IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Any telephonic information about Commission of cognizable offence, irrespective of nature and details of such information cannot be treated as FIR.
2. For offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 r/w 120B and 302/34-Deceased was returning on a cycle with PW 15 when appellant driving a bus rashly ran over the vehicle over deceased-Other two appellants were in the vehicle and they were alleged to have conspired to kill deceased because of dispute over property-Conviction by trial Court and upheld in appeal by High Court-Appeal-PW 13 was 13 years of age, a student and was examined after 7 years of incident-While assessing evidence one has to keep realities in view and not adopt a hyper sensitive approach-Discrepancies like which part of offending vehicle hit cycle etc. were too trifle to affect credibility of witness-Whether appellant was the owner of vehicle or had a driving licence were of no consequence-Conviction of appellant who drove vehicle and killed deceased called for no interference-No evidence to prove conspiracy of other two appellants in crime-Their conviction either with help of Section 120-B or Section 34 IPC could not be sustained. (Paras 7 to 9)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Sections 154 and 162-FIR-In order to constitute the FIR, information must reveal Commission of an act which is cognizable offence-DD entry recorded on telephonic information of unknown person about a vehicle hitting deceased would not constitute FIR and subsequent statement of eye witness would not be hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C.
       Held : Any telephonic information about commission of a cognizable offence, if any, irrespective of the nature and details of such information cannot be treated as first information report. If the telephonic message is cryptic in nature and the officer in charge, proceeds to the place of occurrence on the basis of that information to find out the details of the nature of the offence if any, then it cannot be said that the information which had been received by him on telephone shall be deemed to be a FIR. The object and purpose of giving such telephonic message is not to lodge the first information report but to make the officer in charge of the police station to reach the place of occurrence. On the other hand, if the information given on telephone is not cryptic and on the basis of that information the officer in charge is prima facie satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence and he proceeds from the police station after recording such information to investigate such offence then any statement made by any person in respect of the said offence including about the participants shall be deemed to be a statement made by a person to the police officer in the course of investigation covered by Section 162 of the Code. (Para 10)
       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 120-B-Conspiracy-Some kind of physical manifestation of agreement to do the illegal act is required to be established-Evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient.
       Held : It was noticed that Sections 120-A and 120-B IPC have brought the law of conspiracy in India in line with English law by making an overt act inessential when the conspiracy is to commit any punishable offence. The most important ingredient of the offence being the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. In a case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the court must inquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to pursue the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators but the latter does. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement need not be proved. The evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient. A conspiracy is a continuing offence which continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice of necessity. During its subsistence whenever any one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts, he would be held guilty under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-In these three appeals the factual matrix relates to the same incident and the judgment impugned being the same they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Appellant-Munna (in Crl.A. 45/2002) faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302, appellant-Balak Dass (in Crl.A.No. 46/2002) under Section 302 read with Section 34, Section 302 read with Section 120B and Section 302 read with Section 114, and appellant-Damodar (in Crl.A.No. 1190/2001) under Section 302 read with Section 34, and Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ). Accused appellant-Munna was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302, 302 read with Section 120B while other two appellants Damodar and Balak Dass (A-4 and A-2 respectively) were found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B. Appellant-Balak Dass was additionally found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. One Jagdish who also faced trial, was convicted and sentenced. Though he had preferred an appeal before the High Court, but the same was held to have abated on account of appellant s death.

3. They were alleged to be perpetrators of homicidal death of one Guru Ram Ratan Giri (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) an octogenarian Sadhu. The motive of crime was stated to be property dispute. On the basis of information given by Shiv Prasad (PW-15) on 18.10.1990, the fateful day, law was set in motion. According to the informant the deceased had gone to repair a cycle. When he did not return for long time, informant went to search for him. When they were returning on the cycle, they found station wagon RSZ 5253 was being driven by accused-Munna rashly. The deceased asked Shiv Prasad to get down from the cycle. The vehicle was being driven by Munna whereas accused-appellants Damodar and Balak Dass were accompanying him along with others. On being instructed by accused-appellant Balak Dass, Munna ran the vehicle over the deceased. At the spot, accused-Jagdish (A-3) who had died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, was present and he came in a scooter made sure that the deceased was no longer alive and they all ran away. Another disciple of the deceased named Santosh Giri (PW 6) also witnessed the occurrence. Investigation was undertaken by Setha Ram (PW-16). The summum bonum of materials collected during investigation reveals involvement of four accused persons named above and others. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed. Initially on the basis of information lodged, investigation commenced in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, later on after the death of the deceased the case was converted into one for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Seventeen witnesses were examined and 26 documents were exhibited to substantiate prosecution version. The accused persons pleaded innocence and 5 documents were exhibited to substantiate their plea of innocence. On consideration of the materials on record, Additional Session Judge, Ajmer found the accused-appellants guilty and convicted them as aforesaid. Accused-Munna was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Accused-Balak Dass was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 302 read with Section 120B and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Accused-Jagdish was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Similar sentence was imposed on accused-Damodar.

4. In appeal, the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur put its seal of approval on the convictions and sentences and dismissed the appeal filed by the accused appellants. As noted above, accused-Jagdish died

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 918

IMPORTANT POINTS1. Any telephonic information about Commission of cognizable offence, irrespective of nature and details of such information cannot be treated as FIR.2. For offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Any telephonic information about Commission of cognizable offence, irrespective of nature and details of such information cannot be treated as FIR.
2. For offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established.