In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court on 22 January 2025, upheld the convictions of six individuals in a 2002 murder case, emphasizing that human reactions to traumatic events cannot be universally standardized. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Faiz Alam Khan, who dismissed the appeals filed by the accused against their life sentences.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from the murder of Tinku alias Gyanendra Kumar, a 19-year-old, in the village of Jakaria Hisampur, Sitapur district, on 14 November 2002. According to the prosecution, the deceased was ambushed while driving a tractor and later attacked with firearms and knives. The motive for the crime was attributed to a financial dispute where the primary accused, Sanju, owed ₹7,000 to the deceased.
The accused, Sanju and Nannu (sons of Raghubir), Chhailu and Shatrughan (sons of Ramdutt), Parmanand (son of Upendra), and Hari Shankar (son of Rajaram), were convicted by the Fast Track Court-3, Sitapur, and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 302/149, 147, and 148 IPC, with additional punishment under the Arms Act.
Legal Issues
1. Credibility of Eyewitness Testimonies
The appellants challenged the reliability of the two key eyewitnesses, PW-1 Narendra Kumar (Kallu) and PW-2 Ram Naresh Dixit, the father of the deceased, arguing their testimonies were inconsistent and biased.
2. Delay in FIR
The defense claimed the FIR was lodged after a significant delay, casting doubt on the prosecution’s narrative.
3. Contradictions Between Medical and Ocular Evidence
Discrepancies between the description of injuries by eyewitnesses and the post-mortem report were cited as reasons to question the prosecution’s case.
4. Recovery of the Murder Weapon
The defense argued that the recovery of the country-made pistol, allegedly used in the crime, was fabricated.
5. Alleged Alternate Motive
The appellants suggested the murder was linked to an affair between the deceased and a relative, hinting at involvement by a third party.
Observations of the Court
1. Eyewitness Reactions Are Not Standardized
The court highlighted the variability in human responses to traumatic events, observing:
“Criminal courts should not expect a set reaction from any witness on seeing an incident like murder. If five persons witness one incident, there could be five different types of reactions from each of them.”
2. Timely Filing of the FIR
The court found the FIR, lodged within two hours of the incident, to be prompt and credible, dismissing claims of delay.
3. Credibility of Medical Evidence
The court noted that minor inconsistencies between medical and eyewitness evidence are insufficient to discredit the prosecution’s case. It upheld the reliability of post-mortem findings that corroborated eyewitness accounts.
4. Weapon Recovery and Forensic Evidence
Forensic reports confirmed that the country-made pistol recovered on Sanju’s pointing out had been used in the murder. This evidence was found credible and decisive.
5. Rejection of Alternative Motive
The court dismissed the argument of an alternate motive involving a romantic affair, noting that the claim lacked evidence and coherence.
The Verdict
The High Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. The life sentences of the six appellants were upheld, reinforcing the reliability of eyewitness testimonies and the importance of corroborative evidence.
Counsels
The appellants were represented by Arun Sinha, Nagendra Mohan, and others. The State of Uttar Pradesh was represented by Sri S.P. Singh, Additional Government Advocate, along with Rishad Murtaza and Aishwarya Mishra for the complainant.
