Credible related eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, sustains conviction despite delayed FIR and inquest omissions.

On 26 February 1998 at approximately 6:00 p.m., Ramdeen Singh, a former Block Pramukh, was allegedly shot inside his rented residence at Civil Lines, Fatehpur.

The informant, Ram Prakash Singh (PW-1), and Ramveer Singh (PW-2), who were present on the roof, claimed to have seen appellants Babu Singh and Puttan Singh firing at the deceased and fleeing with country-made pistols after they raised an alarm.

The FIR under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC was lodged at 7:15 p.m., approximately one hour and fifteen minutes after the occurrence.

The post-mortem revealed multiple firearm injuries, including injuries to the head, chest, arm, forearm and hand; death was opined to have resulted from shock and haemorrhage caused by ante-mortem firearm injuries.

The Trial Court acquitted the alleged conspirators but convicted Babu Singh and Puttan Singh under Section 302 IPC, sentencing each to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000.

The appellants challenged the conviction, principally relying on the alleged delay and ante-timing of the FIR and inquest, omissions in the inquest report, the relationship and interestedness of the eyewitnesses, lack of independent witnesses, doubtful visibility, and prior enmity.

1. Whether the FIR, lodged one hour and fifteen minutes after the occurrence, was delayed or ante-timed so as to render the prosecution case doubtful

2. Whether the omission of the appellants’ names and other details from the inquest report undermined the prosecution case

3. Whether the testimonies of the related eyewitnesses, Ram Prakash Singh and Ramveer Singh, were reliable despite their relationship with the deceased, the absence of independent witnesses, and the alleged difficulty in witnessing the occurrence from the roof

4. Whether the ocular account was inconsistent with the medical evidence and whether the prosecution failed to establish the identity and participation of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt

5. Whether the alleged prior enmity furnished a sufficient basis to infer false implication of the appellants

The Court applied Section 302 IPC concerning murder and considered the prosecution case under the principles governing appreciation of direct eyewitness evidence.

Under Section 174 Cr.P.C., an inquest report is limited to determining the apparent cause and circumstances of death; it need not contain the details of the occurrence, the overt acts, or the names of the accused, and omissions therein do not by themselves discredit eyewitness testimony, as held in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 518, and Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 288.

Delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal unless unexplained delay creates a reasonable possibility of fabrication; the assessment depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Relationship with the deceased does not render a witness inherently unreliable; related evidence must be subjected to careful scrutiny, and credible testimony may be relied upon, as stated in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752, and Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643.

The prosecution is not required to examine independent witnesses where trustworthy eyewitness evidence is available.

Enmity is a double-edged circumstance that may provide both a motive for the crime and a possible motive for false implication; however, where direct evidence is reliable, motive loses significance.

Ocular evidence supported by consistent medical evidence is entitled to reliance.

The Court found that the FIR was lodged promptly, considering that the occurrence took place at 6:00 p.m., the police station was approximately three kilometres away, and the witnesses would naturally have required some time to react to the brutal murder and report it.

The completion of the inquest at 9:45 p.m. and the subsequent transportation of the body the next day were attributed to the fact that the occurrence took place at night and did not establish ante-timing or fabrication.

The absence of the appellants’ names from the inquest report was held immaterial because an inquest is not intended to record the complete prosecution narrative.

The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was found natural and substantially consistent: they were present at the house, heard the firing, witnessed the appellants firing at the deceased, and saw them flee while displaying firearms.

Their familial relationship required careful scrutiny but did not disqualify them, and the Court found no material contradiction or reason for false implication sufficient to reject their testimony.

The multiple firearm injuries and recovery of pellets, bullet and wadding corroborated their account that more than one assailant had fired at the deceased.

The absence of independent witnesses and the objections regarding light and visibility were rejected because the eyewitness account was reliable, no specific challenge regarding inadequate light had been put to the witnesses in cross-examination, and the medical evidence supported the occurrence.

Although prior enmity could theoretically support a plea of false implication, the Court held that the direct and corroborated evidence established the appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It found no illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice in the Trial Court’s conviction of Babu Singh and Puttan Singh under Section 302 IPC.

The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the judgment dated 23 July 2005 sentencing the appellants to life imprisonment and fine was affirmed.

As the appellants were on bail, their personal bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged; they were directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur within fifteen days, failing which a non-bailable warrant was to issue.