'Major Contradictions In Statements Of Police/ Eyewitnesses': Allahabad HC Acquits 3 Murder Accused In 23 Year Old Case

The Allahabad High Court on Monday set aside the conviction and acquitted three men who were sentenced to life imprisonment for committing the offence of murder after noting that there were significant contradictions in the statements of eyewitnesses and police witnesses. “Considering the evidence and other material on record in its entirety, we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge has erred in convicting the accused-appellants, overlooking the fact that there are serious and major contradictions and omissions not only in the statement of eyewitnesses but in the statement of police witnesses which makes the entire story doubtful and benefit thereof will go to the appellants,” a bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi concluded while allowing the appeals filed by the 3 convicts. The case in brief On December 7, 2001, at approximately 9:15 pm, the complainant (Ram Pukar Singh) reported to the police that his younger brother, Vijay Bahadur Singh (deceased), was shot and killed by the 3 accused-appellants. His case was that they attended a Ramayana recital near their home earlier that day. Around 6:00 pm, his brother (deceased) went to wash his hands at a nearby hand pipe, and there, Narendra Singh, Dharmendra Singh, and Ramesh Yadav, who had an old enmity with Vijay, approached him. Allegedly, Narendra Singh shot Vijay in the back of the head with a country-made pistol, killing him instantly. The complainant and two witnesses (Panchanand Singh and Shiv Murat Singh) saw the accused fleeing the scene but could not catch them. After examining the entire material on record, the prosecution witnesses' testimony, and the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court concluded that a complete chain of evidence shows the accused-appellant's complicity in the commission of said crime. The trial court also noted that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, pointing to the guilt of the accused persons, and convicted the accused as aforesaid. Challenging their conviction, the appellants moved to the High Court, wherein their counsel argued that the conviction was wholly erroneous and unjustified as the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court was not based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. It was contended that the Trial Judge had lost sight of the major contradictions and omissions in the statements of eyewitnesses, who were close relatives and had fabricated a false story to implicate the appellants. It was lastly argued that although it was a case of hit-and-run and no one had seen the accused person, the appellants had been falsely implicated on account of inimical terms. On the other hand, the AGA refuted the contention of the counsel for the appellants by stating that ordinarily, a close relative would not spare the real culprit who has caused the death and implicate an innocent person. Against the backdrop of these submissions, the High Court, at the outset, noted that the prosecution had examined as many as 07 witnesses in support of its version. Importantly, while 15 witnesses are mentioned in the charge sheet, the prosecution produced only two witnesses of facts, and the rest are formal witnesses. The Court further noted that PW—1 Ram Pukar Singh/complainant is the elder brother of the deceased, while PW—2 Panchanand Singh is the cousin brother of the deceased. Thus, being relative witnesses, their evidence was required to be scrutinized carefully. Examining the statements the PWs gave, the Court found that they had given different versions of the crime at different places and that their deposition was not uniform. The Court also noted that the police witnesses had not given the same statements about post-crime details, and such statements contained material contradictions. “…it is crystal clear that there are major contradictions and omissions not only in the statement of the eye witnesses but in the depositions of the Investigating Officers, which not only makes the entire prosecution version doubtful but also makes the presence of the eye witness and place of occurrence doubtful,” the Court noted in its analysis. The Court also observed that from the statement of PW-1 (Ram Pukar Singh) and PW-2 (Panchanand Singh), it was clear that there was no real and strong motive for the appellants to commit the murder of the deceased and false implication cannot be ruled out. Against this backdrop, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside their conviction. Case title - Ramesh Yadav vs. State of U.P along with a connected appeal 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 468 Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 468 Click Here ToRead/Download Order

'Major Contradictions In Statements Of Police/ Eyewitnesses': Allahabad HC Acquits 3 Murder Accused In 23 Year Old Case

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags