Unexplained FIR delays and the complainant’s uncertain earliest account rendered eyewitness testimony unreliable.

The prosecution alleged that, during a temple festival on 9 December 2012, A1 struck Paulraj on the head with a cricket bat and A2–A4 attacked him with cricket stumps. Paulraj later died from his injuries.

The trial court convicted A1–A3 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC in 2023; after A4’s case was split and tried separately, it convicted him on the same charge in 2025. A1–A3 and A4 appealed separately, and the High Court considered the appeals together.

The appellants challenged the reliability of the alleged eyewitnesses, relying, among other matters, on the witnesses’ conduct, P.W.1’s account to the first treating doctor, and delays in lodging and forwarding the FIR.

1. Whether the testimony of P.Ws.1–3 reliably established that they witnessed the assault, given the circumstances surrounding their conduct and P.W.1’s initial account to the doctor.

2. Whether the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint and forwarding the FIR, considered with the other evidence, left reasonable doubt about the appellants’ guilt.

The appellants’ convictions were under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The appeals were brought under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 415 BNSS, respectively.

The Court applied the requirement that guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt and assessed the credibility of the eyewitness evidence in light of the surrounding circumstances, including the witnesses’ conduct, P.W.1’s earlier account to the doctor, and the delays concerning the FIR.

The judgment cited no precedents.

The Court considered it significant that P.Ws.1–3, despite being close to the deceased, made no attempt to intervene, and that P.W.1 told the treating doctor he was unsure how Paulraj had been injured.

It also found no satisfactory explanation for the delay between the hospital admission and the complaint, or for the delay in the FIR reaching the court.

Taken together, these circumstances undermined the claimed eyewitness account and created reasonable doubt; the Court considered that conclusion independently of the weakness of the defence cross-examination.

It allowed both appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences in S.C. Nos. 288 of 2013 and 191 of 2023, and acquitted A1–A4.

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