IO Found No Blood At Scene: Allahabad HC Upholds Acquittal In 1988 Killing, Finding Nephew And Cousin’s Eyewitness Accounts Doubtful

The prosecution alleged that, on 16 April 1988, the respondents assaulted Ram Nihor Singh near a culvert, causing injuries from which he died.

Rajesh Bahadur Singh (PW-1), the deceased’s nephew, and Santosh Singh (PW-2), his maternal cousin, claimed to have witnessed the attack.

The post-mortem recorded 24 ante-mortem injuries and attributed death to coma and shock resulting from those injuries.

The Sessions Court acquitted all seven accused of offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC, finding the eyewitness accounts and investigation unreliable.

During the appeal, it abated against two respondents who died; it continued against respondents 1 and 3–6.

The State appealed, contending that the eyewitness and medical evidence established guilt and that the acquittal was perverse.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may review and reappreciate the evidence, but must give due weight to the acquittal and the reinforced presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the view favouring the accused should ordinarily prevail.

The court relied on the principles in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and Dhanapal v. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras, among other authorities, and stated that interference is justified where the trial court’s view is perverse or otherwise unsustainable.

A witness’s relationship to the deceased does not by itself justify rejecting the evidence, but the witness’s presence, opportunity to observe and credibility must be assessed; material doubts may require corroboration.

The prosecution bore the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the charged offences arose under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC.

The Court accepted that the death was homicidal but found the evidence identifying the respondents as the assailants insufficiently reliable.

It noted inconsistencies in PW-1’s account of his presence and the events after the assault, and considered PW-2’s claimed presence and opportunity to see the incident doubtful, particularly given his distance from the scene and the differing accounts of when he arrived.

Both witnesses were related to the deceased, and the prosecution did not examine other persons said to have witnessed the incident or explain their absence.

The Investigating Officer found no blood at the alleged scene and did not collect blood-stained soil; the alleged axe was not forensically examined.

Taken together, these matters supported the trial court’s reasonable view that the prosecution had not proved the respondents’ involvement beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court therefore found no perversity or other basis to disturb the acquittal.

It dismissed the government appeal and affirmed the acquittal dated 2 April 1990; the trial court record was directed to be returned in accordance with the rules.