In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted Murari, the appellant, who was previously convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Sessions Judge, Budaun, for the murder of Phool Singh in 1982. The case, filed as Criminal Appeal No. 1093 of 1983, was presided over by a division bench comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra. The appeal was filed against the order of conviction and life imprisonment handed down by the Sessions Court on May 3, 1983.
Facts of the Case:
On July 6, 1982, Phool Singh was allegedly shot dead by Murari Lal, son of Shankar, in the field of Dheemar. The incident occurred around 4:00 PM when Phool Singh was reportedly on his way from his village to Wazeerganj. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the deceased’s brother, Sheodan Singh, who claimed that the information about the murder was relayed to him by witnesses Ram Autar Singh and Dhanpal Singh.
According to the prosecution, Murari Lal, who was serving in the military, harboured animosity towards the deceased due to past conflicts. On the day of the incident, Murari allegedly shot Phool Singh multiple times with his licensed gun. The police investigation led to the recovery of five empty cartridges from the crime scene.
Legal Issues and Arguments:
The defence, represented by Senior Counsel Daya Shankar Mishra, assisted by Krishna Kapoor and Abhishek Mishra, raised several critical issues during the appeal. They argued that the primary eyewitness, Ram Autar Singh (PW-2), was not present at the scene of the crime, as corroborated by discrepancies in the testimonies and the site plan. They further contended that the site plan did not indicate the exact location from where the shots were fired or where the cartridges were found, casting doubt on the authenticity of the evidence.
Another crucial point raised by the defence was the unexplained injury on the deceased’s body. The post-mortem report indicated that the entry wound was from behind the right arm, contradicting the claim that the accused and the deceased were face-to-face during the shooting. The absence of blackening and tattooing on most of the injuries further questioned the prosecution’s narrative.
Additionally, the defence highlighted the failure of the investigating authorities to match the empty cartridges with the firearm allegedly used in the crime, which remained in the military’s custody and was never subjected to forensic examination.
The defence also pointed out inconsistencies in the preparation of the Panchayatnama, where the presence of Sub-Inspector D.C. Sharma was falsely indicated, despite his signature appearing only on blank spaces, suggesting a post facto addition.
Courtโs Observations and Decision:
The High Court, after meticulously examining the evidence and arguments, concluded that the investigation was conducted in a highly questionable manner. The Court observed that the sole eyewitness, Ram Autar Singh, was likely a planted witness, as his testimony was not corroborated by other evidence and was inconsistent with the forensic findings.
Also Read
The Court also criticized the prosecution for its failure to produce critical evidence, such as the forensic examination of the firearm and cartridges. Furthermore, the Court found the alleged motive behind the murder to be weak and insufficient to sustain a conviction.
In light of these findings, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal, quashing the Sessions Court’s judgment and acquitting Murari of all charges under Section 302 IPC. The Court ordered that since the appellant was already on bail, he need not surrender, and his bail bonds and sureties were discharged.
