Delay in FIR and Suppression of Information:– The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR and suppression of initial information raised serious doubts about the prosecution’s case. The court cited Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1, emphasizing the importance of prompt FIR registration. (Para 28, 29)

Recovery of Weapon and Bloodstained Clothes:– The court held that the recovery of the weapon and bloodstained clothes, without conclusive blood group analysis, was insufficient to convict the accused. The court relied on Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat (2024) 9 SCC 546, which held that recovery of a bloodstained weapon alone is not sufficient to establish guilt. (Para 32, 34)

Benefit of Doubt:– The court held that where two views are possible on the evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view favouring the accused should be adopted. The court cited Sharad Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, emphasizing the principle of benefit of doubt. (Para 40)

Acquittal:– The High Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court cited serious flaws in the investigation, including the delay in filing the FIR, suppression of initial information, and unreliable witness testimony. (Para 39)

Benefit of Doubt:– The court held that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt, as the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies and lacked conclusive evidence. (Para 40)

Major Acts:

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 (Murder)

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 154 (FIR), 157 (Investigation), 164 (Recording of Confessions and Statements), 437 (Bail)

3. Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 (Discovery Based on Accused’s Statement)

Issues:

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
   – The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a clear link between the accused and the crime, and the evidence was inconclusive. (Para 25, 32)

2. Whether the delay in filing the FIR and suppression of initial information affected the prosecution’s case?
   – The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR and suppression of the initial information raised serious doubts about the prosecution’s case. (Para 12, 28)

3. Whether the recovery of the weapon and bloodstained clothes was sufficient to convict the accused?
   – The court held that the recovery of the weapon and bloodstained clothes, without conclusive blood group analysis, was insufficient to convict the accused. (Para 31, 32)

Submissions/Arguments:

1. Appellant’s Arguments:
   – The defence argued that the accused was falsely implicated due to familial disputes over his marriage with the deceased.
   – The defence highlighted the delay in filing the FIR, suppression of initial information, and unreliable witness testimony. (Para 5, 6)

2. Respondent’s Arguments:
   – The prosecution relied on the testimony of the eye witness (P.W.5) and the recovery of the weapon and bloodstained clothes.
   – The prosecution argued that the medical evidence and witness testimony corroborated the case against the accused. (Para 7, 8)

Subjects:

Acquittal, Benefit of Doubt, Section 302 IPC, Delay in FIR, Suppression of Evidence, Unreliable Witness Testimony, Recovery of Weapon, Bloodstained Clothes, Lalita Kumari, Allarakha Habib Memon, Sharad Sarda.