2026 Supreme(All) 619

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Ajay Kumar-II, J.
Furkan And Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 178 of 1987
Decided On : 29-05-2026

An unexplained, substantial delay in filing an FIR and significant inconsistencies in a prosecution's account, such as the absence of physical evidence and improbable witness claims, undermine the burden of proof, warranting acquittal when the testimony presented is insufficient to dispel doubts arising from known, deep-seated inter-party enmity.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 307, 149 - Conviction based on circumstantial and testimonial evidence - Requirement of prompt FIR - Delay in registration - Effect - Delay in lodging FIR, if left unexplained, casts serious suspicion on the prosecution's version, particularly in cases involving long-standing enmity between parties. (Paras 35, 39, 40)

(B) Criminal Trial - Witness credibility - Injured witness - Testimony of an injured witness, while ordinarily possessing a higher evidentiary value, must still be scrutinized for internal consistency and probability if the surrounding circumstances, such as the absence of corroborative physical evidence or the physical impossibility of claimed events, cast doubt on the narrative. (Paras 44, 45, 47)

(C) Evidence - Enmity - Double-edged weapon - Previous enmities between parties can serve both as a motive for a crime and as a potential ground for false implication, requiring courts to weigh evidence with heightened scrutiny to ensure guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 33, 34)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against the judgment of conviction for attempted murder and offenses relating to rioting with deadly weapons. The prosecution alleged that the appellants threw a bomb at the victims while they were traveling on a motorcycle, causing severe injuries to the driver. The defense argued that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of approximately twelve hours, there was an absence of recovered physical evidence such as blood on the scene or damage to the vehicle, and that the incident was a result of false implication due to deep-seated civil and criminal litigation between the parties.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the twelve-hour delay in the registration of the FIR remained poorly explained. Furthermore, the court noted significant inconsistencies, including the absence of any injury on the pillion rider despite the claim of a powerful bomb blast at close range, the improbability of the injured party driving a significant distance after sustaining life-threatening injuries, and the failure of the prosecution to produce recovered physical evidence. The court found that when considering these improbabilities alongside the established history of severe enmity, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issues: The central issues addressed were the impact of an unexplained delay in filing the FIR, the credibility of witnesses in the face of significant evidentiary gaps, and whether the testimony of an injured witness can solely sustain a conviction when the account is found to be saturated with inherent improbabilities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while an injured witness is a significant witness, their testimony must maintain a baseline of truthfulness and coherence. Where the prosecution’s version is riddled with gaps—specifically regarding the absence of tangible physical proof, unexplained procedural delays, and contradictions regarding the nature of the injuries and the events immediately following the incident—the court must afford the benefit of doubt to the accused, particularly when there is a clear motive for false accusation arising from protracted inter-party litigation.

Result: Appeal allowed; the judgment of conviction is set aside; the appellants are acquitted of all charges.