13.�� ��That�apart,�the�delay�in�lodging�the�FIR�is�another�factor,�which� cannot�be�simply�brushed�aside.�In�the�case�at�hand,�the�incident�took�place� on�7$8$2010�between�8.30�PM�and�9�PM,�but�the�FIR�was�lodged�with�the� police�only�on�11$8$2010�at�12.05�PM.�There�was,�therefore,�a�delay�of�about� four�days�in�lodging�the�FIR.�PW$9,�who�lodged�the�ejahar,�deposed�that�he� came�to�know�about�the�incident�on�the�following�day�of�the�incident�at�about� 12�o’clock;�that�after�about�2/3�days�from�the�date�of�the�incident,�he�lodged� the�ejahar;�that�he�was�out�of�station�for�which�there�was�some�delay�in� lodging�the�ejahar.�He�admitted�that�he�did�not�explain�the�delay�in�the�ejahar;� that�after�3�days�of�the�incident,�he�returned�to�his�home�and�that�on�the�day� of�occurrence,�he�was�at�Kamalpur.�However,�he�stated�in�his�evidence�that�in� a�confused�state,�he�had�lodged�an�oral�complaint�on�8$8$2010�with�Agartala� Women�PS.�If�he�was�out�of�station�for�three�days�during�that�period,�how� could�he�lodge�an�oral�complaint�with�the�police�on�8$8$2010?�Such� inconsistent�statement�of�PW$1�made�his�story�suspect.�Delay�in�setting�into� motion�by�lodging�of�complaint�and�registration�of�First�Information�Report� (FIR)�is�normally�viewed�by�courts�with�suspicion�because�there�is�possibility�of� concoction�and�embellishment�of�the�occurrence.�So,�it�becomes�necessary�for� the�prosecution�to�satisfactorily�explain�the�delay.�The�object�of�insisting�upon� a�prompt�lodging�of�the�report�is�to�obtain�early�information�not�only�regarding� the�assailants�but�also�about�the�part�played�by�the�accused,�the�nature�of�the� incident�and�the�names�of�the�witnesses.─�See�1� �����9�!����������������� ���������)�����!����"��������.�������..�In�the�case�at�hand,�an�attempt� was�made�by�the�prosecution�to�explain�the�delay�in�the�manner�noted�above.� But�the�explanation�is,�we�think,�is�far�from�satisfactory.�He�firstly�said� something�about�lodging�the�ejahar�verbally�with�Agartala�Women�Police�
