A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, has acquitted Jaimangal Yadav in a decades-old murder case. The court emphasized that “manifest illegality cannot sustain conviction,” citing serious flaws in the trial court’s reliance on weak and inconsistent evidence.
Adv Abhineet Jaiswal was appointed as Amicus by the Court to represent the Appellant.
Case Background
The case originated from the murder of Bhagwati Prasad Tiwari, a clerk at a coal depot in Gonda district, Uttar Pradesh, owned by the informant Bhagwan Prasad Mishra. On February 29, 1996, Tiwari was discovered dead at the depot, having suffered multiple head injuries.
The informant alleged that Yadav, employed as a watchman at the depot, killed Tiwari over accusations of theft and unpaid wages. Yadav was reportedly apprehended from a nearby field by Mishra and his associates, who claimed he confessed to the crime on the spot. The police later arrested Yadav, and a blood-stained sabbal (crowbar) was recovered from the scene on his alleged pointing.
The trial court convicted Yadav under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to life imprisonment. Yadav subsequently appealed, maintaining his innocence and alleging fabrication of evidence.
Legal Issues
The High Court addressed several legal issues pivotal to the appeal:
1. Extra-Judicial Confession:
The prosecution relied on an extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to the informant and his associates. However, the court questioned its voluntariness, noting that the appellant was tied up when the alleged confession occurred. Furthermore, discrepancies between witness accounts regarding the content of the confession undermined its credibility.
2. Recovery of the Weapon:
The court analyzed the recovery of the sabbal, allegedly used in the murder. Testimonies about its location varied, and the recovery memo exhibited overwriting and lacked the appellant’s signature, casting doubt on the weapon’s evidentiary value.
3. Medical Evidence:
Postmortem findings revealed injuries inconsistent with the prosecution’s claim that the sabbal was the sole weapon. The court highlighted that several injuries on the deceased could not have been caused by a blunt object, contradicting the prosecution’s narrative.
Observations of the Court
The High Court made several critical observations while delivering its judgment:
– Weakness of Extra-Judicial Confession:
“An extra-judicial confession is inherently a weak piece of evidence and must inspire confidence,” the court observed. It emphasized that such confessions must be corroborated by reliable and independent evidence, which was absent in this case.
– Procedural Irregularities:
The court noted that the trial court failed to address glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. It stressed, “Manifest illegality cannot sustain a conviction,” as procedural lapses and contradictory evidence tainted the trial process.
– Medical Evidence Discrepancies:
The court observed, “Medical evidence that contradicts the prosecution’s narrative cannot be ignored,” pointing to discrepancies between the injuries and the alleged murder weapon.
Decision
After evaluating the evidence, the High Court concluded that the trial court erred in relying on uncorroborated and contradictory evidence to convict Yadav. The judgment and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
The appellant was represented by Amicus Curiae Shri Abhineet Jaiswal, who provided robust assistance to the court. The State was represented by Additional Government Advocate Smt. Meera Tripathi.
