Hostile Testimony Can't Undermine Medical Truth: Prima Facie Case of Homicide Justifies Jail: Allahabad High Court

“Criminal Justice System Cannot Be Overturned by Gullible Witnesses Acting Under Pressure or Intimidation” —  Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) emphatically rejected the second bail application filed by Suresh Lodhi, who stands accused of murdering his wife by strangulation inside their matrimonial home. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, while pronouncing the verdict in Suresh Lodhi v. State of U.P., held that mere hostility of key prosecution witnesses, including the victim’s daughter, does not justify bail where there exists clear medical and circumstantial evidence indicating homicidal death.

The Court observed, “The criminal justice system cannot be overturned by those gullible witnesses who act under pressure, inducement or intimidation,” and reminded that turning hostile does not erase prima facie guilt when supported by forensic truth and the accused's suspicious conduct.

The case stems from an FIR lodged on July 12, 2024, alleging that Suresh Lodhi strangled his wife inside their residence and fled. The inquest and post-mortem reports both confirmed a horizontal ligature mark around the neck and ante-mortem injuries on the head and chest. “A horizontal ligature mark going around the neck is not possible in case of suicide. It is a strong indicator of homicidal strangulation,” the Court noted, effectively dismissing the defence theory that the deceased took her own life due to abdominal pain.

The first bail application, moved earlier by the applicant, had been withdrawn on May 16, 2025, with a clear assurance from his counsel that the accused would await the outcome of the trial. “This second bail application has been filed without awaiting the outcome of the trial and without any substantial change in circumstance,” recorded the Court, finding such conduct to be legally impermissible.

Crucially, the prosecution had relied on a videographed statement made under Section 161 CrPC by the couple’s 14-year-old daughter, wherein she stated that her father had beaten and strangled her mother before fleeing. However, during trial, the same child turned hostile and retracted her earlier statement, now claiming that two masked intruders had committed the act and also stole her mother’s jewellery.

The High Court found the retraction untrustworthy, pointing to inconsistencies in her new version. “At one stage she says the intruders covered their faces, at another, she says they did not. She alleges theft of jewellery, yet the inquest report shows all jewellery was found intact on the deceased,” noted the Court. It held that such contradictions, combined with her testimony that her jailed father routinely asks her to “help get him released,” demonstrated clear influence and witness manipulation by the applicant.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. Sanjeev Nanda (2012) 8 SCC 450, the Court reminded that “witness turning hostile is a major disturbing factor,” and that such conduct, often stemming from inducement or fear, cannot be allowed to subvert justice. It further emphasized that even hostile testimony is not to be disregarded in its entirety: “The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be totally rejected... that portion which is consistent with the prosecution case may be accepted,” quoting from the apex court’s reasoning in Ramesh Prasad Misra and K. Anbazhagan.

Highlighting the post-incident conduct of the accused, the Court found it deeply incriminating. “The applicant fled the scene and was not even present during the inquest. These facts cannot be brushed aside when considering bail,” it said, while also taking serious note of the accused’s continuing influence over his daughter even while in custody.

Dismissing the argument that the collapse of witness testimony warrants bail, Justice Vidyarthi held that “truth must not become a casualty of intimidation and emotional coercion,” and reiterated that bail cannot be granted in cases where the accused is still capable of interfering with the administration of justice.

The High Court clarified that the trial shall proceed uninfluenced by its observations on the bail matter. “The trial court shall conclude the trial independently and expeditiously,” the order concluded, rejecting the second bail plea.

Date of Decision: January 13, 2026