In Soma Bhai vs. State of Gujarat (1975) AIR SC 1453, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices N.L. Untwalia and S. Murtaza Fazal Ali affirmed the decision of the Gujarat High Court and found the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Surat "was manifestly perverse and wholly unreasonable and was largely based on pure speculation, surmises and conjectures. Most of the reasons which the Sessions Judge gave for rejecting the prosecution case were not only against the weight of the evidence, but also illusory and artificial as pointed out by the High Court."
The Court observed:" The mere fact that a call was booked at the residence of the complainant from Mamlatdar's office does not necessarily lead to the inference that it was booked by the complainant. In fact it is extremely dangerous to draw such an inference because so many persons receive calls from various places and in such cases it cannot be inferred that such calls must be by the owner."
It also underlined that "The message given to the Surat Police Station was too cryptic to constitute a first information report within the meaning of Section 154 of the Code and was meant to be only for the purpose of getting further instructions."
Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with information in cognisable cases. Section 154 (1) reads: Every information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence, if given orally to an officer-in-charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. [Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB,] [Inserted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 ] section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer:
Provided further that-(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB,] [Substituted 'section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D,' by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 (22 of 2018), dated 11.8.2018.] section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person's choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be; (b) the recording of such information shall be video-graphed; (c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.]
Section 154 (2) reads: "A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant."
Section 154 (3) reads: "Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer-in-charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognisable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer-in-charge of the police station in relation to that offence."
The Division Bench concluded: "We feel that on a proper appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution case in this case, the only view which is possible is the one which has ' been taken by the High Court. We, therefore, find ourselves in complete agreement with the judgment of the High Court and hold that the High Court was fully justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge." Justice Fazal Ali had authored the judgment which was delivered on April 30, 1975. The order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge was found unsustainable.
No comments:
Post a Comment