DELAY in COMPLAINT (FIR) results in exaggeration - AP v. Madusudhan Rao

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.                      OF 2008

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3426 of 2007)

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH  Versus   M. MADHUSUDHAN RAO  

JUDGMENT

D.K. JAIN, J.:
Leave granted.


particularly when the First Information Report was lodged by the complainant more than one month after the alleged incident of forcible poisoning. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging FIR, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it 
is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained. (para 18)

19. In the present case, as noted supra, First Information Report in regard to the alleged occurrence on 19th April, 1996 was lodged on 22nd May, 1996. Admittedly after her discharge from the hospital on 22nd April, 1996, the complainant went to her parents' house and resided there. In her testimony, the complainant has deposed that since no one from the family of the accused came to enquire about her welfare, she decided to lodge the First Information Report. No explanation worth the name for delay in filing the complaint with the police has come on record. We are of the opinion that this circumstance raises considerable doubt regarding the genuineness of the complaint and the veracity Aof the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) and her father (PW-3), rendering it unsafe to base the conviction of the respondent upon it. Resultantly, when the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant (PW-1) is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety.

20. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court, acquitting the respondent, does not suffer from any infirmity, warranting our interference. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is dismissed accordingly.

.................................................J. ( C.K. THAKKER)
 .................................................J.( D.K. JAIN)

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 24, 2008.

DELAY in COMPLAINT (FIR) results in exaggeration

AP v. Madusudhan Rao

State of AP v. P. Madusudhan Rao

State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Madusudhan Rao

Andhra Pradesh v. Madusudhan Rao

Citation: 2008 (14) SCALE 118