Acquittal in Long-Delayed Kidnapping Case: Patna High Court Cites Unexplained FIR Delay and Procedural Flaws

Patna High Court overturns conviction in 1999 kidnapping case, highlighting procedural lapses and dubious witness testimonies.

In a significant judgment, the Patna High Court has overturned the conviction of Ram Prasad Yadav and Ajay Kumar Yadav in a 1999 kidnapping case. The court highlighted serious procedural and evidential flaws, leading to their acquittal. The appellants were initially sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for allegedly kidnapping Rakesh Kumar Yadav, but the High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Justice Alok Kumar Pandey pointed out that the case was marred by an unexplained 17-day delay in filing the FIR, which raised substantial doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution's narrative. The judgment emphasized that such delays, if unexplained, often lead to embellishments and fabrications, thereby corroding the credibility of the prosecution's case.

The court also noted the failure to examine the Investigating Officer, which deprived the defense of an opportunity to address contradictions in witness statements and confirm the place of occurrence. This omission was deemed to have caused prejudice to the accused, further weakening the prosecution's case.

Additionally, the court scrutinized the witness testimonies, which were found to be inconsistent and primarily based on hearsay. Key witnesses, including the informant, provided contradictory statements, undermining the reliability of their evidence. The informant's claim of being an eyewitness was particularly questionable, as it was based on information relayed by another witness who admitted to not witnessing the event firsthand.

Furthermore, the court criticized the trial court for not adequately examining the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires putting all incriminating circumstances to the accused for explanation. This procedural lapse was considered a serious irregularity that vitiated the trial.

In light of these findings, the Patna High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the previous conviction and sentence. The court's decision underscores the necessity for prompt and thorough investigation and the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards to ensure a fair trial.

Bottom Line:

Delay in lodging FIR and non-examination of the Investigating Officer can create serious doubt about the prosecution story and vitiate the trial.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 364, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 313, Evidence Act, 1872 Section 3

Ram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc id # 2789668