Ocular Testimony Contradicted by Medical evidence and Ante-timed FIR Vitiates Murder Conviction

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 302 and 452 of the IPC for the murder of Chetram on the night of June 14/15, 1998

The informant (P.W. 1), the deceased's wife, alleged that the appellant jumped into their courtyard at midnight and shot her husband due to a prior land dispute

The prosecution relied on the testimony of P.W. 1 and an alleged chance witness (P.W. 2) who claimed to see the appellant fleeing the scene

The appellant contended he was falsely implicated due to a separate family enmity and that the FIR was ante-timed

1. Whether the First Information Report (FIR) was ante-timed, thereby casting doubt on the spontaneity and truthfulness of the prosecution’s version

2. Whether the ocular testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is reliable and consistent with the medical evidence

3. Whether the prosecution proved the motive and the identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt in light of the dark conditions and the deceased's criminal history

The court primarily applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 452 (House-trespass) of the IPC

It applied Section 157(1) of the Cr.P.C., which mandates the prompt dispatch of the FIR to the Magistrate to prevent embellishment

The court relied on the precedent Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. (1994), establishing that a delayed special report to the Magistrate and discrepancies in inquest reports under Section 174 Cr.P.C. indicate an ante-timed FIR

It also applied principles regarding "chance witnesses" and "interested witnesses," noting that unexplained omissions of independent witnesses (such as the deceased's brother, Bahadur) create adverse inferences as per Hem Raj v. State of Haryana (2005)

The Court found the FIR to be ante-timed because the informant described herself as the wife of "late" Chetram in the written report, even though the prosecution claimed he was still alive when the report was lodged

Furthermore, the FIR reached the Magistrate ten days late, violating Section 157 Cr.P.C.

The Court discredited P.W. 2 as a chance witness because his presence at midnight was improbable and he failed to produce the torch allegedly used to identify the appellant from 50-60 steps away in the dark

P.W. 1’s testimony was found unreliable due to the lack of sufficient light (the lantern's presence was not in the FIR) and a major medical contradiction: she claimed the deceased was shot in the chest, but the post-mortem showed the entry wound was in the back

The Court also noted the deceased's criminal history, suggesting the possibility of a "blind murder" by unknown enemies being pinned on the appellant due to existing enmity

The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s judgment dated March 16, 2001, and acquitted the appellant of all charges under Sections 302 and 452 of the IPC

The appellant’s bail bonds were cancelled, and he was directed to execute a personal bond under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 437-A Cr.P.C.)