Inexplicable Delay in Lodging FIR and Improbable Ocular Testimony Benefit Accused in Presence of Animosity

The appellants (Furkan and Mannu) were convicted by the Trial Court on 13.01.1987 under Sections 148 and 307 r/w 149 of the IPC for allegedly attacking Malik Jamil Ahmad (PW-4) with a bomb on 20.06.1983.

The prosecution alleged that while PW-4 was driving a motorcycle with his father (PW-1) as a pillion rider, Furkan threw a bomb causing severe injuries to PW-4's shoulder.

The FIR was lodged at P.S. Soraon with a 12-hour delay, which the prosecution attributed to a jurisdictional error by the informant's son (PW-3).

During the pendency of the appeal, two appellants died, leaving the appeal surviving only for Furkan and Mannu.

1. Whether the 12-hour delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained by the prosecution to rule out the possibility of a concocted story.

2. Whether the ocular testimony of the eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) and the injured witness (PW-4) was credible and consistent with the medical evidence and site plan.

3. Whether the previous enmity between the parties served as a motive for the crime or a ground for false implication.

The Court applied Section 307 (Attempt to murder), Section 148 (Rioting with deadly weapons), and Section 149 (Common object) of the IPC.

The Court relied on the principle that while an FIR is not substantive evidence, prompt lodging is vital to prevent "coloured versions" or "concocted stories," as held in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar.

The Court also applied the principle that enmity is a "double-edged weapon".

The testimony of an injured witness, while usually high-status, must be of "sterling quality" to sustain a conviction if surrounding circumstances are suspicious.

The Court found the 12-hour delay in the FIR fatal, noting that the explanation regarding jurisdictional confusion was implausible as the informant's family (including an advocate and a court typist) was well-versed in legal proceedings.

The Court highlighted several improbabilities: (i) PW-1 (pillion rider) remained completely uninjured despite a "powerful" bomb explosion hitting the driver (PW-4) directly in front of him.

(ii) PW-2 was deemed a "chance witness" whose testimony contradicted the site plan regarding the direction in which the accused fled.

(iii) PW-4’s claim of driving 6-7 km after sustaining a life-threatening injury was medically unlikely, especially as the medical report described him as being in "shock and drowsy" condition.

(iv) no blood or damage to the motorcycle was recovered from the spot.

Given that the informant's family was concurrently facing a murder trial for the death of appellant Mannu’s father, the Court inferred a strong possibility of false implication.

The Court set aside the judgment of the IVth Additional District & Sessions Judge, Allahabad, and acquitted appellants Furkan and Mannu of all charges, granting them the benefit of the doubt due to the "suspicious circumstances" and "improbabilities" in the prosecution's case.