Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
BHAWANI SINGH,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
MAUJI RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF H.P. - Respondent
Appeal No. 203 of 1992
Decided On : 04/11/1994
CRIMINAL - SECTION 154 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - FIRST INFORMATION REPORT - TELEPHONIC MESSAGE - WHETHER CONSTITUTES FIRST INFORMATION REPORT - REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 154(1) - WHETHER FULFILLED - EYE-WITNESSES TO THE OCCURRENCE - MOTIVE - EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION - RELEVANCE AND ADMISSIBILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The prosecution case was that the accused had hit the deceased with a darat on the neck, causing his death. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed that the case against him was false and had been initiated due to enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the telephonic message received by the police station, which was reduced into writing and read over to the informant, constituted the First Information Report in the case, as it fulfilled all the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also found that there were eye-witnesses to the occurrence who had given cogent and convincing evidence, and that the prosecution had been able to substantiate the motive for the crime. Additionally, the court considered the evidence of extrajudicial confession made by the accused, which further connected him to the crime.
Issues: 1. Whether the telephonic message received by the police station constituted the First Information Report in the case? 2. Whether there were eye-witnesses to the occurrence? 3. Whether the prosecution had been able to substantiate the motive for the crime? 4. Whether the evidence of extrajudicial confession made by the accused was relevant and admissible?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a telephonic message can constitute a First Information Report if it is given to the officer-in-charge of a police station, the person giving the message is ascertained or capable of being ascertained, the information has been reduced into writing as required by Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and it is a faithful record of such information and discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. 2. The court found that there were eye-witnesses to the occurrence who had given cogent and convincing evidence, and that their evidence was corroborated by other witnesses who came to the scene of occurrence soon after the incident. 3. The court found that the prosecution had been able to substantiate the motive for the crime by demonstrating that the accused had a dispute with the deceased and his brother over the demarcation of land. 4. The court held that the evidence of extrajudicial confession made by the accused was relevant and admissible, as it further connected him to the crime.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused.
Bhawani Singh, J.: - This appeal is directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, in Sessions trial No. 27-N/7 of 1991, dated 24-9-1992. The accused has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of patent of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The facts of the case may now be summarised.
2. On 9-8-1991, deceased Lal Singh (hereafter the deceased) was sitting with Mohar Singh (PW 1) and Basti Ram (PW 2) in the courtyard of Basti Ram and Bishan Singh. At about 5 p.m., accused Mauji Ram (hereafter the accused) came there with a darat. While the deceased was in the process of lighting his beedi, the accused hit him with a darat on the neck. The deceased received cut injury in the neck, fell down and died. He was overpowered by Mohar Singh and Basti Ram. Darat was snatched from him and he was tied with a Pillar. Many People came there. Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat was called to the spot and the Police was informed telephonically and thereafter First Information Report was registered. The police reached the spot, arrested the accused and took into possession articles connected with the offence. It also recorded the statements of the witnesses and after doing other codal formalities and completing the investigation, the accused was prosecuted for the aforesaid offence.
3. In this case, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses for substantiating its case against the accused, whose case is that the case against him is false and has been initiated due to enmity. One the basis of the evidence placed before it, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore, he is liable to be convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code and punished accordingly. The accused has serious grievance against the impugned judgment. He has pleaded for its reversal through the present appeal.
4. Shri Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, submitted that it is Ex. PH recorded on 9-8-1991 which should be treated First Information Report in this case and the First Information Report (Ex. PK) recorded on the statement of Mohar Singh (P.W.1) on the spot was during the course of investigation, therefore, is hit by Section 162 of the Criminal P. C. Precisely, the contention is that it is the first information to the police about the commission of the crime. It records the name of the informer, name of the accused and the deceased. It also records the address of the parties.5. This contention is opposed by Ms. Shyama Dogra, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State. Her submission is that it is a cryptic information transmitted by Pratap Singh, UP Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Jamna on telephone, wanting the police to take action after reaching the spot. In order to appreciate this submission, it is necessary to reproduce Sections 154 and 162 of the Criminal P. C. : "154. Information in cognizable cases. - (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. (2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant. (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who,
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
