"Case Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt": Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Sets Aside Death Penalty

The Allahabad High Court recently rejected the reference made to it to confirm the death penalty awarded to a man accused of murdering two persons (Husband-Wife) as it found that the prosecution couldn't prove charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav acquitted the accused as it came to the conclusion that evidence/statements of the sole eye-witness of the incident, PW-1 (daughter of the deceased husband-wife) was not credible and the same didn't inspire confidence.

The case in brief 

Essentially, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered on September 4, 2010, on the basis of a written report submitted by Ms. Kunti wherein it was stated that her father Raju (deceased) and mother Manju Devi (deceased) were murdered by the appellant/accused alongwith his two aides at around 2 O'Clock in the night.

It was alleged that the appellant/accused and his two aides took her mother away towards the orchard and there they killed her mother and father by throttling their necks. Thereafter, they hanged them on the tree.

After the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the appellant/accused under Section 302, 394, 411, and 120-B I.P.C. After the trial, the court came to the conclusion that the crime committed by the appellant/accused comes under the 'Rarest of the Rare category' and punished him with a death sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. coupled with a fine of Rs.25,000/.

The trial court sent the impugned judgment and conviction order awarding the capital sentence for confirmation by this Court under Section 366 Cr.P.C.

Court's observations 

The Court, at the outset, noted that there was no eye-witness of the crime except the informant (P.W.1), who happens to be the daughter of both the deceased and therefore, the court examined her evidence minutely and observed the following:

- In her statement, she stated that the accused persons forcibly picked up two pairs of silver payals (anklets) and one gold nose-pin and one mobile-set from her house at the time of the incident but nothing had been mentioned about this loot or picking up of jewelry in the F.I.R.

- She mentioned in the F.I.R. that she alongwith her deceased parents was sitting in front of the door of her house at 2.00 A.M. in the night and the accused/appellant alongwith his two aides came there. But when she was examined in the court as P.W.-1, she stated that they came at about 10-11 pm in the night, when she, alongwith her parents was sleeping outside the house, then accused Rahul alongwith his two aides reached there.

"The time mentioned in the F.I.R. and stated as P.W.-1 has a remarkable difference and it is a major contradiction in the statement of the alleged eye-witness," the Court remarked.

- In the examination-in-chief, she stated that the accused were armed with small guns but nothing is there in the F.I.R. about these guns. She stated that some village-people saw the incident, at another place she denied the same. 

In view of the abovesaid contradictions in the statement of PW-1, the Court came to the following conclusion:

"The evidence of P.W.-1 does not have a ring of truth. The story of prosecution and the evidence led to prove the same is not worthy of credence, to prove the charge leveled against the convict Rahul beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is not such as to raise the confidence of the court. In the present matter, the prosecution could not prove the charges leveled against the convict beyond reasonable doubt as evidence of only eye-witness of the incident i.e. P.W.-1 is not worthy of credence. There are contradictions on the point of time and also what have been written in the F.I.R. and what have been stated in the court."

Further, the court opined that the trial court had erred in appreciating the evidence of P.W.-1 and holding guilty and convicting the accused on the basis of that evidence.

Importantly, the Court observed that it was conscious of the fact that the parents of the complainant were murdered but it added that, whether it was the appellant who has killed them was not proved by the prosecution by cogent and clinching evidence.

Thus, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to acquittal, and hence, he was acquitted of the charges. The impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court were set-aside and the death reference was rejected.

Case title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rahul Singh @ Govind Singh connected with Rahul Singh @ Govind Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 131

Click Here To Read/Download Order