Mere Delay In Recording Eye Witnesses' Statement By Itself Not A Ground To Reject Their Testimonies: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a delay in recording the statements of eye-witnesses by itself cannot result in rejection of their testimonies.

If the witnesses felt terrorised and frightened and did not come forward for some time, the delay in recording their statements stood adequately explained, the bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi observed.

In this case, the murder accused had approached the Apex Court in appeal. One of the grounds of challenge was that the delay in recording the statements made by eye witnesses in this case under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 respectively would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. It was contended that apart from the testimonies of said two witnesses, there was nothing on record to justify the conviction of the accused. The State justified the delay by stating that the terror unleashed by the accused was of such magnitude that the concerned witnesses had fled away in fear. It was only after the appropriate steps were taken by the investigating machinery including the arrest of the accused that the witnesses came forward, it was submitted.

"It is true that there was some delay in recording the statements of the concerned eye-witnesses but mere factum of delay by itself cannot result in rejection of their testimonies. The material on record definitely establishes the fear created by the accused. If the witnesses felt terrorised and frightened and did not come forward for some time, the delay in recording their statements stood adequately explained. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that during the interregnum, the witnesses were carrying on their ordinary pursuits", the court observed after referring to the evidence on record.

The court therefore dismissed the appeals filed by them.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment