(42) 77/­ S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) But if while lodging FIR the said fact was disclosed by the informant, then the culprit must have been become aware of it and he might not have given that mobile to accused No.2. Hence it appears that looking to this fact, even though the theft of above said articles was not disclosed while lodging FIR, still that itself does not affect the prosecution case. It also seems that in order to trace out the culprit with the help of mobile tower, after its use by the accused, the Police might not have allowed to disclose the stolen articles and hence looking to this fact also, the non mentioning of stolen articles in FIR does not affect much. Later on, by supplementary statement that fact was disclosed. Even Advocate Shri Ghanekar for accused No.2 has argued that the Investigating Officer also seems to be aware of said stolen articles on the date of incident itself in view of his cross examination. But if because of the aforesaid facts, the information regarding the stolen articles was not disclosed by the Police Officer also, then on that count the evidence adduced by the witness cannot be discarded. Even otherwise mental condition of informant also needs to be considered while lodging FIR. 78/­ That apart, the evidence of PW­8 Damodhar Ghuge, discloses that at