STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. HIRALAL DEVJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is no doubt true that these discrepancies and divergences between the evidence given by Vaikunthlal in Court and his first information report do appear on record. However the attention of Vaikunthlal was not drawn to any of these discrepancies or divergences or contradictions at the time when he was giving evidence before the trial Court. Therefore it becomes necessary to examine as to what is the correct legal position regarding the use to be made of the first information report under such circumstances.

(2.) It is well settled law that the first information report recorded under sec. 154 Cr. P. C. by an officer in charge of a Police Station is not substantive evidence but is a previous statement in writing of the maker of that statement and can be used to corroborate or contradict the maker of that first information report. Section 145 of the Indian evidence Act provides that a witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing and relevant to matters in question without such writing being shown to him or being proved but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing his attention must before the writing can be proved be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. In the instant case we may emphasize once again that the attention of Vaikunthlal was not drawn to those parts of the first information report which are sought to be used for the purpose of contradicting Vaikunthlals testimony in Court. In the case of Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Shriniwas Pandit XLII Indian Appeals 135 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council considered the effect of the provisions of sec. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. There what happened was that the High Court had considered the effect of certain documents which were brought on record as substantive evidence and the High Court disbelieved the oral testimony of the witnesses in the light of those documents on record. Lord Show of Dunfermline delivering the judgment of the Privy Council observed at page 146 of the report as follows:-

(3.) In the case of Awadh Singh v. Emperor A. I. R. 1947 Patna 23 a Division Bench of the Patna High Court considered the effect of an inconsistency between the first information report and the evidence at the trial and it was held by the Division Bench as follows:-