Investigation Tainted by Failure to Probe Cross-Report: Allahabad High Court Acquits Appellants in Decades-Old Murder Case

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has set aside a 1987 judgment convicting two individuals for murder, observing that the investigation was “tainted and one-sided” due to the police’s failure to investigate a cross-report filed by the accused. A Division Bench comprising Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Devendra Singh-I allowed the appeal, noting significant procedural lapses and factual errors in the trial court’s assessment of the case.

Background of the Case

The appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated April 29, 1987, passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 403 of 1986. The trial court had convicted the appellants, Chet Ram and Rameshwar (along with Rammu and Misri, whose appeals abated following their deaths), sentencing them to life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC.

The prosecution’s case rested on an incident allegedly occurring on August 18, 1986, at 5:00 PM. It was alleged that the appellants assaulted Rajpal with lathis over a dispute involving a loan of Rs. 220 and a land cultivation agreement. Rajpal reportedly died at midnight while being transported to the police station. The First Information Report (FIR) by the prosecution side was lodged on August 19, 1986, at 8:15 AM.

Arguments of the Parties

Counsel for the appellants argued that the case was a cross-case where the appellants had used force in self-defence. They highlighted that appellant Rameshwar had lodged a report (NCR) at 00:15 AM on August 19, 1986—eight hours before the prosecution’s FIR—alleging that Rajpal, Babu Ram, and Bhikhari Lal had assaulted him first.

The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, supported the trial court’s findings, maintaining that the evidence was correctly evaluated and the conviction of the appellants was justified.

READ ALSO  Criminal History in Bail Orders Must Be Tabulated: Allahabad High Court Issues Mandatory Directions to Subordinate Courts While Granting Bail

The Court’s Analysis

Upon reviewing the evidence, the High Court identified several critical failures in the investigation and the trial court’s reasoning:

  1. Failure to Investigate Cross-Report: The Investigating Officer (PW-4) admitted that he did not investigate the NCR lodged by Rameshwar and took no steps to medically examine the accused after their arrest. The Bench observed: “From the perusal of the evidence… it is clear that no investigation was conducted by him on the report lodged by appellant-Rameshwar… the investigation in this case is tainted and one sided.”
  2. Improbable Prosecution Timeline: The prosecution claimed the 7 km journey to the police station took 15 hours due to rain and flooding. The Court found this explanation “too hard to swallow,” noting that the accused side managed to lodge their report at the same station within four hours of their alleged incident time.
  3. Factual Errors Regarding Injuries: The trial court erroneously recorded that only one accused was medically examined. The High Court found that the defense witness (DW-1) had actually examined three accused persons—Chet Ram, Misri, and Rameshwar—all of whom had sustained fresh injuries.
  4. Misinterpretation of Self-Defence: The Bench noted that the trial court misread the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and their testimonies. While the trial court labeled the appellants as aggressors, the High Court found that the evidence suggested they were defending themselves from an assault by the deceased’s party.
READ ALSO  Portraying Husband as Womaniser in Public is Extreme Cruelty: Delhi HC 

The Decision

The High Court concluded that the trial court failed to examine the cross-case in the correct perspective. The Court held that the prosecution had not established the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt given the tainted nature of the investigation and the credible defense of self-defence.

The order dated April 29, 1987, was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The bail bonds of Chet Ram and Rameshwar were cancelled, and their sureties were discharged.

Case Details:

  • Case Title: Rammu and others Versus State of U.P.
  • Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of 1987
  • Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Devendra Singh-I
  • Date: April 10, 2026

READ ALSO  Sec 223 BNSS: Notice to Proposed Accused Should be Issued After Recording Statement of Complainant and Witnesses: Allahabad HC  
Ad 20- WhatsApp Banner

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles