STATE OF U.P. vs HARI RAM AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court held that an F.I.R. is not required to contain minute details, as it serves to briefly narrate the facts leading to the incident, including the place and names of assailants. The Court found that the High Court erred in dismissing the eyewitness accounts based on alleged inconsistencies with medical evidence, affirming that the ocular evidence corroborated the medical findings. The appeal was allowed, reinstating the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the respondents' involvement in the murder of Rajinder Kumar.