It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopedia but it is an information given at the first instance: Orissa High Court

“It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopedia but it is an information given at the first instance”

The Orissa High Court Observed that, “It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopedia but it is an information given at the first instance…the contradictions in the FIR and the subsequent version have to be borne in mind while evaluating the complicity of the accused. But, that cannot be the sole basis to discard the testimony of a witness who has otherwise withstood the scrutiny of cross-examination and whose version is found to be cogent.“

Facts of the Case:

• The Appellant-Debraj Putel along with three other accused persons faced trial for the charge under Sections 302/34 IPC in S.CCase No.29/8 of 1990 arising out of Kantabanji P.S. Case No.121 of 1989 for committing the murder of one Sashidhar Putel. 
• On conclusion of trial, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titlagarh by judgment dated 28.11.1990 while acquitting three other accused persons, namely, Nepal @ Bhagaban Putel, Asabati@ Ashmati Putel and Sundermati Putel for the charge under Section 302/34 IPC, convicted the Appellant-Debraj Putel under Section 304-II IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I for seven years.
• – Assailing the same, the present CRA has been filed

Prosecution:

It is the assertion of the prosecution that during the quarrel, which ensued on driving out the herd of cow, the present Appellantalong with others came to the spot and started assaulting the said Sashidhar Putel for which he sustained bleeding injuries on his head and under his left ear and fell down on the ground.

the present Appellant was taken into custody on 25.11.1989 and he continued in incarceration till he was granted bail by this Court in 1991.

Defence:

Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, learned Amicus Curiae, submitted with vehemence that the approach of the learned trial court is ex facie erroneous in as much as admittedly the Appellant was charged under Section 302/34 IPC. 

Hence, in the event of acquittal of other accused persons under Section 302 IPC, the conviction of the Appellant under Section 304-II IPC independently cannot be sustained and in this context, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Purna Badnaik vrs. State of Orissa, reported in (2002) 22 OCR 244.

it is urged with vehemence by the learned Amicus Curiae that there is discrepancy in the evidence of Prosecution Witness (05).

Observation by Hon’ble High Court:

The Hon’ble High Court  noted that at the time of occurrence, which took place more than three decades back, the present convict Appellant was of impressionable age of 16 years and there is nothing on record to show that he had any criminalproclivity and on being released, he has misused the trust reposed in him.

It was further observed that, “Law is no longer res integra that while sentencing an accused his conduct during and after the occurrence has to be taken  into account since this Country does not follow the retributive jurisprudence”.

Relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of sentencing in the case of Mohinder Pal Jolly vrs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1979 SC 577, Sarup Singh vrs. State of Haryana, reported in (2009) 16 SCC 479 and Gobindan vrs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendentof Police, reported in (2022) 87 OCR (SC) 487, directs the sentence of the Appellant-Debraj Putel for the offence under Section 304-II IPC to be reduced to the period of incarceration already undergone.

The appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of.

Case Title : Debraj Putel Vs State of Odisha (CRA No.53 of 1991)

Read the full judgment here: