[42 Yr Old Murder Case] "Guilt Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt": Allahabad High Court Upholds Acquittal Order

Holding that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday upheld the acquittal order passed by the trial court in a 42-year-old murder case (which took place in July 1980).

The Bench of Justice Om Prakash-VII and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari was essentially dealing with a Government appeal filed against a 1985 jdgment and order passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai by which the two accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34, 302 IPC.

While accused respondent No.2 (Ramesh) died during the pendency of the appeal in the year 2021, the appeal against him was abated and thus, the appeal survived qua respondent no. 1 (Narendra Singh).

The case in brief 

As per the FIR lodged by the informant (brother of the deceased), he and his brother had gone to the Court on July 16, 1980, for taking a certified copy of a certain judgment. At about 02.00 - 02.15 p.m., when they were returning together from the District Court, the accused persons opened fire upon the deceased.

It was alleged that the murder was committed by the accused persons, namely, Narendra Singh and Ramesh due to old enmity between the accused Narendra Singh and the informant.

Having heard the counsel for the parties and going through the record, the trial court acquitted the accused person on the basis of the followings reasons:

- PW-1 and PW-2 were not the eye account witnesses. They were present at the time of incident in the District Court premises and had received information about the incident there. - The Prosecution was not able to prove the place of incident and that It was a blind murder case.

- The PW-1 being the real brother of the deceased was an interested witness and PW-2 was a pocket witness of the police and he appeared as a witness in several cases initiated on behalf of the prosecution.

Challenging their acquittals, the State Government preferred the instant appeal in the High Court.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court perused the statement of PW-2 made in the examination-in-chief and cross-examination and thereafter, noted that if both are taken together it was evident that PW-2 cannot be placed in the category of 'fully reliable witness', even though he was not declared as a hostile witness.

The Court further noted that it had come on the record that PW-1 (informant) was also not present at the time of occurrence at the place of incident and that he had himself admitted in the examination-in-chief that when they were returning from the Court towards the market, deceased was not accompanying them.

"Presence of this witness alongwith PW-1 and other witnesses disclosed in the F.I.R. at the time of incident was not found believable , which is based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence. The trial court while recording the aforesaid facts has discussed the entire evidence in detail and has rightly concluded that PW-1 and PW-2 were not present at the place of occurrence at the time of incident. They were planted later on by the police after due consultation," the court further added as it found justification in the acquittal order of the trial court.

Consequently, considering the entire aspects of the matter, the court came to the conclusion that the judgment and order of the trial court was well thought out and well discussed and that it had rightly held that the prosecution had not succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused respondent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the Government Appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court was affirmed.

Case title - State of U.P. v. Narendra Singh [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1990 of 1985]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 330

Click Here To Read/Download Order