This Article has been written by Ms. Karishma Singh , a 2nd year B.A LL.B student from Lloyd Law College 

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.)  113 of 1983

Petitioner : State of Karnataka 

                Versus 

Respondent : Moin Patel 

Date of Judgement : 22/02/1996

Case Details : 

This appeal, filed on behalf of the State of Karnataka, challenges the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 1980 by which the High Court switched the conviction and sentence recorded against the four respondents under Segment 302 read with Area 34 IPC (on two counts) and furthermore under Area 324 IPC against Respondent 2 by the Extra Meetings Judge, Bidar and absolved them. The two departed, who were siblings, were firmly connected with the respondents in that Respondent 2 is the genuine sibling of their dad while the other the respondents are his (Respondent 2’s) children. Respondent 4 passed away while this appeal was pending, so, in his opinion, the appeal has ended.

Case Summary : 

“The Hon’ble Supreme Court further stated regarding the issue of delay in despatch of FIR in State of Karnataka vs. Moin Patel and others as follows: ” The issue can also be viewed from a different perspective. We have already determined that the prosecution’s case is that the FIR was promptly filed around 1.30 a.m., and that the investigation that was started on the basis of it is completely trustworthy and acceptable. Decided with regards to the above realities the simple defer in despatch of the FIR – and besides in receipt thereof by the Justice – wouldn’t present the arraignment defense suspect for as has been brought up by a three Appointed authority Seat of this Court in Pala Singh V. Territory of Punjab, , the significant arrangement contained in Area 157 Cr. P.C. concerning dispatch of the report (FIR) is truly intended to keep the Justice educated regarding the examination of a cognizable offense in order to have the option to control the examination and if important to provide legitimate guidance under segment 159 Cr. P.C., and as a result, if it is determined that a FIR was recorded promptly and that an investigation was initiated based on that FIR, the improper or objectionable delay in receiving the report from the Magistrate in question cannot, on its own, support the conclusion that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution unsupportable.” According to this point of view, the fact that the FIR in this case was delayed in reaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court does not mean that the FIR is fake, tainted, or that the prosecution’s case should be viewed with suspicion.

Further, it is to be seen that ” Sending F.I.R to Judge ‘forthwith’ is truly desinged to keep the Justice educated regarding the examination and to control something very similar or provide guidance u/sec 159. ”

– When fatal, effect of late F.I.R. : The commission-related report is now the first information report. of a crime reported to the police and recorded by them under section 154 of the Criminal Code P.C. The Privy Council stated in H.E. v. Khwaja(1) that the police’s receipt and recording of information is not a prerequisite for initiating a criminal investigation. The law also doesn’t say that only an eyewitness can report such information. First data report under s. 154 isn’t even viewed as a meaningful piece of proof. It must be utilized to certify or go against the source’s proof in court. However, the informant’s case is based on this recorded information. It is very useful if it is recorded before the informant’s memory fades or there is time to embellish. Unjustifiable or nonsensical postpone in housing the F.I.R., accordingly, unavoidably leads to doubt which puts the court alert to search for the conceivable thought process and the clarification for the deferral and think about its impact on the reliability or in any case of the arraignment rendition. We believe that there is no set amount of time that can be considered reasonable for reporting a crime to the police; the court must decide what constitutes reasonable time in each case. Therefore, merely delaying the filing of the initial information report with the police is not necessarily, in a legal sense, fatal to the prosecution. In light of the possibility of the explanation for the delay, the effect of waiting must be taken into account in light of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.