Cryptic telephonic message is not an FIR; coordinated participation can attract common intention liability under joint murder provisions.

A cryptic telephonic message that merely alerts police to a shooting, without particulars of the occurrence, manner of commission, or identity of the deceased, does not constitute the first information report; the later eyewitness report was correctly treated as the FIR. The evidence also showed that the accused armed themselves, accosted and dragged the deceased, and acted in concert with the principal assailant before the fatal shots were fired. Their active participation in the coordinated attack established common intention, and liability under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cryptic telephonic message sent from the station amounted to the first information report, and whether the later report lodged by the eyewitness was the real first information report; (ii) Whether the appellants' acts of accosting and dragging the deceased established common intention and liability under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (i): Whether the cryptic telephonic message sent from the station amounted to the first information report, and whether the later report lodged by the eyewitness was the real first information report.

Analysis: The message received from the station was brief and only conveyed that a passenger had been shot dead. It contained no real particulars of the occurrence, the manner of commission, or the identity of the deceased, and there was no reliable proof that it had been received at the concerned police station as the earliest report. A cryptic message intended merely to alert the police does not become a first information report unless it contains information of the crime sufficient to set the criminal law in motion.

Conclusion: The telephonic message was not the first information report, and the report lodged by the eyewitness was rightly treated as the first information report.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants' acts of accosting and dragging the deceased established common intention and liability under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The evidence of the eyewitnesses and the recovery of travel tickets established their presence as natural witnesses. Their testimony showed that the appellants were armed, accosted the deceased, dragged him from the platform to the place of occurrence, and acted at the exhortation of the co-accused before the fatal shots were fired. The acts formed part of a pre-arranged course of conduct and demonstrated active participation in furtherance of the shared design to kill the deceased. The plea that they did not fire the shots did not negate liability under the rule of joint criminal liability embodied in Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion: The appellants shared common intention and were validly convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeals failed for want of merit.

Ratio Decidendi: A cryptic message that merely reports an occurrence is not a first information report, and where accused persons knowingly participate in a coordinated fatal attack by assisting the principal assailants, liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted even if they do not themselves inflict the fatal injury.

---