SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 911

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SWATANTER KUMAR & MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.
YANAB SHEIKH @ GAGU - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 905 of 2009
Decided on : 13-12-2012

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 154 and 162-FIR-Ingredients-FIR normally should give basic essentials in relation to commission of cognizable offence upon which Investigating Officer can immediately start his investigation-Mere telephonic information inviting Police to place of occurrence is not FIR-Second FIR about same occurrence between same persons and with similarity of scope of investigation, cannot be registered and by applying test of similarity, it may then be hit by the proviso to Section 162. (Paras 7 to 12)

       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 232-Acquittal of a co-accused per se is not sufficient to result in acquittal of other accused-Where prosecution is able to establish guilt of accused by cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence, mere acquittal of one accused would not automatically lead to acquittal of another accused-It is only where entire case of prosecution suffers from infirmities, discrepancies and where prosecution is not able to establish its case acquittal of co-accused would be of some relevancy for deciding case of other-Court has to screen entire evidence and does not extend threat of falsity to universal acquittal. (Paras 22 and 23)

       (2010)6 SCC 1; (2009)15 SCC 211; (2008)16 SCC 561; [AIR 1965 SC 202]; [(2007) 14 SCC 150]; (2010)12 SCC 91; [(2008)11 SCC 425]-Relied.

       

Judgement Key Points

The legal document discusses several important principles related to criminal procedure and evidence.

Firstly, it emphasizes that an FIR should contain the essential details regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, allowing the Investigating Officer to commence investigation immediately. A mere telephonic information or an initial cryptic message does not qualify as a formal FIR, which must be recorded under the provisions of the law (!) (!) (!) .

Secondly, the document clarifies that there can only be one FIR concerning a particular incident. A subsequent report about the same occurrence, especially if it is similar in scope and scope of investigation, may be considered a second FIR and could be invalid if it violates the provisions of the law regarding multiple FIRs (!) (!) (!) . However, if the second report pertains to a different incident or contains different facts, it may be permissible to register it as a separate FIR (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the timing of transmitting the FIR to the court is scrutinized. A delay in sending the FIR does not automatically invalidate it, provided the delay is adequately explained and the FIR itself was properly recorded (!) (!) (!) .

The document also discusses the scope of investigation and the police's statutory right to further investigate even after the initial case has been taken cognizance of by a magistrate. Such investigations are permissible unless they transgress statutory limits or result in abuse of process, in which case courts may intervene (!) (!) (!) .

Additionally, the principles governing the examination of witnesses are highlighted. The focus is on the quality, reliability, and trustworthiness of evidence rather than the quantity of witnesses. The court is permitted to rely on a single credible witness if the evidence is compelling and trustworthy (!) (!) (!) .

Lastly, the document underscores that the acquittal of one co-accused does not automatically lead to the acquittal of others unless the entire case is fundamentally flawed. The court must carefully analyze the entire evidence to determine the impact of such acquittals, ensuring that the overall integrity of the prosecution's case is maintained (!) (!) .

In summary, the key legal principles include the proper recording and timing of FIRs, the scope and limits of police investigation, the evaluation of evidence based on quality rather than quantity, and the careful consideration of co-accused's acquittals in assessing the case against remaining accused.


JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J.-The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 21st November, 2006 in exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction vide which the High Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

2. Before dealing with the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is necessary for the Court to notice the case of the prosecution in brief. On 19th December, 1984, amongst other villagers of village Lauria, Yamin PW8 and Mohammed Sadak Ali, PW1 hired a pump set of one Humayun Kabir, who was examined as PW7, for taking water from the pond known as Baro Lauria Pukur for irrigating their respective lands. PW8, Yamin and others drew water from the said pond. In the afternoon, when Mohammed Sadak Ali, PW1, and his brother, the deceased Samim Ali, went on the bank of the said tank for drawing water through the said pump, accused Yanab arrived there. He had an altercation with Mohammed Sadak Ali and Samim Ali which related to drawing of water from the tank. Though, PW1 had assured Yanab that they would stop taking water from the Pukur within a short time, yet Yanab forcibly switched off the pump machine. This further aggravated their altercation and accused started abusing them. Thereafter, accused Yanab suddenly went running to his house and came back within a few minutes along with the other accused named Najrul. Yanab then threw a bomb aiming at Samim Ali which hit him on his chest and exploded. As a result thereof, Samim fell onto the ground, his clothes got burnt and he died instantaneously. It is also the case of the prosecution that Najrul had a cloth bag in his hand and Yanab took out the bomb from that cloth bag and threw the same towards Samim. Immediately after the incident, both the accused persons fled away. With the help of the villagers, Mohammed Sadak Ali took Samim to his house which was stated to be at a short distance from the bank of the tank. The information with regard to the incident was given to the Rampurhat Police Station through telephone. SI R.P. Biswas, PW14, along with SI Samit Chatterjee, PW15, arrived at village Lauria around 10.00 p.m. on 19th December, 1984. The telephonic information, on the basis of which the G.D. Entry No.708, Ex.7, was lodged was made by PW6 from a phone booth. After these officers arrived, PW1, Sadak Ali submitted a written complaint, Ex.1, addressed to the Officer Incharge of Rampurhat Police Station. SI, R.P.Biswas, then made an endorsement, Ex.1/1 and sent the same through Constable Sunil Dutta to Rampurhat Police Station for starting a case under Sections 148/149/324/326/302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and 9(b)(ii) of the Indian Explosives Act. Ex.1 was received at the police station by SI B.Roy. Upon this, a formal FIR, Ex.1/3, was registered and the investigation was started by PW14. He prepared the Inquest Report, Ex.2, over the dead body of the deceased on identification of the same by his brother, PW2. The sketch map of the place of occurrence, Ex.8, was prepared. The pump set was seized vide seizure list Ex.5 and a Zimma Nama Ex.6 was prepared. PW14 also collected the post mortem report of the deceased from the Sub-Divisional Hospital, Rampurhat on 21st January, 1985. Because of transfer of PW14, the investigation of the case was taken up by SI, N.R. Biswas. Later on the investigation was also completed by PW15, S. Chatterjee, who had filed the charge sheet. The accused persons faced the trial for the above-mentioned offences before the Court of Sessions, which by a detailed judgment dated 18th September, 1992, held them guilty of the offences and punished the accused Yanab as follows:

“I, therefore, hold and find accused Yanob not guilty to the charge under section 324 of the I.P.C. and he is acquitted of that charge. As regards the charge under section 9(b)(ii) of the I.E. Act there is no evidence that accused Nazrul h













































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top