In a ruling that reshapes how courts should view delays in eyewitness testimonies, the Supreme Court has held that a lag in recording witness statements under Sections 161 or 164 of the CrPC doesn’t automatically cripple a case—provided there’s a good reason for the pause.
The verdict came in a murder case appeal, where the accused challenged their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, arguing that the late examination of key witnesses—three to four days after the incident—was grounds enough to torpedo the prosecution’s version. They leaned on an older precedent, Ganesh Bhavan Patel v State of Maharashtra (1978), to bolster their claim.
But the court wasn’t convinced.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and A.G. Masih didn’t buy the argument that delay alone was fatal. They pointed out that in this particular case, the delay was due to the investigating officer being preoccupied with maintaining law and order during a period of local unrest—a fact corroborated both by the officer and the witnesses themselves.
Justice Amanullah, who penned the judgment, emphasized that blanket rules don’t apply here. “Where the explanation is reasonable, especially in volatile circumstances like riots, the delay doesn’t automatically tilt the case in favor of the accused,” the court stated. “The police action, under those conditions, cannot be called unjustified.”
The court also clarified that the Ganesh Bhavan Patel precedent couldn’t be rigidly applied, as that case had a cocktail of concerns: not just delayed statements, but also a suspiciously late FIR and broader inconsistencies casting doubt over the entire prosecution narrative.
To underscore its stance, the court cited the Lal Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi) judgment, where a 27-day delay in recording statements was brushed aside due to communal violence disrupting normal procedure.
“Delays must be weighed with context,” the bench noted, “and when a reasonable explanation exists, no adverse inference arises. This applies equally to statements under Section 164.”
With that, the court shut the door on the appeal and upheld the conviction.