Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

29. At this juncture we may usefully refer to the decision rendered in the case of Surender Pratap v. Ram Naik and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 164, wherein Their Lordships of the Apex Court ruled thus:--

"14. Ordinarily, Ram Bharose would have rushed to the police station and narrated the incident orally to the constable Mohrrir for the purpose of recording the FIR. However, a written report prepared by Shriram Yadav was taken to the police station. It is surprising that the written report carried by Ram Bharose and delivered at the police station has not been exhibited. Shriram Yadav, the scribe of the report, has also not been examined. According to Sheikh Faikoo (P.W. 6) there was only one FIR, the one in question, lodged at the P.S. on that day. The General Diary in which the FIR was recorded was thus open and so available for the whole day. No record has been produced to show when the copy of the FIR was dispatched to the jurisdiction Magistrate in compliance with Section 157, Cr.PC. We are not recording any finding that the FIR in the case was made belatedly and then ante-timed; we are only pointing out a few likely holes left unplucked by the prosecution and hence, perceptible in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand."