Conviction cannot stand where an ante-timed FIR and doubtful eyewitness testimony create reasonable doubt.

On 17 May 1983, Triloki Nath alleged that he, his father Basant Lal, brother Raghuvir Prasad and Badri Prasad were surrounded by Hariram, Srikant, Rama Kant and Umakant near Ram Kishan Vaidya’s shop.

Srikant and Umakant allegedly fired country-made pistols, while Hariram and Rama Kant attacked Basant Lal and Raghuvir Prasad with knives.

Triloki Nath claimed that Rama Kant also attacked him, causing minor injuries and tearing his shirt.

An FIR under Section 307 IPC was registered at 9:30 a.m. on the same day.

Basant Lal and Raghuvir Prasad subsequently died, and Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC were added.

Their post-mortem examinations disclosed fatal stab injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon.

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and four years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively.

During the appeal, Hariram, Srikant and Umakant died, and the appeal abated against them; only Rama Kant remained before the Court.

Whether the FIR was genuine and promptly lodged, or was ante-timed and rendered suspicious by the documentary discrepancies and overwriting in the inquest reports.

Whether PW-1 Triloki Nath and PW-2 Chandra Kishor were reliably present at the scene of occurrence and could be relied upon as eyewitnesses.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the surviving appellant, Rama Kant, participated in causing the deaths of Basant Lal and Raghuvir Prasad and committed the offence under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC.

The Court applied Sections 302/34 IPC concerning murder committed in furtherance of common intention and Section 307/34 IPC concerning attempt to murder in furtherance of common intention.

It reiterated that the prosecution must establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that an eyewitness’s testimony is dependable only when his presence and conduct are established through credible, confidence-inspiring evidence.

Relying on Meharaj Singh (Lalli) v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188, the Court held that the FIR is a vital piece of evidence and that unexplained delay, discrepancies in the inquest report, or absence of FIR particulars may undermine its authenticity.

It also relied on Mohd. Muslim v. State of U.P., (2023) 7 SCC 350, for the principle that material infirmities in an FIR may cause it to lose evidentiary value and entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt.

It also relied on Nallabothu Ramulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 Cri LJ 2487, regarding the effect of suspicious FIR circumstances on the prosecution case.

Under Kailash Gour v. State of Assam, (2011) 13 Scale 549, faulty or inadequate investigation cannot be used to overcome the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt, and the benefit of such deficiencies goes to the accused.

The Court found the FIR and accompanying investigation doubtful because the inquest reports initially recorded different times, which were later altered by overwriting; the time when the inquests commenced was not recorded; the majrubi chitthi did not mention the case crime number; and the special report allegedly reached the Magistrate only on 23 May 1983.

The Court further noted that the investigating officer failed to send the sealed bloodstained earth and clothing for forensic examination.

PW-1’s presence was considered doubtful because his injuries were minor, his medical examination occurred several hours later, the alleged manner of injury was implausible, and his conduct in arranging the written report and transporting the seriously injured victims to the police station before the hospital was regarded as unnatural.

PW-2 was treated as an interested and chance witness whose account contained contradictions and whose conduct in leaving the critically injured deceased at the police station was considered improbable; his detailed attribution of roles was viewed as potentially arising from his relationship with Raghuvir.

Although the medical evidence established that the deceased had died from stab injuries, the Court held that it did not reliably connect Rama Kant with those deaths.

The cumulative doubts regarding the FIR, eyewitnesses and investigation prevented the prosecution from proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

It held that the FIR was not shown to be a genuine and contemporaneous document, that the presence and reliability of PW-1 and PW-2 were doubtful, and that the prosecution failed to establish Rama Kant’s participation in the offences under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed; Rama Kant’s conviction and sentences were set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges.

As he was on bail, he was not required to surrender; his bail bonds were cancelled and the sureties discharged.