Non-examination of Investigating Officer is fatal when it causes material prejudice and suppresses the earliest version of the occurrence.

The appellants challenged their conviction under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and sentence of life imprisonment.

On 04.06.1990, an altercation occurred over the informant washing his ox in a field belonging to the accused.

The prosecution alleged that Munsi Yadav hit the informant’s mother on the head with a stone, and Baliraj Yadav hit her on the chest with a stone.

The victim died four days later on 08.06.1990.

While the informant claimed to have reported the incident to the police on the day of occurrence (04.06.1990), a formal FIR was only registered on 09.06.1990 based on a fardbeyan recorded on 08.06.1990.

Notably, the Investigating Officer (IO) was never examined during the trial.

1. Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer caused material prejudice to the defense and was fatal to the prosecution case.

2. Whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of the earliest version of the occurrence (Sanha) created reasonable doubt.

3. Whether the prosecution successfully established the place of occurrence and the sequence of events beyond reasonable doubt.

The court applied Section 145 and Section 155 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the contradiction and discrediting of witnesses.

It relied on V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand (2015), which mandates that a witness must be confronted with prior inconsistent statements before the IO to prove contradictions.

It further cited Munna Lal v. State of U.P. (2023) regarding the fatal nature of non-examining the IO when gaps exist in oral testimony.

On the issue of FIR delay, it applied principles from Thulia Kali v. State of T.N. (1972) and Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P. (1994), which emphasize that prompt FIRs prevent "embellishment" and "coloured versions".

The court found that the non-examination of the IO was fatal because it deprived the defense of the opportunity to prove contradictions between the witnesses' court testimony and their initial police statements, specifically regarding "brick-batting" from both sides.

The court noted a "classic case" of prejudice as the IO's absence meant the place of occurrence remained unverified and the "earliest version" of the incident (the 04.06.1990 Sanha) was suppressed.

Furthermore, there was a significant four-day delay in lodging the FIR (04.06.1990 to 08.06.1990) which remained unsatisfactorily explained, raising the risk of deliberation and an exaggerated account.

The court also highlighted a medical evidence gap, noting that while the postmortem was available, no treatment records from Pilgrim Hospital were produced to explain the clinical progression of the victim’s condition during the four days prior to death.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and life imprisonment dated 31.03.1999, and acquitted the appellants of all charges. The appellants were ordered to be released and discharged from their bail bonds.