'Prosecution Failed Miserably To Prove Its Case': Allahabad High Court Upholds Acquittal Of 3 Dacoity Accused In 39 Year Old Case

“…when we take a holistic view of the evidence adduced during the course of trial and test the veracity of the prosecution story as mentioned by the witnesses, we find that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused-respondents,” a bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Surendra Singh-I observed in its 44-page judgment.

The Court noted that the trial court had passed a well-reasoned and detailed order in 1985, acquitting the accused after thoroughly examining the evidence and witness statements and correctly concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

As per the allegations made in the FIR, on the day of the incident, at around 9:30 AM, Buddhi Ram (deceased/father of the first informant) was heading towards Ghazipur when he was ambushed by Raj Deo, Vikrama, Raj Narain, Ram Ashrey, and Radhey Shyam (accused persons).

The deceased tried to escape but was caught and assaulted with firearms and lathis, resulting in severe injuries. Accused Vikrama and Raj Narain allegedly gave 50 blows on the knees of Buddhi Ram and twisted his legs, whereas Radhey Shyam assaulted him with kicks and fists. The assailants also stole his passbooks and wristwatch.

Later, they went to his house, stole jewellery, set the house on fire, and chased his son (Deo Nath) and another villager, who managed to escape. After that, Buddhi Ram's son, Shiv Prasad (PW-1), who allegedly witnessed the assault against his father, straight away went to the Police Outpost and called two police constables and one Head Constable to his home.

When they reached his home, he was informed that his father had been taken away to the Police Station; as such, he alone left for the Police Station; however, on his way, he met his father lying on a cot, who told him the entire incident. Later on, Buddhi Ram succumbed to the injury.

The accused were booked under Sections 147, 148, 149, 395, 436, 323, 325, and 506 IPC.

Based on the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence version given by the accused respondents, the trial court concluded that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the case against the accused respondents of all the charges framed against them.

Challenging their acquittal, the State government moved the High Court that evidence of PW-1 Shiv Prasad and PW-2 Lacchan Ram, coupled with medical evidence, would show that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. During the pendency of the government's appeal, two of the accused passed away.

Against this backdrop, noting that the Prosecution sought to rely heavily upon the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, the Court examined their testimonies to note that PW-2's claim of reaching Buddhi Ram's house and then the scene of the incident with PW-1 Shiv Prasad was highly doubtful.

“…we are also of the opinion that presence of P.W.-2 Lachhan Ram at the place of incident in the given circumstance becomes highly doubtful and he is, in fact, a got up witness as held by the trial court, which finding can not be said to be perverse or illegal in any manner and is, therefore, reiterated,” the Court remarked.

Testing the reliability of the statements of PW-1, the Court found that evidence of the PW-1 (the deceased's son) was not of sterling quality due to his hostility towards the accused.

The Court noted that the evidence showed multiple civil and criminal litigations between the parties, including previous assaults and ongoing cases. This longstanding enmity suggested that PW-1 Shiv Prasad was a highly interested and potentially biased witness, raising the possibility of false implications against the accused.

The Court found PW-1's testimony inconsistent, embellished, and exaggerated, noting that although he filed the FIR, his account of the incident changed over time.

The Court factored into account that initially, he claimed to have witnessed the assault on his father, Buddhi Ram, but later stated that his account was based on what his father had told him.

The Court also gave weight to the fact that his account of the accused looting jewellery and setting the house on fire was also inconsistent, and he later admitted that this information came from his mother and sister-in-law.

Furthermore, the Court found that his claim of bringing police constables to the scene was uncorroborated, as none of the officers were called to testify.

In view of these inconsistencies, the Court said that it raised significant doubts about the reliability of his testimony and suggested possible falsehoods in the prosecution's case.

Further, the Court was also of the view that though it was alleged in the FIR that after the incident of assault, the accused-respondents reached the house of the first informant and looted the ornaments of the inmates of the house and set the house on fire. However, the prosecution did not prove the factum.

The Court also noted that none of the ornaments alleged to have been looted in the incident were disclosed or recovered during the investigation, which further tainted the prosecution's story and made it doubtful.

In view of this, finding various lacunas in the prosecution's case, the Court upheld the acquittal of the accused persons, and the government's appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Appearances

Counsel for Appellant: A.G.A.,G.D. Mekavi

Counsel for Respondent: Uttar Kumar Goswami, PulakGanguly, Ravi Bhushan Singh, Sharda Chauhan, Praveen Kumar Singh

Case title - State of U.P. vs. Rajdeo Singh And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 469

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 469

Click Here ToRead/Download Order