SATPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA

But PW11 was dissatisfied with the diktat of the Panchayat, and at his instance, an FIR was lodged E against the appellant under Sections 376, 201 and 217 IPC, about 4 months after the date of the incident. Subsequently, the trial court convicted the appellant under s.376 IPC and sentenced him to seven years F rigorous imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, however, reduced his sentence to 5 years. The appellant challenged his conviction on the grounds (1) that there was inordinate delay in lodging the G FIR and the prosecution could not furnish any explanation for the same; (2) that PW15 was major, and not minor as recorded by the Courts below, and 3) that PW15 and the appellant were studying in the same H 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 9 S.C.R. A school and knew each other and it was a case of consent for sexual intercourse. The appellant contended that he had been falsely enroped in the crime just to extract certain amount of money from him. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court C HELD:1.

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 a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creep in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Thus, the FIR is to be filed more promptly and if there is any delay, the prosecution D must furnish a satisfactory explanation for the same for the reason that in case the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant/informant is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety. [Para 14] [62-E-G] E

1.

However, no straight jacket formula can be laid down in this regard. In case of sexual offences, the criteria may be different altogether. The delay in lodging the FIR in sexual offences has to be considered with a different yardstick. As honour of the family is involved, its F members have to decide whether to take the matter to the court or not. In such a fact-situation, near relations of the prosecutrix may take time as to what course of action should be adopted. Thus, some delay may occur. [Paras 15, 17] [62-G-H; 63-A-B; E-F] G H

1.

In the instant case, the FIR was lodged after about four months of the commission of offence and that was done on the instructions of the Superintendent of Police. There is ample evidence on record to show that the Panchayat had intervened on the next day of the SATPAL SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 53 incident and it pressurized PW11, the complainant, to A compromise the case and settle it outside the Court. The Panchayat met several times and ultimately imposed a fine of Rs.1100/- on the appellant, out of which the appellant deposited/donated Rs.600/- and Rs. 500/- in Gurudwara and Temple respectively, and obtained B receipts also. The receipts had been produced before the trial Court. However, since the demand of PW 11 that "the appellant be fined to the tune of Rs.5000/- and be taken in the procession after blackening his face and be paraded in the village" was not accepted by the c Panchayat, he had raised the grievance before the Superintendent of Police. The delay in lodging the FIR has been thus satisfactorily explained. [Paras 9, 18) [60- D-G; 63-F] Kamel Singh v. State of M.P. AIR 1995 SC 2472; State D