Question 1:

What is an FIR? Critically analyse and comment upon the investigation conducted by the
police in the present instance in light of the relevant provisions of CRPC.

First Information Report (FIR) has nowhere been defined in CrPC. However, any information
given under Sec. 154(1) is commonly known as first information report. It is the earliest and the
first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer-in-charge of a police station 1. It
sets the criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation.

In the present case, An FIR was filed on 10.10.2015, for the murder of Mrs. Karia, that took
place on 09.09.2015.2 However, the investigation began with the filing of the missing person’s
complaint.3 In the absence of FIR, if a police officer in charge of a police station has reason to
suspect the commission of cognizable offence, he can proceed to investigate the offence under
Sec. 157(1).4 Various people were interrogated in the investigation, followed by the recovery of
the victim's body at the Ghat, and its subsequent medical examination.5

After lodging the FIR, the police officer must clarify that the information is regarding a
cognizable offence, and once FIR is filed, can begin the investigation without the permission of
the Magistrate and can arrest any suspected person for further investigation. However, such
person should be presented before the Magistrate within the completion of 24 hours and in the
present case, this procedure was not followed.

Under Sec. 157, the Police officer shall forthwith send the copy of report to the Magistrate who
is empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report. This was not followed in
the present case, since the Magistrate was not involved in the case. Under Sec. 173, police must
submit charge sheet after the completion of investigation. It consists of  FIR copy , statement of
complainant/ informant, statement of  witness, panchas, panchnama, dying declaration, recovery
of articles, etc. and this procedure has been correctly complied with in the present case.

1
Section 154(1), CrPC
2
Assignment Proposition, Para 15
3
Assignment Proposition, Para 8
4
State of  Maharashtra V. Sarabgdharsingh Shivdassing, SLP (Crl.) No. 2614 of 2009
5
Assignment Proposition, Para 14

1
In case of Kalpanakutty V. State of Maharashtra  it was held that, “if information of cognizable
offence is received by officer he should register FIR as per S. 154(1) of CrPC." In the present
case, Aloknath confessed to the murder, but instead of immediately filing an FIR, the police was
first directed to the Ghat where the body was disposed off.

As per Sec. 164, any Metropolitan Magistrate can record the confession statement of the witness
or accused and the same was followed in the case of the confession of Aloknath.
However, under Sec.168, a report of the result of the investigation must be submitted by the
investigating officer to the officer in-charge of the Police Station, which there is no mention of in
the present case. The duty of the IO is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such
evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished
truth.6

Question 2:
6
State of West Bengal V. Manindra Nath Das, AIR 1960 Cal 183

2
What is the evidence on record in the present case? Comment upon the significance of the
evidence so collected by the police during the investigation highlighting its role during the
trial.

Evidence can be defined as any species of proof, or probative matter, legally presented at the trial
of an issue, by the act of the parties and through the medium of witnesses, records, documents,
concrete objects, etc. for the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury as to
their contentions.7 In the present case, the evidences on record can be better understood by
separating the same into three artificial categories - physical, documentary and forensic. The
powers of the police to investigate cognizable cases8 allows them to collect evidences of different
natures, in the present case.

The physical evidence in the present case would include the tangible items recovered by the
police, including - body of the victim, jute sack used to dispose the body, jewelry recovered from
the victim's body, victim's missing car, hair-like fibres from the carpet of the car, hair sample
from victim's hairbrush for comparison, etc.

The documentary evidence would include pertinent documents recovered and produced for the
purpose of investigation of the present case like the important documents of the victim recovered
from the almirah at her office (will, bank records, etc.) 9, as well as documents created by the
during the course of investigation such as Inquest Panchnama 10, First Information Report (FIR)11
under Section 154, Statements of Witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 162, CCTV
footage of the two accused.12

The forensic evidence would include all the scientific and forensic analysis of the physical
evidence recovered by the police such as DNA Analysis Report13 and Post Mortem Report.14

7
Black’s Law Dictionary (4th Edition, 2009)
8
Section 156 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
9
Assignment Proposition, Statement of Facts, para 11, pg. 6
10
Assignment Proposition, EXHIBIT II, pg. 10
11
Assignment Proposition, EXHIBIT I, pg. 8
12
Assignment Proposition, EXHIBIT V, pg. 30
13
Assignment Proposition, EXHIBIT VII, pg. 33
14
Assignment Proposition, EXHIBIT III, pg. 13

3
In order to understand the significance and value of evidences so collected by the police, it is
necessary to examine the case15 as presented from both sides - the prosecution and the defence.

From the side of the Prosecution, there has been no effort made to present a clear chain of
events beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence adduced from the mobile service provider of the
deceased places her near the vicinity of the home of the accused, but there is no concrete
evidence produced to show that hypothesized events lead to the victim's murder. Furthermore,
the prosecution has placed reliance regarding the modus operandi of the commission of the
offence solely on PW1 (Aloknath Kale), who the defence has presented evidence to suggest was
coerced into giving the same by PW3 (Investigating Officer, Jai Singhania). In order to make out
a case against the three accused, the prosecution has relied on the Doctrine of Last Seen. In the
present case, the prosecution has argued that, as per the plans made by Accused No. 1 (Anjali
Mathur), she was the last person to see the deceased alive, and hence is most likely to have killed
her. However, in the absence of proof of other circumstances, the only circumstance of last seen
together and absence of satisfactory explanation cannot be made the basis of conviction. 16 The
prosecution has relied on the evidence collected by the police, which offers proof only to the
identity and cause of death of the victim, but no substantial evidence as to the participation of the
three accused in the actual commission of the crime. In the absence of which, the prosecution
was left to theorize, which cannot be the basis of a conviction, as it leaves much room for doubt
as to their guilt.

From the side of the Defence, they have relied heavily on discrediting the prosecution to
disprove the guilt of the accused. To discredit the statement of PW1, video footage was
introduced of custodial violence committed against him by PW3. Furthermore, they have cast
heavy doubt as to whether the deceased entered the premises of the accused, by questioning the
statements of PW2 (Watchmen of the accused). Further, they have employed the statements of
the families that the accused and deceased maintained close relationships to demonstrate the lack
of mens rea for commission of the offence. The defence has merely put forward one new item of
evidence (video footage), but has otherwise relied on the prosecution's lack of any substantial
evidence to show that the accused have committed the offence, beyond any reasonable doubt.

15
State of Maharashtra V. Anjali Mathur & Ors., Sessions Case No. 37 of 2016
16
Anjan Kumar Sarma & Ors. V. State of Assam, Crl. Appeal No. 560 of 2014

4
Question 3:

Critically analyze the arrest of the accused in the present case in light of the relevant
provisions of CRPC.

Arrest can be defined as deprivation a person of his liberty by legal authority in order to take,
under real or assumed authority, custody of another for the purpose of holding or detaining him
to answer a criminal charge or civil demand.17 In Indian Criminal Procedural Code (CrPC), 1973,
the word ‘arrest’ has not been defined, however, Chapter V deals with Arrest of Persons within
Section 41 to Section 60.
Section 41(1)(b) is the main section providing for instances when police may arrest without
warrant if there is reasonable complaint or credible information has been received against the
accused or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable,
an arrest without warrant can be carried out. In the present case the Investigating Officer, Jai
Singhania had carried out the arrest without a warrant on relying on the information given by
PW1 Aloknath Kale, the domestic help at accused’s residence. PW1 confessed to assisting the
other two accused, Anjali and Arush Mathur, in the murder of the deceased. The police had
reasonable belief of a cognizable offence [S.41(1)(b)] being committed and to prevent the
alleged Accused No. 1 and 2 from committing any further offences [S.41(1)(b)(ii)(a)] carried out
their arrest without any warrant.

However, the prosecution's averments are weakened on the grounds that the other necessary
conditions under S.41 were not followed by the police. S.41(1)(b), information or suspicion on
which arrest has been made must be based on definite facts and material placed before the
officer, which he must consider for himself before he can take any action. 18 In the present matter
the PW3 only relied upon the oral statement of PW1 under custody and not on any evidence
placed or definite facts before him. In case of M.C. Abraham V. State of Maharashtra19, it is held
that the discretion u/s 41 of CrPC to a police officer is not expected to be carried in a mechanical
manner and the power has to be exercised with caution and circumspection keeping in view the
direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of D.K. Basu V. State 20

17
Black’s Law Dictionary (4th Edition, 2009).
18
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, p.63, 22nd Ed. (2017).
19
(2003) 24 OCR (SC) 517
20
(1997) 13 OCR (SC) 214

5
Further, S.41(1)(b) clearly mentions that on such arrest being made by the police officer, he has
to record his reasons for the same in writing which is not done by I.O. Jai Singhania in the
present matter.

Section 41-B of the Code states that Memorandum of Arrest has to be attested by at least one
witness [S.41B(b)(i)] and that the arresting officer must inform any family member or another
[S.41B (c)] about his arrest. Both these conditions were never spoken of by the I.O. during the
trial and still remain unproved whether followed or not since no mention of it came from the side
of the accused on their arrest on 13.10.2015.

Section 56 r/w S.76 and S.57 of CrPC talks about the right of the arrested person to be presented
before a Magistrate and not to be detained without judicial scrutiny 21 for more than 24 hours of
custody after arrest. In the present case, none of the witness statements or the facts states the
presentation of accused before the Magistrate within 24 hours.

Therefore, analyzing the arrest of the accused in the matter reveals that there have been
shortcomings in the procedure that was to be followed by the Police and the arrest has been made
without following the appropriate procedures of the Code.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books

21
Samarika Azad, Rights of Arrested Person, Law Lex (July 8, 2013) available at
https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/rights-of-arrested-person/4320

6
  Black’s Law Dictionary (4th Edition, 2009)
 Dhirajlal Keshavlal Thakore and Ratanlal Ranchhoddas, Criminal Procedure Code
(22nd Ed., LexisNexis) (2017)

Web Sources

 Ashok Kini, Last Seen Together Insufficient for Conviction, LiveLaw (25th May, 2017)
https://www.livelaw.in/last-seen-together-along-absence-satisfactory-explanation-
insufficient-conviction-sc-read-judgment/
 Samarika Azad, Rights of Arrested Person, Law Lex (8th July, 2013)
https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/rights-of-arrested-person/4320
 Justice Shobha Kumari, Scope and Relevance of Statements Recorded Under Sec. 161
and 164 of CrPC
https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/scjrajam.pdf

Case Laws

 State of  Maharashtra V. Sarabgdharsingh Shivdassing, SLP (Crl.) No. 2614 of 2009
 State of West Bengal V. Manindra Nath Das, AIR 1960 Cal 183
 Anjan Kumar Sarma & Ors. V. State of Assam, Crl. Appeal No. 560 of 2014
 M.C. Abraham V. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 24 OCR (SC) 517
 D.K. Basu V. State, (1997) 13 OCR (SC) 214
 Sushil Kumar Sharma V. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3100

Statutes Referred

 Indian Penal Code, 1860

 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973