Judgment Highlights Major Contradictions and Lack of Reliable Evidence in Prosecution's Case
In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted the surviving appellants, Ghulam, Hidayatullah, and Azizullah, in the decades-long murder case dating back to 1981. The bench comprising Justices Siddharth and Vinai Kumar Dwivedi delivered the verdict on July 15, 2026, setting aside the trial court's conviction and sentence from August 31, 1984.
The case, stemming from the murder of Sarfaraz Ahmad, was marred by inconsistencies and unreliable testimonies, as highlighted by the High Court. The prosecution had heavily relied on the testimonies of key witnesses Moid Ahmad and Shabbir, who were alleged to have witnessed the crime. However, the court found their testimonies riddled with major contradictions and deemed them untrustworthy.
Central to the court's decision was the significant discrepancy between medical and ocular evidence. While the prosecution claimed that 12 accused fired simultaneously at the deceased, only three gunshot entry wounds were found on Sarfaraz's body, according to the post-mortem report. This inconsistency raised serious doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's narrative.
Additionally, the failure to recover any murder weapons, such as guns and rifles, from the accused further weakened the prosecution's case. The absence of pellets, bullets, or empty cartridges at the crime scene compounded the suspicion surrounding the prosecution's claims.
The judgment also underscored the role of enmity in the case, noting that while it might serve as a motive, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction without cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that suspicion and doubt, however grave, cannot replace proof in criminal trials.
In light of these findings, the High Court concluded that the trial court's judgment was based on perverse findings and unreliable evidence, warranting its reversal. The surviving appellants, who were on bail, have been acquitted of all charges, and their bail bonds canceled.
This judgment serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of reliable evidence and the need for critical scrutiny in the judicial process, ensuring that justice is served on the touchstone of reason and common sense.
Bottom line:-
Acquittal in criminal cases based on lack of reliable evidence and major contradictions between medical and ocular testimony, as well as suspicion and doubt not taking the place of proof.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 148, 302, 379, 404 IPC; Sections 161, 313 Cr.P.C.
Kammu v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2941257
