Omission To Name Some Accused In FIR Is a Relevant Fact Under Section 11 Evidence Act: Supreme Court

Post By 24law
February 10, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court has reiterated that when a complainant claims to be an eyewitness to a crime, the omission to name some accused individuals in the First Information Report (FIR) becomes a relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. A Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan upheld the acquittal of an accused in a murder case, highlighting that such an omission weakens the prosecution's case.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a murder incident in 2004 in which the father of the deceased, Ompal Singh, lodged an FIR against the accused, Raghuvir Singh, and two unidentified persons. The prosecution alleged that the deceased, Rajkumar, was brutally murdered by the accused along with two juvenile co-accused, who were armed with knives. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. However, the Allahabad High Court later acquitted him, citing inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, particularly the omission of the juvenile accused in the FIR.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the prosecution’s eyewitnesses and the delay in lodging the FIR. The Court noted that the complainant claimed to have witnessed three individuals attacking his son, yet he mentioned only one accused—Raghuvir Singh—in the FIR. This omission, the Court held, significantly impacted the reliability of the prosecution’s case. The Court stated: "If he claims to be an eye-witness to the incident and is said to have witnessed three persons known to him assaulting his son i.e. the deceased then what was the good reason not to name the other two accused (juvenile Accused) in the FIR. This omission assumes significance and is a relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act."

The Court cited the precedent set in Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1975 SC 1026), where it was held that if an eyewitness truly saw multiple assailants, their omission from the FIR raises serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution’s case. In that case, the Court had observed: "No doubt, an FIR is a previous statement which can strictly speaking, be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But, in this case, it had been made by the father of the murdered boy to whom all the important facts of the occurrence, so far as they were known up to 9-15 p.m. on March 23, 1970, were bound to have been communicated. If his daughters had seen the appellant inflicting a blow on Harbinder Singh, the father would certainly have mentioned it in the FIR. We think that omissions of such important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case."

Delay in FIR and Contradictions in Evidence

Another crucial aspect considered by the Supreme Court was the delay of approximately 14 hours in lodging the FIR. The prosecution claimed that the complainant and other witnesses saw the crime at around 10:30 PM on August 28, 2004, but the FIR was registered only at 1:00 PM the next day. The Court observed that the delay in filing the FIR, coupled with the omission of the juvenile co-accused, made the prosecution’s case highly doubtful.

The Court further noted that the High Court had rightly disbelieved the testimony of the three prosecution witnesses, as their conduct appeared unnatural. The defense had presented its own witnesses, including DW-1 Satpal, who testified that the deceased’s body was discovered at his tubewell. The Court acknowledged that defense evidence should not be casually disregarded and must be given equal weight in criminal trials. The Court emphasized: "The trial Judge owes a responsibility to weigh the probability of the prosecution evidence, which he has to do for arriving at the decision whether the prosecution allegations have been proved by the standard laid down in Section 3 of the Evidence Act."

Supreme Court’s Verdict

After analyzing the inconsistencies and the omission of crucial facts from the FIR, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused. The Court observed that once the eyewitness accounts were found unreliable, the remaining circumstantial evidence, including the alleged discovery of weapons, was insufficient to sustain the conviction. Dismissing the State’s appeal, the Court concluded: "In overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the High Court committed no error in passing the impugned judgment acquitting the respondent-accused." Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed that the omission to name some accused individuals in an FIR is a relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act, significantly affecting the credibility of an eyewitness account.