BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & Ors. v. STATE OF HARYANA

was contended for the appellants that there was three hours delay in lodging the FIR and again there was three hours delay in sending the special report u/s 157 CrPC to the Magistrate; that the injuries attributed to the deceased and PW-10, did not tally with the medical F evidence; that no independent witness was examined; and that the High Court committed an error in setting aside the acquittal of three accused. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HEl-D: t.1. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding its true version. In case, there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give G . H -- 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R. A explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint may prove to be fatal. [para 9] [18-F-G] B

1.2. In the instant case, the occurrence took place at about 5 p.m. on 6.11.2002. PW.9 was going to Police Station, when PW.18, the Sub Inspector, met him along with other police officials on the way. Statement of PW.9 was recorded there by PW-18. The evidence on the file C proves that the special report was received by the llaqa Magistrate at 10.45 p.m. on 6.11.2002. The occurrence had taken place in the village, which was about 6 Km. from the Police Station. Two sons of PW.9 had died in the occurrence. His grandson, P.W.10, was seriously injured D and was shifted to the hospital. So, after making all these arrangements, PW.9 had made his way to the Police Station to lodge the report. In the circumstances, there is no delay'in lodging the FIR. [para 10] [19-D-F] E F Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana, weapon of crime 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 95 =AIR 1997 SC 3247; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2000 (1) SCR 417 = AIR 2000 SC 754; Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & Ors., 2008 (12) SCR 623 = (2008) 12 SCC 531; and Kishan Singh (dead) thr. Lrs. v. Gurpa/ Singh & Ors. 2010 (10) SCR 16 = AIR 201 O SC 3624 - referred to.

1.3. The expression 'forthwith' mentioned in s. 157 CrPC does not mean that the prosecution is required to explain delay of every hour in sending copy of the FIR to the Magistrate. It is not that as if every delay in sending the report to the Magistrate would necessarily l~d to the inference that the FIR has not been lodged af"the time stated or has been anti-timed or anti-dated or investigation is not fair and forthright. Every such delay G H -- BHAJAN SINGH @ HARBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 5 is not fatal unless prejudice to the accused is shown.I n A a given case, if number of dead and injured persons is very high, delay in dispatching the report is natural. Of course, the same is to be sent within reasonable time in the prevalent circumstances. Thus, a delay in dispatch of the copy of the FIR by itself is not a circumstance which B can throw out the prosecution case in its entirety, particularly, when the prosecution furnishes a cogent explanation for the delay in dispatch of the report or leading prosecution case unimpeachable evidence. Ho·wever, an un-explained C inordinate delay in sending the copy of FIR to the Magistrate may affect the prosecution case adversely. In the instant case, the High Court has rightly held that there was no delay either in lodging tli"e FIR or in sending the copy of the FIR to the Magistrate. It may be pertinent to point out that defence did not put any question on these D issues while cross-examining the Investigating Officer, providing him an opportunity to explain the delay, if any. [para 15-16] (21-G-H; 22~A-D] is proved by itself Shiv Rar:n & Anr. v. State of U.P., 1997 (4) Suppl. E SCR 531 =AIR 1998 SC 49; Munshi Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar, 2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 25 =AIR 2001 SC 3031; Pala Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1973 (1) SCR 964 =AIR 1972 SC 2679; and State of Kamataka v. Moin Patel & Ors, 1996 (2) SCR 919 =AIR; 1996 SC 3041; Rajeevan & Anr. F v. State of Kera/a, (2003) 3 SCC 355; Ramesh Baburao Devaskar& Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (11) SCR 197 = (2007) 13 SCC 501, State of Rajasthan v. Teja Singh & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 990; and Jagdish Murav v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2006 (5) Suppl. SCR 219 = (2006) 12 SCC 626; G Sarwan Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1976 SC 2304: State of U.P. v. Gokaran & Ors. AIR 1985 SC 131; Gurdev Singh & Ant v. State of Punjab 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 80 = (2003) 7 SCC 258; State of Punjab v. Kamai/ Singh 2003 (2) Suppl. SCR 593 = (2003) 11 SCC 271; State of J & K v. H -- 6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011J 7 S.C.R.