Can't Impose Inadequate Sentence On Account Of Lapse Of Sufficient Time: Allahabad HC Awards Life Imprisonment In A 1982 Murder Case

Allowing a government appeal, the Allahabad High Court recently awarded life imprisonment to a man who had committed a murder in the year 1982. With this, the High Court set aside the acquittal order passed in favor of the accused by the Special Judge, Fatehpur in the year 1983.

The Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Vikas Budhwar emphasized that merely after a lapse of sufficient time coupled with other factors, namely, the age of the accused and his resettlement, if any post acquittal by the trial court, cannot be a ground to bestow any benefit so as to wipe away the aftermath of commission of the crime.

In this regard, the Court also relied upon Apex Court's rulings in the cases of Karan Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 234 and State of Rajasthan vs Banwari Lal 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357. In Banwari Lal (supra), the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna had observed that merely because a long period has lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate.

Further, the High Court also opined that where a crime has been committed in breach and violation of the public rights and duty and it is harmful to society, then the Courts are duty bound to maintain public confidence and administration of justice and to uphold the Majesty of law.

The case in brief

On December 07, 1982, the complainant- Shiv Saran Singh along with his brother Babu Singh (deceased) saw that the mother and sister of the accused Ram Autar were plucking Gram leaves in their field. Babu Singh asked them not to pluck the same, but when they did not listen, deceased Babu Singh inflicted two slaps on the sister of accused-Ram Autar and banished her from his field.

After some time, accused Ram Autar surrounded complainant- Shiv Saran Singh along with his brother Babu Singh (deceased) and asked Babu Singh why he slapped his sister and took out a country-made pistol from his waist, and fired on Babu Singh's chest. On receiving a gunshot injury, the complainant's brother Babu Singh fell on the ground and died.

After completing the investigation a charge sheet under section 302 IPC was submitted against the accused Ram Autar, however, the Court acquitted the accused noting certain discrepancies in the evidence put forth by the prosecution. Challenging the same, the government moved the instant appeal.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court observed that the view taken by the trial court was wholly perverse as it adopted a hyper-technical approach by giving importance to some minor lapses committed by the Investigating Officer and on that basis rejected the evidence as a whole.

"The trial court has picked up sentences from here and there from the statements of the eyewitnesses and has raised presumption regarding the innocence of the accused. We are of the firm opinion that the entire judgment is based on a complete misreading of the evidence and the same is purely based on conjectures and surmises and is perverse in nature. Therefore, as per the settled law, we are inclined to reconsider the entire evidence on record," the Court further remarked.

Further, the Court pointed out certain lapses in the way the trial court appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the Accused. The High Court noted that the presumption raised by the trial court that the presence and hence, the testimony of PW-2-Dashrath was not worth belief was highly perverse.

The Court further noted that the Trial Court had observed that once the allegation was that the deceased Babu Singh had slapped the sister of the accused while she was plucking gram leaves but still the Investigating Officer is not included the same in the site plan and has not recorded the same in his case diary. In this regard, the High Court said that non-highlighting the aforesaid spot in the site plan would not have affected the prosecution case, therefore, the Court held that wholly irrelevant factors had been taken into account to grant the benefit of acquittal to the accused. 

The Court also took into account other observations of the Trial Court to come to the conclusion that the judgment was purely based on presumption whereas direct evidence on record beyond any shadow of doubt proves the manner time and place in which the incident had taken place committed by the accused Ram Autar.

"We cannot turn a blind eye to the highly perverse judgment passed purely on the basis of presumptions and by not reading the evidence as a whole and only picking up sentences in isolation from here and there from the statements of eyewitnesses, we are, therefore, of the opinion that while being conscious that no innocent person is punished, we are also duty bound to see that a guilty person does not go unpunished," the Court remarked

Therefore, the Court concluded that the judgment of acquittal was patently illegal and the conclusion arrived at by the trial court was wholly untenable and required interference and reversal. Consequently, the Court held the accused-respondent Ram Autar s/o Ram Swarup Kori guilty and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for life.

Case title - State of U.P. v. Ram Autar [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2683 of 1983]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 439

Click here To Read/Download order