'Trial Court Took A Reasonable View': Allahabad High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Three In 40 Year Old Murder Case

While dealing with an appeal of the State Government, the Allahabad High Court today upheld the acquittal of three accused persons under Section 302 of IPC on the ground that the trial court took a reasonable view in the case, which dates back to the year 1983.

Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the cases of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka (2007) and Dhanapal and Others vs. State (2009) concerning the principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with the appeal against an order of acquittal, the bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Nand Prabha Shukla upheld the order of the acquittal passed by the Session Judge, Sahajahpur in the year 1984.

The case in brief

As per the FIR, there arose a dispute of return of buffaloes purchased by the deceased (Kundan Singh) from the accused Hardayal Singh and a simple scuffle took place about three or four months before the date of the incident. This resulted in enmity.

Thereafter, on February 11, 1983, when the deceased along with the informant were cutting barseem in their agricultural field, accused Hardayal Singh came to the place with sooja and started abusing and thereafter called his brothers - the accused Tirlok Singh, Balvinder Singh and also his relative Bhura.

Allegedly, Tirlok Singh and Balwinder Singh were having swords and Bhura was having “Kanta”. They all started beating the deceased and accused Hardayal assaulted on the chest of the deceased, while Tirlok and Balwinder assaulted him with swords and Kanta and they also assaulted Dileep Singh, Sardar Singh and the informant's mother and caused injuries to them and thereafter, fled away.

Following the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused under Section 302/307 IPC, however, the Trial Court, after concluding the trial, acquitted the accused of the charges.

In its verdict, the Court noted that the three injuries of the deceased could not be explained by the prosecution, the medical evidence and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were not corroborative, and further, there was a major contradiction between the medical report and the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses, the PW-3 who examined the injured has opined that injuries are simple and maybe a fabricated one. 

The Court also noted that the PW-3 doctor, who examined the injuries of the injured was a partisan witness and the PW-1 and PW-2 are interested witnesses. The Court was also of the view that the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 at the place of occurrence was doubtful and the conduct of the PW-3 was also doubtful. 

Challenging Sessions Judge's judgment, the State moved an appeal before the HC in 1984.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court, taking into account the evidence adduced by the prosecution, noted that injury No.1 found on the body of the deceased could neither be explained nor it could be proved that it was caused by a sooja by the accused Hardayal.

Looking at other injuries caused to the deceased, the Court noted that the prosecution had not alleged the use of any blunt object by the accused persons to cause the said injury to the deceased and no explanation was offered by the prosecution as to by what weapon and in what manner, the aforesaid injuries were received by the deceased.

"Non-explanation of these injuries leads to two possible conclusions. 6 The first is that for causing the lacerated wound, the bar of kanta was used as a blunt object and the contusion and abrasion were caused by falling down. The second conclusion may be that these injuries were caused by some blunt object not seen by the complainant Avtar Singh PW-1 and Dileep Singh PW-2. From both the conclusions, one conclusion can very well be drawn that either PW-1 Avtar Singh and PW-2 Dileep Singh were not present at the place of occurrence or they concealed some material facts during trial. Both circumstances are fatal to the prosecution case. The burden to explain occurrence and the injuries, was on the prosecution but the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden," the Court further observed.

So far as the injuries of Surinder Kaur (wife of the deceased) were concerned, the Court noted that as per the injury report, she suffered simple injuries of one abrasion, however, the prosecution did not examine her, who, the Court noted, could be the best person to explain her injuries. Further, the Court also discarded the medical report of the three injured persons, prepared by the PW-3, as it did not inspire confidence.

For all the reasons stated above, the Court found that the view taken by the Trial Court, which disbelieved the presence of PW-1 at the place of occurrence, non-explanation of injuries of the deceased by the prosecution, evidence of PW-3, and the injuries of PW-1, PW-2 and Surinder Kaur, do not inspire confidence, is not perverse.

Against this backdrop, the Court stressed that when two views are possible, the one taken by the trial court in a case of acquittal is to be followed on the touchstone of liberty along with the advantage of having seen the witnesses.

Referring to the Top Court's Judgment in the case of N. Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu LL 2021 SC 59, the Court also noted that long as the view of the trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, the verdict of the trial court cannot be interdicted and the High court cannot supplant over the view of the trial court.

Consequently, the Court did not find any merit in the government appeal and hence, it dismissed the same.

Appearances

Counsel for Appellant: A.G.A.

Counsel for Respondent: P.N. Mishra, Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, Vidya Kant Tripathi

Case title - State of U.P. vs. Har Dayal Singh And Others [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1873 of 1984]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 249

Click Here To Read/Download Order/Judgment