MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

"Allahabad High Court Acquits Accused in Triple Murder Case Citing 'Unreliable and Contradictory Testimonies'"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment the Allahabad High Court has acquitted the accused in a notable triple murder case, underscoring the inconsistencies and unreliability in the prosecution's narrative. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Anish Kumar Gupta, overturned the previous conviction, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The case, registered under Criminal Appeal No. 1640 and 1647 of 2012, involved the brutal killing of three individuals on July 26, 2007. Initially, the FIR lodged by Shyam Singh (PW-1) led to the charge sheet against five individuals, including the appellants, under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 504.

During the trial, the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, particularly the eye-witnesses, were marred by inconsistencies. The court noted significant contradictions in their statements regarding crucial details of the incident. "The manner in which the prosecution witnesses had changed their stand about the fact as to how they had witnessed the incident makes the entire prosecution story unreliable," the bench observed in its judgment.

Further doubts were raised regarding the investigative process. The Investigating Officer, acknowledged in court, failed to record statements from several individuals present at the crime scene and inconsistencies in the recovery of evidence, casting a shadow over the evidence's reliability.

A critical turn in the case was the testimony of a defense witness, purportedly the driver of the tractor involved in the incident, who categorically denied the presence of the primary eyewitnesses in the tractor trolley. This testimony directly contradicted the prosecution's claims and was pivotal in the court's decision.

In their concluding remarks, the judges stated, "Even though it is correct that minor discrepancies should be ignored, we find that the discrepancies are of such a nature which cannot be ignored." This observation played a crucial role in the acquittal of the appellants.

The case also brought to light the status of two appellants, Pravesh and Vipin, who were declared juveniles post-conviction and consequently released. The third appellant, Manoj, has been ordered to be released forthwith, unless required in connection with another case.

This judgment underscores the importance of reliable and consistent testimonies in criminal proceedings and highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring justice is served based on concrete evidence and unwavering facts.

Date of Decision: 04-03-2024

PRAVESH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Latest Legal News