Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973–Sec. 154–SHO did not proceed to promptly register the FIR on the basis of the statements forwarded through telephonic message–Such patent lacuna in prosecution case creates a doubt that the SHO himself was not sure that the informant D was an eye witness of incident–If the statement of D is treated FIR, the later parcha bayan of M would be treated the statement u/s. 161–Same is signed by M–Therefore, it would be hit by the provisions of Sec. 162 Cr.P.C.–Prosecution is guilty for suppressing the real FIR.
