Refusal to record first information report by police amounts to dereliction of duty on the part of police
The police constable at the police station refused to record the complaintpresented by PW 1 on the ground that the said police station had no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. It was certainly a dereliction of duty on the part of the constable because any lack of territorial jurisdiction could not have prevented the constable from recording information about the cognizable offence and forwarding the same to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime was said to have been committed.
Once we find that the investigating officer has deliberately failed to record thefirst information report on receipt of the information of a cognizable offence of the nature, as in this case, and had prepared the first information report after reaching the spot after due deliberations, consultations and discussion, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the investigation is tainted and it would, therefore, be unsafe to rely upon such a tainted investigation, as one would not know where the police officer would have stooped to fabricate evidence and create false clues.
Once we find that the investigating officer has deliberately failed to record thefirst information report on receipt of the information of a cognizable offence of the nature, as in this case, and had prepared the first information report after reaching the spot after due deliberations, consultations and discussion, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the investigation is tainted and it would, therefore, be unsafe to rely upon such a tainted investigation, as one would not know where the police officer would have stooped to fabricate evidence and create false clues.
Supreme Court of India
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Punati Ramulu And Others on 19 February, 1993
Equivalent citations: AIR 1993 SC 2644, 1993 CriLJ 3684, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 590
