Failure to produce the initial written report and inconsistent eyewitness identification necessitate acquittal in a murder case.

On 25.09.2004, approximately 20-25 armed individuals attacked the house of the informant (PW7), resulting in the brutal murder of four individuals—Kapildeo Prasad Yadav, Neeraj Kumar, Anoj Kumar, and Sakaldeo Yadav—whose heads were severed

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 458/149, and 302/149 of the IPC, sentencing them to death

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of faulty identification, suppression of the initial FIR, and inconsistencies in eyewitnes testimonies

1. Whether the prosecution suppressed the first information of the occurrence, thereby vitiating the trial

2. Whether the testimony of the purported eyewitnesses (PW1, PW4, PW5, and PW7) was reliable enough to sustain a conviction and death sentence

3. Whether the identification of the accused was possible given the conditions and the alleged use of masks/paint by the miscreants

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

It relied on the evidentiary principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the reliability of eyewitness identification in nighttime occurrences

It further applied the precedent from *Allarakha Habib Memon & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2024)*, which establishes that the non-production of the initial version of an incident (daily diary entry/original FIR) constitutes a serious omission, requiring an adverse inference against the prosecution

The High Court found the eyewitness accounts to be "incoherent, inconsistent," and filled with "exaggerations"

PW7 (informant) claimed to be an eyewitness but admitted to hiding behind a wall for an hour, making it impossible to witness the murders in the detail described

PW5 admitted the miscreants had covered/painted faces, yet provided specific identifications, which the court found suspicious, especially given existing political rivalry

Regarding PW1 and PW4, the court noted that the distances and physical obstacles (a hillock and a staircase) at 7:30 PM made their vivid descriptions of the overt acts "absurd"

Crucially, the court noted that while the incident occurred on the 25th, the formal FIR was dated the 26th; the informant's admission of giving a report on the 25th night suggested the original first version was suppressed because it likely did not suit the prosecution’s later narrative

The Court held that when the identification of the appellants and their participation in the murders are shrouded in "incertitude," the benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused

The appellants were ordered to be released forthwith