The Supreme Court has acquitted three men convicted in a 1977 murder case, setting aside concurrent findings of the trial court and the Allahabad High Court after holding that serious infirmities in the prosecution case including a doubtful FIR, unexplained investigative delays and unreliable eyewitness testimony created reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeals filed by the surviving accused, observing that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court consequently set aside the judgment of conviction dated June 3, 1981 and the Allahabad High Court’s affirming judgment dated November 20, 2011. The surviving appellants were acquitted of all charges.
The case arose from the alleged murder of deceased in Gonda district, Uttar Pradesh, on June 28, 1977. The prosecution claimed that the accused attacked the deceased with kanta, ballam and lathis in the presence of eyewitnesses. The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 147/148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and the High Court upheld the conviction.
Reappreciating the evidence, the Supreme Court found multiple circumstances casting serious doubt on the prosecution version. It noted that although the incident was allegedly reported on the evening of June 28, the dead body remained unattended throughout the night, neither the police nor the deceased’s family took steps to preserve it, and the post-mortem was conducted nearly two days later without any satisfactory explanation. According to the Court, such conduct was inconsistent with normal human behaviour and standard investigative procedure.
The Bench also found significant contradictions regarding the lodging of the FIR. It observed that the prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent accounts of who had accompanied the complainant to the police station, while the General Diary entries contradicted the complainant’s testimony. More importantly, although the FIR purportedly registered on June 28, 1977 was claimed to be prompt, it reached the jurisdictional Magistrate only on June 30, 1977. Viewing these circumstances cumulatively, the Court concluded that the FIR appeared to be a post-investigation document prepared to lend credibility to the prosecution case.
The Court further held that the alleged recovery of bicycles linking the accused to the crime was not supported by reliable evidence, as the prosecution failed to establish ownership or connect the bicycles to any particular accused. The Court also found the eyewitness testimony unsafe to rely upon in light of the material contradictions and surrounding circumstances.
Holding that these were not mere procedural irregularities but infirmities affecting the very genesis and credibility of the prosecution case, the Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Extending the benefit of doubt, it acquitted the surviving appellants. Since the acquittal was on merits, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the plea of juvenility raised by one of the appellants. It also discharged the bail bonds of the appellants who were on bail, while noting that another appellant had already been released pursuant to remission.
