The Supreme Court, while acquitted two men convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the offense of murder, advised the lower courts, said that when there is a delay in an FIR and lack of proper explanation, things can be exaggerated in the prosecution's story.

Therefore, to rule out such possibilities, the courts should be alert and examine the evidence carefully.

The said case was registered in 1989, whose conviction was upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court.

A division bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra noted that the accused were tried in the case of alleged murder of the person concerned on August 25, 1989 in Bilaspur district, while the FIR in the case was registered the next day.

"When FIRs are delayed in the absence of proper explanation, the courts should be cautious and consider the evidence in detail to eliminate the possibility of exaggeration in the prosecution's story," the bench said in its judgment on September 5. "should be examined carefully, as delay provides opportunity for deliberation and speculation."

The court gave its verdict on the appeal filed by the appellants - Harilal and Parasram, in which the February 2010 decision of the High Court was challenged. In its decision, the High Court had confirmed the order given by the lower court in July 1991 and held him guilty of murder. He was also sentenced to life imprisonment.

The court said that three people were tried on charges of murder and the trial court had convicted them all. The bench said that they had filed separate appeals before the High Court challenging their convictions and due to the death of one of the accused during the pendency of the appeal, the proceedings against him were terminated.

The Court said that no specific questions would have been asked to the informant, who was a prosecution witness in the case, regarding the delay in filing the FIR, but the fact that this FIR was filed late could not be ignored. 

The bench said that the statement of a person who described himself as an eyewitness of the incident did not match with his previous statement. The bench said that it would not be proper to rely on the testimony of the person concerned to convict the accused for the offense of murder.

The Court said, "There is no doubt that different people react differently to any given situation, but if it was really an issue between a few persons fighting in the street, the natural course of human conduct would be to deal with the issues". "People would have to come together to solve it." The bench said that the prosecution could not prove how the murder took place and by whom.