LI Network
Published on: 8 September 2023 at 11:30 IST
The Supreme Court has underscored the importance of vigilance and meticulous examination of evidence when dealing with delayed First Information Reports (FIRs) in criminal cases.
In a recent verdict, the apex court acquitted two individuals who had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for a murder that occurred in 1989, a case in which the FIR was lodged a day after the incident, without a proper explanation.
A bench comprising Justices J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra delivered the verdict, noting that the accused were tried for the alleged murder, which took place on August 25, 1989, while the FIR was filed on the following day in Bilaspur district.
The bench emphasized, “When an FIR is delayed, in the absence of a proper explanation, the courts must be on guard and test the evidence meticulously to rule out the possibility of embellishments in the prosecution’s story, as delay provides an opportunity for deliberation and guesswork.”
This cautious approach is particularly crucial in cases where there were no witnesses to the incident, such as a nighttime occurrence in a public place.
The case involved three individuals who were tried for murder, with all of them initially convicted by a trial court. They separately appealed their convictions to the high court, but one of the accused had passed away during the appeal process.
In its analysis, the Supreme Court observed that the trial court and the high court did not adequately address various aspects of the case. Notably, there was no clear motive established against the accused, except for a vague incident involving a woman from the village.
The delayed nature of the FIR, while not explicitly questioned during the trial, was deemed significant.
The bench also pointed out inconsistencies in the testimony of an eyewitness to the incident, rendering his account unreliable as a basis for convicting the accused of murder.
It reasoned that in situations where villagers collectively assault an individual accused of involvement with a woman, bystanders might not intervene due to the nature of the conflict.
Ultimately, the prosecution was unable to convincingly establish the sequence of events leading to the murder and the identity of the perpetrators. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the high court and trial court and acquitted the appellants, allowing them to be released on bail if they were not already.
