Unexplained FIR delay and dock identification of strangers without prior TIP justify upholding a judgment of acquittal.

The State appealed against a trial court judgment dated 17.01.2013, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 147, 148, 323, and 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that on 10.11.2009, during a marriage at Village Paneya, the accused beat Lekh Raj (PW5) and subsequently assaulted the informant, Babu Ram (PW1), and Jagdish (PW2) with sticks when they intervened

Although the incident occurred on 10.11.2009 at 9:30 PM, the FIR was not registered until 13.11.2009

Medical evidence characterized PW1’s injuries as simple, while PW2 sustained a fracture to his left index finger

The trial court acquitted the accused citing an unexplained three-day delay in lodging the FIR, the inability of witnesses to identify the assailants due to a power cut at the scene, and the informant disowning his signature on the police complaint

1. Whether the appellate court is warranted in interfering with a judgment of acquittal when the trial court has taken a "reasonable view" based on the evidence

2. Whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) for accused persons previously unknown to the witnesses are fatal to the prosecution’s case

3. Whether generalized/omnibus statements by witnesses regarding the "accused persons" are sufficient to sustain a conviction

The court applied the settled principle that interference with an acquittal is only permissible if the judgment is patently perverse, based on a misreading of evidence, or if no reasonable person could have reached such a conclusion, as established in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025)

State of M.P. v. Ramveer Singh (2025)

Regarding FIR delays, the court relied on Mehraj Singh v. State of U.P. (1994), holding that unexplained delays suggest embellishment and fabrication

On identification, the court applied P. Sasikumar v. State of T.N. (2024), which mandates that dock identification of strangers without a prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) is a weak piece of evidence

the court cited Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad (1955) to emphasize that omnibus inclusions of "all accused" without specific acts are unsafe for conviction

The High Court observed that the three-day delay in reporting the matter was not satisfactorily explained; while the informant claimed physical inability to move, medical evidence (MLC Ext.PW8/A) showed only simple injuries, contradicting his claim

The court noted that the witnesses admitted to a power cut and the presence of a large crowd (200-300 people), making identification in the darkness nearly impossible

Since the accused were strangers, the failure of the Investigating Officer (PW11) to conduct a TIP rendered the subsequent dock identification unreliable

the court found the genesis of the FIR suspect because the informant (PW1) disowned his signature on the written complaint (Ext.PW1/A) and claimed the police dictated it

The medical evidence also failed to provide unequivocal corroboration, as the examining doctor (PW8) admitted the injuries could have resulted from a fall and noted an absence of patterned wounds typical of stick impacts

The Court affirmed that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the unexplained delay, lack of reliable identification, and contradictions in the informant's testimony

The respondents were directed to furnish personal bonds of ₹25,000 each pursuant to Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. (Section 481 of BNSS, 2023) to ensure their appearance should further legal proceedings arise