reasonable level of certainty needs to be convicted

Reasonable level of certainty needs to be convicted 

case: Rang Bahadur Singh V. State of U.P. 

“The time-tested rule is that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits.”

EXEMPTION of PERSONAL ATTENDANCE

Sec 205 CrPC

This option is also available to accused

Accused living at Delhi and facing trial at Faridabad u/s 498-A IPC - Personal appearance of accused exempted unless it is specifically required at a particular stage.

case:  Shailesh Kumar Verma Vs State of Haryana

Right of accused to cross examine witness of complainant - Harinarayan G. Bajaj v. Maharashtra & Ors.

Right of accused to cross examine witness of complainant before framing charges

Harinarayan G. Bajaj v. Maharashtra & Ors.

In Harinarayan G. Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. This Court reiterated the legal position stated in Ajoy Kumar Ghose and held that the right of an accused to cross-examine witnesses produced by the prosecution before framing of a charge against him was a valuable right. It was only through cross-examination that the accused could show to the Court that there was no need for a trial against him and that the denial of the right of cross-examination under Section 244 would amount to denial of an opportunity to the accused to show to the Magistrate that the allegations made against him were groundless and that there was no reason for framing a charge against him.

DELAY in COMPLAINT (FIR) - RAMAIAH @ RAMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

                                                                                             REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1671 OF 2011

RAMAIAH @ RAMA   Versus   STATE OF KARNATAKA 

J U D G M E N T
A.K. SIKRI, J.


It can also be inferred that parties had decided at that time that matter be not reported to the Police and body be cremated. To say it otherwise, by accepting the version of the prosecution, would lead to some absurdities. It would mean that when maternal uncle or aunt as well as mother of Laxmi were present and had seen the dead body lying at the spot, they objected to the body being cremated. They also wanted Police to be informed. If it was so, why they did not put up any resistance? We have to keep in mind that these family members of Laxmi have come out with the allegation that Laxmi was harassed as well as mentally and physically tortured because of non fulfillment of dowry demand. In such a scenario, they would not have remained silent and mute spectators to the events that followed even when they were not to their liking. Not only this conduct belies their version, another weighty factor is that the complainant remained silent about these happenings for a period of 4 days and lodged the report with the Police only on 26.05.1993 when they came out with the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment. (Para 17)

18. We are conscious of the fact that in such cases, sometimes there may be delay in lodging the FIR for various valid reasons. However, it is important that those reasons come on record. There is no explanation worth the name given by the complainant as to why the complainant maintained stoic silence. In this backdrop, the testimony of these witnesses alleging dowry demand has to be tested more stringently and with some caution. On that touchstone, when we analyse the statements, we find the contradictions therein, as pointed out by the learned trial court, become very appealing and meaningful.


26. Let us test the veracity of the version of these persons from another angle. If there was harassment and cruel treatment given to Laxmi by her in-laws, on reaching the place of the accused persons after receiving the unnatural demise of Laxmi, they would have perceived the same to have happen in mysterious circumstances. In such a situation, they would not have kept quite and inform the Police immediately. They would have also insisted on the postmortem of the body of Laxmi to find out the cause of death. That would be the natural reaction of any such persons who believe that their daughter had faced harassment on account of non-fulfillment of the dowry demand and it would be fresh in their mind, if their version is to be believed that just 5 days before the death, Laxmi had complained of the cruel behaviour of her in-laws. No such thing happened, on the contrary, body of Laxmi was cremated in their presence and after performing the last rites, they turned back to their home quietly. It is 4 days thereafter that they thought of lodging the complaint to the Police.

The decision of appellate court (High Court), therefore, is liable to be set aside.” (Para 31)

32. We thus, find that there were no solid and weighty reasons to reverse verdict of acquittal and to convict appellant under the given circumstances. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding that the appellant is not guilty of the charges foisted against him.

…......................................J. (J. Chelameswar)

…......................................J. (A.K. Sikri)

New Delhi; August 7, 2014.













RAMAIAH @ RAMA V. KARNATAKA

DELAY in COMPLAINT(FIR)

CITATION: (2014) 9 SCC 365

DELAY in COMPLAINT (FIR) results in exaggeration - AP v. Madusudhan Rao

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.                      OF 2008

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3426 of 2007)

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH  Versus   M. MADHUSUDHAN RAO  

JUDGMENT

D.K. JAIN, J.:
Leave granted.


particularly when the First Information Report was lodged by the complainant more than one month after the alleged incident of forcible poisoning. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging FIR, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it 
is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained. (para 18)

19. In the present case, as noted supra, First Information Report in regard to the alleged occurrence on 19th April, 1996 was lodged on 22nd May, 1996. Admittedly after her discharge from the hospital on 22nd April, 1996, the complainant went to her parents' house and resided there. In her testimony, the complainant has deposed that since no one from the family of the accused came to enquire about her welfare, she decided to lodge the First Information Report. No explanation worth the name for delay in filing the complaint with the police has come on record. We are of the opinion that this circumstance raises considerable doubt regarding the genuineness of the complaint and the veracity Aof the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) and her father (PW-3), rendering it unsafe to base the conviction of the respondent upon it. Resultantly, when the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant (PW-1) is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety.

20. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court, acquitting the respondent, does not suffer from any infirmity, warranting our interference. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed accordingly.

.................................................J. ( C.K. THAKKER)
 .................................................J.( D.K. JAIN)

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 24, 2008.

DELAY in COMPLAINT (FIR) results in exaggeration

AP v. Madusudhan Rao

State of AP v. P. Madusudhan Rao

State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Madusudhan Rao

Andhra Pradesh v. Madusudhan Rao

Citation: 2008 (14) SCALE 118

DELAY in FIR - Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. Haryana

                                                                                             REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 562 of 2007

Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors.                                             ...Appellants


                                                  Versus

State of Haryana                                                                             ...Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 982 of 2008

Joga Singh                                                                              ...Appellant

                                                  Versus

State of Haryana                                                                             ...Respondent

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 983 of 2008

Nishabar Singh & Anr.                                                             ...Appellants


                                                  Versus

State of Haryana                                                                             ...Respondent



                                         J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.


There had been inordinate delay of 3 hours in lodging the FIR, though the Police Station was in close vicinity of the place of occurrence. Information of offence was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate as required under Section 157 Cr.P.C. after inordinate delay of 3 hours. (para 4)

8. Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that there has been delay in lodging the FIR and sending the copy of the FIR to the court. Therefore, the prosecution failed to give a fair picture with regard to genesis of the crime.

9. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding its true version. In case, there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint may prove to be fatal. In such case of delay, it also cannot be presumed that the allegations were an after thought or had given a coloured version of events. The court has to carefully examine the facts before it, for the reason, that the complainant party may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 
(Vide: Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 3247; 
G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754; 
Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 531; and 
Kishan Singh (dead) thr. Lrs. v. Gurpal Singh & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3624)


A copy of this judgment and order be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, (Haryana) for information and compliance. (para 31)


....................................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
.....................................J. (SWATANTER KUMAR)

New Delhi, July 4, 2011

DELAY IN FIR

Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors. Versus State of Haryana                                                                             

Citation:  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R. Part 1 Pg 18 & 19