Back
2014 Supreme(Tri) 386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S.C. Das, J.
Sanju Nama - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 03 of 2012Decided On : 24-11-2014
For the Petitioner:B. Nandi Majumder, Advocate.
The delayed lodging of FIR without a reasonable explanation and lack of corroboration from witnesses can be fatal for the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
Delay in lodging FIR - Section 436 IPC - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal against the acquittal of the accused, who was charged under Section 436 of IPC for setting fire to the appellant's kitchen. The prosecution alleged that the accused set fire to the kitchen, resulting in its destruction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delayed lodging of the FIR and lack of explanation for the delay were fatal for the prosecution. The court also noted discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence and lack of support from neighboring witnesses. The trial court's order of acquittal was upheld, as it provided adequate reasons for the decision.
Issues: Delayed FIR, Lack of corroboration from witnesses, Discrepancies in evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The delayed lodging of the FIR without a reasonable explanation and lack of corroboration from witnesses can be fatal for the prosecution's case. In a criminal trial, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and an order of acquittal carries a strong presumption of innocence.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's order of acquittal was upheld.
JUDGMENT
S.C. Das, J.1. This is an appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C., directed against judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.03.2012, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Belonia, South Tripura, in Sessions Trial case No. 01(ST/B)/2012. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted the accused respondent No. 2, Sri Sibu Malakar from the charge framed against him under Section 436 of IPC and hence the informant-victim, Smt. Sanju Nama filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal.
2. Prosecution case is that Smt. Sanju Nama, the appellant herein, lodged an FIR in writing before O/C Baikhora P.S. on 17.11.2011 at about 12.15 pm alleging that on 15.11.2011 at about 11.00 pm, accused Sibu Malakar was found standing nearby a light post, a little away from her house, by her son Biswajit and after sometime the said Sibu Malakar set fire to her kitchen room and as a result the kitchen room was gutted. They chased the accused and on their cry neighbourers also came and the kitchen house was completely gutted.
O/C Baikhora P.S. accordingly registered Baikhora P.S. Case No. 91 of 2011 under Section 436 of IPC and after investigation submitted charge sheet against accused Sibu Malakar.
In course of trial, learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove the charge. After the recording the prosecution evidence was over the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and in his turn the accused examined two witnesses. Defence case is that of the denial of the prosecution case and it is the further case of the defence that the informant used to put rubber sheets for drying inside the kitchen and accidentally the fire was caught in the kitchen because of the rubber sheets and it was gutted. Accused was not involved in the incident. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge at the conclusion of trial by impugned judgment acquitted the accused from the charge and hence this appeal.
4. It may be mentioned here that the State did not prefer any appeal against the order of acquittal and hence the informant-victim filed the appeal under proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C..
5. Heard learned counsel, Mr. B. Nandi Majumder for the appellant. None present for the respondents.
6. The incident as alleged occurred on 15.11.2011 at about 2300 hrs. The FIR was lodged on 17.11.2011 at 1215 hrs. FIR is marked as Exbt. 1. No explanation was given in the FIR as to why there was delay in lodging the FIR. In her deposition the informant stated that in the next morning on the night of occurrence she went to one Kumud Nama, a Local Committee Secretary and informed him about the incident but nothing was done and therefore the FIR was lodged on 17.11.2011. That Kumud Nama has not been examined to prove that any such Kumud Nama was informed on the following day and therefore the FIR was not lodged on the night of the occurrence or on the following day.
7. It is an admitted position that the relation between the families of the informant and the accused was bitter. A delayed FIR therefore may be fatal for the prosecution if no reasonable explanation is given. No doubt, law has not fixed any time for lodging FIR. A prompt and immediate lodging of the FIR is the ideal as that would give the prosecution a twin advantage. First is that it affords commencement of investigation without any time lapse. Second is that it expels the opportunity for any possible concoction of a false version. Where there was a delay in lodging the FIR and the relationship between the informant and the accused person was strained, an embellishment or afterthought cannot be ruled out. Unexplained delay in lodging the FIR in the present case therefore is fatal for the prosecution.
8. Further, as I find, P.W. 1 in her evidence stated that at about 10.30/10.45 pm she along with her two sons PWs 2 and 3 wer
