Existence/Absence Of Motive Acquires Significance When Ocular Testimony Is Suspected: Allahabad HC Acquits Man In Murder Case

While acquitting an accused in a 2006 Murder case, the Allahabad High Court on Monday observed that motive occupies a back seat where there is direct and credible evidence; however, where the ocular testimony appears to be suspected, the existence or absence of motive acquires some significance. A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi was essentially hearing a criminal appeal filed by one Sunil, a convict in the 2006 murder case of a woman. The Court determined that the case against the accused was not proven due to unreliable ocular testimony and a lack of a justifiable motive.In this case, the accused-appellant moved the HC challenging the judgement passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge Bulandshahar, which convicted him under Sections 302 and 449 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment. In brief, as per the prosecution's case, accused-appellant Sunil assaulted the complainant's wife (Kunti Devi) with a brick, causing her death. Complainant Vinod (PW1) had gone to Khurja earlier in the day, and upon returning home on July 15, 2006, he saw Sunil attacking his wife-deceased. Many villagers gathered at the scene, prompting Sunil to flee after pushing Vinod. After examining the entire material on record, the testimonies of the witnesses, and the undisputed facts scrutinized and evaluated, the trial court concluded that there was a complete chain of evidence showing the accused-appellant complicity in committing the crime. Hence, the accused was convicted as aforesaid. Challenging his conviction, the accused-appellant moved the HC, wherein the Amicus curiae, appearing for him, contended that the FIR in the case was ante-timed and had been lodged after a long deliberation and confabulation. So, it was argued that the FIR was an afterthought that seriously doubted the veracity and probity of the prosecution story. However, the Court refuted this argument by stating that it would not be safe to dismiss the entire prosecution case on this score alone. Further, the amicus argued that the entire prosecution story was the product of fabrication with the oblique object of wreaking vengeance, and the prosecution's witnesses were partisan, inimical to the appellants, interested witnesses, and not independent witnesses. While considering the said argument, the Court noted that 10-12 people were present at the time of the incident (as per PW-3 Sukhdev). However, the prosecution only examined two witnesses: PW-2 Vinod Kumar, the complainant and husband of the deceased, and PW-3 Sukhdev, Vinod's uncle. The Court noted that since both were related to the deceased, this made them "interested" witnesses, and hence, their testimonies required careful scrutiny and evaluation for credibility and reliability. Now, while examining their testimonies, the Court pointed out the following facts, which gave the impression that the witnesses were not present at the scene of the occurrence and had not seen the actual incident committed by the accused / appellant: PW-1 Vinod Kumar claimed he returned home from Khurja, 10 km away, at 7:30 p.m. after spending time there and travelling by bicycle. The Court noted that the distance and travel time involved raised questions about the accuracy of his timeline, and it is doubtful whether he could have witnessed the occurrence at the stated time.When PW-1 Vinod Kumar arrived home at 7:30 p.m., he claimed to see Sunil attacking his wife, Kunti Devi, with a brick. Vinod attempted to intervene, but Sunil fled. However, the Court pointed out that, given the layout of the house and the noise that would have occurred when reaching the bedroom, it's unlikely Vinod was present during the attack. Additionally, the Court noted that no blood stains were found on Vinod's clothes, and his testimony conflicts with other evidence, including PW-3 Sukhdev's observation of Sunil fleeing with blood on his hands.The Post-Mortem Report (Ext Ka-14) revealed that PW-1 Vinod Kumar's wife was eight months pregnant, a crucial fact not mentioned in his initial FIR or statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Court opined that this omission and subsequent introduction of the fact during court deposition suggest possible fabrication. Additionally, the Court took into account the fact that Vinod made no effort to rescue his wife, and no blood stains or injuries were found on him, further indicating that he was likely not present at the scene and did not witness the crime.In the FIR, the Court noted, it was reported that the accused was attacking his wife's face and head with a brick, but there was no mention of him sitting on top of her. This detail was introduced for the first time during PW-1 Vinod Kumar's court deposition. Since the victim was eight months pregnant, this detail was significant and should have been included in the FIR. The late introduction of this fact suggests possible fabrication ...

Existence/Absence Of Motive Acquires Significance When Ocular Testimony Is Suspected: Allahabad HC Acquits Man In Murder Case

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags