he Apex Court bench consisting of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed that mere delay in recording eye-witness statements cannot cause testimonies to be rejected.The court while dismissing the appeals had upheld the decision of the Trial Court as well as the High Court.
As per the prosecution, the accused-appellant used to threaten the fishermen of the locality. This led to a meeting by the Merchants Association where the accused undertook that they would not cause trouble again. But one day, the accused came to the fish stall of the deceased and his brother, looted them. The police were informed of the matter. The accused killed the deceased which led the brother of the deceased to file an FIR.
The Trial Court noted the case as proved by the prosecution, accepted it and convicted the accused while acquitting one. Appeals that were filed before the High Court were dismissed and the court upheld the decision of the Trial Court.
Appeals were filed before the Apex Court, the court opined:
“ It is true that there was some delay in recording the statements of the concerned eye-witnesses but mere factum of delay by itself cannot result in rejection of their testimonies.
The material on record definitely establishes the fear created by the accused. If the witnesses felt terrorised and frightened and did not come forward for some time, the delay in recording their statements stood adequately explained. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that during the interregnum, the witnesses were carrying on their ordinary pursuits.
Thus, the eye-witness account unfolded through PW18 and PW19 cannot be discarded. We have gone through their testimonies and are convinced that their statements were cogent, consistent and trustworthy.”
LEGALFLAME 