High Court rules accused should get benefit of doubt

Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court delivered a significant verdict in a 1981 culpable homicide case, acquitting two convicts after 43 years. The court said the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court did not evaluate the evidence from a proper legal perspective.

Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari, while delivering this verdict, set aside the decision passed by the then Basti Sessions Judge on March 26, 1983. The trial court had sentenced accused Baithole alias Ram Tirath to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Shiv Kumar to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. The case is from Basthanwa village, under the Pakolia police station area of ​​Basti district. According to the prosecution, on January 24, 1981, Atma Prasad, who was working in the fields, was attacked by Shyam Bihari, Shiv Kumar, and Baithole with an axe, a club, and a stick. The injured Atma Prasad died on the way to the hospital. A murder case was registered and a charge sheet was filed against the three accused.

During the hearing, the defense drew the court’s attention to numerous contradictions in the FIR, the scene of the incident, witness statements, and the investigation process. It was also stated that the prosecution failed to clearly establish which accused caused which injury. While one accused, Shyam Bihari, was acquitted by the trial court based on similar evidence, the other two were convicted. The High Court stated in its decision that when similar evidence exists against all accused, it cannot be justified to convict only some of them without specific and distinct evidence. Citing judicial decisions, the court stated that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also noted that the FIR mentioned rain, while eyewitnesses stated in court that it had not rained on the day of the incident. Similarly, contradictions were found between witness statements and the site plan regarding the scene of the incident. The court also questioned the five-day delay by the investigating officer in recording witness statements.

The court stated that the questions posed to the accused under Section 313 CrPC were not properly posed, depriving them of the opportunity to adequately respond to the evidence against them. The court also considered this a serious flaw in the trial. Considering all these circumstances, the High Court held that the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the criminal appeals were allowed, setting aside the sentence and conviction of both accused.