“Enmity is a Double-Edged Sword”: Allahabad High Court Acquits Trio in 2001 Murder Case Over Contradictory Evidence

In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted three men previously convicted of murder due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of compelling evidence. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Rajiv Gupta and Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, underscores the necessity of reliable evidence in securing convictions.

The case pertains to the murder of Vijay Bahadur Singh alias Angnu Singh on December 7, 2001, in Mau District, Uttar Pradesh. The prosecution alleged that the accused, Narendra Singh, Dharmendra Singh, and Ramesh Yadav, conspired to kill the deceased due to an old enmity. Vijay Bahadur Singh was shot dead at around 6 PM while washing his hands at a hand-pipe near a Ramayan recital program. The trial court had convicted Narendra Singh under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment, while Dharmendra Singh and Ramesh Yadav were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and also sentenced to life imprisonment.

The court identified numerous contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses. The complainant, Ram Pukar Singh, and another witness, Panchanand Singh, gave conflicting accounts regarding the sequence of events, the presence of light at the crime scene, and the actions taken immediately following the incident. The court noted, “The presence of eye witnesses and the place of occurrence becomes doubtful due to major contradictions in their statements”.

The court emphasized the discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the police officers, which made the prosecution’s narrative unreliable. For instance, while the FIR stated that the accused were chased after the shooting, the complainant later testified that they only saw the accused running away. Additionally, conflicting accounts were given about the registration of the FIR and the arrival of the police at the crime scene.

The alleged motive for the crime was an old enmity, but the court found this to be unsubstantiated and weak. Ram Pukar Singh initially claimed no enmity existed, only to later cite a minor altercation involving the accused’s father. This inconsistency weakened the prosecution’s argument that the murder was premeditated due to a strong motive.

The court stressed the importance of consistent and credible witness testimonies in criminal cases. It held that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. “There are serious and major contradictions and omissions in the statements of the eye witnesses and the police witnesses, which make the entire prosecution story doubtful,” the judgment stated.

The Allahabad High Court’s decision to acquit the accused in this 2001 murder case highlights the critical role of reliable and consistent evidence in the criminal justice system. The judgment sends a clear message about the importance of rigorous scrutiny of witness testimonies and the need for a strong, substantiated motive to secure convictions in murder cases.

Date of Decision: July 29, 2024

Ramesh Yadav VS State of U.P