Conviction under Section 302 IPC Overturned Due to Lack of Credible Witness Testimonies and Non-Examination of Key Witnesses
In a notable judgment delivered on February 18, 2026, the Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction of Khunni Lal, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by a lower court. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Prashant Mishra-I, overturned the trial court's decision, highlighting significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and the failure to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case revolved around an alleged murder incident that occurred on May 9, 1987, involving familial disputes over property. The prosecution accused Khunni Lal, along with Bhagwan Din and Jagdish, of murdering Mauji Lal during a confrontation over the construction of a platform, known locally as a chabutra. While the trial court acquitted Bhagwan Din and Jagdish, it convicted Khunni Lal based on the same set of evidence.
However, the High Court found several discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The pivotal prosecution witnesses, including Ram Singh (the complainant) and Bhagwati Devi (wife of the deceased), provided conflicting testimonies. Notably, Ram Singh's account during cross-examination deviated significantly from his earlier statements and the contents of the FIR. He admitted that due to the darkness at the time of the incident, he could not see Khunni Lal assaulting his brother.
Furthermore, the court noted the non-examination of key eyewitnesses such as Beche Lal, Ganga Ram, and Jalil, which further weakened the prosecution's position. The absence of credible witness testimonies and the unexplained discrepancies led the court to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused, emphasizing that suspicion cannot substitute for proof.
The bench also referenced precedents set by the Supreme Court in similar cases, underscoring the principle of parity. It stated that in situations where identical evidence is presented against multiple accused, the court cannot convict one while acquitting others unless there is a clear distinction in their involvement.
In light of these observations, the High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required for a conviction under Section 302 IPC. Consequently, the judgment and order of the trial court were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Khunni Lal was ordered to be released unless involved in any other legal matters.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside due to inconsistencies in prosecution evidence, non-examination of key witnesses, and benefit of doubt given to the accused as per the principle of parity.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 313, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Khunni Lal v. State, (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2854715
