RANDHIR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Randhir Singh, aged 40 years, an agriculturist of Village Poolh Kalan, Delhi. He has been convicted by Shri R. P. Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, by his judgment passed on October 25, 1979, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife Shrimati Bhagwani, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment fur life and a fine of Rs. 20LO.00 , in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant has also been convicted for an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for destroying the evidence of crime by burning the dead body of Smt. Bhagwani, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 500.00 . in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The facts leading to the registration of the case are as follows. On December 23, 1978, at about 11 p.m. an anonymous telephonic call was received at Police Station Nangloi that Randhir Singh Pehlwan (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) had killed his wife at village Pooth Kalan and had taken her dead body to the cremation ground for burning it. This message (Exhibit P. W. 4/A) was recorded by the Duty Officer in the daily diary at N o. 22-A of the same date. Sub-Inspector Niader Singh of that police-station, who was deputed by him to investigate the matter accompanied by Head Constable Dhara Singh and Constables Bhagwan Lal and Babu Lal reached the cremation ground of that village. He found the appellant standing near a burning pyre. On noticing the police he tried to slip away but was secured. On interrogation, apart from staling his name and address, he disclosed that the body burning on the pyre, was that of his wife Bhagwani. The file was got extinguished and the half burnt body, face of which had been completely destroyed, was kept under guard on the pyre itself. The report containing the result of his investigation was endorsed by Sub-Inspector Niader Singh on a copy of the daily diary report No. 22-A and was despatched by him at 12.45 hrs. to the Police-Station Nangloi for registration of a case under Section 302, read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The formal First Information Report Exhibit P. W. 23/A was thus recorded at 1.17 a. m. on December 14, 1978.

(3.) Before dealing with the prosecution evidence and the circumstances appearing against the appellant, it would be proper to settle the question whether thetelephonic message Exhibit P. W. 4/A recorded in the police-station in the daily diary at 11 p.m. on December 23, 1977, can be held to be the First Information Report within the meaning of Section 154 of the Code. Elaborate arguments have been advanced by Bawa Gurcharan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, that the telephonic message is to be constituted the First Information regarding the commission of murder of Smt. Bhagwani, and, therefore, the admission by the appellant to Sub-Inspector Niader Singh that the dead body was that of his wife Smt. Bhagwani, having been made during the course of investigation, was hit by Section 162 of the Code. Mr. 0. P. Soni, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, who addressed us with permission of the State Counsel contended that Sub-Inspector Niader Singh had been deputed to village Pooth Kalan only to ascertain the varacity of the facts contained in the telephonic message and not to investigatee any offence. The submission in that the information relating to the commission of cognizable offence is not only to be given to officer-in-charge of a police-station but is to be signed by the informant. The duty officer, who deputed Niader Singh) was not officer-in-charge of the police-station. On his direction investigation could not commence. It is the endorsement by Niader Singh which constitutes the "information" within the purview of Section 154 of the Code and not the telephonic call. The investigation commenced only after 1.17 a. m. on December 24, 1978, after recording of the First Information Report. Therefore, the admission made by the appellant to Sub-Inspector Niader Singh not having been made during the course of investigation, was admissible against him.