The Allahabad High Court ruled that an FIR does not lose credibility merely because it was drafted with a lawyer’s assistance. While permitting legal help, the Court stressed careful scrutiny to rule out malice. The Bench decided this in Jagdamba Harijan’s acid attack conviction appeal.
LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an FIR retains its credibility even if it is drafted with the assistance of a lawyer. The Court affirmed that seeking legal help during the FIR filing process is allowed but emphasized that such FIRs should be examined closely to eliminate any signs of malice or biased narration.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary issued this ruling while evaluating a criminal appeal by Jagdamba Harijan, who challenged his conviction in an acid attack case.
Factual Backgrounds and Arguments of Parties:
The appeal contested a 2018 trial court ruling, which had found Harijan guilty under Sections 304, 326A, and 451 of the Indian Penal Code, imposing a life sentence.
The appeal was filed by Jagdamba Harijan from Pratapgarh. The sessions court in Pratapgarh had sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment for culpable homicide following the acid attack.
The appellant’s counsel argued that the FIR was unreliable because it was prepared with the help of a private attorney. The Bench dismissed this argument. The appellant contended that the FIR was lodged two days after the incident and was prepared with assistance from a private lawyer, which cast doubt on its authenticity.
The prosecution alleged that the accused had thrown acid on a woman and her daughter-in-law, both of whom later succumbed to severe burn injuries. The defense contended that the complainant had not witnessed the incident and that the FIR was filed after a delay. The High Court rejected these claims.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that legal aid is accessible at every stage of criminal proceedings, and there is no prohibition against obtaining legal assistance when filing an FIR. The Bench clarified that an FIR drafted with a lawyer’s assistance does not inherently become questionable. However, it stressed the importance of scrutinizing such FIRs carefully to ensure they are free from any malicious intent.
ALSO READ: FIR Registered 2nd Time Legal?: Supreme Court Answers
However, the high court dismissed this argument and emphasized that obtaining legal assistance when filing an FIR does not inherently undermine its credibility.
The Court acknowledged that the complainant was illiterate and would naturally need help from a literate person to draft the complaint. The involvement of an advocate did not invalidate the FIR. While legal support is permitted in all criminal proceedings, seeking guidance during the FIR filing process is not unusual and should not call into question the truthfulness of the facts.
The bench noted,
“The evidence on record demonstrates that witness statements, and medical and forensic reports supported the prosecution case,”
Nonetheless, the court decided to reduce the appellant’s sentence from life imprisonment to 14 years, taking into account that he had already spent 13 years, 9 months, and 24 days in prison.
The Bench determined that the complainant had indeed seen the accused pour acid on the victims. His testimony remained consistent during cross-examination, with no significant contradictions arising. The Court also explained that the family prioritized seeking medical care for the victims, indicating that any delay in filing the FIR should not undermine the prosecution’s case.
Order of the Court:
The Court noted that both victims died from deep acid burn injuries, with medical evidence indicating that septicaemia from the burns led to their deaths. The Bench dismissed the defense’s argument that inadequate medical treatment was responsible for their fatalities.
ALSO READ: LEGAL EXPLAINER | HOW TO FILE AN FIR ?
The High Court found that the accused had shown an interest in the complainant’s sister-in-law, assessing this motive as credible. It dismissed defense objections related to minor inconsistencies in witness statements.
Upon thorough evaluation, the Court determined that the prosecution had established the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. While the Court upheld the conviction, it modified the sentence, reducing the life imprisonment to a fixed term of 14 years of rigorous imprisonment.
The judgment pointed out that as of November 11, 2025, the convict had already served 13 years, 9 months, and 24 days in custody, including remission.
Advocate RP Mishra represented the appellant, while Advocate SP Singh appeared for the State.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES