'Investigation Tainted, One-Sided': Allahabad High Court Acquits 2 Men In 1986 Murder Case

The Allahabad High Court last week set aside the life imprisonment of 2 men convicted in a 1986 murder case as it observed that the investigation in the case was "tainted and one-sided".

A bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Devendra Singh-I also found faults with the trial court over its failure to examine the case of the accused-appellants in respect of the cross-case in the correct perspective.

The bench said that the trial court made a manifest error of law by misreading the defence's statements and ignoring the medical evidence of the injuries sustained by the accused.

With this, the appeal qua surviving accused-appellants Chet Ram and Rameshwar, challenging the Shahjahanpur Sessions Court's judgment convicting them under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the IPC and sentencing them to life imprisonment, was allowed.

The appeals of two other co-accused, Rammu and Misri, were disposed of as abated as they died during the pendency of the appeal.

Case in brief

Briefly put, a written report was given by the first informant (Bhikhari Lal) at a police station in Shahjahanpur district on August 19, 1986, with the allegations that the previous day, 4 accused [Rameshwar, Chet Ram, Rammu and Misri] arrived at deceased Rajpal's house and beat him with lathis.

It was alleged that the attack was done due to a prior dispute over a loan of Rs. 220 and the subsequent possession of 1.5 bighas of land given in lieu of interest.

It was claimed that, thinking Rajpal to be dead, the accused left him and fled and while the first informant was taking Rajpal and Babu Ram (another injured victim) to the police station on a bullock cart for lodging the report, Rajpal succumbed to his injuries around midnight.

Thereafter, the first informant returned to the village. During the trial, it was claimed that due to excessive rain and flooded rivers, a report could not be lodged the same day and it was ultimately lodged the next day at 8:15 AM.

Following a full-fledged trial, the accused-appellants were convicted. Hence, they moved the HC in appeal.

It was the primary argument of the appellants that it was a cross-case, that the accused had plied lathis in self-defence and that the investigation had been carried out one-sided. They also argued that the trial court had failed to consider the defence version.

The state, on the other hand, defended the judgment of conviction as it was submitted that the trial court had correctly marshalled the evidence and considered each and every aspect of the case while convicting the appellants.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted there was a competing version of the events lodged by the accused at an earlier point in time.

In fact, the surviving appellant-accused no. 3 (Rameshwar) had filed a non-cognizable report at 00:15 AM on the intervening night of August 18 and 19, wherein he claimed that the incident happened at 8:00 PM when the deceased trespassed into his house.

The Court took into account the statements of 3 of the accused-appellants to note that it was Babu, Bhikhari (first informant) and Rajpal (deceased) who assaulted the accused no. 3 and in self-defence, lathis were plied by the appellants.

The Court also referred to the medical report to note that the Trial Court had erroneously failed to consider the injuries of the accused-appellants, namely Rameshwar, Chet Ram and Misri.

The High Court also criticized the IO who admitted in his cross-examination that he never investigated the report lodged by appellant-accused no. 3. He also admitted that he did not get the accused medically examined upon their arrest and simply assumed that their bandaged injuries were old.

The High Court termed this investigation as tainted and one-sided, noting that the police took no care to investigate the earliest report of the incident. The High Court also rejected the prosecution's explanation for the 15-hour delay in filing their FIR.

It noted that it was too hard to swallow that the informant could not cover the 7 KM distance between the village and the police station in 7 hours to lodge the FIR, especially when the accused managed to lodge their own report at the police station in around 4 hours.

Thus, the High Court concluded that the Trial Court misread the statements of the accused and that the defence clearly established that Babu, Bhikhari, and Rajpal (deceased) were the initial aggressors and that the accused had plied lathis solely in self-defence.

With this, the judgment of conviction was set aside and the accused were acquitted.

Case title - Rammu and others vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 213

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 213

Click Here To Read/Download Order