Delay in Transmitting FIR and Post-Mortem Lapses Vitiate Prosecution Case Based on Interested Eye-Witnesses

The prosecution alleged that on June 28, 1977, at approximately 4:30 p.m., six accused persons lying in ambush assaulted Harihar Saran (the deceased) with a ‘kanta’, ‘ballam’, and ‘lathi’, resulting in his death

The First Information Report (FIR) was purportedly lodged at 7:00 p.m. the same day

However, the dead body remained lying at the spot throughout the night; the inquest was conducted the next morning, and the post-mortem was delayed until June 30, 1977

The Trial Court convicted five accused under Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with 149 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment

The High Court of Allahabad affirmed the conviction in 2011

While the appeals of two accused (Raj Kishore and Deo Prasad) abated due to their death, the remaining appellants challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the FIR was registered ex post facto after due deliberation and consultation, thereby rendering the prosecution's timeline unreliable

2. Whether the unexplained delay in transmission of the FIR to the Magistrate and the delay in conducting the post-mortem creates a reasonable doubt regarding the presence of the eye-witnesses

3. Whether the ocular testimony of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4 is credible in light of their unnatural conduct and material inconsistencies in the police record

The Court applied the evidentiary standards for criminal conviction under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the procedural mandates of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Specifically, it interpreted Section 157 CrPC regarding the requirement of forwarding the FIR "forthwith" to the Magistrate to prevent ante-dating and fabrication

It relied on Pala Singh v. State of Punjab [(1972) 2 SCC 640] and Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala [(2022) 8 SCC 440], which establish that while delay in transmission of the FIR is not always fatal, it becomes a significant factor when coupled with circumstances suggesting a tainted investigation or a coloured version of events

The Court found the prosecution's narrative inherently improbable due to several cumulative factors. First, the FIR, allegedly registered on June 28, reached the Magistrate only on June 30, a delay that remained unexplained

Second, the conduct of the families and the police in leaving the dead body unattended in a public place throughout the night was deemed "wholly unnatural" and inconsistent with the claim that the murder was reported promptly

Third, the Court noted glaring contradictions: PW-1 denied that the victim's brother accompanied him to the station, yet the General Diary recorded their arrival together

The Court observed that the 48-hour delay in the post-mortem and the lack of scientific ownership evidence for the recovered bicycles further weakened the case

Consequently, the Court held that the FIR was likely a "post-investigation document" created after the body was discovered, rather than a spontaneous record of an eye-witness account

The Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. Appellants Hira Lal (Accused No. 2), Raj Bux (Accused No. 3), and Subedar (Accused No. 6) were acquitted of all charges. The bail bonds for Raj Bux and Subedar were discharged, and no further orders were required for Hira Lal, who had already been released on remission