A Registered FIR Delay is Not Always Fatal—Murder Conviction Sustained Based on Reliable Witness Testimonies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

In a significant judgment Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a murder conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Division Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi upheld the life imprisonment awarded to Hira Singh and Jasbir Kaur for the murder of Gehal Singh.

Rejecting the appellants’ claims of discrepancies in witness testimonies, delay in FIR registration, and the unreliability of a child witness, the court ruled that "minor variations in depositions do not affect the prosecution’s case, especially when corroborated by medical and forensic evidence." The court emphasized that a delay in lodging an FIR does not automatically vitiate a prosecution case unless it is shown to be deliberate and manipulative.

On March 26, 2004, at approximately 11:30 PM, the prosecution alleged that Hira Singh attacked Gehal Singh with a spade while Jasbir Kaur restrained him. The murder was reportedly motivated by an illicit relationship between Hira Singh and Jasbir Kaur, which the deceased objected to.

The deceased's son, Phuman Singh (PW-7), aged 10 years, raised an alarm, prompting the arrival of Karnail Singh (PW-5) and Harbans Singh (PW-6), who claimed to have witnessed the crime. The next morning, Karnail Singh recorded his statement with SI Pal Singh, leading to the registration of the FIR.

Both accused were arrested on March 27, 2004, and during interrogation, Hira Singh disclosed the location of the murder weapon (spade), which was subsequently recovered. The post-mortem report confirmed sharp-edged weapon injuries, consistent with the weapon recovered.

The trial court convicted the accused on November 27, 2004, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The appellants challenged this conviction before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which rendered its final decision after 20 years of pending litigation.

“A Child Witness's Testimony Can Be Accepted If Found Credible” – Court on Phuman Singh’s (PW-7) Testimony

The defense challenged the reliability of Phuman Singh (PW-7), a 10-year-old eyewitness, arguing that his testimony was tutored and unreliable. However, the court held: "A child witness can be relied upon if found competent and untainted by external influence. Phuman Singh’s presence at the crime scene was natural, and his testimony was consistent with the prosecution’s case."

The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat (2003), which stated: “A child of tender age can testify if they have the intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers. The evidence of a child witness is not to be rejected per se but must be scrutinized carefully.”

The court also cited P. Ramesh v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police (2019 AIR SC 3559), which reaffirmed that a child witness's testimony is admissible if it is free from tutoring and independently reliable.

In this case, Phuman Singh denied being tutored and consistently deposed that he saw his mother restraining his father while Hira Singh inflicted fatal blows with a spade. The court ruled that his testimony was credible, corroborated by medical evidence, and could not be discarded merely due to his age.

“FIR Delay Not Fatal Unless It Suggests Fabrication” – Court on 8-Hour Delay in FIR Registration
The defense also challenged the FIR’s delay, arguing that the eight-hour gap indicated fabrication. However, the court dismissed this argument, holding that: “A delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal unless there is evidence that it was used to falsely implicate the accused. In this case, the eyewitnesses, being elderly and in shock, naturally waited until morning to report the crime.”

The court relied on Sekaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2024 SC 397), where the Supreme Court ruled: "A delay in filing an FIR does not, by itself, render the prosecution’s case doubtful. It must be examined in light of surrounding circumstances. If justified, the mere passage of time is not grounds for acquittal."

Here, the complainants promptly approached the police in the morning, and there was no evidence to suggest deliberate manipulation.

Motive for Murder: Illicit Relationship Between the Accused Established
The prosecution successfully established the motive, proving that Jasbir Kaur and Hira Singh were in an illicit relationship. Witnesses, including Gurmukh Singh (PW-8), testified that the deceased had objected to their relationship weeks before the murder.

The court noted: “While motive alone cannot sustain a conviction, its presence strengthens the prosecution’s case. The illicit relationship was a well-established fact, lending credibility to the charge of premeditated murder.”

“Minor Inconsistencies Do Not Discredit Witnesses” – Court on Testimony Discrepancies
The defense highlighted minor variations in the statements of Karnail Singh (PW-5) and Harbans Singh (PW-6) regarding the exact sequence of events. However, the court ruled that: “Slight inconsistencies in witness statements are natural and do not erode credibility unless they go to the root of the case.”

Relying on Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023 SCC RCR 494), the court observed: “Courts must separate minor contradictions from material inconsistencies. So long as the core evidence is reliable, minor variations do not warrant acquittal.”

Concurrent Findings of Fact: Limited Scope for Appeal
The court emphasized that both the trial court and first appellate court had arrived at concurrent findings of fact. It reiterated that: "High Courts do not interfere with concurrent factual findings unless they are perverse or manifestly erroneous."

Citing Jaichand (Dead) through LRs v. Sahnulal (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864), the court held: “Under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with the trial court's factual findings unless they are based on inadmissible evidence or patently illegal.”

Finding no legal error in the conviction, the appeal was dismissed.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction and life sentences of Hira Singh and Jasbir Kaur, directing them to surrender immediately to serve their remaining sentence.

Date of Decision: February 3, 2025