Unexplained FIR delay and withheld corroboration warranted acquittal where assailant identity rested on interested witnesses.

The appellants were convicted by the Special Judge (DAA), Banda, for the murders of Narendra Singh and Chhuttan Dubey. All appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC; Randhir Singh was additionally convicted under Section 404 IPC

The prosecution alleged that, owing to longstanding factional enmity and a recent land-possession dispute, Ram Autar Singh, Balram Singh, Randhir Singh and Drigpal Singh, armed with firearms, shot Narendra Singh near a society house on 27.09.1981 and subsequently pursued and killed Chhuttan Dubey

The FIR was lodged by Arimardan Singh, father of Narendra Singh, at 9:05 a.m. on 28.09.1981, more than fifteen hours after the alleged occurrence

The prosecution primarily relied upon the eyewitness testimony of PW-1 Arimardan Singh and PW-3 Raju; PW-4 Kishori Lal did not support the prosecution, while Chandrapal Singh, who was allegedly present at the scene and had scribed the FIR, was not examined

During the appeal, Ram Autar Singh, Randhir Singh and Drigpal Singh died, and the appeal abated against them. The appeal consequently survived only in respect of Balram Singh

Whether the prosecution established the identity and participation of appellant Balram Singh in the murders beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the evidence of the related and allegedly interested eyewitnesses?

Whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the non-examination of Chandrapal Singh materially undermined the prosecution case?

Whether the absence of ballistic or other forensic linkage between Balram Singh’s alleged rifle and the injuries or recovered cartridges created a reasonable doubt regarding his involvement?

Whether Balram Singh was entitled to the benefit of doubt in an appeal against conviction under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.?

The Court applied Sections 302/34 IPC concerning murder committed in furtherance of common intention and Section 201 IPC concerning causing disappearance of evidence

Under the principles stated in Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202, evidence of partisan or related witnesses cannot be rejected solely on that ground but must be scrutinised carefully

State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752, and Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364, distinguish a merely related witness from an “interested” witness having a motive to falsely implicate the accused; such evidence requires heightened scrutiny

Under Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR may suggest deliberation, consultation or embellishment and diminishes its value as a spontaneous account

Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 145, permits an adverse inference where the prosecution withholds a material witness capable of explaining a significant gap or infirmity in its case

The Court also applied the fundamental criminal-law principle that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof and that material reasonable doubt must operate in favour of the accused

Although the medical evidence established that both deceased suffered fatal firearm injuries, it only corroborated the fact that firearms had been used; it did not independently establish the identity of the four assailants or the specific role of Balram Singh

PW-1 was not merely related to the deceased but was involved in longstanding and mutually hostile litigation with the accused faction, while PW-3 was connected with the recent land dispute and was allegedly beholden to the informant’s side. Their testimony therefore required substantial corroboration

The FIR was lodged after a delay of more than fifteen hours, and the explanations of rain and fear were considered inadequate because the informant admitted the availability of a family tractor and firearms, and Chandrapal was capable of travelling to Banda and preparing the report

Chandrapal’s non-examination was particularly significant because he could have corroborated the occurrence, the informant’s account, and the circumstances in which the delayed FIR was prepared

Further, no ballistic examination connected Balram Singh’s alleged rifle with any cartridge or injury, and the physical evidence did not fully corroborate the prosecution’s account of multiple firearms being discharged at the spot

Considering these infirmities cumulatively, the Court held that the prosecution had not proved Balram Singh’s identity and participation with the degree of certainty required for a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC

His conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC were set aside, and he was acquitted by extending the benefit of reasonable doubt

As he was already on bail, he was not required to surrender, and his bail or personal bonds were discharged

The appeals of Ram Autar Singh, Randhir Singh and Drigpal Singh had already abated because of their deaths, and no further order on merits was passed concerning them