Delay in lodging the FIR cannot by itself create suspicion about the truthfulness of police version, the Supreme Court has said while dismissing the plea of two convicts sentenced to life term in a murder case.
‘Delay in the lodging of the FIR is not by itself fatal to the case of the prosecution nor can delay itself create any suspicion about the truthfulness of the version given by the informant just as a prompt lodging of the report may be no guarantee about its being wholly truthful,’ a bench of justices T S Thakur and Vikramajit Sen said.
The bench made the observations while dismissing the plea of Shanmugam and one other native of Chennai challenging the life term awarded to them by the trial court, which was later upheld by the Madras High Court.
The duo, who moved the apex court, along with two others had in January 1999 killed a man by crushing his face with stones and injuring his reproductive organs due to enmity over smuggling of sandalwood.
The incident was reported to the police by the brother of the deceased who was also a witness to the case after a delay of few hours. The convicts had challenged their conviction on ground of delay in lodging of FIR.
The apex court said, ‘As long as there is cogent and acceptable explanation offered for the delay, it loses its significance. Whether or not the explanation is acceptable will depend upon the facts of each case. There is no cut and dried formula for determining whether the explanation is or is not acceptable.’
‘Delay in the lodging of the FIR is not by itself fatal to the case of the prosecution nor can delay itself create any suspicion about the truthfulness of the version given by the informant just as a prompt lodging of the report may be no guarantee about its being wholly truthful,’ a bench of justices T S Thakur and Vikramajit Sen said.
The bench made the observations while dismissing the plea of Shanmugam and one other native of Chennai challenging the life term awarded to them by the trial court, which was later upheld by the Madras High Court.
The duo, who moved the apex court, along with two others had in January 1999 killed a man by crushing his face with stones and injuring his reproductive organs due to enmity over smuggling of sandalwood.
The incident was reported to the police by the brother of the deceased who was also a witness to the case after a delay of few hours. The convicts had challenged their conviction on ground of delay in lodging of FIR.
The apex court said, ‘As long as there is cogent and acceptable explanation offered for the delay, it loses its significance. Whether or not the explanation is acceptable will depend upon the facts of each case. There is no cut and dried formula for determining whether the explanation is or is not acceptable.’