TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as irrigating her agricultural fields alongwith her daughter Birma (PW.4). On hearing the cries of her daughter Raj, Maya Devi and Birma reached the spot and saw that one Kalia had caught hold of Raj and Karan Singh, the appellant had put a rope around her neck and was dragging her deeper into the fields. Maya Devi (PW.3) raised considerable hue and cry but attracted no help, and Raj died on the spot as a result of the throttling. In the morning, Maya Devi (PW.3) went to the place of occurrence alongwith her son Hariom (a simpleton). There were marks of dragging in the wheat field. A contusion mark on the neck of deceased was also clearly visible. B. Maya Devi (PW.3) went to the police station to file a report. On her way there, she met some police officials and she informed them about the incident, based on which, an FIR was registered on 7.1.2005, under Sections 302/34 IPC at the Police Station, Sadar Charkhi Dadri. C. The dead body of Raj was sent for post-mortem. Dr. U.S. Dasodia (PW.7), conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased and found a ligature mark on her neck. He has opined that she died due to asphyxia, caused by strangulation which was sufficient to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is improbable. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. On the contrary, Shri Manjit Singh, AAG, appearing for the State of Haryana, has opposed the appeal contending that the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact. The defence had not put any question in the cross-examination either to Maya Devi (PW.3) or Birma (PW.4), regarding the non-payment of the sum of ₹ 47,000/- as consideration for the sale of a buffalo by the deceased Raj to Karan Singh, appellant, despite the fact that there was ample evidence on record to show that there had been an altercation regarding the non- payment of the said amount on 3.1.2005, between the deceased and the appellant. The appellant had threatened to kill her. Moreover, this statement stood corroborated by the deposition of Omkar Singh (PW.8). In the event that there had been some impropriety in the course of the investigation, the same had been only at the behest of the appellant and that too, entirely in his favour and certainly not in the favour of the prosecution. The appellant has made a disclosure statement about concealing the rope that had been used in the crime, but the Investigating Officer has not made any ef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) etc. had been humiliated. Be that as it may, this kind of theory could not adversely affect the case of the prosecution. 9. So far as the issue of cultivating the said land is concerned, the defence had not asked PWs.3 and 4 to furnish any further details regarding the cultivation of the land, in relation to the terms and conditions of the Batai, and also regarding who s duty it was to irrigate the land, and what the source and means of irrigation were, as they have claimed to be in the agriculture fields at mid night for purpose of irrigating the same. Their presence cannot be doubted, as it is usual for every agriculturist to carry out the task of irrigation, whenever his/her turn for irrigation arises. 10. As the defence has not put any further question in the course of the cross-examination of Maya Devi (PW.3) and Birma (PW.4) in this regard, we are not in a position to grant the benefit of any of these issues to the appellant. The theory of political rivalry between certain persons and the appellant, at whose behest Maya Devi (PW.3) and Birma (PW.4) had levelled the allegation of such a heinous crime, do not inspire confidence. The same are thus liable to be rejected. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, every investigation must be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure compliance with the rules of law, as is required under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution. (Vide: Babubhai v. State of Gujarat Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 254). 13. In Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1850, this Court observed, that if primacy is given to a designed or negligent investigation, or to the omissions or lapses created as a result of a faulty investigation, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency, but also in the administration of justice. A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1164. Furthermore, in Ram Bali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC 2329, it was held by this Court that the court must ensure that the defective investigation purposely carried out by the Investigating Officer, does not affect the credibility of the version of events given by the prosecution. 14. Omissions made on the part of the Investigating Officer, where the prosecution succeeds in proving its case beyond any reasonable doubt by way of adducing evidence, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not depict the said marks in the rough site plan Ex.P-25 prepared by him. He also did not avail of the services of dog squad or crime team of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Shutter of shop, where the deceased used to reside, had also been broken, but the Investigating Officer did not care to get the same photographed nor mentioned the same anywhere in the investigation proceedings. Therefore, the complainant cannot be made to suffer for the lapse of the Investigating Officer .The complainant is a widow having seven daughters and only one son, who is also simpleton. The deceased was also a divorcee and was living alone in the house (shop) in the fields in her parental village .The complainant Maya Devi, who is mother of the deceased, is a widow and illiterate rustic villager, whereas the deceased was divorcee. On the other hand, the appellant is an influential person and was Sarpanch at the time of occurrence. The complainant named the appellant and his co-accused Kalia in the FIR itself. However, distorted version was recorded in the FIR and when the complainant party received copy of FIR on 26.1.2005 (as stated by Birma Devi PW.4), they learnt of the same and then they approa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
