'Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon': Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Convicts After Medical Evidence Flaws Expose 'Eye-Witness' Lies

"When the genesis and the manner of the incident is doubtful, the accused cannot be convicted... Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof." Allahabad High Court, in a significant criminal appellate ruling, set aside a life imprisonment conviction under Section 302 IPC after ruling that fatal contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence demolish the foundation of the prosecution's case.

A division bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi held that eyewitness accounts claiming the use of firearms and spears cannot be sustained when an autopsy reveals exclusively incised wounds with absolute absence of pellet, bullet, or spear injuries.

The appellants, Sant Ram and Ram Lal, challenged a August 2, 1984 judgment passed by the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, which had convicted them for the alleged murder of one Ramchandra. According to the informant Dallu (PW-1), the victim was intercepted on January 24, 1984, chased, fired upon by a gun, assaulted with spears, and finally killed by a knife blow to the neck. While the trial court acquitted three co-accused persons, it convicted the appellants under Section 302 IPC, leading to the present criminal appeal after decades of pendency.

The primary questions before the court were whether ocular testimony completely uncorroborated by medical evidence can sustain a conviction for murder, and whether long-standing village enmity and prior cross-litigation can form the sole basis for establishing criminal culpability. The court was also called upon to determine the legal effect of foundational flaws in the genesis and narrative origin of a prosecution case.

Medical Evidence Directly Contradicts Ocular Testimony - "Firearm And Spear Allegations Completely Belied By Autopsy Report"

The bench minutely examined the deposition of the informant Dallu (PW-1) and the scriber Nathhu Lal (PW-2), who asserted that the accused persons first fired shots from a gun, caused the victim to fall into the mud, and subsequently inflicted spear and knife blows. However, the post-mortem report prepared by Dr. K.K. Srivastava (PW-7) documented 25 ante-mortem injuries, out of which 24 were simple or deep incised wounds and one was an abrasion. The court noted with grave concern that not a single firearm injury, pellet mark, or spear wound was discovered on the body of the deceased.

"Eyewitnesses Were Not Present At The Scene Of Crime"

The absolute absence of firearm and spear wounds thoroughly demolished the presence of the purported eyewitnesses at the time of the assault. The bench observed that if the initial written report and testimonies were true, corresponding injuries must have appeared on the corpse. The court concluded that the informants reached the spot only after the ghastly incident had already concluded and the assailants had fled, subsequently fabricating an exaggerated account leveraging prior village feuds.

"Impaired Vision And Winter Fog Compound Credibility Crisis"

The bench highlighted further vulnerabilities in the testimony of Informant Dallu (PW-1), who admitted during cross-examination that he suffered from severe cataract affecting both eyes and required spectacles to see. Furthermore, the incident occurred on a freezing January morning in 1984, where dense winter fog severely impaired early morning visibility. The court reasoned that fog droplets settling on his spectacles would have rendered his claimed observation from twenty paces entirely implausible.

"Enmity is a double-edged weapon which cuts both ways. It may constitute motive for the commission of the crime and at the same time it may also provide a motive for false implication."

Enmity Cannot Take The Place Of Legal Proof - "Enmity As A Double-Edged Weapon"

Addressing the established hostility between the parties—notably a prior counter-case registered under Section 307 IPC against the deceased and a non-cognizable report filed by the victim's wife days prior—the court reiterated established jurisprudence. Citing Supreme Court precedents including Sushil v. State of U.P. and State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh, the bench reiterated that hostility cuts both ways and can serve as a potent motive for the false dragging of adversaries into criminal trials.

"Suspicion Can Never Substitute Legal Evidence"

The court underscored that no matter how grave or strong judicial suspicion may be, it can never substitute concrete, unimpeachable proof. Citing the landmark ruling in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, the bench emphasized the vast mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true," requiring the prosecution to bridge that gap through clear, cogent evidence rather than vague conjectures and unverified village rumors.

"Appellants Given Benefit Of Doubt"

Finding that the trial court grievously erred in relying upon tainted, uncorroborated testimonies without applying judicial scrutiny to the medical discrepancies, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and life sentence. The court directed that since the appellants were already on bail, they need not surrender, and their bail bonds and sureties stand formally discharged. Recognizing the invaluable assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae, the court ordered a fee of ₹15,000 to be paid to him for his legal service.

Date of Decision: 17 August 2026