FIR Must Be Dispatched To Judicial Magistrate Within 24 Hours, But Delay Alone Not Sufficient To Dismiss Prosecution Case: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has recently observed that while an FIR must be dispatched to the nearest Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours, the prosecution's case cannot be dismissed solely on account of such a delay.

A division bench comprising Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Jitendra Kumar emphasized, “We are conscious of the position of law that a recorded FIR ought to be dispatched to the nearest Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours. There cannot be any explanation of the learned C.J.M. endorsing the FIR on 19.11.2015.”

However, the court rejected the argument that this delay alone undermined the prosecution's case, stating, “Regardless, we are not inclined to accept the argument of Mr. Jha that because of this delay only, the prosecution case ought to be jettisoned as it leaves an almost untrammelled cranny in the prosecution version and gives scope of making an argument that it was only after consultation that belatedly the written report was filed, naming appellant as the sole perpetrator of crime which would serve the twin purpose of preventing him from raising any stake over the family property as also for ousting him for ever from such property in which he too has stakes.”

This observation was made while dismissing an appeal challenging a conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as ordered by the Sessions Court.

As per the factual matrix of the case, the appellant was accused of stabbing one Hewanti Devi to death. The appellant was the relative of the deceased. As per the FIR lodged by the deceased's husband, the cause of the occurrence was an old family land dispute which arose following a partition. After completing the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against the appellant, leading to his trial. The Trial Court subsequently convicted and sentenced him.

The Appellant's Counsel, while commenting upon the judgment submitted that the Trial Court did not consider the evidence in proper perspective and failed to notice the motivating factor for the deceased's husband to frame the appellant in the case.

He further argued that the appellant and the deceased stayed in the same house but in different house-hold, and there was a common courtyard. He further urged that the written report saw the light of the day after ten days which is against the mandate of the Code that such FIRs ought to be dispatched to the Judicial Officer forthwith, and such a delay, the counsel contended, severely undermines the prosecution's case, suggesting that it was filed after deliberation to obstruct the appellant's claim over family property.

Alternatively, on behalf of the Respondents' Counsel, it was urged that minor discrepancies in the deposition of witnesses ought not to render them unbelievable.

The Court reiterated the established law 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 truth and being interested in prosecution of the accused. If their deposition before the trial Court is trustworthy, they can form the basis for conviction and sentence

Addressing the absence of the weapon used in the crime, the Court noted, “True it is, it has been argued on behalf of the State, that the weapon of offence could not be recovered but then there is a reasonable explanation through the mouth of the investigator that he learnt that the weapon of offence, viz., the dagger was thrown in a pond while the accused was retreating to the place of safety."

"The postmortem report and the evidence of P.W. 6 clearly confirms that the deceased died a homicidal death because of stab injuries. Even if other witnesses came to the P.O. somewhat later, the evidence of P.W. 5, who is the husband of the deceased, is good enough for recording conviction. The Trial Court judgment, therefore, requires no interference,” the Court added.

The Court criticised the investigator's lapses, observing that he only inspected the scene of the crime without questioning independent witnesses or neighbours of the appellant and deceased. Additionally, no bloodstains were found during his initial visit.

The Court remarked, “This is no investigation in the eyes of law,” but clarified that “To reject the prosecution version only on this count would only reflect our naivete, especially when the timing of the other happenings match with the oral testimony of the witnesses.”

Assessing the evidence, the Court upheld the Trial Court's observation that 'enmity is a double edged sword which could be a ground for false implication as also for committing an offence.'

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Hare Ram Yadav vs The State Of Bihar

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 108

Click Here To Read Judgement