'Eyewitnesses, First Informant Ganged Together To Implicate Accused': Allahabad HC Acquits Man In 1982 Murder Case
The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted in 1982 murder caa, as it noted that two eye-witnesses and the first informant had ganged together to implicate the accused. A bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra also observed that the prosecution story contained many lapses, which made the case doubtful, and the case against...
The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted in 1982 murder caa, as it noted that two eye-witnesses and the first informant had ganged together to implicate the accused.
A bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra also observed that the prosecution story contained many lapses, which made the case doubtful, and the case against the accused-appellant was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
As per the FIR lodged in this case, on August 21, 1982, around 7:30 to 8:00 PM, the victim (Jagram) was allegedly killed by Ram Babu (appellant-accused) and Kisna (now dead) during a gambling dispute as the accused were aggrieved that the victim had won the game.
The FIR, lodged at the instance of the first informant (Takdeer Singh), claimed that Kisna used an axe while Ram Babu (appellant-accused) throttled the victim, and the eye-witnesses (Laxman Singh and Mulayam Singh) reportedly saw the attack with torches.
After the murder, the assailants allegedly dragged Jagram's body to a well and disposed of it there.
Upon the conclusion of the trial, the Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, in May 1983, convicted the accused Ram Babu under Section 302 read with Section 201 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Challenging his conviction, the accused-appellant filed the instant Criminal Appeal.
Advocate Rajiv Nayan Singh, appointed as an Amicus Curiae to argue the case on behalf of the appellant, argued that the appellant, Ram Babu, was innocent. He made the following submissions:
- The FIR was an ante-dated one, and there were inconsistencies in the FIR regarding the discovery of Jagram's body as the FIR claimed that the first informant knew the body was thrown into a well; however, the Panchayatnama indicated that Constable Prem Shankar Shukla found the body based on tracks leading to the well, suggesting that this information came to light only after police investigation.
- If the first informant had been aware of the body's location at the time of the FIR, the police would have searched the well immediately rather than following the trail later.
- The playing cards, which allegedly were being used for gambling, were also not recovered.
- If the eyewitnesses had witnessed the murder, they would have acted to intervene or report it immediately. Since they did not take such action, it suggested they were not present during the incident and may have been fabricated by the prosecution to support their case against the accused.
Additional Government Advocate Amit Sinha, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the trial court and submitted that the case was one of direct evidence based on the eyewitness accounts of PW-3 and PW-4, and the eyewitness account could not be dismissed lightly.
Having heard the Amicus Curiae and the Additional Government Advocate, the Court noted that the FIR was ante-timed as it observed that if the prosecution had indeed known that the body was dragged from the crime scene to the well, there would have been no need for police to search for the dead-body after the FIR was filed.
The Court also noted that if the eyewitnesses had indeed witnessed the murder, the FIR would have been filed solely under Section 302 IPC (murder) rather than including Section 201 IPC (disposal of evidence), indicating uncertainty about the location of the dead body.
“In the instant case, we do not hesitate to conclude that till such time as the Police had come, it was not known to anyone as to where the dead-body was and after the investigation had taken place and Police had recovered the dead-body, the FIR was lodged and, thereafter, pursuant to a definite conference between the first informant and the Police, the accused appellant was named in the FIR,” the Court remarked.
The Court further observed that there might be a possible dispute concerning some accounting about the cracker business, which was being done by the deceased. Therefore, the first informant and the two eye-witnesses, namely Laxman Singh and Mulayam Singh, might have ganged together to implicate the appellant in the instant case.
Court's observations came as it noted that while Mulayam Singh, Laxman Singh and the first informant though were not of the same family they were definitely close to each other.
The Court also pointed out that when the investigation was being done and it was alleged that gambling was done with the help of playing cards, at least an effort ought to have been made to recover the playing cards and keep them in police custody. Neither the playing cards nor any of the torches in the light of which the incident was seen were taken into custody.
In view of these observations, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused by setting aside the trial court's judgment.
Case title - Ram Babu vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2163 of 1983]
Case citation: