‘Failure to dispatch an FIR to the nearest Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours cannot be a ground to dismiss the prosecution’s case,’ Read Judgment

07 Sep 2024

By : Kritika Arora

The Patna High Court, while dismissing an appeal filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order under Section 302 of IPC vide Judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, held that a recorded FIR ought to be dispatched to the nearest Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours. However, the prosecution’s case cannot be jettisoned on this account alone.

Brief Facts:

One Hewanti Devi is alleged to have been stabbed to death by the appellant. The appellant is the relative of the deceased. The FIR has been lodged by the husband of the deceased. The cause of occurrence as stated in the written report is the old land dispute which had cropped up after the partition in the family. The police after investigation submitted a chargesheet against him and the case went to Trial. The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant

Contentions of the Appellant:

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Trial Court did not consider the evidence in proper perspective and failed to notice the motivating factor for P.W. 5 to frame the appellant in this case. He argued that the delay has caused a serious dent in the prosecution version and in fact, it lends support to the proposition that the FIR was filed after consultation in order to prevent the appellant from staking his claim on the family property.

Contentions of the Respondents:

Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that minor discrepancies in the deposition of witnesses ought not to render them unbelievable.

Observations of the Court:

The Court noted that it has been argued on behalf of the State, that the weapon of offence could not be recovered but there is a reasonable explanation through the mouth of the investigator that he learned that the weapon of offence. A recorded FIR ought to be dispatched to the nearest Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours. However, the prosecution’s case cannot be jettisoned on this account alone.

The Court observed that only because witnesses happen to be closely related to the deceased or the informant, they are not to be necessarily treated as persons not coming out with the truth and being interested in the prosecution of the accused. If their deposition before the trial Court is trustworthy, they can form the basis for conviction and sentence. A duty is cast upon the Court to examine the testimony of inimical witnesses with due caution and diligence and that mere enmity is no ground to reject the testimony of eyewitnesses, the conviction of the appellant was recorded.

The decision of the Court:

The Patna High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that the Trial Court was absolutely justified in holding the appellant guilty of the charge and sentencing him.

Case Title: Hare Ram Yadav vs The State Of Bihar

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Justice Jitendra Kumar