Criminal Law-II, CIA Repeat, CIA-IB

FRAMING AND ANALYZING

Submitted by
Karthik Anands - 20113030
Table of Contents
Framing of FIR ..................................................................................................................... 2
Analysis of FIR ..................................................................................................................... 4

1
 Framing of FIR

First Information Report

(Under Section 154 Cr.P.C)

1. Dist.: Bengaluru P.S: CH- Chandra Layout. Year: 2024 F.I.R. No.: 341 Date: June 26, 2024. .

2. (i) Act: Indian Penal Code – 1860. Sections: S. 379 – Theft. .

3.

(a) Occurrence of Offence: Day: Monday Date: June 24, 2024. Time: 1:30 PM .

(b) Information received at P.S. Date: June 24, 2024 Time: 2:30 PM. .

(c) General Diary Reference: Entry No(s): 36 Time: 2:25 PM. .

4. Type of information : Written / Oral

5. Place of occurrence: (a) Direction and Distance from P.S.: 3 km – South West Beat No. 36 .

(b) Address: #162, 4th Main, BCC Layout, Bengaluru – 560 040 .

6. Complainant / information :

(a) Name: Palani Muniswami .

(b) Father’s/Husband’s Name: Palani Srinivasrao .

(c) Date/ Year of Birth: May 18, 2001. (d) Nationality: India .

(e) Passport No: ……….. Date of Issue:… ….. Place of Issue: …….

(f) Occupation: Student .

(g) Address: #162, 4th Main, BCC Layout, Bengaluru – 560 040. .

7. Details of known / suspected / unknown / accused with full particulars (Attach separate sheet if
necessary):Rajgopal Muniraju, resident of #197, 5th Main, BCC Layout, Bengaluru – 560 040. Aprox.
42 years old .

2
8. Reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant / Informant: Not Applicable .

9. Particulars of properties stolen / involved (Attach separate sheet if necessary): Gold chain – 24 Crt, 42
grams. Rolled rope design with SRM carving on the lock mechanism of the chain.

10. Total value of the properties stole / involved: Rs. 3,00,000/- Rupees three lakhs only. .

11. Details of Witness(es): Ramakka, #163, 4th Main, BCC Layout, Bengaluru – 560 040, 60 years old. .

12. Inquest Report /U.D. Case No., if any: 353345/2024 .

13. F.I.R. Contents (Attach separate sheets, if required): The complaint was leaving from his home
wearing a half helmet which covered his head, until the start of his neck. two people came on a bike
where one of them as driving and the other was sitting with a knife. The bike towards him at the speed
of approx.. 20 kmph and the person sitting in the back pulled the gold chain that he was wearing and
snatched it away. The person driving the vehicle was identical to him and details of the person who is
being suspected as been mentioned above as the suspect. .

14. Action taken: Since the above report reveals commission of offence (s) u/s as mentioned at Item No.
2., registered the case and took up the investigation after visiting the spot and conducting primary
inquest. The accused was not present at his residence, neighbours ascertained the rivalry between the
complainant and suspect. Additionally, the witnessed shared the instance and the same was recorded .

F.I.R. read over to the complainant / Informant, admitted to be correctly recorded and copy given to
the Complainant / Informant free of cost.

Signature of the Officer-in-charge, Police Station

Name : Namravi .

Rank: Sub-Inspector. No.: 63838 .

15. Signature /Thumb-impression of the complainant / informant :

16. Date & time of despatch to the court: June 25, 2024, 9:15 AM with Constable Lingaraya.- 779874
.

3
 Analysis of FIR

The above FIR registered under section 154 of the CrPC, 1973 is basically one of the major documents of
the case filed in criminal proceedings. It sets off the criminal investigation process and therefore marks the
first stage in dispensing justice. Now onwards, procedural requirements of this FIR, its evidentiary value
and its compatibility with judicial precedents in relation to legal principles are discussed.

Section 154 CrPC - Procedural Compliance This FIR falls within the jurisprudence of Section 154 CrPC.
In so saying it is pertinent to observe that it mandates the officer in charge of a police station to give
information about the commission of a cognizable offence. Such information must be in writing, read back
to the informant and signed by them. The said conditions are fulfilled in the present case, wherein this FIR
was recorded at Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru.

The details of the case, including the complainant's identity, the nature of the offence, which was theft under
Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, and a specific description of the properties stolen, prove that
documentation was done very thoroughly.

Furthermore, the time sequence of happening as referred to provides procedural satisfaction. That it occurred
on 24 June 2024 at 1:30 PM and that information was provided at the police station by 2:30 PM is prompt
reporting thereby ruling out the allegations of undue delay, which oftentimes vitiates the very grain of an
FIR.

Timely Filing and Witnesses of Importance Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) emphasizes the
importance of timely filing wherein it has been noticed that delay in lodging an FIR results in additions or
even falsehoods. In the case in question, the credence of the FIR is supported by its promptness.
Furthermore, the evidence of the witnesses like Ramakka is corroborative support-cum-critical to
investigation/prosecution.

Venerable description of the crime and accused: It presents a very vivid description of the crime. Here, the
offense was by two culprits on a motorcycle; they targeted valuables that had a set of clothes together with
the vehicle, and the name of the suspect is Rajgopal Muniraju. It satisfies the requirements of the Supreme
Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) where an FIR should have adequate details
to point out to investigation.

The detailed narration ensures that the FIR is not ambiguous, hence fulfilling the purpose of informing the
investigating authority about the crime alleged.

4
The FIR also provides details relating to police actions, which include visiting the crime scene, interrogation
of neighbours of the rival relationship between the complainant and the accused and recording of witness
statements. It is at these initial steps that the prima facie case is formed, as laid down in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal (1992). This articulated step-by-step documentation is in accordance with the judiciary's
understanding of a balanced investigation.

While the FIR does seem to pass muster of procedure, aspects of it can indeed be challenged at the trial. For
example, identification of the accused was based on having a resemblance with the bike driver and would
raise a critical issue of mistaken identity. Sher Singh Partapa v. State of Haryana (2015), the court
highlighted reliable identification, and all the more so when based on grounds for suspicion.

In fact, reliance on witness testimony may be challenged by the defense in case irregularities surface at the
cross-examination stage. This commission of act using knife as a weapon raises questions regarding whether
this aspect does indeed classify the action as robbery rather than theft which would classify the offense from
the perspective of the IPC. Compliance with Section 157 CrPC The sending of the FIR to the Magistrate on
June 25, 2024 satisfies the mandate of Section 157 CrPC by giving judicial oversight over the investigation.
The same thereby helps avoid lapses that could invalidate the investigation as stated in T.T. Antony v. State
of Kerala (2001). Conclusion: This FIR is a total reflection of procedural and evidentiary sophistication
disclosing compliance with the canons of law pertinent to CrPC and IPC. It meets judgments and decisions
of Courts which promote minute documentation, immediate filing and timely initiation of investigations.
After all, the success of the case depends on the vindication of facts during the trial and the prosecution's
potential for providing believable evidence supporting the offense.