Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Learned counsel for Dinesh @ Desi submits that no role has been assigned to Dinesh @ Desi either on October 8 and 9, 2006 however, in view of enmity between the families his name has been subsequently added in the supplementary statement Ex.PW-1/DA.

8. Admittedly, Raj Rani did not know Naveen prior to the incident and thus TIP of Naveen ought to have been got conducted. Naveen is not named in the FIR. Thus, the appellant Naveen has been falsely implicated.

9. Learned counsel for Deepak submits that the information given by ASI Laik Ram from the PCR gives a complete account of the incident and has thus to be treated as FIR, so the statement of Bhupender on the basis of which FIR was registered is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C and cannot be considered. Bhupender is not a person with clean antecedents and has already been convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC for an incident dated September 30, 2009. The version of Bhupender in the statement Ex.PW-1/DX that Deepak opened the window and put pistol in the mouth resulting in falling of the pistol in the car is highly improbable. No finger prints were taken from the pistol seized from Bhupender.

49. The contention of learned counsels for the appellants that the PCR information gave the complete details and hence the same has to be treated as FIR and consequently the rukka is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. is wholly fallacious. Though the PCR informed the name of two assailants and the car number, however the same did not give the version of the incident and all the accused involved. The same was the messages flashed by SI Laik Ram on seeing the commotion on reaching the spot. No statement was recorded at that stage and bit and bits of information which were received were flashed. Thus, such a cryptic message cannot be said to be FIR and consequently affecting the FIR registered to be hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. (See: 1970 (2) SCC 113 Tapinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.)