The Inquest Report is prepared in duplicate by the carbon copying agency under the provisions of Chapter 25, Rule 35 of The Police Rules, 1934 when preliminary investigation has been...........

 2024 YLR 2123
PLJ 2024 Cr.C 791 Crl. Appeal-435-22
GHAFFAR ABBAS @ GHAFFAR AHMED ETC VS THE STATE ETC.

The Inquest Report is prepared in duplicate by the carbon copying agency under the provisions of Chapter 25, Rule 35 of The Police Rules, 1934 when preliminary investigation has been completed by the police officer after reaching the dead body and is sent alongwith other requisite papers to the medical officer with dead body for post-mortem examination which is endorsed by the medical officer. The Inquest Report carries immense significance which is considered an integral part of method/system in every murder case to keep an eye on the subsequent possible fabrication in record, it gives some reflection of the witnesses in attendance, the weapon used in commission of crime, the detail of injuries on the body of the deceased, presence of crime empties etc. at the crime scene, if the dead body is lying at the spot, the nature of weapon and summary of the facts. Such information can easily be gathered from perusal of its relevant columns.

Names complainant and his cousin who claim themselves to be the eyewitnesses of the occurrence are not mentioned in it. Names of the appellants are also not mentioned, rather nothing is mentioned in column “Brief Summary of Facts” regarding facts of the case. No reason for such lapses is available, so an inference can be drawn that till then, names of the complainant, eye-witnesses and accused were unknown and it was an unseen occurrence. In these circumstances, possibility cannot be ruled out that FIR was lodged after due consultation and deliberation by cooking up a story, preparing eye-witnesses for involving the appellants.

Rough and scaled site plans of place of occurrence do not show the houses of these eye-witnesses around the place of occurrence. They being chance witnesses have failed to establish their presence at the time and place of occurrence with their stated reasons.

Motive of the occurrence is previous enmity of murder which cuts both the ways.

Recovery of pistols on pointing out of the appellants in presence of negative report is not only inconsequential rather draws adverse inference.