MUTYALA YERAKADU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three petitioners were put up for trial for offences under Sections 326, 325 and 323 I. P. C. , before the Addl. 1st Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram, in respect of an occurrence that took place on 16-11-1953. The case against them was this - They took a lease of some lands from P. Ws. 1 and 10 some time before 1953. After the expiry of the lease they delivered the lands to the lessors i. e. several months before the alleged offence. While so, when one day P. Ws. 1 and 10 were going to their lands to raise casuarina plantations, the three accused way-laid them and inflict, ed several wounds on P. Ws. 1, 3, 4, and 5. The victims immediately went to the Police Station at Sabbavaram at about 10 a. m. The Sub-Inspector of Police in charge of the Station took them to the hospital without recording any statements as he was anxious that the wounds should be dressed first. P. Ws. 7 and 8 who were coming in the company of P. Ws. 1, 3, 4 and 5 witnessed the occurrence, went into the village, and at about 4 a. m. gave a complaint to the village munsiff. The latter sent the crime report based on this to police station. The usual investigation followed 'and ultimately a charge-sheet was laid against the three accused for offences under Sections 326, 325 and 323 I. P. C.

(2.) THE prosecution led some oral evidence. Believing it, the trial Magistrate convicted the first accused under Section 326, I. P. C, and sentenced him to six months rigorous imprisonment, the second accused under Section 325 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, and the 3rd accused under Section 323 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 60/ -. On appeal, the conviction of A-1 under Section 326 was altered into one under Section 334, I. P. C. and the sentence reduced to two months rigorous imprisonment. In other respects, the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed.

(3.) IN this petition, the main point urged by Miss T. Prasanna Kumari is that the Courts below erred in acting on the report sent by the village-munsiff as the P. I. R. According to her, the material on record establishes that the Sub-Inspector of Police was given information by one of the injured persons about this crime. That being so, the subsequent report cannot be regarded as the first information report and comes within the mischief of Section 162, Criminal P. O. There is substance in this contention. Though, in the chief-examination, the Sub-Inspector stated that the moment he saw the accused his first impulse was to take them to the hospital; he had to admit in cross-examination that information of the offence was given to him by one of the victims. In other words, he had information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. Does the fact that he failed to perform the duty, en. , joined by Section 154, Criminal P. C, of reducing it to writing make the subsequent information given by one of the alleged eye-witnesses the first information report? In my opinion, it does not. Section 154, Criminal P. C recites: