The Allahabad High Court recently observed that credibility of a First Information Report (FIR) cannot be doubted merely on the ground that it was lodged with the assistance of a lawyer [Jagdamba Harijan v State of UP].
A Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary was dealing with a criminal appeal challenging the conviction of an accused in a case related to the deaths of two acid attack victims.
In an argument, the convict's counsel questioned the reliability of the FIR on the ground that it had been lodged with the assistance of a lawyer.
Rejecting the contention, the Court observed that when legal aid is permissible at every stage of criminal proceedings, it cannot be barred at the stage of lodging an FIR.
“The F.I.R. being lodged with an advocate’s assistance does not by itself dilute the credibility of the said F.I.R., the only caveat that the same requires careful scrutiny to ensure that the same is not malicious or motivated. This Court fails to understand that when legal aid is permissible, at every steps of a criminal legal proceedings and even at the stage of lodging an F.I.R., how can there be an embargo on seeking assistance from a private Advocate,” the Court said.
In the present case, the accused Jagdamba Harijan was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2018 under Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other penal provisions. He was found guilty of throwing acid on a woman and her daughter-in-law. They later succumbed to the injuries.
Challenging his conviction, Harijan’s counsel submitted that the entire prosecution case was based on the testimony of the complainant but neither he had seen the throwing of acid on the victims nor was he present at the time of incident. It was also submitted that the police complaint was written by a private advocate.
In the verdict dated February 12, the Court found that the victims had died due to deep burn injuries. It rejected the argument that death was caused due to lack of proper medication and thus the accused could not have been blamed for it.
“This Court does not find any merit in the said argument of the learned defense Counsel. Thus, it is safely concluded that both the deceased persons died due to septicaemia caused by deep acid burn injuries,” the Court said.
The Court also rejected the argument over a delay in the registration of the FIR, observing that the prioritization of the victims’ treatment was natural and important. In such a situation, the delay in filing the FIR alone cannot refute the entire prosecution story, it reasoned.
Further, the Court noted that the complainant was an illiterate person and thus required assistance from a literate person to lodge the case.
“Merely because in the present case, the said literate person, turned out to be an Advocate, the F.I.R. cannot be thrown out to the wind, especially, when the narration of facts amounts to commission of a cognizable offence. Therefore, this Court finds no cogent grounds for being suspicious to the lodging of the present F.I.R. on assistance of an Advocate,” it observed.
The Court also found that the complainant had seen the accused pour acid on the victims, being the complainant's mother and sister-in-law.
“Event by event narration of occurrence of the facts by the said P.W. cannot be shrugged aside, especially when nothing material contradiction is observed during his extensive cross-examination, therefore, the presence of the appellant, at the scene of the incident is quite plausible,” it said.
On the motive, the Court noted the accused was interested in the complainant’s sister-in-law. Further, it rejected the argument over alleged discrepancy in the witness statements.
Therefore, the Court upheld the conviction.
“Thus, from the conceptus of the evidence brought on record and considering the testimony of the eye-witness, corroborated by the medical witness and the Investigation Officer, Court finds that the prosecution has been successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt the charges under Sections 304, 326A and 451 I.P.C. against the Appellant,” the Court ruled.
However, in a relief for the convict, the Court awarded him a fixed term imprisonment of 14 rigorous years instead of the trial court-ordered life sentence. Pertinently, the convict had spent 13 years, 9 months and 24 days, with remission, in jail as on November 11, 2025.
Advocate RP Mishra represented the convict.
Advocate SP Singh represented the State.
[Read Judgment]