'Deceased Was Murdered By Someone Else': Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused 38 Years After Life Imprisonment Sentence
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted 3 accused of murder and serving life imprisonment on grounds that the murder was a blind murder and was carried out by someone else. The Court held that there were major contradictions in ocular and medical evidence and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
While acquitting the 3 accused, the bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar held
“we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective and reached a wrong conclusion regarding the appellants' guilt upon conjectures and improper appreciation of evidence.”
Informant's case was that his brother was thrashed and beaten to death by the assailants/ appellants. It was also stated that a lathi was inserted in the deceased by one of the accused. It was stated that the informant was given a death threat if he filed an FIR or informed police about his brother's death.
FIR was registered and investigation commenced against all 11 accused. The Trial Court, after examining witnesses and evidence, held that the accused were guilty under Sections 147, 302/149 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and were given life imprisonment as the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
It held that the post-mortem doctor had concealed the injuries on over the rectum of the deceased but this would not benefit the defence. It held that hyper-technical medical evidence would have no bearing on the prosecution case if the direct evidence present was cogent and reliable. This judgment of the Trial Court was challenged by all accused.
The Court noted that 8 out of 11 appellants had died during the pendency of the appeals and accordingly, the appeals were abated with respect to them. The appeals were heard at the behest of 3 surviving appellants/ accused.
Noting that the it was a murder by the injuries inflicted upon the deceased, the Court observed that the burden of prove the case beyond reasonable doubt was on the prosecution.
Regarding testimonies of the brother of the deceased and his uncle who informed the brother about the incident, the Court noted that there was no information as to who informed the uncle about the beating of the deceased. It held that an unknown person who informed his uncle would have informed the brother straight had he wanted the information to reach him and knew him.
The Court noted that from the time the brother of deceased was informed till the time he gathered the villagers and reached the place of occurrence would have taken atleast an hour so. It held that it was not possible that 11 assailants would have been beating the deceased for an hour with the intention to kill him would leave only 10 injuries on his body.
“Normally, it would not have taken more than five to ten minutes for the 11 assailants to commit this crime. It is highly unnatural that the appellants would keep on beating the deceased up to a considerable time so that people may reach the spot and identify them. Thus, the manner and duration, up to which the alleged incident is stated to have happened, is highly unlikely.”
The Court also noted that the after receiving information that his brother was being beaten, a man of ordinary prudence will not go without weapons and take the shortest route. Instead, the informant and his uncle went empty handed and took a longer route which raises suspicion.
Further, the Court noted that even though both the brother and the uncle detailed the incident of lathi being driven inside the deceased by one of the accused, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination had noted that there was no such injury.
Noting that there was no allegation of the doctor being negligent, the Court held
“In case of conflict between direct evidence of eye-witnesses and evidence of medical expert, the eye- witness version is to be accepted, unless the medical evidence completely belies the ocular version. In the present case, the medical evidence completely rules out the direct evidence of eye-witnesses. The injuries found on the dead body do not support the dock evidence, and thus, there are material contradictions in the ocular and medical evidence, which raise serious doubts about the prosecution case.”
Holding that the deceased was murdered by someone else in dark hours of the night and that the prosecution had 'utterly failed' in proving the guilt of the accused, the Court acquitted the 3 surviving accused.
Case Title: Lala and another v. State [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1071 of 1987]