In CRA-S-2481-SB of 2007-PUNJ HC-Delay in reporting crime is always looked down upon with suspicion by Courts since it leaves wide room open where possibility of false implication can easily creep in: P&H HC over eight-day delay in lodging FIR Justice H.S. Madaan [06-09-2022]

feature-top

Read Order: Yusuf Masih v. State of Punjab


 

Monika Rahar

 

Chandigarh, September 19, 2022: While setting aside the conviction of the accused in case of free fight wherein the complainant side lodged an FIR against the accused side after an unexplained delay of eight days, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the delay is always looked down upon with suspicion by the Courts since it leaves a wide room open where the possibility of false implication after due deliberation and consultation can easily creep in. 

 

“When an incident is promptly reported to the police it gives a spontaneous and blemish free version and with passage of time the element of truth in the version gets diluted with chances of coloured version being introduced after due deliberation and consultations”, asserted the Bench of Justice H.S. Madaan. 

 

In a case of a free fight (as per the Trial Court’s verdict), accused Tarsem Singh Beldar was convicted for an offence under Section 324 IPC for causing simple hurt to the complainant while accused Yusuf Masih and Manga Masih were convicted under Sections 324/34 IPC. Aggrieved, two appeals were filed before the High Court. 

 

Essentially, the Counsel for the appellants argued that there was an ‘unexplained’ delay of more than 8 days in reporting the matter to the police. Secondly, it was argued that there was also an unexplained delay of 24 hours on part of the injured in approaching the hospital. Thirdly, it was argued that the injuries on the person of the accused side were not explained, thus, showing the fact that the origin and genesis of the incident was not as suggested by the prosecution in this case rather the prosecution tried to suppress the role played by the complainant party in the incident. 

 

Lastly, the factum of the compromise which was entered into between the parties was highlighted and in this respect, the appellants’ counsel submitted that the High Court has the power to quash proceedings emanating from non-compoundable offences which have no impact or depraving effect on the society at large. 

 

After hearing the parties, the Court opined that the basic principles of law are that the prosecution must prove its charge against the accused beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt and that such onus to prove the guilt of the accused to the hilt is stationary on the prosecution and it never shifts. 

 

“The accused is not expected to prove his defence with the same exactness and rigor, with which the prosecution is required to prove guilt of the accused. The accused is required to render only a reasonable and plausible explanation, which may cast a doubt in the mind about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. Furthermore, as per our jurisprudence, hundreds of guilty persons may go scot-free but even one innocent should not be punished”, the Court opined. 

 

Coming to the present case, the Court observed that the appellants successfully proved that the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence were not sustainable. Firstly, the Court was of the opinion that there was a gross and unexplained delay of 8 days in reporting the matter. 

 

“The delay is always looked down upon with suspicion by the Courts since it leaves a wide room open where the possibility of false implication after due deliberation and consultation can easily creep in. When an incident is promptly reported to the police it gives a spontaneous and blemish free version and with passage of time the element of truth in the version gets diluted with chances of coloured version being introduced after due deliberation and consultations”, asserted the Bench while holding that here, the explained delay in reporting the matter to the police proved fatal and prosecution story was liable to be rejected on that score alone. 

 

Secondly, it was opined that no explanation was coming with regard to the injuries on the person of the accused. Admittedly, it was observed that an F.I.R was registered against the complainant party with regard to the occurrence on that very day. But, it was stated by the Court that the prosecution having not explained the injuries to the accused showed that the incident did not take place in the manner suggested by the prosecution and an attempt was made to suppress its origin and genesis.

 

Thus for the reasons mentioned above a reasonable doubt arises in the mind about the truthfulness of the prosecution story. As per law the benefit of such doubt is to go to the accused”, the Court held. 

 

Also, it was held by the Bench that even otherwise the parties buried their differences by entering into a compromise. 

 

Therefore, both appeals were accepted. 

Add a Comment