Tests for weighing evidence in rioting case.

These are appeals preferred against the convictions and sentences of the learned Sessions Judge of Guntur Division in S.C.No.3 of 1951.

[His Lordship set out the facts of the case elaborately. The gist of it for purposes of this report are:The existence of two factions in a village, led to various civil, criminal, revenue and Election Tribunal proceedings and there was ill-feeling between the partisans on either side. A clash at the outskirts of the village between the rival factions resulted in the death of a member of one party and injuries sustained by the other members of either party. The police charged both sides separately. The Sessions Judge who heard both charge and counter having convicted and sentenced some of the accused under sections 325 and 232, Indian Penal Code, they appealed.]

The points taken by the learned counsel appearing for the accused are four in number, viz., (i) that Exhibit P-1 should not have been treated as the F.I.R.; (ii) that the investigation in this case was perfunctory; (iii) that both the cases should have been tried by the Sessions Court in quick succession with separate assessors and separate recording of evidence and that judgments should have been delivered at their close as enjoined repeatedly by this court and other High Courts as well; and (iv) that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly applied the tests which should be applied in rioting cases of this nature for assessing the truth and adequacy of the evidence. I shall now examine these criticisms point by point.

Point 1.-The information that is usually called the First Information is the basis upon which an investigation should be, and ordinarily is, commenced by the police under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The information given in writing or reduced to writing under section 154, Criminal Procedure Code, is generally known as the First Information Report, though the word ‘first’ is not used m the Code: Mani Mohan Ghosh v. Emperor1 and Mir Rahman v. Emperor2This information constituting the F.I.R. should be in the nature of a complaint or accusation, or at least information of a crime with the object of setting the law in

This First Information Report is generally proved by the prosecution and the report is marked as evidence, though by itself it is not substantive evidence and can only be used for the limited purposes under section 157 of the Evidence Act for the purpose of corroboration or in a proper case under section 32 of the Evidence Act as a declaration as to the cause of the informant’s death or as a part of the informant’s conduct under section 8 of the Evidence Act or under section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act without formal proof to show that the implication of the accused was not an after-thought or as one of res gestae: Sankaralinga Thevan v. Emperor3, Mohan Singh v. Emperor4, Azimuddy v. Emperor5. It may of course be used by the defence under sections 145 and 155(3) of the Evidence Act. These general provisions of the Evidence Act are, however, controlled by the special provisions of section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore the first question which has got to be decided is whether the information in Exhibit P-1 is really the first information or is hit by the provisions of section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure If the information is hit by section 162, it has got to be excluded. Sometimes it happens mat the offenders themselves are the first informants and in such cases the non-culpatory portion should be admitted and the confessional portion should be excluded. What now and then happens is that persons after committing an offence proceed to the Police Station with the blood-stained instrument and there report the matter to the officer concerned. This information has got to be taken down by the Police Officer as narrated to him and treated as the F.I.R. and a case has to be registered and it is only when the matter comes to court and this information embodied in the F.I.