Unexplained delay in an FIR, which was also not free from doubt, reaching the court has cost the prosecution dear in a murder case with the Madras High Court acquitting four persons convicted by the trial court.
A Division Bench of Justices K.N. Basha and P. Devadass, in its judgment allowing the appeals by the four persons, said that right from the moment it was registered, the FIR, documents seized, case property recovered and witnesses’ statements should reach the court concerned with least delay. This was to prevent embezzlement of the true version as to the occurrence and false implication of innocent persons.
“Because every delay in submitting these documents to the court will give much scope and chance for interpolation, storytelling and any unreasonable and unexplained delay on this account will affect the credibility and the quality of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, more particularly eyewitnesses and key witnesses in a case,” observed the Bench.
The prosecution case was that Pandiyarajan married Chitra, who was the sister of Ramachandran, Pandi and Rajasekaran. There were differences between the couple. On May 5, 2008, Pandiyarajan was murdered.
The Tirupur North Police took up investigation. On September 27, 2010, Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupur, sentenced Ramachandran and Rajasekaran to life imprisonment, Pandi to 10 years rigorous imprisonment (RI) and Sivanasamy to three years’ RI.
Aggrieved, the four preferred the present appeals.
In their judgment, Justices Basha and Devadass noted that one thing was stated in the FIR while in his evidence, the brother of the deceased had stated another thing. Both eyewitnesses had spoken inconsistently. It was clear from the brother’s evidence that the FIR was a fabricated document.
“It shakes the very prosecution version of the case and the credibility of vital prosecution witnesses.”
The FIR was not a substantial piece of evidence, but in a criminal case, it was an important document, because it set the law in motion. It contained the first, earliest version, information about the cognisable offence.
Another infirmity was the delay in the FIR reaching the court. From the cross-examination of the Sub-Inspector, it was seen that the court concerned was situated within 250 yards from the police station.
The FIR reached the court after a six-hour delay. The Bench said the delay assumed signal importance as it had held that the FIR was not free from doubt.
