Failure to produce initial version of FIR and unreliable identification by purported eyewitnesses warrants acquittal.

On 25.09.2004, approximately 20-25 armed individuals attacked the house of the informant (PW7) in village Dumri, Koderma.

The assailants allegedly dragged four victims—Kapildeo Prasad Yadav, Neeraj Kumar, Anoj Kumar, and Sakaldeo Yadav—tied their hands, and decapitated them with sharp-edged weapons (farsa/gadasa).

The Trial Court (Addl. Sessions Judge-IV, Koderma) convicted the two appellants under Sections 147, 148, 458/149, and 302/149 of the IPC, sentencing them to death.

The matter came before the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence and on a criminal appeal filed by the convicts.

1. Whether the identification of the appellants by the purported eyewitnesses was reliable given the conditions of the night and the alleged use of masks by the assailants?

2. Whether the prosecution’s failure to produce the initial written report from the night of the incident (25.09.2004) constituted suppression of the first version of the FIR?

3. Whether the testimony of PW7 (informant) and other witnesses was consistent enough to sustain a conviction for murder?

The court applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 149 (Unlawful Assembly) of the IPC.

It relied on the evidentiary standard for "eyewitness reliability" in cases involving nighttime occurrences and masked miscreants.

Crucially, it applied the principle from *Allarakha Habib Memon & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2024)*, which holds that if the initial version of an incident reported to the police is suppressed or not treated as the FIR, the version eventually produced may be hit by Section 162 CrPC, leading to an adverse inference against the prosecution for concealing the first version.

The High Court found the eyewitness accounts to be "incoherent" and "inconsistent".

PW1 claimed to view the murder from 100-125 feet away despite a hillock obstructing the view.

PW4 admitted to hiding in a staircase out of fear, making his detailed description of the roles of all 20-25 accused highly improbable.

PW5 (wife of a deceased) admitted that the miscreants had covered and painted their faces, rendering her specific identification of the appellants unreliable.

Furthermore, PW7 (informant) testified that he hid behind a wall for an hour and only emerged after the accused left, contradicting his claim of being an eyewitness to the murders at two different locations.

The Court noted a fatal procedural lapse: PW7 claimed to have filed a report on the night of the 25th, but the official FIR was based on a report dated the 26th, suggesting the original, potentially contradictory first version was suppressed.

The Court answered the Death Reference in the negative and allowed Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 337 of 2020.

The judgment and order of conviction/sentence dated 14.02.2020 were set aside; the appellants were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released forthwith.