MIYANA HASAM ABDULLA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Sessions Judge Surendranagar convicted two persons namely Lakhman Lakha and Hasam Abdulla who were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions case No. 20/60 before him under section 302 read with sec. 34 Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of one Chandubha Madarsing at about 9 P. M. on 5-5-1960 near the Maha Laxmi Talkies at Surendranagar. Lakhman Lakha has filed Cri. Appeal No. 578 of 1960 and Hasam Abdulla has filed Cri. Appeal No. 566 of 1960. For convenience the two appeals filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been heard together and this judgment will dispose of both the appeals.

(2.) The evidence of this witness P. C. Jatubha is however attacked on the ground that he had not given his complaint at about 3-45 P. M. as alleged by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the complaint must have been given after Natwarlal and Gajrajgar had gone to the hospital and after they had decided to involve the appell- ants. In his evidence Jatubha had deposed that from the Irish Mission Hospital he went to the police station and gave his complaint (ex. 7). It was the same as shown and read over to him It bore his signature. The witness was allowed to be examined again after his cross-examination was over. He deposed that the complaint (Ex. 51) on the printed form bore his signature. The learned Assistant Government Pleader contends that Ex. 51 should be treated as the first information report and not ex 7. According to him when Jatubha went to make his complaint his state- ment was taken by two different persons. In his cross-examination Jatubha has stated that at the time of recording his first information his signatures were taken on two different papers. His signature was taken first on a printed form. He put his signature on Ex. 7 and also on Ex. 51. The P. S. I. Jadeja had taken his signature on both. P. S. I. Jadeja and one another person were writing at the same time and he put his signatures after the writings were completed. Ex. 51 was written by P.S. I. Jadeja and Ex. 7 was written by another person. In view of the evidence of this witness the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that Ex. 51 is the first information report and that Ex. 7 should not be treated as first information report. His contention is that although time is not noted in Ex. 7 it is noted in Ex. 51 and his contention is that Ex. 51 should be treated as first information report and not Ex. 7.

(3.) What is called a first information is that which is recognizable to in sec. 154 Cri. Pro. Code. Sec. 154 Cri. Pro. Code reads as follows: