Uttar Pradesh Murder Case: Supreme Court Acquits Accused Citing Lack of Evidence

The case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raja & Ors. revolved around the murder of a man named Shabu, who was allegedly shot dead in broad daylight. The Supreme Court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision to acquit the accused, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.

Background of the Case

On 13th June 1995, at around 9:00 a.m., Shabu and his brother Riyazuddin were taking their buffaloes to graze when they were allegedly attacked by the accused persons. The prosecution claimed that accused Raja exhorted his co-accused to kill Shabu and Riyazuddin, following which Raju and Aas Mohammad fired shots at them. Shabu died on the spot from a gunshot wound to the chest, while Riyazuddin survived with injuries.

The case relied heavily on the testimony of Imamuddin, the complainant and elder brother of the deceased, who claimed to have witnessed the incident. However, the High Court found significant contradictions in his statements, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Arguments Presented

Prosecution’s Argument

• The accused had a motive to kill the victim due to a longstanding family dispute.
• Eyewitness Imamuddin (PW-1) and injured witness Riyazuddin (PW-2) confirmed that the accused fired at the victim.
• The post-mortem report showed that Shabu had a gunshot wound in the chest, confirming that he was shot.
• The trial court found the prosecution’s case credible and convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC.

Defense’s Stand

• Imamuddin’s presence at the crime scene was doubtful, as he was a practicing lawyer and a member of the Nagar Palika, and would have been in court at the time of the incident.
• His conduct was unnatural, as he went to court to write the complaint instead of rushing his injured brother to the hospital.
• The clothes of the deceased did not have any bullet holes, despite a gunshot wound being the cause of death.
• The trial court ignored key contradictions in witness testimonies.

High Court’s Ruling

The Allahabad High Court overturned the trial court’s conviction and acquitted the accused, stating:

“The presence of Imamuddin (PW-1) at the scene of the crime is highly doubtful. His account of events does not align with the expected conduct of a person who just lost his brother in an alleged murder.”

The Court also questioned the absence of bullet holes in the victim’s clothing, despite the post-mortem report indicating a gunshot wound.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed the State’s appeal. The Court ruled:

“For the foregoing reasons, it cannot be said that the view taken by the High Court suffers from any serious and substantial error warranting interference by this Court.”

The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It emphasized that mere allegations and contradictory witness testimonies could not be the basis for a conviction.

Legal Significance

This judgment reinforces the importance of reliable and corroborated evidence in criminal cases. It highlights that doubts regarding witness credibility and inconsistencies in forensic evidence can lead to an acquittal, ensuring that no person is convicted based on weak evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision affirms the principle that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. In the absence of strong and consistent evidence, courts must grant the benefit of the doubt to the accused, ensuring that justice is served fairly.

Petitioner Name: State of Uttar Pradesh.
Respondent Name: Raja & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice Vineet Saran.
Place Of Incident: Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 30-08-2018.

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

Download Judgment: State of Uttar Prade vs Raja & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 30-08-2018.pdf