ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. S.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. It is submitted by Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant that Ved Prakash, father of the deceased had submitted an application on 24.8.1993 alleging, inter alia, that on that day about 7.10 a.m. he and his wife had left for their duties and his daughter Km. Bharti was left alone at the house and when he came back from the college, he found his daughter hanging from the roof. He reported to the police by way of application and it was treated as an FIR. Elaborating the submissions, it is urged by him that on 26.8.1993 Ved Prakash coming to know certain aspects from one Vinod Sharma, PW-2, about the involvement of Manoj Kumar, the appellant herein, who had come out from the room of Ved Prakash, submitted another report on 26.8.1993 to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Mangalore, giving the details about the fact that was disclosed to him by PW-2. In this backdrop, it is put forth by learned counsel for the appellant that there are two FIRs in respect of the same transaction and, therefore, the investigation having carried on the base of the second FIR, the trial is totally vitiated. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to certain authorities which we shall advert to a later stage.

3. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State, submitted that it was not a second FIR and, in any case, it would not vitiate the trial. It is his submission that it will come within the spectrum of investigation and when the accused has gone through the whole gamut of trial, he is not entitled to put forth such a submission on the ground that the trial is vitiated. Learned counsel for the State would say that in any event it can be a curable irregularity and not an illegality which would make the trial null and void. It is put forth by him assuming investigation is carried on, on the basis of a 2nd FIR, the matter should be left for the trial and it should be tested on the touchstone of prejudiced.

4. Presently, we shall refer to certain authorities cited at the bar. In T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others, [(2001) 6 SCC 181], while dealing with the legal validity of lodging of a second FIR, the Court posed the following question:

"(i) Whether registration of a fresh case, Crime No. 268 of 1997, Kuthuparamba Police Station on the basis of the letter of the DGP dated 2.7.1997 which is in the nature of the second FIR under Section 154 CrPC, is valid and it can form the basis of a fresh investigation;"

5. And thereafter proceeded to rule as follows:

"17. Sub- section (1) of Section 154 CrPC contains four mandates to an officer in charge of a police station. The first enjoins that every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence if given orally shall be reduced to writing and the second directs that it be read over to the informant; the third requires that every such information whether given in writing or reduced to writing shall be signed by the informant and the fourth is that the substance of such information shall be entered in the station house diary. It will be apt to note here a further directive contained in sub section (1) of Section 157 CrPC which provides that immediately on receipt of the information the officer in charge of the police station shall send a report of every cognizable offence to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence and then proceed to investigate or depute his subordinate officer to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case. Sub-section (2) entitles the informant to receive a copy of the information, as recorded under sub-section (1), free of cost. Sub- section (3) says that in the event of an officer in charge of a police station refusing to record the information as postulated under sub-section (1), a person aggrieved thereby may send the substance of such information in wr