Delay in Lodging FIR is Fatal Where Police Reached the Crime Scene Same Night: Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused After 38 Years

“Prosecution Story is Not Only Implausible But Conceals More Than It Reveals” –  In a powerful reaffirmation of settled criminal law principles, the Allahabad High Court, in a reportable judgment dated December 1, 2025, acquitted Onkar Singh—the sole surviving appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2849 of 1987—of the charge of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court had proceeded on conjectures rather than evidence.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar and Justice J.J. Munir observed:
“The finding of guilt was recorded on conjectures, whereas the prosecution case suffers from serious contradictions, suppression of facts, and unexplained delay that shakes its very foundation.”

The decision not only sets aside a conviction passed in 1987 but also lays down a stern message on the importance of spontaneous FIRs, unbiased investigation, and the duty of courts to scrutinize testimony in light of motive, delay, and credibility.

"Delay in Lodging FIR, Despite Police Presence at Scene, Erodes Spontaneity and Suggests Afterthought"

The prosecution case revolved around the murder of one Rajendra Singh on the night of February 10, 1985, allegedly at the hands of Virendra, Ajab Singh @ Bali, and Onkar Singh, who were said to have entered the victim’s house with the intent to retrieve a gun and then killed Rajendra. The FIR was registered at 6:30 a.m. the next morning, despite police reaching the house by 11 p.m. the same night—a fact proven by general diary entries and police testimony.

The Court drew heavily from binding precedent, noting:
“In Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court warned that delayed FIRs become breeding grounds for embellishment. The delay in the instant case, despite the police being on the scene the same night, suggests afterthought.”

The Bench further relied on Meharaj Singh v. State of U.P. to reiterate that:
“Delay in FIR destroys spontaneity and allows for concoction. The FIR ceases to be a true version of events and becomes a crafted narrative.”

What turned the case sharply against the prosecution was not merely the delay, but the suppression of the fact that the police had already reached the scene at midnight—brought there by relatives of the accused themselves. Yet, both key eyewitnesses—P.W.1 Ramji Lal and P.W.2 Shakuntala—flatly denied any such police presence that night.

The Court found this troubling:
“The denial by eyewitnesses of the police presence, when documentary and police evidence confirms it, is a clear indication that the prosecution witnesses were suppressing material facts. This lends credence to the defence theory that the FIR was crafted post facto to falsely implicate the accused.”

“When All Independent Witnesses Are Withheld and Interested Witnesses Contradict Themselves, Prosecution Cannot Inspire Confidence”

The Court heavily criticized the prosecution's failure to examine any independent witnesses despite the presence of multiple villagers and women during the incident. It noted that both key witnesses were close relatives of the deceased, and their testimony was marred by omissions, contradictions, and selective memory.

Quoting its own observation, the Court said:
“Both witnesses, being uncle and wife of the deceased, are not just related but are interested. Their denial of obvious facts, such as the presence of the police, undermines their entire credibility.”

The Court also noted that these witnesses had given contradictory accounts regarding who did what, and that the version presented at trial was full of improvements over earlier statements made during investigation.

“Prosecution Story of Pre-Planned Murder Followed by a Misleading FIR Is Itself Implausible”

The trial court had accepted the State’s theory that the accused planned the murder and simultaneously had their relatives mislead the police with a false narrative of dacoity. The High Court dismantled this reasoning:

“It is hard to believe that under a criminal design, some accused would commit a brazen murder without concealing identity, while simultaneously sending their own relatives to the police to mislead them.”

Further, the Court pointed out that the accused were never absconding, and were arrested from their homes two days later, which negates the theory of guilt.

The prosecution also claimed that a country-made pistol and cartridges were recovered from Onkar Singh’s coat, but the investigating officer filed a final report under the Arms Act, finding no evidence connecting the weapon to the crime.

The Court was categorical:
“If the recovery of weapon is itself doubted and dropped by the police, then attributing the fatal shot to the appellant becomes speculative.”

“Villagers Were Saying Dacoits Came, Witness Says ‘Don’t Shoot, He’s Not a Dacoit’ – That’s Not Innocent Testimony, That’s Concealment”

A particularly telling moment in the judgment is when the Court analyzed a statement made by P.W.1 Ramji Lal, who claimed to have told the accused Virendra: “Veerendra Bhai, he is not a miscreant, he is my nephew Rajendra. Don’t shoot him.”

The Bench noted:
“This statement reveals far more than the witness intended. Why would he say ‘he is not a miscreant’ unless miscreants were actually present? It is a slip that reveals the real possibility that the assailants were not the accused, but unknown persons.”

This, coupled with the villagers’ statements (as recorded by police) that “dacoits had entered the house,” led the Court to conclude that the accused were likely implicated due to village partybandi (political rivalry).

“Trial Court’s Finding Was Built on Speculative Theories, Not Proven Facts”

In a rare and direct indictment of the trial court’s reasoning, the High Court declared:

“The trial court’s finding regarding a pre-planned assault and a diversionary FIR filed by relatives of the accused is unfounded and not supported by any evidence on record.”

Ultimately, the Court held that the appellant, Onkar Singh, had been wrongly convicted, and acquitted him of all charges, stating:
“The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The involvement of appellant appears highly doubtful and conviction cannot be sustained.”

“The instant criminal appeal is allowed. We set aside the judgment and order dated 02.12.1987 passed by the Trial Court and acquit the surviving appellant, Onkar, of the charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC.”

The Court further ordered that Onkar Singh, who was on bail, need not surrender and that his bail bond stands cancelled and sureties discharged.

A Cautionary Tale for Criminal Jurisprudence

This judgment is not merely an acquittal after 38 years—it is a sharp reminder of the constitutional requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the danger of partisan investigations, and the judicial responsibility to not convict on conjecture.

The Allahabad High Court has sent a clear message:
“Where the prosecution suppresses truth, manipulates facts, and relies on interested witnesses while ignoring glaring improbabilities, the scales of justice will not support a conviction—no matter how long ago the incident occurred.”

Date of Decision: December 1, 2025