Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Unreliable Testimony and Forensic Gaps Undermine Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Accused in 1989 Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has overturned the convictions of several individuals in a high-profile 1989 murder case from Uttar Pradesh, citing unreliable eyewitness testimony and substantial gaps in forensic evidence. The bench, comprising Justices Arvind Singh Sangwan and Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, highlighted that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration.

Background: The case centers on the murder of Devendra Prakash Gaur, an Inspector in the Uttar Pradesh Police, on October 9, 1989. According to the prosecution, Gaur was traveling with his brother (PW-1), father, and Mahendra Kumar Kaushik when their car was ambushed by the accused, resulting in Gaur's death. The trial court had convicted the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including murder (302/149 IPC), rioting (147, 148 IPC), and robbery (392 IPC). However, the High Court's review raised serious concerns about the reliability of the evidence presented.

Eyewitness Reliability: The court critically examined the testimony of the sole eyewitness, PW-1, who was also the brother of the deceased. "The testimony of PW-1, who had changed his account multiple times, lacks credibility. The witness initially implicated one Mahendra Kumar Kaushik as a key conspirator only to later retract and accuse others," the bench observed. The court noted that the trial court had acquitted Mahendra Kumar Kaushik due to these inconsistencies, but had failed to apply the same scrutiny to the other accused.

Forensic Evidence: The High Court emphasized the prosecution's failure to present compelling forensic evidence. "The absence of ballistic reports, the destruction of critical case property, and the lack of forensic corroboration severely weaken the prosecution's narrative," the judgment stated. The court underscored that crucial items such as the alleged murder weapon and the car used in the crime were not properly examined or presented in court.

Legal Reasoning: Delving into the principles of evaluating evidence, the court reiterated the necessity of credible and corroborative evidence in criminal convictions. "A conviction cannot rest solely on the testimony of a witness whose credibility is in serious doubt, especially when the supporting forensic evidence is either non-existent or inconclusive," the judgment read. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive, which is often a crucial component in criminal cases.

Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan remarked, "The presence of inconsistencies in the eyewitness's testimony and the lack of supporting forensic evidence create a significant doubt about the prosecution's case, which must benefit the accused."

Conclusion: The Allahabad High Court's decision to acquit the accused underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring convictions are based on reliable and corroborative evidence. This landmark ruling not only highlights the importance of witness credibility and forensic evidence but also sets a precedent for future cases, reinforcing the need for thorough and unbiased investigations.

Date of Decision: 30th May 2024

Chandrapal and Others vs. State of U.P.

 

Similar News