Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.)
RAMSINH BAVAJI JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT.
Criminal Appeal No. 563 of 1980 {From the Judgment and Order dated April 23, 1980 of the Gujarat High Court in Crl. A. No. 251 of 1978}, decided on March 1, 1994
Advocates appeared
Yashank Adhyaru, Ms B.K. Brar and P.H. Parekh, Advocates, for the Appellant;
Anip Sachthey and B.N. Babu, Advocates, for the Respondent.
Held: From time to time, controversy has been raised, as to at what stage the investigation commences. That has to be considered and examined on the facts of each case, especially, when the information of a cognizable offence has been given on telephone. If the telephonic message is cryptic in nature and the officer-in charge, proceeds to the place of counsel on basis of that information to find out the details of the nature of the offence itself, then it cannot be said that the information, which had been received by him on telephone, shall M deemed to be First Information Report. The object and purpose of giving such telephonic message is not to lodge the First Information Report, but to request 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 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. That statement cannot be treated as First Information Report. But any telephonic information about commission of a cognizable offence irrespective of the nature and details of such information cannot be treated as First Information Report. (Para 7)
Further held: It is not in dispute that the Investigating Officer (P.W. 21), having received the telephonic message, immediately reached the hospital and he first recorded the statement of P.W. 6. He sent the said statement to the city police station, for registering a case. Thereafter he held the inquest on the dead body of the deceased; sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem; prepared the injury report in respect of the injuries on the person of P.W. 6 and sent him for medical examination and treatment. Then he went to the scene of occurrence and collected blood-stained crust of cement plaster and examined witnesses. Under the circumstances mentioned above the statement of P.W. 6, which was recorded by the Investigating Officer, after reaching the hospital should have been treated as the First In formation Report. There is no dispute, that in that statement the name of the appellant was mentioned by P.W. 6 and details of the occurrence as disclosed by him in Court was stated by him. This is apparent because during the cross examination of P.W.6, his attention has not been drawn to his statement recorded by P.W. 21, saying that he did not name the appellant as the assailant of his brother during his statement to the Investigating Officer. As such it has to be held that P.W. 6 immediately after the occurrence, made a statement before the Investigating Officer (P. W. 21) and named the appellant, as the person who gave a knife blow in the chest of his brother Sharad Kumar (deceased). According to us, the Sessions Judge as well as the High Court were in error in treating the cryptic message given on telephone by the Head Constable (P.W. 19) to the officer in charge, as First Information Report. (Para 8)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 Conviction under - Appeal - Knife blow on the left chest of the deceased - Eye witness P.W. 5 being brother of the deceased - His presence at the time of occurrence not disputed as he has also suffered a fracture at the same occurrence - The witness asserted throughout that he knew the appellant by name and face - He has been fully corroborated by P.W. 11, who brought the victim and P.W. 6 on his rickshaw to the hospital - Appellant produced knife during the investigation - No motive of false implication F.I.R. having name of the appellant - Conviction u/s. 302, I.P.C. sustainable. (Paras 9 & 10)
Judgment
N.P. SINGH, J.--- The appellant, who had been acquitted, by the trial court, for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code, has been convicted by the High Court for the said offence and sentenced to imprisonment for life, on an appeal filed on behalf of the State.
2. The prosecution case is that on May 7, 1977 at about 5.30 p.m. Sanat Kumar (PW 6) the informant, had gone to the Ambar Talkies, along with his brother, Sharad Kumar (deceased) for the evening show. Both the brothers took their cycles to the cycle stand for the appellant. PW 6 was asked to pay 40 paise as the charge for keeping the cycles in the stand. Sharad Kumar (deceased), the brother of PW 6, said that in other theatres only 15 paise per cycle was being charged as such why they were being asked to pay 20 paise per cycle. In order to avoid a quarrel, PW 6 said to his brother, Sharad Kumar, that they shall not keep the cycles at the said stand. They took out their cycles from the stand and placed them in charge of a hotel-keeper, just on the opposite side of the theatre. As they were going inside the cinema hall, the appellant called them and asked them as to why they had not kept the cycles at his stand, whereupon PW 6, told the appellant that they did not want to have a quarrel with him. The appellant asked PW 6 and his brother to get out of the compound. Sharad Kumar (deceased) told the appellant that as they had purchased the tickets for the show, why they should go out of the cinema hall. The appellant gave a slap to Sharad Kumar (deceased). At that very moment, the two co-accused (since acquitted) came there. The appellant caught hold of the hand of PW 6, twisted it, gave a fist blow on his ribs. Thereafter a scuffle took place. The appellant took out a knife and gave a knife-blow on the left chest of the Sharad Kumar, who fell down. The accused persons ran away. PW 6 tried to lift his brother Sharad Kumar and tried to take him inside the Ambar Talkies, but he could not lift him. He left him on the steps of the Ambar Talkies and went into the office and tried to contact the police by telephone. The persons present in the office did not permit him to talk on the telephone. Then he called a rickshaw and took his brother in rickshaw to the Irwin Hospital, Jamnagar. The doctor who examined his brother, declared him to be dead. PW 6 was shocked. He sat on the bench of the hospital. Head Constable, Gopinath (PW 19), who was on duty at the Irwin Hospital, informed the P.S.I. Shimpi by telephone, that a fight had taken place in the Amber Talkies and the dead body of one Sharad Kumar had been brought to the hospital. P.S.I. Shimpi (PW 21) having received the telephonic message aforesaid at about 6.50 p.m. rushed to the Irwin Hospital and recorded first the statement of PW 6 and sent the same to the city police station for registeration of a case. Thereafter, he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report. Then he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He also prepared an injury report in respect of the injuries on the person of PW 6 and sent him for medical examination and treatment to the hospital. Then, the Investigating Officer (PW 21), went to the scene of occurrence and prepared a panchnama of the place of occurrence. He took possession of chappals of the deceased, bloodstained crust of cement plaster and recorded the statement of other witnesses. On May 8, 1977, the Investigating Officer, arrested the appellant. The appellant expressed his willingness to produce the knife used in the commission of an offence. He took the Investigating Officer and the panch witnesses to his house and took out the knife from the courtyard of his house.
3. After investigation, charges were laid against the appellant and two others for offences punishable under Sections 302, 302 read with Sections 34 and 325 of the Penal Code. The trial court gave benefit of doubt to the accused persons and acquitted them of the charges levell
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
