Antedated FIR indicators, irreconcilable medical evidence, and defective Section 313 questioning warranted acquittal.

The appeals challenged the convictions arising from the shooting death of Ajay Kumar Yadav on 11 October 2005.

The prosecution alleged that Dasrath Ram shot the deceased near the temple and Umesh Ram shot him in the stomach, while Rajendra Ram and Ashok Ram shared common intention.

The informant, the deceased’s mother, was the principal eyewitness; other witnesses either arrived after hearing gunshots or saw the accused fleeing.

The post-mortem recorded an entry wound on the cheek, with an exit wound on the neck, and another entry wound on the back, with an exit wound on the chest.

The inquest and seizure list, recorded before the formal FIR at 11:30 p.m., already contained the FIR number; the FIR was sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate on 13 October 2005.

Dasrath Ram, tried in connection with the same occurrence, had been acquitted.

The trial court convicted Umesh Ram under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, and Rajendra Ram and Ashok Ram under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

1. Whether the apparent inconsistency between the eyewitness account and the medical evidence, together with the circumstances surrounding the timing and dispatch of the FIR, created reasonable doubt about the prosecution case

2. Whether the appellants’ convictions could be sustained where the circumstances relied upon against them were not specifically put to them in their Section 313 CrPC examinations

The appellants had been convicted under Sections 302 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court relied on the principle that material discrepancies between the alleged eyewitness account and medical evidence may undermine the prosecution case, citing State of U.P. v. Shiv Kumar, (2005) 11 SCC 212.

It also considered Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372, and Ramesh Baburao Devaskar v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 13 SCC 501, on the significance of inconsistencies between the FIR, inquest proceedings and the chronology of investigation.

Under Section 157 CrPC, prompt transmission of the FIR to the Magistrate operates as an external check on whether it was recorded at the stated time; delay may support suspicion when left unexplained and considered with other circumstances, as explained in Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188.

The Court further treated Section 313 CrPC as requiring the material circumstances proposed to be used against an accused to be put to them for an explanation.

The Court found the difference between the informant’s account—that Umesh Ram shot the deceased in the stomach—and the post-mortem findings of an entry wound on the back and an exit wound on the chest to be material; it also noted the difference between the alleged temple shot and the medical finding of a cheek entry wound.

The FIR number appearing on the inquest report and seizure list, both recorded before the formal FIR, was unexplained; the investigating officer’s evidence that a Sanha had been recorded was not supported by production of that entry.

The FIR’s transmission to the Magistrate two days later added to the concern when considered alongside those circumstances.

The Court also noted the absence of FSL reports and a seized weapon, the acquittal of Dasrath Ram, and the failure to put the specific incriminating circumstances to the appellants under Section 313 CrPC.

Considering these matters cumulatively, it held that the convictions could not safely stand.

As the appellants were on bail, they were discharged from their bail-bond liabilities.