Ostensibly, these injuries are coherent with the version in the FIR. It has been manifested in plain words by ASI Dilbagh Singh in his above-referred reply that Palwinder Singh was luckily saved timely by the doctors. Thus, palpably, it is his own plea that Palwinder Singh was not done to death. Statutorily speaking, the statement of the injured or the heirs of the deceased or the dying declaration, too often, become the basis of FIR. Here in this case, if Palwinder Singh injured had survived, it has been left in the womb of mystery as to under what circumstances, the offence under Section 302 of IPC was added. It is not out of context to mention here that Section 115 of IPC is to go with the main offence. Queerly enough that without there being murder, the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC has been added in the FIR. In his reply, the afore-mentioned ASI has not apportioned any plausible, luculent or cogent reason for insertion of this Section in the FIR. The matter ought to be taken to its logical conclusion. Therefore, let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, Director General of Police, Punjab and Principal Secretary Home to probe the matter and initiate the action as warranted under the circumstances against the aforesaid A.S.I.
