Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

"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.

Similar News