LexSTATE OF A.P. versus V.V.PANDURANGA RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 421 ..- "' STATE OF A.P. A v V.V.PANDURANGA RAO - Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 2003 MAY 4, 2009 B (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.) • ..- ~ PENAL CODE, 1860 : ~ s. 302 -Accused convicted by trial court of murder of his c . wife - acquittal by High Court holding that there were discrepancies in prosecution evidence - Held: High Court rightly noted certain facts, such as, the telephonic message was not recorded by police - Evidence of mother of deceased on which conviction was based, did not inspire confidence - D ·~ No effort was made to match blood group of deceased with blood found on material object - Serious injury on throat of accused not explained - High Court rightly acquitted the accused - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 154 and 162. E ,j CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: t .J. ss. 154 and 162 - FIR - Telephonic message, when can be treated FIR - Explained. The respondent was prosecuted for committing F murder of his wife and attempt to suicide. The prosecution case was that on the stated date and time the accused hacked the neck of his wife resulting in her death and then cut his throat partially with a knife. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused uls 302 IPC, but on appeal, G ~ .J. the High Court acquitted him. In the instant appeal filed by the State, it was contended for the appellant that the reasons recorded by •421 H 422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R. A the High Court for acquittal were not sustainable in law. It ~ .,, . was submitted that the message purported to have been given on a telephone was a cryptic one and, therefore, • could not be treated as an FIR. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Certain facts have been rightly noted by the High Court. It found that the evidence of PW-1, the i mother of the deceased, on whose evidence the con- .. viction was recorded did not inspire confidence. It was ;,. c also noted that the report was given to the police officer ., on telephone, as admitted by the brother of the deceased, I- at about 4.00 a.m. The same does not appear to have been recorded in writing and on the other hand the police officer claimed to have come to the place of occurrence and D recorded the statement of the mother and converted it into the FIR. The High Court noted that it was not explained • by the investigating officer as to why the telephonic message was not reduced into writing. [para 2] [425-A-C] 1.2 With reference to the evidence of PW-1 the High E Court noted that she stated that her son had informed the police. It is not known as to what the son of PW-1 told '· the police i.e. whether he told aboutthe details of the crime ""' • or that some crime had taken place. If it is former then the • message was required to be reduced in writing. According F to P.W.10, the police officer who received the telephonic message, he received a telephonic message that some murder had taken place. He categorically admitted that he did not reduce the information into writing. Added to that, the FIR reached the police station after about 7 hours. G In the FIR it was noted that the injuries on the person of the accused were of very serious nature, but the same ). ~ were not explained. The High Court did not accept the stand taken that the accused tried to commit suicide. [para 2] [425-C-F] H 1.2 A cryptic telephonic message of a cognizable .. STATE OF AP. V. VVPANDURANGA RAO 423 ~ .,., •, offence received by the police agency would not A constitute an FIR. On the other hand if the information given on telephone is not cryptic and on the basic of that ; information the officer in charge is prima facie satisfied about the commission of a cognizable offence and proceeds from the police station after recording such B information to investigate such offence then any statement made by any person in respect of the said "" ,, offence including details about the participants shall be deemed to be a statement made by a person to the police officer in the course of investigation covered by Section c 162 of Code. That statement cannot be treated as FIR. The matter has to be considered in the background of ss.154 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If in the instant case PW-6 proceeded on the basis of what has been told by PW-1 to him about the murder of the D deceased it was but natural that PW-1 would have told
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.