Ocular Evidence Contradicting Medical Findings and Inordinate Unexplained Delay in Lodging FIR Vitiate Criminal Conviction.

The three appellants (Ram Das, Suraj Singh, and Munendra) were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 of the IPC for the daylight murder of Asha Ram on 17.07.1984

The prosecution alleged that the accused intercepted the deceased and his companions, and Munendra instructed the group to kill Asha Ram in revenge for his father's death

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 18.07.1984, approximately 24 hours after the incident

Out of the witnesses, P.W.3 (informant) was not an eyewitness, P.W.4 (alleged eyewitness) turned hostile, and the conviction rested primarily on the testimony of P.W.2, Ram Deen

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of unreliable testimony, delay in FIR, and medical contradictions

1. Whether the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, despite the presence of police at the scene earlier, vitiates the prosecution's case

2. Whether the testimony of the sole eyewitness (P.W.2) is reliable and corroborated by medical evidence

3. Whether the failure to examine independent witnesses and prove motive undermines the conviction

The court applied Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding the punishment for murder

It adhered to the evidentiary principle that in criminal trials, the burden remains on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt

Regarding FIR delays, it relied on Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. (1994), which establishes that unexplained delays in lodging an FIR or dispatching it to a Magistrate can indicate that the report was an afterthought or "ante-timed"

Furthermore, it applied the principle from Hem Raj v. State of Haryana regarding the adverse inference drawn from the unexplained non-examination of independent eyewitnesses

The Court found the FIR's 24-hour delay fatal, noting that P.W.2 admitted the police arrived at the scene the same evening, yet no report was made until the next afternoon, suggesting the FIR was not spontaneous

The Court observed that while motive is secondary in direct evidence cases, the prosecution failed to provide any evidence regarding the alleged prior murder of Munendra's father

Critically, the Court identified a "material contradiction" between ocular and medical evidence: P.W.2 testified the deceased was shot from behind while running, but the post-mortem report by P.W.6 showed four out of five entry wounds were on the front of the body

The Court also noted that despite the victim party running in close proximity, no other person sustained pellet injuries from the country-made pistols

Finally, the non-examination of independent witness Sohan Lal led the court to draw an adverse inference against the state

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 12.01.1989, and acquitted Ram Das, Suraj Singh, and Munendra. The appellants were ordered to be released from their bail bonds, subject to executing personal bonds under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 437-A Cr.P.C.)