1982 Murder Case | 'Faulty' Investigation, 'Contradictions' In Testimonies Of PWs: Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal Of 3 Accused

A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad also noted several contradictions in the testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, which, according to the Court, raised a “big question” about the genesis of the entire prosecution case.

“On the deeper scrutiny of the above evidence led during the course of trial, we find that there is major contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution star eye witnesses. There is also faulty investigation. Such contradictions and faulty investigation cast a serious dent in the entire prosecution case,” the Court said as it upheld the acquittal of the accused [Nagendra Singh, Sahdeo Singh and Ashok @ Ranjit].

The case in brief

The Court was essentially dealing with a state's appeal filed against the October 1983 judgment and order passed by the trial court acquitting 4 accused for charges under Section 302/34, 307/34, 302, 307 & 109 of IPC.

During the pendency of the instant Government Appeal, accused-respondent No. 1 Sughar Singh passed away, and the appeal against him abated. Only the appeal against the other three accused remained pending for the HC's deliberation.

As per the FIR (lodged on March 10, 1982) at the instance of the informant/P.W.-1, about 15 days before the incident, a fight took place between his father (Gopal Singh/deceased) and accused Sahdev and Nagendra for taking water.

Thereafter, on 10th March 1982, at around 04:00 PM, a fight was going on between the father (Sughar Singh) of the accused (Nagendra and Sahdev Singh) and their uncle (Durveen Singh).

Meanwhile, the first informant's father/deceased (Gopal Singh) came to the spot and inquired about the matter, then accused Nagendra Singh exhorted the accused Sahdev to kill them as earlier they stopped the water flowing into their field.

On the said exhortation, accused Sahdev brought his licensed gun and fired upon the father of the first informant on his eye. Thereafter, the accused Sahdeo fired a second shot at the first informant, but the said shot did not hit him, and his father died on the spot.

Based on evidence oral as well as documentary, adduced during the course of the trial, the trial court, while referring to various infirmities in the prosecution evidence led during the course of the trial, opined that the prosecution could not bring home any of the charges framed against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, all 4 accused were acquitted.

Challenging the order and judgment of the acquittal, the state moved the HC wherein it was argued that a specific role of killing had been attributed to the accused Sahdev Singh on the exhortation of Nagendra Singh, which was supported by the testimonies of P.W.-1 and 2, who are the eyewitness.

It was also submitted that there were no inconsistencies or contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

On the other hand, defending the judgment and order of acquittal, the counsel for the accused argued that the motive, as alleged in the FIR, had not been established and proved by the prosecution evidence adduced during the trial.

It was also argued that as per the FIR, the accused- Ashok (who allegedly asked accused Sehdeo to bring a gun to kill the deceased) was also in the company of the accused persons at the time of occurrence, but P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 denied the presence of Ashok on the place of occurrence at the time of the incident which makes the prosecution's case doubtful.

It was also pointed out that there was also no F.S.L. report about recovered cartridges and tiki.

Examining the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 in their examination and cross-examination, the Court found that no specific or categorical assertion was made regarding the presence of accused Ashok at the time of the incident.

The Court noted that PW-2, in his examination-in-chief, stated that accused Ashok was present at the place of the incident, while in his cross-examination, he denied his presence.

Finding contradictions in their statements, the Court also observed that there was an inimical relationship between the accused, Sughar Singh, along with his sons Nagendra and Sahdeo, and the accused Ashok @ Ranjit. Therefore, it was impossible to believe that the accused, Ashok @ Ranjit, would associate himself with the other accused in any manner in the commission of the alleged crime, and this fact also damaged the prosecution's case.

The Court also noted that the non-production of (Durveen Singh) brother of the accused Sughar Singh, and uncle and brother of the first informant and deceased, respectively, as prosecution witnesses during the course of the trial also made the prosecution case weak.

On the point of faulty investigation in the case, the Court observed thus:

“…the pellets recovered from the body of the deceased, empty cartridge recovered from the place of occurrence and the crime weapon i.e. gun, which is alleged to have been used in commissioning of the alleged offence and has recovered from the brother-in-law of accused Ashok have not been sent for their chemical examination to the concerned Forensic Science Laboratory in order to establish that the pellets, empty cartridge and the gun were actually used in the commission of the alleged offence, which further creates a serious dent in the prosecution story and makes it doubtful,” the Court said.

Further, referring to Apex Court's ruling in the case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 271, the Court said that it is impermissible for the High Court to interfere with the acquittal unless trial court's view is perverse or impossible.

Given this, the court upheld the acquittal of the accused Nagendra Singh, Sahdeo Singh, and Ashok @ Ranjit, holding that the prosecution had not fully established the guilt of the accused respondents based on the evidence presented at the trial stage.

Appearances

Counsel for Appellant: A.G.A.,Purushottam Dixit,Ramesh Chandra Yadav

Counsel for Respondent: Keshav Sahai, A.B.L.Gaur, Ashok Kumar Singh, Keshav Sahai, P.C.Sharma, Prabhat Chandra Sharma, Pratibha Singh, Purushottam Dixit, Rajeev Sharma, P.C.Mishra

Case title - State Of UP vs. Sughar Singh and others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 395

Click Here ToRead/Download Order