MR. REMY VAZ Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant herein was tried for the offences punishable under Section 452, 323 and 506(ii) Indian Penal Code by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Quepem. He was convicted for all the three offences and sentenced to various punishments. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of his conviction he preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court being Criminal Appeal No. 27/2011. That appeal was partly allowed by the District Court by its judgment and order dated 27th May, 2011 acquitting the applicant of the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) Indian Penal Code but confirming the conviction and sentence for the other two offences. Being aggrieved by the decision of the District Court the applicant has approached this Court by way of revision application. The short facts of the prosecution case are that on 29th February, 2008, at about 7.45 a.m. the applicant entered the house of the complainant with a bamboo/danda and assaulted the complainant (PW1), his wife (PW3) and his son (PW2). He damaged the articles in the house by throwing them around and threatened the complainant with dire consequences and of setting his house and the vehicle on fire. The defence of the applicant was that he was a regular visitor to the house of the complainant. On the date of the incident when he had gone to the house of the complainant at the instance of PW2, in the incident provoked by the complainant and others, he had been assaulted by the complainant.

(2.) THE prosecution examined seven witnesses being the complainant, his son, his wife, his brother, panch witness, medical officer and the investigating officer.

(3.) MS . M. Pinto, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relying upon decision of the Apex Court in State of A.P. V/s. V.V. Panduranga Rao reported in : AIR 2009 SC (SUPP) 1449 submits that any telephonic information received by the police would not constitute an FIR and mere fact that telephonic information was first in point of time does not by itself clothe it with the character of FIR. The observations of the Apex Court from the decision relied upon by her in this regard read as follows: