In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted the accused in a 1989 murder case, citing insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The judgment, delivered by Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad, overturned the trial court’s conviction of the accused, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment.
Background of the Case
The case, registered as Criminal Appeal No. 1902 of 2004, stems from an incident that occurred on August 26, 1989, in Jaunpur district. The deceased, Ram Bali, was allegedly attacked by Jwala Prasad, Bankey Lal, Shyam Bahadur, Shanker, and Mithai Lal, who were armed with Gandasa (a type of axe) and lathi (stick). The attack was purportedly motivated by an ongoing land dispute and previous litigations between the families of the deceased and the accused.
Key Legal Issues
1. Reliability of Witness Testimonies: The prosecution’s case heavily relied on the testimonies of P.W.-1 Lalji Yadav (the deceased’s brother) and P.W.-3 Hari Shanker Yadav (an alleged eyewitness). The defense argued that these witnesses were not present at the scene during the attack and their statements were inconsistent.
2. Dying Declaration: The prosecution presented a dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased to his father, Jai Shree, naming the attackers. However, Jai Shree was not produced in court to verify this statement, raising questions about its admissibility and reliability.
3. Delay in FIR: The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged almost 10 hours after the incident, with no plausible explanation for the delay, which the defense argued cast doubt on the prosecution’s version of events.
Court’s Decision
The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and found several inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s case:
– Witness Testimonies: The court noted significant contradictions in the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-3. For instance, P.W.-1 claimed he did not see any medicines or prescriptions at the scene, contradicting his earlier statement that the deceased had gone to buy medicine. Additionally, P.W.-3’s testimony about the lighting conditions at the time of the incident was inconsistent.
– Dying Declaration: The court found the alleged dying declaration unreliable. The father of the deceased, who was supposed to verify the statement, was not produced in court, and there was no certification of the deceased’s mental fitness at the time of making the declaration.
– Delay in FIR: The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR further weakened the prosecution’s case.
Given these findings, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence of the accused were reversed.
Also Read
Parties Involved
– Appellants: Jwala Prasad (deceased during the appeal), Bankey Lal, Shyam Bahadur, Shanker, and Mithai Lal.
– Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh.
– Counsel for Appellants: Jagdish Singh Sengar, Babu Lal Ram, Ram Babu Sharma.
– Counsel for Respondent: Government Advocate, M. Sarwar Khan, Rajesh Yadav, Ram Ji Yadav, Vineet Kumar Yadav.
– Counsel for Informant: Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, assisted by Siddhartha Shukla.
