“Faulty Investigation” & “Contradiction In Testimonies Of Star Witnesses”: Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal In 1982 Murder Case
The Allahabad High Court, while upholding the decision of acquittal of accused in a 1982 murder case, observed that there were major contradictions in the testimonies of the Prosecution’s star eye witness and faulty investigation which have cast serious dents in the entire prosecution case.
An appeal was filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge in a case arising out of a case under Section 302, 307 read with Section 34 and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed, “On the deeper scrutiny of the above evidence led during the course of trial, we find that there is major contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution star eye witnesses. There is also faulty investigation. Such contradictions and faulty investigation cast a serious dent in the entire prosecution case.”
A.G.A. Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal and Advocate Purushottam Dixit appeared for the Appellant whereas Advocate P.C. Sharma appeared for the Respondents.
An FIR was filed in March 1982, against the Respondents where it was alleged that there was a fight between the Informant’s father and Respondents for taking water as they stopped the water flowing in the gram field. After altercations and heated conversations, the Respondents allegedly shot the informant’s father. “We may also record that there is faulty investigation in the present case because the pellets recovered from the body of the deceased, empty cartridge recovered from the place of occurrence and the crime weapon i.e. gun, which is alleged to have been used in commissioning of the alleged offence and has recovered from the brother-in-law of accused Ashok have not been sent for their chemical examination to the concerned Forensic Science Laboratory in order to establish that the pellets, empty cartridge and the gun were actually used in the commission of the alleged offence, which further creates a serious dent in the prosecution story and makes it doubtful.”, the Court observed.
The Court also highlighted that the non-production of the brother of one of the Respondents, the first informant and the deceased as prosecution witnesses during the trial also made the prosecution case weak.
“When as a matter of fact they could be star witnesses of the prosecution side, as they were the persons with whom initially there were altercation with the accused Sughar Singh, Nagendra Singh and Sahdeo Singh as per the prosecution version. Withholding of the said witness, for no rhyme or reason, further makes the prosecution story doubtful.”, the Court noted.
The Court concluded that the prosecution had not fully established the guilt of the Respondents based on evidence led at the stage of trial by the prosecution.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the acquittal of the Respondents of all the charges framed against them and dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: State of U.P. v. Sughar Singh and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:100069-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: A.G.A. Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Purushottam Dixit, Ramesh Chandra Yadav
Respondents: Advocates P.C. Sharma, Keshav Sahai, A.B.L.Gaur, Ashok Kumar Singh, Keshav Sahai, Prabhat Chandra Sharma, Pratibha Singh, Purushottam Dixit, Rajeev Sharma, P.C.Mishra.
