Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

"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