New Delhi (Agency): The Supreme Court of India has emphasized that courts must exercise caution and rigorously test evidence when a First Information Report (FIR) is delayed without adequate explanation. This direction came as the apex court acquitted two individuals who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in a case dating back to 1989.
The bench, comprised of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, noted that the FIR for the alleged murder on August 25, 1989, was filed the next day in Bilaspur district. They stressed that “when an FIR is delayed, in absence of proper explanation, the courts must be on guard and test the evidence meticulously to rule out the possibility of embellishments in the prosecution story.”
The justices pointed out that the delayed filing allows for time to manipulate evidence, especially in cases where it is unlikely that there were witnesses to the incident, such as incidents occurring at night in open or public spaces.
The case involved two appellants, Harilal and Parasram, who challenged their life sentences for murder. The original conviction by a trial court in July 1991 was upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court in February 2010. One other accused had died during the appeals process.
The Supreme Court bench observed that the lower courts had not adequately addressed various aspects, including a lack of clear motive against the accused. The bench also found inconsistencies in the eyewitnesses’ testimonies and concluded that it would be “unsafe to rely on his testimony to convict the accused for the offence of murder.”
The court further remarked that the prosecution was unable to convincingly prove the origins and the actual circumstances of the murder. They noted that the evidence suggests a “strong probability of the killing being a consequence of mob action” against the deceased for his alleged involvement with a woman in the village.
As a result, the convictions by the high court and the trial court were overturned, and the appellants were acquitted. The court also stated that if the appellants are not already out on bail, they should be released immediately, unless they are wanted for other cases.
