FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND DELAY

IN

REGISTRATION OF A CASE: A STUDY OF JUDICIAL TRENDS

Paper on ssrn

Dr. Raj Kumar Yadav

Assistant Professor,
Coordinator, Legal Aid Clinic
Smt. Shanti Devi Law College, Saharanwas,
Rewari, Haryana
(Affiliated with Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak & Approved by Bar Council of India)
E-mail: researchfir@gmail.com

Ph.-+91-9541351631(M)

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2015351

 FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND DELAY IN REGISTRATION OF A

CASE: A STUDY OF JUDICIAL TRENDS

•
Dr. Raj Kumar
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.

In Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao & Ors. V. State Rep. By Public Prosecutor 1

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.

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 report can hardly be over estimated from the stand point of accused.

In State of Rajasthan V. Om Prakash2 the honorable Supreme Court decided that


Assistant Professor, Ph.D.(Law), Smt. Shanti Devi Law College, Saharanwas, Rewari, Haryana, India, E-
mail: researchfir@gmail.com
1
2008(2) CRIMES 188 (SC) at page 189.
2
AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 2235 para 9.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2015351

there was delay of nearly 26 hours in lodging the FIR. The offence is alleged to have

taken place at about 9 a.m. The FIR was registered at about 11.30 a.m. on the next day.

It was contended by Mr. Bachawat, Learned Counsel for the respondent that this delay

had assumed importance and was fatal particularly when the brother of the prosecutrix,

namely, Mam Raj (PW-6) was admittedly at the house. The delay, according to the

counsel, has resulted in embellishments.

In Munna @ Pooran Yadav V. State of Madhya Pradesh3 the Apex Court held that

The prosecution story is based on the First Information Report (Ex. P-11) lodged by

Gariba (P.W. 4), the father of the deceased Chhota on 01.02.1997 to the effect that in

the morning, three accused persons came to his house when his son Chhota was

sleeping. The appellant then entered the house and took away Chhota to a nearby place

Chamrola (the platform used by the villagers for chit-chatting etc.). It was further

alleged that while the two acquitted accused caught hold of Chhota by his hands, the

appellant Munna fired at Chhota due to which he fell down and died on the spot. On

that basis the investigation started and after the completion of the investigation, all the

accused were tried before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chattarpur. On their

conviction, all the accused filed appeals before the High Court which resulted in the

conviction of the appellant being confirmed.

Shri S.K. Gambir, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant firstly

contended that the High Court was not justified in relying upon the evidence of sole eye

witness Gariba (P.W. 4) on account of his interest and secondly as his evidence was

disbelieved insofar as it related to the original accused No. 2 Barra and accused NO. 3-

Brijlal. He further pointed out that the First Information Report in this case was

obviously incorrect as the timings of the First Information Report could not match with

3
AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1344.

3
the oral testimony of Gariba (P.W. 4) in that, he submitted that had the incident taken

place at about 7 O’clock in the morning and the police station at Jujharnagar being six

kilometers away, the First Information Report could not have been lodged at 8.05

O’clock as in fact much time was spent in contacting the other person who, admittedly,

attended the Police station along with P.W. 4- Gariba. The learned senior counsel,

therefore, says that the whole prosecution story itself becomes suspect. As against this,

Shri Siddhartha Dave, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State supported the

conviction and pointed out that there was no reason for Gariba (P.W. 4) to falsely

implicate the accused. He pointed out that it was quite possible for Gariba to reach the

police station at about 8 O’clock in the morning and to lodge the First Information

Report. He also pointed out that the medical evidence as well as the post mortem report

itself showed that the death had taken place at the time as indicated in post mortem

report and thus supports the evidence of the doctor. Lastly, the learned counsel pointed

out that the other witnesses were rightly believed by the Sessions Court as well as the

High Court as corroborative evidence of Gariba (P.W. 4). The first and the foremost

thing is that the homicidal death of Chhota by firing is not disputed. There is practically

no challenge to the evidence of the Dr. S.S. Chaurasia (P.W. 2) who asserted that the

deceased had died due to the bullet wound which was slightly below the back side of

the neck and the bullet turned towards the right rupturing internal organs and breaking

bones of right side ribs stopped below the skin. In para 9 of his examination in chief, he

opined that the death of the deceased was caused due to shock suffered due to firearm

injury to him. There is hardly any cross examination of the witness except a feeble

suggestion that the injury could not be sustained if the bullet is fired from the sides. One

other suggestion was regarding the timing of injury in which the doctor affirmed that

there could be difference of 2-3 hours in the period of injury. The learned counsel for

4
defence argued that in the post mortem report, it was indicated that the timing of injury

and death could be about 24 hours to 36 hours earlier from the time of post mortem.

The post mortem was conducted on 02.02.1997, i.e. the next day at 9.00 a.m. From this,

the learned counsel argued that if 36 hours have to be counted backwards from 9.00

a.m. on 2.2.1997, then the death of Chhota could not have occurred in the morning but

it must be somewhere at night between 01.02.1997 and 02.02.1997. It was on this basis

that the learned counsel tried to develop his theory of false implication as also the

wrong timing of filing of F.I.R.

Much was tried to be suggested about the time of F.I.R. We have seen the original

Hindi First Information Report as also the original Hindi evidence of the witness. The

witness has specifically stated that the time was the day-break time, sun was about to

rise (Din Nikalne me thaa). Considering that the witness was not a literate witness and

did not know how to read the watch, the mention of 7 O’clock as the time of incident in

the First information Report appears to be the handiwork of the person who recorded

the First Information Report. Much importance cannot be given to such insignificant

factors. Much was tried to be suggested from the evidence of Gariba (P.W. 4) that

immediately after the incident, he went to the neighbours, like Ambika Prasad (P.W.1)

and Sunderlal Vishwakarma (P.W.3) and substantial time was spent and, therefore, he

could not have reached along with all those person to Jujharnagar police station at about

8 O’clock which was six kilometers away. In our considered opinion, such criticism has

no merits. Nothing has come in the evidence as to how these persons reached the police

station. There is no cross examination to any of these witnesses regarding the time

taken from the village to the police station. If that is so, it would not be possible to

reject the First Information Report on that flimsy ground alone. Again the distance

between the village and the police station which is given in First Information Report is

5
six kilometers approximately. That in our opinion is not such a distance which would

not be covered within an hour or so. Giving overall consideration to this aspect, we are

of the opinion that the First Information Report was a genuine document and was

correctly recorded at the time when it was given and there is nothing unusual in the

timings of First Information Report. We, therefore, reject the argument of the defence

on that ground.

In State Of U.P. V. Manoj Kumar Pandey4 the honorable Supreme Court

decided that the approach of the trial court and the High Court is clearly unsustainable.

Merely because the victim was more than 16 years of age as held by the trial court that

cannot be a ground to hold that she was consenting party. No evidence was led to show

such consent. Apart from that normal rule regarding the duty of the prosecution to

explain the delay in lodging FIR and the lack of prejudice and/or prejudice caused

because of such delayed lodging of FIR does not perse apply to cases of rape. This has

been the consistent view of this court. The High Court was, therefore, clearly wrong in

disposing of the appeal in such cryptic manner. In the circumstances of the case, we set

aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh hearing so that it

can consider the matter and hear in detail and dispose of the same by a reasoned

judgement. Whatever has been expressed by us supra is only for the purpose of coming

to the conclusion that the manner of disposal of the appeal is not proper. Delay as

regards timing of lodging of First Information Report is fatal to prosecution case.5

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.

4
AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 711 para 3.
5
Om Prakash v. State of U.P., 2009(1) Crimes 183(SC).
6
2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 717(SC).

6
 In Ramdas & Ors V. State of Maharashtra7 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

no 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

7
AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 155 para 23.

7
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 cases only after considerable persuasion

the prosecutrix 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 prosecutrix to disclose the true facts may provide a good explanation

for the delay in 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 Thus mere delay in lodging of the report may

not by itself be fatal to the case of the prosecution, but he delay has to be considered in

the background of the facts and circumstances in each case and is a matter of

appreciation of evidence by the court of fact.

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

8
Pandurang and others v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 216.
9
AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2298 para 11.

8
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 truth fullness 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 Haryana10 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 prosecutrix found the

evidence of PW-5 to be absolutely reliable. The 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 State of Himachal Pradesh V. Gian Chand11 the honorable Supreme Court

decided that Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for

doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in

lodging the first information report. Delay has the effect of putting the court in its guard

to search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is

satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is

possibility of embellishment in prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay

would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction

or the court, the delay cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the

entire prosecution case. In the instant rape case P.W. 1 the mother of the prosecutrix is a
10
AIR 2009 SURPEME COURT 2190 para 20.
11
AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 2075.

9
widow. The accused is a close relation of brother of late husband of P.W. 1 P.W. 1

obviously needed her family members consisting of her-in-laws to accompany her or at

least help her in lodging the First Information Report at the police station. The incident

having occurred in a village, the approach of the in-laws of P.W. 1 displayed rusticity in

first calling upon the father of the accused and complaining to him of what his son had

done. It remained an unpleasant family affair on the next day of the incident which was

tried to be settled, if it could be within the walls of family. That failed. It is thereafter

only that the complainant, the widow woman, left all by her and having no male family

member willing to accompany her, proceeded alone to police station. She was lent

moral support by the village Panch, whereupon the report of the incident was lodged.

The sequence of events soon following the crime and as described by the prosecution

witnesses sounds quite natural and provides a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Thus the delay in making the FIR can be said to be satisfactorily explained and,

therefore, would not cause any dent in the prosecution case.12

In Ponnusamy V. State of Tamil Nandu13 the Apex Court held that The contention of

the learned counsel that the statement to the said effect, purported to have been made,

by PW-1 should not be relied upon as no officer from the police station had been

examined to establish the said fact, cannot be accepted for more than one reason. PW1

is a rustic villager. She is an illiterate lady. According to her, she had been turned away

from the police station on the premise that no dead body was recovered or there being

no other evidence relating to her death. No exception to such a statement can be taken.

The courts cannot be oblivious of such conduct on the part of the police officers.

Apathy on the part of the police officers to accept complaints promptly is well known

phenomena.

12
1996 (2) Crimes 213 (Him Pra).
13
AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2110.

10
 They were searching for the deceased earlier but without success. Only

on the disclosure statement made by the appellant before PW-10 and the police officer

at Sathyamangalam police station having refused to record the First Information

Report, they started searching for the body on the bank of the canal. The Investigating

Officer, Village Administrative Officer as also other prosecution witnesses, clearly

proved the discovery of a dead-body. Identification of the dead-body on the basis of the

manglastura, saree as also the silver ring on the toe of the deceased is not in dispute.

Significantly, a key was also recovered. PW-22, a responsible officer, with a view to

satisfy himself as regards the identity of the dead-body, with reference to the key tied at

the end of the saree, asked PW-2 to bring the trunk and found it to be of the lock put on

the said trunk.

In Dilawar Singh V. State of Delhi14 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.

In Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu15, it was held that the delay in

lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment as a result of

afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of

spontaneity, but also danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version,

14
AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 3234; 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 115 (SC).
15
(AIR) 1973 SC 501.

11
exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. In

Ram Jag and Others v. The State of U.P.16 the position was explained that whether the

delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case

must depend upon a variety of factors which would vary from case to case. Even a long

delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive for implicating the accused

and /or when plausible explanation is offered for the same. On the other hand, prompt

filling of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness or authenticity

of the version of the prosecution.

The complainant has attempted to explain the delay by stating that the matter was

reported to the police but the police did not take any action. Such statement can hardly

be taken to have explained the delay. It is the simplest of things to contend that the

police, though report had been lodged with it, had not taken any steps. But it has to be

established by calling for the necessary records from the police to substantiate that in

fact a report with the police had been lodged and that the police failed to take up the

case. The principle has been statutorily recognized in section 210 of the Cr.P.C. which

enjoins upon the Magistrate, when it is made to appear before him either during the

inquiry or the trial of a complaint, that a complaint before the police is pending

investigation in the same matter, he is to stop the proceeding in the complaint case and

is to call for a report from the police. After the report is received from the police, he is

to take up the matter together and if cognizance has been taken on the police report, he

is to try the complaint case along with the G.R. case as if both the cases are instituted

upon police report. The aim of the provision is to safeguard the interest of the accused

from unnecessary harassment. The provisions of section 210, Cr.P.C. are mandatory in

nature. It may be true that non-compliance of the provisions of Section 210, Cr.P.C., is

16
AIR 1974 SC 606.

12
not ipso facto fatal to the prosecution because of the provision of Section 465, Cr.P.C.

unless error, omission or irregularity has also caused the failure of justice and in

determining the fact whether there is a failure of justice the Court shall have regard to

the fact whether the objection could not should have been raised at an earlier stage in

the proceedings. But even applying the very same principles it is seen that in fact the

appellant was in fact prejudiced because of the non-production of the records from the

police. Delay in filing the complaint because of police inaction has to be explained by

calling for the records from the police was explained by this Court in Khedu Mohton

and Others v/s. State of Bihar (AIR 1971 SC 66). Where the Court took exception to

the fact that the complaint lodged with the police had not been summoned or proved, no

satisfactory proof of any such complaint had been adduced before the Court, and none

of the documents as would have become available under sec. 173 Cr.P.C. had also been

brought on record.

In the incidents like rape, mores when the perpetrator of the crime happens to be

a member of the family or related therewith, involve the honour of the family and

therefore, there is reluctance on the part of the family of the victim to report the matter

of the police and carry the same to the Court. A cool thought may precede lodging of

the FIR.17

In Ramdas & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra18 the Apex Court held that on the

question of delay in lodging the first information report, the evidence is equally

unconvincing. The occurrence took place in the night intervening 9th and 10th January,

1996. The first information report Ex. 22 was recorded on the 18th of January 1996.

There is apparently a delay of about 8 days in lodging the first information report. In

17
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, 1996 AIR SCW 998 and Harpal Singh v. State of H.P., AIR
1981 SC 361, Foll.
18
AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 155 at p.161.

13
the first information report a somewhat difference version has been given with a view

to explain the delay. It was stated that when on the 11th of January, 1996 the police did

not register a case, and the father-in-law of the prosecutrix came to know about the fact,

he accompanied the prosecutrix and went to the police station and lodged a report.

However, since she was not sent for medical examination and the police did not take

any action to arrest the accused, she went to her father, who was working in the

Jagdamba Sugar Factory on 17th January, 1996. On the next day i.e. on 18th January,

1996 they came to Beed and lodged the complaint with the Superintendent of Police

and thereafter, on the information given by her, a case was registered against the

appellants. This story has been given a go bye by the proxecutrix in the course of her

deposition. Her evidence before the court was to the effect that she went to her sister

Sindhubai in the morning and reported the matter to her. This happened on 11th January,

1996. She along with Sindhubai, PW3, went to police station Kaij but the police did not

register a case on the basis of the information given by her. On the next day she went to

her father, who was then at the Jagdamba Sugar Factory in Ahmadnagar District. She

narrated the entire incident to him on that day. On the next day they went to Beed and

complained to the Superintendent of Police whereafter they were directed to go to the

police station and lodge the report which they did on 18th January, 1996. If her evidence

is carefully analysed the following facts would emerge. The first attempt to lodge the

report was made on the 11th January, 1996. Thereafter the prosecutrix went to her

father-in-law on the 12th of January, 1996. On the next day i.e. on 13 th January, 1996

they went to the Superintendent of Police at Beed and made a complaint. Thereafter

they came to police station Kaij on the same day and lodged the report. If we accept the

statement of PW-2, the report should have been lodged on 13th or 14th January, 1996.

There is no explanation as to how it was lodged 4 days later.

14
It would thus appear that there is no reasonable explanation forthcoming from the

prosecution explaining the delay in lodging the report with the police, which was in fact

lodged 8 days later. Though in her first information report, the prosecutrix mentioned

about her earlier report being recorded, she did not say so in her deposition, but that fact

has come in the deposition of PW-6 PSI Laxman Borade.

In the instant case there are two eye-witnesses who have been examined to prove the

case of the prosecution. We have rejected outright the evidence of PW-5. We have also

critically scrutinized the evidence of the prosecutrix, PW-2. She does not appear to us

to be a witness of sterling quality on whose sole testimony a conviction can be

sustained. She has tried to conceal facts from the court which were relevant by not

deposing about the earlier first information report lodged by her, which is proved to

have been recorded at the police station. She has deviated from the case narrated in the

first information report solely with a view to avoid the burden of explaining for the

earlier report made by her relating to a non-cognizable offence. Her evidence on the

question of delay in lodging the report is unsatisfactory and if her deposition is taken as

it is, the inordinate delay in lodging the report remains unexplained. Considered in the

light of an earlier report made by her in relation to a non-cognizable offence, the second

report lodged by her after a few days raises suspicion as its truthfulness.

Delay in filing FIR is not fatal to the prosecution if it is properly explained.

Delay of 3 hours was due to distance of 3 miles between place of occurrence and

Police Station.19 It is no 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

19
Nathoo v. State, (2000) Cri LJ 3850, 3852 para 13 (All)(DB).

15
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 the absence of direct explanation there

may be circumstances appearing on record which provide reasonable explanation for

the delay. The time of occurrence, the distance of the police station, mode of

conveyance available, are all factors which have a bearing on the question of delay in

lodging the report.20 Supreme Court decided that in case of Murder and Robbery, Delay

in lodging FIR not fatal to prosecution. It is not the case of accused that after

occurrence of the incident some deliberations took place in order to falsely implicate

the appellant in the case.21

The inordinate delay in registration of the F.I.R. casts a casts a cloud of

suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of prosecution case.22

M. Chockalingam and S. Palanivelu, JJ. in Velraj V. State Rep. by the

Inspector of Police23 the held that

1. Once the police had taken up investigation of case after its registration, extra-

judicial confession made to a witness thereafter would not be admissible.

2. Unexplained delay in FIR reaching the court would create doubt in prosecution

case.

20
Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra. (2007) 2 SCC 170.
21
Subhash v. State of Haryana, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 81 (SC).
22
Ganesh Bhawan Patel v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 115; 1979 Cri. L.J 51: 1979
S.C.C. (Cri.) 1.
23
2008(4) CRIMES 759 (MAD) at page 761.

16
 Delay of two,24 three,25 four,26 eight,27 ten days,28 thirteen days29 is fatal or not to

the prosecution depends on case to case that delay has been properly explained or not.

In Shankaraya Naik & Ors. V. State of Karnataka30 the honorable Supreme

Court decided that We are also of the opinion that there is absolutely no delay in the

lodging of the FIR in the facts of the case. The incident had happened at 6.30 p.m. on

25th August, 1995, the injured had reached the hospital by 8 p.m. and the FIR had been

lodged at the police station by an injured eye witness eight hours later. Taking into

account normal human conduct and the fact that many persons had sustained injuries,

one of whom had subsequently died, a delay of eight hours can, by no stretch of

imagination, be dubbed as inordinate. Thus the delay in this case was reasonable.

Factum of unexplained delay in lodging F.I.R. becomes material when the

informant is an educated person and conversant with legal matters.31

In a murder case an FIR can not be lodged in a murder case after the inquest has

been held.32 When information of the offence has been lodged after considerable

unexplained delay then such delay introduces serious infirmity in the prosecution case

against the accused.33 The time factor is vital in lodging a meticulously documented FIR

24
Shankar Lal v. State of M.P, 1982 Cri. L.J. 254.
25
Satbir v. State of U.P., 1982 Cri. L.J. 1743(2): A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1216.
26
Wala v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 Cri. L.R. (Raj). 26.
27
Shankaraya Naik & Ors. V. State of Karnataka AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 818 para 7.;
Phinder Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 R.L.W. 687.
28
Nand Kisore v. State of Haryana, 2000(3) RCR (Criminal) 170 (P&H); Sushil Kumar Pati@
China v. The State, 1993(2) Crimes 800(Cal.); Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) RCR(Criminal)
343(P&H).
29
Sadhu Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(2) RCR (Criminal) 61 (P&H).
30
AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 818 para 7.
31
State of Bihar v. Ram Bachan Singh. 1982 Cr. L.C. 18 (Pat.).
32
Ramesh Baburao Devaskar v. State of Maharashtra, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 671(SC).
33
Puran v. State of U.P., 1983 All Cri. LR. 390: 1953(1) Crimes 973 (S.C.): A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 454;
State of Rajasthan v. Pooran, 1986 Raj. LW 434.

17
and any inordinate delay may prove detrimental both for effective investigation and

prosecution.34

In Anoop Singh v. State of Haryana35 honorable court decided that in dowry

death delay of 12 hours in lodging is not fatal. Where the families are involved, it may

not be unusual for relations and other members of the society to delay the matter by a

few hours or so.

Delay in lodging not ipso facto fatal to prosecution. It is fatal when prosecution

introduces a false witness, who has not witnessed occurrence and involves innocent

person as an accused.36In case relating to alleged natural offence the F.I.R. was lodged

after 20 days, and the victims evidence was also found to be suffering from

inconsistencies, the acquittal was up-held.37

In Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana38 the honorable court decided that Delay

of 6 days in lodging FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case. In this case injuries were

inflicted on the deceased and death occurred after six days, deceased remained in

hospital for treatment, matter was not reported to Police by doctors.

In Dilawar Singh V. State of Delhi39 the honorable Supreme Court decided that

Mere statement that, the matter was reported to the police but the police did not take

any action. Such statement can hardly be taken to have explained the delay in making

complaint. It is the simplest of things to contend that the police, though report had been

lodged with it, had not taken any steps. It has to be established by calling for the

necessary records from the police to substantiate that in fact a report with the police had

34
Bias or Hate Crimes- Need to Reform the Police System by Alvine Ethan Lyngwa & Sedenla
Bhutia, west Bengal Nation University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata indlaw.com
35
2006(2) RCR(Criminal) 824(P&H)(DB).
36
2005 Cri L.J. 5124 (P&H)(DB)(A).
37
State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra Mishra, (2000) Cri LJ 4717(All)(DB).
38
2006(2) RCR(Criminal) 744(P&H).
39
AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 3234.

18
been lodged and that the police failed to take up the case. The principle has been

statutorily recognized in Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. which enjoins upon the Magistrate,

when it is made to appear before him either during the inquiry or the trial of a

complaint, that a complaint before the police is pending investigation in the same

matter, he is to stop the proceeding in the complaint case and is to call for a report from

the police.

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 the either coming before the police or before the Court,

the court always views 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.

Where the filing of FIR is understandable by circumstances of the case and

there is no reason to suspect its correctness the conviction will stand.40 Where the

informant has not been examined on the reasons for the FIR being lodged late, the

explanation stands proved.41

In Murari Thakur & Anr. V. State of Bihar42 the honorable Supreme Court decided

that delay because father of victim was informed only after he came back at night.

Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that there was delay in filling the FIR.

We are of the opinion that there is no such delay which can be said to be fatal to the

40
Lalai v. State. (1975) 3 S.C.C. 373.
41
Babu Krishna Kamble v. State of M.P., A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1269: 1980 Cri. L.J. 628.
42
AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1129 para 6.

19
prosecution case. The occurrence took place on 26.8.1998 at 4 p.m. The first informant

the father of the deceased, Bhuneshwar 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

Bhuneshwar 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 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 Chandrappa & Ors. V. State of Karanataka43 the Apex Court held that It is true

that prima facie there appears to be some delay in the lodging of the FIR at 10.45 p.m.

in the light of the fact that incident had happened at 4.30 p.m. on 1st August 1993.

However, as three of the accused have put up a counter version, the effect of the delay

in the FIR is somewhat reduced. We are also of the opinion that the delay in the lodging

of the FIR has been substantially explained as the incident had happened in a remote

village some distance from the Police Station and as PW3 had also sustained a serious

injury, the first anxiety of the family would have been to look after him the more so as

all the brothers of the deceased and PW3 were themselves the assailants and there was

nobody else in the family to have taken the injured PW3 to the hospital. It is also

significant that the FIR could not have been recorded earlier as the entire family was

involved either on one side or the other and it had ultimately been left to a hapless

widow, completely isolated from the rest of the family, to lodge the FIR. It is in this

43
AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2323.

20
background we find that a delay of a couple of hours cannot be said to be

unreasonable.

In State of Punjab V. Mohinder Singh & Ors.44 The Apex Court held that as

submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, three factors weighed with the High

Court for acquitting the respondents. Firstly, the alleged non-explanation of delay in

presentation of the FIR. The High Court has wrongly recorded that there was no

explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. There was no requirement for offering any

such explanation. Even otherwise, in the FIR it has been categorically stated that

nobody came forward to accompany the complaint to the police station in the dark

night. Therefore, she had to wait till the morning to come to the police station. In the

cross-examination to this witness, no question regarding the reason for the alleged delay

in lodging the FIR was asked, though the witness was cross-examined at length. There

was not even a suggestion that she had wrongly stated about the reason as to why she

was lodging the FIR on the next morning. The conclusion of the High Court is,

therefore, clearly unsustainable.

Every delay in making of FIR cannot theoretically be considered to

be fatal without reference to relevant facts and circumstances.45

Prompt FIR

In Manilal Hiraman Chaudhri V. State of Maharashtra46the honorable

Supreme Court decided that failure to examine motorcyclist who had taken informant to

police station on his motorcycle would not lead to conclusion that no FIR was lodged

by informant. We, therefore, do not see any infirmity in the deposition of PWs 4 and 5.

44
AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 92
45
Abdul Razzaq v. State, 2000(2) Crimes 278 (All.) D.B.
46
AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 161, para 12.

21
We may also notice that according to Mr. Naphade, the motorcyclist who had been the

PW-4 to be police station had not been examined. The said person has again nothing to

do in the matter. He was not a witness to the occurrence. The fact that the First

Information Report was lodged promptly and the deceased was removed to the

hospital for treatment in a tractor is not the subject-matter of any controversy. How

PW-4 reached the police station may be relevant for judging this conduct. Failure to

examine the owner of the motorcycle itself, in our opinion, would not lead to the

conclusion that no first Information Report was lodged by PW-4.

In Murari Thakur & Anr. V. State of Bihar47 the honorable Supreme Court

decided that learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that there was delay in

filing the FIR. We are of the 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, Bhuneshwar Mishra (PW8), was at Sitamarhi

and returned home on 8 p.m. when he came to know from his brother Dhaneshwar

Mishra that his minor son Bal Krishna Mishra aged about 14 years had been murdered.

After Bhuneshwar Mishra learnt about this from his brother Dhaneshwar Mishra

(PW4), the 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 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 Silak Ram & Anr. V. State of Haryana48 the Apex Court held that Coming

to the stand that there was delay in lodging the FIR and in dispatch of the report to the

Illaqua Magistrate, this also has been elaborately dealt with by the High Court. Delay in
47
AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1129 para 6.
48
AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 2379 para 9.

22
lodging FIR by itself would not be sufficient to discard the prosecution version unless it

is unexplained and such delay coupled with the likelihood of concoction of evidence.

There is no hard and fast rule that delay in filing FIR in each and every case is fatal

and on account of such delay prosecution version should be discarded. The factum of

delay requires the court to scrutinize the evidence adduced with greater degree of care

and caution. In this case the eye witnesses have given a vivid description of the events.

The evidence of PW11 as noted above is cogent and consistent and the version given by

this witness fits with medical evidence. It has come on record in the evidence of the

Investigating Officer (in short ‘IO’) that the distance between Bawani Khera and

Bhiwani is about 20 k.m. and from Dhanana to Bhiwani is about 18 K.m. and from

Dhanana to Mundhal is about 12 k.m. Investigating Officer has categorically stated that

there was flood in the areas. In the FIR it was specifically stated that the occurrence

took place around mid night of 24/25.8.1995. The statement was recorded at Mundhal

Khurd Chowk on 25.9.1995 at 9.40 A.M. and the same was dispatched to the police

station of Bhiwani Khera. The formal FIR indicates that it was recorded at 11 AM and

had reached the magistrate at 7 p.m. It has been stated that the late delivery was ‘due to

flood’ in the area and this has been specifically noted by the Judicial Magistrate who

was reported as follows:

“Received from constable Devender Kumar at 7 p.m. on 25.9.1995. Stated that due to

the flood, he reached late.” In Silak Ram & Anr. V. State of Haryana49 the Apex

Court held that Coming to the stand that there was delay in lodging the FIR and in

dispatch of the report to the Illaqua Magistrate, this also has been elaborately dealt with

by the High Court. Delay in lodging FIR by itself would not be sufficient to discard the

prosecution version unless it is unexplained and such delay coupled with the likelihood

49
AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 2739.

23
of concoction of evidence. There is no hard and fast rule that delay in filing FIR in

each and every case is fatal and on account of such delay prosecution version should

be discarded. The factum of delay requires the court to scrutinize the evidence adduced

with greater degree of care and caution. In this case the eye witnesses have given a

vivid description of the events. The evidence of PW11 as noted above is cogent and

consistent and the version given by this witness fits with medical evidence. It has come

on record in the evidence of the Investigation Officer (in short ‘IO’) that he distance

between Bawani Khera and Bhiwani is about 20 k.m. and from Dhanana to Bhiwani is

about 18 k.m. and from Dhanana to Mundhal is about 12 k.m. Investigating Officer has

categorically stated that there was flood in the areas. In the FIR it was specifically

stated that the occurrence took place around mid night of 24/25.8.1995. The statement

was recorded at Mundhal Khurd Chowk on 25.9.1995 at 9.40 A.M. And the same was

dispatched to the police station of Bawani Khera. The formal FIR indicates that it was

recorded at 11 AM and had reached the magistrate at 7 p.m. It has been stated that he

late delivery was due to flood in the area and this has been specifically noted by the

Judicial Magistrate who has reported as follows”

“Received from constable Devender Kumar at 7 p.m. on 25.9.1995.

Stated that due to the flood, he reached late.”

Prompt filing of FIR is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness of the

version of the prosecution.

Some reasonable explanations of delay

In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh50 honorable Supreme Court

decided that so far delay in lodging the FIR question is concerned, the delay in a case
50
2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 714 para 6.

24
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 traditional 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 that score, learned counsel for the appellant is right that the High Court has lost sight

of this vital distinction. Additionally, we find that the prosecution has clearly

established commission of offence punishable under Sections 354 and 506 IPC. So far

as the offence punishable under Section 375 IPC. On a reading of the evidence of the

prosecutrix, we find that a case of rape has not been established so far as the respondent

is concerned. It would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on

the ground that there is some delay in lodging in FIR.

It is the duty of the prosecution to explain the delay in lodging of FIR or

sending it to the court or registering the same. Physical condition of the informant,

Geographical condition of the place, Seasonal conditions, Psychological condition of

the informant and circumstantial conditions may be one of the reasons for delay. On the

basis of various decisions of Supreme Court and High Court, the following are some of

the circumstances which are to be considered as reasonable explanations of delay in

FIR.

1. Fear of accused persons. 51- Psychological cause of delay.

2. Fear of damage of family honor in rape cases.52 - Psychological cause of delay.

51
Haji Lal Deen v. State, 1977 Cri. L.J. 538; Karam Singh v. Charan Singh. 1984 Cri. L.T. 37.
52
Harpal Singh v. State of H.P., 1981 Cri. L.J. 1: A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 361: 1981 S.C.C.(Cri.) 208;
Anwar Hussain v. State of Rajasthan , 1987(1) Crimes 103(para-6); State of Rajasthan v. Dhania, 1986 Cri.
L.J. 956.

25
 3. Delay due to shock of murder. 53- Psychological cause of delay.

4. Delay in FIR due to infliction of grievous injuries, to the injured person.54 -

Physical cause of delay.

5. Options of motive to falsely implicate the accused.55

6. When Husband himself burns his wife.56

7. When facts mentioned in the FIR cannot be changed by mere delay.57-

Circumstantial cause of delay.

8. Long distance of police from the place of occurrence. 58- Geographical cause of

delay.

9. Because of night and the Police station is situated at very far distance. 59

-Seasonal cause of delay.

10. Rough Road.60 -Geographical cause of delay.

11. Bad weather.61 - Seasonal cause of delay.

12. Non-availability of transport.62 -Geographical cause of delay.

53
State of Punjab v. Jagbir Singh, 1973 S.C.C. (Cri.) 886; Sone Lal v. State of U.P., 1978 Cri. L.J.
1122 : A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1142.
54
Bankey Lal v. State of U.P., 1971 Cri. L.J. 1540 (para 13): 1971 S.C.C. (Cri.) 253: A.I.R. 1971
S.C. 2233.
55
Ram Jag v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 606: 1974 S.C.C. (Cri.) 370; Saktu v. State of M.P.,
A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 760 : 1973 S.C.C. (Cri.) 307.
56
Bharat v. State, 1983 All. Dand Nirnaya, 323(324).
57
Neelam Kumar Sood v. State, 1983(2). Crimes 493; Ratna Ram v. State of Haryana, 1982 Cri.
LJ. N.O.C. 8; Jai Prakash v. State, 1982 Cri. LT. 190:1981 Cri. L.J. 1340.
58
Nabbi v. State of Rajasthan, 1982 Cri. L.R. (Raj.) 135.
59
Lalai v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 2118: 1978 Cri. L.J. 1393: Duli Chand v. State of
Rajasthan, 1986 Cri. LR. (Raj.) 615.
60
Lalai v. State of U.P., (Supra); State of U.P. v. Sughar Singh. A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 191 : 1978 Cri.
LJ. 141: 1978 S.C.C. (Cri.) 83.
61
Babu Krishna Kamble v. State of M.P., A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1269 : 1980 Cri. LJ. 928 (S.C.); State
of U.P. v. Sughar Singh, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 191 : 1978 Cri. L.J. 141 : 1978 S.C.C. (Cri.) 83.
62
Babu Krishna Kamble v. State of M.P., (Supra).

26
 13. When facts of occurrence are admitted by both the parties.63- Circumstantial

cause of delay.

14. When the informants did not know the FIR was necessary to lodge.64

15. Rainy Season.65- Seasonal cause of delay.

16. When amicable settlement was started.- Circumstantial cause of delay.

17. Delay in recording the FIR was caused by the absence of Sub-Inspector from

the police station and the constable present was illiterate.66 -Circumstantial

cause of delay.

18. Delay must be explained by examining the constable who has dispatched such

report to the Magistrate. - Circumstantial cause of delay.

Suggestions for early registration of a case

(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.

63
State of Rajasthan v. Gur Bachan Singh, 1982 Raj. Cri. C. 338 (D.B.).
64
Manager Yadav v. State, 1984 (2) Crimes 747; 1984 All. L.J. 1146.
65
Fekan Bind v. State of Bihar, 1988(1) Crimes 740.
66
Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 Cri. L.J. 1405.

27
 (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

28
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)

some times 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.

29