MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTRAKHAND
LAWS(SC)-2014-5-105
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on May 22,2014

MANOJ KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Uttrakhand Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

ANITA MOUDGIL VS. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2022-11-195] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Heard Mr. S.P. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
(2.)It is submitted by Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant that Ved Prakash, father of the deceased had submitted an application on 24.8.1993 alleging, inter alia, that on that day about 7.10 a.m. he and his wife had left for their duties and his dauther Km. Bharti was left alone at the house and when he came back from the college, he found his daughter hanging from the roof. He reported to the police by way of application and it was treated as an FIR. Elaborating the submissions, it is urged by him that on 26.8.1993 Ved Prakash coming to know certain aspects from one Vinod Sharma, PW-2, about the involvement of Manoj Kumar, the appellant herein, who had come out from the room of Ved Prakash, submitted another report on 26.8.1993 to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Mangalore, giving the details about the fact that was disclosed to him by PW-2. In this backdrop, it is put forth by learned counsel for the appellant that there are two FIRs in respect of the same transaction and, therefore, the investigation having carried on the base of the second FIR, the trial is totally vitiated. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to certain authorities which we shall advert to a later stage.
(3.)Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State, submitted that it was not a second FIR and, in any case, it would not vitiate the trial. It is his submission that it will come within the spectrum of investigation and when the accused has gone through the whole gamut of trial, he is not entitled to put forth such a submission on the ground that the trial is vitiated. Learned counsel for the State would say that in any event it can be a curable irregularity and not an illegality which would make the trial null and void. It is put forth by him assuming investigation is carried on, on the basis of a 2 nd FIR, the matter should be left for the trial and it should be tested on the touchstone of prejudiced.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.