The Supreme Court has acquitted two people, who were convicted in a 38-year-old murder case, after observing that both the trial court and the High Court failed to consider vital factors, which possibly hinted at false implication of the accused.

The order was recently passed by the Division Bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta, which noted lapses in the police investigation and said that it was not giving weightage to the perfunctory police investigation alone in concluding that the accused were entitled to benefit of doubt.
Stating that mere defects in the investigative process did not constitute grounds for acquittal, the Apex Court examined the evidence on record in detail, in order to ascertain if the prosecution’s allegations against the accused would stand.

It said there was a ‘fair’ degree of ‘uncertainty’ in the prosecution story and that the courts below appeared to have been ‘influenced’ primarily by the oral testimony of two witnesses, without considering the effect of other surrounding circumstances.

The top court of the country ruled that the charge of murder against the accused-appellants was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them.
A petition was filed in the Apex Court against the Allahabad High Court verdict of 2014, which upheld the conviction of the accused by the trial court in 1986. 
The case dated back to September 5, 1985, when one Narayan was allegedly murdered by four people.
One of the accused died before the trial court took up the matter, while another passed away during pendency of trial in the High Court. In 2014, the High Court confirmed the conviction of the remaining two accused.

The Supreme Court noted that there was material to indicate a long-standing enmity between the deceased and the accused, which could have possibly led to false implication of the accused. 
It ruled that taking in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the failure/neglect to seize the weapons of offence, non-examination of material witnesses, coupled with oral testimony of witnesses not being free from doubt, constituted a vital circumstance for granting the benefit of doubt to the accused appellants.
Ordering immediate release of the appellants, the top court of the country said that several key witnesses were not examined in the trial and there was some delay in examining the main prosecution witness. Non-examination of the investigating officer in the case was also a material lacuna, which created reasonable doubts in the prosecution’s case, it added.

Advocate Mukesh Giri appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Sanjay Kumar Tyagi represented the respondents.

(Case title: Munna Lal vs State of Uttar Pradesh)

Giving benefit of doubt to the accused of killing 13-year-old Kunwar Bharat in the middle of the night with a bomb, the Allahabad High Court has cancelled the life sentence and all the accused have been acquitted.

The Division Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra-I and Justice Mayank Kumar Jain passed this order, while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by  Bhagwat and Others.

The criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order of sentence dated 30.03.1984 passed by Khem Singh, the then 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial arising out of Case under Sections 302/34 IPC, Police Station Kotwali District Azamgarh whereby appellants-accused Bhagwat, Sahab, Lalloo, and Kamta were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

Facts giving rise to the prosecution case are that Phool Chand submitted a written report to Inspector Kotwali, District Azamgarh on 28.10.1979, wherein it was stated that he along with his son Kunwar Bharat was sleeping in the Verandah adjacent to his ‘Baithak’ on 27.10.1979.

At around 12:00 midnight, 10 to 15 persons came suddenly from the western lane flashing their torches. He heard the sounds “YahiYahi”. He identified the accused Bhagwat, Sahab, Lallu, and Kamta among them. Apprehending danger, he ran towards his house. His son rushed towards his other house situated on the eastern side of his Baithak.

Later, he also rushed toward the direction where his son had gone. He had a ‘danda’ in his hand. He shouted while approaching his son. He heard three sounds and later found that his son had died. His wife and sister-inlaw (‘Bhabhi’) had already come out. When he reached, he found that his wife was crying and saying that Bhagwat had killed her son with a bomb. At that time, his bhabhi Chandradeiya, his wife Jagpatiya, and Hardev were present on the spot.

On the basis of the written report, the first information report was registered with Police Station Kotwali, Azamgarh as Case naming the appellants as accused persons.

After the conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against appellants under Section 302 /34 of IPC.

Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Session where it was registered as Session Trial. Charges under Section 302/34 IPC were framed against the accused-appellants. The accused appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

After the close of prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants-accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, in which they denied the commission of the crime and their presence at the house of the complainant at the time of the incident. They have also denied committing the murder of Kunwar Bharat. They alleged that the Investigating Officer filed a false charge sheet against them. They had been implicated due to village enmity and hence the witnesses deposed against them.

Hearing both the parties and after vetting the evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court recorded conviction and passed the sentence against the appellants as aforesaid.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order of sentence the accused-appellants have preferred the criminal appeal.

Counsel for the appellants argued that the complainant Phool Chand is not the eyewitness of the occurrence and he had not seen any of the appellants committing the murder of his son. The witness Hardev, who is said to be present at the time of occurrence, has not supported the prosecution story during his deposition. There are material improvements in the evidence of the complainant and against the facts mentioned in the First information report. There are material contradictions and discrepancies in the oral evidence of Phool Chand, Chandradeiya and Jagpatiya. The medical evidence also does not corroborate the prosecution story. The FIR is also silent about so many facts narrated by the witnesses in their evidence.

It is alleged by the prosecution that the deceased was sleeping in the Verandah, but none of the appellants, as alleged, approached him or caused any damage to him. If there would have been an intention to commit the murder of Kunwar Bharat, some immediate injury would have been caused to him at that time.

As per the prosecution story, at the time of throwing the bomb, other persons were also standing there but none of them had suffered any kind of injury. No motive has been assigned to the appellants to commit the murder of Kunwar Bharat. The manner of assault as deposed by the witnesses of fact does not prove the prosecution story. The evidence of witnesses of fact is not reliable and it is full of material contradictions with each other.

None of the appellants suffered any kind of injury while it is a case of the prosecution that the bomb was thrown upon the deceased from close proximity. No motive was available to the appellants to commit the murder of Kunwar Bharat since there was no enmity with him. The appellants have falsely been implicated. There was no source of light at the time of occurrence and it is not possible to identify the appellants, in the light of the torch by the witnesses. The torches were not taken into possession by the investigating officer during the investigation. The trial Court has not rightfully appreciated the evidence and has ignored important aspects of the case. The Investigating Officer has been examined as a Court witness which was beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court.

The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge against the appellants. The appellants are liable to be acquitted and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, AGA argued that the first information report of the matter was promptly registered at 02.10 am while the incident took place at around 12:30 am. The appellants were identified by the witnesses in the light of the torches which they were having at the time of occurrence.

The witnesses of fact have corroborated the prosecution version and if there are minor contradictions or discrepancies which do not adversely affect the case of the prosecution, they are to be ignored. The medical evidence is consistent with the prosecution story. Kunwar Bharat, a boy of 13 years of age was brutally murdered by the appellants by throwing a bomb at him.

The presence of the appellants on the spot is proved by the witnesses of fact. The investigation of the case was fairly conducted by the Investigating Officer and based on evidence collected during the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellants. The appellants have rightly been convicted and sentenced by the trial court.

The judgement of the trial court was passed after appreciating the evidence available on record rightfully. The prosecution has succeeded to bring home the charge against the appellants. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Given the above facts, the Court observed that there was not sufficient source of light during the entire sequence of events right from the house of the complainant where he was sleeping when the accused-appellant came to the place of occurrence where Kunwar Bharat was alleged to be killed by Bhagwat by throwing a bomb at his face.

On account of this, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish that the accused-appellants were identified by the informant and  Chandradeiya and also that Chandradeiya and Jagapatiya are the eyewitnesses in the absence of a light source at the place of occurrence.

“On the basis of the above discussion and appreciation of documentary and oral evidence available on record, we conclude that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge u/s 302/34 IPC against the appellants.

Material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses of the fact render the theory of the prosecution to be doubtful. Accused appellant had no motive to kill Kunwar Bharat. The identification of the appellant is not established by cogent evidence. The witnesses have made material improvements and embellishments in their testimonies.

The evidence of witnesses Phool Chand, Chandradeiya, and Jagpatiya on reading as a whole does not inspire confidence and does not have any ring of truth. Appreciation of oral evidence of witnesses of fact raises doubt about the commission of the crime by the appellants. The Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record in a rightful manner and hence, wrongly convicted the appellants. 

The appellants are entitled to the benefit of the doubt since the prosecution has failed to prove charges against the appellants beyond the reasonable doubt. Thus the appeal is liable to be allowed”, the Court observed while allowing the appeal.

“The Judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court is hereby set aside. Appellants are hereby acquitted from the charges’, the Court ordered.

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday acquitted Ubhan Yadav, accused of raping and killing a minor. He had been awarded the death sentence by a Sessions court. The court gave this verdict by giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused and allowing his appeal. The bench of Justices Ramesh Sinha and Rajeev Singh passed this order while hearing a criminal appeal filed by Ubhan alias Abhai Kumar Yadav.

Ubhan was tried by the trial court and Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki, Satya Prakash Naik and was convicted under Sections 302 376 & 201 I.P.C. Ubhan challenged the August 29, 2014 order.

The counsel for the appellant has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence from the correct perspective. The counsel said that as per the prosecution’s case, the deceased went out from her home on March 30, 2013, at 2 pm, which was categorically stated by Siyavati (mother of the deceased) and she also stated that when the deceased did not come back till 4-5 pm, they started searching for her. She also informed her husband who was working in the spinning mill and came home within half an hour and thereafter. He, along with others, started searching. Then the body of the deceased was found in the grove of Pratap Singh under the blackberry tree.

The councel also submitted that Vinay Prakash was produced before the trial Court, who categorically stated before the Court below that the incident was of March 30, 2013, and on the said date when he was coming back after watching his agricultural field in between 2- 2:30 pm, he saw that co-villager Ubhan Yadav was coming out from the grove of Pratap Singh and going towards the village from the west side of Khaliyan, and when the accused saw the witness (Vinay Prakash), he moved fast but the witness did not notice his activity and went to his home. When on the same day at 8 pm the body of the deceased was found in the grove of Pratap Singh, then he believed that the incident was caused by the appellant; he also stated in examination-in-chief that the fact was brought into the notice of family members of the deceased as well as Investigating Officer and also stated that the appellant does not have good character.

Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that trial Court also acted very negligently as the order sheet reveals that on July 30, 2013, Amicus Curiae was informed about his engagement as counsel for the accused and on the same date charges were framed, meaning thereby, no opportunity was given to the Amicus Curiae for appellant to prepare for his submissions at the stage of framing of charge.

Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the trial court observed that the appellant was aged about 35 years without any evidence, but the medico-legal report reveals that he was aged about 27 years at the time of the incident.

The Government Advocate has submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence deposed before the trial Court. He also submitted that in the case, the modesty of twelve year’s old girl was outraged by the appellant, and thereafter, she was strangulated to death. He also submitted that the involvement of the appellant was found during the course of the investigation and he was arrested on April 01, 2013.
Thereafter, the accused was medically examined and some injuries were found on his genital parts which was caused due to physical relation with the deceased (minor).

The Government Advocate has also submitted that the appellant was medically examined and smegma was present on his genital part and the abrasion was also found and the color of the abrasion is bluish-black due to force penetration. He also submitted that the deceased was mentally retarded and the offense comes into the category of rarest of the rare cases as the twelve year’s old mentally retarded girl was raped and thereafter, murdered.

“The Court is conscious of the fact that in the present case 12 years old girl has been sexually assaulted and done to death by throttling, but the fact remains that whether it was the appellant who has committed the alleged crime appears to be doubtful. In such circumstances, the Court comes to the conclusion that the manner in which the prosecution tried to establish the execution of crime is doubtful”, the Court observed.

“Hence, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The incident does not appear to have happened in the manner in which the prosecution wants the Court to believe it had happened. Therefore, the appellant becomes entitled for the benefit of the doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed”, the Court said.

Read Also: Delhi HC grants bail to sexual assault accused, cites delay in recording supplementary statement

“The appellant – Ubhan Yadav @ Abhai Kumar Yadav -is in jail. Let the appellant be released forthwith unless required in any other case. It is further directed that the appellant namely Ubhan Yadav @ Abhai Kumar Yadav shall furnish bail bond with sureties to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in terms of the provision of Section 437-A CrPC”, the Court ordered.