BHAGALOO LODH & Anr. v. STATE OF U.P

Before this Court, the appellants challenged their C conviction inter alia stating that the FIR was lodged after a delay of 9 hours and the prosecution failed to furnish any plausible explanation for the same; and that PW1 and PW2, the alleged eye-witnesses, were very close relatives of the deceased, and thus, their testimonies cannot be relied upon safely. D Dismissing the appeal, the Court E HELD:1. The autopsy on the body of the deceased was conducted by PW.4 and he found 12 ante-mortem incised wound injuries. The cause of death spelt out in the post-mortem report was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. In his deposition in the Trial Court, PW 4 reiterated the said cause of death and also stated therein that the ante-mortem injuries suffered by the deceased were attributable to a sharp edged F weapon, like karauli and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. [Para 5] [1045-B-C; 1046- E-F]

#2. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by G the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. In case there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation ·for the same. In absence of such an explanation, the delay may give presumption that allegations/accusations H were false and had been given after thought or a coloured BHAGALOO LODH AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. 1039 version of events. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR A does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal. In the instant case, so far as the delay in lodging the FIR is · concerned, it has been explained by PW.1. The incident B occurred at 9.00 P.M. on 25.10.1999 and the FIR was lodged on 26.10.1999 at 6.10 A.M. at the police station at a distance of 18 K.M. from the place of incident. PW.1 mentioned that on account of fear of the· accused persons, he could not go to the police station to lodge c the FIR at night. This explanation has been found by both the courts below to be perfectly convincing, and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below had drawn an inference that the explanation furnished was quite satisfactory. There is no 0 cogent reason to take a view contrary to the view taken by the courts below. [Para 7, 9) [1046-G-H; 1047-A-B-D- F]