The importance of a prompt FIR, the need for a plausible explanation for any delay in lodging the complaint, and the impact of delay on the credibility of the prosecution's case.

1. This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2010 dated 7.4.2010 confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Usilampatti, dated 05.02.2010 in C.C. No. 46 of 2008 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 325 IPC and was sentenced to undergo three months S.I. and was imposed a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo S.I. for the period of one month. Aggrieved against the said order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the Courts below failed to appreciate the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and there was no plausible explanation. He would further submit that except the testimony of interested witnesses, there was no independent witnesses on the said of prosecution though the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 indicated that one Chithiraiselvan and Iyyappan were present in the place of occurrence and pacified the parties.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the earlier complaint given by P.W.1 had been suppressed in this case and in the said circumstance, unsatisfactory explanation given for the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint ought to have been viewed with suspicion and prosecution case ought to have been rejected by the Courts below. The learned counsel pointed out that there was motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the petitioner. Thus, the revision petitioner assailed conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below as unsustainable.

4. Per contra, the learned Government advocate supported the judgments passed by the Courts below and contended that the prosecution has proved the offence against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, there is no scope for interference in this revision.

5. Heard the submissions and also perused the impugned judgments and materials placed on record.

6. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity, the petitioner along with his father and mother who were arrayed as A1 and A3 before the trial Court waylaid the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 when they proceeded to their house and attacked them with stick and stones.

7. The trial Court, after analyzing the evidence both oral and documentary, acquitted the third accused under Sections 341 and 323 IPC and convicted the first accused under Section 323 IPC and convicted the second accused under Section 325 IPC, however, acquitted them under Section 341 IPC.

8. At the outset, it has to be pointed out that there is an inordinate delay of 49 days in lodging the First Information Report with the police. In the FIR, it is stated by P.W.1 that at the intervention of elders who suggested to settle the dispute between the parties, he did not lodge the complaint and that is how there was a delay of 49 days in filing the complaint. P.W.1 has categorically stated in his chief examination that immediately after the incident, he went to Kattur Police Station and lodged the complaint to the police. In his cross examination, he has admitted that all the three went to Kattur Police Station on the date of occurrence at 12.30 p.m. and gave a complaint to one Murugan, Head Constable of Kattur Police Station. He has further stated that his wife Karuppayee and his son Anbazhagan signed as witnesses.

9. This version is confirmed by P.W.3 who has deposed in his cross examination to the effect that all the three went to Police station and gave a complaint but that complaint is not produced before the Court. There is no explanation as to what happened to the said report lodged by P.W.1 on the date of occurrence.

10. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point to the testimony of P.W.9, Head Constable, who answered in the affirmative with regard to the suggestion put forth by the defence counsel that a complaint was lodged by P