"Prosecution Case Flows From Highly Interested Witnesses": Allahabad HC Sets Aside Life Sentences In A 42 Year Old Murder Case

The Allahabad High Court recently set aside the life sentence of two in a 42-year-old murder case giving them a benefit of doubt as it noted that the prosecution case flowed from highly interested witnesses.

The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Shamim Ahmed sensed a suspicion shrouding the prosecution case, which gave the Court, a strong feeling that the informant party had grabbed the opportunity of an occurrence, perhaps an accident, to spin a story against its rivals.

The case in brief 

The brother (PW1) of the deceased filed an FIR alleging that the accused Ram Autar alias Bishun Dayal, Ram Pal, Panna Lal, and Ram Chandra, who are residents of the informant's village and were involved in litigation and were inimically opposed to each other.

On the day of the incident, the deceased and his son had gone to fetch medicine, and as soon as they reached in front of the shop of a fodder seller, the accused/appellants attacked the deceased and his son (nephew of the informant), with an iron rod and lathi. As a result of that assault, both of them received injuries.

On the spot, the informant's brother Raja Ram (P.W.2) and Rajendra (P.W.3), who were returning after selling milk, were present and they witnessed the incident.

It was alleged that the deceased and his son were taken to the Sadar Hospital, Jaunpur by Raja Ram (P.W.2) where he was declared dead whereas his son (Banwari @ Gungey) was admitted to the hospital after medical examination.

The trial Court accepted the ocular account rendered by PW-2 and PW-3 and, upon finding that there existed strong enmity and underlying motive for the crime, convicted the accused appellants for the offences specified above. Challenging the same, they moved to the High Court.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the High Court noted that the informant's side and the accused side were inimical to each other and were embroiled in litigation, both civil and criminal, for a long and therefore, it was a case where the ocular account was flowing from interested witnesses.

Now, the Court took into account the ocular account of PW-2 and PW-3, the alleged eyewitnesses, who saw the incident while they were returning after having sold the milk. In their testimony, they stated that they witnessed the incident from a short distance across the road and when they arrived at the area of the incident, there were several persons present there and yet, no one made any attempt to save the victim or to intervene.

Having analyzed their ocular account, the Court remarked thus:

"From PW-3's testimony, it appears 50-60 people had collected there when he arrived. With 50-60 men around and there being just four or five assailants with hard blunt objects, easily people could have intervened and stopped the occurrence....here the incident is in broad daylight on a busy street and in the presence of shopkeepers as well as passersby yet, there is no effort to intervene. This raises a serious doubt with regard to the presence of PW-2 and PW-3 on the spot as also with regard to the incident occurring in the manner alleged."

The court also pointed toward a discrepancy in the prosecution's evidence as to who took Gungey (son of the deceased) to the hospital. While PW-2 stated that he took Gungey to the hospital, the records and the statement of PW-5, suggested that Gungey was brought to the hospital by Ram Raj (i.e. son of the informant who has not been examined).

Now, since Ram Raj had not been examined by the prosecution, this doubt remained in the mind of the Court as to in what circumstances did Raja Ram accompany the injured to the hospital.

There was also a serious doubt with regard to the spot where the deceased was allegedly assaulted, that is, whether it was on Patri of the road or in the middle of the road, and in view of this, the Court wondered as to whether it was a case of a road accident.

Significantly, the medical reports suggested that the fracture on the body of the deceased was caused not on account of infliction of an iron rod blow, but on account of falling on the hard surface, after being hit on the left side of the head.

Further, the Court also remarked that its doubts could have been dispelled by independent witnesses had they been examined by the prosecution, particularly because the incident occurred on a busy public street and in the presence of 50 odd bystanders including shopkeepers who had their shops there.

Consequently, the Court remarked thus:

"...unfortunately, the shop keeper who allegedly washed off the blood from the spot was not even interrogated. Not only that, even the spot of occurrence could not be confirmed by lifting of blood-stained earth therefrom. Once that is the position, and the prosecution case flows from highly interested witnesses, who are witnesses by chance, and their presence at the spot is not confirmed by medical paper of the injured, which shows that the injured was brought by some other person to the hospital, we have no hesitation to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellants."

For the reasons above, the appeal was allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court qua the surviving appellants, was set aside

Appearances:

Counsel for Appellant :- R.B. Sahai,Rizwan Ali Akhtar,Sadaful Islam Jafri,S.I.Jafri

Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh,D.S.M.Tripathi,Kailash Nath,Manish Shukla,Pratibha Singh,S.S. Rathore,Triveni Shanker

Case title - Ram Autar And Others v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 879 of 1986]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 215

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment