Hearsay Evidence and Unexplained Delay in Forwarding FIR Vitiate Conviction in Murder Trial

The appellants (Gainu Mandal, Sri Mohan Sah, and Sarbind Sah) were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the IPC for the murder of Mala Devi on 14.08.1992.

The informant (PW-9), son of the deceased, discovered his mother in an injured state; she signaled the number "four" with her fingers but could not speak.

The prosecution case relied heavily on the testimony of Sakun Devi (PW-8), the sister-in-law of the deceased, who was purportedly the first to arrive at the scene and to whom the deceased allegedly named the assailants.

During the trial, PW-8 turned hostile and denied that the deceased named any culprits.

Despite this, the Trial Court convicted the appellants based on the testimony of other witnesses who claimed they heard the names of the accused from PW-8.

1. Whether the hearsay evidence provided by PWs 1, 4, 5, and 6 is admissible to sustain a conviction when the primary source of that information (PW-8) turned hostile.

2. Whether the unexplained delay of five days in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate is fatal to the prosecution case.

Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates that oral evidence must be direct (i.e., the witness must have seen, heard, or perceived the fact themselves).

Section 11 of the Evidence Act and the precedent Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P. (1975) regarding the relevance of material omissions in the FIR.

Section 157 of the CrPC regarding the requirement to send the FIR to the Magistrate "forthwith," interpreted through Chotkau v. State of U.P. (2023) and Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P. (1994).

The High Court found the Trial Court's judgment "flabbergasted and perplexed".

It reasoned that since PW-8 (the only person who allegedly heard the names from the deceased) turned hostile, the testimonies of PWs 1, 4, 5, and 6 constituted "hearsay" and were inadmissible under Section 60 of the Evidence Act as they were not direct witnesses.

The court noted a critical omission: the FIR lodged by the son (PW-9) after meeting PW-8 did not mention any names, suggesting the names were a later embellishment.

The court highlighted that the FIR was lodged on 14.08.1992 but reached the Magistrate only on 19.08.1992. This unexplained five-day delay, coupled with unreliable ocular evidence, created a suspicion of manipulation and ante-timing of the FIR.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction dated 18.12.1997 and sentence dated 20.12.1997 were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges and the Court ordered the immediate release of the appellants and discharged their bail bonds.