Existence/Absence Of Motive Acquires Significance When Ocular Testimony Is Suspected: Allahabad HC Acquits Man In Murder Case

A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi was essentially hearing a criminal appeal filed by one Sunil, a convict in the 2006 murder case of a woman. The Court determined that the case against the accused was not proven due to unreliable ocular testimony and a lack of a justifiable motive.

In this case, the accused-appellant moved the HC challenging the judgement passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge Bulandshahar, which convicted him under Sections 302 and 449 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

In brief, as per the prosecution's case, accused-appellant Sunil assaulted the complainant's wife (Kunti Devi) with a brick, causing her death. Complainant Vinod (PW1) had gone to Khurja earlier in the day, and upon returning home on July 15, 2006, he saw Sunil attacking his wife-deceased. Many villagers gathered at the scene, prompting Sunil to flee after pushing Vinod.

After examining the entire material on record, the testimonies of the witnesses, and the undisputed facts scrutinized and evaluated, the trial court concluded that there was a complete chain of evidence showing the accused-appellant complicity in committing the crime. Hence, the accused was convicted as aforesaid.

Challenging his conviction, the accused-appellant moved the HC, wherein the Amicus curiae, appearing for him, contended that the FIR in the case was ante-timed and had been lodged after a long deliberation and confabulation. So, it was argued that the FIR was an afterthought that seriously doubted the veracity and probity of the prosecution story.

However, the Court refuted this argument by stating that it would not be safe to dismiss the entire prosecution case on this score alone.

Further, the amicus argued that the entire prosecution story was the product of fabrication with the oblique object of wreaking vengeance, and the prosecution's witnesses were partisan, inimical to the appellants, interested witnesses, and not independent witnesses.

While considering the said argument, the Court noted that 10-12 people were present at the time of the incident (as per PW-3 Sukhdev). However, the prosecution only examined two witnesses: PW-2 Vinod Kumar, the complainant and husband of the deceased, and PW-3 Sukhdev, Vinod's uncle.

The Court noted that since both were related to the deceased, this made them "interested" witnesses, and hence, their testimonies required careful scrutiny and evaluation for credibility and reliability.

Now, while examining their testimonies, the Court pointed out the following facts, which gave the impression that the witnesses were not present at the scene of the occurrence and had not seen the actual incident committed by the accused / appellant:

• PW-1 Vinod Kumar claimed he returned home from Khurja, 10 km away, at 7:30 p.m. after spending time there and travelling by bicycle. The Court noted that the distance and travel time involved raised questions about the accuracy of his timeline, and it is doubtful whether he could have witnessed the occurrence at the stated time.
• When PW-1 Vinod Kumar arrived home at 7:30 p.m., he claimed to see Sunil attacking his wife, Kunti Devi, with a brick. Vinod attempted to intervene, but Sunil fled. However, the Court pointed out that, given the layout of the house and the noise that would have occurred when reaching the bedroom, it's unlikely Vinod was present during the attack.
• Additionally, the Court noted that no blood stains were found on Vinod's clothes, and his testimony conflicts with other evidence, including PW-3 Sukhdev's observation of Sunil fleeing with blood on his hands.
• The Post-Mortem Report (Ext Ka-14) revealed that PW-1 Vinod Kumar's wife was eight months pregnant, a crucial fact not mentioned in his initial FIR or statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Court opined that this omission and subsequent introduction of the fact during court deposition suggest possible fabrication.
• Additionally, the Court took into account the fact that Vinod made no effort to rescue his wife, and no blood stains or injuries were found on him, further indicating that he was likely not present at the scene and did not witness the crime.
• In the FIR, the Court noted, it was reported that the accused was attacking his wife's face and head with a brick, but there was no mention of him sitting on top of her. This detail was introduced for the first time during PW-1 Vinod Kumar's court deposition. Since the victim was eight months pregnant, this detail was significant and should have been included in the FIR. The late introduction of this fact suggests possible fabrication and raises doubts about Vinod's presence at the scene.
• The incident occurred at 7:30 p.m. in a dark bedroom, with no mentioned light source. The complete darkness would have made it difficult to see the crime, especially as the culprit quickly fled. This condition casts doubt on PW-3 Sukhdev's ability to witness the crime.
• PW-3 Shukhdev admitted in cross-examination that he only saw Sunil fleeing through the gallery after hearing cries. He did not witness the actual crime, which undermines the reliability of his testimony.

Given these observations, the Court inferred that PW2 Vinod Kumar and PW-3 Shukhdev were not present at the spot at the relevant time of occurrence, and they are not the eyewitnesses, as their presence on the spot at the time of the incident is highly doubtful.

Therefore, the Court opined that their testimony was not credible and reliable and discarded it.

Now, the Court turned to the motive alleged in the case, emphasizing that motive becomes significant without reliable ocular testimony.

The Court noted that, according to the prosecution's case, the Appellant committed the crime because of a dispute between the deceased and Kamlesh, the wife of his neighbour, Heera Lal. Heera Lal happened to be the uncle of the accused applicant.

It was alleged that a dispute over a hand pipe in the courtyard led to the crime. Essentially, Renu, Heera Lal's daughter, was restrained by Kunti from using the pipe, leading Renu to complain. Sunil, who was staying with Heera Lal (his uncle) for the past 7-8 days, supposedly committed the crime out of anger over this dispute.

However, the Court found that the motive attributed for committing the crime by Sunil did not inspire confidence. The Court observed thus:

“…firstly, there is no evidence regarding the said motive on record. So it is not proved. Secondly if the prosecution story, regarding motive, is accepted, even then restraining Renu from taking bath, on the hand pipe would cause much ire and anguish to Heera Lal against the deceased and there is a remote possibility that it would cause such ire and anguish to prompt the appellant to commit the crime who is an out sider and on a short visit at the house of Heera Lal.”

The Court also noted that though the prosecution could have brought Heera Lal into the witness box to establish any motive towards the appellant, it failed to do so and thus failed to establish any motive for committing the crime.

Against this backdrop, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a case against the appellant-accused. Hence, his appeal was allowed, and he was acquitted.

Case title – Sunil vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 511

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 511

Click Here ToRead/Download Judgment