the Supreme Court has acquitted the surviving appellants in a decades-old murder case from Uttar Pradesh, highlighting serious lapses in the prosecution’s case including unnatural conduct of witnesses, unexplained delays in investigation, and material inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence.
Background
The incident occurred in the intervening night/early evening of 27/28 June 1977 near village Kanchanpur, District Gonda. The prosecution alleged that the appellants (along with one Ram Dhani, who died during proceedings) ambushed and assaulted Harihar Saran with kanta, ballam, and lathi following prior enmity, leading to his death. The FIR was lodged in the evening of 28 June 1977.
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 147, 148, and 302 read with 149 IPC. The Allahabad High Court affirmed the conviction. Some appellants died during the pendency of appeals before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Ruling (Justice Mehta)
After meticulous scrutiny of the entire evidence, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the surviving appellants, granting them the benefit of doubt.
Key Reasons for Acquittal:
- Unnatural Conduct and Delays: The dead body allegedly lay unattended at the spot overnight despite proximity to the police station (3½ miles). Inquest proceedings were delayed until the next morning, and post-mortem was conducted only on 30 June 1977. Such inaction by family members and police cast serious doubt on the timing and genuineness of the FIR.
- Inconsistencies in Ocular Testimony: Eye-witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-4) gave consistent accounts in chief but faltered in cross-examination regarding details like bicycles, prior enmity, and FIR contents. Their conduct (fleeing without effective rescue) was deemed unnatural.
- Medical Evidence Mismatch: Post-mortem revealed injuries primarily from sharp-edged weapons. The timing of death suggested by medical opinion (1.5–2.5 days prior) created doubt about the prosecution’s timeline. No weapons were recovered.
- Motive and Recovery: Alleged political rivalry and bicycle recoveries were found insufficiently linked or speculative. Defence of false implication due to prior enmity was noted.
- Juvenility: One appellant (Subedar) was a minor at the time of the incident.
- Overall: Cumulative effect of delays, inconsistencies, interested witnesses, and lack of independent corroboration rendered the prosecution case doubtful.
The Court emphasized that in criminal jurisprudence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Key Takeaways
- Scrutiny of FIR and Delays: Unexplained delays in inquest, post-mortem, and body preservation can fatally weaken the prosecution.
- Corroboration Essential: Ocular testimony of interested witnesses requires strong independent corroboration, especially in cases involving prior enmity.
- Medical-Ocular Consistency: Material discrepancies between medical evidence and witness accounts create reasonable doubt.
- Juvenility: Courts must address juvenility claims even at appellate stages.
- Benefit of Doubt: Long-pending cases with procedural lapses warrant acquittal when evidence is shaky.
This judgment reaffirms the high standard of proof in criminal trials and the protective role of appellate courts against miscarriage of justice.
Case Details
Case Name: Deo Prasad and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (and connected appeals)
Citation: 2026 INSC 707
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice [Mehta, J.]
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 