Case Note & Summary
The two criminal appeals arose from the judgment and order of conviction dated 04.05.2005 passed by the Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.304/2005. The appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs.15,000/- each. The prosecution case was that on 04.04.2005, the deceased Yogesh, who worked as a daily wager with a cable operator, went to Sakkardara police station to retrieve a relative's two-wheeler and thereafter, in the company of the appellants, an altercation took place in which the appellants assaulted Yogesh with fist and kick blows, causing him to fall unconscious. He was taken to Chandsi Hospital and then to Government Medical College, where he was declared dead. The first informant, the mother of the deceased (PW2), lodged an oral report (Exh.27) on 05.04.2005, based on which crime was registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. After investigation and trial, the trial court acquitted the appellants under Section 302 IPC but convicted them under Section 304-II read with Section 34 IPC. In appeal, the appellants challenged the conviction, contending that the FIR (Exh.27) was not the first information report because the mother had earlier reported the incident at the police booth at Medical College, which report was not produced, and that the medical evidence and testimony of eye witnesses were unreliable. The State supported the conviction. The High Court, in its oral judgment, focused on the validity of the FIR. It noted that PW2 had unequivocally stated that she reported the incident at the Medical College police booth. The court distinguished between a mere intimation of death and reporting the incident with details. It held that the prosecution was duty-bound to produce the prior report, and its non-production invited an adverse inference. The court also commented on the inadmissibility of an unsigned medical information document (Exh.58) relied upon by the prosecution. The judgment did not proceed to a final determination of the appeals in the portion of the text provided, and the ultimate decision on the conviction remains unmentioned in the extract.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - First Information Report - Validity of FIR - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 154, 174 - The mother of the deceased reported the incident at the police booth at Medical College, but the prosecution failed to produce that report, only the later statement (Exh.27) was treated as FIR. The court observed that there is a difference between a cryptic intimation of death and reporting the incident; even if the prior report did not disclose cognizable offence, it should have been produced. Its non-production warranted an adverse inference and the subsequent statement could not be treated as the first information report. (Paras 9-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR (Exh.27) could be considered as the first information report when the mother of the deceased had earlier reported the incident at the police booth at Medical College, and whether the non-production of that report vitiates the prosecution case
Law Points
- FIR must be the earliest report of incident
- non-production of prior report given at police booth leads to adverse inference
- investigating agency must produce all reports and evidence
- medical evidence is opinion evidence and not binding on court
