Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
Shailesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. (Now State Of Uttarakhand) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 684 of 2012
Decided on : 26-02-2024
The decision of the case regarding the Criminal Procedure Code emphasizes the importance of conducting a fair and comprehensive investigation in accordance with legal provisions. It underscores that investigation is a process aimed at uncovering facts relevant to the case, and that the investigating officer has a duty to carry out this process objectively and properly, including maintaining accurate records such as the case diary (!) .
The court highlighted that the case diary must be meticulously maintained, with complete and truthful entries of proceedings, witness statements, and other pertinent details. Proper record-keeping is essential to ensure transparency and fairness throughout the investigation (!) (!) .
Additionally, the decision clarified that while police are responsible for maintaining the case diary, the accused does not have an automatic right to access or call for the diary unless it is used to refresh the police officer's memory or for purposes of contradiction during trial (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The ruling also reaffirmed that the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) must be done in the prescribed FIR register, and that entries made in the General Diary are supplementary and cannot substitute the mandatory FIR registration process (!) (!) .
Overall, the case underscores that strict adherence to procedural safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code—such as proper investigation, accurate record-keeping, and timely FIR registration—is vital to ensuring justice. Any procedural lapses or irregularities can jeopardize the prosecution's case and may lead to acquittal or reversal of convictions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
M.M. Sundresh, J.
1. The appellant convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Anti-Corruption U.P (East) Dehradun in ST 166/1992 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) for life imprisonment, as confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 888 of 2001 seeks acquittal.
2. Heard learned counsel Mr. D.P Singh appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel Mr. Saurabh Trivedi appearing for the respondent. We have perused the entire records placed before us, and taken due note of the synopsis notes submitted.
BRIEF FACTS
3. The deceased, Gajendra Singh went to a picnic along with two friends, Suresh (PW-2) and Sunil Mandal (PW-3) at about 11 a.m. on the fateful day – 21.06.1992. On their return, they were intercepted by the appellant riding on a motorcycle. The appellant by uttering the words “Today I shall pay all your dues”, attacked the deceased Gajendra Singh with a knife inflicting two fatal blows on the chest and stomach respectively. The motive of the attack appears to be the failure of the appellant in completing the work for which the deceased gave a sum of Rs.500/-.
4. PW-2 and PW-3 took the deceased, who was bleeding profusely on a tempo whose driver has not been examined, to the hospital in which PW-5 was working. After admitting the deceased in the hospital, PW-2 went to the house of the deceased by travelling, which took him 15 minutes, and passed on the information of attack on deceased, to his father, PW-1. On examination, PW-5 found that the deceased was in a serious condition and, therefore, merely gave first aid and referred the deceased to a hospital in Dehradun. After reaching the hospital, PW-1 made an enquiry with the deceased who gave a dying declaration narrating the incident. PW-5 did not speak about the presence of any of the witnesses except the fact that the deceased was admitted by PW-3 and, therefore, did not refer to the said dying declaration given to PW-1. PW-1 dictated the complaint to one Mr. Inder Singh (not examined) and went to the police station situated just opposite to the hospital. Prior to the aforesaid action on the part of PW-1, PW-5 has made an entry in the emergency medical register which was subsequently filled up by another person named Dr. B.V. Sharma (not examined). Dr. B.V. Sharma sent report immediately to the police station.
5. Before PW-1 could reach the police station, the report from the hospital had reached and, therefore, investigation was triggered. However, neither First Information Report (FIR) had been registered nor noting had been made in the general diary. In fact, the available noting on the general diary did not disclose any offence committed on 21.06.1992, as per the statement of PW13, who produced the same before the court.
6. PW-2 and PW-3 took the deceased to the nearby hospital at Dehradun as per the version of PW-1 and PW-2, while PW-3 said it was himself and PW-1 who undertook the said exercise. As per the version of PW-8, the doctor who attended the deceased at the Dehradun hospital, the deceased was brought to the hospital by his brother Mr. Bhupender Singh (not examined).
7. PW-11 took up the investigation. He went to the place of occurrence, drew the sketch and prepared the site plan. While returning, he was informed by PW-7, another brother of the deceased that he received information that the appellant was trying to escape to Dehradun. PW-6, who heard about the occurrence, went to the place of occurrence out of curiosity. The appellant was found and arrested at about 50-60 yards from the place of occurrence by PW-11 in the presence of PW-6, PW-7 and one Mr. Sanjeev Saini (not examined). The knife that was said to have been used for committing the offence was recovered from an open place at about 50 steps near the place of occurrence. No arrest memo has been prepared though an entry was made in the general diary. Recovery memo was s
A fair investigation is crucial; discrepancies in witness testimonies and procedural lapses can lead to acquittal if the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused's right to access statements recorded under Section 161(3) is essential for a fair trial, and failure to provide these documents violates procedural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of summoning the General Diary in specific circumstances to establish the timing and nature of FIR registrations.
The court emphasized the stringent conditions for suspension of sentence in murder cases, requiring convincing reasons and affirming the reliability of eyewitness testimony despite contradictions fro....
The registration of an FIR is mandatory when a cognizable offence is disclosed; however, a General Diary entry may be treated as an FIR in appropriate cases.
FIR registration is mandatory when a cognizable offence is disclosed; GD entries may be treated as FIRs in certain cases.
The court cannot impose procedural requirements not specified in existing laws, emphasizing the separation of judicial and legislative functions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
