Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court

"Still further, we find that in the panchayatnama, as also in the postmortem, there was no mention of any case crime number. This went to definitely show that till such time as the panchayatnama and the postmortem were being conducted, the FIR was not in existence." Allahabad High Court has held that the absence of a crime number in the inquest report and post-mortem examination, coupled with a fundamental discrepancy between the police station FIR and the FIR transmitted with the Special Report under Section 157 CrPC, clearly establishes that the FIR was not in existence at the time of the inquest and was subsequently tailored to match post-mortem findings.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay observed that when documentary evidence reveals ante-timing and interpolations in statutory police registers, the presence of alleged ocular witnesses becomes wholly suspect.

The appellants, Rahul Sharma alias Manu and Pinku alias Anmol Sharma, were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 25 and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in 2016. The prosecution alleged that the appellants shot and stabbed the deceased in broad daylight at a public crossing over resentment stemming from an inter-caste court marriage. Aggrieved by their conviction and the direction to pay compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC, the appellants approached the High Court challenging the authenticity of the FIR and the presence of the complainant eyewitnesses.

The primary question before the Court was whether the non-mention of the case crime number in the panchayatnama and post-mortem report, coupled with contradictions between the primary FIR and the Special Report sent to the District Magistrate, proved that the FIR was ante-timed. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the testimony of ocular witnesses could be sustained when the physical evidence, General Diary entries, and the site plan contradicted the overt acts attributed to the accused.

Material Discrepancy Between Police Record And Special Report Sent To Magistrate

The Court scrutinized the conflicting versions of the FIR produced on record, noting that while the prosecution relied on Exhibit Ka-3 which alleged a knife stabbing, the duplicate copy retrieved from the District Magistrate’s office with the Special Report (Exhibit Kha-1A) strictly recorded that all three assailants had only fired gunshots. Rejecting the departmental inquiry which had blamed the Special Report for interpolation, the Bench noted that records sent to the District Magistrate could not be easily accessed or manipulated by the informant or local police.

Omission Of Case Crime Number Demonstrates Ante-Timing Of FIR

Crucially examining the contemporaneous inquest and post-mortem paperwork, the Bench observed that neither document reflected the registration of the crime number. The Bench noted that the initial report prepared by the doctor who declared the deceased dead had only recorded firearm injuries, which prompted the subsequent manipulation of the FIR once the post-mortem subsequently uncovered an epigastric stab wound.

"Since there was no mention of the stab wound injury, we are convinced that P.W. -1 and P.W.- 2 were not there at the site, and they had only mentioned about the gunshot injuries on the basis of the appearances of the injuries, and also on the basis of the report which was sent by the doctor..."

Interpolations In General Diary Indicate Active Fabrication Of Records

The Bench took serious exception to widespread overwriting in the police station's General Diary, where entries from GD Nos. 26 to 30 were visibly altered to falsely depict timely registration. The Court found that GD No. 15 had been rewritten as GD No. 30 to align with the altered narrative of a knife attack. The judges observed that when interpolations are made in statutory records to accommodate post-mortem findings, the bedrock of the prosecution's ocular narrative collapses.

Suspicious FIR Invalidates Entire Prosecution Case: Supreme Court Precedent Followed

Relying upon the Supreme Court ruling in Nallabothu Ramulu alias Seetharamaiah and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014 Cri LJ 2487), the Bench reiterated that serious infirmities and suspicious circumstances attending the registration of an FIR render the entire prosecution case doubtful. The Court underscored that when an FIR is ante-timed to introduce new weapons and injuries that were unbeknownst to the complainant at the initial stage, the alleged eyewitnesses cannot be believed.

Omission In Site Plan And Physical Improbabilities Discredit Eyewitnesses

The High Court observed that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 was irreconcilable with the physical evidence at the crime scene. The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer under the pointing out of the complainant completely failed to mark the spot from where the stab wound was inflicted. Furthermore, while the prosecution alleged that the pillion rider shot the deceased while driving a moving scooter, the scooter was never recovered, and the body bore no abrasion or blunt injury consistent with a fall from a two-wheeler.

Failure To Produce Ballistics Report And Lack Of Independent Corroboration

The Court also faulted the investigation for withholding the Forensic Science Laboratory report matching the seized country-made pistols with the recovered bullets. Despite the crime occurring in broad daylight at a public crossing, no independent witnesses were examined, and the sister of the appellant, examined as CW-2, turned hostile and refuted allegations of domestic hostility.

Acquittal And Directions For Immediate Release

Holding that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentences awarded under Section 302/34 IPC and the Arms Act. The Bench directed that the appellants be released forthwith from custody if not required in any other proceeding, discharging their bail bonds and sureties.

The Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal appeal, holding that the FIR was an ante-timed document manufactured after the post-mortem examination. The judgment reinforces the vital evidentiary principle that unexplained omissions of crime numbers in inquest reports and irreconcilable variations in Section 157 CrPC Special Reports fundamentally destroy the veracity of eyewitness testimony.

Date of Decision: October 16, 2026