Mere Delay In Lodging FIR Not Fatal If Explained: Gujarat High Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case
The High Court reiterated that an FIR is not substantive evidence and can only be used for corroboration or contradiction, and held that delay in lodging it does not by itself vitiate the prosecution case unless it indicates fabrication.
Justice Ilesh J. Vora, Justice R.T. Vachhani, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that an FIR cannot be treated as substantive evidence and that while delay in lodging it may place the court on guard, such delay alone cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution unless it suggests concoction or fabrication.
The Court further held that the effect of delay must be assessed in light of the facts and circumstances of each case and that where the explanation for delay appears reasonable, the prosecution's case cannot be rejected solely on that ground.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging a conviction for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
A Division Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani, while relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hari Prasad Kishan Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2024), reiterated: “The FIR cannot be treated as substantive piece of evidence and it can only be used to corroborate or contradict the informant’s evidence and undue or unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR may give rise to suspicion which put the court on guard to look of the possible motive and explanation for the delay and consider its effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise on the prosecution version”.
The Court, however, clarified that “delay in lodging the FIR by itself cannot be regarded as a sufficient ground to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution case nor could it be treated as fatal to the case of the prosecution”.
Background
The prosecution's case concerned a double murder involving two deceased persons who were residents of the same village as the accused and were allegedly his close friends before the incident.
According to the prosecution, the accused suspected that one of the deceased had a relationship with his spouse and, on that account, quarrels had taken place between them. To take revenge, the accused allegedly invited both deceased persons to his house on the pretext of offering cold drinks.
It was alleged that they were administered poison and later died. The trial court, after appreciation of the evidence, convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder, along with a separate sentence for destruction of evidence.
The accused challenged the conviction, contending that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and that crucial links in the chain, including proof of procurement and administration of poison, had not been established.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined the settled principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence and reiterated that each circumstance relied upon must be firmly established and must collectively form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused.
Addressing the argument regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, the Court observed that the FIR cannot be treated as a substantive piece of evidence and that undue or unreasonable delay in lodging the FIR may give rise to suspicion but by itself cannot be regarded as sufficient ground to draw an adverse inference.
The Bench explained that while considering an explanation for delay in filing the FIR, “the Court has to ascertain the causes for delay, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and if the causes are not attributable to any effort to concoct a version, mere delay by itself could not be a fatal to the prosecution case”.
The Bench then examined whether the delay affected the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. It noted that a key witness had not disclosed certain facts immediately during the investigation, which was relied upon by the defence to challenge credibility.
However, the Court accepted the explanation that the witness was in a state of shock and apprehension following the deaths and feared being implicated by the police. It held that delayed disclosure, when reasonably explained, does not render testimony unreliable.
The Court further found that the presence of this witness at the relevant time and place stood proved and that his testimony established that the deceased persons had gone to the accused’s house after being invited and had been offered drinks there.
It also noted that evidence showed strained relations between the accused and one of the deceased due to suspicion regarding an alleged relationship, thereby supplying motive.
The Bench rejected the defence contention that the chain of circumstances was incomplete, holding that the circumstances proved, including invitation, presence, motive, and conduct, formed a consistent and reliable sequence pointing to guilt. It emphasised that suspicion cannot replace proof, but once circumstances are proved and form a coherent chain, conviction can rest on such evidence.
Upon independent reassessment of the record, the Court found no error in the trial court’s evaluation of evidence and concluded that the prosecution had established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the conviction was based on properly appreciated circumstantial evidence and that the objections raised regarding delay in FIR and witness statements did not undermine the prosecution's case.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Cause Title: Shamji @ Sunil @ Dakudo v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:13817-DB)
Appearances
Appellant: Advocate P. P. Majmudar
Respondent: Ronak Raval, APP
