First information report (FIR) 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 eyewitnesses 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 concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained. [See: Thulia Kali v. State of T.N., (1972) 3 SCC 393 : 1972 Cri LJ 1296 : AIR 1973 SC 501.]
In the case of Ram Jag v. State of U.P., (1974) 4 SCC 201 : AIR 1974 SC 606, the occurrence took place at about 4 p.m. and since the First Information Report was lodged at about 12.30 at night at the Police Station which was at a distance of about 4 miles from the scene of occurrence, the Sessions Judge held that there was undue delay in lodging the report (FIR) and that the delay was not satisfactorily explained. In this regard, the Supreme Court held as under:
“It is true that witnesses cannot be called upon to explain every hour’s delay and a common-sense view has to be taken in ascertaining whether the first information report was lodged after an undue delay so as to afford enough scope for manipulating evidence. 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 in filing report of an occurrence can be condoned if the witnesses on whose evidence the prosecution relies have no motive for implicating the accused. On the other hand, prompt filing of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution.”
Therefore, as held by the Supreme Court, it all depends on facts of each case. But, generally speaking, a delay of 2 days in filing complaint for lodging FIR in a case of the nature of Section 325 IPC (in today’s fast communication age), may create doubt about the truthfulness of the FIR. It is for the complainant to explain the delay in such a situation.
Where the delay in the FIR cannot be explained satisfactorily, it may definitely benefit the accused, since in that situation, the corroborative value of the FIR decreases.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
