Recent Topic

10/recent/ticker-posts

About Me

Absence of Upward Injury Marks on Deceased Leads Allahabad High Court to Acquit Sole Surviving Accused in 1984 Murder Case

 

Absence of Upward Injury Marks on Deceased Leads Allahabad High Court to Acquit Sole Surviving Accused in 1984 Murder Case

The Allahabad High Court has acquitted the sole surviving accused in a nearly four-decade-old murder case, concluding that critical inconsistencies in the medical and factual evidence created reasonable doubt. The appeal related to a case in which a man named Charan Singh was said to have been shot dead while driving a tractor, in an alleged conspiracy involving family members with a prior land dispute. The Sessions Court in Mathura had convicted multiple accused in 1986 under Sections 302, 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. In the years that followed, four of the accused died, leaving only Suresh as the surviving appellant.

The appellant challenged the conviction. The High Court analyzed whether the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the post mortem report and injury pattern did not support the version offered by the prosecution. According to the trial record, the deceased had been shot while seated on the driver’s seat of the tractor. In that scenario, the trajectory of firearm injuries would have been expected to show upward directionality—given the relative positions of shooter and victim. However, the medical evidence demonstrated absence of upward wound marks, with injuries appearing more horizontal and inconsistent with the account that shots were fired upward toward a seated victim. This discrepancy undermined the prosecution’s case.

Further, the Court scrutinized the testimony of alleged eye-witnesses. It noted “unnatural conduct” in their accounts and found gaps and contradictions that could not be reconciled. The High Court observed that witness statements, especially long after the incident, failed to convincingly explain how the injuries occurred in the manner claimed. The discrepancies in the version of events, combined with the medical inconsistency, led the Court to conclude that the benefit of doubt ought to go to the accused.

In its judgment, the Court emphasized that in criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof rests heavily on the state. When the medical evidence and witness accounts diverge materially from the prosecution’s hypothesis, it would be improper to sustain a conviction. Noting that many years had elapsed and the passage of time would make fresh fact‐finding difficult, the High Court held that the evidentiary infirmities were too serious to ignore. As a result, the acquittal order was affirmed.

The decision underscores the need for coherence between medical and factual evidence in proving a capital offence. The Court held that even a minor inconsistency that shakes confidence in the prosecution’s case can justify acquittal, particularly where the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed insofar as it concerned the surviving accused, and he was discharged.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community

Post a Comment

0 Comments

'; (function() { var dsq = document.createElement('script'); dsq.type = 'text/javascript'; dsq.async = true; dsq.src = '//' + disqus_shortname + '.disqus.com/embed.js'; (document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(dsq); })();