SIDHARTHA VASHISHT @ MANU SHARMA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

13.1. PW-9, who conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased has stated that on 30.04.1999 at about 11 :20 a.m. 7 sheets of papers i.e. inquest papers, request of post-mortem, inquest report, copy of FIR, brief facts of the case, were submitted to him along with the dead body. He informed that the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief was head injury due to firearm, H injury was ante-mortem in nature. He also deposed that SIDHARTHA VASHISHT@ MANU SHARMA v. STATE 121 (NCT OF DELHI) Injury no. 3 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary A course of nature. [Para 32] [197-C-E]

13.2. Coming to the evidentiary value of PW-2, on behalf of the defence, it was stated that PW-2 is not a reliable witness in view of the fact that according to him he made his statement in English, however, PW-100 recorded it in Hindi. In the absence of any suggestion to the contrary, that it must be presumed that PW-100 recorded the statement correctly. It is also relevant to mention that in his statement as a witness he said he can understand spoken Hindi. Even if a prosecution witness is challenged in cross-examination, that part of his testimony which is corroborated by other witnesses or from other evidence can clearly be relied upon to base conviction. [Para 33] [197-E-H; 198-A-B] 8 c D

13.3. With regard to the allegation that statements of PW-6, PW-20 and PW-24 were taken under pressure as a case under Excise Act was lodged against them. In fact, PW-20 has denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely at the instance of Police. In the same way, PW-24 E has also denied the suggestion that a deal was struck between him and the investigation agency to make a false statement, thereafter, the Excise case could be hatched up. It is relevant to point out that the case under Punjab Excise Act which was registered as FIR No. 288/99 on 30.04;1999 has not been withdrawn by the prosecution against the accused. On the other hand, the fact remained that the accused had pleaded guilty. The maximum penalty/fine under Section 68 is Rs.200/-, therefore, the maximum fine which could have been imposed on the G accused is Rs.200/-. In those circumstances, the allegation that these three witnesses were kept under pressure is not acceptable. [Para 34] [198-C-H; 199-A] F

14.1. The information about the commission of a cognizable offence given "in person at the Police Station" H 122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 4 S.C.R. B A and the information about a cognizable offence given "on telephone" have forever been treated by this Court on different pedestals. The rationale for the said differential treatment to the two situations is, that the information given by any individual on telephone to the police is not for the purpose of lodging a First Information Report, but rather to request the police to reach the place of occurrence; whereas the information about the commission of an offence given in person by a witness or anybody else to the police is for the purpose of c lodging a First Information Report. Identifying the said objective difference between the two situations, this Court has categorically held in a plethora of judgments that a cryptic telephonic message of a cognizable offence cannot be treated as a First Information Report under the 0 Code. It has also been held in a number of judgments by . this Court that merely because the information given on phone was prior in time would not mean that the same would be treated as the First Information Report, as understood under the Code. [Para 41) [208-B-F] E F

14.2. In the instant case, the three telephonic messages received by the police around 2.25 a.m. on 30.04.1999 did not constitute the FIR under Section 154 of the Code and the statement of PW-2 was rightly registered as the FIR.[ Para 42) [208-G]