Medical Report Missing Injured's Signature, Unexplained 9-Hour FIR Delay Fatal To Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Acquits Attempt To Murder Convicts

"These glitches are material in nature and pointing towards the fact that concocted FIR has been lodged by informant belatedly against the appellants implicating them for the offence of attempt to murder." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated April 1, 2026, held that an unexplained delay in lodging a First Information Report, coupled with glaring infirmities in medical evidence, creates insurmountable doubts regarding the veracity of the prosecution's case.

A single-judge bench of Justice Avnish Saxena acquitted two men convicted of attempt to murder, observing that when the evidentiary foundation is vague and plagued with procedural lapses, the prosecution utterly fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case stems from an alleged armed attack on January 19, 1986, where the informant claimed that the appellants, along with three unidentified men, ambushed and fired at him with a rifle and a gun due to prior enmity. The trial court convicted the two named appellants under Sections 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellants approached the High Court, arguing that the case was entirely fabricated and challenging the evidentiary basis of the trial court's judgment.

The primary question before the High Court was whether a conviction under Section 149 of the IPC could be sustained when only two accused were charge-sheeted and the identity of the remaining alleged unlawful assembly members was never established. The Court was also called upon to determine whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and material defects in the medico-legal report were fatal to the prosecution's allegations.

Requirement of Five Persons for Unlawful Assembly

Delving into the statutory requirements of unlawful assembly, the High Court noted that the prosecution merely mentioned three anonymous persons in the FIR to arbitrarily attract the provisions of Section 141 of the IPC. The Court observed that the details and descriptions of these three unnamed accused were never revealed during the investigation, nor was any effort made to establish their identity. Relying on the Supreme Court's constitution bench judgment in Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, the bench emphasised that vicarious liability under Section 149 cannot be mechanically applied unless it is conclusively proved that five or more persons actually constituted the assembly.

"There is no evidence on record to show when the unlawful assembly was created and when the common object to eliminate injured was found," the Court noted.

Absence of Signatures and X-Ray Plates Invalidates Medical Evidence

Scrutinising the medical evidence relied upon by the trial court, the High Court uncovered glaring procedural lapses that fundamentally weakened the prosecution's narrative regarding the gunshot injuries. The bench pointed out that the medico-legal examination report conspicuously lacked either the signature or the thumb impression of the injured victim, despite a specific space being provided for it in the standard form. Furthermore, the radiologist's findings were documented on a plain paper without the foundational corroboration of an actual X-ray plate being produced before the trial court.

"The vagueness of medico legal examination report is further attributed to the fact that the Doctor PW-10 has admitted the patient and informed the police, there is nothing on record to show that the police was informed and the injured was admitted in the hospital," the Court observed.

Delay in FIR Registration Suggests Concoction

The Court then turned its attention to the significant and entirely unexplained delay in the registration of the First Information Report. Although the alleged shooting occurred at 8:30 a.m. and the victim purportedly reached the hospital by 11:00 a.m., the FIR was not formally registered at the police station until 17:40 hours. The bench correlated this timeline with the admitted history of hostility between the parties, noting that the defence had successfully proved a previous instance where the appellants were acquitted of a similar attempt to murder charge levelled by the same informant.

"The delay in lodging of the FIR is not explained by the prosecution. The previous enmity between the accused appellants and injured is not only reflected from the statement of eye witnesses and the injured but the certified copy of previous accusation and acquittal of the accused is established by the defence," the judgment stated.

Strict Scrutiny Required for Interested Witnesses

Addressing the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, the Court noted that the three primary witnesses of fact were the real brothers and nephews of the injured informant. While acknowledging the settled legal principle that testimonies cannot be discarded solely on the ground of blood relationship, the bench stressed that such evidence demands rigorous judicial scrutiny to rule out partisan fabrication. The Court found inherent inconsistencies in their accounts, particularly regarding whether the injured victim had fired a revolver in self-defence, a dramatic claim the victim himself flatly denied during his deposition.

"The witnesses are related therefore their testimony is to be closely scrutinized and not discredited merely because they are related," the bench remarked.

"The falsity and vagueness of prosecution case in showing the presence of five accused with three unnamed, unidentified and without description about their built, physique, complexion and features for identification. Thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish guilt of accused, who shall be given benefit of doubt."

Holding that an appellate court must not shy away from extending the benefit of doubt when the prosecution fails to prove its case, the High Court allowed the criminal appeal. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court were entirely set aside, resulting in the acquittal of both appellants.

Date of Decision: 01 April 2026