Supreme Court Acquits Three in Firozabad Mass Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Hari Om @ Hero vs. State of U.P., addressed the appeals of three accused persons convicted of a gruesome mass murder that took place in Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh, in 2008. The case involved the murder of four members of a family, allegedly by a gang of six men, with the sole surviving witness being a five-year-old child. The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the convictions of the appellants, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of conclusive forensic evidence.

Background of the Case

On the night of 27th-28th October 2008, a brutal crime was committed at a residence in Firozabad, where four family members—Nirdosh Devi, her daughter Poonam, and her two sons, Ashish and Anshul—were murdered. The killings were discovered in the morning when a milkman alerted the neighbors. The only survivor of the attack was the youngest son, Ujjwal, who was five years old at the time.

The police investigation led to the arrest of six individuals: Hari Om @ Hero, Sanjay @ Sonu, Saurabh @ Sanju, Rijwan, Haseen Khan, and Rafique @ Bhaiye @ Fareed. The trial court convicted all six under Section 396 IPC (dacoity with murder), sentencing Hari Om to death and the others to life imprisonment. The Allahabad High Court later upheld the death sentence for Hari Om while acquitting three co-accused due to lack of evidence.

Legal Issues Raised

Whether the testimony of a child witness (Ujjwal) could form the sole basis of conviction.
Whether forensic evidence, including fingerprint analysis, was sufficient to establish guilt.
Whether the recovery of stolen items linked the accused to the crime.
Whether the acquittal of three co-accused undermined the validity of the conviction under Section 396 IPC.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellants contended that Ujjwal’s testimony was unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration.
The fingerprint evidence was insufficient as the prosecution failed to demonstrate proper collection and preservation procedures.
The stolen items allegedly recovered from the accused were never conclusively linked to the crime.
The acquittal of three co-accused suggested that the police investigation was flawed and the remaining convictions were unsustainable.

Respondent’s Arguments

The prosecution maintained that Ujjwal’s testimony was credible, as he identified the accused in court.
The fingerprint analysis confirmed the presence of two appellants at the crime scene.
The recovery of stolen jewelry, cash, and a mobile phone supported the prosecution’s case.
The seriousness of the crime warranted the highest possible punishment.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the evidence and noted several deficiencies:

“There is no corroborative evidence to support the version given by PW5 Ujjwal. His initial statements did not name the accused, and significant discrepancies exist between his testimony in court and earlier statements to the police.”

The Court also raised concerns about the reliability of the fingerprint evidence:

“The procedure for lifting fingerprints from the crime scene and their subsequent analysis is unclear. The prosecution has not established beyond doubt that these prints belonged to the accused and were collected properly.”

Regarding the acquittal of three co-accused, the Court remarked:

“With the acquittal of half of the alleged perpetrators, the prosecution’s theory of joint participation in the dacoity and murder stands weakened. This raises reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the remaining accused.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the convictions of Hari Om, Sanjay @ Sonu, and Saurabh @ Sanju, granting them the benefit of doubt.
It emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence in cases relying on child witnesses.
The appellants were ordered to be released immediately unless required in connection with another case.
The Court acknowledged lapses in the investigation and called for stricter adherence to forensic protocols in future cases.

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling has significant implications for criminal law:

Importance of Corroboration: The decision underscores that convictions cannot rest solely on child witness testimonies without corroborative evidence.
Forensic Standards: The case highlights the necessity of following strict forensic procedures when collecting and analyzing fingerprint evidence.
Impact on Joint Liability: The judgment clarifies that when several accused are charged under Section 396 IPC, acquittal of some may weaken the prosecution’s case against the others.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Hari Om @ Hero vs. State of U.P. reinforces fundamental principles of criminal justice, emphasizing the need for reliable evidence, careful scrutiny of witness testimonies, and adherence to forensic standards. The decision serves as a precedent for future cases where child witnesses and forensic evidence play a crucial role in determining guilt.

Petitioner Name: Hari Om @ Hero.
Respondent Name: State of U.P..
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra, Justice Krishna Murari.
Place Of Incident: Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 05-01-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: hari-om-@-hero-vs-state-of-u.p.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-05-01-2021.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in SC/ST Act Case
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in Judgment by Krishna Murari
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category