Accused acquitted in triple-murder case after court finds eyewitness accounts and FIR timing doubtful

The prosecution alleged that, on 3 July 2012, a group of armed assailants stopped an Indica car carrying Ravi Kumar, Shashi Kumar, Ramesh Chandra and Ram Rishi near a brick kiln, shot at them, and set the car on fire.

The FIR named eight accused and referred to two unknown persons; the prosecution case at trial included additional accused and a third vehicle. The Sessions Court convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149 and 435 IPC, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The appellants challenged their convictions; the State also appealed against acquittals, and the informant sought leave to appeal

1. Whether the prosecution eyewitnesses’ presence and credibility were established despite contradictions and alleged police tutoring.

2. Whether the eyewitness account of the shooting was irreconcilable with the post-mortem evidence.

3. Whether the FIR was ante-timed, including in light of the evidence about when the report was completed and the delay in its transmission to the Magistrate.

4. Whether the additions to the prosecution account—including a third vehicle and further accused—and the absence of a Test Identification Parade undermined the convictions.

5. Whether the physical condition of the recovered Bolero supported or contradicted the alleged collision and fire.

6. Whether the recovery memos could be relied upon given PW-2’s evidence that his signatures were obtained the following day.

The Court considered the offences charged under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149 and 435 IPC, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.

It relied on the principle that eyewitness testimony must be assessed for consistency and credibility, citing Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21, and other authorities.

It applied Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 2 SCC 174, and Thaman Kumar v. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2003) 6 SCC 380, for the principle that medical evidence may discredit ocular testimony where it renders the alleged manner of injury impossible.

On FIR timing and dispatch, it relied on Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393, and Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188, among other authorities.

It also considered Kanan v. State of Kerala, (1979) 3 SCC 319, on first-time in-court identification of previously unknown accused without a prior identification parade, and Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1400, on proof of recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Court found that the eyewitnesses gave materially conflicting accounts of the seating arrangement, the survivors’ escape routes, and the number of vehicles.

It also considered PW-2’s evidence that police told him to describe a third vehicle because fourteen accused could not have travelled in two, and the evidence of the village Pradhan and investigating officer about the absence of relatives at the scene.

The Court held that the account of Shashi being shot from behind while fleeing was inconsistent with the post-mortem findings of frontal entry wounds with blackening and tattooing.

It further treated the reported completion of the written report in the evening and its delayed transmission to the Magistrate as supporting the appellants’ claim that the FIR was ante-timed.

The additional vehicle and accused, the absence of a test identification parade for persons not previously known, the Bolero’s recorded condition, and PW-2’s evidence that signatures on recovery memos were obtained later cumulatively weakened the prosecution case.

It allowed the criminal appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitted the appellants, and directed their release unless required in another case.

It dismissed the State’s Government Appeals and the informant’s application for leave to appeal.