Holding

The conviction of Om Prakash for murder is unsustainable as the prosecution failed to prove that his shot caused the fatal injury and procedural lapses created reasonable doubt; the appeal is allowed.

Summary

The incident occurred on 15 August 1979 when Om Prakash and six others, armed with firearms, entered the house of Mewa Ram during a Janamashtami puja and fired shots, resulting in the death of Ram Rakshpal. The trial court convicted all seven accused of murder, but the Allahabad High Court upheld conviction only of Om Prakash for firing a shot, acquitting the rest. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Om Prakash caused the fatal injury, whether animosity existed between him and the deceased, and whether procedural lapses – notably the disputed timing of the FIR, delayed investigation, and inadequate forensic analysis – undermined the conviction. Finding that the High Court had not properly analysed the evidence, that the FIR timing was unclear, and that there was no proof of Om Prakash’s animus or that his shot was the cause of death, the Court set aside the conviction. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was directed to be released unless required in another case.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Om Prakash caused the fatal injury to Ram Rakshpal, thereby establishing murder under IPC 302 read with 148, 149, 452.
Whether the participation of the other accused in the murder was proved, justifying their acquittal.
Whether the timing of the FIR (4.45 a.m. vs 4.45 p.m.) and the consequent delay in investigation affect the reliability of the prosecution case.
Whether the lack of proper forensic (ballistic and autopsy) evidence creates reasonable doubt about the cause of death.
Whether any animus existed between Om Prakash and the deceased that would support a conviction for murder.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 107
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307, s. 452

Subjects

murderIPC 302criminal conspiracyFIR delayforensic evidenceballistic analysisanimusappellate reviewprocedural lapsecriminal trial

Judgment

[2008] 17 5.C.R. 475

OM PRAKASH A
r -1 \I.
STATE OF U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1022 of 2204)
DECEMBER 12, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

-~ Penal Code, 1860 - ss 148, 452, 302, rw 149 -
Conviction under -'Appellant and other accused armed with
deadly weapons trespassing house of father of deceased - c
Shots fired resulting in death of deceased - Conviction by trial
court - High Court upholding conviction of appellant only -
Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - High Court erred
in holding that shots fired by appellant caused fatal injuries
- It did not analyse evidence on record as to who caused
D
other firearm injuries - There were discrepancies in the time
of lodging of FIR - Investigation did not start immediately -
.. ~ Scribe of FIR not examined - There is nothing to show that
appellant had any animosity against deceased whereas other
accused had direct enmity with deceased's father and his
family - Thus, order of High Court set aside. E
It is the prosecution case that DK, RR, RP and GK
are sons of MR. On 15-8-1979 at 9.30 p.m. when RL-MR's
wife, DK, GK, RR and his wife were offering puja, the
appellant and others armed with weapons entered the
house of MR. Appellant fired at RR. Other accused also F
.._
t- fired at RR. Members of the family saw them under the
torch light, lantern and kerosene box wick. The injuries
inflicted resulted in the death of RR. GS-brother of MR
who is not the resident of the village where the incident
took place scribed the FIR. MR lodged FIR. He stated that G
RS-son of accused no. 1 had lodged FIR u/s. 307 IPC
against his sons. They were convicted and later released
on bail. Also there was a property dispute between K·
father of accused no. 7 and MR and his sons.
475 H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A Prosecution relied on evidenc~ of PW 1-MR, PW 2-SP son
of GS and PW 4-DK. Trial court convicted all the accused
persons for committing murder of RR. However, High
Court found the appellant on~y guilty of firing of a shot
at the deceased, holding that participation of other
8 accused in the commission of the said offence was not
proved beyond doubt. It upheld the conviction of the
appellant and acquitted others. Hence, the present
appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
C HELD:1.1. High Court committed a serious error
insofar as it proceeded on the basis that shots fired by
the appellant caused the fatal injury. The High Court did
nof analyze the evidence on record as to who caused the
other firearm injuries. It erred in drawing an inference that
1

0 appellant had rightly·been held, guilty for commission of
offence of murder of RR as anin:iosity between the parties
was· proved. It failed to notice th.at there is nothing on
1

record to show that the appellant had been bearing any
animosity against the deceased. On the other hand, other
accused were having animosity towards the deceased-
E MR and his family. If the pros;ecution witnesses, who
were said to be the eye-witnesses, were to be believed,
6 out of 7 accused could not liave been acquitted and
particularly those who .had· direc~ enmity with MR and his
sons. [Paras 13 and 14] [484-F-G]
F 1.2. It is difficult to believe that in a case of this nature
the investigation did not start immediately. Inquest report,
preparation of seizure .
memo etc.
I
were to be carried
routinely, and as such there was no reason as to why
they were not brought on recolid. While examining the
G original records of the case, some interpolations made in
the records maintained at the pblice station have been
noticed. [Paras 13 and 14] [485-A-C]
. 1.3. The prosecution case proceeded on the basis
that immediately after occurrence and after shifting the
H dead body under a shed, the informant got the FIR
OM PRAKASH v. STATE OF U.P. 477

scribed by GS and immediately thereafter- proceeded on A
foot to the Police Station. If this part of the story is correct,
the prosecution's case would not be subject to much
doubt. But if the scribe of-the FIR was residing in a
separate village which is 10 kms. away from the place of
occurrence, and it was at that place the FIR was scribed 8
whereafter PW1 arrived at the Police Station, it would be
impossible for him to reach by 4.30 in the morning. The
prosecution did not examine the scribe of the FIR
-~ although his son has been examined as an eye-witness.
If he was residing at the relevant time in the village where
the incident had taken place, it was expected that either .C
he had witnessed the occurrence or had reached the
place of occurrence immediately after the accused fled
away. Therefore, the prosecution should have made
attempts to clarify this anomaly. [Patil 15] [486-A-B]
1.4. High Court did not pose unto itself the correct D
question, namely, the time of lodging the FIR- whether it,
.... had in fact been lodged at 4.45 a.m. or 4.45 p.m. If it was
• lodged at 4.45 p.m., the entire edifice of the prosecution ,
case would fall to the ground. Delay in lodging· the FIR
has a great importance in a case of this nature. There. E
exists a discrepancy as regards timing of the lodging of
the FIR P.W.3 Head Constable testified that it was lodged
at 4.45 a.m. However, records show otherwise. In the FIR,
it is shown to have been lodged at 4.45 p.m. There are
some interpolations but according to the Investigating' F
t- Officer, he recorded the FIR at 9.30 p.m. on 16.8.1979.
• Moreover, if the FIR was lodged early in the morning,·
there was absolutely no reason as to why the
investigation did not start immediately thereafter. If Head
Constable is correct that the copies of the FIR had been
G
sent to all concerned including the court, there was
absolutely no reason as to why the same would reach the
..._ court on the next date. There is failure to comprehend as
to why the dead body was sent for post mortem only on
17th instead of 15th itself. The seizure memo does not
H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R

A contain any. date. The original inquest report is not on
record. Furthermore, except the appellant all other ~
accused have been acquitted. Therefore, High· Court did
not rely upon the prosecution case in its entirety. While
doing so, unfortunately, the High Court did not conside~
1

B these vital aspects of the matter. which were crucial for
determination of the issue. The jmpugned judgment of
the High Court cannot be susta•ned and is set aside.
[Paras 14~ 15, 16, 17 and 18] [486:-D-H; 487-D-H]
...\-
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
c No. 1022 of 2004.
From the Judgment and Order da~ed 14.5.2004 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal
I
No. 1472 of 1981.
Rakesh K. Khanna, S.S. Chowdhary, Faizy Ahmad Syed,
Surya Kant and Dr. "Rashmi Khanna fpr the Appellant.
D Pramod Swarup, Prashant Chaqdhary, Anuvrat Sharma
and Alka Sinha for the Respondent. ,
~·
The Judgment of the Court was qelivered by ..
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. This appeal' is directed against a
judgment and order dated 14.5.2004 p~ssed by the High Court
E
of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1472of1981
whereby and whereunder the appeal prrferred by the appellant
. herein against a judgment of conviction and sentence dated
1

30.6.1981 passed by Sri R.K. Mishra, 111 Additional Sessions
Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 418of1980 holding
F · that the appellant was guilty for commission of offences under
Sections 148, 452 and 302 read with St;!ction 149 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous
-1·
.
imprisonment for 18 months, 18 months and life imprisonment
respectively,.was dismissed.
G 2. Appellant was·prosecuted in respect of commission of
offences; the incident whereof took place, on or about t5.8.1979
at about 9.30 p.m. in the house c;:>f one Mewa Ram. _..
Janamashtami festival was being celebrated on that night.
Dinesh Kumar and Girish Kumar, the sons of the informant
H Mewa Ram, Smt. Ramlali, his wife, son' Ram Rakshapal, the
OM PRAKASH v. STATE OF U.P. [S.S. SINHA, J.] 479

deceased and his wife Smt. Neha were busy in offering puja A·.-
to the deity. Allegedly, Dinesh Kumar, Ram Rakshpal, Ram Pal
"'-1 and Girish Kumar, sons of Mewa Ram were found guilty for
commission of an offence under Section 307 wherefor Ram
Shanker son of Chhotey Lal (accused No. 1) had lodged a First
Information Report (FIR). All the four sons of the informant B
preferred an appeal against the said judgment of co_nviction and
were released on bail. Admittedly, there existed a dispute with
regard to a house property between Shri Krishna, father of
t-~ Pappu (accused No. 7) on the one hand, and the informant as
well as his four sons on the other, wherefor a proceedings under
Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been
c
initiated.
3. Before adverting to the details of the prosecution case,
we may notice the inter se relationship amongst the accused.
··Accused ·Ram Shanker and Ram Bharosewere real brothers;
accused Dharmandera was son of Ram Shanker and others
D
were family members or relatives of Ram Shanker. Appellant
before us was not concerned with the aforementioned dispute.
. ·"" We may furthermore notice that whereas all the 7 accused had
been found guilty of commission of the offence of murder of
Ram Rakshapal (deceased), son of Mewa Ram by the learned E
trial judge, the High Court had found the appellant only guilty of
firing of a shot at the deceased, opining that participation of
other accused in the commission of the said offence was not
proved beyond doubt. We may furthermore notice that during
pendency of the appeal before the High Court Ram Bharose F
I
son of Chhotey Lal and Ram Shanker, son of Rudra Prasad
f expired.
~

4. The First Information Report, as noticed above, was
lodged by Mewa Ram (P.W.1) on 16.8.1979, stating:-
''This is to bring to your kind notice that approximately four G
years ago Rama Shankar s/o Chotte Lal Brahman lodged

. a criminal case u/s 306 against my son Dinesh Kumar,
Ram Rakshapal, Rampa! and Girish Kumar in which matter
the four were convicted. They were released on bail by the
High Court. Ever since Rama Shankar and his son H
-=l
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
e
A Dharmendra and Ram Bhar:ose and Om Prakash s/o
Ramch.andar and Satish s/o Rameshwar. ·and Ram
Shankar s/o Rudraprasad and Pappu alias Suresh s/o Sri·
,-
Krishna were seeking revenge; Sri Krishna also involved
us in the matter of partition of house under 107 which took
8 place in the court of Pargandhibari, Tilhar. This further
aggravated the enmity, so- that tonight around half past nine
when I was sitting on the cot in front of the door under the
roofwhile my son Dinesh Kumar, Shashi Kumar, my wife
Ramlali and my son Ramrakeshpal and his wife Neha were ~-I
\

performing Janamashtami puj~ in the 2 kitchens, then Om
c Prakash, Ram Bharose-each carrying their licensed guns
and Dharmendra and Sati$h carrying small guns
(tamancha) and Pappu alias Suresh and Ramashankar
carrying guns in their hands ehtered my house from the
eastern gate on which doors w~re not attached. Near the
D thatched roof a lantern was alight and in front of Girish
~umar's room a kerosene wicked box was burning. On
nearing the foot steps of above named.accused I inquired,
On rl)Y query my son Ram Rakshpal came out from kitchen '
and Om Prakash instantly fired! at my son from his gun. I
E and my family raised alarm. dn hearing the shouts my
nephew lshwar Chanctand Suraj Prasad came to the roof
carrying a battery. They saw under the power of the torch
that Rambharose and Dharmendra, Satish, Ramshankar,
Pappu alias Suresli and Ramshankar also fired at my son
Ram. R.akshapal, from their guns and small guns I
F . (tam;:tncha). My son re.ceived g~n shots and he fell down
there only. My son Dinesh Kum~r. Shashi Kumar, my wife -t ,,
t
I
Ramlali, Neha w/o Ram Rakshpal and my nephew lshwar
Char:id and Suraj Prasad also saw these peopie under the
light of torch, Lantern and kerosene box wick and clearly
G recognized them. After the accused ran away from the I--
eastern side we went and saw and founq that Ram I
Rakshpal had died. I could not care to report the incident
because of the fear of the accused. Now I came to lodge
the report written by. my brother. Report be registered and
L
H legal action be taken now. Because of rain the corpse of
~--
OM PRAKASH v. STATE OF U.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 481

Ram Rakshpal was removed from the courtyard to the A·
-; roof."
5. There exists a controversy as to whether the said report
was.lodged at4.45 a.m. or4.45 p.m. on 16.8.1979. Typed copy
of the FIR, however, show that it was lodged at 4.45 p.m. and
not at 4.45 a.m. We may also notice that the Investigating Officer B
while lodging the FIR stated that the same had been lodged at
9.30 p.m. on 16.8.1979. Admittedly, the FIR was sent to the
court of Chief Judicial Magistrate only on 17.8.1979. Neither
any inquest report nor any seizure memo had been proved. The
documents relating to post-mortem examination of the dead c
body was received by the Autopsy Surgeon at about 10.45 a.m.
on 17.8.1979. The dead body, however, was received at about
2.20 p.m. on that day and post-mortem was conducted at 2.30
p.m. Interestingly, the death, according to the Doctor, is said to
have taken place 3-4 days prior to the post-mortem
D
examination. In the said report, it was stated:
_,.( "Average- age built body Eyes closed, Mouth half open,
~
Abdomen scrotum and Penis distended Blister present at
places skin peeling off at places. Rigor Mortis passed off
from both upper extremities but slightly present in lower
extremities."
E
6. The FIR was scribed by one Ganga Sahai. He was
brother of Mewa Ram. He was, however, not ordinarily a
resident of village Parawnia where the incident took place but
was a resident of Tilhar.
F
.., r 7. The manner in which the incident had taken place was
noticed by the High Court, which is reads as under:
"Dinesh Kumar and Girish Kumar sons of Mewa Ram, Smt.
Ramlali, wife of Mewa Ram, Ram Rakshapal son of Mewa
Ram and Smt. Neha wife of Ram Rakshapal were busy in G
worship; Om Prakash and Ram Bharosey armed with their
licensed guns; Dharmendra, Satish· and Ram Shanker
sons of Shhotey Lal armed with country made pistols and
Pappu alias Suresh and Ram Shanker son of Rudra
Prasad armed with guns entered into the house of the
H
informant through eastern side where there was no gate.
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A Lantern and Dhibari were glowing. When Mewa Ram,
informant objected to it his son Ram Rakshpal came out r--
of the kitchen. Om Prakash fired on him and the shot hit
him (Ram Rakshapal). There~fter, other accused also fired
and Ram Rakshapal fell down on the spot. When alarm
was raised by Mewa Ram, his nephews lshwar Chand and ..,.
B
Suraj Pal PW2 with their torches reached the roof and saw
the accused persons inside the house of the informant.
After committing the crime, the accused persons made ~-
their escape good. Mewa Ram went near his son Ram
Rakshpal and found his son to be dead. Due to fear, Mewa
c Ram could not proceed imm~diately to the police station,
which was at the distance <i>f about four miles from the
village. He ultimately got FIRlscribed from one Ram Sahai
resident of the same village . nd lodged it at police station ..
Jaitipur on 16.8.1979 at 4.45 A.M. against the appellants."
1

D 8. The prosecution in support of its case, inter alia, relied
upon the evidence of Mewa Ram (PW-1), Surajpal son of
Ganga Singh (PW-2), and Dinesh Kumar, son of Mewa Ram
)....
1
,,.
(PW-4). '
~
Mewa Ram (PW-1) in his e~amination-in-chief reiterated
E the averments made in the FIR. 'f'e may, however, notice that
according to him Om Prakash anl::I Ram Bharose had licensed
guns and all others were having country-made pistols. Whereas )
"-
Om Prakash was said to have fired from a distance of 4-5
paces, other accused allegedly fired from a distance of 2-3
F paces only. PW-1 was supported by the other prosecution
witnesses. -+
°¥'

We may also notice that in. the post-mortem report, the
following ante-mortem injuries were found.
I

"1. Gunshot wound of entry b.5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep
G on right side face 0.5 cm ib front of tragus Rt. ear. No
blackening around wound: present. Margins inverted. I'
Direction from the Rt. side ramus & Rt. Mandible fractured. ~ ..
\

2. Gunshot wound of entry 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep
on Rt. side neck 4 cm below Rt. angle of Jaw Direction
·-..
H
)-

- I
\
I
/

OM PRAKASH v. STATE OF U.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 483

from right back to left. Margins inverted. No blackening or Ar
~
charring present.
3. Gunshot wound of entry 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x chest cavity
deep through and through Rt. side chest 8 cm. Above Rt.
nipple at 11 '0 Clock in position from nipple.
4. Gunshot wound of exit 1 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep through B
& through communicating injury No.3 on back of Rt.
Shoulder, 9 cm below tip of Rt. shoulder posteriorly.
- :r.- Margins everted.
9. Dr. M.L. Tandon, Autopsy Surgeon who was examined
before the learned trial judge as PW-6 stated that there were c
three wounds of entry, whose size and direction were same.
He furthermore opined that injuries caused to the deceased
was only possible if shots had been fired from his right side.
He furthermore was of the opinion that the duration of time of
death may vary by about 6 hours. We have noticed hereinbefore D
that according to the post-mortem report, Blister was found to
.... be present at places and skin was also peeled off at places .
• Rigor Mortis passed off from both upper extremities but slightly
present in lower extremities.
10. On the date of occurrence, according to the prosecution E
witnesses, it was raining and the dead body was kept under
the Chappar. The prosecution failed to obtain an explanation
from the Autopsy Surgeon as to how he had opined that death
had taken place 3-4 days prior to his post-mortem examination
although he examined the dead body within 41 hours from the F
t- time of occurrence. '

... 11. It is furthermore evident that all the prosecution
witnesses stated that all the accused persons had fired from
the respective firearms. According to them at least 7 shots were
fired; 3 shots had hit the person of the deceased. If that be so,
G
more than one gun must have been used. Appellant, as noticed
hereinbefore, is said to have been fired a shot from his licensed
~ gun. Its use, however, has not been established by the
r"" prosecution as the report of the ballistic expert is silent in that
regard. The empties which were found at the spot had not been
examined by any ballistic expert. The empties which were H
484
e
--
SUPREME COURT REPGRTS [2008) 17 S.C.R.

A recovered from the dead body wer~ not matched with the gun
allegedly used. ~

We may notice that two metallic pellets were recovered
from the dead body. Empties had ndt been shown to the expert;
even the attention of the Autopsy Surgeon was. not drawn
B thereto. Although shots were said to have been fired from a
distance of 2-3 paces, no blackening or charring was found to
1

be present. If the shots were fired from a close range, it was
expected that blackening and charring would have been noticed ~- ...
by the Autopsy Surgeon at the entry point.
c 12. Learned Sessions Judge and the High Court, with
respect, failed to apply their mind aslregards the time of lodging
of the FIR. Hirdey Narain Shukla, the Head Constable attached
.,_
with Police Station who was examined as PW-3 before the
learr:ied trial judge stated that the FIR was lodged at 4.45 a.m.
D and he had recorded the same immediately. According to him,
the special reports were sent by 6.00 a.m. through a constable.
However, the Investigating Officer did not say so. As we have ')I.
_..
noticed hereinbefore, he, in his evidence, categorically stated
that he had recorded the FIR at 9.~0 p.m. No evidence had
been brought on records to show that investigation had started
E on 16.8.1979. A site plan was prepared but it does not bear
any date. The prosecution has not efplained as to why the FIR
was sent to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 17.8.1979
and why the dead body was not sent for post-mortem on
16.8.1979 itself.
F 13. The High Court, in our opinion, committed a serious -1
error insofar as it proceeded on the basis that shots fired by
the appellant caused the fatal injufy. The High Court did not "'
analyze the evidence on record as to who caused the other
firearm injuries. If the prosecution witnesses, who were said to
I

G be the eye-witnesses, were to be believed, 6 out of 7 accused
could not have been acquitted and particularly those who had
direct enmity with Mewa Ram and his sons. Although Suraj Pal
I

(PW-2) son of Ganga Singh denied the suggestion that scribe
,.. '

-.ii
of the FIR who was admittedly a resident of different village
H (said to be at a distance of 1O kilometers) from the place of
OM PRAKASH v. STATE OF U.P. [S.S. SINHA, J.] 485

occurrence, the prosecution had not explained as to why he was A
not examined. If he was present in the village it was expected
that he also had witnessed the occurrence, as his son was said
to be an eye-witness. It is difficult to believe that in a case of
this nature the investigation did not start immediately. Inquest
report, preparation of seizure memo etc. which were to be B
carried routinely, and as such there was no reason as to why
they were not brought on record.

-... ""-"' ~'>J
14. While examining the original records of the case, we
have noticj:id that some interpolations have made in the
records ma·int~ined at the police station. The High Court, in our c
opinion, committed a serious error in drawing an inference that
appellant had rightly been held guilty for commission of offence
of murder of Ram Rakshpal as animosity between the parties
was proved. It failed to notice that there is nothing on record to
show that the appellant had been bearing any animosity against
D
the deceased. On the other hand, other accused were having
animosity towards the deceased, Mewa Ram and his family .
. .>f
Furthermore, the High Court did not pose unto itself the
• correct question, namely, the time of lodging the FIR, i.e.,
whether it had in fact been lodged at 4.45 a.m. or 4.45 p.m .. If
it was lodged at 4.45 p.m., the entire edifice of the prosecution E,
case would fall to the ground.
15. Delay in lodging the First Information Report has a
great importance in a case of this nature. Enmity between the
parties stands admitted. The prosecution case proceeded on
F.
the basis that immediately after occurrence and after shifting
.... the dead body under a shed, the informant got the First
.. Information Report scribed by Ganga Sahai and immediately
thereafter proceeded on foot to the Police Station. If this part
of the story is correct, the prosecution's case would not be
subject to much doubt. But if the scribe of the First Information G
Report was residing in a separate village which is 10 kms. away
from the place of occurrence, and it was at that place the FIR
.... was scribed whereafter PW1 arrived at the Police Station, it
would impossible for him to reach by 4.30 in the morning. The
prosecution did not examine the scribe of the First Information H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
e
A Report although his son has been· examined as an eye-witness. -
If he was residing at the relevant time in the village where the
-~
incident had taken place, it was expected that either he had ~

witnessed the occurrence or had reached the place of
occurrence immediately after the accused fled away. The
B prosecution, therefore, should have made attempts to clarify this
anomaly.
\-
Indisputably, there exists a disbrepancy as regards timing
of the lodging of the First Information Report. P.W.3, Head -t\._...,.--
Constable Hriday Narain Shukla, testified that it was lodged at
c 4.45 a.m. Records, however~how otherwise. In the FIR, it is
shown to have been lod ed. at 4.45 p.m. As noticed .
~

hereinbefore, there are some ·nterpolations but accord~ng to
the Investigating Officer, he reco~ded the First Information
Report at 9.30 p.m. on 16.8.1979. ·

D 16. Moreover, if the First Information Report was lodged
early in the morning, there was absolutely no reason as to why
the investigation did not start immediately thereafter. If Head
Constable Hriday Narain Shukla iJ correct that the copies of
);._
..
the First Information Report had been sent to all. concerned
including the court, there was absolutely no reason as to why
E the same would reach the court on the next date. We also fail
to comprehend as to why the dead body was sent for post
mortem only on 17th instead of 15th itself. The seizure memo
does not contain any date. The original inquest report is not on
record.
F 17. Furthermore, except the appellant all other accused
have been acquitted. The High Court, therefore, did not rely -t
upon the prosecution case in its entirety. While doing so,
....
unfortunately, the High Court did not ~onsider these vital aspects
of the matter which were crucial for idetermination of the issue.
G 18. For the aforementioned: reasons, the impugned
judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and it is set
aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. The Appellant who_
is in custody is directed to be set ?t liberty unless wanted in
connection with any other case.
H N.J.
-·
Appeal allowed.

...