As regards point number (i), Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon certain observations in Nathiya's case (supra). It is observed there : "In the present case, the F.I.R. Ex. P. 16 was admittedly recorded at 1 p.m. on 28-2-87 i.e. after the police party had reached the police station after making the recoveries. But, the recovery memo Ex.P. 1 bears the number of the F.I.R. The same is true of Ex.P. 2, Ex.P. 3 and Ex.P. 4. If the F.I.R. was registered after the alleged recoveries had taken place and after the accused-appellants had been apprehended, then those documents could not have recited the number of the F.I.R. at all. The prosecution has not explained this grave and serious discrepancy. The possibilities are that either F.I.R. had been recorded prior to the alleged recoveries and arrest or the at the F.I.R. number was inserted in these documents after the F.I.R. had been registered. Both ways, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution story and creates a goods deal of doubt if recoveries had been made in the manner alleged by the prosecution, PW 5 Hamir Singh was under a duty to explain this discrepancy but he has not cared to do so. PW 1 Bijraj Singh, who is said to have accompanied Hamir Singh during the seizure proceedings has categorically admitted that the police party had gone back to police station after recovery memos, site plan, Fard Halat Moka had been prepared. If it is so, the number of F.I.R. recited in these documents was definitely a later interpolation which discredits the prosecution case." With respect, we do not agree with the above view expressed in Nathiya's case that this seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution story and that it creates a good deal of doubt. Let us take the case of the articles. They were seized and sealed on the spots. Thereafter they were taken to the police station and the C.R. number was entered thereon. If they are required to be inspected and initialled by another officer then this would be done still later. If such initialling is required to be done at a specified place on the packing or labels, then such place would have to kept blank. Even in the case of a document it may require to pass through several stages and certain endorsement would be required to be made at each stage. This does not adversely reflect upon the veracity of the prosecution story at all. Further in the present case PSI Khot has explained as to how the number came to be stated later on on the Panchanama and labels. If the crime register number on the Panchanama is required to be entered at the time of drawing up the Panchanama then in such cases no Panchanama can be made on the spot. Accordingly we reject point No. 1 as having no merit.
Print Page
Bombay High Court
Ali Hussain Sayyed vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 November, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1993 (1) BomCR 732, (1993) 95 BOMLR 12, 1993 CriLJ 277
