Facts

• On April 19, 1985, at about 6:30 a.m., Keshari Nandan Singh, the Mukhiya of Gandhar Gram Panchayat and a Congress Party member, was driving a jeep with seven others towards Jehanabad Court when it was attacked near Dhamapur More by a group armed with guns, rifles, pasuli, etc.; a shot allegedly fired by respondent Naresh Yadav hit the driver, causing the jeep to crash into a field, followed by further firing that killed six on the spot and two later in hospital. [1000084440003] (!) [1000084440004]
• Prosecution claimed ten eyewitnesses (PWs 1,2,3,5,6,8,9 etc.) saw the incident, including respondent Naresh Yadav decapitating the Mukhiya with a pasuli from Lakhandeo Yadav and accused taking the Mukhiya's revolver and security officer's rifle; FIR lodged at 9:00 a.m. by PW-9 (brother of deceased Mukhiya), alleging political rivalry motive. [1000084440003] (!) [1000084440004][1000084440005]
• Investigating officer (PW-12) reached scene at 7:20 a.m., found six bodies, headless body of Mukhiya in jeep, large crowd present; prepared inquest reports 7:30-8:45 a.m. with PW-1 signing as witness, but no one claimed eyewitness status; FIR delay unexplained despite police presence; PW-9 appeared only at 9:00 a.m. [1000084440004][1000084440011] (!)
• Prosecution alleged Lakhandeo Yadav (respondent) apprehended by villagers while fleeing, but defence evidence (DW-4, DW-5) showed he arrived later at ~10:00 a.m. inquiring about relative victim, assaulted by crowd, rescued by police. [1000084440006][1000084440013] (!)
• Trial court convicted Naresh Yadav under S.302 IPC (life), others under S.302/149 (life), some under S.148, S.27 Arms Act; High Court acquitted all on appeal due to eyewitness discrepancies, false prosecution facts, suggesting extremist involvement. [1000084440002][1000084440009]
• PW-9 admitted in deposition Mukhiya's revolver found under his pillow, contradicting FIR theft claim; only PW-9 claimed decapitation by Naresh Yadav, uncorroborated; eyewitnesses same caste/village, not examined promptly or at all by IO. [1000084440014] (!) [1000084440009]

Ratio

• In appeals against acquittal, no interference warranted with High Court's view if prosecution introduces false facts (e.g., fabricated apprehension of accused, contradictory weapon recovery) severely undermining credibility, even if another view possible on evidence. (!) [1000084440013][1000084440014][1000084440015] (!)
• Unexplained FIR delay despite IO's early arrival (7:20 a.m.) at crowded scene casts doubt on eyewitness presence/version, as natural conduct demands immediate disclosure; not excused by shock in such circumstances with police present. [1000084440011] (!) [1000084440010]
• Eyewitness credibility shattered by inconsistencies (e.g., unique claims uncorroborated, belated examination, community bias), false prosecution embellishments, supporting acquittal where direct evidence unreliable. [1000084440009][1000084440012][1000084440014] (!) (!)