Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. In the present case, the appellants have substantially disputed the truthfulness of F.I.R. and have vehemently argued that first F.I.R. has been deliberately and intentionally suppressed by the prosecution and, therefore, second F.I.R. is not legally permissible under the law. In the matter of T.T. Antony (supra), the Apex Court has held that there can be no second F.I.R. and consequently there can be no fresh investigation in respect of the same cognizable offence or same occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. Paras 17 & 18 of the said judgment read thus, "17. Sub-section (1) of Section 154 CrPC contains four mandates to an officer in-

18. An information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 CrPC is commonly known as First Information Report (FIR) though this term is not used in the Code. It is a very important document. And as its nick name suggests it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station. It sets the criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 CrPC. It is quite possible and it happens not infrequently that more informations than one are given to a police officer in charge of a police station in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case he need not enter every one of them in the station house diary and this is implied in Section 154 CrPC. Apart from a vague information by a phone call or a cryptic telegram, the information first entered in the station house diary, kept for this purpose, by a police officer in charge of a police station is the First Information Report - FIR postulated by Section 154 CrPC. All other informations made orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the facts mentioned in the first information report and entered in the station house diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC. No such information/ statement can properly be treated as an FIR and entered in the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same cannot be in conformity with the scheme of CrPC. Take a case where an FIR mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 IPC and the investigating agency learns during the investigation or receives fresh information that the victim died, no fresh FIR under Section 302 IPC need be registered which will be irregular; in such a case alteration of the provision of law in the first FIR is the proper course to adopt. Let us consider a different situation in which H having killed W, his wife, informs the police that she is killed by an unknown person or knowing that W is killed by his mother or sister, H owns up the responsibility and during investigation the truth is detected; it does not require filing of fresh FIR against H - the real offender - who can be arraigned in the report under Section 173(2) or 173(8) CrPC, as the case may be. It is of course permissible for the investigating officer to send up a report to the Magistrate concerned even earlier that investigation is being directed against the person suspected to be the accused."

29. While dealing with same question, the Apex Court in the matter of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar and others v. State of Maharashtra13 has held that in case of cryptic message not disclosing the identity and other requirements to satisfy the requirement of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., the information regarding commission of offence may be recorded. When, however, the First Information Report is lodged by a person who claims himself to be aware of not only the commission of the offence, the name of the deceased and at least one of the accused who had committed the same, the could have been recorded on the basis thereof. Para 11 of the said judgment reads as follows: -

34. In the present case, the alleged first F.I.R. has not been filed by the prosecution, although the aforesaid witnesses had admitted the existence of first F.I.R. but the evidence of Head Constable Subhash Chandra Shukla (PW-14) reveals that he was orally informed by Assistant Sub Inspector Biharilal Soni (PW-15) about the incident.

35. During the course of trial, both the parties were having opportunity for causing production of the alleged first F.I.R. but both the parties have not filed any petition for production of the alleged first F.I.R. Further, the evidence of all the aforesaid witnesses clearly establish that in the first F.I.R. names of the above four accused persons had been mentioned. In absence of any document, it is difficult to hold that there was first F.I.R. in accordance with the provisions of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. which satisfies the necessary ingredients, but dehati nalsi has been recorded on the spot at the instance of a person who claims that she has seen the incident and she has named the names of the assailants. Evidence of Gendram (PW-12) clearly reveals that the incident was informed to him by Sukli Bai (PW-1) who has lodged dehati nalsi Ex.P-26. It clearly establishes that the alleged Gendram (PW-12), accordance to the defence who has lodged the first F.I.R., was not having any detailed knowledge of the incident. Therefore, even if it is presumed that the first F.I.R. has been lodged by Gendram in a cryptic manner, then the second detailed information i.e. the F.I.R. lodged by Sukli Bai (PW-1) who claims herself as eyewitness and has mentioned the names of deceased, name of the injured and names of the assailants, is permissible under the law. In the circumstances, even suppression of first F.I.R. would not be fatal to the prosecution in the present case.