A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case addresses the critical procedural questions regarding investigation practices under criminal law, emphasizing the role of the investigating officer, maintenance and application of case diaries under Section 172 CrPC, interplay with Sections 145 and 161 of the Evidence Act, and the mandatory prerequisites for an FIR registration. The Supreme Court evaluated procedural lapses in the case, discrepancies in witness testimonies, evidentiary contradictions, and compliance with statutory requirements for fair investigation, resulting in the acquittal of the appellant.

Keywords: Criminal Investigation, FIR Registration, Section 172 CrPC, Evidence Act, Procedural Fairness, Witness Cross-Examination.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Shailesh Kumar v. State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand)
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 684 of 2012
iii) Judgment Date: February 26, 2024
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
vi) Author: Justice M.M. Sundresh
vii) Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 776 : 2024 INSC 143
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Sections 145, 161, 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• Sections 154, 172(1), 172(3), 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 172 CrPC, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  ix) Judgments Overruled: None explicitly stated.
  x) Law Subjects: Criminal Procedure, Evidence Law, Constitutional Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302 IPC, wherein the appellant was accused of fatally stabbing the deceased after an altercation. The trial and High Courts convicted the appellant based on oral testimonies, circumstantial evidence, and purported compliance with procedural safeguards. The appellant contested the fairness of the investigation, reliability of witnesses, and adequacy of procedural compliance, alleging substantial flaws in the case diary, FIR, and prosecution’s conduct.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Incident: The victim, Gajendra Singh, was stabbed by the appellant during an altercation, allegedly over unpaid dues of Rs. 500 for incomplete work.
2. Key Witnesses: Prosecution relied on eyewitnesses PW-2 and PW-3, dying declarations, and circumstantial evidence.
3. Investigation Flaws: The FIR lacked timely registration, case diary entries were manipulated, and procedural delays raised concerns about the investigation’s credibility.
4. Medical Evidence: Conflicting testimonies arose from PW-5 and PW-8 regarding the victim’s condition and the veracity of the alleged dying declaration.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether procedural lapses in maintaining the case diary violated statutory requirements under Section 172 CrPC.
ii. Whether entries in the General Diary could precede an FIR, in light of the Supreme Court’s mandate in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh.
iii. Whether the accused’s limited right to cross-examine police officers under Sections 145 and 161 of the Evidence Act was properly safeguarded.
iv. Whether contradictions in witness testimonies and procedural errors undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The defense argued the manipulation of case diary entries, missing pages, and unexplained corrections compromised the investigation’s integrity.
ii. Witness accounts were inconsistent, contradictory, and lacked corroboration, especially regarding the dying declaration and alleged recovery of the weapon.
iii. Procedural lapses in registering the FIR and failure to adhere to Lalita Kumari’s principles rendered the investigation fundamentally flawed.
iv. Failure to examine key witnesses such as the tempo driver raised doubts about the prosecution’s narrative.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The State contended that minor discrepancies in testimonies were natural due to time lapse and should not discredit the prosecution’s case.
ii. Recovery of the accused’s vehicle and weapon corroborated the chain of events and supported the conviction.
iii. Procedural lapses in maintaining the case diary were technical and did not prejudice the accused.
iv. The testimony of PW-1 to PW-3 was consistent with medical evidence and post-mortem findings.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 145 of the Evidence Act: Right to contradict witnesses with prior written statements.
ii. Section 161 of the Evidence Act: Adverse party’s right regarding writings used to refresh memory.
iii. Section 172 CrPC: Obligations on investigating officers for maintaining case diaries.
iv. Section 154 CrPC: Procedure for registering cognizable offenses in an FIR.
v. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh: FIR registration requirements.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:

The Supreme Court held that procedural lapses in maintaining the case diary, unexplained FIR delays, and witness inconsistencies fundamentally undermined the prosecution’s case. The accused’s statutory rights under Sections 145 and 161 of the Evidence Act were not honored adequately, and reliance on manipulated evidence invalidated the trial court’s findings.

b. Obiter Dicta:

The judgment reiterated the importance of fair investigation practices under Section 172 CrPC and held that statutory non-compliance prejudiced the accused. It also emphasized that General Diary entries cannot precede an FIR.

c. Guidelines:

1. Case diaries must be meticulously maintained under Section 172 CrPC, ensuring daily proceedings are transparently recorded.
2. FIR registration must strictly adhere to Lalita Kumari guidelines, avoiding preliminary entries in General Diaries.
3. Investigating officers must balance procedural compliance with fairness to both the prosecution and defense.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case underscores the judiciary’s role as the guardian of procedural fairness in criminal trials. It emphasizes that defective investigations, especially in maintaining statutory documents, can vitiate convictions. The judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s mandate for transparent investigative practices, reiterating the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring procedural justice.

K) REFERENCES

1. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
2. Arvind Kumar @ Nemichand & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, [2021] 11 SCR 237.
3. Balakram v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, (2017) 7 SCC 668.
4. Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1983) 3 SCC 344.
5. Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353.
6. Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, (1981) 3 SCC 191.