Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the written report submitted by Mohan Lal Ext.P6 cannot be considered as First Information Report and is not admissible in evidence as it is hit by the provision of section 162 Cr.P.C. The contention is that the same was submitted by Mohan Lal after the investigation of the case had already commenced on the basis of telephonic message received at the Police Station, Bonli. The learned Public Prosecutor has contested the above submissions and submitted that written report Ext.P6 is in fact First Information Report of the case and is not hit by the provisions of section 162 Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that the learned Trial Court has considered the objection and rejected it which is correct.
We have gone through the judgment of the learned Trial Court which has discussed this aspect of the case in paragraphs 22 and 23 elaborately and concluded that written report Ext.P6 is not hit by the provision of section 162 Cr.P.C. Section 162 (1) Cr.P.C. provides as below:-
(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made. (Emphasis supplied) Such a factual situation has been considered by this Court in Keshar Lal and others Vs. State of Rajasthan 1997 (2) WLC (Rajasthan) 265 and after considering the decisions of the Honble Apex Court in Tapendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1994 (2) SCC 220; Soma Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat 1994 (2) SCC 698; Dhananjay Chatterjee alias Dhanna Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1979 Supreme Court 135 and Ram Singh Babaji Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2488 it held that, telephonic message, giving information of a cognizable offence, is often a matter of controversy as to whether it constitutes an FIR or not. In this matter, the view of the Supreme Court is consistent that if the telephonic message is cryptic in nature and the object and purpose of giving such telephonic message is not to lodge the FIR but to request the Officer Incharge of the Police Station to reach the place of occurrence or where the dead body is lying, it cannot be treated as FIR.

The said authorities are fully applicable in the instant case as the information received on telephone at Police Station Bonli during night of 27th and 28th April 2002 was cryptic and vague. As mentioned above, the SHO, Bonli alongwith police force went to village Kodyie on getting the said information where Mohan Lal produced written report Ext.P6. It is also important to mention here that Ramsharan Lal PW12 has stated during his cross-examination on behalf of the appellants that he received the report from Gopal at 12.45 a.m. and thereafter a written report Ext.P6 was submitted by Mohan Lal. FIR No.59/02 was received by him at 1.45 a.m. while the second FIR No.60/02 was received at 2.30 a.m. He has further stated that he completed investigation of FIR No.59/02 at 7.30 a.m. on the next day and the investigation of FIR No.60/02 was commenced at 7.30 a.m. on 28.04.02. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it clearly emerges that the written report Ext.P6 was submitted to Ramsharan Lal, SHO PW12 at 1.30 a.m. on 28.04.02 before he commenced investigation of FIR No.60/02 at 7.30 a.m. on 28.04.02. Hence, it can be safely concluded that written report Ext.P6 having been submitted before commencement of investigation of the case registered on its basis is not hit by the provisions of section 162 Cr.P.C. Hence, the aforesaid objection is found to be without any substance.