RATIONALE
AND CONSEQUENCE OF
DELAY
IN FILING FIR
CHAMARU
RAM –VS—STATE OF H.P.
[2005
CRILJ 1943]
ABSTRACT
This case is
about an alleged sexual assault and showcases the importance of lodging an FIR at
prompt since there is no universal definition of what constitutes a reasonable
delay; it
varies
depending on the context and circumstances of each case. However, if the
informant can provide sufficient justification for failing to register the FIR
sooner, the delay will have no influence on the outcome of the case.
Justifications for any delays should be included in the FIR. It showcased how
delays in the submission of the FIR have a substantial impact on its
credibility. Further, it dealt with material contradiction with the statement
recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where Omissions
and inconsistencies are terms that allude to contradictory claims given by a
witness. The failing to state something from a previous comment is referred to
as omission. The phrase "contradiction" refers to a statement that is
diametrically opposed to the one that comes before it. When reviewing witness
testimony, each court officer must analyse the reasons for, and, more
crucially, the consequences of such "something missing” and
"something different."
FACTS OF THE
CASE
'S' (P.W. 1)
was over the age of seventeen at the time of the incident. She suffers from a
mental illness. At 12 p.m. on September 11, 2002, she was heading home after harvesting
a pumpkin from the fields when she was approached by the accused. He yanked the
pumpkin from her grip and flung it on the ground. He threw her to the ground,
snapped the string on her salwar, and coerced her into forcible sexual contact behind
the house. She bled, but she washed it away with faucet water. Additionally, she
washed her pyjamas. She raised the alarm, but no one was nearby. Chamaru Ram threatened
her that if she informed her parents or his wife about the affair, “he would
see
her." She returned to her home. She notified her mother, Premi Devi, of
the incident just after 9.00 p.m. Both her father and brother were absent.
They'd both gone in search of work. They returned on September 17, 2002, and on
September 19,
2002, the
report was presented to the Pangna Police Post's in-charge. On the basis of this
information, a complaint was filed against the accused under Sections 376 and 506
of the IPC.
The offender was said to have violated
Sections 376 and 506 of the 1860 IPC. He was cleared of the offence punishable
under Section 506 of the IPC but convicted of the offence punishable under
Section 376. The incensed defendant has filed an appeal.
The State did
not appeal the accused's acquittal for violating Section 506 of the IPC.
ISSUES
INVOLVED IN THE CASE
I. Whether
there is a material contradiction with the statement recorded under Section 154
of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
II. Whether
inordinate delay in lodging First Information Report is a result of deliberations
or concoction?
Plea of the
plaintiff
'S' is
incompetent as a witness since she has been mentally retarded since birth, and her
testimony will not suffice to convict the accused, particularly given that
neither the doctor who tested her nor the Court has determined her mental age.
'S' evidence
is neither trustworthy nor persuasive. With the statement recorded pursuant to
Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she has severely contradicted
herself.
Medical
records contradict 'S's description of events.
Her parents
tutored the prosecutrix, and she presented her case in court with a tutored version.
Due to
disagreements and concoctions, the filing of the First Information Report has been
severely delayed.
Due to the
parties' hatred, 'S' falsely implicated the defendant while being educated by her
parents.
LEGAL ASPECTS
INVOLVED
All persons
are competent to testify under Section 118 of the Evidence Act, unless the Court
determines that they are unable to understand or provide rational replies to
the questions posed to them due to their infancy, extreme old age, physical or
mental
illness, or
any other equivalent cause. According to the Section 118 explanation, a lunatic
is not competent to testify until his insanity prevents him from comprehending and
replying to the questions posed to him.
Any statement
made by a mentally disabled witness must be treated with extreme caution and
weighed against the rest of the case's factual evidence. In other words, the Court
must determine whether the testimony of such a witness can be substantiated.
Page 217 of
Mekelvey's Evidence papers:
"A
person is incompetent if he is mentally ill to the point of being unable to comprehend
the subject to which he has been summoned as a witness."
Individuals
who are naturally incapable of testifying are not permitted to do so. This
policy has always been in place and will continue to be so. The judge is
responsible for determining whether or not a witness has the mental capacity to
testify, and he may hear testimony and interrogate the witness
personally."
It is
critical to file the FIR as soon as possible in criminal matters. Thulia
Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that a delay in
filing a FIR resulted in embellishment, which is the result of afterthought.
Their Lordships were treated as follows (para 12):
"As a
result of the delay, the report loses not only its spontaneity, but also the possibility
of including a coloured version, exaggerated account, or invented tale as a
result of thought and consultation." As a result, any delay in completing
the First Information Report must be explained carefully."
JUDGEMENT
In this case,
the First Information Report was filed with an unusual delay of more than eight
days. The possibility of a coloured version being introduced after consultation
cannot be ruled out, particularly in light of the untrustworthy and
unbelievable testimony of 'S,' her mother Premi Devi, and her father Nant Ram,
and especially in light of the admitted animosity between the accused's parents
and the accused's admission of claiming damages for falsely accusing her of
rape.
It is worth
noting that in the instance of 'S's mother and father, Panchayat was summoned.
Surprisingly, no member of such a Panchayat has been charged with raping 'S.
It is true
that if a rape victim's testimony is determined to be adequate and reliable, it
can be utilized to get a conviction without the need for additional evidence.
As previously stated, 'S' evidence is untrustworthy since it is the product of
parental
coaching, and
conviction cannot be relied only on her testimony.
To summarise,
there is no credible or admissible evidence to convict the accused. It is difficult
to rule out the possibility that an accused person was falsely implicated out
of animosity. The prosecution has not established beyond a reasonable doubt
that the charge is true. On the basis of the facts on record, the learned trial
judge erred in convicting the accused.
8 (1972) 3
SCC 393: AIR 1973 SC 501: (1972 Cri LJ 1296)
Posts
0 Comments