NALIN KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON March 17, 1971, at about 2 P.M., Bhagwan Das (P.W. 1), an employee of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Bayana Branch, lodged first information report with the Police Station, Bayana, alleging therein that very day at about 1 -30 P.M 8 persons raided his Bank and decamped with Rs. 16,261. 23 P. and other articles. It was further mentioned in that document that one of the dacoits was Nalin Kumar, a resident of Bayana. Two dacoits had pistols with them. One had a hand grenade. The remaining culprits were armed with knives. All the 8 persons asked the Bank employees, the moment they entered the Bank premises, to stand up and raise their hands other wise they would be killed. Two of the dacoits disconnected the telephone line. Some of the miscreants gave beating to Bhagwan Das and other Bank employees and they were also made to stand near a wall. The dacoits then broke the cash -box and took out the aforesaid amount and other articles. Thereafter all the 8 dacoits ran away in a bluish Ambassador car, bearing registration No. D.LJ. 7458. On receipt of the report the police registered a case under Sections 395 and 397, I.P.C. It is alleged that in the course of investigation money was recovered from the possession of some of the dacoits. After investigation was completed, a challan was presented to the court of Additional Munsiff -Magistrate who recorded the evidence of all the 8 eye -witnesses during the committal proceedings and after hearing arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties committed Nalin Kumar and 7 others to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, to face trial under Sections 395 and 397, I.P.C. Against that commitment order Nalin Kumar took a revision application in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, praying therein that the commitment order so far as the applicant was concerned being illegal should be ordered to be quashed. Learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, in this order dated January 11, 1972, observed that as the name of Nalin Kumar appeared in the first information report, a valuable document, it could not be said that there was no evidence at all against him. He accordingly declined to set aside the commitment order.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the above finding, Nalin Kumar has submitted this revision -application to this Court Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. J.K.Mathur submitted that a serious irregularity has been committed by the Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Bayana, committing the petitioner to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, in the absence of an iota of evidence connecting him with the crime and further that the Sessions Judge Bharatpur, has also fallen into error in solely relying upon the first information report filed by Bhagwan Das (P.W. 1), as that document does not constitute a substantive piece of evidence. He, in the end, urged that proceedings against the petitioner Nalin Kumar in the trial court would result in harassment to him and would eventually bear no fruit whatever, Learned Deputy Government Advocate argued that since the name of the petitioner appears in the first information report, trial should continue and it would be too early to reach the conclusion at this stage that there is no evidence against the petitioner in regard to the commission of the crime.

(3.) THE aforesaid 8 eye -witnesses do not support in the least the association of Nalin Kumar with the dacoity. It is true that Nalin Kumar's name does appear in the first information report. The first information report is the information recorded under Section 154, Cr. P.C. It is an information given to a police officer relating to the commission of a crime It is an information furnished to the police by an informant on which the 'investigation is commenced. It can only be used to corroborate or contradict the evidence of the informant given in the court or to impeach his credit It follows that a court cannot treat the first information report as a substantive piece of evidence. It can only refer to that portion, which had been used for one or other of the aforesaid purposes. In this connection a reference is made to State of Bombay v. : AIR1960SC391 . In a recent decision reported as Hasib v. : 1972CriLJ233 his Lordship Dua J. said.