"Tainted Investigation": Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Convict's Life Sentence In A 40-Year-Old Murder Case

The Allahabad High Court today set aside the life sentence of a murder convict in a case that dates back to 1981 after concluding that the investigation of the case appeared to be tainted and not as per law. The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Vivek Varma didn't find the statements of the eyewitnesses of the incident to be credible and it also discarded several theories put up by the prosecution regarding the motive behind the killing of the deceased.The case before the CourtFour accused persons, namely, Radhey Shyam, Raj Kumar (the appellant herein), Jagdish, and Siyaram, were tried by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi, for the murder of one Sripal, and thus, they all were held guilty under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and were awarded life term.They all moved to the High Court, however, during the pendency of the instant appeal, convict/appellant nos.1- Radhey Shyam, 3-Jagdish, and 4-Siyaram died, hence their appeal stood abated and the appeal survived only with regard to appellant no.2-Raj Kumar.The facts of the caseAllegedly, on September 19, 1981, accused Radhey Shyam and Siyaram (armed with bankas) and accused Jagdish and Raj Kumar (armed with lathies) surrounded Sripal (deceased) and dropped him on the road, caught him and accused Siyaram and Radhey Shyam cut his neck with banka, whereas accused Raj Kumar and Jagdish were catching him. Thereafter, Radhey Shyam (accused) took away the head of Sripal along with his companions and ran towards the eastern side. As per the prosecution, the Murder was committed allegedly because the wife of the deceased, Madhu (aged about 14-15 years) had an illicit connection with Siyaram (accused) and due to that, Siyaram (accused) and Sripal (deceased) had a lot of bickering with each other.Informant Raj Bahadur (P.W.1) went to the police station and narrated the incident and thereafter, an FIR was lodged under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., at police station Pihani, district Hardoi, against all the four accused.It was the version of the prosecution that the deceased had a lot of agricultural land, hence in order to grab the agricultural land of Sripal and his wife Madhu, accused/appellant Siyaram colluded with other accused persons and committed the murderCourt's observations At the outset, the Court opined that it was crucial to decide if the evidence of the two eye-witnesses viz, P.W. 1 Raj Bahadur (informant) and P.W. 2 Jaswant Singh inspired confidence or not and therefore, having gone through their statements, the Court came to the following conclusion:"From the aforesaid statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it transpires that when accused persons armed with Banka and lathies came out from the Jonhari's field of Ram Prasad and challenged the Sripal, neither deceased Sripal nor his wife Madhu tried to save themselves by running here and there and also there were no scuffled happened between the accused persons and the deceased Sripal nor with the wife of the deceased Madhu...It is quite unnatural that a group of persons armed with the deadly weapon came and challenged a person, then, the person instead of trying to save himself by hook and crook, standing there and waiting for the group persons to come nearer to him and kill him" (emphasis supplied)Against this backdrop, the Court discarded the statements of both of the eye-witnesses i.e. P.W.1 and P.W.2 as being doubtful. Further, the Court termed the version of the prosecution as quite unnatural that when the accused persons were killing the deceased Sripal, his wife Madhu kept mum standing 10-15 steps behind them and saw the whole incident from the distance of 10-15 steps and did not make any effort to save the deceased from the accused persons."Normally, in such a situation, the wife would try to save his husband's life from the accused persons," the Court opined, however, it is important to note that in later part of the Judgment, the Court has noted that there was no evidence on record, except the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that Madhu is the wife of deceased Sripal.Further, the Court also noted that the deceased wife and his nephew were at the place of the incident and the assailants were identified by the wife of the deceased and yet they did not report the incident to the police. "We feel that in the instant case it was essential for the prosecution to examine Madhu, Leela, Rajneesh, Sumnesh. Their evidence was essential to the unfolding of the narrative. No reason has been assigned by the prosecution for not producing them. This circumstance also goes against the prosecution," the Court added.The Court also didn't find any cogent evidence indicating illicit relations or reason for the accused/appellants to reasonably assumed the likelihood of unchaste relations. Significantly, the Court found a contraction between the statements of P.W.5 (the person who conducted the post mortem on the headless body of the deceased) and P.W.2 (ey-witness) with regard to the assault of the...

"Tainted Investigation": Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Convict's Life Sentence In A 40-Year-Old Murder Case

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags