Search

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ORDINANCE PASSED TO PROTECT WOMEN WITH SEVERAL MEASURES 2013

READ FULL AMENDMENT

EXAMPLE OF IPC :- (NEW SECTION ADDED) Public servant disobeying direction under law. "166A. Whoever, being a public servants-. a) knowingly disobeys any direction of the law which prohibits him from requiring the attendance at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence or any other matter, or b) knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice or any person, any other direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation, or c) fails to record any information given to him under subsection (1) of section 154 of the Code of Crimina! Procedure, 1973 and in particular in relation to cognizable offence punishable under section 354, section 354A, section 354B; section 354C, sub-section (2) of section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D or section 376E, (2 of 1974). shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.".

DELAY IN LODGING FIR IS NOT FATAL – EPLANATION FOR DELAY TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT 2013 SC

DELAY IN LODGING FIR IS NOT FATAL – EPLANATION FOR DELAY TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT 2013 SC

The Honble Justice K. S. Radhakrishnan and The Honble Justice Dipak Misra of Supreme court of India, in the case of Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan Decided on 22-04-2013 It is settled in law that mere delay in lodging the First Information Report cannot be regarded by itself as fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, it is obligatory on the part of the court to take notice of the delay and examine, in the backdrop of the case, whether any acceptable explanation has been offered, by the prosecution and if such an explanation has been offered whether the same deserves acceptance being found to be satisfactory. In this regard, we may refer with profit a passage from State of H.P. v. Gian Chand , (2001) 6 SCC 71 wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court has expressed thus: - “Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case.”

In Ramdas and others v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 2 SCC 170, Court has observed that mere delay in lodging the first information report is not necessarily fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, the fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact of which the court must take notice. This fact has to be considered in the light of other facts and circumstances of the case, and, in a given case, the court may be satisfied that the delay in lodging the report has been sufficiently explained. In the light of the totality of the evidence, the court has to consider whether the delay in lodging the report adversely affects the case of the prosecution. That is a matter of appreciation of evidence. There may be cases where there is direct evidence to explain the delay. Even in the absence of direct explanation, there may be circumstances appearing on record which provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. There are cases where much time is consumed in taking the injured to the hospital for medical aid and, therefore, the witnesses find no time to lodge the report promptly. There may also be cases where on account of fear and threats, witnesses may avoid going to the police station immediately. The time of occurrence, the distance to the police station, mode of conveyance available, are all factors which have a bearing on the question of delay in lodging of the report. It is also possible to conceive of cases where the victim and the members of his or her family belong to such a strata of society that they may not even be aware of their right to report the matter to the police and seek legal action, nor was any such advice available to them.

In Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P. (1994) 5 SCC 188, a two-Judge Bench of this Court has observed that FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of
appreciating the evidence led at the trial and the object of insisting
upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information
regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including
the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the
weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any,
for delay in lodgment of the FIR results in embellishment which is a
creation of afterthought. Emphasis was laid on the fact that on
account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of
spontaneity but also danger of introduction of a coloured version or
exaggerated story. Thus, whether the delay creates a dent in the prosecution story and ushers in suspicion has to be gathered by scrutinizing the explanation offered for the delay in the light of the totality of the facts and circumstances. Greater degree of care and caution is required on the part of the court to appreciate the evidence to satisfy itself relating to the explanation of the factum of delay. In Kilakkatha
Parambath Sasi and others v. State of Kerala AIR 2011 SC 1064, it has been observed that when an FIR has been lodged belatedly, an inference can rightly follow that the prosecution story may not be true but equally on the other side, if it is found that there is no delay in the recording of
the FIR, it does not mean that the prosecution story stands
immeasurably strengthened.


KARNATAKA LAND LAWS

CASE LAW ON LAND LAWS