Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man in the murder case of his own father after he spent more than 10 years in jail for the crime. Court noted that a thorough examination of the evidence revealed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

The bench of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Om Prakash Shukla was dealing with a criminal appeal against the judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge passed in 2016 in a case registered in 2013 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

The Additional Sessions Judge had convicted the appellant, namely Suhel, for murdering his own father and had sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000 under Section 302, IPC, and 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000 under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

The allegations against the appellant were that he and other accused persons, who had already been acquitted, armed with bombs and weapons, entered the dairy of one Shafeeq on the night of June 12, 2013, and caused various injuries to the persons sleeping there, including that of burn injuries caused by the explosion of crude bombs.

During the attack, the father of the appellant, who along with the appellant's brother was sleeping there, had died.

So as to hold the accused-appellant guilty, the prosecution had examined 6 witnesses. 

Before the high court, the counsel for the appellant argued that on the same set of evidence, the court below had disbelieved the statements of two alleged eye-witnesses in regard to the co-accused but believed the statements of the said two eye-witnesses for convicting the appellant. He further claimed that there were material contradictions in the statement of two alleged eyewitnesses.

The counsel submitted that the appellant had been falsely implicated by the complainant (his brother) because of the old enmity between the two with regard to their father's property.

On the other hand, the state counsel argued that there was no reason for the high court to disbelieve the statement of the alleged eyewitnesses who had categorically deposed against the appellant and showed his involvement in the commission of offence.

He contended that the appellant had killed his own father, which showed the brutality of the crime, and the mindset of the appellant.

After taking note of the submissions made and the documents submitted, the high court opined that a minute examination of the evidence made it clear that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all the doubts.

Court pointed out that as per the statement of the alleged eyewitnesses, they were sleeping four to six steps next to the deceased and the accused persons hurled a bomb at the deceased, but none of them received any injury. Court said that it created doubt about the use of a bomb in the crime.

Further while stressing that the medical evidence also did not support the prosecution case, court highlighted that the Autopsy Surgeon had also opined that the burn injuries found on the person of the deceased could not have been caused by explosion of a bomb.

"Though P.W. 1 & P.W. 2 have been cited as eye witnesses to the incident but merely on the basis of their statement, which does not inspire the confidence of this Court and weak in nature, it will not be safe for this Court to uphold the conviction of the appellant," the court held. 

In view of the aforesaid, court held that the Sessions Judge had erred in law in convicting the appellant and accordingly, acquitted the appellant in the case at hand. 

Case Title: Suhel v. State of UP