SILAK RAM AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 849 · Decided: 06-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SILAK RAM AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARY ANA 
AUGUST 6, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K.JAIN, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 154-FJR-Delay in 
lodging FIR-Effect on prosecution case-Held: Delay in lodging FIR by 
itself would not be fatal to prosecution case unless it is unexplained and such C 
delay is coupled with the likelihood of concoction of evidence-On facts, 
delay in lodging FIR and in dispatching of the copy of report to Jllaqua 
Magistrate fully explained, thus, delay not fatal to prosecution case-Also 
evidence of eye witnesses cogent and credible-Hence, conviction of accused 
under sections 302 rlw 34 for causing homicidal death of one, justified-
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 read with 34. 
D 
According to the prosecution case, accused N had quarreled with J over 
a small issue. 15-20 days later there was exchange-Of hot words between the 
accused and J. Thereafter, during midnight, accused S, N and B armed with 
weapons inflicted injuries to J. On hearing his cries, J's mother, his uncle 
and uncle's son came to the spot and witnessed the incident. Thereafter, E 
accused ran away from the spot and J died. There were floods in the village 
and the surrounding areas. The distance between the place of occurrence and 
the police station was 21 Kms. The statement of J's mother was re~orded on 
the next day at 9.40 A.Mand the FIR was lodged at 11 A.M Illaqua Magistrate 
received the copy at 7 PM Thereafter, accused were arrested. Recoveries were F 
made pursuant to their disclosure statement. Prosecution examined 14 
witnesses including 3 eye witnesses. Trial Court relied on the evidence of 
eye witnesses and convicted the accused under section 302 read with section 
34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. High Court upheld the 
conviction and sentence of accused S and N. However, sentence of accused B 
was reduced to imprisonment for ten years. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Appellant-accused contended tha. the evidence of PWs. 10, 11 and 14 
cannot be accepted; that PW 10 failed to identify the accused persons; and 
that there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and in the dispatch of the 
849 
850 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 8 S.C.R. 
A copy of the report to the illaqua magistrate. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Delay in lodging FIR by itself would not be sufficient to 
discard the prosecution version unless it is unexplained and such delay 
B 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 in prosecution version should be. discarded. The factum of delay 
requires the court to scrutinize the evidence adduced with greater degree of 
care and caution. (Para 9) (853-G-HJ 
C 
2.1. The eye witnesses PWs. IO, 11 and 14 gave a vivid description of 
D 
the events. The evidence of PW 11 was cogent and consistent and the same 
fitted with medical evidence. Therefore, the trial court and the High Court 
were justified in placing reliance on the evidence of eye witnesses more, 
particularly, PW 11. (Paras 8 and 9) [853-E; F, H; 854-A) 
2.2. It has come on record in the evidence of the Investigating Officer, 
the distance between the areas. Investigating Officer categorically stated that 
there was flood in the areas. In the FIR it was specifically stated that the 
occurrence took place around mid night of24/25.8.1995. The.statement was 
recorded at the Chowk on 25.9.1995 at 9.40 A.M. and was dispatched to the 
E · police station. The formal FIR indicated 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 the Judicial Magistrate specifically noted the 
same. The trial court and the High Court rightly accepted the prosecution 
case that the delay was attributable to the flood and there was no dispute raised 
at any stage that there was in fact no flood in the areas in question. The delay 
F was fully explained. (Paras 9 and lOl [854-B-DI 
CRIMINAL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I 020 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.2006 of the High Court of 
G Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 296-DB of 1997. 
Dr. Vikas Vashishth and Chander Shekhar Ashri for the Appellants. 
Rajeev Gaur Naseem, Rajesh Ranjan and T. V. George for the Respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
y 
'
-1 
·~,:
SILAK
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.