9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code based on High Court's judgment. Analysis: The appellant was acquitted by the trial court but convicted by the High Court for an offense under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The incident involved a scuffle at a cinema hall where the appellant, after a dispute over cycle stand charges, assaulted the victim with a knife, resulting in the victim's death. The High Court set aside the trial court's acquittal and sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for life based on the appeal filed by the State. The defense argued that the information given by the Head Constable over the telephone, which was treated as the first information report, did not mention the names of the accused, casting doubt on the identification of the appellant as the assailant by the informant. The defense contended that the cryptic nature of the telephonic message should not have been accepted as the first information report, as it did not provide specific details about the incident. The judgment discussed the legal requirements for a first information report (FIR) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It distinguished between cryptic telephonic messages requesting police presence at the scene and detailed reports providing information about a cognizable offense. The court cited precedents to illustrate that not all telephonic messages constitute FIRs, especially when lacking essential details about the offense and the individuals involved. The court emphasized that the statement made by the informant to the Investigating Officer at the hospital, immediately after the incident, should be considered the first information report in this case. The informant identified the appellant as the assailant and provided details of the occurrence, which were consistent with his court testimony. The court rejected the notion that the telephonic message from the Head Constable served as the FIR, affirming the informant's identification of the appellant as the perpetrator. The court also highlighted corroborating evidence, including witness testimonies and the recovery of the knife used in the crime by the appellant during the investigation. The absence of any suggested motive for falsely implicating the appellant further strengthened the prosecution's case. Ultimately, the High Court's decision to convict the appellant based on the evidence presented was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed, ordering the appellant to serve the remaining sentence in custody.
|
