Allahabad HC – Witness Names Not Required in FIR or 161 Statements.
The Allahabad High Court ruled on Monday that it is not mandatory to include the names of all witnesses in an FIR or statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This ruling came in response to an application filed to quash an order passed by an Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under Sections 304, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case involved a complaint filed by Ramesh Chandra against Harish Chandra, Matadeen, Sangam and Ram Kumar, which was converted from a non-cognizable report to an FIR after the death of injured party Pankaj. The IO recorded statements from the informant and eyewitness Babu Ram, and submitted a charge sheet against the accused under the aforementioned sections.
However, Maina Devi and Smt. Usha Devi’s statements were not recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, nor were they mentioned in the case diary. As a result, their names were not included in the list of witnesses. During the trial, the statements of Ramesh Chandra, Babu Ram, and Sukhlal were recorded.
Two additional witnesses, Maina Devi and Smt. Usha Devi, later filed an application under Section 311 of the CrPC, claiming that they had been present at the scene of the incident and had received injuries while trying to save the deceased. They alleged that the accused were influential and had made all the other witnesses hostile. The trial court allowed the application, citing injury reports in support of the witnesses’ claims.
The bench referred to the case of State of Haryana v. Ram Prasad, which held that the court has the power to summon any witness if their examination is essential to the just decision of the case. The High Court noted that the non-mentioning of a witness’s name in an FIR or statement under Section 161 of the CrPC does not mean that their evidence should be rejected. Such witnesses can still be examined by the prosecution with the court’s permission.
In this case, the High Court found that the trial court should have summoned and examined Maina Devi and Smt. Usha Devi, as their statements could have been essential to the just decision of the case.
The court dismissed the application, stating that the trial court’s order was based on sound and cogent reasoning, and was not an abuse of the court’s process.
Harish Chandra And Others v. State Of U.P. And Another
