RAMSINH BAVAJI JADEJA versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 01-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMSINH BAVAII JADEJA 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
MARCH 1, 1994 
(K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 154 and 162-First Infor-
mation Report-Commission of cognizable offence-Cryptic information 
given on telephone-IVhether and when could be taken as First Information 
A 
B 
Report of the occumnce. 
C 
The appellant and two others were tried for offences punishable 
under Sections 302, 302 r/w 34 and 325 IPC. The Trial Court gave benefit 
of doubt to the accused and acquitted them. On appeal by the State, the 
High Court comicted the appellant for an offence under Section 302 and 
sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. However, it did not D 
interfere with the order of acquittal against the two co-accused. 
The convicted accused preferred the present appeal contending that 
the message noted in the telephone book maintained at the Police Station 
which was treated as First Information Report did not mention the names E 
of the accused, and as such the evidence of the deceased's brother that it 
was the appellant who gave the knife blow in the chest of the victim should 
not have been accepted. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
F 
HELD : 1. When the information of a cognizable offence has been 
given on telephone, and the message is cryptic in nature and the officer 
in-charge proceeds to the place of occurrence on the basis of that infor-
mation to find out the details of the nature of the offence itself, then it 
cannot be said that the information, which had been received by him on 
telephone, shall be deemed to be First Information Report. The object and G 
purpose of giving such telephonic message is not to lodge the First Infor· 
mation Report, but to request the officer-in-charge of the police station to 
reach the place of occurrence. On the other hand, if the information given 
on telephone is not cryptic and on basis of that information, the Officer 
in-charge, is prima facie satisfied about the commission of a cognizable H 
239 
I 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994) 2 S.C.R. 
A offence and he proceeds from the police station after recording such 
l 
information, to investigate such u!Tence then any statement made by any 
person in respect of the said offence including about the participants, shall 
be deemed to be a statement made by a person to the police officer '111 the 
course of investigation', covered by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure 
B Code. That statement can be treated as First Information Report. But any 
telephonic information about commission of a cognizable offence Irrespec-
tive of the nature and details of such Information cannot be treated as 
First Information Report. [243-G, H; 244-A-C) 
Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1970) SC 1566 and Soma Bhai 
C v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1975) SC 1453, relied on. 
2. In the Instant case, the Investigating Officer having received the 
telephonic message, immediately reached the hospit11l and he Drst 
recorded the statement of PW6; the brother of the deceased. He sent the 
said statement to the city police station, for registering a ease. Thereafter 
D he held the inquest on the dead body of the deceased; sent the dead body 
of the deceased for postmortem; prepared the injury rep•1rt iu respect of 
the Injuries on the person of PW6 and sent him for medical examination 
and treatment. Then he went to the scene of occurrence and collected 
blood-stained crust of cement plaster and examined witm,sses. Under the 
E circumstances the statement of PW6, which was recorded by the lnvestigat· 
ing Officer, after reaching the hospital should have been treated as the 
First Information Report. There is no dispute, that in that statement the 
name of the appellant was mentioned by I'W6 and details of the occurrence 
as disclosed by him in Court was stated by him. (245-D·f I 
F 
3. As such the Courts below were in error in treating the cryptic 
message given on telephone by the Head Constable to the office in charge, 
as First l!>formation Report. [245·H; 246-A) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
G 563 of 1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.80 of the Gujarat High 
Court in Crl. A. No. 251 of 1978. 
Yashank Adhyaru, Mrs. B.K. Brar and P.H. Parekh for the Appel-
H lant. 
R.B.JADEJA v. STATE OF GUJARAT (N.P.SJNGH,J.] 
241 
Anip Sachthey and B.N. Babu for the Respondent. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
N.P. SINGH, J. 1. The appellant, who had been acquitt

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