW 12, Medical Jurist, Ganganagar Hospital. He found the following injuries on the person of the deceased: 1. lacerated wound 2' x x bone deep on the back portion of the fronto -parietal region of head from left to mid -line; 2. lacerated wound suspected underlying fracture of scalp bone 1' x ' x bone deep on the back portion of the parietal region of the head; 3. bruise with swelling 3' x 1' on the upper surface of the left shoulder; 4. bruise with abrasion 4:' x 1:' x on the outer side of the left arm; , 5. bruise 3' x :' on the outer side of the left forearm; 6. bruise with abrasion 3:' x 1' on the left scapular region; 7. bruise 5' x 1' on the back side of the left chest; 8. bruise 4' x 1:' x on the outer and the back side of the right arm;? 9. abrasion 2' x :' on the medial side of the right forearm; 10. bruise with abrasion 1' x 1' on the outer side of the right thigh; 11. abrasion 1.' x :' x on the front side of the left knee joint; 12. abrasion 1' x 1' on the lateral side of the left ankle joint. In the opinion of the Doctor injury No. 2 was grievous and the rest of the injuries were simple in nature. All the injuries were caused with a blunt object. The head -injury causing shock and haemorrhage resulted in the death of Udram. That injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to have resulted in his death. After necessary investigation the police put up a challan against the accuseds appellants in the court of Munsiff Magistrate, Hanumangarh. Learned Munsiff -Magistrate conducted preliminary inquiry and committed the accused to the court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, to face trial under Section 302, I.P.C. The accused were charged under the aforesaid section of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty. In support of its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The statement of the Medical Officer, Dr. A.R. Das, recorded by Munsiff -Magistrate. Hanumangarh, was brought on record in accordance with the provisions of Section 509, Cr. P.C. The accused in their statements, recorded under Section 342, Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution allegations. They did not produce any evidence in their defence. Eventually the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. Dissatisfied by the above verdict, accused Mahender Singh and Vichiter Singh have taken this appeal. The contentions of learned Counsel for the appellants are that the copy of the first information report Ex -P 1 was not sent to the court of Munsiff Magistrate, Hanumangarh, forthwith in accordance with the provisions of Section 157, Cr. P.C. His next contention is that the first information report has been filed with delay. The document was prepared in consultation with Sarpanch Nand Ram PW 3, and. therefore, no reliance can be placed on it. His another grievance is that prior to the occurrence both the civil suit and the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. had terminated in favour of the accused and against deceased Udram and, therefore, they had no grievance against the deceased. His last submission is that the two eye -witnesses Shri Ram, PW 4 and Ram Jas, PW 5 were in fact not present on the spot. They have given false evidence to implicate the accused. Learned Dy. Govt Advocate has supported the judgment of the court below.
(3.) I now take up the first point raised on behalf of the appellants. A pesusal of the first information report Ex -P 1 shows that it was received by the police station, Tibbi. On October 24, 1971, at 2.10 a.m. The Munsiff -Magistrate, Hanumangarh, ordered for its registration on October 26, 1971. Learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that from the statement of Nasir Ahmed, ASI (PW 10) it is apparent that a copy of Ex P 1 had been sent to the Munsiff -Magistrate, that very day. If the copy of the first information report had been sent to the Munsiff -Magistrate, Hanumangarh, on October 24, 1971, there is no reason why the Munsiff -Magistrate should make endorsement for its registration on October 26, 1971. October 24, 1971, was Sunday. October 25, 1971 was a working day. The first information report could have at the latest been sent to the Munsiff Magistrate on October 25, 1971, but that was not done. Section 157(1), Cr. P.C. reads: If, from information received or otherwise, an officer -in -charge of a police station has reason to suspect the Commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribed in this behalf to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of he case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender; There are two reasons why the Legislature has provided in Section 157, Cr. P.C. that a copy of the first information report should be sent to the Magistrate forthwith. The first object of the report to be sent to the Magistrate concerned is to enable him to have an early information of a very serious crime so that he may be in a position to act, if necessary, under Section 159, Cr. P.C. See Hafiz Md. Sani v. Emperor AIR 1930 Pat 150. The second purpose of sending the report forthwith is not to allow the police to concoct false evidence and not to give the report a colourable picture, It is on account of these two reasons that the Legislature has specifically provided that the police officer, who has reasons to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered to investigate, should forthwith report the matter to the Magistrate and then he has to take over the investigation. Thus if is quite clear that in the case of cognizable offences there should be no time lag between the receipt of an information about the commission of an offence and the sending of the report to the Magistrate concerned vide Kochan Velayudhan v. State of Kerala : AIR1961Ker8 there is no reasonable or justifiable explanation as to when the report Ex P. 1 has been received by the police at 2.10. a.m. on October 24, 1971, why it had been sent to the Magistrate as late as October 26, 1971. Delay in sending a copy of the report to the Magistrate is likely to result in embellishment, which is the creature of an after -thought. On account of such delay the report not only gets bereft of spontaneity but danger also creeps in, in respect of the introduction of coloured version as a result of deliberation and conclusion. ;