The Allahabad High Court has allowed the criminal appeal of Khunni Lal, setting aside his conviction and life imprisonment sentence in a murder case dating back to 1987. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Prashant Mishra-I, observed significant contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence and applied the principle of parity, noting that the trial court could not convict one accused while acquitting two others on the same set of evidence.
The appeal challenged the judgment and order dated May 17, 1989, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kannauj, Farrukhabad. The trial court had convicted the appellant, Khunni Lal, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Mauji Lal. Two co-accused, Bhagwan Din and Jagdish, were acquitted by the trial court.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on May 9, 1987, at around 7:00 PM in the Thathiya police station area. A dispute arose over the construction of a platform (chabutra) between the complainant, Ram Singh, and the accused, who were his relatives. It was alleged that Khunni Lal, armed with a knife, Bhagwan Din, armed with a pistol, and Jagdish, armed with a spear, attacked the complainant’s brother, Mauji Lal. The prosecution claimed that while the co-accused held the victim, Khunni Lal stabbed him in the neck, causing his death.
Arguments Raised
Representing the appellant, counsel Sikandar B. Kochar argued that the First Information Report (FIR) was manipulated and lodged as an afterthought. The defense highlighted that prominent eye-witnesses named in the FIR, including the complainant’s father and another brother, were not examined by the prosecution.
The counsel pointed out a critical contradiction in the testimony of the complainant (PW-1). While the FIR described specific roles for each accused, PW-1 admitted in cross-examination that “he could not see the appellant assaulting Mauji Lal with a knife because it was dark in the night.” The defense further argued that the trial court committed a gross error by acquitting two co-accused while convicting the appellant on the exact same evidence.
Opposing the appeal, Additional Government Advocate Amit Sinha argued that the eye-witness account corroborated the incident and the medical evidence supported the prosecution’s case.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and found the prosecution’s case to be riddled with inconsistencies.
1. Contradictory Testimonies: The Court noted that the testimony of the informant (PW-1) was “altogether contrary” to the FIR. The Bench observed:
“In his cross-examination PW-1 Ram Singh… has stated very clearly that he could not see assaulting with knife because it was dark of night.” Furthermore, the Court found the testimony of the deceased’s wife (PW-3) unreliable. While she claimed to be an eye-witness, she admitted in cross-examination that she was inside a thatched hut when the alarm was raised and “did not come out from her house.”
2. Non-Examination of Key Witnesses: The Bench expressed concern over the non-examination of material witnesses named in the FIR.
“The prominent witnesses, who have been named as eye-witnesses to the incident, namely, Beche Lal, Ganga Ram, Jalil and Keshari, have not been examined. The reason of their non-examination is best known to the prosecution.”
3. Principle of Parity: A central pillar of the High Court’s decision was the principle that a court cannot adopt a contradictory approach towards accused persons implicated by identical evidence. Citing the Supreme Court judgments in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat (2023) and Ram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), the Bench stated:
“When there is similar or identical evidence of eye-witnesses against two accused by scribing the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other.” The Court noted that in the instant case, “one is convicted and two others are acquitted on the same set of evidence.”
4. Suspicion vs. Proof: The Court observed that the FIR appeared to be lodged based on suspicion due to prior enmity.
“Suspicion cannot at all take place of proof, howsoever strong it may be.”
Decision
Holding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court set aside the conviction order dated May 17, 1989.
“In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned trial court… suffers from infirmity and is liable to be set aside.”
The appeal was allowed, and the appellant, Khunni Lal, was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The Court directed that he be set free unless wanted in any other case.
- Case Title: Khunni Lal vs. State
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1188 of 1989
