Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case

“FIR Silent on Eyewitnesses — Trial Testimony an Afterthought to Falsely Implicate Accused”, In a detailed and strongly worded judgment Allahabad High Court setting aside the conviction of the two appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The Bench comprising Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla found that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing serious inconsistencies, absence of credible motive, and a legally unsustainable recovery of weapon, coupled with improvised and untrustworthy witness accounts.

The case arose from the murder of one Hari Kishan, who was found dead with his throat slit in the early hours of September 16, 2017. The trial court had convicted the appellants, Sukh Lal and Pappu Sonkar, relying on testimonies of the deceased’s wife and brother, as well as the recovery of an axe allegedly used in the crime. The High Court, however, found every pillar of the prosecution case to be riddled with fatal infirmities, leading to the appellants’ acquittal.

“When FIR Itself Makes No Claim of Eyewitness Account, Subsequent Trial Allegations Raise Doubts of Fabrication”: High Court Discards Star Witness Testimony

The crux of the prosecution rested on the testimony of PW-1 Sangeeta, wife of the deceased and the first informant. While the FIR simply stated that she "found her husband lying dead with his neck slit in the night", her testimony at trial shifted dramatically — claiming that she witnessed the murder by Sukh Lal and Pappu with her own eyes.

The Court decisively rejected this afterthought transformation, holding:

“There is a marked improvement in the testimony of PW-1... The inconsistent statements regarding her presence and observations create a big question mark regarding the truthfulness of her eyewitness account and render it highly doubtful.”

The Court emphasized that “the FIR, which PW-1 herself dictated and endorsed with her thumb impression, makes no mention whatsoever of actually witnessing the attack”, leading the Court to conclude that “the alleged eyewitness narrative is a fabrication, crafted after the event to falsely implicate the accused.”

“Alleged Motive of Illicit Relationship Not Only Unproven — It Is Actively Denied by Prosecution Witness Himself”: High Court Rejects Fabricated Narrative

The prosecution suggested that appellant Pappu bore enmity toward the deceased Hari Kishan for allegedly being seen in a compromising position with Pappu’s wife — a motive said to have sparked the murder. However, PW-2 Tudwa, real brother of the deceased, categorically denied any such incident in his testimony:

“Till the time of his death, Hari Kishan had not committed any incident of misbehavior or rape with any woman… If such an incident is pointed out, it is false.”

The Court concluded that: “The so-called motive, claimed to be the spark of animosity, stands wholly unproven. It is a figment of the imagination, invented by PW-1 to construct a motive where none existed.”

“Eyewitnesses Who Contradict Their Own Statements Cannot Be Believed — Truth Must Be Steady, Not Manufactured”: High Court on Witness Reliability

Both PW-1 Sangeeta and PW-2 Tudwa projected themselves as eyewitnesses at trial. Yet, the High Court found both accounts hopelessly contradictory and implausible. The Court underlined:

“From their own cross-examination, it is clear that neither was present at the scene when the alleged assault occurred… Their claims of witnessing the murder are a complete afterthought, made to suit a manufactured narrative.”

In particular, PW-2 admitted that he was informed of the murder by others and arrived after the incident, and PW-1 herself admitted that the accused had already fled before she reached the spot — contradicting her own testimony of being present during the attack.

“Recovery of Axe Is a Legal Farce — No Disclosure, No Witness Credibility, No Site Plan Until 5 Days Later”: Court Rips Apart Section 27 Evidence

The recovery of the alleged crime weapon (axe) was central to the trial court's conviction. However, the High Court found the entire recovery process to be legally untenable and procedurally flawed.

The recovery witness PW-3 Roopan Singh retracted his testimony during cross-examination, candidly admitting: “No recovery was made in my presence. I signed the memo only because police officers persuaded me to do so.”

The Court further noted that the supposed disclosure statement by accused Pappu was never properly proved, and crucially, the recovery site plan was prepared five days after the alleged recovery, rendering the whole process highly suspect.

Citing the Supreme Court’s latest ruling in Babu Sahebagauda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149, the Bench held: “Recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be sustained unless disclosure is proved distinctly, and the recovery is connected to the disclosure. Mere formal marking of the recovery memo is not sufficient.”

Further, the Court held: “The alleged recovery site — under a Neem tree in open bushes — was accessible to everyone. It lacks evidentiary exclusivity. The entire recovery is legally inadmissible and factually dubious.”

“Trial Court Relied on Dubious Evidence and Ignored Basic Legal Principles — Conviction Unsustainable in Law”: High Court Sets Aside Life Sentence

Summarizing the entire prosecution case, the High Court noted that the murder took place in darkness, no one truly witnessed it, motives were imaginary, and the recovery was procedurally defective and legally inadmissible.

The Court concluded: “In the backdrop of serious contradictions, absence of credible motive, and the wholly unreliable and unproven recovery of the alleged crime weapon, the prosecution has failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction is unsustainable in law.”

Conviction Set Aside — One Appellant Released, Other Already on Bail

Allowing the appeal, the Court ordered: “The impugned judgment dated 06.06.2019 passed by the trial court is set aside. Appellant No.1 Sukh Lal Bunkar, already on bail, need not surrender; his bail bonds are discharged. Appellant No.2 Pappu Sonkar, who is in custody, shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case, subject to compliance of Section 437-A CrPC.”

Date of Decision: 30 October 2025