Court Cites Flawed Investigation and Failure to Consider Cross-Case Evidence in Acquitting Accused
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has overturned the conviction of two men, Chet Ram and Rameshwar, accused in a decades-old murder case. The Division Bench comprising Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Devendra Singh-I delivered the verdict on April 10, 2026, citing serious lapses in the investigation and trial proceedings.
The court was hearing an appeal against the 1987 decision of the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, which had sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and six months under Section 323/34 IPC. The conviction was based on allegations that the appellants, along with others, had attacked and killed Rajpal with lathis over a financial dispute.
However, the High Court found that the trial court had failed to consider a critical cross-case and had relied on a delayed First Information Report (FIR) filed by the prosecution. The judgment noted that the prosecution's explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR was unsatisfactory and highlighted the one-sided nature of the investigation, which ignored injuries sustained by the accused.
The court observed that the investigating officer, SI Girish Kumar Sharma, did not investigate the cross-case lodged by the accused-appellants, which was registered earlier than the prosecution's FIR. Moreover, the trial court misread the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which clearly indicated that the appellants had acted in self-defense.
The bench emphasized the importance of a fair trial, stating that the trial court's failure to objectively evaluate the defense's case amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court criticized the investigating officer for not probing the injuries on the accused and declared the investigation tainted.
In overturning the conviction, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the appellants' bail bonds and discharged their sureties. The court directed the concerned office to ensure compliance with its order and submit a compliance report within two months.
The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC set aside due to failure of the trial court to consider the cross-case, delayed lodging of FIR by the prosecution, one-sided investigation, and non-consideration of injuries on the accused persons.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34, 323/34; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313
Rammu v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2880759
