Courts must test evidence meticulously if FIR is delayed: SC
The bench said the prosecution has not been able to convincingly prove the genesis of the crime and the manner in which the murder took place and by whom
Courts must be on guard and test evidence meticulously to rule out possible embellishments in the prosecution story when a FIR is delayed and proper explanation is lacking, the Supreme Court has said.
The apex court said this as it acquitted two people whose conviction and life sentence for a 1989 murder was affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra noted that the accused were tried for allegedly murdering a man on August 25, 1989 even as the FIR was lodged the next day in Bilaspur district.
"When a FIR is delayed, in absence of proper explanation, the courts must be on guard and test the evidence meticulously to rule out possibility of embellishments in the prosecution story, inasmuch as delay gives opportunity for deliberation and guess work," the bench said.
"More so, in a case where probability of no one witnessing the incident is high, such as in a case of night occurrence in an open place or a public street," it said in its verdict delivered on September 5.
HC challenged
The bench delivered its verdict following appeals by Harilal and Parasram challenging the February 2010 judgment of the high court affirming the July 1991 order of a trial court convicting and sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder.
Three people were tried for allegedly committing the crme and the trial court convicted all of them.
They filed separate appeals before the high court challenging their conviction. The proceedings against one of them stood abated after he died during the appeal.
"In this case, we notice from the record that the trial court as well as the high court while appreciating the evidence have not properly addressed various aspects, namely, (a) there is no clear cut motive proved against the accused except that there was some incident concerning a lady of the village…," the judges observed.
It said although there might not have been a specific question put to the informant, a prosecution witness, as regards the delay in lodging of the FIR, but the fact that "it was a delayed FIR cannot be ignored".
Eyewitnesses faulted
The bench observed that the statement of one of the eyewitnesses was inconsistent with his previous statement. It would be unsafe to rely on his testimony to convict the accused for murder.
The bench said the prosecution has not been able to convincingly prove the genesis of the crime and the manner in which the murder took place and by whom.
"The judgment and order of the high court as well as of the trial court are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge for which they have been tried," the apex court said.
(With agency inputs)
