1978 Murder Case | Circumstances Alleged Against Accused Not Proved Satisfactorily: Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal Order

A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I also noted that direct evidence of murder in the form of a statement of PW4 was not reliable, the Motive had not been satisfactorily proved, and there was a 'vital' delay in lodging the first information report, which had not been satisfactorily proved.

The Court also opined that the chain of circumstances was incomplete to record the finding of conviction against the accused, and hence, the Court upheld the trial court's acquittal order.

The case in brief

As per the prosecution's case, on June 19, 1978, there was a conflict between Har Lal (deceased), the operator of a wheat grinding mill, and a young girl as Har Lal's shoulder got rubbed against the shoulder of the girl, consequent to which, she felt bad and the girl after hurling abuses left for her house.

In the evening of the same day, the three accused (Bhagwan Singh, Rajaram, and Sagar Singh) came to the mill and objected to the conduct of the deceased (Har Lal). When he refused, they took him away to clarify the incident.

When the deceased did not return to the wheat grinding mill by 9:30 p.m., his brother (first informant) and maternal uncle (Badley) searched for him and that is when they found Rajaram, Bhagwan Singh, Sagar Singh, and others carrying Har Lal's body near the canal.

Upon being confronted, the group attacked Badley with sticks, and Har Lal's brother managed to escape with Badley. They spent the night hiding in the jungle and, the next morning, went to the police station to report the incident.

However, they discovered that the accused persons had already filed a false loot report and had claimed that Har Lal had been killed.

In the said FIR (concerning loot), lodged by Mukhtiar Singh, the father of accused Sagar Singh, it was alleged that on the night of June 19, some miscreants looted and assaulted Sagar Singh and his servant near their tube well.

During an attempt to apprehend one of the miscreants (referring to deceased/Har Lal), the suspect was injured and later died in the early hours of June 20.

After analysing the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence version given by the accused, the trial court concluded that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case and thus acquitted the accused respondents of all the charges framed against them [vide Judgment dated May 15, 1983].

The state, aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order, preferred the present government appeal.

During the pendency of the appeal, accused Raja Ram, Bhagwan Singh, and Sagar Singh passed away, and the instant appeal on their behalf stood abated. The appeal survived only qua appellant No. 3- Shri Chand.

Before the HC, the Additional Government Advocate argued that the evidence provided by witnesses and medical reports proved the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, it was prayed that Shri Chand's acquittal should be overturned.

On the other hand, the defence counsel argued that the trial court had correctly evaluated the evidence and rendered a well-reasoned acquittal of the accused. It was further submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR after a cross-case of loot was registered undermined the prosecution's case, as it was based on a fabricated story.

High Court's observations

Having considered the rival submission made by the counsel for the parties and having gone through the record of this case, the Court found that there were two versions of the incident in question: one as stated by the prosecution, in which the accused-respondents were tried, and the other by the defence based on the report lodged by Mukhtiar Singh, the father of co-accused Sagar.

When the court examined the prosecution's case, it noted that it primarily relies on circumstantial evidence, with most witnesses not having seen the incident firsthand.

The Court further observed that while Ramphal Singh (P.W.-4) was the only purported eyewitness who testified that on June 19, 1978, he saw 6-7 individuals forcibly taking Har Lal and later assaulting him; however, despite witnessing the incident, he did not attempt to help Har Lal or report it immediately.

The Court said that his failure to act or inform others, combined with his background as a frequent prosecution witness, casts doubt on his credibility; therefore, relying solely on his testimony to record the accused's guilt was unsafe.

Against this backdrop, the Court stated that once the witness account of the P.W.-4 as adduced during the course of evidence is disbelieved, the instant case must be proved based on circumstantial evidence; however, the prosecution failed to do so.

Examining the evidence put forth by the prosecution, the Court noted there was no allegation against accused-respondent Shri Chand of taking away the deceased Har Lal from his house and that there was serious doubt regarding his participation in causing the death of the deceased Har Lal.

The Court was also of the opinion that the FIR had been lodged on 22.6.1978, and the delay in lodging it had not been explained at all, which seriously dented the prosecution story and made it unreliable.

“Thus, we find that number of circumstances alleged against accused-respondents has not been proved satisfactorily. The direct evidence of murder in the form of statement of Ramphal (P.W.-4) is not reliable at all. Motive has not been satisfactorily proved. The testimony of Badley and Surajveer is not at all reliable on material particulars and false story appears to have been cooked up by them in order to lend credence to the prosecution story. A vital delay in lodging the first information report has not been satisfactorily proved and by no stretch of imagination, the chain of circumstance can be said to be complete so as to record the finding of conviction against accused-respondent by reversing the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court, which finding in our opinion do not suffer from any illegality, perversity or impossibility,” the Court observed as it confirmed the acquittal order of the trial court finding it to be well reasoned and detailed order.

Appearances

Counsel for Appellant: AGA Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal

Counsel for Respondent: Advocate Pankaj Kumar Tyagi assisted by Advocate Akash Tyagi

Case title - State of U.P. vs. Raja Ram And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 491 [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1851 of 1983]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 491

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment