Holding

The conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and was set aside.

Summary

The case concerned the murder of Laxman Singh on 3 November 1977, for which Kalu, Meharaj Singh and others were charged under Section 302 IPC. The trial court acquitted all accused, finding the First Information Report (FIR) to be ante‑timed and the eyewitness testimony unreliable, especially in view of contradictory medical evidence. The Allahabad High Court reversed the acquittal of Kalu and Meharaj Singh, relying on a disputed interpretation of the post‑mortem findings and accepting the eyewitness accounts. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the credibility of the eye‑witnesses, the inconsistencies in the medical report, and the procedural lapses concerning the FIR, inquest report and the handling of evidence. It held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the High Court’s findings were based on conjecture and unsupported assumptions. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and ordered the appellants’ immediate release.

Issues considered

The adequacy and reliability of eyewitness testimony in a murder trial
The interpretation and weight of medical (post‑mortem) evidence versus eyewitness accounts
Whether the FIR and inquest report were ante‑timed, affecting the credibility of the investigation
Whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302 IPC

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 157, s. 174
Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction Act, 1970s. 2(a)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

murderSection 302 IPCeyewitness testimonymedical evidenceFIR ante‑timingreasonable doubtacquittalconviction reversalcriminal procedure

Judgment

A LINK. MEHARAJ SINGH/KALU
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

APRIL 21, 1994

B [DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.)

Indian Penal code, 1860 :
I
S.302-Murder-Trial oHye-witnesses not believed-All accused
C aquitted-On appeal High Court maintained aquittal of one and convicted
the other two accused-Sentenced to life imprisonment-Held : keeping in
view their unnatural conduct, it could be said that none of the witnesses had
actually seen the occwrence-Accused roped in on account of misguided
suspicion because of previous enmity-Conviction and sentence recorded by
the High Court set aside.
D
K. and M along with N and B were challenged for an occurrence
which allegedly took place on 3-11-1977 at 11.15 A.Min which the deceased
L died. K and N are both brothers and B is their nephew. The F.I.R. is
said to have been lodged at about 12.45 P.M. by the father of the deceased.
·~

-
'

The prosecution alleged that there was background of hostility between
E the parties of the deceased and the accused. The prosecution version of
the incident ls that when the deceased along with his wife P.W. 3 were
loading Jawar in their cart, the accused persons armed with gun, country
made pistol and knife, attacked him. N. & K are alleged to have shot at
the deceased with their respective weapons, while M is said to have
F caused injuries to the deceased with knife, after he had fallen down. In
support of its case the prosecution examined four alleged eye-witnesses
viz. P.W. 2, P.W.3 (wife of the deceased), P.W. 4 and P.W. 5.

The Trial Court acquitted all the accused. The State appealed to the
High Court. N died during the pendency of their appeal before the High
G Court and therefore the appeal abated in respect of him. The High Court
maintained the acquittal of B while reversing the acquittal of K and M
and convicting them of various offences including the one punishable
under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

The State did not file any appeal against the acquittal of B, K and
H M appealed to this Court.
592
MEHARAJ SINGH v. STATE OFU.P. 593
;•
Allowing the appeals and setting aside their convictions and senten- A
ces, this court

HELD : 1. The observation of the High Court that the injuries were
caused by four different shots is not the opinion of the doctors because no
elucidation was sought from the doctor in this behalf, The High Court
divided the injuries, without any basis and ignored certain vital aspects like B

' -' the factum that injury No.13 consists of three wounds on the right arm upper
part which is at quite a distance from injury No.4. There is no evidence,
direct or indirect, about the height or health of the deceased but nevertbe-
less the High Court attempted to explain the direction of injuries Nos.5 and
6 by observing that the deceaSl'd was well built and so would be presumed to
be taller than the accused assailants. This is a purely conjectural finding
c
based on surmises and not on any evidence on the record. [600-E-H]

2. The High Court also, without any evidence, observed that the level
of the path way is normally 'slightly higher than the field with a view to
explain the directions of the injury as from upwards. (601-A]
' D
3. The presence of blackening and tattooing would show that the
-- shots had been fired from a closer range. No explanation was offered by
the prosecution and the High Court also did not properly appreciate this
aspect of the case. (601-B-C]
' E
4. The finding of the High Court regarding the incised wounds found
on the dead body of the deceased is even more conjectural which is neither
supported by the medical data nor by the medical opinion. [601-C]

S. Medical evidence is only an evidence of opinion and is not
~ '· conclusive, The High Court can decide the case on the basis of the F
evidence led and not on what ought to have been led. No explanation from
the medical witness was sought about the reason for three different types
of incised injuries found on the deceased and whether the same could have
been caused by one weapon alone. (601-F-G]

6. According to the Doctor, the presence of semi-digested food would G
• show that if the deceased had taken his food at about 7 a.m., bis death could
have taken place between 9 and 9.30 a.m. It would imply that he occurrence
. ~"
took place much earlier tl1an is alleged by the prosecution .
(601-G-H; 602-A]
7. The FJ.R. in the case was not recorded at the time alleged by the H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 3 S.C.R.
.,
A prosecution. According to P.W. 3 the deceased had left the house at 7 a.m. He
would have therefore taken his food before leaving the house because it is not
the prosecution case that food was served to him while he was in the fields.
Death, according to the medical witness, could have occurred within about 2
or 2\/2 hours from the time the deceased had taken food since 150 gms of
semi-digested food was found in the stomach of the deceased. According to
B P.W. 3 however, the occurrence took place at about 11.30 a.m., which would
imply that the deceased took his food later and did not leave bis houst at 7
.r
a.m. but at about 9.30 a.m. The effort on the part of P.W. 3 to show that the
' ~,

occurrence took place at 11.30 a.m. appears to have been made because she
wanted to back up the prosecution story by stating that the F.I.R. had been
c lodged promptly at 12.45 p.m. and that she bad seen the occurrence. Accord-
ing to the prosecntion case P.W. 8 the investigating officer left for the place
of occurrence after the case bad been registered at the police station but in
the inquest report prepared by him at the spot, the number of the F.J.R. or
the crime number has not been given. Even the beading of the case does not
find mention in the inqnest report. No explanation has been fnrnisbed for
D the omission of these vital matters from the inquest report. It is also relevant
to note that copy of the F.I.R. was not even sent to the medical officer along
with the inqnest report and dead body for post mortem. There is yet another '" .;.
factor which is very relevant. The prosecution laid no evidence to show as to
when the copy of the F.I.R., Special Report (which was required to be
E despatched under the statntory provisions of Section 154 Cr. P.C. read with
Section157 Cr. P.C. promptly to the Magistrate) was actually despatched.
There is no evidence either to show as to when the copy of the F.I.R. was
received by the Magistrate. [603-A-F, 604-A-B)

8. F .l.R. in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital
F and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence
laid at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the F.I.R. is >

to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the
crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the
parts played by them, the weapon, if any, used, as also the names of the
eye-witnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the F.I.R. often results in embelish-
G
ment, which is creature of an after thought. On account of delay, the F.I.R. :::
not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of ~

the introduction of a coloured vision or exaggerated story. With a view to
determine whether the F.l.R. was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been •
,. "! ~
recorded, the courts generally look for certain external checks. One of such
'
H checks is the receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., called a special report in a
595

murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the A
Mag~trate late it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at
the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course, the prosecution
can offer a satisfactory explanati<)n for the delay in despatching or receipt of
the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. Prosecution has laid no evidence
at all in this behalf. The second external check equally important is the
sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in B
the inquest report. Even though the inquest report, prepared under Section
174 Cr. P.C. is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the
prosecution case, the details of the F.I.R. and the gist of statements recorded
during inquest proceedings get reflected in report. The absence of those
details Is indicative of the fact that the prosecntion story was still in embrayo
and had been given any shape and that the F.I.R. came to be recorded later
c
on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante timed to give
it the colour of a promptly lodged F.I.R. [604-D-H, 605-A·B)

9. In the inquest report even the name of the accused has not been
mentioned. It also does not contain the names of the eye-witnesses and the D
gist of the statement of the eye-witnesses. It does not reveal as to how many
shots had been fired or how many weapons had been used. The inquest
report is not signed by any of the eye-witnesses, although the investigating
officer has categorically asserted that two of them were present at the place
of occurrence when he visited it and recorded their statements. [603-F-G]
E

10. It appears that it was a blind murder and none of the eye-witnesses
were actnallypresent at the scene. The ante timing of the F.I.R. was obviously
made to introduce eye-witnesses to support the prosecution case. This is
clear from the fact thatthough P.W. 3 the widow of the deceased claimed that
she was present with her husband at the time of occurrence, her conduct was F
so unnatural that not only she did not try to save her husband by trying to
provide cover but even after her husband fell down and was inOicted
repeated injuries with the knife by the appellant M, she did not even try to go
anywhere near her husband and even later nu hold his head in her lap and
try to provide some comfort to him. It is not the case of the prosecution that G
the clothes of any of them had got blood stained. The very fact that none of
these witnesses went to lodge a report that instead left it to the father of the
deceased to lodge the F.I.R. would also go to show that the witnesses in all
probability were not present at the spot. The absence ofany blood in the field
of K as also the absence of blood trail from the field to the place where the
dead body was found, as admitted by P.W. 8, also suggests that the occur- H
596, SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A rence did not take place in the manner suggested by the prosecution and that
the genesis of the fight has been suppressed from the Court. The evidence of
the doctor who conducted the 'post mortem examination showed that the
stomach contained partially digested food material weighing about 150 gms,
concluding therefrom that the occurrence must have taken place between 9
and 9.30 a.m. If the deceased had taken his food at 7 a.m. a doubt arises
B about the correctness of the prosecution version which alleged the time of
~.
occurrence as 11.30 a.m. presumably with a view to lend an assurance that
P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were present in the field at the time. The evidence of the
doctor to the effect that he had found incised injuries on the deceased includ-
ing one L shaped injury (injury No.11) and one semi-circular injury (injury
C No. 18) is indicative of the fact that these two injuries were caused by dif-
ferent weapons and looking to the nature of the other incised wounds on the
deceased, the possibility that three types of sharp edged weapons were used
cannot be ruled out. That being the position, it is obvious that the ocular
testimony does not fit in with the medical evidence and on the hand it con-
tradicts it. [605-C-H, 606-A-CJ
D
11. It appears that a concerted effort was made by the prosecution
witnesses to introduce R and J as eye-witnesses in the case but since they
have not been examined, it would be fair to draw a presumption that they
perhaps were not prepared to support the prosecution case, [606-E-F)

E 12, The fact that the alleged eye-witnesses are deeply interested in the
prosecution is not a ground to discard their testimony but it certainly puts
the court on its gnardto scrutinize their evidence more carefully. Keeping in
view their unnatural conduct, it appears that none of the alleged eye-wit-
nesses had actually seen the occurrence and they were introduced as eye-wit-
nesses after thoughtful deliberations and consultations. It appears, that
F since it was a blind murder the appellants have been roped in on account of
misguided suspicion because of previous enmity. [606-F-H)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
386 of 1993.
G
WITH

Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.7.91 of the Allahabad High
H Court in Government Appeal No. 126 of the 1979.
}--

MEHARAJ SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [DR. ANAND, J.] 597

D.S. Tewatia, Mahavir Singh, Kusum Singh and P.N. Gupta for the A
,+ Appellants.

Anis Ahmad Khan, A.S. Pundir and R.S. Yadav for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
DR. ANAND, J. These two appeals under section 2(a) of the
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act,
, 1970, are directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court
allowed the appeal of the respondent State and setting aside the acquittal
of the appellants in both these appeals. Since, the appeals arise out of the
common judgment, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.
c
Kalu, Neelu, Meharaj Singh and Babu were challanged by the police for
an occurrence which took place on 3.11.1977 at 11.15 a.m. at village Dhanju
in which one Laxman Singh was murdered. The trial court acquitted all the
accused, against which order the State went up in appeal to the High Court.
Neelu died during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court and, D
therefore, appeal against him abated. The High Court maintained the
acquittal of Babu who is the sister's son of Kalu and Neelu, the two
brothers, while convicting Kalu and Meharaj Singh for various offences.
The State has not filed any appeal against acquittal of Babu, Kalu and
'
Meharaj Singh have filed two separate appeals, as noticed earlier.
E
According to the prosecution case, on account of some pending
criminal litigation against the deceased his father and Some other members
of his faction for causing injuries to Neelu and Kalu and their father, the
relations between the parties were strained and both sides were hostile to
each other. On 3.11.1977 at about 11 a.m. when deceased Laxman Singh F
along with his wife Smt. Kamlesh PW2, were loading jawar in their cart,
kept at the chak road, accused persons armed with gun. country made
pistol and knife attacked him. Neelu and Kalu are alledgcd to have shot at
the deceased from their respective weapons, Meharaj Singh appellant is
alleged to have caused injuries with a knife to the deceased, after he had
fallen down.
G

! The first information report was lodged by Makhar Singh, father of
the deceased on 3.11.77, at about ~2.45 p.m. at Police State Daurala at a

~ .. distance of 4 kms. from the place of occurrence. The investigation of the
case was conducted by sub inspector Sultan Singh PW8 at the initial stage H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A and was then takenover by PW9 Laxman Singh sub-i.1spector. Sultan Singh
PW8, according to the prosecution version, reached the scene of occur-
rence at 2 p.m. and prepared the inquest report of deceased Laxman Singh
whose dead body was found at distance of about 21 steps from the Khajoor
tree which stood on the dividing line between the fields of Balbir Singh and
Ganga Saran. T!i.e investigating officer noticed pre,ence of the cart of the
B deceased at a distance of five steps from the Khajoor tree. The dead body
of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination wliich was con-
ducted by Dr. N.K. Pande PWlO, who four.cl a number of gun shot wounds
on the deceased besides eight incised wounds. Dr. Pande also found that
the stomach contained partially digested food material weighing about 150
C gms. 18 big shots and 80 palletes, along with wadding pieces, were
recovered from different parts of the body of the deceased during the post
mortem of the deceased.

The trial court, after appreciating the evidence on the record, opined
D that the first information report was ante timed and that the occular
testimony was contradicted by medical evidence. The trial court also found,
the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses PWs. 2, 3, 4 and 5 as unreliable,
not only on account of the fact that were all interested in the prosecution
but because their conduct was found to be unnatural. The trial court found
merit in the case set up by Neelu, deceased and Babu, the acquitted
E accused. Their case was that it was a blind murder and since none of the
alleged eye witnesses had actually seen the occurrence, they had roped in
the accused persons only on account of the previous enmity on mere
suspicion. Tl;ie High Court agreed with the trial court except in so far as
the complicity of the two appellants is concerned and set aside the order
of acquittal recorded against them We shall refer to relevant portions of
F
the evidence during the course of discussion and do not consider it
necessary to reproduce the entire evidence, which has been extracted by
both the courts below extensively.

The manner of occurrence was deposed to at the trial by Smt.
G Kamlesh PW3, widow of the deceased. She stated that when she along with
her husband were bringing the second bundles of jawar, after having placed
the first two bundles in the card earlier, all of a sudden a shot fired at her
husband on receipt of which the bundle of jawar fell down. She deposed
"
that Neelu accused armed with a gun, Kalu and Babu accused each
H carrying a pistol and Meharaj Singh armed with a knife were seen present
MEHARAI SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [DR. ANAND, l.) 599

near about, at a distance of about 1/2 hath from her husband. She went on A
to add that her husband went towards the carts, but could hardly reach the
boundary of the field of Balbir Singh, when Neelu, Kalu and Babu again
fired at him. He fell down and, thereafter, Meharaj Singh came there and
inflicted injuries on him with the knife. According to her testimony Neelu
had fired about 6-7 shots. She raised an alarm which attracted Balbir PW2,
Shiv Charan PW4, Satkari PW5 and others. They also witnessed the
B
occurrence. She went on to add that Neelu, Kalu and Babu each had
reloaded their fire arms during the incident once and they had fired at the
+ deceased twice. The assault with the knife by Meharaj Singh continued for
about 1/2 a minute to one minute and that the deceased was lying on his
right side when he breathed his last. During her cross examination she c
admitted that she took no steps to save her husband by either falling on
her husband or taking the assault on herself. She admitted that she did not
even receive a scratch during the entire occurrence and her clothes neither
got torn nor even got stained with blood. Balbir Singh PW.2 Shiv Charan
PW4, and Satkari PW5 have generally supported her testimony. Balbir D
Singh PW2 admitted in the cross examination that he arrived at the scene
after he heard the sound of firing and also of weeping but still went on to
say that he had seen all the accused firing at the deceased twice after
· reloading their fire arms. According to him the repeated firing had taken
place from a distance of 3-4 steps from the deceased. He further deposed
that he had conveyed the details of the incident to Makhar Singh father of E
the deceased, who had also reached the scene of occurrence. On his own
showing, his statement was recorded by the investigating officer in the
presence of S.H.0. and about 25 other persons in his village in the evening
and not at the spot, though the investigating officer had· arrived at the spot
while he was still there.
F
Shiv Charan PW4 deposed about the weapons which each of the
accused was armed with at the time of the occurrence as well as the manner
of assault on Laxman deceased. He admitted that he did not make any
attempt to save Laxman and went on to add that he did not do so because
he had been terrorised by the accused with their fire arms. He also G
narrated the occurrence to Makhar Singh after the latter arrived at the
scene. In the cross examination he admitted that he was a witness for Neelu
in a criminal case which he had instituted against the deceased Laxman
and others but that he had not been examined till then in the case against
Laxman and others and added that ir1 that case it was only Laxman H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994]3 S.C.R.

A deceased ltlio had caused injuries to Neelu, Kalu and Sri Ram by lathk
He admitted that on the date of the incident he could not go to his field
to see whether it was fit for being ploughed or no.l and that he went there
only the next morning. He also admitted that he himself is an accused in
a case relating to the murder of a lawyer, by name Vinod, which case was
B · still pending. He pleaded ignorance whether Neelu accused is a witness
against him in that murder case. He admitted that Yad Ram and Makhar
Sing had stood surety for him in the said murder case against him. Accord-
ing to him the present occurrence was also witne3sed by Resham and Jog
Raj. Prosecution has, however, not examined them as witnesses at the trial.
Satkari PW5 also generally supported the version given by Kamlesh PW3
C and Balbir Singh PW2. He denied that he was a servant of Makhar Singh.
He also named Resham as an eye witness. After having noticed the
substratum of the occular testimony, we shall now deal with the medical
evidence.

D Dr. N.K. Pande, PWlO conducted the post mortem examination of
the deceased. The details of the injuries have been given in the judgment
of the High Court as well as in judgment- of the learned Sessions Judge.
We need not, therefore reproduce the same. He had found gun shot
wounds as well as incised wounds on the deceased. Out of the injuries
noted by Dr. Pande, injuries 1-7, 9 and 13 were gun shot wounds of entry
E on different parts of the body of the deceased. The High Court observed
that injuries 1, 2 and 3 had been caused by one shot; 4-6 and 13 by second
shot, 7 and 8 by the third shot while 9 and 10 by the 4th shot. This, however,
is the observation of the High Court and not the opinion of the doctor
because no elucidation was sought from the doctor in this behalf. Looking
to the injuries from the post mortem report, it is obvious that injury No. 4
F consists of nine gun shot wounds in an area of 7x5 ems. This could most
probably be the result of one shot only as the direction is towards the back.
The direction of injuries 5 and 6 is from below upward and, therefore it is
possible that injury 9 and 13 could have been caused with the same shot.
The High Court divided the injuries, without any basis and ignored certain
G vital aspects like the factum that injury No. 13 consists ·of three wounds on
the right arm upper part which is at quite a distance from injury no. 4.
There is no evidence, direct or indirect, about the height or health of the
deceased but nonetheless the High Court attempted to explain the direc-
tion of injuries Nos. 5 and 6 by observing that the deceased was well built
and so wrnild be presumed to be taller than the accused assailants. This is
H a purely conjectural finding based on surmises and not on any evidence on
MEHARN SINGH v. STATE OFU.P. [DR. ANAND, J.) 601

the record. That he was well built is deposed to by the eye witnesses also A
but no question was asked about his height from any one. The High Court
also, without any evidence, observed that the level of the path way is
!lonnally slightly higher than the field with a view to explain the direction
of the injury as from upwards. In doing so the High Court ignored, the
evidence of PW3 to the effect that the level of path was only about six
fingers, According to the occular testimony o.f PWs 2-5, the first shot was B
fired by Neelu from a close range of about 2 paces and the other were fired
by him from a distance of about 6 and 7 paces. There was blackening and
tattooing around injuries 1,2,7,9 and 10. The presence of blackening and
tattooing would show that the shots had been fired from a closer range.
No explanation was offered by the prosecution and the High Court also
did not properly appreciate this aspect of the case. The finding of the High
c
Court regarding the incised wounds found on the dead body of the
deceased is even more conjectural which is neither supported by the
medical data nor by the medical opinion. Dr. Pande pointed out the
difference in width of various incised wounds according to which it is obvious
that .more than one sharp edged weapons had been used on. the deceased. D
Yet the eye witnesses have attributed the knife blows to only one of the
appellants, Meharaj Singh, and that to by one knife only. Injury No. 11 on
the deceased was found to be L shaped while injury No. 18 has been found
to be semi circular. The other incised injuries were also of different
dimensions. The trial court noticed these discrepancies and gave benefit of
doubt to the accused by holding that the prosecution had not been able to E
establish the case against them beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court
discarded the reasons of the trial court but without seeking any explanation
from the doctor regarding the number of sharp edged weapons which
might have been used, went on to surmise that since the injuries were in
some cases on the fleshy part of the body and some on the bony part, the
F
difference in the width was bound to occur. We are conscious of the fact
that the medical evidence is only an evidence of opinion and is not
conclusive but than the High Court can also decide the case on the basis
of the evidence led and not on what ought to have been led. No explanation
from the medical witness was sought about the reason for three different
types of incised injuries found on the dcccascd·and whether the same could G
have been caused by one weapon alone. According to Dr. Pande, the
presence of semi-digested food would show that if the deceased had taken
his food at about 7 a.m., his death could have taken place between 9 and
9.30 a.m. It would imply that the occurrence took place much earlier than
is alleged by the prosecution. These aspect were not considered in their
H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A proper perspective by the High Court. We are constrained to observe that
the approach of the High Court in dealing with the medical evidence, in
our opinion, was not proper and satisfactory and on tho other hand the
learned First Addi. Sessions Judge, Meerut dealt with the same in an
appropriate manner.

B We find force in the submission of Mr. Tewatia, the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant that the FIR had been ante timed and
thus the investigation was tainted.

According to the testimony of PW8 Sultan Singh sub-inspector, he
C reached the place of occurrence at about 2 p.m. on 3.11.1977. The dead
body of Laxman was lying at the place of occurrence. He prepared the
sketch of the dead body. Before coming to the place of occurrence, the
FIR had already been lodged at the police station in his presence and he
had commenced the investigation thereafter. After preparing the inquest
D report at the spot, he sent the dead body for post mortem examination
along with constables Mehabir Singh and Sikhbir Singh. He further
deposed that he had found blood at the place of occurrence and had
collected samples of blood stained soil. He admitted that he recorded the
statements of the witnesses Kamlesh and Shiv Charan at the spot while that
E of Balbir Singh in his village and that when he recorded the statement of
Balbir Singh, other witnesses were not present in the village. In the cross
examination the witness stated that he did not find any trailing of blood
from the field of Kirpal Singh to the place where the dead body was
actually found nor any blood in the field of Kirpal Singh. He also did not
show in the site plan the portion of the field from where the fodder had
F been cut. On being recalled, the witness stated that Balbir had not stated
before him that Makhar had reached the place of occurrence and that he
had disclosed the incident to him. The investigating officer, however,
offered no explanation as to why he had not recorded the statement of
Balbir Singh, if as deposed to by Balbir Singh, he was present at the site
G when the investigating officer came there. The trial court had found that
the FIR had been ante timed but the High Court discredited that finding
of the trial court and came to the conclusion that.FIR had been recorded
at the time as alleged by the prosecution and that there was no unfairness
or taint in the investigation. For the reasons which we shall presently
H demonstrate, we are of the opinion, that the FIR in the case was not
MEHARAJ SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. (DR. ANAND, J.] 603

recorded at the time as alleged by the prosecution. A
According to PW 3 Kamlesh, the deceased had left the house at 7
a.m. He would, therefore, have taken his food before leaving the house
because it is not the prosecution case that food was served to hirn while he
was in the fields. Death, according to the medical witness, could have
occurRed within about 2 or 2 1/2 hours from the time the deceased had B
taken food on account of the presence of 150 gms. of semi digested food
in the stomach of the deceased. According to PW3, however, the occur-
rence took place at about 11.30 a.m. which would imply that the deceased
took his food later and did not leave his house at 7 a.m. but at about 9.30
a.m. That is no bodys case. The effort on the part of Kamlesh PW3 to show C
·that the occurrence .took place at 11.30 a.m. appears to have been made
because she wanted to back up the prosecution story by stating that the
FIR had been lodged promptly at 12.45 p.m. by Makhar Singh and that she
had seen the occurrence. According to the prosecution case PW8, the
investigating officer, left for the place of occurrence after the case had been
registered at the police station but we find that in the inquest report which D
was prepared by PW8 Sultan Singh, the investigating officer, at t!ie spot
the number of the FlR or the crime No. has not been given. Even the
heading of .the case, does not find mention in the inquest report. No
explanation has been furnished for the omission of these vital matters from
the inqnest report. Was it because no FIR had actually been registered at E
the time as alleged by the prosecution and PW8 had reached the spot and,
after, some consultations and deliberations if came into existence ? In this
connection it is also relevant to note that copy of the FlR was not even
sent to the medical officer along with the inquest report and the dead body
for post mortem. The explanation of PW8 for not sending the copy of the
FlR or mentioning the name of the case or the crime No. in the inquest F
report is wholly unacceptable and the High Court erred in accepting the
ipse dixit of Sultan Singh PW8. It deserves to be noticed that in the inquest
report even the name of the accused has not been mentioned. It also does
not contain the names of the eye witnesses or the gist of the statement of
the eye witnesses. It does not reveal as to how many shots had been fired G
or how many weapon had been used. The inquest report is not signed by
any of the eye witnesses, although the investigating officer has categorically
asserted that Kamlesh and Shiv Charan were present at the place of
occurrence when he visited and he recorded their statements. If he had
actually recorded their statements, their is no reason why the details which
we have found missing from the inquest report shoutd not have been there. H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A There is yet another factor which is very relevant. The prosecution led no
evidence to show as to when did the copy of the FIR, Special Report, which
was required to be despatched under the statutory provisions of Section
154 Cr. P.C. read with 157 Cr. P.C. promptly, to the Magistrate was actually
despatched. There is no evidence either to show as to when the copy of
the FIR was received by the Magistrate. PW8 has remained singularly silent
B on this aspect of the case. According to PW3, the police inspector had
taken her thumb impression at the site, but the prosecution has with held
that document from scrutiny of the courts, for reasons best known to it.
The argument of Mr. Tewatia, the learned senior counsel that since no FIR
had been registered till the investigating officer arrived at the spot and
C conducted the inquest proceedings, the thumb impression of PW3 was
taken by the police on a document which was required to be used as a FIR,
cannot be said to be without any merit. It was the duty of PW8 to explain
as to on which document he had obtained the thumb impression of the
widow of the deceased at the spot and produce that document for scrutiny
D of the courts. He did not do so.

FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital
and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence
led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is
to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the
E crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the
parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the
eye witnesses, it any. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embelish-
ment, which is a creature of an after thought. On account of delay, the FIR
not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in
of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view
F to determine whether the FIR, was lodged at the time it is alleged to have
be.en recorded, the courts generally look for certain external checks. One
of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report _\
in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the
Magistrate late it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged
G at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the
prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in despatch-
ing or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. Prosecution
has led no evidence at all in this behalf. The second external check equally
important is the sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body
H and its reference in the inquest report. Even though .the inquest report,
MEHARAJ SINGH v_ STATE OF u_p_ [DR. ANAND,J.] 605

prepared under Section 174 Cr. P.C. is aimed at serving a statutory A
function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR
and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get
reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact
that the prosecution story was still in embrayo and had not been given any
shape and that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due delibera- B
tions and consultations and was then ante timed to give it the colour of a
promptly lodged FIR. In our opinion, on account of the infirmities as
noticed above, the FIR has lost its value and authenticity and it appears to
us that the same has been ante timed and had not been recorded till the
inquest proceedings were over at the spot by PW8.
c
It appears that it was a blind murder and none of the eye-witnesses
were actually present at the scene. The ante timing of the FIR was
obviously made to introduce eye witnesses to support the prosecution case.
We may demonstrate this by noticing that though PW3 Smt. Kamlesh the
widow of the deceased claimed that she was present with her husband at D
the time of the occurrence, her conduct was so unnatural that not only she
did not try to save her husband by trying to provide a cover but even after
her husband fell down and was inflicted repeated injuries with the knife by
the appellant Meharaj Singh, she did not even try to go any where near her
husband and even later on hold his head in her lap and try to provide some
comfort to him. This becomes obvioµs from the absence of any blood stains E
on her clothes. She admitted that she had not even received a scratch
during the occurrence. In a situation like this, the normal conduct of any
wife would be firstly to make an effort to save her hnsband even by taking
the blow on herself and if that is not possible then at least to go so close
to his person, at least after the assailants had left that there would be no F
escape from the blood oosing out of his injuries of the deceased to come
on to her clothes. Similar criticism is also available against Balbir PW2.
Shiv Charan PW4 and Satkari PW5. It is not the case of the prosecution
that the clothes of any of them had got blood stained. The very fact that
none of tbese witnesses went to lodge a report and instead left it to the
father of the deceased to lodge the FIR wonld also go to show that the G
witnesses in all probability were not present at the spot. The absence of
any blood in the field of Kirpal Singh as also the absence of blood trail
from the field of Kirpal Singh to the place where the dead body was fonnd,
as admitted by PW8, also snggest that the occurrence did not take place
in the manner suggested by the prosecution and that the genesis of the fight H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A has been suppressed from the court. The evidence of Dr. Pande who
conducted the post mortem examination showing that the stomach con-
tained partially digested food material weighing about 150 gms. and con-
cluding there from that the occurrence must have taken place between 9
and 9.30 a.m. if the deceased had taken his food at 7 a.m. would also throw
a doubt on the correctness of the prosecution version which alleged time
B of occurrence as 11.30 am., presumably to lend an assurance that PWs 2,
3, 4 and 5 were present in the field at the time. The evidence of Dr. Pande
also to the effect that had found incised injuries on the deceased including
a L shaped injury (injury No. 11) and a semi circular injury (injury No. 18)
is indicative of the fact that these two injuries were caused with different
c weapons and looking to the nature of the other incised wounds present on
the deceased, the possibility that the three types of sharp edged weapons
were used cannot be ruled out. That being the position, it is obvious that
the occular testimony does not fit in with the medical evidence and instead
it contradicts it.

D
It is interesting in this connection also to note that Satkari PW5
named Resham also as an eye witness. The High Court rightly held Satkari
to be a chance witness also but the prosecution has not explained as to why
Resham who was alleged to be an eye witness has not been examined.
According to ilalbir PW2, Jog Raj was also an eye witness. He too has not
E been examined. Shiv Charan PW4, also named Resham and Jog Raj as eye
witnesses. Thus, it appears to us that a concerted effort was made by the
prosecution witnesses to introduce Resham and Jog Raj as false eye
witnesses in the case but since they have not been examined, it would be
fair to draw a presumption, that they perhaps were not prepared to support
the false case. The High Court while setting aside the order of acquittal \.
F
did not deal with these various infirmities.

The alleged eye witnesses are undoubtedly deeply interested in the
prosecution but that by itself cannot be a ground to discard their testimony.
It, however, certainly puts this court on its guard to scrutinise their
G evidence more carefully and keeping in view their unnatural conduct, as
noticed above, it appears to us that none of the alleged eye witnesses had
actually seen the occurrence and they were introduced as eye witnesses
after thoughtful deliberations and consultations. It appears, that since it
was a blind murder, the appellants have been roped in on account of
H misguided suspicion because of the previous enmity. Our independent
)--

MEHARATSINGH v.STATEOFU.P.(DR.ANAND,J.] 607

analysis of the evidence on the record coupled with the infirmities which A
we have noticed above h2.s created an impression· on our minds, that the
prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt to either of the appel-
lants beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court was, therefore, right in
acquitting them and the High Court even after noticing the infirmities, in
our opinion, fell in error in convicting the appellants. The reasons given by
the High Court, to set aside the order of acquittal do not commend to us.
B
They are neither sutfidcnt nor adequate or cogent must less compelling.

As a result 01 our above discussion, we hold that the case against
both the appellants has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and
that they are entitled to benefit of doubt. Their appeals consequently C
succeed and are allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against
them by the High Court are set aside. The appellants shall be set at liberty
forthwith, if not required in any other case.

R.R. Appeals allowed.