Delay in FIR and failure to prove presence of related eyewitnesses vitiates criminal prosecution

On July 8, 2008, the deceased and five alleged eyewitnesses (PWs 2, 7, 13, 14, 15) were traveling by motorbike when they were allegedly waylaid and attacked by 16 persons using sharp weapons.

A General Diary (GD) entry was made at 9:15 PM, and the Investigating Officer (IO-PW18) reached the spot at 9:30 PM.

However, the formal FIR was registered only three days later based on a written complaint by PW1, who was not an eyewitness.

The trial court convicted 12 accused for offenses including Section 302 and 149 IPC, despite one accused dying during the trial.

The High Court upheld the conviction of 11 accused, treating the initial GD entry as the FIR. The appellants challenged these findings based on delayed FIR registration and unreliable witness testimony.

The court applied Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding unlawful assembly and Section 302 IPC regarding murder.

It scrutinized Sections 161 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) concerning statements made to the police during investigation and their admissibility.

It further applied the evidentiary principle that while related witnesses are not necessarily "interested," their presence at a crime scene must be natural; additionally, it reiterated that the credibility of an "injured witness" is higher only if the prosecution proves the injuries were sustained in the same transaction.

The Court found the investigation to be a "scripted enquiry" rather than an inept one.

It noted that although the IO (PW18) was at the scene on the night of the incident and met the first informant (PW1), no names were disclosed or recorded until three days later, suggesting deliberation.

The High Court’s reliance on the GD entry as the FIR was deemed erroneous because the informant of the GD was never examined.

Crucially, the prosecution failed to prove the injuries of PW6 and PW14 through medical certificates or hospital records, thereby stripping them of the special status of "injured witnesses" and making their presence at the scene doubtful.

The Court also highlighted the lack of forensic analysis on seized weapons and the failure to produce the seized motorbikes in court, which invalidated the prosecution’s narrative of how the victims arrived at the scene.

The Court observed that the investigation violated due procedure under the Cr.P.C., and the delay in naming the accused facilitated the possible crucifixion of innocent persons. The bail bonds of the accused were ordered to be cancelled.