LexPATAI @ KRISHNA KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 1135 PATAI @ KRISHNA KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1718 of 2007) MARCH 30, 2010 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r.w. s.34 - Common intention A B - Appellants-accused committed act of accosting the deceased with pistols and dragging him away to the place of C incident - The other two accused persons armed with pistols fired at the deceased which resulted in his death on the spot - Conviction under s. 302 r. w. s. 34 - Challenged by appellants on the ground that they were only holding the deceased and consequently, there was no pre-conceived or pre-concerted . o meeting of minds - Held: Appellants actively participated in the commission of the offence by doing acts in furtherance of the common intention of killing the deceased - Conviction upheld. FIR: Cryptic message - Not containing details regarding E the manner in which incident took place or name of the deceased or accused - Held: Cannot be termed as FIR - A message or communication to be qualified to be an FIR must be something in the nature of a complaint or accusation or at least some information of the crime given with the object F of setting the police or criminal law into motion - An FIR must at least contain some information about the crime committed as also some information about the manner in which the cognizable offence was committed - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 r.w. s.34. G Prosecution case was that on the fateful day, deceased, his son-PW-1 and PW-3 were returning from the court where litigation was pending between the deceased and 'G' alongwith others. When they got down 1135 H 1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A from the train, the accused-appellants and the accused 'SK' armed with pistols accosted the deceased. 'G' who was travelling in the same train after alighting from the train exhorted to the other accused persons to avail the opportunity to eliminate the deceased, whereafter the 8 appellants dragged the deceased to the place of incident. 'SK' and 'G' fired at the deceased which resulted in his death on the spot. On hue and cry, some villagers assembled there and saw the appellants, 'SK' and 'G' running away from that place. The informant wrote an C FIR on the spot itself and submitted it to the Police Station. Trial Court convicted the accused persons under Section 302 r.w. Section 34 IPC. High Court upheld the order of conviction. In these appeals, it was contended for the appellants D that they were only holding the deceased and consequently, it could not be held that there was any pre- conceived or pre-concerted· meeting of minds and therefore their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was illegal; that there were two separate E First Information Reports lodged with the police - tha-Jirst one was lodged at about 4.30 p.m. by the Ass,istant Station Master whereas the First Information Report second in point of time was lodged by P.W. 1 at about 5.15 p.m.; and that since the First Information Report F lodged by Assistant Station Master indicated that there was no eye-witness to the occurrence therefore framing and calling of the three eye-witnesses by the prosecution could not have been believed and the prosecution story should fail. G Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The report given by the Assistant Station Master appeared to be a telephonic message which was sent by the Cabin man at the Rooma Halt Station to GRP. H This also found corroboration in the deposition of DW-1 PATAI@ KRISHNA KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. 1137 who stated in his evidence that he registered a case in GD and sent a message at 4.40 p.m. to the control room on telephone and also gave a wireless message to the Maharajpur Police Station. There was however nothing on record to indicate that the aforesaid report was sent to the Maharajpur Police Station immediately and the same was received at the Police Station Maharajpur prior A B to the lodging of the report given by P.W. 1. Besides, the alleged report given by the Assistant Station Master appeared to be very cryptic and without any details regarding the manner in which the incident had taken c place or mentioning the name of the deceased. Considering the contents of the said message, it cannot be said that there was any possibility of recording a First Information Report on the basis of the message sent to the GRP by the Assista
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.