Ante-Dated FIR Renders Investigation Tainted & Unsafe To Rely Upon: J&K&L High Court Upholds Acquittal In Murder Case

The Court observed that where it is shown that the FIR was not lodged at the time it purports to have been recorded, an inference may legitimately arise that it was prepared after deliberation, making it unsafe to rely upon the investigation conducted on its basis.

The Court was hearing an acquittal appeal filed by the State against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua, whereby the respondent was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 341 RPC read with Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The appeal questioned the correctness of the trial Court's findings granting the accused benefit of doubt in a murder prosecution arising out of an alleged stabbing incident that occurred on 19 July 2002.

A Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem observed,

“.... If it appears to be back-dated (ante-dated), Court views it as evidence of possible manipulation, either by the police to make the case appear prompt or by the informant to fill gaps after consultation. This further casts doubt viz-a-viz the credibility of the informant and the first information report that led to the investigation and the trial of the accused.”

According to the prosecution, the respondent stabbed Nasib Chand with a Kirch on 19 July 2002 at about 6:30 PM near his residence in village Badala, Kathua, allegedly owing to long-standing enmity between the parties. The deceased succumbed to his injuries while being shifted to the hospital.

The prosecution case was set into motion on the basis of a report allegedly lodged by Gulshan Kumar, son of the deceased, at 7:50 PM on the same day. During investigation, the police claimed to have completed all formalities, including recovery of the weapon of offence pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused. Upon completion of investigation, challan was presented only against the respondent, though investigation had initially also been conducted against his two brothers.

The trial Court, however, acquitted the accused after noticing several infirmities in the prosecution case, including contradictions among eye-witnesses, failure to prove recovery of the weapon of offence, non-examination of independent witnesses, unexplained injuries on the accused and insufficiency of medical and other evidence. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State preferred the present appeal.

Court's Observations:

The High Court examined the evidence on record and noted that the prosecution case rested substantially on the testimonies of the widow, sons and daughters of the deceased. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to produce any credible independent corroboration despite the alleged occurrence having taken place in a populated village lane.

The Bench found that the prosecution had relied upon family members of the deceased as eye-witnesses, while the only independent witness, Kiran Jyoti, turned hostile. The Court observed that even during her cross-examination by the prosecution, no incriminating material against the accused could be elicited.

The Court further held that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged disclosure statement and recovery of the weapon of offence. One witness cited for recovery was not examined, while the other turned hostile, resulting in complete failure of the recovery evidence.

Examining the testimonies of the eye-witnesses, the Court found material contradictions regarding their presence at the place of occurrence. While one witness stated that he and his brother rushed to the spot after hearing cries for help and reached after their mother and sisters, another witness completely negated their presence at the relevant time.

The Court observed that these mutually contradictory versions substantially eroded the credibility of the eye-witness account. The Bench also noted that according to prosecution witnesses themselves, several villagers were present at the spot. Yet, apart from one hostile witness, no independent witness was examined. The Court observed that this omission created serious doubt regarding the prosecution version and the manner in which the occurrence was alleged to have taken place.

Relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in Talari Naresh v. State of Telangana (2026 SCC OnLine SC 852), the Court held that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be discarded altogether and may be relied upon even for supporting an acquittal where it inspires confidence. Quoting the Supreme Court, the Bench noted,

“... the testimony of a hostile witness or statement in the deposition of hostile witness could be properly employed to discredit the prosecution case and a conclusion of acquittal could well be supported through it and could be founded therein.”

The Court further found that the prosecution had failed to explain injuries sustained by the accused during the occurrence. While one witness denied any injury to the accused, other witnesses admitted that he had suffered injuries and was hospitalised, but introduced a theory that the accused had stabbed himself after committing the murder, the Court said.

The Bench found this explanation wholly unreliable because the alleged self-stabbing incident was neither mentioned in the FIR nor in any statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Court held that omission of such a material fact amounted to a serious improvement rendering the testimony of those witnesses untrustworthy.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Nand Lal and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) 10 SCC 470, the Court reiterated that failure to explain injuries sustained by the accused at or about the time of occurrence may indicate suppression of the genesis and true origin of the incident and materially undermine the prosecution case.

The Court then turned to what it considered another significant infirmity, the timing of the FIR. It noticed that while the FIR reflected that it was lodged on 19 July 2002 at 7:50 PM, the informant himself stated in cross-examination that he and his brother had gone to the police station the next morning at 7 AM to lodge the report.

The Bench held that this discrepancy struck at the very root of the prosecution case. It observed,

“Once, it is shown, as per the version of informant, that the FIR is ante-dated and was not lodged at the time it was reported, the necessary inference is that the Investigating Officer deliberately failed to record the first information report on receipt of information of the cognizable offence and prepared it after due deliberation. This renders the investigation tainted, and it would be unsafe to rely upon such a tainted investigation.”

The Court concluded that the discrepancy regarding the FIR created serious doubt about its authenticity and spontaneity and materially weakened the prosecution case. It also noted that the challan was ultimately restricted to the respondent despite two brothers of the accused initially figuring in the investigation, which further fortified the doubts surrounding the prosecution version.

The High Court thus found no illegality or perversity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and declined to interfere with the benefit of doubt granted to the accused. Reiterating that where two reasonable views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must prevail, the Court dismissed the State's appeal and affirmed the acquittal.

Case Title: State of J&K Through Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua v. Balwinder Kumar Alias Bittu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Appearances

Appellant: Mehar Bali, Advocate vice Ravinder Gupta, AAG

Respondent: Mayank Gupta, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment