The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has set aside the conviction of a man in a homicide case dating back to 1980, ruling that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused and suppressed the true genesis of the incident.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava allowed the criminal appeal filed by Ram Jiyawan, the sole surviving appellant, and acquitted him of all charges. The Court also dismissed a connected government appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the acquittal of other co-accused persons.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident that occurred on November 27, 1980, in Village Bijra, under Police Station Maharaj Ganj, District Faizabad.
According to the prosecution, the informant, Hanuman Prasad, along with his father, Ram Autar (deceased), and uncle, Jwala Prasad, were ploughing a field they claimed to have taken on mortgage from one Kallu Pandey. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons—Shambhu Prasad, Raja Ram, Birja Prasad, Maya Ram, Lalloo alias Ramanand, and Ram Jiyawan—arrived at the scene armed with lathis and a farsa (a sharp-edged weapon). It was alleged that on the exhortation of Shambhu Prasad, the accused assaulted the victims, resulting in the death of Ram Autar and injuries to Hanuman and Jwala Prasad.
The prosecution specifically claimed that the accused Birja hit the deceased on the head with a farsa, while the others used lathis.
In a judgment dated October 30, 1982, the Sessions Judge, Faizabad, convicted the accused under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 149 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), Section 147 (rioting), and Section 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. Notably, the trial court acquitted the accused Birja of all charges despite him being assigned the specific role of causing the fatal farsa injury.
During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, five of the six appellants passed away, leaving Ram Jiyawan as the sole surviving appellant.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant, Amicus Curiae Shri Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi, argued that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence correctly. The defense contended that the accused Jairam had purchased the disputed plot via a sale deed and was in possession of it. They alleged that the complainant party was the aggressor who tried to stop Jairam from ploughing the field, leading to a “free fight” where both sides sustained injuries.
The defense highlighted that three accused persons—Jairam, Birja, and Ram Jiyawan—had sustained injuries that were medically examined and proved during the trial by Dr. Harnam Singh (DW-2). However, the prosecution witnesses completely denied seeing any injuries on the accused.
Furthermore, the defense pointed out a critical contradiction: while all eye-witnesses claimed Birja hit the deceased with a farsa, the post-mortem report showed no incised wounds, only lacerated wounds and contusions caused by blunt objects.
The State, represented by Shri Shiv Nath Tilhari, A.G.A., supported the conviction, arguing that the eye-witnesses were reliable and the injuries on the accused were simple and superficial, not requiring an explanation.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court found serious discrepancies in the prosecution’s case.
1. Contradiction Between Ocular and Medical Evidence The Bench observed that all three eye-witnesses categorically stated that the accused Birja assaulted the deceased with a farsa on the head. However, the medical evidence provided by Dr. R.N. Singh and the post-mortem report revealed no incised wound.
The Court noted:
“Finding no corresponding farsa injury on the head of the deceased or to the other two injured… Birja has been honourably acquitted of all the charges framed against him… This circumstance further creates a serious dent about the veracity of the prosecution story and renders it doubtful.”
2. Suppression of Injuries on the Accused The Court placed significant weight on the fact that three accused persons had sustained injuries which were proved by the defense witness. The prosecution witnesses, however, denied seeing any injuries on the accused.
Justice Rajiv Gupta, delivering the judgment, observed:
“The said injured witness is not coming out with whole truth and is suppressing the very origin and genesis of the incident, which makes his testimony doubtful.”
The Court held that the prosecution’s failure to explain the injuries on the accused indicated that they had suppressed the origin of the occurrence.
3. Application of Legal Precedents The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Bhagwan Sahai v. State of Rajasthan (2016) and Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan (2016), reiterating the principle that “when the genesis and the manner of the incident is doubtful, the accused cannot be convicted.”
4. Perverse Finding of the Trial Court The High Court criticized the trial court’s reasoning that since the prosecution side suffered more serious injuries, the conviction could stand despite the unexplained injuries on the defense side. The Bench termed this finding “patently illegal, perverse and erroneous.”
Decision
The High Court held that the prosecution suppressed the genesis of the incident and that the medical evidence contradicted the eye-witness accounts. Consequently, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant.
“The sole surviving appellant Ram Jiyawan is entitled for being extended the benefit of doubt,” the Court ruled.
The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence of Ram Jiyawan were set aside. The Court discharged his bail bonds. The connected Government Appeal filed by the State in 1983 was dismissed.
The Court also directed an honorarium of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to the Amicus Curiae for his assistance.
