Sustainability of conviction based on subsequent statement recorded from the victim.

The petitioner was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, under section 211, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. His appeal to the Sessions having been dismissed, he has come to this Court in revision.

The material facts are these. About 8-30 p.m. on 15th October, 1947, when the petitioner Guruswami was on the verandah of his garden shed, he received certain injuries either as the result of a gun shot or as the result of the explosion of a country bomb. He was taken to the hospital at Udamalpet where he was examined and attended to by the local Assistant Surgeon. His cousin, also called Guruswami, went to the police station at Udamalpet at about 9-30 p.m. and told the Sub-Inspector and the Circle Inspector that the petitioner had been shot and that he had been brought to the hospital. The Sub-Inspector did not take down this statement of Guruswami in writing. Instead, he merely made an entry in the General Diary to this effect:

"21-30 hours. G. Guruswami Naidu of Chinnakomarapalayam stated that Sri Guruswami has been shot and the injured man has been brought to the. hospital. I go to hospital with the Circle Inspector of Police. Station charge with H.C.No. 932".

Thereafter the Sub-Inspector and the Circle Inspector went to the hospital to see the injured man. From there on the suggestion of the doctor, the Sub-Inspector went to the Sub-Magistrate and took him to the hospital. Between 9-50 and 10-5 p.m. the Sub-Magistrate recorded a dying declaration from the petitioner. At that time both the Sub-Inspector and the Circle Inspector were present. Half an hour later the Sub-Inspector recorded another statement from the petitioner which was marked as Exhibit P-4 in the case. In that document the petitioner alleged that when he was sitting on the pial of his house, four persons whom he named and who were examined as P.Ws.14, 15 and 24 went to the threshing floor, that they were armed with guns, that they were his enemies, that on seeing them he got up in fear and when he tried to go into the house he was shot from behind. The police investigated the case and taking the view that it was false, prosecuted the petitioner under section 211, Indian Penal Code. The charge preferred by the petitioner was held to be false primarily for two reasons: (1) the injuries on the person of the petitioner and the traces of arsenic detected on the dhoti he was wearing at the time he was injured indicated that he had been injured as the result of the explosion of a bomb and not as the result of a shot from a gun, (2) P.W. 24 whom he had named as one of his assailants had what appeared to be a reasonably good alibi.

The first argument which Mr. Nambiar, the learned advocate for the petitioner put forward was that the Courts below were in error in treating Exhibit P-4, the statement which the Sub-Inspector recorded from the petitioner at about 10-35 on the night of 15th October 1947, as the F.I.R. in the case. According to him the real F.I.R. in the case is the information which Guruswami Naidu, the cousin of the petitioner gave at the police station. I think there is very considerable force in this argument. It is no doubt true that Guruswami the cousin of the petitioner, did not say who the offenders were or give any inkling about them, but that is not a circumstance which alters the character of that information. In quite a large number of cases the complainant does not know the name of the offender, but that would not alter the fact that the information is what is called an F.I.R. If a citizen informs the concerned station house officer that his house has been burgled the previous night, that would certainly be information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence within the meaning of section 154, Criminal Procedure Code, notwithstanding that the complainant is unable to say who the offenders were or even what all articles he has lost. The learned Sessions. Judge was incline