Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Prior to registration of General Diary Entry no. 380 on 26.06.2017, another General Diary Entry no. 365 was entered into in the General Diary by the In- Charge, Kalapani Out Post on 25.06.2017 at 05-00 p.m. on 26.06.2017. As per General Diary Entry no. 365, a telephonic information was received from one Golap Hussain of Village - Fetamari to the effect that a murder was committed in the village and Police personnel should visit to the place of occurrence.

5. Pursuant to receipt of such information about death and General Diary Entry no. 365, the In-Charge, Kalapani Out Post along with staff proceeded immediately to the place of occurrence [P.O.], that is, a place on the public road in Village - Fetamari and reached the P.O. at around 05-45 p.m. On reaching the P.O., the In-Charge, Kalapani Out Post, who subsequently testified as P.W.7, found the deadbody of the deceased, Mozidur Rahman lying on the public road, which was a katcha road, surrounded by persons from the nearby locality. He then took steps to take the deadbody to the Civil Hospital at Hatsingimari.

23.1. The defence declined cross-examination of P.W.6.

Page No.# 17/38

24. The I.O., who testified as P.W.7, stated that before the FIR was lodged in Kalapani Out Post, he had proceeded to the P.O. for the case on the basis of General Diary Entry no. 365 dated 25.06.2017. A written FIR was lodged subsequently by Aizal Hoque [P.W.2] on 26.06.2017. He registered the FIR in the General Diary vide General Diary Entry no. 380 dated 26.06.2017 at about 03-30 p.m. and the case was thereafter, registered as Mankachar Police Station Case no. 506/2017. The manner in which the investigation was carried out by the I.O. has already been narrated hereinabove. The I.O. exhibited an extract copy of the G.D. Entry no. 365 dated 25.06.2017 [Ext.-3], the Inquest Report [Ext.-4], the FIR [Ext.-5] and the Charge-Sheet [Ext.-6] along with his signatures therein. He further stated that he seized articles/objects from the house of the accused after a search was carried out in the house of the accused on 25.06.2017.

53. In the decision in Bul Turi [supra], the observation regarding delayed FIR was made as the Court had found that there was substantial delay of sixteen hours in registering the FIR. In the present case, it has emerged from the record that the incident occurred at around 03-30/04-00 p.m. on 25.06.2017 and on the basis of a telephonic information, General Diary Entry no. 365 was entered into the General Diary of Kalapani Out Post at 05-00 p.m. on 26.06.2017. Thereafter, on 26.06.2017, a written FIR was lodged before the In- Charge, Kalapani Out Post and the In-Charge, Kalapani Out Post registered the same vide General Diary Entry no. 380 at 03-30 p.m. on 26.06.2017, while forwarding the FIR to the Officer In-Charge, Mankachar Police Station for registering a case under proper sections of law. The Officer In-Charge, Mankachar Police Station had, in turn, registered the FIR as Mankachar Police Station Case no. 506/2017 on 27.06.2017. While forwarding the FIR, the I.O. [P.W.7] took up the case for investigation. The case in hand is similar to the case in Bul Turi [supra].

55. It is also settled that a cryptic telephonic information given by any individual to the Police without any detail particulars of the offence or accused bereft of any details is not for the purpose of lodging an FIR but rather a request to the Police to reach the place of occurrence. The cryptic telephonic message which did not specify a cognizable offence, recorded as General Diary Entry no. 365 dated 25.06.2017, cannot be treated as FIR. The mere fact that the information was the first in point of time would not turn the General Diary Entry into the character of FIR. The FIR was lodged on 26.06.2017, which, by no stretch, can be said to be a delayed FIR.