'Prosecution Couldn't Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt': Allahabad HC Acquits 3 Convicts In 44 Year Old Murder Case

A bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Vinod Diwakar passed this order while allowing the criminal appeal filed by three convicts, two of whom are now in their 60s.

“…we are of the view that when the prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt the conviction of the appellants would be an unsafe proposition. We are of the view that when a doubt has been created in the minds of the Court upon consideration of the entire evidence, the appeal should be allowed and the appellants had to be acquitted,” the Court observed in its 28-page order.

The Court also noted that the recovery made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was of “no value whatsoever”, and even the evidence of the witnesses who had last seen the accused (with the deceased) was “unreliable”.

“The time at which the deceased was seen could not be said was in the proximity of the time when the murder had actually taken place. One can easily see that one set of witnesses had seen the deceased on 7.1.1980 in the morning while the other set of witnesses had seen the deceased in the company of the accused in the evening and thus the evidence of having seen the deceased last with the accused loses its importance,” the court opined.

Per the prosecution's case, a missing complaint was lodged on January 8, 1980, for Ajay Kumar at a police station in Muzaffarnagar, who had not returned to home since January 6, 1980. During the investigation, Accused Rajesh Kumar was arrested, who allegedly led the police party to the dead body (kept in a room) and the clothes with which the dead body of the deceased Ajay Kumar was wrapped.

The dead was found, on the pointing of the accused-Rajesh Kumar, in the room of one Ombir second accused). The police also arrested another accused (Rajguru), from whose rented room the clothes of the deceased were found.

In June 1982, the IIIrd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, found the accused Rajesh, Rajguru, and Ombir guilty under Section 302/34 IPC 4 of 28 and Section 201 IPC. They were punished for life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and were also sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC (both sentences were directed to run concurrently).

Challenging their conviction, the accused had moved to the High Court. It was the case of the accused that the motive was extremely weak and that the evidence of the witnesses who had last seen the accused was also weak.

Importantly, it was also argued that in the absence of the confession and in the absence of the fact that accused Rajesh had stated that he was the author of the concealment, the recovery as was made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act could not be considered a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and would therefore be only a confession which would come in the category of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and could not be relied upon

Having heard the counsels for the accused as well as the state, the Court said that the motive given for the commission of the murder of Ajay Kumar was not a strong one as it was claimed that Rs. 700/- was given to Rajesh with a request to him to get the coupons for fetching diesel. When he did not come with the diesel on 7.1.1980, the deceased was sent and when he did not again return on the 8th of January 1980, then a missing report was got reported.

The Court noted that for a person like the uncle of the deceased, Rs. 700/- was definitely of not much importance, and he would definitely not have ventured to send his nephew, the deceased, to Rajesh, one of the accused, for getting back with money.

The Court also opined that the recovery made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was not as per the law.

The Court noted that when accused Rajesh was under police custody, he had not approached the place, which was not accessible to the public, and the room where the dead was body found was such a room where all three accused (Rajesh, Omvir and Rajguru) had easy access.

The Court added that as per the evidence on record when Rajesh had gone to get the dead body recovered, he had not opened the lock but had entered the room by just giving a push to the door.

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, stressing that when doubt has been created in the minds of the Court upon consideration of the entire evidence, the division bench said that the appeal should be allowed, and the appellants should be acquitted.

Under such circumstances, the instant criminal appeal was allowed, the judgement and order passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, were quashed and set aside, and the accused were acquitted.