FIR omissions and missing investigating officer testimony do not automatically discredit credible evidence; distant single-shot firing may reduce murder to culpable homicide.

Omission of some witnesses' names in the FIR, a witness's involvement in a counter-case, or non-examination of the investigating officer does not by itself justify rejection of otherwise credible prosecution evidence. Alleged medical and ocular inconsistency was also treated as insignificant where the prosecution version consistently suggested firing from a considerable distance. On the facts, a single gunshot from distance did not establish the intention required for murder under Section 302 IPC, so the offence was treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II, with corresponding liability of other accused depending on their role.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused by treating the prosecution evidence as unreliable on grounds such as omission of some witnesses' names in the first information report, non-examination of the investigating officer, and alleged inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence; (ii) Whether, on the evidence on record, the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustainable or the offence was one falling under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused by treating the prosecution evidence as unreliable on grounds such as omission of some witnesses' names in the first information report, non-examination of the investigating officer, and alleged inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence.

Analysis: The reasons adopted by the High Court were found to be unsound. Omission of some witnesses' names from the first information report was held not to be a safe ground by itself to reject their evidence. The circumstance that certain witnesses were accused in a counter case also did not render otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence unusable. Non-examination of the investigating officer, who had died after partial testimony, was held not to have caused prejudice so as to vitiate the prosecution case. The alleged inconsistency between the medical and ocular evidence was also rejected because the prosecution case from the beginning was that the shot was fired from a considerable distance, not from close range. The Court also emphasised that a criminal appeal should not be disposed of in a casual or non-reasoned manner when reversal of the trial court is ordered.

Conclusion: The High Court's wholesale acquittal on the stated grounds was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the evidence on record, the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustainable or the offence was one falling under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The evidence disclosed only one gunshot fired from a considerable distance. In that factual setting, intention to cause murder was not made out to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, the act clearly attracted criminal liability for causing death by a dangerous firearm shot, and the participation of other accused, depending on their roles and common object or abetment, justified modified convictions under the lesser offence and connected provisions.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was altered to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with corresponding convictions of the other liable accused under the related provisions.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: the acquittal recorded by the High Court was set aside to the extent necessary, the convictions were modified to lesser offences for the responsible accused, and the acquittal of the remaining accused was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Omission of a witness's name from the first information report, the fact that a witness is involved in a counter case, or non-examination of the investigating officer by itself does not justify rejection of otherwise credible evidence; and where the facts disclose a single firearm shot from a considerable distance without the requisite murderous intention, the appropriate offence may be culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than murder.

---