Prosecution's Explanation Too Hard To Swallow: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Conviction In 1986 Murder Case
The Court noted the necessity for investigating officers to examine cross-versions and explain injuries sustained by the accused during the same transaction.
The Allahabad High Court has set aside a trial court judgment convicting two appellants for murder, holding that a conviction cannot be sustained when the investigation is demonstrably one-sided and tainted. The Court observed that the failure of the investigating officer to scrutinise a cross-report lodged by the accused party at an earlier point in time, coupled with a failure to account for injuries sustained by the appellants, created significant doubt regarding the prosecution's narrative of the incident.
The Court highlighted that the prosecution’s explanation for a significant delay in lodging the First Information Report was "too hard to swallow", especially when contrasted with the promptness of the report filed by the accused. By ignoring the medical evidence of injuries on the appellants, the investigation was deemed tainted, leading to a violation of the principles of a fair trial.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Devendra Singh-I, in a criminal appeal challenging a judgement and order dated April 29, 1987, observed, “…In sum and substance, the investigation in this case is tainted and one sided. The investigating officer has not taken care to investigate the report lodged from the side of the appellant, which was on earlier point of time than the report lodged by the first informant of the case.”.
Advocate Amar Chandra appeared for the appellant and S.K. Ojha, A.G.A. appeared for the State.
The case originated from an incident on August 18, 1986, in village Baraura, Shahjahanpur, purportedly triggered by a dispute over a loan of ₹220/-. According to the first informant, Bhikhari Lal, the accused party assaulted Rajpal and Babu Ram with lathis at 05:00 PM, resulting in Rajpal’s death.
Conversely, the appellants contended that the incident occurred at 08:00 PM when Rajpal unlawfully entered their house, and that they had plied lathis only in exercise of their right of private defense after being assaulted first.
Thereafter, the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, had convicted the four original appellants under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. While the appeal for two appellants abated due to their death, the present proceedings focused on the surviving appellants, Chet Ram and Rameshwar.
The accused-appellants lodged their report at 00:15 AM on August 19, 1986, reporting the incident at 08:00 PM the previous evening, while the first informant filed the prosecution's report at 08:15 AM on August 19, 1986, alleging the incident occurred at 05:00 PM. The prosecution attributed this 15-hour delay to the death of the victim during transport to the police station at midnight, followed by the informant's inability to travel back to the station due to flooded rivers and heavy rain.
Considering the factual matrix and the evidences, the Court found that the trial court had misread the statements of the accused and incorporated incorrect facts regarding the medical evidence. While the trial court suggested only one accused was injured, the record showed three accused persons had sustained fresh injuries documented by a medical officer.
The Bench noted that the investigating officer admitted to never investigating the NCR lodged by the appellants, despite being present at the police station when it was filed. This omission, combined with the fact that the appellants' report was lodged hours before the informant's report, led the Court to conclude that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
“…It appears that the learned Trial Court while discussing the cross-case has misread the statement of the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to hold the appellants aggressor and that the first informant and others have plied lathis in self defence…we are of the view that the learned Trial Court has failed to examine the case of the accused-appellants in respect of cross case in corrective perspective”, the Bench noted.
The Court, thus, allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The appellants, Chet Ram and Rameshwar, who were already on bail, were discharged from their bail bonds and sureties.
Cause Title: Rammu and others v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:79213-DB)
Appearances:
Appellants: Amar Chandra, Chandra Bhushan Verma, P.N. Mishra, Rajesh Kumar Verma, Ran Jeet Singh, Sunil Kumar for the Appellants
Respondent: A.G.A. for the State.
Click here to read/download the Judgment