Injured eyewitness testimony prevails over explained delay, inquest omissions, and defective investigation in restoring conviction.

Explained delay in lodging the FIR and sending the special report did not by itself weaken the prosecution case where injured witnesses were first taken for urgent medical treatment and the informant's statement was recorded only after medical fitness was certified. Omissions in the inquest report did not discredit the ocular version because an inquest is confined to the apparent cause of death and injuries, not the full manner of occurrence or names of assailants. Defects in investigation, including alleged lapses in seizure and forensic steps, could not override direct, consistent and medically corroborated injured eye-witness evidence. Non-examination of every cited or injured witness was not fatal, as evidence is weighed and not counted. The High Court's acquittal was held unsustainable and the trial court conviction and sentence were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the delay in lodging the FIR and sending the special report rendered the prosecution case doubtful; (ii) whether omissions in the inquest report could discredit the ocular version; (iii) whether alleged defects in investigation were sufficient to discard otherwise reliable prosecution evidence; and (iv) whether non-examination of some injured or cited witnesses justified acquittal.

Issue (i): whether the delay in lodging the FIR and sending the special report rendered the prosecution case doubtful.

Analysis: The injured witnesses and the deceased were taken first for urgent medical treatment, one injured later died and another required surgery, and the statement of the informant was recorded only after a doctor certified him fit to do so. The delay was therefore explained by the circumstances and did not, by itself, create doubt about the prosecution version.

Conclusion: The delay did not weaken the prosecution case and no adverse inference was warranted.

Issue (ii): whether omissions in the inquest report could discredit the ocular version.

Analysis: An inquest under the Criminal Procedure Code is confined to the apparent cause of death and the nature of injuries. It is not meant to record the full manner of occurrence or the names of assailants. Omission of such details in the inquest report, therefore, had no bearing on the truth of the eye-witness account.

Conclusion: The omissions in the inquest report did not undermine the prosecution evidence.

Issue (iii): whether alleged defects in investigation were sufficient to discard otherwise reliable prosecution evidence.

Analysis: The alleged lapses, including non-seizure of the window gauze, non-sending of arms and empties to the forensic laboratory, and omissions in the daily diary, were treated by the Court as matters of defective investigation only. Such defects cannot override direct, consistent and medically corroborated evidence from injured eye-witnesses.

Conclusion: The defects in investigation were not a valid ground to reject the prosecution case.

Issue (iv): whether non-examination of some injured or cited witnesses justified acquittal.

Analysis: The prosecution had already examined three injured eye-witnesses whose presence at the scene was beyond doubt. Section 134 of the Evidence Act does not require a particular number of witnesses, and the law recognises that evidence is to be weighed and not counted. Non-examination of every available witness was therefore not fatal.

Conclusion: No adverse inference could be drawn from non-examination of the remaining witnesses.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's acquittal was held to be unsustainable because it ignored material ocular evidence and relied on legally untenable grounds. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: An acquittal cannot stand where the appellate court ignores reliable injured eye-witness testimony and overturns a conviction on grounds of explained delay, limited inquest omissions, or defective investigation that do not discredit the substantive evidence.

---