Unexplained Delays and Contradictions in Evidence Lead to Acquittal: Telangana High Court

Telangana High Court acquitted five individuals convicted of murder citing serious lapses in the prosecution's case. A division bench of Justice K. Surender and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti set aside the convictions due to unexplained delays in the FIR and contradictions in witness testimony, granting the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

"Delay in Lodging FIR Raises Serious Doubts on Prosecution's Credibility"

The appellants were convicted by the trial court for their alleged involvement in the 2006 murder of Narsing Rao, with accusations of unlawful assembly and brutal assault using weapons such as knives and swords. The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, significant procedural and evidentiary gaps led to their acquittal by the High Court.

The court was particularly critical of the unexplained delays in lodging the FIR and dispatching it to the Magistrate. The incident occurred at 10 PM on December 21, 2006, only 500 meters from the police station, yet the FIR was registered at 6 AM the following morning and reached the Magistrate at 11 AM.

The court remarked: “Delay in lodging the FIR and its dispatch to the Magistrate throws any amount of doubt on the prosecution's version. The eight-hour delay remains unexplained and suggests fabrication or deliberation.”
The court also noted discrepancies in eyewitness testimonies. While P.W.9 claimed that a mob of 50 people attacked the deceased, P.W.4 only identified six attackers. These contradictions undermined the reliability of the evidence.
Justice K. Surender observed: “Contradictory narrations by witnesses regarding the number of assailants create serious doubts about the credibility of their accounts.”

Furthermore, despite allegations of a mob attack, no injuries were reported among the eyewitnesses. The court found this detail implausible, raising questions about the veracity of the witnesses’ accounts.

The court criticized the investigation for failing to provide legible copies of witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and for suppressing early evidence. Witnesses were examined late at night, and police patrolling staff reportedly had prior knowledge of the incident, yet no immediate action was taken.

The judgment stated: “It is apparent that the earliest version was suppressed. Lodging of the complaint, going to the police, and naming the accused appear to have been made after due deliberations.”

Setting aside the trial court's judgment, the High Court acquitted all five appellants, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded:
“For the reasons discussed above, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants. The prosecution's inability to satisfactorily explain the delays and inconsistencies casts a shadow over its case.”

This ruling underscores the importance of prompt and transparent police action in ensuring justice. The court’s emphasis on procedural fairness and its rejection of unreliable evidence reaffirm the need for diligence in criminal investigations.

Date of Decision: December 31, 2024