FIR Delay May Be Condoned If Complainant Appears To Be Reliable And Without Motive : SC [Read Judgment]

In yet another appeal filed by Saravana Bhavan owner, against conviction in the crime of abducting his employee and his wife, the main issue raised was about the 'enormous delay' in the lodging of the F.I.R. It was contended on behalf of the accused that, incident had taken place on 01.10.2001 and the complaint came to be lodged only on 12.10.2001, and that the F.I.R. was only registered on 09.11.2001, which delay was not explained by the prosecution either.

The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar and Justice Indira Banerjee observed that the court is duty bound to determine whether the explanation afforded is plausible enough given the facts and circumstances of the case. Referring to the judgment in Apren Joseph vs. State of Kerala, the bench said:

"Normally, the Court may reject the case of the prosecution in case of inordinate delay in lodging the first information report because of the possibility of concoction of evidence by the prosecution. However, if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the Court will decide the matter on merits without giving much importance to such delay. The Court is duty bound to determine whether the explanation afforded is plausible enough given the facts and circumstances of the case. The delay may be condoned if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely."

In the instant case, the court said that, the Trial Court and the High Court were justified in condoning the delay and in concluding that the said delay was not vital to the case of the prosecution. It said:

"In the matter on hand, the entire family of PW1 was at the mercy of Accused No. 1, who was very rich and influential. 8 Accused No.1 acted as a benefactor to the family and had helped them financially and otherwise on multiple occasions. Under such circumstances, PW1 might have been reluctant to lodge a complaint immediately after the occurrence of the said incident, especially when Accused No. 1 had employed his henchmen to keep the house and movements of PW1 and her family under surveillance. Moreover, no material has been brought to our notice by the defence to prove that the delay in filing the F.I.R. was with the intention of false implication. Thus, the explanation given by PW1 for the delay remains untainted."

The bench then dismissed the appeals.

Read Judgment