Back
High Court Of Calcutta
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, ARUN KUMAR
NAZRUL MONDAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. A. 219 Of 1985
Decided On : 12/09/2004
CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Section 302 IPC - FIR - Section 162 CrPC - Whether a complaint can be treated as an FIR - Ingredients of FIR - Whether the learned Sessions Judge erred in treating the complaint as FIR - Whether the conviction and sentences imposed upon the accused can be sustained - HELD, the complaint cannot be treated as an FIR as it was given to the police after commencement of the investigation - The learned Sessions Judge erred in treating the said complaint as FIR and proceeding accordingly - The conviction and sentences imposed upon the accused cannot be sustained.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for murder of Mokshed Master and Hazi Rahaman and sentenced to life imprisonment. Other accused persons were convicted under section 148 and section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to two year's rigorous imprisonment for committing offence under section 148 and one year's rigorous imprisonment for committing offence under sections 324/ 34. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the complaint cannot be treated as an FIR as it was given to the police after commencement of the investigation. The learned Sessions Judge erred in treating the said complaint as FIR and proceeding accordingly. The conviction and sentences imposed upon the accused cannot be sustained.
Issues: Whether the complaint can be treated as an FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: An FIR is one of the modes by which a person may put the criminal law into action by giving information of commission of a cognizable offence under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The information so given is called "first information" because it is the basis upon which an investigation is commenced under Chapter XII of the Code. However, the receipt and recording of information is not a condition precedent for the setting in motion of criminal proceedings and such information need not necessarily be given by a person having the first hand knowledge of the fact and may be just hearsay. Similarly, the mere fact that the information given by the informant was not properly recorded by the police Officer in accordance with the mandate of section 154 of the Code, it cannot be said that no investigation in law could commence. The information so given need not be in minute details. The object of section 154 of the Code is twofold: first, to forthwith inform the Judicial Officer before whom the case will be ultimately tried, the facts given immediately after the occurrence and the materials on which the investigations commenced. Secondly, to protect the accused against the subsequent variations and additions of the improved allegations that may be hatched.
Final Decision: Appeals allowed.
( 1 ) THESE two appeals were heard analogously as those were preferred against a common judgement passed by the learned sessions Judge.
( 2 ) BY the said judgement, Sk. Nazrul, the appellant of the C. R. A No. 245 of 1985, was found guilty of the charges under sections 302/34,148 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. For committing offence under sections 302/34 of the code, he was. sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. However, no separate sentence was imposed upon him for committing the offences under the other sections of the Code, mentioned above.
( 3 ) C. R. A No 219 of 1985 has been filed by other thirteen accused persons who have all been found guilty under sections 148 and 324/34 of the Code. For committing offence under section 148 of the Code, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and for the crime under sections 324/34, rigorous imprisonment of one year has been ordered. Both the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.
( 4 ) ALTHOUGH, all the appellants were also indicted under sections 326/34 of the Code for committing grievous hurt to Sk. Tohid and Sk. Mojahar, those charges could not be substantiated by the prosecution.
( 5 ) THE prosecution case is based on the complaint lodged by one Mohammad ali Molla, the PW-1, which was treated to be FIR and was marked as Ext-1. The allegations made in the Ext-1 may be abridged thus: (a) On September 28, 1979 at about 5:30 p. m. the informant went to khairamari Hat for the purpose of purchasing cloths from the cut-piece shop of Hazi Rahaman. He was accompanied by Mojahar, Haran Rashid and Tahid Sk. , all of village Khairamari. (b) At the market, the informant saw that all the appellants and one Sk. Billal, since deceased, all of Khairamari, being armed with deadly weapons like sword, bhojali and lathi in their hands came from the direction of the house of Jasim and attacked Tahid Sk. Billal and Nazrul sk. , being armed with sword and bhojali respectively, attacked him. At the relevant time, the informant, Majohar, Haran Rashid and mokshed stood in front of the shop of Hazi Rahaman. (c) Mokshed Master, the son of Hazi Rahaman, requested them to spare them as they had no fault, but, Billal Sk. said that Hazi was a notorious man and he should be killed. Saying that, Billal with his sword and nazrul with his bhojali pierced Hazi Rahaman. Hazi Rahaman fell on his back. At that time Bajit Mondal and Mokshed Prodhan directed them to bring the head of Hazi after cutting. Those two persons were standing with lathi in their hands. Hearing such order, Billal Sk. hit hazi on his neck and the neck was severed. Hazi instantaneously died on the place of occurrence. (d) Mokshed Master then requested them with folded hands to forgive him, but Billal Sk. , without hearing anything penetrated Mokshed Master with his sword. The sword cut his hand and went through in his chest. Then Nazrul hit him on the abdomen with his bhojali. Mokshed Master began to run from the room. At that time, Bajit Mondal and Mokshed prodhan asked them to finish him. Billal and Nazrul then chased mokshed Master from behind and hit him with their sword and bhojali. Mokshed Master fell down immediately. Nazimuddin, one of the accused, cut the head of Mokshed Master with his sword. Mokshed master died within a while. (e) Thereafter, both Billal and Nazrul began to strike Mojahar and nazimuddin, another son of Hazi, aiming at their heads with the intention of murdering them. The ears of Mojahar were severed and he was seriously injured. (f) Billal hit Nazimuddin on his abdomen with his sword. Both were admitted into hospital in serious condition. Mokshed Ali Mondal, the village Prodhan, and Bajit Mondal took active part in all these acts. (g) The informant, Hazi Rahaman and Mokshed Master believed in one "aajan" and for that reason, the attack was made on them. The accused persons also stole away the clothing from the shop of Hazi Saheb amounting
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
