Delay in Dispatch of FIR Cannot be Ground for Acquittal unless Prejudice is Proved

Shaunak Choudhury | SVKM’s NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law | 4th June 2020

Ombir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 982 of 2011)

Facts 

The Appellant in this case challenged the verdict given by the High Court of Allahabad finding him guilty under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. The High Court found him guilty of murdering one, Abhaiveer Singh Bhadoria and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 11,000/-. The question of the victim’s death being a homicidal death was undisputed as the autopsy report made it clear that the victim dying due to five bullet wounds. The prime argument of the Appellant is that the brother of the victim and original complainant, Dinesh Singh and Mukesh Singh were unreliable witnesses. The Appellant also argued that he should be acquitted due to a delay in the sending of the First Information Report (FIR) to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which is contrary to the mandate of section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue 

1. Whether the Appellant can be acquitted on the basis of the delay in sending the FIR to the Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 157 of the CrPC.
2. Whether the witnesses Dinesh Singh and Mukesh Singh are credible ones.
3. Whether the field unit did a credible examination of the case.

Judgement 

1. The Court looked at Jafel Biswas v. State of West Bengal ((2019) 12 SCC 560) to determine if a delay in the filing of the FIR before the CJM would affect the state of the Appellant. The Jafel Biswas looked at State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan ((2016) 1 SCC 607) which laid down that the accused must show prejudice having been caused by the delayed dispatch of the FIR to the Magistrate. The delay in the dispatch itself is not considered as exculpatory but the delay should have been such that it had deteriorating effect on the case of the prosecution. 
2. The Court found the witnesses to be credible ones. The detailed FIR that contained the happenings of the murder included the two witnesses as being there at the time and place of the incident. When the two were subjected to intense cross examination their testimonies were found to be identical. The Chemical Examination Report also found blood on the clothes of the witnesses.  
3. There was ambiguity surrounding the presence of the field unit since the witnesses had not confirmed their presence. But this was explained through the fact that the witnesses would not be aware of the difference between an officer of the field unit and officers attached to the police station. The field unit had also not recorded the name of the victim in the proceedings. But the Court did not find that objectionable as it was apparent that the victim was well known and that his name existed in the panchayatnama and other documents submitted. 

Thus, the Supreme Court did not find enough reason, legal or factual, to acquit the Appellant.