G. K. SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 4th June '82, passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali, upholding the convictions and the sentences of the petitioners, awarded by the Judicial Magistrate Pali, vide his judgment dated 11th July '78. Vide its judgment, the trial court has found accused Girdhari Singh guilty u/ss. 148, 323, 325 and 452, IPC and sentenced him on each count as mentioned in its judgment. The other accused persons were found guilty u/ss. 148, 323 325/149 & 452 IPC, and each of them was sentenced on each count, as mentioned in the said judgment.
(2.) ON 8th June '68, a written report was submitted by one Visram father of Chunilal, at PS, Murdia, Signed by Chunilal, wherein, it was alleged that on 31st May '60, at 2-3 P. M. , all the accused persons armed with gun, Farsi axe and lathi, had come to their house, abused Chunilal, with a common object entered into the house and gave him beating. Thereafter, Chunilal was taken to the 'chohatta' of the village, where, all these persons again had inflicted injuries on his body. Hearing a hue and cry, his father Visram mother Mst. Kesi and other villagers arrived there. Moti, uncle of Chunilal was present when the latter was beaten up by those persons. The condition of Chunilal was serious So, he was taken to Government Hospital, Pali where he was admitted. Thereafter, he was taken to Jodhpur and was admitted to Jodhpur Hospital, where Chunilal got his medical treatment. On this report, the police registered a case u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 & 504, IPC. After completing usual investigation, the police submitted a challan against 11 persons. The trial court framed charges against Girdhari Singh u/ss. 148, 323, 504, 325 & 452, IPC, and against other accused persons u/ss. 148, 323, 504, 452 & 325/149 IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trials. The contention of the accused persons was that some time prior to the alleged occurrence, a report was lodged against the complainant and others from the side of the accused persons u/s 307, IPC, and in that case, the present accused persons were witnesses against the complainant party, and so, on account of enmity, they have been falsely implicated in this case. The trial court on the basis of the statement of Chunilal injured, corroborated by that of Mst. Kesi mother of Chunilal and Moti PW, 1 found that the case was made out against the accused persons, and so, it convicted and sentenced each of them, as mentioned above. That conviction and sentences were confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the alleged incident had taken place on 31st May '68, at about 3 P. M. at Village-Murdia, which was about 20 miles away from the police station. But, no report was lodged at the police station. Chunilal who was injured was taken to Government Hospital, Pali and was admitted there. But, no report was lodged there at the police station. Thereafter, Chunilal was brought to Jodhpur, and according to his statement, he came to Jodhpur on 5tb/6th June'68, and was admitted to Jodhpur Hospital. But still, no report was lodged at the police station at Jodhpur even. One telegram was sent by the father of Chunilal, Visram on 5th, June '68, and that telegram is marked Ex. D. 1. In that telegram it has been mentioned, "chunilal s/o Visram Bhat resident of Murdia severly beaten by axe and lathi blows. Admitted in hospital lying unconscious. " This telegram was sent on 5th June, '68, to S. H. O. , PS-Kerla, but in this telegram, the names of the persons who had inflicted injuries to Chunilal, were not mentioned, nor was the detail of the incident written. Thereafter, on 8th June'68, a written report which was signed by Chunilal, was submitted by Visram, father of Chunilal, at PS-Kerla In that report, a detail of the incident was given, mentioning the names of all the accused persons, and therein, the details of various weapons which were in the hands of the accused persons, were also given, wherein, it was also mentioned as to which accused person inflicted which blow. While pointing out all these particulars, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was a delay in lodging the report, and that, after due consultation and with deliberation, a case was made out, the story was concocted and a detailed report implicating all the accused persons, was submitted at the police station. This report is Ex. P. 1; and in the "karya Police," on further interrogation by the police, the father of Chunilal told that it was his mistake that he did not submit the report earlier. This was the only explanation for submitting the report with delay. This is no explanation for the delay. Chunilal was taken to Pali Hospital. A report could have been lodged there, or it could have been sent by post from Pali. When the telegram (Ex. D 1) could be sent to S. H. O. , PS, Kerla, a written report could also have been sent. Then, when Chunilal was brought to Jodhpur Hospital on 6th June, '68, a report of the incident could have been submitted at Jodhpur itself, or it could have been sent by post from Jodhpur. Why for two days, they kept silent and on 8th June, '68, only, written report was submitted. This shows that the correct fact was suppressed, and after due consultation and deliberation, a written report was prepared, in which, all the accused persons were implicated, having been assigned individual part taken by them at the time of the incident. So, the explanation is no explanation. The non explanation of the delay in lodging the F. I. R. , indicates that either the report is an untrue one, or that they have concocted the story and submitted the report. Thus, doubt is created, which says that either the report is a false one or that the witnesses who have stated in the court, have given a false statements.
(3.) IN the case of Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1), it was observed as under: "first information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the report can hardly be overestimated from the stand point of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed. The names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets benefit of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of concocted story as a result deliberation of and consultation, It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the of lodging the first information report should be satisfactorily explained. When an occurrence is not reported for more than 20 hours after the occurrence even though the police station is only two miles from the place of occurrence, it is unsafe to base conviction upon the evidence. " In the case of Ishwar Singh Vs. State of U. P. , (2), it was observed as under:- "the extraordinary delay in sending the FIR is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the first information report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted version of' the occurrence. In this case, the suspicion hardens into a definite possibility when the case made in court differs at least in two very important particulars from that narrated in the FIR. In such a case, the evidence of the eye witnesses "cannot be accepted at its face-value". Thus, in view of the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the delay in filing the report in the present case, is fatal, and it creates suspicion. ;