DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A. P., INDIA.

PROJECT TITLE:

DELAY IN SUBMISSION OF FIR REPORT

SUBJECT:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

NAME OF THE FACULTY:

ASST. PROF. SOMA BHATTACHARJYA

NAME OF THE STUDENT:

SANSKAR JAIN

ROLL NO:

18LLB080

SEMESTER – IV

SECTION – B
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

I am highly indebted to my Hon’ble Criminal law Assistant Prof. Soma Bhattacharjya for
giving me a wonderful opportunity to work on the topic: Delay in submission of FIR Report,
and it is because of her excellent knowledge, experience and guidance, this project is made
with great interest and effort.

I would also take this as an opportunity to thank my parents for their support at all times. I
have no words to express my gratitude to each and every person who has guided and
suggested me while conducting my research work.
 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION
2. IMPORTANCE OF PROMPT LODGING OF FIR
3. DELAY IN LODGING OF FIR
4. DELAY IN LODGING THE FIR BY INFORMANT
5. DELAY IN RAPE CASES
6. DELAY IN RECORDING OF FIR BY OFFICER INCHARGE OF POLICE
STATION
7. ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED BASED ON THE DELAY IN LODGING OF
FIR
8. DELAY IN DESPATCHING THE FIR TO THE MAGISTRATE
9. SUGGESTIONS FOR EARLY REGISTRATION OF A CASE
10. CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION

The basic purpose of filing FIR is to set the criminal law into motion and not to state all the
minute details therein. The information under section 154 of Cr.P.C is generally known a s
F.I.R though 'first is not used in the code. F.I.R is not the be all and end all of every criminal
case and is not substantive evidence. It can be used only for limited purposes, like
corroborating the maker or for being tendered in a proper case u/sec 32 (1) of Evidence Act
or part of informant's conduct u/sec 8 of Evidence Act.1

Prompt lodging of information of commission of cognizable offence at the first available

opportunity is supposed to be true version without any addition, embellishment and
concoction. The chances of missing links outside influence after thought and additions are
removed, where the memory is fresh and information is given without any loss of time. In
past their was many hardships in registering a case, as distance of Police Station and Place of
occurrence, transport and communication mediums, but some of these factors have been
extinguished by the lapse of time.

Reasonable delay is always to be excused as has been decided by the Apex Court in many
cases, and in codified laws nowhere time have been mentioned, but it is to be written within
reasonable time period, as have been explained under.

In Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao & Ors. v. State Rep. By Public Prosecutor,2 the Apex court
held that Delay in lodging of FIR, if justifiably explained, will not fatal. An undue delay in
lodging a First Information Report is always looked with a certain amount of suspicion and
should as far as possible be avoided. Delay in lodging FIR can be of three types:

(1) Delay in lodging First Information Report by informant;

(2) Delay in recording First Information Report by the officer-in-charge of the police station;

(3) Delay in dispatching the First Information Report to the Magistrate.

1
AIR 1963 AP 252.
2
(2008) 2 SC 188.
IMPORTANCE OF PROMPT LODGING OF FIR

The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in State of Karnataka v. Moin Patel and others,3 stated
vis-a-vis the issue of delay in despatch of FIR as below: "The matter can be viewed from
another angle also. It has already been found by us that the prosecution case is that the FIR
was promptly lodged at or about 1.30 AM and that the investigation started on the basis
thereof is wholly reliable and acceptable. Judged in the context of the above facts the mere
delay in despatch of the FIR - and for that matter in receipt thereof by the Magistrate - would
not make the prosecution case suspect for as has been pointed out by a three Judge Bench of
this Court in Pala Singh v. State of Punjab,4 the relevant provision contained in Section 157
Cr.P.C. regarding forthwith dispatch of the report (FIR) is really designed to keep the
Magistrate informed of the investigation of a cognizable offence so as to be able to control
the investigation and if necessary to give proper direction under section 159 Cr.P.C. and
therefore if in a given case it is found that FIR was recorded without delay and the
investigation started on that FIR then however, improper or objectionable the delayed receipt
of the report by the Magistrate concerned, it cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the
investigation was tainted and the prosecution unsupportable". ''... In this view of the matter,
simply because the FIR in this case was received in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate
with delay it cannot be said that the FIR in this case is not genuine or that it is tainted or that
the prosecution case should be viewed with suspicion.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu,5 stressed the
importance of making prompt report to the police regarding the commission of cognizable
offence. It was observed: "First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and
valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating, the oral evidence adduced at the
trial. The importance of 'the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of
the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect
of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in
which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them
as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene, of occurrence. Delay in lodging
the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of
afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of
spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version exaggerated account or
3
(1996) 8 SCC 167.
4
(1972) 2 SCC 640.
5
AIR 1973 SC 501.AGH
concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the
delay in lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained."

DELAY IN LODGING OF FIR

In Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana,6 It was held that rushing of victim to hospital to save
his life instead of first going to Police Station was a satisfactory explanation for delay. In
Ramdas & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 7 The honorable Supreme Court decided that mere
delay in lodging FIR not by itself necessary fatal to prosecution case. Counsel for the State
submitted that the delay in lodging the first information report in such cases is immaterial.
The proposition is too broadly stated to merit acceptance. It is doubt true that mere delay in
lodging the first information report is not necessarily 'fatal to the case of the prosecution.
However, the fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact of which the court
must take notice. This fact has to be considered in the light of other facts and circumstances
of the case, and in a given case the court may be satisfied that the delay in lodging the report
has been sufficiently explained.

In the light of the totality of the evidence, the court of fact has to consider whether the delay
in lodging the report adversely affects the case of the prosecution. That is a matter of
appreciation of evidence. There may be cases where there is direct evidence to explain the
delay. Even in the absence of direct explanation there may be circumstances appearing on
record which provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. There are cases where much
time is consumed in taking the injured to the hospital for medical aid and, therefore, the
witnesses find no time to lodge the report promptly.

There may also be cases where on account of fear and threats, witnesses may avoid going to
the police station immediately. The time of occurrence, the distance to the police station,
mode of conveyance available, are all factors which have a bearing on the question of delay
in lodging of the report. It is also possible to conceive of cases where the victim and the
members of his or her family belong to such a strata of society that they may not even be
aware of their right to report the matter to the police and seek legal action, nor was any such
advice available to them. In the case of sexual offences there is another consideration which
may weigh in the mind of the court i.e. the initial hesitation of the victim to report the matter
to the police which may affect her family life and family’s reputation. Very often in such

6
(2000) 2 SC 717.
7
AIR 2007 SC 155.
cases only after considerable persuasion the prosecution may be persuaded to disclose the
true facts.

There are also cases where the victim may choose to suffer the ignominy rather than to
disclose the true facts which may cast a stigma on her for the rest of her life. These are case
where the initial hesitation of the prosecution to disclose the true facts may provide a good
explanation for the delay in j lodging the report. In the ultimate analysis, what is the effect of
delay in lodging the report with the police is a matter of appreciation of evidence, and the
court must consider the delay in the background of the facts and circumstances of each case.
Different cases have different facts and it is the totality of evidence and the impact that it has
on the mind of the court that is important.

No straitjacket formula can be evolved in such matters, and each must rest on its own facts. It
is settled law that however similar the circumstances, facts in one case cannot be used as a
precedent to determine the conclusion on the facts in another.8

In Mahtab Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P., 9 The honorable Supreme Court decided that delay
one of the main reasons given by the High Court in upsetting the Judgment of acquittal is that
FIR was lodged barely 45 minutes after the incident; the distance of police station being
hardly one furlong from the place of occurrence. High Court, however, failed to consider a
very material aspect that despite the fact; that police station was situated close and visible
from the place of incident, yet PW-1 did not go immediately to police station to report but he
first went to Charan singh to have a written report prepared and then went to the police
station with written report. The first version of the incident could have been reported at the
police station within five minutes of its occurrence. The fact that PW1 took 45 minutes in
reporting the incident at the police station rather creates doubt about the truthfulness of the
prosecution case and does not rule out false implication of the accused against which PW1
had grudge due to some civil dispute between them.

In Satypal v. State of Haryana,10 The honorable Supreme Court decided that This Court can
take judicial notice of the fact that ordinarily the family of the victim would not intend to get
a stigma attached to the victim. Delay in lodging the First Information Report in a case of this
nature is a normal phenomenon. Both the courts below apart from relying on a part of the
testimony of the prosecution found the evidence of PW-5 to be absolutely reliable. The
8
Pandurang & Ors. v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 216..
9
AIR 2009 SC 2298.
10
AIR 2009 SC 2190.
medical evidence itself being a part of the evidence is required to be appreciated in the
context of ocular evidence and other circumstances surrounding thereto.

In Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi, 11 The Apex Court held that in criminal trial one of the
cardinal principles for the court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging
the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation
upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the
chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at
the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before the police or before
the court, the courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory
explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution
case.

DELAY IN LODGING THE FIR BY INFORMANT

In Malempati Pattabi Nairender v. Ghattamaneni Maruti Prasad, 12 It was held that FIR
prepared on strength of written complaint, scribe not examined, he lived 13 kilometres away
from place of occurrence. In this case it was not explained how that scribe was brought to
place from such a distance and at what time. Held, there would have been confabulation and
deliberations before preparing the written complaint. If delay has occurred in lodging the
information by the informant or victim, the officer investigating the case should obtain
explanation from the informant in regard to such delay and incorporate the same in the
statement of the witnesses. If this is done, no adverse presumption would arise against the
prosecution case.

In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 13 It was held that the delay in lodging the first information
quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On i account of delay
the report not only gets bereft of the advantage or spontaneity, danger creeps in of the
introduction of coloured version, exaggerated or concocted story as a result of deliberation
and consultation. It is therefore, essential that delay in lodging of the first information report
should be satisfactorily explained.

11
AIR 2007 SC 3234.
12
(2000) 2 SC 777.
13
(1953) Cr. L.J. 1465.
In Lalai alias Dindoo and another v. State of U.P., 14 It was held that: “The only other ground
on which Radhey Shyam’s evidence was challenged is that though the incident took place at
about 10-30 p.m. on the 25th that Radhey Shyam lodged the First Information Report. This
undoubtedly is an important circumstance but the Sessions Court and the High Court have
given a reasonable explanation of the delay. The night was dark, the road was rough and the
assault so fierce that Radhey Shyam could not have collected his wits to proceed straightway
to the police station. There is no indication in the evidence that the names of the appellants
were incorporated in the First Information Report as a result of any confabulation.”

In Sheelam Rarnesh and another v. State of A.P., 15 It was held that: “It was natural human
conduct for the informant PW-1 (who was on the hit list) to run towards the police station as
the deceased was hit by guns and suffered injuries. His first duty, in addition to his safety,
was to bring police to the place of occurrence and to ensure that medical help be given to the
deceased. He came back to the place of occurrence with police and the deceased was taken to
the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries at 7-55 p.m. Immediately thereafter, PW-1
returned to the police station and lodged the formal FIR. The doctor PW-6 has deposed that
the deceased died at 7-55 p.m. From the above evidence, we hold that there was no delay in
filing the FIR.

In State of U.P. v. Sughar Singh, 16 It was held that “Witness has clarified the position by
stating that it was rainy season, that at several places water had collected on the road, that
major part of the road was kachha road and because of that he reached Orai late in the
evening and that he first went to his son’s house, dictated a report to his son Lallu and signing
the same he carried it to the Police Station where he lodged it at 7-15 P.M. with the Diwanji
on duty there. Having regard to the explanation given by the witness, it is impossible to agree
with the criticism made that there was delay in lodging the first information report. FIR was
lodged at 7:15 P.M. when the occurrence took place at 2:30 P.M. and the Police Station was
at the distance of 7 miles only.

In Murari Thakur & Anr. v. State of Bihar,17 The honorable Supreme Court decided that
delay because father of victim was informed only after he came back at i night. Learned
counsel for the appellant then submitted that there was delay in filling the FIR. We are of the

14
AIR 1974 SC 2118.
15
(2000) Crl. L.J. 51.
16
AIR 1978 SC 191.
17
AIR 2007 SC 1129.
opinion that there is no such delay which can be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. The
occurrence took place on 26.8.1998 at 4 p.m. The first informant the father of the deceased,
Bhubneshwar Mishra (PW8), was at Sitamarhi and returned home on 8 p.m., when they came
to know from his brother Dhaneshwar Mishra that his minor son Bal Krishna Mishra aged
about 14 years had been murdered. After Bhubneshwar Mishra learnt about this form his
brother Dhaneshwar Mishra (PW4), then he went and lodged the FIR R.K Tiwari (PW11),
the investigating officer, has stated in his evidence that it was rainy season and there was
flood in the area and he reached the place of the occurrence on the night of
26.8.1998/27.8.1998 at about 1.30 a.m. and I recorded the Fard-e-bayan of the informant. In
these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there was no such fatal delay in lodging the
FIR.

In Balwinder Singh v. Union of India,18 it was held that complaint disclosed commission of
cognizable offence, case not registered by Police on the ground that incident was 15 years old
and stale. There was no ground to refuse the registration of case; delay per se has never been
considered as fatal in criminal proceedings. What is the effect of delay that will be seen by
the trial court. However in view of considerable delay, direction issued to S.P. to enquire into
allegations and register a case of if cognizable offence was made out.

DELAY IN RAPE CASES

In these cases it is not only related with the victim but also related with the person of the
family of the victim. Many times due to shame and family honor they do not contact to the
police immediately and delay causes weaken the prosecution case.

In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh,19 The honorable Supreme Court decided that the
delay in a case of sexual assault cannot be equated with the case involving other offences.
There are several factors which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members
before coming to the police station to lodge a complaint. In a tradition bound society
prevalent in India, more particularly, rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the
prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the FIR.

In Harpal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh,20 It was held that “Delay of10 days in lodging
the first information report stands reasonably explained when the prosecutrix stated that as

18
(1997) 3 RCR 755.
19
AIR 2009 SC 1010.
20
AIR 1981 SC 361.
honour of the family was involved, its members had to decide whether to take the matter to
the Court or no.” It is not uncommon that such consideration delays action on the part of the
near relation of a young girl who has been raped.

DELAY IN RECORDING OF FIR BY OFFICER INCHARGE OF POLICE STATION

FIR is to be written as soon as possible, sometimes officer-in-charge of the police station

escape from this essential job because after registration of the case they have to further
inquire the case and by this reason they cannot escape from their duty. Sec. 154 Cr.P.C.
mandates the officer-in-charge of police station to record first information report as and when
he receives information to a commission of cognizable offence. There should not be any
delay on the part of the officer-in-charge of police station in recording first information and
registering the case upon it. Delay in registration of FIR renders case to the prosecution
suspicious. Any explanation given by the police officer is not unbelievable.

In State of Maharashtra v. Prakash Sakha Vasave & Ors., 21 The honorable Supreme Court
decided that So far as the delay in lodging the First Information Report is concerned, it has
been accepted that the informant went to the wrong police station and when he was directed
to go to Navapur Police Station, he went there and lodged the FIR. That clearly explains the
delay. Delay in filing F.I.R. is, therefore, not fatal. In the I ultimate analysis, High Court was
not justified in directing acquittal of A-l and A-2. However, so far as A-3 is concerned, the
High Court has indicated sufficient reasons for I holding him not guilty. Same needs no
interference. But the reasons indicated for directing acquittal of A-l and A-2 are not justified.
We, therefore, set aside the judgment of High Court so far as their acquittal is concerning.
But considering the facts of the case, it is apparent that the accused persons were annoyed
with the deceased because of his having illicit relationship with another lady while his wife
was alive. The case does not fall to the rarest ofrare category. The appropriate sentence would
be life imprisonment. The State’s appeal is allowed the extent indicated above. Respondents
1 and 2 were directed to surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence. It
is the established principal that if a cognizable offence occurs and the police station is
different from the having jurisdiction, report is to be written and must be sent to the
concerned police station.

21
AIR 2009 SC 1636.
In Gopaiah v. State of A.P.,22 it was held that mere delay in recording the FIR was caused by
the absence of the Sub-Inspector from the police station and as the constable present were
illiterate.

ACQUITTAL OF THE ACCUSED BASED ON THE DELAY IN LODGING OF FIR

In Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P.,23 It was held that “Delay in dispatching the FIR to the
Magistrate is a circumstance which provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that the first
information report was recorded much later than the stated date and hour affording sufficient
time to the prosecution to introduce improvements and embellishments and set up a distorted
version of the occurrence. In this case, the suspicion hardens into a definite possibility when
one finds that the case made in Court differs at least in two very important particulars from
that narrated in the FIR. In this case, the prosecution offered no explanation for the delay of
two days in sending the FIR to the Magistrate. The appeal was accepted.

In Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra,24 It was held “The inordinate delay in
registration of the FIR and further delay in recording the statements of the material witnesses,
casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecution
story.

In Babboo v. State of Madhya Pradesh,25 It was held that the FIR was lodged 12 hours after
the occurrence and it does not contain the name of the assailants. It would be reasonable
inference that for a period of 12 hours after the occurrence the names of the assailants were
not disclosed and this would wholly weaken the prosecution case that Phoola Bai, Lachhman
and Kanhaiya Lai were witnesses to the occurrence.

DELAY IN DESPATCHING THE FIR TO THE MAGISTRATE

It is the duty of the officer-in-charge of a police station to send the FIR immediately without
any delay to the Magistrate concerned. If there is any delay in sending the FIR to the
Magistrate, FIR will become doubtful. If report is received by a Magistrate lately, it can give
rise to an inference that FIR was not lodged at that time. But, prosecution can offer
satisfactory explanation for the delay in dispatching or receipt of FIR by the concerned

22
(1978) Cr.L.J. 798.
23
AIR 1976 SC 2443.
24
AIR 1979 SC 135.
25
AIR 1979 SC 1042.
Magistrate. The prosecution has to lead evidence in this regard. To avoid all these things, it is
better for the officer in-charge of a police station to send FIR forthwith after registering.”

In Sushil and others v. State of U.P.,26 It was held that “Sec. 157 Cr.P.C. requires :he sending
of report forthwith to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the jffence, but every
delay in sending the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case unless ;ome prejudice is shown to
have been caused to the accused by such delay.

In Badi Guravaiah v. State of A.P.,27 It was held that “Generally the FIRs registered under
sections other than grave crimes like Section 302 IPC will be sent in regular course and the
FIRs registered under sec. 302 IPC will be sent by express messengers. In this case the FIR
was originally registered under Section 324 IPC on 21- 3-1989 and subsequently on receipt of
death intimation on 25-3-1989 the section of law was altered to Section 302 IPC and altered
FIR was sent on 25-3-1989 which reached the Court on the same day. Mere delay in receipt
of the FIR by the Magistrate by itself is not fatal to the prosecution provided it was lodged
with the police without any delay and investigation commenced on that basis, unless it is
proved that the delay has been given room to concoction. However, the delay has to be
considered in the particular facts and circumstances of each case. In this case, immediately
after the incident PW 1 went to the hospital taking her injured daughter on the very same
night at 4-30 a.m. After examining the injured PW-9 sent Ex. P7 intimation to the police of
Gudur Town PS. PW-14 proceeded to the hospital at 5-30 a.m. on the same night and
recorded the statement Ex. P-1 from PW-1. So practically there is no delay in giving the FIR.
Immediately after receipt of Ex. P-1 and P-7, PW-17 registered the case and started
investigation. The very fact that the injured was sent to the hospital immediately and the
statement Ex. P-1 was recorded at 5-30 a.m. itself shows that prompt action was taken in the
matter. In these circumstances, the mere delay in dispatch of the FIR is not a circumstance
which can throw the case of the prosecution in its entirety.

SUGGESTIONS FOR EARLY REGISTRATION OF A CASE

26
(1994) 4 CCR 816.
27
(1994) 2 ALT (Crl.) 125.
A. Protection to the Informants- At present a person feels frightened when he approaches
to the Police; fear of person who has committed crime may be one of the reasons and
second is the non co-operation of the police for Non-registration and delay in
registration of the case (FIR). Every informant should be given protection for the
purpose that he can help the Criminal Justice delivery system fearlessly. Persons who
are related directly or indirectly to the information feel comfortable that when
required they will receive adequate help from the Police related to their protection and
relevant help if required. Safeguard measures should be put in place to monitor these
precautions and their real implementation

B. Condonation of Reasonable delay in Lodging FIR- Delay in many cases brings the
prosecution case out of the court and court has to look into the matter seriously for the
purpose so that justice may be done to the victim person. All reasonable delay in
lodging the FIR must be condoned in the interest of Justice and the accused should
not be allowed to take defences of technicalities and delay in Justice delivery system.

C. Knowledge of Modern Scientific and Technical tools- In India there is high illiteracy
rate. People are not aware of the new methods of scientific investigations. Even in
many cases decided by the Supreme Court it has been discussed that some victims do
not know that prompt registration of the case is necessary and delay will throw out
their case out of the court. Literacy rate in developed countries is high and the citizens
of these countries use the technology in the manner as they are familiar in using the
same. In compare to these countries, in our country citizens of rural area have no
knowledge of using these gadgets in a responsible manner. This is also a hindrance in
the issuing of the multipurpose citizenship cards. Only awareness about this will
increase accountability in a citizen and in knowing their rights and duties. If the
citizens are not aware of the general and basic technology they can not take part in the
criminal justice delivery system. For example if a person does not know how to use
ATM and their proper use, use of password, criminals and dishonest person will take
benefit of the same and withdraw their money. Legal awareness camp regarding the
rights and duties of a responsible citizen will help in disseminating the use of
multipurpose citizenship cards. Steps should be taken in this regard.
D. FIR in Special Cases- In matrimonial cases unless it is proved that cognizable offence
is occurred or not then the case (FIR) is not to be registered. These types of cases are
 of serious nature and must deal accordingly and these types of institutions must be
ended Like, Woman Protection Cell or any Type of Special cells. Establishment of
these institution/ department having quasi-judicial powers are not the solution of any
problem and constitutionally invalid. In many cases some intermediaries like Indian
Medical Association (IMA) sometimes raises objection that before registering a case
against a doctor their recommendation is necessary. This is unfair when there is prima
facie a cognizable case occurs it is to be written promptly and undue delay will result
in to the injustice to the victim. First Information Report as name itself defines
information received by the Police officer first in time is F.I.R. Recommendation by
these intermediaries (IMA & Women cell) even after six months are not to be treated
as F.I.R. (First Information Report).

E. Reckless/ Irresponsible members of the police force- The culprits from the police
force responsible for indulging in unlawful acts/ delay/ non registration of a case
should be given suitable punishment. There is no doubt, that such effective judicial
intervention would sufficiently deter the erring policeman.

CONCLUSION
Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a
creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage
of spontaneity, dangers creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account
or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. But mere delay in lodging the
FIR cannot be a ground by itself for throwing the entire prosecution case over board. The
Court has to seek an explanation for delay and test the truthfulness and plausibility of the
reason assigned. If the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court it cannot be counted
against the prosecution. But if the prosecution fails to come up with a reasonable explanation
for the delay then it may prove fatal and the court may look at the prosecution’s story with
suspicion.