Supreme Court Ruling on Delay in Eyewitness Testimonies
Last Updated on March 31, 2025 by NewsDesk SLC
The Supreme Court of India clarified that a delay in recording an eyewitness’s testimony does not automatically undermine the prosecution’s case, provided the delay is adequately justified. This decision arose from the case of Firoz Khan Akbarkhan versus The State of Maharashtra, where the appellants were challenging their conviction under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanudding Amanullah, and AG Masih, addressed arguments from the appellants who claimed that the examination of eyewitnesses occurred 2 to 3 days post-incident, referencing the Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra (1978), asserting that such delays are typically detrimental to the prosecution.
However, the state countered by explaining that the delay was due to the investigating officer’s engagement in maintaining law and order following riots in the area during that time. The court upheld this rationale, indicating that the prosecution’s actions were justified under the circumstances. Justice Amanullah emphasized that when sufficient reasons are provided for any delay in recording eyewitness statements, no adverse inference should be made against the prosecution.
The court further noted that its decision aligns with previous rulings, such as in Lal Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013), where a delay in testimonial recording amid communal unrest was deemed non-fatal. The court expressly stated that circumstances surrounding each case must be taken into account, and not all delays equate to complications for the prosecution.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a pivotal reminder that the context of eyewitness testimonies and the reasons for any delays are critical in judicial considerations. Consequently, in this case, the appeal was dismissed, and the original convictions were upheld, reinforcing the principle that adequate explanations for delays can safeguard the integrity of eyewitness accounts in legal proceedings.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 349
Supreme Court Ruling on Delay in Eyewitness Testimonies
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified that a delay in recording an eyewitness’s testimony does not automatically undermine the prosecution’s case, provided the delay is adequately justified. This decision arose from the case of Firoz Khan Akbarkhan versus The State of Maharashtra, where the appellants were challenging their conviction under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanudding Amanullah, and AG Masih, addressed arguments from the appellants who claimed that the examination of eyewitnesses occurred 2 to 3 days post-incident, referencing the Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra (1978), asserting that such delays are typically detrimental to the prosecution.
However, the state countered by explaining that the delay was due to the investigating officer’s engagement in maintaining law and order following riots in the area during that time. The court upheld this rationale, indicating that the prosecution’s actions were justified under the circumstances. Justice Amanullah emphasized that when sufficient reasons are provided for any delay in recording eyewitness statements, no adverse inference should be made against the prosecution.
The court further noted that its decision aligns with previous rulings, such as in Lal Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013), where a delay in testimonial recording amid communal unrest was deemed non-fatal. The court expressly stated that circumstances surrounding each case must be taken into account, and not all delays equate to complications for the prosecution.
In summary, the Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a pivotal reminder that the context of eyewitness testimonies and the reasons for any delays are critical in judicial considerations. Consequently, in this case, the appeal was dismissed, and the original convictions were upheld, reinforcing the principle that adequate explanations for delays can safeguard the integrity of eyewitness accounts in legal proceedings.
