The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, has set aside the conviction and sentencing of four individuals in a case involving the death of a woman in 1989. The Court allowed the appeal, noting that the prosecution failed to provide a plausible explanation for a nine-day delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and that the testimony of the fact witnesses was inconsistent with medical evidence.
The judgement, delivered by Justice Brij Raj Singh, quashed the 1991 order of the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi, which had sentenced the appellants under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident on August 8, 1989, involving the death of Smt. Bitana, who had been married to the appellant, Vijai Pal, for approximately two and a half years. According to the prosecution, the complainant, Smt. Jagdevi (the deceased’s mother), alleged that Bitana was subjected to cruelty and harassment over demands for dowry, specifically a she-buffalo, a cycle, and a Masehari.
The complainant alleged that on the night of the occurrence, she was informed that her daughter had died. She claimed that witnesses, including Lala Ram (P.W.-3), saw the accused throttling the deceased with a Lathi. While the death occurred on August 8, 1989, and the inquest was conducted the same day, the FIR was not registered until August 17, 1989, following an application to the Superintendent of Police.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellants, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, argued that the nine-day delay in lodging the FIR was fatal to the prosecution’s case and suggested the story was an afterthought. He highlighted that the post-mortem report showed the cause of death as “asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging” and found no external or internal injuries other than a ligature mark, directly contradicting the prosecution’s claim of physical assault and throttling with a Lathi. Furthermore, he contended that P.W.-2 (Hari Singh) and P.W.-3 (Lala Ram) were “interested and inimical witnesses” who had prior legal disputes with the accused.
The learned AGA, Sri Piyush Kumar Singh, rebutted these arguments, stating that seven witnesses were examined and the prosecution case was corroborated by medical examination, thus requiring no interference by the Court.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court focused on three primary issues: the delay in the FIR, the contradictions in witness testimonies, and the nature of the “inimical witnesses.”
Regarding the delay, the Court noted that the mother, father, and uncle of the deceased were present during the inquest on the day of the death, yet no FIR was lodged for nine days. Citing Ramaiah alias Rama vs. State of Karnataka (2014) and Babu vs. State of U.P. (2013), the Court observed:
“the delay is seen as fatal when examined in juxtaposition with other material that has come on record… which shakes the veracity of the prosecution case.”
On the medical evidence, the Court found a stark contradiction between the oral testimony and the post-mortem report. While witnesses claimed the deceased was beaten and throttled with a Lathi, the medical report found no such injuries. The Court remarked:
“the entire prosecution case… has been shattered because of material contradictions in their statements, who have set up a case at one point of time and change the same at a later point of time just to improve the prosecution case.”
The Court also scrutinized the credibility of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, noting admitted prior enmities and criminal proceedings between these witnesses and the accused. Referencing Raju alias Balachandran vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) and Prahlad vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024), the Court emphasized that “enmity is a double-edged sword” and that the testimony of such witnesses must be scrutinized with “great care and caution.” The Court concluded that these witnesses persuaded the complainant to lodge the FIR to settle personal scores.
Decision
The Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case through “cogent and credible evidence.” It ruled that the ingredients of Section 498-A and 304-B IPC were not established, noting that no prior reports of dowry demands were ever lodged before the death.
The appeal was allowed, and the conviction order dated July 30, 1991, was quashed. The bail bonds for appellants Vijai Pal, Madan Pal, Jagannath, and Jagat Ram were cancelled, and they were discharged. The appeal against Desh Raj and Smt. Ram Devi had already abated due to their deaths during the pendency of the appeal.
Case Details
Case Title: Vijai Pal and others v. State
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 392 of 1991
Bench: Justice Brij Raj Singh
Date: 21.04.2026
