Man acquitted in murder case after Patna High Court finds FIR was antedated and the deceased’s wife’s initial account suppressed

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly shooting and killing Sukho Sada during a dispute near a palm tree.

The prosecution’s case rested principally on the informant, the deceased’s son, who claimed to have witnessed the shooting; the informant’s account was materially undermined by other witnesses’ testimony that he arrived after the occurrence.

Several witnesses were hostile or contradicted their asserted presence at the scene, and the deceased’s wife—whose initial account was referred to by a witness—was neither formally examined nor produced at trial.

The trial court convicted the appellant and imposed life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act, with sentences to run concurrently.

The appellant appealed against the conviction and sentence.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant shot and killed the deceased, given the contradictions in the alleged eyewitness testimony and the post-occurrence accounts.

2. Whether the circumstances surrounding the FIR and investigation—including the apparent antedating of the inquest report, delayed transmission of the FIR to the Magistrate, and non-production of the deceased’s wife—undermined the reliability of the prosecution case.

The prosecution must establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt; material uncertainty in the identity of the assailant or reliability of the prosecution version entitles the accused to acquittal.

Section 157 CrPC requires the FIR to be sent to the Magistrate “forthwith”; delay is not necessarily fatal by itself but may assume significance when considered with other suspicious circumstances.

Under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, the court may draw an adverse inference where a material witness essential to unfolding the prosecution case is withheld.

The Court referred to Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393; Mehraj Singh v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188; and Chhotkau v. State of U.P., (2023) 6 SCC 742, concerning the significance of delay and suspicious circumstances surrounding the FIR.

It also distinguished material improvements from inherent contradictions in testimony, referring to Tahsildar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 1012.

The Court found that the claimed eyewitnesses either admitted they had arrived after the shooting or gave testimony inconsistent with having seen it; their evidence therefore did not corroborate the informant’s account.

The FIR’s reliability was further impaired by the inquest report’s inclusion of a case number despite the formal FIR apparently being registered later, the FIR reaching the Magistrate only on 28 March 2007, and the absence from the case diary of the deceased’s wife’s statement, despite evidence that police had recorded it at the scene.

The Court considered these circumstances cumulatively, alongside the deficient investigation, including the failure to seize the weapon or send the seized blood for forensic analysis and the absence of physical evidence linking the deceased to the asserted toddy-collection activity.

It concluded that the prosecution evidence was not sufficiently reliable to sustain the conviction.

As the appellant was on bail, he was discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond.