FIR omission and contradictory eyewitness testimony created reasonable doubt warranting acquittal.

The deceased, a contractor, was shot on 8 September 2010; the prosecution alleged that the accused had demanded ₹2 lakh as rangdari.

The deceased’s wife, Nandani Devi (PW-4), lodged the case and claimed to have witnessed the occurrence.

The appellant was convicted under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to imprisonment, including life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the reliability of the evidence, noting that he was not named in the FIR, the Investigating Officer was not examined, no weapon was recovered, and the place of occurrence was not proved.

The prosecution had examined six witnesses, including two doctors who conducted the post-mortem and attributed death to firearm injuries.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was present at and participated in the shooting, supporting his convictions under Sections 302/34 and 120B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Whether the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses was reliable despite the omission of the appellant’s name from the FIR and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer.

The Court considered the offences charged under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

It applied the criminal-law requirement that the prosecution establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; where the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt about the accused’s presence or participation, the accused is entitled to its benefit.

The Court also considered whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer caused prejudice in light of material contradictions in the evidence.

Although PW-3 and PW-4 claimed in examination-in-chief to have seen the appellant at the scene, the Court noted that the informant had not named him in the FIR and that the witnesses stated in cross-examination that they had not seen him before the incident; they also said they learned of the incident from the informant.

The Court found the eyewitness evidence insufficiently reliable to establish the appellant’s presence.

The Investigating Officer’s non-examination further caused prejudice because material evidence was in contradiction.

The brothers of the deceased were not eyewitnesses, and the medical evidence established firearm injuries but did not resolve the doubt about the appellant’s identity or participation.

The Court therefore held that guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.