“It was a blind murder and the deceased was murdered by someone else, in the dark hours of night, away from the abadi (populated area) of the village,” the court said.

The December 18 verdict went on, “The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective and reached a wrong conclusion regarding the appellants’ guilt upon conjectures and improper appreciation of evidence.”

Background

The crime took place in Bhadri village in Prayagraj on July 8, 1982, when the mortal remains of one Ram Dulare were recovered from near a railway line.

According to the prosecution, 11 men from the village assaulted him with lathis (bamboo stick), kicks and punches, and one accused inserted a lathi into the deceased’s rectum, causing his death.

An FIR was registered the same morning and, after trial, all 11 were convicted for his murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The proceedings against the 11 men abated due to their deaths.

The high court heard the appeals of the three surviving convicts, Amrit Lal, Harish Chandra and Kallu, who had remained incarcerated.

Arguments

Advocates P K Singh, Manoj Kumar Patel and Divyanshu Nandan Tripathi, appearing for the men, submitted that the alleged crime occurred in the dead of night, away from habitation, with no reliable source of light.

The counsel also submitted that the presence of the purported eyewitnesses, both close relatives of the deceased, was doubtful and that the FIR and ocular version suffered from inconsistencies.

They argued it was a blind murder and that the deceased was killed by someone else.

Additional government advocate Ghan Shayam Kumar, however, opposed the appeals, arguing that the accused were named in the FIR, that the assembly shared a common object, and that ocular testimony should prevail despite medical nuances.

Observations

The court noted that, contrary to the account of the eyewitness of the nature of injury inflicted on the victim, the post-mortem recorded no such injury, whereas the death was attributed to a head injury.

“In the present case, the medical evidence completely rules out the direct evidence of eye-witnesses,” the court held, adding that such contradictions strike at the root of the prosecution’s case.

The court further asked how an unidentified person informed the victim’s uncle of the assault, noting that if the informant knew the brother, he would have conveyed the information directly.

Outlining that accepting the prosecution’s version would mean 11 assailants beat the victim for nearly an hour yet caused only 10 injuries, the court said.

“Normally, it would not have taken more than five to ten minutes. It is highly unnatural that the appellants would keep on beating the deceased up to a considerable time so that people may reach the spot and identify them.”

The bench found the conduct of the informant and his uncle inconsistent with ordinary human behaviour on their claim that they went to the scene empty-handed and took a longer route despite learning that the victim was being assaulted.

The court said though villagers were said to be present, none were examined, an omission that assumed significance given doubts about the eyewitnesses’ presence.

The bench also took note of the inconsistencies in the FIR about where and when it was written and observed that these contradictions diminished its evidentiary value.

Concluding that the killing occurred in the dark hours and that the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s guilt, the high court allowed both appeals, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the three surviving appellants.

It directed their immediate release, subject to execution of personal bonds for appearance if the state challenges the acquittal.