Unexplained Delay In FIR And Absence Of Medical Evidence Entitles Accused To Benefit Of Doubt Under Section 302 IPC: Gauhati High Court

"If the Prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of an accused’s statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction." Gauhati High Court, in a judgment dated October 9, 2026, set aside the conviction of an appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to a significant, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of foundational medical evidence linking the alleged assault to the death of the deceased.

A bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Rajesh Mazumdar observed that "the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt," consequently granting the appellant the benefit of doubt.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for allegedly murdering the deceased, Anil Reba Singh, with an axe on May 16, 2020. While the incident reportedly occurred in May, the FIR was only registered on June 11, 2020, after the deceased had passed away. The Trial Court relied upon the testimony of an alleged eyewitness and the appellant’s statement under Section 313 of the CrPC to secure a conviction, which the appellant subsequently challenged before the High Court.

The court was primarily tasked with determining whether the conviction could be sustained in the absence of consistent medical documentation linking the injuries to the date of death and whether an unexplained 25-day delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with major evidentiary discrepancies, rendered the prosecution’s version unreliable. Additionally, the court addressed the extent to which an accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC can be used to bridge gaps in the prosecution's case.

Scrutinizing the Delay in FIR

The court noted that while a delay in filing an FIR is not per se fatal to the prosecution’s case, it necessitates a plausible explanation. In this instance, the FIR was filed 25 days after the incident and 12 days after the victim's death. The explanation provided—that the informant was busy with the Shraddha ceremony—was rejected as illogical, given that the ceremony occurs only after death, leaving the period prior to the death entirely unexplained.

Court Points To Failure Of Medical Documentation

The bench emphasized that the prosecution failed to exhibit any medical reports, hospital admission cards, or discharge summaries from the three hospitals the deceased allegedly visited. "There is no medical report/s or prescription/s exhibited by the Prosecution during trial, as to the medical treatment and injury suffered by the deceased, prior to his death," the court observed. Furthermore, the court highlighted a critical discrepancy where the doctor conducting the post-mortem referred to the deceased by a different name than that mentioned in the FIR, complicating the identity of the victim.

Prosecution Must Prove Nexus Between Assault and Death

The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a clear medical nexus between the assault on May 16 and the cause of death. The lack of medical records meant the court could not ascertain if the fatal injuries recorded in the post-mortem report were indeed sustained on the date of the alleged assault, especially when evidence suggested the deceased had returned home from the hospital during the interim period.

Evidentiary Weight of Section 313 CrPC Statement

Addressing the appellant's admission under Section 313 CrPC—where he claimed he used force in self-defense—the court clarified that such a statement is not substantive evidence. Quoting Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh, the court reiterated that "if the Prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of an accused’s statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction."

The court further noted that the seizure of the weapon (axe) was shrouded in doubt. Witnesses contradicted the Investigating Officer regarding the location of the seizure, and testimony indicated the seizure list was signed while blank. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution’s case lacked the necessary credibility to sustain a conviction. The judgment of the Trial Court was set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released immediately.

Date of Decision: 09 October 2026