Skip to main content

F.I.R. cannot be treated as an encyclopaedia of events

Citation : Jagjeet Singh & Ors vs Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr, Criminal Appeal No.632 Of 2022

Date of Judgment/Order : 18.04.2022

Court/Tribunal : Supreme Court Of India

Corum : CJI. N.v. Ramana J., Surya Kant J. &  Hima Kohli J.

Background

The main area of contention was the bail granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench to the Accused/Respondents who have been accused of plowing their vehicle into a crowd of agitating farmers and also firing their weapons. Several people died. The relief was primarily granted on four counts. Firstly, the Court held that the primary allegation against the Respondent­Accused was of firing his weapon and causing gunshot injuries, but neither the inquest reports nor the injury reports revealed any firearm injury, therefore, the High Court opined that the present case was one of “accident by hitting with the vehicle”. Secondly, the allegation that he provoked the driver of the car could not be sustained since the driver along with two others, who were in the vehicle, were killed by the protesters. Thirdly, it was noted that the Respondent­Accused had joined the investigation. Fourthly, the charge sheet had been filed.

Among the issues brought forth by the Appellants before the Supreme Court, it was mentioned that that during the course of the online proceedings, counsel for the Complainant/victims were disconnected, and were not heard by the High Court. It was stated that their application for re­hearing the bail application was also not considered by the High Court. Thus the victims were denied their right to be heard.

Judgment

A. Whether a ‘victim’ as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “Cr.P.C.”) is entitled to be heard at the stage of adjudication of bail application of an accused?
B. Whether the High Court overlooked the relevant considerations while passing the impugned order granting bail to the Respondent­Accused?

The SC said that the days when victims were a mere spectators in a criminal trial are now in the past. Today, a ‘victim’ within the meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a ‘victim’ has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision.  The SC reiterated that these rights are totally independent, incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of the State under the Cr.P.C. The presence of ‘State’ in the proceedings, therefore, does not tantamount to according a hearing to a ‘victim’ of the crime. Observing thus, the SC held that in the present case, the ‘victims’ have been denied a fair and effective hearing at the time of granting bail to the Respondent­ Accused.

On the issue of granting of bail, the SC referred to judgment in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., where it has been observed that the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

The SC setting aside the order of the High Court, held that the High Court has taken into account several irrelevant considerations, whilst simultaneously ignoring judicial precedents and established parameters for grant of bail. It has been ruled on numerous occasions that an F.I.R. cannot be treated as an encyclopedia of events. While the allegations in the F.I.R., that the accused used his firearm and the subsequent post mortem and injury reports may have some limited bearing, there was no legal necessity to give undue weightage to the same. Moreover, the observations on merits of a case when the trial has yet to commence, are likely to have an impact on the outcome of the trial proceedings.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subs...
Post a Comment
Read more

Appeal to High Court under Wealth Tax Act is guided by Code of Civil Procedure

The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if it does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty case on Court In Maharaja Amrinder Singh vs The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, the Supreme Court held that Section 27-A of the Act, which provides a remedy of appeal to the High Court against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, is modeled on existing Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). Indeed, as would be clear, the language of Section 27-A of the Act and Section 100 of the Code is identical. Both the Sections are, therefore, in pari materia. It is a case where Section 100 of the Code is bodily lifted from the Code and incorporated in Section 27-A of the Act with minor additions and alterations by following the principle of “legislation by incorporation". The Supreme Court while quoting A three Judge Benc...
Post a Comment
Read more