In a judgment delivered on 11 April 2025, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court acquitted Jodhhan @ Jeevdhan, who had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of one Kanhaiya Lal under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I found the prosecution’s eyewitness testimonies unreliable and held that the trial court had erred in relying on the recovery of a weapon without complying with the legal standards under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Background:
The prosecution alleged that on 29 May 1998, Kanhaiya Lal was attacked and killed by the appellant Jodhhan @ Jeevdhan with a spade (kudal), while his brother and co-accused, Bhulai Kurmi, armed with an axe, instigated the assault due to suspicion of an illicit relationship between Kanhaiya Lal and Bhulai Kurmi’s wife, Smt. Rani. The FIR was lodged by Ambika Prasad, Gram Pradhan of the village, who claimed to be present at the spot.
The trial court convicted the appellant on 4 October 2002, relying upon testimonies of eyewitnesses and the recovery of the spade from his possession.
Arguments:
Counsel for the appellant, Amicus Curiae Shri Nadeem Murtaza, argued that:
- The testimonies of eyewitnesses were inconsistent and lacked credibility.
- The alleged motive (illicit relationship) was unsubstantiated as Smt. Rani, though cited in the FIR as a witness, was not examined by the prosecution and when examined as DW-1 by the defence, denied being present at the scene.
- The name of P.W.-2, Haridwar (deceased’s brother), was missing from the FIR, raising doubts about his later inclusion as an eyewitness.
- The recovery of the spade was improperly relied upon by the trial court as no confessional statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was established.
In support, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court ruling in Boby vs State of Kerala, (2023) 15 SCC 760, which emphasized that mere recovery without a valid Section 27 statement is inadmissible.
The State opposed the appeal, arguing that the appellant was clearly named in the FIR and the conviction was based on consistent testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
Court’s Analysis:
The Court found several inconsistencies and deficiencies in the prosecution’s case:
- The omission of P.W.-2 Haridwar’s name from the FIR despite him being the deceased’s brother raised serious doubts about his credibility as a witness.
- P.W.-3 Lallan stated that by the time Ambika Prasad and Haridwar arrived, the assailants had already fled and Kanhaiya Lal was already dead, contradicting the claim that Haridwar witnessed the incident.
- Smt. Rani’s denial of presence at the scene and of any illicit relationship undermined the motive alleged by the prosecution.
- The Court cited the principle that “it is not the quantity but the quality of the testimony” that matters, and held that none of the witnesses could be considered “sterling witnesses” as per the test laid down in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21.
- The trial court erred in convicting the appellant based on the recovery of the weapon without compliance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as clarified in Boby (supra).
Decision:
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court’s conviction and sentence dated 04.10.2002, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. Noting that the appellant had already been released on remission, the Court directed him not to surrender unless required in any other case. He was also directed to file a bond and sureties under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. within six weeks.
The Court appreciated the assistance rendered by Amicus Curiae Shri Nadeem Murtaza and directed that he be paid ₹15,000 as professional fee.
Case Title: Jodhhan @ Jeevdhan vs State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 1615 of 2002
