look news india
Prayagraj, July 30 (HS). The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday upheld the lower court's decision to acquit three accused in a 1985 robbery case, finding several flaws in the prosecution's case.
“When we take a holistic view of the evidence produced during the trial and examine the veracity of the prosecution story told by the witnesses, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubt,” a bench of Justices Rajiv Gupta and Surendra Singh I said in its 44-page verdict on the government's appeal against the acquittal of the accused.
The high court said the trial court had passed a reasoned and detailed order in 1985 acquitting the accused after thoroughly examining the evidence and the statements of witnesses and rightly concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, on the day of the incident, at about 9.30 pm, Buddhi Ram (deceased) was going towards Ghazipur when Raj Dev, Vikrama, Raj Narayan, Ram Ashray and Radheshyam ambushed him.
The deceased tried to escape but was caught and attacked with guns and sticks, leaving him severely injured. Accused Vikram and Raj Narain allegedly inflicted 50 blows on Buddhi Ram's knees and twisted his legs while Radheshyam attacked him with kicks and punches. The assailants also snatched his passbook and wristwatch. Later, they went to his house, stole the jewellery, set the house on fire, and chased his son (Dev Nath) and another villager, who managed to escape. Thereafter, Buddhi Ram's son, Shiv Prasad (PW-1), who allegedly witnessed the attack on his father, went straight to the police outpost and called two police constables and a head constable to his house.
When they reached his house he was told that his father has been taken to the police station, so he left for the police station alone but on the way he found his father lying on the cot who told him the entire incident. Later, the injured Buddhiram died. The accused were booked under Sections 147, 148, 149, 395, 436, 323, 325 and 506 IPC. On the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution and the defence statement given by the accused respondents, the trial court concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove all the charges levelled against the accused respondents.
Challenging the acquittal, the state government moved the High Court saying that the evidence of PW-1 Shiv Prasad and PW-2 Lachchan Ram and the medical evidence showed that the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Two of the accused died during the pendency of the government's appeal.
While examining the credibility of the statements of prosecution witness 1, the High Court observed that the evidence of PW-1 (son of the deceased) was not of excellent quality due to his animosity towards the accused. The court said that the evidence showed that there were several civil and criminal cases pending between the two parties, including previous assaults and ongoing cases. This increased the possibility of making false allegations against the accused.
The court also highlighted the fact that her account of the accused looting the jewellery and setting the house on fire was also inconsistent and was later admitted to have been obtained by her from her mother and sister-in-law. Further, the court found that her claim of bringing police constables to the scene was uncorroborated as no officer was called to testify. Noting these inconsistencies, the court said that this casts serious doubts on the credibility of her testimony and indicates a possible falsity in the prosecution's case.
The High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused persons, finding several deficiencies in the prosecution's case and accordingly dismissed the government's appeal.