Conviction Overturned Due to Contradictory Evidence and Prolonged Judicial Delays
In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted Dhani Ram alias Dhanaiyan, a 100-year-old appellant, in a criminal case that has been pending for over four decades. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Sanjiv Kumar, set aside the conviction of Dhani Ram, who was initially sentenced to life imprisonment in 1984 for his alleged involvement in a murder case.
The case revolved around the murder of Gunuwa, which took place in 1982. Dhani Ram was accused of exhorting the main perpetrator, Maiku, to kill Gunuwa. The Court noted several inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses and discrepancies in the First Information Report (FIR) and medical evidence. The judgment emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, granting Dhani Ram the benefit of doubt.
The Court also took into consideration Dhani Ram's advanced age and the extraordinary delay in the disposal of the case as significant mitigating factors. The appellant had been on bail for nearly four decades, and the Court observed that no further custodial consequences should be imposed.
Citing various precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings on the principle of "proof beyond reasonable doubt," the High Court highlighted that the prosecution's evidence was riddled with contradictions and improbabilities. The judgment underscored the importance of reliable and clear evidence in sustaining a conviction.
This decision is seen as a significant moment in the judicial system, emphasizing the need for timely justice and the consideration of human factors such as age and prolonged legal battles. The High Court's ruling reflects a broader judicial understanding that justice must align with human dignity and fairness, especially when the accused has endured the burden of a pending criminal case for decades.
Bottom Line:
Conviction in a murder case cannot be sustained if the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and where the testimonies of key witnesses are riddled with contradictions and improbabilities. Advanced age of the accused and prolonged pendency of the case are relevant mitigating factors in the moulding of relief.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313
Satti Din v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2849096
