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

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The Court answered the Death Reference in the negative and allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the judgment of conviction and the death sentence

It also directed

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

01Facts

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

p. 3

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

p. 2

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

pp. 17-18

02Issues

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

p. 17/21

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

pp. 19-20

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

¶ 15-16

03Law Applied

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

p. 2

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

p. 19

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

pp. 21-22

Provisions in the judgment · 15 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 366 Section 313 Section 319 Section 161 Section 162

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 147 Section 148 Section 149 Section 302 Section 380 Section 396 Section 458

Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5

04Reasoning

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

p. 22

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

¶ 17

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

¶ 16

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"

¶ 14-15

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

¶ 17

05Holding

The Court answered the Death Reference in the negative and allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the judgment of conviction and the death sentence

p. 23

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

p. 22

The appellants were ordered to be released forthwith

p. 23

LawLens.Jharkhand High Court

Original Court PDF