Unexplained FIR delay and unreliable eyewitness testimony rendered the murder conviction unsustainable.

On 11 July 2014, Trikambhai Bhikhabhai Dhoriya was allegedly assaulted near the house of accused No. 4, Arjan @ Ashokbhai Dhanjibhai Shaikh, at Nana Paliyad. The prosecution alleged that Arjan inflicted a sickle blow, other accused assaulted the deceased with sticks and stones, and accused No. 10 brought a dumper, which accused No. 5 allegedly drove over the deceased, causing his death.

The prosecution relied principally on the testimony of the deceased’s son, Hareshbhai, and other related witnesses, along with medical, forensic and recovery evidence.

The FIR was registered at approximately 3:15 a.m. on 12 July 2014, although the incident allegedly occurred at about 8:30 p.m. on 11 July 2014; a prior station-diary entry at 10:50 p.m. merely recorded that a scuffle had occurred.

The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted seven accused, but convicted accused Nos. 4, 5 and 10 under Sections 302, 337 read with Sections 34 and 120B of the IPC and sentenced each to life imprisonment with fine.

The convicted accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 2019, while the State and the complainant filed appeals against the acquittal of the remaining accused. The appeals against accused No. 6, Chaturbhai Karshanbhai Shaikh, abated following his death.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos. 4, 5 and 10 committed murder by assaulting the deceased and running a dumper over him, warranting conviction under Sections 302, 337 read with Sections 34 and 120B of the IPC.

Whether the delayed FIR, inconsistencies in the complainant’s version, conduct of the alleged eyewitnesses, and absence of corroborative forensic evidence rendered the prosecution evidence unreliable.

Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the other accused, and whether the appellate court should interfere with those acquittals under the principles governing appeals against acquittal.

Whether the conviction of three accused could be sustained when the trial court had disbelieved the same eyewitness evidence in relation to the other accused.

The Court considered Sections 302, 337, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, concerning murder, causing hurt by a rash or negligent act, common intention and criminal conspiracy, as well as Sections 374, 378(1) and 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governing appeals against conviction, acquittal and victim appeals.

It applied the rule that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that unexplained delay in lodging an FIR may diminish its spontaneity and permit suspicion of embellishment, consultation or false implication.

Relying on Balaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court held that prior enmity is a double-edged circumstance and that a court cannot apply different standards to the same unreliable witnesses in respect of different accused.

Relying on Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh and Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, it reiterated that unexplained FIR delay may be fatal where it creates serious doubt about the prosecution case.

Under Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, an appellate court may reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but must recognize the strengthened or “double” presumption of innocence and should not interfere where two reasonable views are possible.

The Court found material contradictions in the complainant’s account, particularly concerning whether he went to collect his father or whether his father came to collect him, and noted that the complainant did not disclose the assailants, weapons or alleged dumper when he first approached the police or when the inquest was conducted.

The alleged eyewitnesses were close relatives, their conduct in not intervening or immediately naming the assailants was considered unnatural, and several witnesses were found to be hearsay, chance or post-occurrence witnesses.

The medical evidence established crush injuries but also indicated that the injuries could result from a vehicular accident; no clear wheel marks were recorded on the body, no bloodstains were found on the dumper’s tyres, and the dumper’s owner did not support the prosecution’s attribution of its operation to the accused.

The alleged weapon recoveries were also not satisfactorily proved.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the trial court had impermissibly relied on the same evidence to acquit seven accused as unreliable while convicting three others, contrary to the principle applied in Balaram.

Conversely, because the acquittals were based on a reasonable appreciation of doubtful evidence, the enhanced presumption of innocence prevented appellate interference.

Being in custody, they were directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case.

Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2019 filed by the State and Criminal Appeal No. 873 of 2019 filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the other accused were dismissed.

The appeals concerning deceased accused No. 6 had already abated.