Brief Facts
- On 12.03.1996, the appellant struck the victim, Palas, on the head with a rubber stick during a dispute over wages. Palas succumbed to his injuries two days later and subsequently filed FIR on 15.03.1996. After Trial, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant for committing murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Thereafter the Appellant approached the High Court, wherein High Court modified the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304-Part II of the IPC, reducing the sentence to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellant thereafter filed the present Appeal on the basis that the evidence presented was insufficient, notably due to the non-examination of key witnesses and also there was a delay in filing the FIR.
Issues
- Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is considered as fatal for prosecution case?
- Whether abscondence of the accused and remaining untraceable for long can establish guilt of the accused?
Held
- The appeal was allowed and the Appellant was acquitted.
- It is trite that merely because there is some delay in lodging an FIR, the same by itself and without anything more ought not to weigh in the mind of the courts in all cases as fatal for the prosecution. A realistic and pragmatic approach has to be adopted, keeping in mind the peculiarities of each particular case, to assess whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is an afterthought to give a coloured version of the incident, which is sufficient to corrode the credibility of the prosecution version. In cases where delay occurs, it has to be tested on the anvil of other attending circumstances. If on an overall consideration of all relevant circumstances it appears to the court that the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained, mere delay cannot be sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case; however, if the delay is not satisfactorily explained and it appears to the court that cause for the delay had been necessitated to frame anyone as an accused, there is no reason as to why the delay should not be considered as fatal forming part of several factors to vitiate the conviction.
- Abscondence by a person against whom an FIR has been lodged and who is under expectation of being apprehended is not very unnatural. Mere absconding by the appellant after alleged commission of crime and remaining untraceable for such a long time itself cannot establish his guilt or his guilty conscience. Abscondence, in certain cases, could constitute a relevant piece of evidence, but its evidentiary value depends upon the surrounding circumstances. This sole circumstance, therefore, does not ensure to the benefit of the prosecution.
Relevant Para No.
- 11, 23, 25