Summary
The Court upheld reversal of acquittals where prompt reporting, credible eyewitnesses and medical findings proved a fatal armed attack. The trial court had treated a general site plan as exact and drawn unsupported inferences about injuries and missing witnesses. Relationship and enmity did not discredit otherwise reliable testimony, and investigative failures concerning ballistic proof did not defeat the direct, medically corroborated account.
Issues
- Whether the eyewitness account was reliable despite relationship, enmity and alleged inconsistencies.
- Whether medical evidence, reporting delays and investigative omissions justified acquittal.
Held
- The complaint was dictated promptly and contained the essential facts. Minor additions did not undermine it; an FIR need not contain every detail. Delayed compliance with Section 157 would not itself defeat prosecution, and the evidence excluded the suggested later concoction. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Six firearm entry wounds and sharp-weapon injuries corroborated the account. A general site plan could not establish exact positions or body angles; the trial court’s contrary medical inference was excessively technical and unsupported. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
- Enmity may motivate either crime or false implication, requiring assessment of the actual evidence. Here the core eyewitness account was reliable and promptly recorded; minor variations and relationship did not warrant rejection. Fear also explained the lack of independent villagers. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- The allegedly withheld witnesses were not shown to have witnessed the attack or had denied seeing it. Although failure to prove ballistic linkage prevented connecting the seized guns, it did not displace clear eyewitness evidence supported by the injuries. (¶¶ 20, 21)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the High Court convictions and sentences remained undisturbed. Pending applications disposed of.