MUNSHI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONVICTED for offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code (`ipc for short) and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/- each and further directed to undergo an imprisonment of rigorous imprisonment for three months by the Sessions Judge, the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 9. 1. 86 before this Court.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 16. 6. 82, one Umrao Singh, (PW. 1), submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) to the SHO, Police Station, Bhusawar wherein he claimed that "on that very day in the evening around 8 O' clock when he returned from Bayana, he was told that Munshi S/o Prasadi and Munna S/o Babulal had picked up his mother, Smt. Rammo, and thrown her into a well. At that time his younger brother was not around. His younger brother ran to the village and told the villagers that Munshi and Munna have thrown his mother into the well. Upon his calling the villagers, Charan, Bhagi, Girdhari and others reached the well and pulled his mother out. Prabhu went to the village Nithar and called the `vaid' (a medical doctor in the Indian system of medicine) who administered some medicine to his mother. Subsequently, the villagers took his mother to the hospital at Bhusawar and admitted her there. " On the basis of this report, a formal FIR, FIR No. 74/82 was chalked out for offence under Section 307 IPC. Subsequently, the police submitted the challan against the accused appellants. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses and submitted five documents. THE defence also examined four witnesses and submitted few documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellants as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellants, the FIR was lodged at the instance of Smt. Rammo, who had regained consciousness at the hospital. ACCORDING to the learned counsel Smt. Rammo had narrated the entire instance to her son Umrao (PW. 1) including the fact that her hand and feet were tied and her mouth was gagged by the appellants before she was thrown into the well. However, this fact is conspicuously missing from the FIR. Thus, omission of a material fact has been suppressed according to the learned counsel for the appellants. However, this contention is also untenable. For, Umrao Singh (PW. 1), in his cross-examination, merely states that "when his mother regained conscious, she merely told him that the appellants had thrown her into the well. " ACCORDING to him, the mother did not tell him any of the great details about the occurrence. Therefore, just because the FIR does not mention the fact that Rammo's hand and feet were tied and her mouth was gagged and she was thrown into the well, it would not create a doubt about the veracity of Smt. Rammo's testimony. Furthermore, neither the trial court, nor this Court can overlook the principle that an FIR is not meant to be encyclopedic in its scope. The purpose of FIR is to inform the police or the investigating agency about the occurrence of a cognizable offence. Therefore, the function of a FIR is merely to initiate the criminal machinery. It is neither the requirement of law, nor of prudence that FIR must contain minute details about the incident. What is important is that FIR must contain the essential features, the kernel of the prosecution story. Thus, merely because the victim being bound and gagged is not mentioned in the FIR, it would not dilute the importance of the FIR, or damage the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is meritless.