LexSURAJIT SARKAR versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 13 S.C.R. 634 SURAJIT SARKAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 2026 of 2009) DECEMBER 4, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part II) - 6 accused including appellant-accused caused death of one person - Two eye- C witnesses to the incident - Trial court convicted the appellant- accused u/s. 302 /PC while acquitted the rest of the accused - Order confirmed by High Court - On appeal, held: The appellant-accused is liable to be held guilty of causing death in view of the evidence of the eye-witness PW-7 - The D appellant-accused cannot be absolved of his involvement in the offence only because other co-accused were acquitted - However, in view of the nature of injuries on the deceased, the appellant-accused cannot be held guilty of murder - He is liable to be held guilty of offence of culpable homicide not E amounting to murder and liable to punished uls. 304 (Part II). F Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 154 - FIR - A cryptic message given on telephone ·cannot be treated as an FIR because in such case procedural formalities while recording the FIR, cannot be given effect to. Appellant-accused was prosecuted alongwith 5 other accused for havin'g caused death of one person. As per the prosecution, there were two eye-witnesses (PWs 7 and 8) to the incident. PW3 had telephonically informed the police about the incident. Thereafter PW-1 G (the son of the deceased) lodged FIR. Trial court acquitted the other accused persons while convicted the appellant- accused u/s. 302 IPC. Trial court rejected the plea that the intimation given by PW3 should be treated as the FIR and not the complaint lodged by PW-1, holding that H 634 SURAJIT SARKAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 635 telephonic message given by an unknown person with A regard to death of another unknown person could not be treated as FIR. High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant-accused upholding the finding of the trial court. In the appeal before this Court, the questions for consideration were whether a cryptic telephonic B intimation given to police could be treated as FIR u/s. 154 Cr.P.C.; whether the testimony of the eye-witnesses could be accepted for upholding the conviction of the appellant- accused; whether the conviction of the appellant-accused was justified even though the co-accused were acquitted C and whether the appellant-accused was guilty of murder. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. It cannot be held that the telephonic call should be treated as the FIR and not the complaint made o by PW-1. Section 154 Cr.P .C. makes it clear that even though oral information given by an officer-in-charge of a police station can be treated as an FIR, yet some procedural formalities are required to be completed. They include reducing the information in writing and reading E it over to the informant and obtaining his or her signature on the transcribed information. In the case of a telephonic conversation received from an unknown person, the question of reading-over that information to the anonymous informant does not arise nor does the F appending of a signature to the information, as recorded, arise. A cryptic message given on telephone cannot be treated as an FIR merely because that information was first in point of time and had been recorded in the Daily Diary of the police station. The object and the purpose of a telephonic message is not to lodge a first information G report but a request to the officer-in-charge of the police station to reach the place of occurrence. [Paras 35, 37, 38 and 40) [648-G-H; 649-D-E; 650-B-D] Ramsingh Bavaji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (1994) 2 H 636 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R. A SCC 685 : 1994 (2) SCR 239; Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1970) 2 SCC 113:1971(1) SCR 599; Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat (1975) 4 SCC 257: 1997 (3) SCR 1071; Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (1994) 2 SCC 220: 1974 (1) SCR 102; Mundrika Mahto v. State of Bihar B (2002) 9 SCC 183: 2002 (3) SCR 575; State of Andhra Pradesh v. V. V.Panduranga Rao(2009) 15 SCC 211: 2009 (7) SCR 421; Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi) (201 O) 6 sec 1: 201 o (4) SCR 103 - relied on. 2. The conduct of PW-7 was quite unnatural and a C little odd. This witness was a neighbour of the victim and it appears from his testimony that after he witnessed the attack on the deceased he did not both
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.