Hostile witness testimony remains admissible to the extent corroborated by reliable evidence.

Bablu Sonkar, a prosecution witness in the murder case of his brother, was allegedly threatened by members of a criminal gang.

On 16 August 2013, while returning from a hotel with his two police bodyguards, Om Prakash Kumar (PW-7) and Rajesh Kumar (PW-2), three miscreants riding two motorcycles allegedly fired at him near Naisarai, Ramgarh.

Sonkar sustained multiple firearm injuries, was initially treated at CCL Hospital and thereafter admitted to Apollo Hospital, Ranchi, where he died on 28 September 2013 from septicemia resulting from the injuries.

The prosecution alleged that Prem Ram was driving the motorcycle and Arun Ram @ Teniya was firing at the deceased.

Vijendra Ram and Subhash Kumar Paswan were implicated in the alleged conspiracy; a country-made .315-bore pistol was recovered from Vijendra Ram’s house pursuant to disclosure statements recorded after their arrest in another case.

PW-2 and PW-7 identified Prem Ram and Arun Ram in test identification parades.

The Additional Sessions Judge convicted all four appellants under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(a)/35 and 27(1) of the Arms Act, sentencing them to life imprisonment for murder and additional terms for the Arms Act offences.

1. Whether the testimony of PW-3 and injured witness PW-5, who were declared hostile, could be relied upon in part where it was corroborated by other evidence?

2. Whether the delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate vitiated the prosecution case under Section 157 of the CrPC?

3. Whether PW-2 and PW-7 were present at the place and time of occurrence and had witnessed the firing upon the deceased?

4. Whether PW-2 and PW-7 had validly identified the appellants, particularly Prem Ram and Arun Ram, as the persons involved in the shooting?

5. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the offences under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(a)/35 and 27(1) of the Arms Act against all the appellants?

The Court applied Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC concerning murder committed pursuant to criminal conspiracy, and Sections 25(1-B)(a)/35 and 27(1) of the Arms Act concerning unlawful possession and use of firearms.

Under the principles stated in Attar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) and C. Muniappan v. State of T.N., the evidence of a hostile witness is not automatically discarded and may be relied upon to the extent it is credible and corroborated.

Under Ravi Kumar v. State of Punjab, delay in forwarding the FIR does not by itself vitiate the prosecution, but unexplained delay requires careful scrutiny.

The Court relied on Suraj Pal v. State of Haryana and Dara Singh v. Republic of India for the principle that a test identification parade assists in verifying the ability of witnesses to identify previously unknown accused persons, although identification in court is substantive evidence.

For conspiracy, the Court applied Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of Maharashtra, Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra, Devender Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, holding that conspiracy may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and inferred from the conduct and circumstances of the accused.

The Court held that the hostile status of PW-3 and PW-5 did not erase their dependable evidence: PW-3 corroborated the deceased’s presence at the hotel, while PW-5 corroborated that firing occurred and that she was injured, which was supported by medical evidence.

The alleged FIR delay was rejected because the fardbeyan was recorded at 8:45 p.m. on 16 August 2013, the FIR was registered at about 11:00 p.m., and the investigating officer inspected the scene the following morning.

The consistent evidence of PW-2 and PW-7, supported by the hotel witnesses, the injured witness and medical records, established their presence with the deceased and the occurrence of the shooting.

Their identification of Prem Ram as the motorcycle driver and Arun Ram as the shooter was supported by the judicial TIPs conducted by the Magistrates.

Although the seizure list recorded the pistol’s length as 24 cm while the Sergeant Major recorded it as 30.9 cm, the Court treated the discrepancy as non-fatal in view of the recovery evidence, the pistol’s working condition, its .315-bore compatibility, the FSL report linking the recovered pistol with a .315-bore fired cartridge found at the scene, and the ocular and medical evidence.

The Court further treated the circumstances surrounding the arrest, disclosure statements and recovery of the firearm as corroborative of the conspiracy involving Vijendra Ram and Subhash Paswan, while relying on the broader circumstantial evidence to sustain the convictions.

It held that the hostile witnesses could be partly relied upon, the FIR delay was adequately explained, PW-2 and PW-7 were present and witnessed the occurrence, and the TIP evidence reliably identified Prem Ram and Arun Ram.

The Court further held that the prosecution proved the murder, conspiracy and Arms Act offences against Prem Ram, Arun Ram @ Teniya, Vijendra Ram and Subhash Kumar Paswan beyond reasonable doubt.

The convictions dated 28 September 2018 and sentences dated 5 October 2018 were affirmed, and Criminal Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 1356/2018, 1357/2018 and 1187/2018 were dismissed.

The bail bonds of Vijendra Ram and Subhash Kumar Paswan were cancelled, and they were directed to surrender before the trial court to serve their sentences.