Unexplained FIR delays and material eyewitness inconsistencies warrant acquittal on reasonable doubt.

The prosecution alleged that A-1 had an illicit relationship with the deceased’s wife, which had led to a prior altercation and threat by A-1 against the deceased.

On 18.08.2014, while the deceased and prosecution witnesses were allegedly returning from a tea shop, all seven accused waylaid them near Kalkottai hillock.

The deceased succumbed to his injuries while being taken to hospital, and P.W.1 was treated for a simple head injury.

The FIR was registered at 4.00 a.m. on 19.08.2014 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302 and 307 IPC.

The trial Court convicted the accused under various provisions of the IPC, including Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307, and sentenced them to imprisonment for life for the offences relating to murder and attempt to murder.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, wrongfully restrained and assaulted the deceased and P.W.1, thereby committing offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 IPC?

Whether the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses was reliable despite material inconsistencies, the absence of corroborative evidence regarding the motorcycles and source of light, and the discrepancy between the ocular and medical evidence?

Whether the delay in recording the complaint and forwarding the FIR, together with the alleged prior presence of the police at the scene, rendered Ex.P.1 inadmissible or unreliable under Section 162 Cr.P.C.?

The Court applied the prosecution’s burden to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case and held that an accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

It considered Sections 147 and 148 IPC concerning rioting and rioting armed with a deadly weapon, Section 341 IPC concerning wrongful restraint, Section 302 IPC concerning murder, Section 307 IPC concerning attempt to murder, and Sections 34 and 149 IPC concerning constructive or vicarious criminal liability arising from common intention or unlawful assembly.

The Court also applied Section 162 Cr.P.C., holding that a statement recorded during investigation cannot be treated as the first information report where the investigation had already commenced.

It further applied the evidentiary principles that material contradictions, unexplained delay in lodging or forwarding the FIR, failure to investigate relevant circumstances, and inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence may create reasonable doubt; motive is only a relevant circumstance and is a “double-edged weapon,” incapable by itself of proving guilt.

The Court found that the eyewitness accounts contained material inconsistencies regarding which accused restrained or assaulted P.W.1 and the precise roles attributed to the accused.

More significantly, although the witnesses described the attacks in detail, none mentioned any assault on the deceased’s leg, despite the post-mortem evidence showing a comminuted fracture of the underlying bones.

The alleged occurrence was said to have been witnessed through motorcycle lights, but the prosecution neither established the presence or particulars of the motorcycles nor seized them; the investigating officer also did not find them at the scene.

The Court noted that the accident register relating to the deceased and the evidence of the doctor who first examined him were not produced, leaving unexplained who accompanied him to the hospital.

It further held that the police were allegedly present at the scene when the deceased was taken away, yet P.W.1’s statement was recorded only at 4.00 a.m., and the FIR reached the Court nearly fourteen hours later without satisfactory explanation.

The non-recovery of P.W.1’s alleged bloodstained clothes, the simple nature of his injury, the absence of a corresponding sharp weapon, and the doubtful arrest and recovery evidence further weakened the prosecution case.

In these circumstances, the motive evidence could not cure the defects in the prosecution evidence, and the Court held that the involvement of all the accused had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The criminal appeal was allowed, the trial Court’s judgment dated 11.11.2019 in S.C.No.251 of 2016 was set aside, and all seven accused were acquitted.

Any fine paid was directed to be refunded, and the bail bonds were ordered to stand discharged.