Madras High Court· 18 August 2026

Is a statement recorded after the police have reached the place of occurrence hit by Section 162 CrPC?

MOORTHY v. State by Inspector of Police

CRL A.908/2019 · 2026:MHC:3435 · Crl.A.No.908 of 2019
Coram: Justice N.Sathish Kumar · Justice K.Rajasekar

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Yes. Where the evidence of the prosecution witnesses shows that the police were very much present in the place of occurrence when the dead body was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, any statement recorded later is hit under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. Such a statement could at the most be treated only as a statement recorded during the investigation and not as a complaint, and the delay in recording it creates a serious doubt in the prosecution case.

Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302, 307, 341, 147, 148, 149 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — s.162 — First information report — Unexplained delay — Motive — Benefit of doubt — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — s.162 — Statement recorded after the police reached the spot — Held: A statement recorded after the police were very much present at the place of occurrence is hit under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. It can at the most be treated only as a statement recorded during the investigation and not as a complaint. (¶15) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — First information report — Unexplained delay in despatch to Court — Held further: The unexplained delay on the part of the prosecution in despatching the FIR to the Court is significant. Where no satisfactory explanation is offered for such delay, it creates a doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution version of the case. (¶16) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — Motive — Double edged weapon, cannot alone prove the charge — Held further: Motive is always a double edged weapon and merely on the basis of the alleged motive the prosecution cannot succeed in proving the specific charge of assault and killing of the deceased. Benefit of doubt extended; conviction set aside. (¶14, 18)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 15It is further to be noted that the evidence of witnesses, particularly the evidence of P.W.6 would clearly indicate that when the ambulance has come to the place of occurrence, the police have also reached the spot. Therefore, it is clear that when the body of the deceased was taken in the ambulance, the police were very much present in the place of occurrence. Therefore, recording the statement Ex.P.1 for the first time at 4.00 a.m. on 19.08.2014 also creates serious doubt. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2026 05:57:52 pm ) Admittedly, as per the evidence of P.W.13, Assistant Surgeon attached to Omalur government hospital, P.W.1 was admitted in the hospital at 09.40 p.m. and in such a case, there was no reason for such huge delay in recording Ex.P.1 complaint. When the police were also very much present in the place of occurrence and the hospital is also situated nearby, the delay in recording Ex.P.1 complaint and the registration of the FIR Ex.P.6 at 04.00 a.m. on 19.08.2014 creates a serious doubt in the prosecution case. When the evidence of the prosecution, namely P.W.6 would clearly show that the police have also reached the spot when the dead body was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, any statement recorded later is hit under section 162 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, Ex.P.1 at the most could be treated only as a statement recorded during the investigation and not as a complaint.

Acts & Sections

s.302 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.307 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.341 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.147 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.148 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.149 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.34 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.294(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860s.162 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973s.207 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973s.313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of MOORTHY v. State by Inspector of Police — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can motive alone sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC where no reliable evidence connects the accused?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections