Cryptic telephonic message is not an FIR; the first detailed statement recorded in investigation governs.

A brief telephonic message that only summons police assistance and does not disclose the material facts of the offence, identify the offender, or identify the victim is not a first information report under Section 154 CrPC. Where the first detailed statement is recorded by the Investigating Officer after reaching the scene or hospital, that statement constitutes the FIR, and later statements are treated as part of the investigation under Section 162 CrPC. On the facts noted, the informant's detailed statement naming the appellant, together with corroboration from his presence and the recovery of the knife, supported reliance on that statement as the FIR and upheld the reversal of acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether a cryptic telephonic message to the police station could be treated as the first information report, and whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal and convicting the appellant for murder.

Analysis: A telephonic message that merely conveys that a fight or serious incident has occurred, without giving the details necessary to identify the occurrence, the offender, or the victim, is only intended to summon the police to the scene and does not amount to a first information report under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Where such a message is followed by a detailed statement recorded by the Investigating Officer after reaching the hospital or place of occurrence, that detailed statement is the first information report, and subsequent statements made during the investigation fall within Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On the facts proved, the informant had named the appellant in the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer immediately after the occurrence, the telephonic message was too cryptic to be treated as the FIR, and the informant was corroborated by other evidence, including his presence at the scene and the recovery of the knife.

Conclusion: The cryptic telephone message was not the FIR, the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer was the FIR, and the High Court was right in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A brief and cryptic telephonic message to the police, sent only to summon assistance and not to narrate the material facts of the offence, does not constitute a first information report; the FIR is the first detailed statement recorded in the course of investigation.

---