Delay in recording statements and unexplained non-examination of independent witnesses vitiates prosecution case based on chance witnesses.

The informant, Smt. Sukhwanti, alleged that on January 28, 1978, at 9:00 a.m., the appellant, Ashok Kumar Chaurasia, shot and killed her brother-in-law, Sukhdeo Prasad, on Jail Road, Naini, due to ongoing civil litigation

The prosecution claimed the incident was witnessed by the informant and P.W.2 (Banne).

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment on June 1, 1984

The appellant challenged this, citing material contradictions in witness testimony, the absence of independent witnesses named in the FIR, and an unexplained 45-day delay in recording the statement of the key eyewitness

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of the eyewitnesses

2. Whether the First Information Report (FIR) was ante-timed and prepared after due deliberations

3. Whether the unexplained delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the non-examination of independent witnesses (Shiv Shanker and Jagdeo) are fatal to the prosecution case

The Court applied Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding the punishment for murder

It relied on the principle from Awadhesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh that unexplained delays in recording witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can lead to the discarding of testimony

It applied Hemraj v. State of Haryana regarding the adverse inference drawn from the non-examination of independent eyewitnesses

Finally, it invoked Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P. and Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu regarding the effect of ante-timed FIRs and the necessity of explaining delays in dispatching special reports to the Magistrate

The High Court found the presence of P.W.1 (informant) and P.W.2 (Banne) at the scene highly doubtful. P.W.1 introduced a new story at trial—that she was dropping her grandson at school—which was absent from the FIR and her 161 statement, constituting a material improvement

P.W.2's name was missing from the FIR, and his statement was recorded 45 days late without satisfactory explanation, rendering him an unreliable "chance witness"

Furthermore, while the FIR stated the deceased was accompanied by Shiv Shanker and Jagdeo, the prosecution failed to examine them, leading the court to draw an adverse inference

The Court also noted that the FIR reached the Circle Officer only after two days and lacked the Magistrate's seal/signature, suggesting it was ante-timed and prepared after consultation

The medical evidence regarding "scorching and tattooing" contradicted P.W.2’s claim that shots were fired from 12.5 feet away

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment dated June 1, 1984, and acquitted Ashok Kumar Chaurasia of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The appellant's bail bonds were cancelled, and he was directed to execute a personal bond under Section 481 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 437-A Cr.P.C.)