Appreciation of Evidence in Sessions Cases - Justice D.Murugesan

the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR
often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR
not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a
coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the
time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts generally look for certain external checks. One
of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the
local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an inference that
the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the
prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in despatching or receipt of the copy of
the FIR by the local Magistrate. …. The second external check equally important is the sending of
the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in the inquest report. Even though
the inquest report, prepared under Section 174 CrPC, is aimed at serving a statutory function, to
lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded
during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of
the fact that the prosecution story was still in embryo and had not been given any shape and that
the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then antetimed
to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR. ….”
The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of H.P. V. Gian Chand (2001) 6 SCC 71 has held that,
“12. Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution
case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first information report.
Delay has the effect of putting the court in its guard to search if any explanation has been offered for
the delay, and if offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily
explain the delay and there is a possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of
such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the
satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the
entire prosecution case.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dilawar Singh V. State of Delhi reported in 2007 (12) SCC 641
has held that,
“9. In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation
for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to
make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications.
Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented
before the court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before the
police or before the court, the courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for
satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the
prosecution case.”
Delay in lodging first information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting a
case Silak Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 2007 SC 2739. To the same effect there is another case
Gourishankara Swamigala v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2008 SC 2349.
5