Introduction:

In Jagdamba Harijan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court delivered an important judgment clarifying two significant principles of criminal jurisprudence—first, that the mere fact that a First Information Report (FIR) was drafted with the assistance of an advocate does not render it suspicious or unreliable, and second, that delay in filing an FIR in cases involving serious injuries or life-threatening circumstances can be justified where the priority was to secure urgent medical treatment for the victims. The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary made it clear that legal assistance is available to every person at all stages of criminal proceedings, including the stage of lodging an FIR. Therefore, seeking the help of an advocate to articulate a complaint cannot automatically lead to the inference that the FIR is fabricated or motivated. The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging his conviction in a brutal acid attack case that resulted in the death of two victims. The appellant had argued that the FIR was doubtful because it was lodged with the assistance of a private lawyer and because there was a delay in its registration. The High Court, however, rejected these arguments, emphasizing that when individuals are dealing with severe trauma and medical emergencies, the law must adopt a humane and realistic approach. The Court ultimately upheld the conviction recorded by the Trial Court, reiterating that the FIR is only the initial step to set the criminal law in motion and is not a substantive piece of evidence by itself.

Arguments of the Appellant:

The appellant challenged the judgment of the Trial Court primarily on procedural as well as evidentiary grounds. One of the central arguments raised by the defence was that the FIR was lodged after a delay of nearly two days from the date of the incident. According to the defence, such delay created serious doubts regarding the authenticity of the prosecution story. It was contended that the alleged incident occurred during the intervening night of 7 and 8 May 2014 at approximately 2:00 AM, whereas the FIR was registered on 9 May 2014 at around 11:00 AM. The defence argued that in criminal law, prompt reporting of an offence is considered a significant factor for determining the credibility of the prosecution’s case. A delay, according to the appellant, may provide the complainant with sufficient opportunity to fabricate a story, falsely implicate an accused person, or manipulate facts.

The appellant further emphasized that the FIR in the present case had been drafted with the assistance of a private advocate. According to the defence counsel, the involvement of a legal professional in preparing the FIR indicated that the complaint might have been carefully crafted after deliberation and consultation, rather than being a spontaneous and genuine narration of events. The defence argued that such circumstances made the FIR highly suspicious and undermined its credibility.

Another argument raised by the appellant was that the complainant had allegedly exaggerated the facts due to personal animosity against the accused. The defence claimed that the accused had been falsely implicated due to prior disputes between the families. The appellant’s counsel suggested that the delay in lodging the FIR allowed the complainant to consult with others and create a narrative that would implicate the accused in the incident.

The appellant also contended that the prosecution had failed to adequately explain why the FIR was not registered immediately after the occurrence of the incident. According to the defence, the explanation offered by the prosecution—that the family was engaged in arranging medical treatment for the injured victims—was not sufficient to justify the delay of nearly two days.

Furthermore, the defence argued that since the FIR was the foundation of the entire prosecution case, any doubt regarding its authenticity would inevitably affect the reliability of the subsequent investigation and evidence. On these grounds, the appellant sought the reversal of the conviction and requested the High Court to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court.

Arguments of the Prosecution:

The prosecution strongly opposed the appeal and defended the findings of the Trial Court. The State argued that the delay in lodging the FIR was fully justified in the circumstances of the case. According to the prosecution, the incident involved a horrific acid attack in which two women—the informant’s mother and sister-in-law—suffered severe and life-threatening injuries. The immediate priority of the family members, therefore, was to ensure that the victims received urgent medical treatment.

The prosecution emphasized that acid attacks cause extremely severe injuries that require immediate medical attention. In such situations, the natural and humane response of family members is to rush the victims to the nearest hospital and seek medical assistance rather than focus on legal formalities such as lodging an FIR.

The State also pointed out that the informant was an illiterate person who was under severe emotional distress after witnessing the attack and seeing his family members suffering from critical injuries. In such circumstances, it was perfectly natural for him to seek assistance from someone who could help him properly articulate the complaint.

The prosecution further argued that there is no legal bar against obtaining assistance from an advocate while lodging an FIR. Legal assistance, the State submitted, is a fundamental aspect of the justice system and can be availed by any individual at any stage of criminal proceedings.

The prosecution also highlighted that the FIR clearly described the incident and the identity of the accused. According to the prosecution, the informant had recognized the accused at the time of the incident. The accused was known to the family because he had previously threatened the informant’s brother and had harassed the father of the sister-in-law.

Additionally, the prosecution argued that the FIR was not even a substantive piece of evidence. It merely serves the purpose of setting the criminal law in motion. The actual determination of guilt or innocence depends on the evidence presented during the trial, including witness testimonies and other corroborative materials.

The prosecution emphasized that the evidence presented during the trial was credible and consistent, and the Trial Court had carefully examined the entire material before arriving at the conviction. Therefore, there was no justification for interfering with the judgment of the Trial Court.

Court’s Analysis:

The High Court carefully examined the arguments presented by both sides and reviewed the evidence available on record. The Court first addressed the issue of delay in lodging the FIR. The Bench observed that the incident involved an acid attack that caused severe injuries to the victims. In such circumstances, the natural instinct of family members would be to prioritize medical treatment rather than rushing to the police station.

The Court noted that acid attack cases are particularly grave because the victims require immediate medical attention to minimize damage and prevent further complications. Therefore, it would be unrealistic and insensitive to expect family members to immediately lodge an FIR without first ensuring that the injured receive proper medical care.

The Bench held that prioritizing the treatment of the injured was both natural and reasonable. It observed that delay in filing the FIR, when adequately explained by circumstances such as medical emergencies, cannot by itself undermine the prosecution case.

The Court further stated that the law must adopt a practical and humane approach while evaluating such delays. The mere fact that an FIR was not filed immediately after the incident does not automatically render the prosecution story false.

Issue of FIR Drafted With Advocate’s Assistance:

The High Court then turned to the second major argument raised by the appellant—that the FIR was drafted with the assistance of a private advocate.

The Court rejected this contention and held that seeking legal assistance while lodging an FIR is neither illegal nor suspicious. The Bench emphasized that the right to legal assistance is an integral part of the criminal justice system and is available at every stage of criminal proceedings.

The Court observed that there is no legal prohibition preventing a complainant from seeking help from an advocate while drafting an FIR. On the contrary, legal assistance may help ensure that the facts are properly recorded and communicated to the authorities.

The Bench remarked that the informant in the present case was an illiterate person who had undergone severe emotional trauma after witnessing a brutal attack on his family members. In such circumstances, it was entirely reasonable for him to seek assistance in drafting the complaint.

The Court made an important observation stating that merely because the person assisting the informant happened to be an advocate does not make the FIR suspicious or unreliable.

However, the Court clarified that whenever an FIR is drafted with legal assistance, it must still be scrutinized carefully to ensure that it is not malicious or motivated. Nevertheless, such scrutiny does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the FIR is fabricated.

Nature of FIR in Criminal Proceedings:

The Court also reiterated an important legal principle regarding the evidentiary value of an FIR. The Bench explained that an FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. Its primary purpose is to set the criminal justice machinery into motion by informing the authorities about the commission of a cognizable offence.

Therefore, even if certain procedural issues arise in relation to the FIR, they do not necessarily invalidate the entire prosecution case. What ultimately matters is the reliability and credibility of the evidence presented during the trial.

The Court observed that in the present case the prosecution witnesses had given credible testimonies and the Trial Court had carefully evaluated the evidence before convicting the accused.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the entire material on record, the Allahabad High Court concluded that the arguments raised by the appellant lacked merit. The Court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained by the urgent need to provide medical treatment to the victims.

The Court also held that the FIR could not be treated as doubtful merely because it was drafted with the assistance of an advocate.

The Bench emphasized that saving the lives of victims must always take precedence over the procedural requirement of lodging an FIR.

Finding no infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal was dismissed.