Mr. Remy Vaz vs State of Goa

R.P. Sondurbaldota, J.—The applicant herein was tried for the offences punishable u/s 452, 323 and 506(ii) Indian Penal Code by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Quepem. He was convicted for all the three offences and sentenced to various punishments. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of his conviction he preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court being Criminal Appeal No. 27/2011. That appeal was partly allowed by the District Court by its judgment and order dated 27th May, 2011 acquitting the applicant of the offence punishable u/s 506(ii) Indian Penal Code but confirming the conviction and sentence for the other two offences. Being aggrieved by the decision of the District Court the applicant has approached this Court by way of revision application. The short facts of the prosecution case are that on 29th February, 2008, at about 7.45 a.m. the applicant entered the house of the complainant with a bamboo/danda and assaulted the complainant (PW1), his wife (PW3) and his son (PW2). He damaged the articles in the house by throwing them around and threatened the complainant with dire consequences and of setting his house and the vehicle on fire. The defence of the applicant was that he was a regular visitor to the house of the complainant. On the date of the incident when he had gone to the house of the complainant at the instance of PW2, in the incident provoked by the complainant and others, he had been assaulted by the complainant.

The prosecution examined seven witnesses being the complainant, his son, his wife, his brother, panch witness, medical officer and the investigating officer.

Mr. Palekar, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the entire prosecution has been vitiated since the statement of PW1-the complainant treated as FIR was not the first information received by police. This was the second information received and ought to have been treated as a statement made by the complainant to the police officer in the course of investigation, hit by Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code. He points out that it has come in the evidence of PW1 himself that his daughter gave a phone call to the police and informed the police about the incident after the applicant had left the house. Mr. Palekar submits that the information received over telephone by the police would be the first information of the commission of the offence. According to him the police ought to have recorded that information in writing and treated it as an FIR. The police ought to have also examined the daughter of PW1 as the complainant in the case.

Ms. M. Pinto, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relying upon decision of the Apex Court in State of A.P. Vs. V.V. Panduranga Rao, submits that any telephonic information received by the police would not constitute an FIR and mere fact that telephonic information was first in point of time does not by itself clothe it with the character of FIR. The observations of the Apex Court from the decision relied upon by her in this regard read as follows:

The object and purpose of giving a telephonic message is not to lodge the FIR but to request the officer incharge 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 the basis 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 information to investigate such offence then any statement made by any person in respect 5 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 162 of Code. That statement cannot be treated as FIR. To put it differently any telephonic information about the commission of cognizable offence irrespective of the nature of details of such information cannot be treated as FIR.

The above observations made by the Apex Court were in the facts of the case before it where the telephonic message received by the police officer was not specific. He had received a telephone that some murder had taken place. Such cryptic telephone message of a cognizable offence could not have been treated by the police as an FIR to register the offence without verifying the same. It is not the case of the prosecution herein that the telephone call made by the daughter of PW1 conveyed a cryptic message and that no details of the offence alleged had been conveyed through that message. Therefore, in the absence of such material on record it will have to be held that the telephone call given by the daughter of PW1 to the police was the FIR. Since that FIR was not reduced into writing and produced during trial through the appropriate witness the entire trial of the applicant was vitiated. On this ground alone the applicant deserves to succeed.

Perusal of the record shows that even on merits there are defects in the investigation as also production of evidence before the Court. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant had entered into the house of PW1 from back door carrying danda/bamboo. He assaulted PW1, PW2 and PW3 and left by the front door. It is not the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses that the applicant had left danda behind near the house of PW1. The police while conducting panchanama of the place of the offence seized one bamboo danda lying at a distance of about 5 metres from the house of PW1. This danda was identified by PW1, PW2 & PW3 in the Court without specifying the basis of such identification. It is not the case of the prosecution that the danda had any distinguishing feature. Instead it has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses that danda of the type is easily available in the market. In the circumstances, the courts below ought to have held that the prosecution had failed to prove the danda with which the witnesses were allegedly assaulted by the applicant. Another strange feature of the prosecution case is that according to the prosecution the applicant had come to the house of PW1 on his own vehicle i.e. scooty no. no. GA-02-N-0780. While leaving the house of PW1 he did not collect his vehicle. It would be difficult to believe that after committing the assault on the prosecution witnesses the applicant would leave his two wheeler behind by way of evidence of his visit. It would also be difficult to believe that he would not use his two wheeler for making a quick escape from the place of the incident. These circumstances create a doubt as regards the incident alleged by the prosecution and the benefit of such doubt must go to the applicant. Hence, the revision application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ''a''. The impugned orders of the District Court and also of the Magistrate are set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 452 and 323 Indian Penal Code. He shall be forthwith released unless required in any other case.