Explained FIR delay and unproved alibi did not weaken a prosecution case supported by credible eyewitness and medical evidence.

Delay in lodging the FIR was not treated as fatal where it was plausibly explained by the injured informant's immediate movement from the scene, concealment in a nearby house and prompt recording after police arrival. The plea of alibi failed because the defence did not prove the accused's absence with cogent, corroborated evidence, while eyewitnesses consistently placed him at the scene. Minor inconsistencies in witness accounts did not undermine the prosecution case because the core narrative remained consistent and was supported by medical evidence. Unsubstantiated allegations about the deceased's criminal antecedents did not create reasonable doubt or affect the conviction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of about two hours in lodging the First Information Report was fatal to the prosecution case; (ii) whether the plea of alibi was established by the defence; (iii) whether alleged contradictions in the eyewitness testimony rendered the prosecution version unreliable; and (iv) whether the deceased's alleged criminal antecedents created a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of about two hours in lodging the First Information Report was fatal to the prosecution case.

Analysis: The time gap between the occurrence and registration of the report was explained by the injured informant's immediate flight from the scene, his hiding in a nearby house, the rural setting, and the fact that the report was recorded only after the police reached him. The evidence did not disclose prior consultation, deliberation, or stage-by-stage improvement of the case. The injured witness's version on this aspect remained unshaken.

Conclusion: The delay in lodging the First Information Report was not fatal to the prosecution and was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea of alibi was established by the defence.

Analysis: The plea of alibi required proof with certainty so as to exclude the accused's presence at the place of occurrence. The defence evidence was unsupported by corroboration and did not satisfactorily account for the accused's whereabouts at the relevant time. In contrast, the eyewitnesses consistently placed the accused at the scene and their testimony was not shaken in cross-examination.

Conclusion: The plea of alibi was not proved and was rightly negatived.

Issue (iii): Whether alleged contradictions in the eyewitness testimony rendered the prosecution version unreliable.

Analysis: The witnesses were broadly consistent on the core facts, namely the presence of the accused, the throwing of bombs, the assault with lathis and tabbal, and the resulting deaths and injuries. Minor variations in the attribution of specific acts did not undermine the substance of the prosecution case, particularly when the courts below had found the witnesses credible.

Conclusion: The alleged contradictions were not material and did not discredit the prosecution evidence.

Issue (iv): Whether the deceased's alleged criminal antecedents created a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused.

Analysis: The alleged criminal history of the deceased was not substantiated by particulars or supporting material. A bare assertion about the deceased's past could not displace otherwise reliable ocular and medical evidence establishing the assault and the participation of the accused.

Conclusion: The alleged antecedents of the deceased did not create any doubt affecting the conviction.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings of guilt and sentence were upheld, and no ground was made out for interference with the conviction under the relevant penal provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in lodging an FIR is not per se fatal when satisfactorily explained, a plea of alibi must be proved with cogent and reliable evidence, and minor inconsistencies in otherwise credible eyewitness testimony do not displace a prosecution case supported by corroborative medical evidence.

---