HC: FIR is not an encyclopedia
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that it was not necessary for a complainant to have recorded every small detail in the statement given to police for FIR registration.
The high court said that such facts, if brought to light by the complainant at later stage can’t be termed as improvement or variation in the statement, as an afterthought. Hence, cannot be a ground to not make someone part of, whose name has cropped up in a case, in investigation.
“..the FIR is not an encyclopedia of the entire facts and is an initial statement only to set the criminal process in motion. How would the complainant know who all were involved in the commission of the offence?,” the high court bench of justice Jaishree Thakur said in a case of kidnap and rape of a Fazilka minor.
The FIR was registered by police in December 2015. As per police, the girl was kidnapped with the help of neighbours and later taken to UP. She somehow escaped from the captivity and reached home, a week later.
Challan was presented by police against five persons, but a person whose name in aiding the kidnap had figured in girl’s statement before the magistrate was not made an accused. The complainant filed an application for summoning him as the sixth accused before the additional district and sessions judge, who citing variations in girl’s statements before a magistrate did not allow summoning. Subsequently, the matter reached high court.
The HC observed that the police statement has lesser evidence value than the statement recorded before a magistrate. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial.
“It is not uncommon that the real accused, at times, get away by manipulating the probe and/ or the prosecuting agency. The desire to avoid trial is so strong that an accused makes effort at time to get himself absolved even at the stage of investigation or inquiry, even though he may be connected with the commission of offence,” the high court bench observed, setting aside the trial court order and allowing summoning of the sixth accused.
The bench said the trial court erred in holding that there was an improvement and the name of the sixth accused was added as an afterthought. Even though the complainant might not have mentioned his name in the FIR, his name figured twice in statement before a magistrate and later as prosecution witness. Hence, he should have been summoned as an accused.