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.