Rasul Miya vs The State Of Bihar on 29 March, 2024
24. Learned Additional P.P. submits that so far as the
delay in sending the FIR to the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Madhepura is concerned, the defence did not put
any question to the I.O. on the point of delay. It is submitted that
if the defence did not put any question to the I.O., a mere
submission that there has been a delay in sending the FIR would
not give rise to a presumption that there was a delay in lodging
of the FIR and this cannot create any doubt on the veracity of
the fardbeyan. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manga @ Man
Singh vs State of Uttarakhand reported in (2013) 3 SCC 621
to submit that mere statement of the defence that there is some
delay in forwarding the FIR to the court would not be fatal to
the prosecution. In this case, the inquest report was prepared on
16.06.2013 at Sadar Hospital, Madhepura but the reason for
non-mentioning of the case details in the inquest report and the
postmortem report could have been provided to the I.O. (PW-8)
if his attention would have been drawn towards this fact. It is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.977 of 2018 dt.29-03-2024
17/36
submitted that if the I.O. was not provided any opportunity to
explain the delay, this Court would not assume that the defence
has suffered any prejudice due to non-mentioning of the case
details in the inquest report and the postmortem report.