Allahabad High Court Acquits Accused In 1984 Murder Case; Cites Inconsistencies Between Medical And Ocular Evidence
The High Court found that the direction of firearm injuries was inconsistent with the prosecution’s version that the deceased was shot while seated on a tractor, stating that the evidence on record raised serious doubt regarding the manner of occurrence.
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted the sole surviving accused in a criminal case registered in 1984, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, based on contradictions between the medical findings and the version of events advanced by the prosecution witnesses.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed against a judgment of conviction delivered by the Sessions Judge, Mathura, in 1986, wherein multiple persons had been convicted under Sections 302/149 and 148 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha, while deciding the matter observed that, “…from the injuries received by the deceased the direction of none of the injuries is upward and we find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant that when the deceased was sitting on the driving seat of the tractor and accused persons are said to have opened fire from the ground level by their respective weapons, the direction of the wound must have been upward, that is not so, therefore the prosecution case on this point appears to be inconsistent.”
Advocate Rohit Shukla represented the appellant.
Background
The incident had occurred while the deceased was operating a tractor in an agricultural field. It was alleged that multiple persons armed with firearms and sharp-edged weapons arrived at the spot and opened fire, resulting in the death of the deceased. A First Information Report was subsequently lodged, leading to an investigation and trial.
The Sessions Court, after appreciating the evidence of witnesses and medical experts, found the accused guilty and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment.
The matter was carried in appeal before the High Court. During the course of proceedings, four of the convicts died, leaving the appeal to survive only in respect of one appellant.
Court’s Observations
Upon re-evaluating the material on record, the Allahabad High Court found that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution’s version of the event. The Court noted that the firearm injuries found on the deceased were straight rather than upward, which was inconsistent with the claim that the firing occurred from the ground while the deceased sat on an elevated seat.
Further, while referring to the testimony of the witnesses, the Court observed that “the conduct of the eye witness P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6, who are near relatives of the deceased, in not touching the dead body of the deceased after the incident and not trying to get the dead body of the deceased down, is highly unnatural.”
Observing that there were unexplained incised wounds on the body of the deceased, the Court remarked: “The fire arm injuries sustained by the victim was sufficient to cause his death. Injury no.8 and 9 of the deceased has been caused by sharp edged weapon which would not have been caused by Ballam. Injury no. 8 and 9 of the deceased are unexplained.”
The Bench held that this inconsistency, coupled with the unnatural conduct of certain prosecution witnesses and the absence of corresponding physical evidence, rendered the prosecution's story doubtful.
Conclusion
Allowing the appeal, the Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge, Mathura. Stating that the sole surviving appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, the Court acquitted him of all charges.
Cause Title: Har Swaroop & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:157223-DB)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates S.P.S. Raghav, Rohit Shukla
Respondents: A.G.A