Delayed FIR dispatch does not defeat genuineness when prompt reporting and investigation are proved; reliable eyewitnesses can sustain reversal of acquittal.

The SC held that an FIR is not rendered suspect merely because its dispatch to the Magistrate is delayed, where the record shows prompt receipt of information, immediate commencement of investigation, and corroboration from the informant, police officer, and inquest report. It also held that an acquittal may be reversed where the trial court has rejected reliable eyewitness testimony on surmises and minor discrepancies that do not affect the core prosecution case. On the evidence, the eyewitness accounts supported the appellant's presence, role, and the shooting, so the conviction for murder with common intention and the sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the First Information Report was ante-timed or ante-dated and its delayed dispatch to the Magistrate undermined its genuineness; (ii) whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal on the basis of the eyewitness evidence and convicting the appellant for murder with common intention.

Issue (i): Whether the First Information Report was ante-timed or ante-dated and its delayed dispatch to the Magistrate undermined its genuineness.

Analysis: The recording of the FIR was supported by the testimony of the informant and the police officer who registered it. The information of the offence had already reached the police station before the time mentioned in the FIR, and the investigation had begun promptly on receipt of the RT message. The inquest report also referred to the FIR number, showing that the FIR had been registered before the inquest commenced. Mere delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate, without more, did not by itself establish fabrication, especially when no effective challenge was made in cross-examination on the alleged delay.

Conclusion: The FIR was genuine and neither ante-timed nor ante-dated; the delay in dispatch did not render it unreliable.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal on the basis of the eyewitness evidence and convicting the appellant for murder with common intention.

Analysis: Several eyewitnesses consistently described the arrival of the Maruti Gypsy, the presence and role of the appellant at the scene, the pointing out of the deceased, and the shooting that followed. The minor discrepancies relied upon by the trial court did not go to the root of the prosecution case. The High Court reappraised the evidence and found that the trial court had discarded trustworthy eyewitness accounts on surmises and conjectures. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted where the acquittal rests on erroneous appreciation of evidence.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An FIR is not disbelieved merely because its dispatch to the Magistrate is delayed, if the record shows prompt receipt of information and commencement of investigation, and an appellate court may reverse an acquittal where the trial court has discarded reliable eyewitness evidence on untenable grounds.

---