Criminal Law – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 3, 11 – Omission of accused’s name in FIR based on eyewitness account – effect – subsequent improvements and embellishments – Test Identification Parade held despite eyewitness knowing accused – evidentiary value – recovery of blood-stained articles where blood group not established – conviction based solely on untrustworthy and materially improved testimony liable to be set aside.

Criminal Law – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 3, 11 – Omission of accused’s name in FIR based on eyewitness account – effect – subsequent improvements and embellishments – Test Identification Parade held despite eyewitness knowing accused – evidentiary value – recovery of blood-stained articles where blood group not established – conviction based solely on untrustworthy and materially improved testimony liable to be set aside.
Wife of deceased claimed to be an eyewitness; however, the earliest version (merg and FIR) narrated by her to informant-father-in-law did not contain the name of the accused; assailants described only as unknown masked persons. Later statements under Sections 161/164 CrPC introduced new facts: mask allegedly fell; identification by voice; three assailants instead of two. These constituted material improvements. FIR omission held fatal, particularly where the witness had narrated every other minute detail. No medical evidence supported prosecution theory that witness was too ill to disclose identity. TIP of accused, admittedly known to eyewitness, held meaningless. Recoveries of blood-stained articles inconclusive, blood group not proved; link evidence not established. Held, prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; conviction set aside; accused acquitted. (Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P., applied.)

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. A material omission in the FIR regarding identity of assailants, when the FIR is based on the eyewitness’s own narration, is a circumstance directly relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act and fundamentally undermines the credibility of later identifications.
   – Where the eyewitness provided detailed particulars (time, appearance, sequence, actions) but omitted the accused’s name, later assertions of identification are inherently doubtful.

2. Subsequent improvements in police statements—such as new assertions that mask fell off or identification by voice—are material embellishments and cannot form the basis of conviction.
   – Improvements introduced after a delay, without plausible medical or factual justification, are unreliable.

3. Test Identification Parade is meaningless where the witness already knew the accused; holding a TIP after naming the accused in a Section 161 statement casts further doubt on the genuineness of that statement.

4. Recoveries under Section 27 IPC lose probative value when blood detected on the seized weapons/clothes is only identified as “human blood” and not correlated with the deceased, and when link evidence remains unproved.

5. In cases resting solely on eyewitness testimony, courts must subject such testimony to rigorous scrutiny when prior enmity exists; if the foundational version is untrustworthy, the entire prosecution case collapses.

6. Conviction cannot rest on conjectures or cumulative suspicion; failure to prove identity of assailant beyond reasonable doubt mandates acquittal.