Inordinate delay in FIR registration and suppression of initial information/daily diary entries warrants acquittal on benefit of doubt.

The Appellants were convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of Subodh Yadav on 23.11.2013

The prosecution alleged that Sanjay Yadav called the deceased to his house, where Appellant No. 1 (Gulab Yadav) shot him while Sanjay held him, and Appellant No. 2 (Dilip Yadav) engaged in indiscriminate firing to facilitate their escape

While the incident occurred at 08:30 AM and the inquest was conducted at 03:00 PM, the FIR was only registered at 07:30 PM

The Appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of inordinate delay in the FIR, suppression of the first version of events by the wife of the deceased (PW-5), and lack of credible eyewitness testimony

1. Whether the inordinate delay of 11.5 hours in lodging the FIR, despite police presence at the scene, is fatal to the prosecution case?

2. Whether the non-production of the ‘Sanha’ (General Diary entry) and the initial written statement given by PW-5 constitutes suppression of material evidence?

3. Whether the testimony of the informant (PW-9) and other alleged eyewitnesses is sufficiently reliable to sustain a conviction?

The Court applied Sections 302, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act

It strictly relied on the evidentiary principles concerning the promptness of FIRs established in Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. (1994) and Chotkau v. State of U.P. (2023). These precedents establish that in murder cases, a prompt FIR is vital to prevent "embellishment" or "coloured versions," and the absence of FIR details in the inquest report indicates the prosecution story was still in an "embryo state" at the time of the investigation.

The Court found that although police arrived at the scene by 09:00 AM and conducted an inquest by 03:00 PM, no FIR was registered until 07:30 PM.

The Court highlighted a critical discrepancy: the deceased's wife (PW-5) testified she had given a signed written statement to the police much earlier during a road protest, yet the prosecution relied on a later statement by PW-9. The court noted that the suppression of this first statement and the initial ‘Sanha’ (rumour report) shaken the case's foundation.

Furthermore, the alleged eyewitnesses (PW-6, PW-7, PW-8) were only examined by the police three months after the incident and had failed to claim eyewitness status in their Section 161 CrPC statements, rendering their trial testimonies unreliable due to material contradictions.

The High Court set aside the Trial Court's judgment dated 20.07.2024 and acquitted both Appellants by granting them the benefit of doubt. Appellant No. 1 was ordered to be released forthwith, and Appellant No. 2 was discharged from his bail bonds.