RAMSINH BAVAJI JADEJA versus STATE OF GUJARAT

RAMSINH BAVAJI JADEJA versus STATE OF GUJARAT

A cryptic telephonic message to police about a cognizable offence, not detailing the accused or specifics, cannot be treated as First Information Report; the proper FIR is the statement recorded by the investigating officer from PW6 (brother of deceased) after arrival at hospital, which named the accused and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ramsinh Bavaii Jadeja; Respondent: State of Gujarat
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 March 1994
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Acquittal by Trial Court, Conviction by High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
First Information Report (fir), Section 154 Cr PC, Section 162 Cr PC, Murder, Evidence Admissibility
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure First Information Report (fir) Section 154 Cr PC Section 162 Cr PC Murder Evidence Admissibility

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramsinh Bavaii Jadeja

Appellant

State of Gujarat

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Acquittal by Trial Court, Conviction by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cryptic information given on telephone can be treated as the First Information Report under Sections 154 and 162 CrPC
  2. 2 Validity of treating a cryptic telephonic message as FIR
  3. 3 Reliability of subsequent evidence identifying the accused

Ratio Decidendi

A cryptic telephonic message to police about a cognizable offence, not detailing the accused or specifics, cannot be treated as First Information Report; the proper FIR is the statement recorded by the investigating officer from PW6 (brother of deceased) after arrival at hospital, which named the accused and detailed the occurrence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
  • The appellant, previously enlarged on bail, is to be taken into custody to serve out the remaining period of his sentence.