Mere Delay in FIR Is Not Always Fatal, But When Coupled with Dubious Motive and Contradictions, Conviction Cannot Be Sustained: Allahabad High Court Acquits Three in Murder Case

It Is the Quality of Evidence, Not Quantity, That Determines Guilt – Prosecution Failed to Inspire Confidence - In a significant ruling Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), in the case of Shahid Anwar @ Shahid Ali and 2 others vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary, Home, acquitted three men who were earlier convicted under Sections 302/34 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The Division Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav held that the prosecution's case suffered from inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and suspicious delay in lodging the FIR. The Court remarked:
“Though delay in lodging of FIR is not always fatal, when such delay creates doubt on the genesis of the incident, the benefit must go to the accused.”

The case arose from an incident on 14.05.2015 in District Barabanki, where the deceased, Mohammad Anis, was allegedly assaulted and shot dead by the appellants due to enmity stemming from a prior dispute over a motorcycle. The FIR was lodged by Mohammad Sadiq (brother of the deceased) at 1:40 AM on 15.05.2015, nearly 5 hours after the incident.

The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 302/34 and 506 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹25,000 each. Aggrieved by the conviction, they approached the High Court in criminal appeal.

The appellants' counsel argued that the FIR was highly delayed and appeared to be a manipulated afterthought. They pointed to contradictions in the prosecution's narrative and the unnatural conduct of eyewitnesses who neither tried to save the deceased nor raised alarm. The defence stressed that key independent witnesses were not examined, and recoveries were not credible.

The State contended that the conviction was based on cogent eyewitness evidence and supported by medical evidence.

The High Court noted with concern the delay in lodging the FIR and absence of plausible explanation. The Bench observed: “There was no compelling circumstance shown by the informant for not lodging the report immediately or at least informing the police. Such delay creates suspicion about the authenticity of the prosecution version.”

On the testimony of eyewitnesses, the Court remarked: “The so-called eyewitnesses neither attempted to save the deceased nor tried to arrange medical help… nor did they inform the police, which is quite unnatural and creates doubt on their presence at the spot.”

The Court also highlighted material contradictions in the statements of witnesses and discrepancies regarding the identity and participation of the accused.

Further, the motive suggested by the prosecution was found to be "weak and insufficient", and the Court noted:

“In criminal jurisprudence, when the prosecution fails to prove motive with convincing clarity, and the ocular version is shaky, the prosecution cannot claim a conviction merely on moral grounds.”

The Court found that the ballistic report did not support the recovery of the weapon from the accused. The prosecution failed to prove that the country-made pistol allegedly recovered was used in the crime. The Court stated:

“The prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the recovered weapon was used in the crime. Mere recovery, without corroboration through forensic linkage, is insufficient.”

Finding the overall evidence unsatisfactory, the High Court concluded: “The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. The conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court cannot be sustained.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and all three appellants—Shahid Anwar @ Shahid Ali, Farooq, and Shanu—were acquitted.

The Court ordered: “The appellants shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.”

This judgment reaffirms the principle that criminal convictions cannot be sustained on conjectures, delays, and uncorroborated testimonies. The Allahabad High Court emphasized the golden rule of criminal law:
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

Date of Decision: 07 March  2025