a bench Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra He also observed that there were many flaws in the prosecution story which made the case doubtful and the case against the accused-appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

According to the FIR lodged in this case, between 7:30 pm and 8:00 pm on August 21, 1982, sacrifice (Jagram) It was claimed that he was killed by Ram Babu (appellant-accused) And kisna During a (now dead) gambling dispute, the defendant was aggrieved because the victim won the game.

The FIR was lodged at the location of the case. First informer (Takdeer Singh)claimed that kisna used an ax Ram Babu (appellant-accused) strangled the victim and eyewitnesses (Laxman Singh and Mulayam Singh) It was reported that he witnessed the attack with torches.

After the murder, the attackers allegedly dragged Jagram’s body to a well and threw it there.

On conclusion of the trial, Sessions Judge Jalaun at Orai in May 1983 convicted the accused Ram Babu under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Challenging his conviction, defendant-appellant immediately filed a Criminal Appeal.

Advocate Rajiv Nayan SinghHe maintained the innocence of Appellant Ram Babu, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue the case on behalf of the appellant. He made the following statements:

• The FIR was old and there were inconsistencies in the FIR regarding the discovery of Jagram’s body as the FIR claimed that the first informant knew that the body was dumped in a well; but the Panchayatnama stated that Constable Prem Shankar Shukla found the body based on traces leading to the well, and suggested that this information came to light only after police investigation.
• If the original informant had been aware of the location of the body at the time of the FIR, the police would have immediately searched the well instead of following the trail later.
• Game cards allegedly used for gambling purposes were also not seized.
• If eyewitnesses had witnessed the murder, they would have immediately intervened or reported it. It was argued that since they did not take such action, they were not present at the time of the incident and that it could have been fabricated by the prosecution to support the case against the defendant.

Additional Government Advocate Amit SinhaOn the other hand, he supported the decision of the court and submitted that the case is one of direct evidence based on the eyewitness statements of PW-3 and PW-4 and the evidence of the eyewitnesses cannot be taken lightly.

After hearing the Amicus Curiae and the Additional Government Advocate, the Court held that the timing of the FIR was predetermined as there would have been no need for it if the prosecution had indeed known that the body had been dragged from the scene to the well. After the FIR was lodged, the police were called to search for the body.

The court also noted that if the eyewitnesses had actually witnessed the murder, the FIR would have been filed only under Section 302 IPC (murder) instead of involving Section 201 IPC (destruction of evidence), indicating uncertainty about the location of the body.

“We have no hesitation in concluding that in the present case the whereabouts of the body were not known to anyone until the police arrived and after the investigation was made and the police discovered the body. , an FIR was lodged and subsequently, after definitive discussion between the first informant and the Police, the accused appellant was named in the FIR.” remarked the Court.

The court also observed that there could be a possible dispute regarding some accounting transactions relating to the cracker business run by the deceased. Therefore, the first informant and the two eyewitnesses, namely, Laxman Singh and Mulayam Singh, might have come together to implicate the appellant in the present case.

The court’s observations came that Mulayam Singh, Laxman Singh and the first informant had stated that although they were not from the same family, they were certainly close to each other.

The court also noted that while the investigation was ongoing and gambling was allegedly done using playing cards, efforts should be made to at least recover the playing cards and keep them in police custody. The playing cards and torches seen in the incident were not taken into custody.

Taking these observations into account, the Court accepted the appeal, overturned the decision of the first instance court and acquitted the defendant.

Case title – Ram Babu vs. State of UP (CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 2163 / 1983)

Case quote:

Click Here to Read/Download the Order