FIR need not be an encyclopedia, only reporting of crime is required: Karnataka High Court

While rejecting the bail application of a murder accused, the Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a First Information Report (FIR) need not contain every detail pertaining to the crime and only requires the crime to be reported. .Emphasising this, the order passed by Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar reads, ."First information need not be a encyclopedia. It need not contain every detail. What is required is reporting of the crime to the police."Karnataka High Court.On November 20, 2018, the sister of the deceased (Keshava) reported to the police that her brother-in-law Govindaraju informed her that Keshava had been assaulted near Hennur Bande. She went to that place immediately and saw the dead body of her brother. .At that time, she came to know that about 3-4 persons had caused the death of Keshava by assaulting him with deadly weapons. On the basis of this information, an FIR was registered by the police. Based on the same, the petitioner and a few others were arrested. .Seeking bail before the High Court, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR does not disclose the names of the assailants, much less the name of the petitioner. Nothing prevented the eye witnesses from reporting the incident directly to the police. For this reason they cannot be believed to be eyewitnesses and there was no prima facie case against the petitioner, it was argued..Opposing the grant of bail, the High Court Government Pleader submitted that the fact that the eye witnesses did not inform the police of the incident cannot be a ground to conclude that there was no prima facie case. Adding on, he stated that a knife used for committing the crime had been seized from the petitioner. .At this point, the Court firstly opined that if the sister of the deceased had given information about the killing of her brother without mentioning the names of the assailants, the same cannot be a ground for disbelieving the FIR..The Bench further observed that the statements of the witnesses could not be disregarded at this stage, as they gave a detailed account of the crime that took place. ."If Kiran and Sharath who are shown as eyewitnesses did not inform the police about the incident, their statements cannot be disbelieved at this stage. They may be subjected to cross examination in the course of trial to test their demeanor.".Further noting that the knife used in the crime had been recovered, the Bench denied the petitioner's bail application. .[Read the judgment here]