Case: Tara Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab

report reaching the Magistrate and therefore a reasonable doubt arises that this time should have been utilised for consultation with a view to implicate some of the appellants falsely out of enmity. It is also submitted that the possibility of false implication of these accused cannot be ruled out. It is also his submission that the very fact that the Investigating Officer took such a long time for sending the report to the Magistrate itself suggests that he must have colluded with the members of the prosecution party in preparing the first report and therefore the entire investigation is tainted and according to the learned counsel the case based on such tainted investigation must be thrown out in a wholesale manner as there is no scope to separate grain from the chaff. He relied on a judgment of this Court in Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab 1975 (4) SCC 511 : 1975 (81) CrLJ 1734). In that case the names of the four accused alleged to have taken part in assault on the deceased were not at all mentioned in the inquest report and in the brief statement of the person who has lodged the FIR four hours before. That was also a case arising out of faction and the witnesses also were found to be interested. Taking these circumstances into consideration this Court observed (at p. 1737 of Cri LJ) "This circumstance speaks volumes against the prosecution case. If, therefore, it is once established that the names of the four accused were deliberately added in the inquest report at the instance of the prosecution there is no guarantee regarding the truth about the participation in the assault on the deceased by the appellants." * It is further observed that (at p. 1738 of Cri LJ) "It is true that there are as many as eight witnesses who are alleged to have seen the occurrence and they have given a parrot-like version of the entire case regarding the assault on the deceased by the various accused persons. All these witnesses have with one voice and with complete unanimity implicated even the four accused persons, acquitted by the High Court, equally with the appellants making absolutely no distinction between one and the other In these circumstances, therefore, we are satisfied that in view of the finding of the High Court that the FIR was a belated document having come into existence mush later than the time it is said to have been recorded and which adds the names of the four accused against whom the prosecution case is absolutely identical with the appellants, the case of the appellants cannot at all be distinguished." * But the facts in the instant case are altogether different. The names of the accused are consistently mentioned throughout. There is absolutely no ground to hold that the FIR was brought into existence subsequently during the investigation and the mere delay in lodging the report by itself cannot give scope for an adverse inference leading to rejection of the prosecution case outright4. It is well settled that the delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are we cannot expect these villagers to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report to the police. At times being grief-stricken because of the capacity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is but natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to go to the police station for giving the report. Of course the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts have pointed out that in cases arising out of acute factions there is a tendency to implicate persons belonging to the opposite faction falsely. In order to avert the danger of convicting such innocent persons the courts are cautioned to scrutinise the evidence of such interested witnesses with greater care and caution and separate grain from the chaff after subjecting the evidence to a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR also will have to be scrutinised carefully. However, unless there are indications of fabrication, the Court cannot reject the prosecution version as given in the FIR and later substantiated by the evidence merely on the ground of delay. These are all matters for appreciation and much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case there are three eye-witnesses. They have consistently deposed that the two appellants inflicted injuries on the neck with kirpans. The medical evidence amply supports the same. In these circumstances we are unable to agree with the learned counsel that the entire case should be thrown out on the mere ground that there was some delay in the FIR reaching the local Magistrate. In the report given by P.W. 2 to the police all the necessary details are mentioned. It is particularly mentioned that these two appellants inflicted injuries with kirpans on the neck of the deceased. This report according to the prosecution, was given at about 8.45 p.m. and on the basis of the report the Investigating Officer prepared copies of the FIR and despatched the same to all the concerned officers including the local Magistrate who received the same at about 2.45 a.m. Therefore we are unable to say that there was inordinate and unexplained delay. There is no ground to doubt the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene of occurrence. We have perused their evidence and they have withstood the cross-examination.There are no material contradictions or omissions which in any manner throw a doubt on their veracity. The High Court by way of an abundant caution gave the benefit of doubt to the other three accused since the allegation against them is an omnibus one.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]But the facts in the instant case are altogether different. The names of the accused are consistently mentioned throughout. There is absolutely no ground to hold that the FIR was brought into existence subsequently during the investigation and the mere delay in lodging the report by itself cannot give scope for an adverse inference leading to rejection of the prosecution case outright4. It is well settled that the delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are we cannot expect these villagers to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report to the police. At times beingbecause of the capacity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is but natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to go to the police station for giving the report. Of course the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts have pointed out that in cases arising out of acute factions there is a tendency to implicate persons belonging to the opposite faction falsely. In order to avert the danger of convicting such innocent persons the courts are cautioned to scrutinise the evidence of such interested witnesses with greater care and caution and separate grain from the chaff after subjecting the evidence to a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR also will have to be scrutinised carefully. However, unless there are indications of fabrication, the Court cannot reject the prosecution version as given in the FIR and later substantiated by the evidence merely on the ground of delay. These are all matters for appreciation and much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case there are threeThey have consistently deposed that the two appellants inflicted injuries on the neck with kirpans. The medical evidence amply supports the same. In these circumstances we are unable to agree with the learned counsel that the entire case should be thrown out on the mere ground that there was some delay in the FIR reaching the local Magistrate. In the report given by P.W. 2 to the police all the necessary details are mentioned. It is particularly mentioned that these two appellants inflicted injuries with kirpans on the neck of the deceased. This report according to the prosecution, was given at about 8.45 p.m. and on the basis of the report the Investigating Officer prepared copies of the FIR and despatched the same to all the concerned officers including the local Magistrate who received the same at about 2.45 a.m. Therefore we are unable to say that there was inordinate and unexplained delay. There is no ground to doubt the presence of theat the scene of occurrence. We have perused their evidence and they have withstood theare no material contradictions or omissions which in any manner throw a doubt on their veracity. The High Court by way of an abundant caution gave the benefit of doubt to the other three accused since the allegation against them is an omnibus one.