The court highlighted contradictions in witness statements and procedural lapses, granting benefit of doubt to the accused.
In a significant judgment delivered by the Allahabad High Court on March 16, 2026, in the case of "Baithole @ Ram Tirath v. State of U.P.", the court acquitted the appellants, Baithole @ Ram Tirath and Shiv Kumar, who were previously convicted for the murder of Atma Prasad. The court identified substantial contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, procedural irregularities during the trial, and lapses in compliance with statutory requirements, leading to the acquittal.
The judgment, passed by Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari, emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The case stemmed from an incident on January 24, 1981, where the appellants were accused of assaulting Atma Prasad, resulting in his death. Initially, the sessions court had convicted Baithole under Section 304(2) of the IPC and Shiv Kumar for a lesser offense, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment.
However, the High Court found several inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative. Key witness statements contained contradictions regarding the exact location of the incident and weather conditions on the day, which undermined the prosecution's case. Additionally, the procedural lapses, such as the improper framing of charges and the delay in recording witness statements, further weakened the prosecution's position.
The court also noted the failure to comply with Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where the accused must be given a fair opportunity to explain any incriminating evidence against them. The court found that the composite questions posed to the accused were inadequate, thereby prejudicing their defense.
The High Court's decision to acquit was also influenced by the principle of parity, as another accused, Shyam Bihari, had been acquitted on similar evidence. The court highlighted that the same set of evidence could not logically lead to different conclusions for the accused involved in the same incident.
In its ruling, the court reiterated that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any failure to do so warrants the benefit of doubt to the accused. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural mandates and ensuring that evidence presented in court is consistent and reliable.
The acquittal of Baithole and Shiv Kumar marks a significant development in the legal proceedings surrounding the case, emphasizing the judiciary's role in upholding justice and due process.
Bottom Line:
Doubts in prosecution evidence, contradictions in witness statements, and procedural lapses in investigation and trial lead to acquittal of accused-appellants in a case under Section 302 IPC.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302, Section 304(2); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 32; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 211, Section 313.
Baithole @ Ram Tirath v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2900111
