After 16 years in prison, man acquitted as Patna High Court finds antedated FIR, unreliable witnesses and police collusion; orders rehabilitation

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Samastipur, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)A and 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly shooting Pawan Kumar Jha on 5 October 2000 near Boritar Pul, Udapatti. He was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and concurrent sentences under the Arms Act

The prosecution relied principally on the informant, Chandra Kumar Jha (PW-6), and other witnesses who claimed to have seen the appellant firing at the deceased or fleeing from the scene after the firing. A country-made pistol, cartridge, bicycle and slipper were allegedly recovered near the body

The appellant denied the allegations under Section 313 CrPC and led no defence evidence

Whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s identity and participation in the murder beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the alleged eyewitness and circumstance evidence?

Whether the delayed transmission of the FIR, absence of relevant particulars in the inquest and post-mortem documents, and the possibility of an ante-timed FIR rendered the prosecution case unreliable?

Whether the alleged recovery of the pistol, cartridge, bicycle and slipper was reliable and sufficiently connected with the murder and the appellant?

Whether the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25(1-B)A and 27 of the Arms Act could be sustained despite the material contradictions, inimical witnesses and defective investigation?

Whether the appellant was entitled to directions concerning delayed consideration of premature release, medical treatment and rehabilitation after prolonged incarceration?

The Court applied Section 302 IPC concerning punishment for murder and Sections 25(1-B)A and 27 of the Arms Act concerning unlawful possession and use of firearms

The prosecution was required to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and evidence of interested or inimical witnesses could not be accepted without reliable corroboration where material inconsistencies existed

The Court relied on Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188, and Chotkau v. State of U.P., (2023) 6 SCC 742, for the principle that prompt registration and transmission of the FIR, and reference to the FIR in the inquest materials, operate as important safeguards against embellishment and ante-timing

It also referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, regarding the significance of putting all incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 313 CrPC

In relation to prison administration and premature release, the Court applied Section 432 CrPC, now Section 473 BNSS, and Rule 481 of the Bihar Prison Manual, recognising the prisoner’s right to have an eligible premature-release case considered within a reasonable time

It further relied on State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai, (2014) 5 SCC 108, concerning administrative examination of investigative negligence, and Daudayal v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 599, concerning compensation and protection of personal liberty against bureaucratic delay

The Court found that the prosecution evidence did not establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The informant’s claim that he witnessed the appellant firing was contradicted by the Investigating Officer, who stated that this fact had not been disclosed during investigation

The alleged eyewitnesses gave materially inconsistent accounts regarding who reached the scene first, the time taken to reach the spot, the presence of the informant and the direction in which the appellant allegedly fled

Several witnesses were inimical to the appellant because of an earlier murder case involving their family members, while no independent witness was examined despite the claim that 10–20 persons had gathered at the scene

The Court also found that the torch allegedly used to identify the appellant was neither produced nor seized, and the place of occurrence was a lonely area without an established source of light

The four-day delay in transmitting the FIR to the Magistrate, the absence of a case number and time on the inquest report, the absence of relevant FIR particulars in the post-mortem materials, and the unexplained delay in sending the dead body for post-mortem created a serious possibility that the FIR had been ante-timed

The alleged recovery evidence was also unreliable: the bicycle bore the name “Md. Shamim,” which was not investigated; the seizure witnesses were not independent; the weapon was not promptly produced; and no ballistic or forensic evidence connected the recovered pistol or cartridge with the bullet extracted from the deceased

These cumulative defects destroyed the prosecution’s case and made the conviction unsafe

The Court directed the Director General of Police, Bihar, to examine administratively the alleged negligence of the police officers involved and submit an action-taken report

Although the Court recognised that the appellant’s premature-release proposal had been delayed despite his eligibility after completing the requisite custody period, it directed the State to undertake his medical treatment and rehabilitation rather than award monetary compensation

The State was directed to arrange a medical examination, continued treatment and medicines, and a rehabilitation plan through the District Magistrate, Samastipur and the District Legal Services Authority, Samastipur, with all expenses borne by the State

The Patna High Court Legal Services Committee was also directed to pay Rs. 25,000 to the appointed counsel