An unexplained FIR delay coupled with inconsistent evidence may entitle the accused to acquittal.

The prosecution alleged that, following a dispute over accounts on 21 November 2018, Lalbabu Singh dragged Sonelal Mahto towards a temple and, as they returned, shot him in the abdomen; Mahto later died during treatment.

The informant, the deceased’s brother, gave his fardbeyan at S.K.M.C.H. the next morning, approximately 15 hours after the occurrence.

The appellant was charged under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari; he appealed against the conviction and sentence.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant shot and killed the deceased, given the inconsistencies in witness accounts and the uncertainty about the place of occurrence.

2. Whether the delay in recording the fardbeyan and the investigative and trial deficiencies warranted setting aside the conviction.

To sustain convictions under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, the prosecution must establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court also considered whether material incriminating circumstances had been put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, and treated unexplained delay in recording the fardbeyan, inconsistent evidence, and deficiencies in investigation as relevant to the reliability and sufficiency of the prosecution case.

No judicial precedents were cited in the judgment.

The court found that the prosecution witnesses did not provide a consistent account of the place of firing, and their evidence did not establish that they had witnessed the shooting; the informant himself stated that he was at home when the occurrence took place.

The fardbeyan was recorded about 15 hours after the incident without a plausible explanation for the delay.

The investigation yielded no fired cartridge at the scene, the bullet recovered from the deceased was not sent for forensic examination, and the court found no independent witness from the vicinity.

It also noted that material circumstances, including the alleged firing and the witnesses’ claimed presence, had not been put to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC.

Considering these deficiencies together, the court held that the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It directed that he be released forthwith unless required in another case and ordered the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee to pay the amicus curiae ₹25,000 within one month.