FIR not an encyclopedia; omissions in first information statement not fatal: Calcutta High Court

A First Information Report (FIR) is information made at the first instance and not an encyclopedia and courts must not be scrupulous about omissions in the FIR, the Calcutta High Court observed on Wednesday while upholding a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act [Md. Israil v. The State of West Bengal]..A Division Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Bivas Pattanayak noted that in sexual offences, there could be variety of reasons for delay in lodging of an FIR."The FIR is never an encyclopedia rather it is information made at the first instance which sets the criminal law into motion. Criminal courts should not be fastidious with mere omissions in the first information statements, since such statements cannot be expected to be a chronicle of every detail of what happened nor to contain an exhaustive catalogue of events which took place," the Court said.Omissions in FIRs and first information statements will not be fatal to the case, the Court underscored.The Court further opined that in a traditional, non-permissive Indian society, a victim girl might be reluctant to admit of any incident that would reflect on her chastity.“The victim girl belonging to a traditional non-permissive Indian society would be extremely reluctant to admit occurrence of any incident that would reflect upon her chastity, leading to being looked down upon and ostracized by the society. Therefore her not informing to anyone under the circumstances cannot detract from her reliability,” the Court observed..- The case was an appeal the accused against a POCSO conviction resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment;- The victim was a 14 year old girl who was assaulted multiple times resulting in pregnancy;- The accused argued that there were discrepancies in her statements and there was delay in filing an FIR which made her case questionable;- The Division Bench, however, reiterated that if the evidence of the victim was vital and found reliable, it could form the basis of a conviction in itself;- Conviction was upheld, but sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 14 years..The High Court was hearing an appeal arising from a conviction by the trial court for the offences of house trespass, criminal intimidation and aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a 14-year-old. The appellant was accused of repeated sexual assault of the 14-year-old who used to call him “dadu”. The girl eventually became pregnant. The trial court sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for life..The accused argued against the conviction citing omissions and discrepancies in the victim’s statement, delay in lodging the FIR, absence of DNA testing and injuries..While examining the submissions of the defense, the Court began by discussing a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh where it was laid down that in a case relating to sexual assault and rape, the evidence of the victim girl was vital and if found reliable, could form the basis of conviction without further corroboration.“Seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion?" the Court asked..The then proceeded to examine the contention that there were contradictions in the victim's statement.The Court after examining the material on record opined that it found nothing to disbelieve the victim..The Court also opined that the absence of DNA test could be a drawback on the investigating officer’s part but not the victim's, since she had no control over the investigating agency.With these observations, the conviction of the trial court was upheld..Although the Court acknowledged that rape and sexual assault lead to both physical and mental scars which the victims have to bear throughout their lives, it opined that the sentence handed down to the accused need to be relooked..Considering the facts of the case, the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for 14 years. However, the rest of the order of the trial court was left unmodified..Advocates Sourav Chatterjee, M Nazar Chowdhury and Priyanka Saha represented the accused while advocates Binay Panda and Puspita Saha appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]