Appellant's Conviction Under Section 307/34 IPC Overturned; Court Cites Material Contradictions and Lack of Reliable Evidence
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted appellant Hassu in a decades-old attempted murder case. The Court overturned his conviction under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) due to insufficient evidence and significant contradictions in witness testimonies.
The case, originating from an incident on July 20, 1981, involved serious firearm injuries sustained by Chunnu, the complainant's son, during an altercation. The prosecution alleged that Hassu, along with co-accused Munnilal and Ballu, intended to murder Chunnu. While Munnilal and Ballu were accused of firing shots, Hassu was allegedly carrying a knife and accused of catching hold of the victim.
In its detailed judgment, the High Court highlighted several discrepancies in the prosecution's case. One of the key points was the absence of Hassu's name in the First Information Report (FIR), which was filed promptly after the incident. The court noted that the testimony of PW-2, Hiralal, contained irreconcilable contradictions regarding his presence at the scene. Despite his role as the informant, Hiralal admitted during cross-examination that he did not witness the occurrence, undermining his reliability as an eyewitness.
Moreover, the testimony of PW-4, the injured Chunnu, failed to inspire confidence about Hassu's participation. Although Chunnu suffered multiple firearm injuries, the court found no corroboration for the alleged role of Hassu, who was purportedly carrying a knife. The medical evidence did not support any knife-related injuries on the victim, further weakening the prosecution's case against Hassu.
The court also expressed doubts over the test identification parade conducted for Hassu, which took place months after the incident. The procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the identification memo further cast doubt on the reliability of the identification process.
Citing the principle of "benefit of doubt," the court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish Hassu's participation and common intention to commit the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment underscored the importance of reliable evidence in securing a conviction, asserting that mere suspicion cannot replace proof.
As a result, the Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted Hassu, ordering his immediate release if not detained in any other case. The court also directed the payment of remuneration to Ms. Mayuri Mehrotra, the amicus curiae, within two weeks.
This judgment reinforces the judicial principle that conviction in criminal cases requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, ensuring that justice prevails through rigorous scrutiny of evidence.
Bottom Line :
Conviction under Section 307/34 IPC cannot be sustained against an accused not named in prompt FIR, whose role was inconsistently improved in evidence, unsupported by medical evidence, and whose test identification parade was doubtful - benefit of doubt granted.
Statutory provision(s): Section 307 IPC, Section 34 IPC, Section 161 Cr.P.C., Section 145 Evidence Act.
