Genesis Of FIR Doubtful When Complainant Disowns Written Complaint Unless Prosecution Explains Circumstances: J&K And Ladakh High Court
The Court held that when the maker of the complaint forming the basis of the FIR disowns its authorship, failure of the prosecution to explain its origin creates a serious dent in the prosecution's case.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that where the complainant disowns the written complaint forming the basis of the FIR, the prosecution is required to explain the circumstances under which the FIR was registered, failing which the genesis of the prosecution case becomes doubtful.
The Court observed that such omission strikes at the root of the prosecution narrative and undermines its credibility.
The Court was hearing criminal appeals challenging convictions under Sections 302, 452 and 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code, along with provisions of the Arms Act, wherein the appellants questioned the validity of the prosecution case on multiple grounds, including inconsistencies in evidence and infirmities in the FIR.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar observed that “once the maker of the document disowns its authorship, the prosecution was under an obligation to clarify the circumstances under which the FIR came to be registered and how the involvement of the appellants was disclosed to the police and in the absence of such explanation, a serious dent is caused to the genesis of the prosecution case.”
Advocate R.K. Kotwal appeared for the Appellants; Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi, along with Ravinder Gupta, AAG, appeared for the Respondent.
Background
The prosecution's case was based on a written complaint allegedly lodged by PW-1, based on which an FIR was registered alleging that the appellants had entered the shop of the deceased and assaulted him, resulting in his death by firearm injury. The prosecution relied upon the testimonies of three alleged eyewitnesses to establish the involvement of all the accused persons.
During the trial, however, PW-1 admitted his signature on the complaint but categorically denied having submitted it, thereby raising questions regarding the origin of the FIR. The appellants contended that such a discrepancy, along with delays in recording statements and contradictions in evidence, rendered the prosecution's case unreliable.
Court’s Observation
The Court undertook a detailed scrutiny of the prosecution evidence and found that the foundation of the FIR itself was rendered doubtful when PW-1, the alleged complainant, disowned the authorship of the written complaint.
It held that such a disavowal assumes significance since the prosecution had projected the document as the very basis of initiation of criminal proceedings.
The Court observed that once the authorship of the complaint is disputed, the burden shifts upon the prosecution to establish the circumstances in which the FIR was registered and how the names of the accused came to be disclosed. In the absence of such an explanation, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable genesis of the case, thereby affecting the credibility of the entire investigation.
The Court further noted that this infirmity was compounded by other serious deficiencies, including unexplained delay in recording statements of alleged eye-witnesses and inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence. While the witnesses attributed multiple injuries with sharp weapons, the medical evidence revealed only a single firearm injury, thereby contradicting the prosecution's version.
It also found that the conduct of the witnesses appeared unnatural, as they failed to promptly report the incident despite claiming to have witnessed it. The delay in disclosure of the names of the accused and the lack of corroborative evidence further weakened the prosecution's case.
The Court emphasised that such inconsistencies and omissions cumulatively create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's story, particularly when the very foundation of the FIR is in question. It held that in criminal trials, the prosecution must establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any serious infirmity in the genesis of the case is fatal to sustaining a conviction.
The Bench concluded: "In totality, the contradictions regarding the lodging of the FIR, the doubtful presence of the witnesses at the scene, inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, unexplained delays, and lack of corroboration make the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3, therefore, does not meet the threshold of credibility required to sustain a conviction".
Conclusion
The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt against appellants 2 to 4, whose convictions were set aside, and they were acquitted.
However, the Court upheld the conviction of the first appellant, finding that the circumstantial evidence against him formed a complete chain pointing to his guilt.
Cause Title: Deepak Singh & Ors. v. UT of J&K (Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-JMU:1090-DB)
Appearances
Appellants: Advocates R.K. Kotwal, Fahim Ahmed Mir
Respondents: Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi; AAG Ravinder Gupta; Advocates Palvi Sharma, Mehar Bali, Abdul Hafeez