STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE state has preferred the appeal against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the first additional munsiff and judicial magistrate first class in c. c. No. 5714 of 1994. The respondents 1 to 4 are the accused, who are charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under sections 447, 504, 506 (2) and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 21-7-1994 at about 12. 00 midnight, the accused persons alleged to have trespassed into the site belonging to rangegowda, the complainant examined as P. W. 1, demolished the latrine room with crow-bar and pickaxe and caused damage to the property to an extent of Rs. 2,000/ -. When p. w. 1 came and questioned, the accused persons abused him and threatened to kill him if he were to interfere and made physical advances for assaulting. P. w. 1 escaped and goes to the house of the psi situated nearby the scene. The wife of psi was present in the house. The said lady gave a telephonic message to the police station and the message was received by P. W. 7, the head constable who came to the scene immediately along with two other beat constables and found the accused persons at the scene and on arrival of the police, the accused threw the crow-bar, pick-axe and ran away. Next day morning the complaint was submitted by P. W. 1 registered as fir. The investigation is taken up and on completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet is filed.

(2.) IN the trial court, seven witnesses were examined. P. w. 1 is the complainant-rangegowda. P. w. 2, puttamma the wife of P. W. 1. P. w. 3 is the beat constable who accompanies P. W. 7 to the scene and P. W. 4 is the psi, who conducted the investigation and filed the charge-sheet. P. w. 5 is one huchappa, a neighbour residing by the side of the disputed site and testifies to the fact that on 21-7-1994 around 12. 30 in the midnight, after hearing the noise of quarrel, he opened the shutters of his window and found the accused persons attempting to demolish the walls of the latrine and also speaks about the arrival of the police and accused decamping from the scene. P. w. 6 is the spot mahazar witness. P. w. 7 is the head constable, who came to the scene on the telephonic information received and also testifies to the fact that he found the accused persons at the scene with incriminating weapons in their hands and running away from the scene after his arrival.

(3.) THE trial judge has gone into unnecessary discussion on the academic aspects of law without properly noticing on the basic material facts regarding the legal position of fir marked at ex. P. 5. In view of earlier telephonic message during midnight, the fir registered in the morning at around 9. 00 a. m. at ex. P. 5 was not construed as fir and considered it as only a statement under Section 161 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, all that discussion was really not necessary since from the evidence of P. W. 7 and also from the evidence of P. W. 1, it does disclose that whatever information given by the wife of the psi to the police on telephone lacks the requisites of fir under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code. P. w. 7 categorically says he was not able to make out the name of the informant and the details of the offence were also not made known. Some cryptic message is said to have been received. Therefore, under the circumstances, such a message cannot be considered as a fir and the only authentic and legally first information has been lodged under ex. P. 5.