In a landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted three men who had been serving a life sentence for over 38 years for murder, holding that the trial court convicted them based on evidence that did not conclusively prove their guilt.
38 Years Behind Bars: A Conviction Overturned
A division bench comprising Justices JJ Munir and Sanjiv Kumar ordered the immediate release of Amrit Lal, Harish Chandra, and Kallu, who have been incarcerated in Naini jail since 1987. The court ruled that the prosecution had "utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt."
The three men, along with eight others, were accused of beating a person to death on July 8, 1982, in Prayagraj (then Allahabad). They were also charged with threatening the victim's brother to prevent him from going to the police. An FIR was registered against all 11 accused.
Major Contradictions Between Witness and Medical Evidence
The High Court, in its judgment dated December 18, noted significant and material contradictions between the ocular (eyewitness) and medical evidence presented during the trial. The bench pointed out that the trial judge had failed to appreciate the evidence correctly and reached a wrong conclusion based on conjecture.
A critical discrepancy highlighted by the court involved the testimony of the deceased's brother and uncle. They claimed one of the accused had driven a 'lathi' (stick) inside the victim. However, the postmortem report by the doctor explicitly stated no such injury existed.
The bench observed, "In the present case, the medical evidence completely rules out the direct evidence of eye-witnesses. The injuries found on the dead body do not support the dock evidence... which raise serious doubts about the prosecution case."
Long Legal Battle Ends in Acquittal
The original conviction was handed down by an additional sessions court in Prayagraj on April 13, 1987. All 11 convicted individuals had appealed the verdict. Tragically, eight of the co-accused died during the pendency of their appeals, spending decades in prison awaiting justice.
While acknowledging that the death was a homicide, the High Court emphasized that the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt lies squarely with the prosecution, a burden it failed to meet in this instance. The court ordered the trio's release forthwith, provided they are not required in any other case.
This ruling underscores the critical importance of robust and consistent evidence in criminal convictions and highlights the grave consequences of its absence.
