Allahabad High Court acquits two men after finding the murder FIR and police diary had been manipulated

Prashant Sharma was killed on 20 August 1997.

The prosecution alleged that Rahul Sharma, his brother-in-law, shot him and that Anmol Sharma alias Pinku stabbed him, while Ram Naresh Sharma also fired at him.

The deceased’s father, Vishwanath Sharma, and brother, Prabhakar Sharma, claimed to have witnessed the incident.

The prosecution case was complicated by two versions of the FIR: the chik FIR accompanying the special report allegedly described gunshot injuries but no stabbing, whereas the FIR on the police record referred to a knife injury.

Evidence also disclosed overwriting in general-diary entries and an inquiry into alleged alteration of the FIR.

The Sessions Court convicted Rahul and Anmol under Sections 302/34 IPC and under the relevant provisions of the Arms Act, and imposed life imprisonment and additional sentences.

They appealed against those convictions.

1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants participated in Prashant Sharma’s murder, particularly in light of the doubts concerning the FIR and the claimed eyewitnesses’ presence.

2. Whether the convictions under Section 302/34 IPC and the Arms Act could be sustained despite the discrepancies in the documentary record and the deficiencies in the investigation.

The Court considered the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, concerning murder committed with common intention, and the relevant Arms Act provisions—Section 25 and Section 4/25—under which the appellants were also convicted.

The prosecution had to establish the appellants’ guilt on the evidence presented; material discrepancies or circumstances creating reasonable doubt could undermine the prosecution case.

The Court cited Nallabothu Ramulu alias Seetharamaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 Cri. L.J. 2487, in support of its conclusion that suspicious circumstances concerning the FIR, when considered with other infirmities, may render the prosecution case doubtful.

The Court found that the competing FIR versions and the general-diary overwritings raised serious doubts about whether the police-record FIR had been altered.

The absence of any reference to the stabbing in the FIR accompanying the special report, the doctor’s initial communication, the inquest proceedings and the site plan led the Court to doubt that PW-1 and PW-2 had witnessed the incident.

That doubt was reinforced by the scooter’s non-recovery, the absence of injuries indicating a fall from it, the lack of independent eyewitnesses, the missing forensic report linking the recovered firearm to the bullet, and the unproved motive.

Considering these circumstances cumulatively, the Court held that the prosecution had not established a reliable case against the appellants.

It directed that the appellants be released forthwith if in custody and that their bail bonds and sureties be discharged.