DAMODAR versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 904 · Decided: 18-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DAMODAR 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
SEPTEMBER 18, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Code a/Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 154-FJ.R .. -Jnformation 
of commission of offence over phone-Whether Fl.R .. -Unknown person 
initially giving information about commission of offence on telephone-
C Informant subsequently lodging a written report with the police-Held, 
telephonic information would not constitute F.l.R. as the information given 
was cryptic-Subsequent report by the informant rightly considered as 
F.I.R. and not as the statement of informant recorded during the course 
of investigation-Investigation-Commencement of-Section 162-Code 
D of Criminal Procedure. 
Penal Code-Section 120 B-Conspiracy-Ingredients of-Some 
kind of physical manifestation of agreement between the conspirators 
to pursue the criminal object necessary-Independent pursuing of the 
criminal object by two or more persons would not constitute conspiracy-
E Nature of-Secretive in nature-Can be proved by leading circumstantial 
evidence. 
Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 313-Examination of the 
accused under-Importance of-Is not a mere formality-Opportunity 
F given to accused to explain the incriminating circumstances against him 
in the background of the prosecution's evidence. 
G 
Criminal Trial-Evidence-Appreciation of-Assessment of evidence 
should be made keeping in mind the realities of the case-Hypersensitive 
approach should not be adopted 
The allegation of the prosecution was that PW 15 and the 
deceased were travelling on a cycle. M was driving a station wagon 
rashly. B exhorted M to run the vehicle over the deceased. Thereafter, 
M ran the vehicle over the deceased. J also came to the place of 
H occurrence on a scooter and ensured that the deceased was dead. The 
904 
DAMODAR v. STATE 
905 
motive behind the crime was stated to be property dispute between the A 
deceased and 8. 
The information about the occurrence was initially received by 
the police from some unknown persons. Subsequently, PW 15 lodged 
a written report with the police, which was treated as the F.I.R. Apart B 
from M, 8 and J, the son of 8 (D) was also charged for the offence 
of conspiracy. 
The trial court convicted M for offence under Section 302 IPC 
and also under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120 8 IPC. 8 was 
convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and C 
Section 302 read with Section 120 8 IPC. D and J were convicted for 
offence under Section 302 read with Section 120 8 IPC. All the accused 
persons were sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to fine. The 
conviction and the sentence awarded to the accused by the trial court 
were confirmed by the High Court. 
D 
On appeal by M, 8 and D (J died during the pendency of the 
appeal before the High Court) to this Court, the counsel for the 
appellants argued, inter alia, that -
(i) the investigation was started on the basis of a telephone call E 
received by the police. PW 15 gave a written report at a later stage. 
Therefore, the telephonic information would constitute the F.l.R. and 
not the report of PW 15. As such the written report of PW 15 is hit 
by the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
(ii) there is no material to apply the provisions of Section 120 8 F 
or Section 34 IPC for convicting the accused. 
(iii) the evidence produced by the prosecution is unreliable. 
Acquitting all the accused from charges under Section 302 read G 
with Section 120 8 IPC but convicting M under Section 302 IPC, the 
Court 
HELD : 1.1. The question as to at what stage the investigation 
commences has to be considered and examined on the facts of each case, 
especially, when the information of an alleged cognizable offence has H 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A been given on telephone. Any telephonic information about commission 
of a cognizable offence, if any, irrespective of the nature and details of 
such information cannot be treated as first information report. If the 
telephonic message is cryptic in nature and the officer in charge, proceeds 
to the place ofoccurrence on the basis of that information to find out the 
B details of the nature of the off encl' if any, then it cannot be said that the 
information which had been received by him on telephone shall be deemed 
to be F.I.R. The object and purpose of giving such telephonic message is 
not to lodge the first information report but to make the officer in charge 
o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.