The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an FIR cannot be deemed suspicious or unreliable simply because it was lodged with the help of an advocate. A division bench of Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary emphasized that legal assistance is a fundamental right available to all at every stage of criminal proceedings, including the initial reporting of a cognizable offence.
In a detailed observation, the Court stated:
“…..merely on the ground that the F.I.R. was written through an assistance of a lawyer, it cannot be assumed that the informant has lodged a false First Information Report against the Appellant. Further, 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 ruling came in a criminal appeal challenging a conviction for a horrific acid attack that claimed the lives of the informant’s mother and sister-in-law. The incident unfolded in the intervening night of May 7-8, 2014, around 2:00 AM, when the appellant, Jagdamba Harijan, allegedly trespassed into the victims’ home and hurled acid on Phoolan Devi and Suman Devi while they slept. The informant, Dinesh Verma (son of Phoolan and brother-in-law of Suman), was sleeping outside and rushed in upon hearing screams, identifying the appellant in torchlight. He had prior knowledge of the accused due to his repeated visits and harassment of Suman, including threats to her husband.
A written complaint (tehrir) was filed on May 9, 2014, at 11:00 AM, leading to FIR registration under Sections 323, 326A, and 452 IPC at Police Station Aaspur Devsara, Pratapgarh. The appellant was arrested on May 13, 2014. Tragically, Suman succumbed to her injuries on May 22, and Phoolan on May 29, escalating charges to include Section 304 IPC.
The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 304, 326A, and 452 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a â‚ą10,000 fine under the former two, plus two years’ rigorous imprisonment and â‚ą5,000 fine under Section 452 (with six months’ additional jail in default). He was acquitted under Section 323 IPC.
In appeal, the defense argued the FIR was delayed and fabricated, especially since it was drafted by a private advocate (who later represented the accused). They also questioned the eyewitness accounts of Dinesh and his brother Mahesh Verma, citing darkness, inconsistencies in identification, and the victims’ deaths from septicemia weeks later, allegedly due to poor treatment rather than the attack.
Dismissing these contentions, the High Court justified the FIR delay, noting the family’s priority was rushing the critically injured victims to medical care. “Prioritizing the treatment of the injured was more important and natural. In such a situation, the delay in filing the First Information Report alone cannot refute the entire prosecution story,” the bench observed. It stressed that in acid attack or emergency cases like accidents, providing medical aid must precede FIR lodging, and such delays are “common and natural” as saving lives takes precedence.
On advocate assistance, the Court highlighted the informant’s illiterate status and traumatic state amid the attack on his family. It clarified that FIR is merely an informational tool to activate criminal machinery, not substantive evidence, and requires no suspicion solely on legal help. The bench found no malice, as the facts clearly indicated a cognizable offence.
The Court also upheld the eyewitness testimonies as natural, corroborated by medical reports (detailing deep burns leading to septic shock/septicemia), forensic confirmation of sulphuric acid on recovered items, and a prompt, consistent investigation. It rejected doubts on identification, motive (prior harassment), and causation, affirming the attack’s direct link to the deaths.
Finding no merit in the appeal, the High Court dismissed it, upholding the trial court’s conviction and life sentence.
Case Title: Jagdamba Harijan versus State of U.P. | Criminal Appeal No. 1841 of 2018
Click HERE for full judgment
Lawcutor 