Three Men Acquitted After 38 Years in Uttar Pradesh Murder Case

Allahabad High Court overturns 1987 conviction citing unreliable witness testimony and contradictions between eyewitness accounts and medical evidence

Newsarc Bureau

ALLAHABAD: In a remarkable case spanning nearly four decades, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted three men who had been convicted of murder in 1987, citing serious flaws in the prosecution’s case and major contradictions between eyewitness testimony and medical evidence.

A division bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjiv Kumar on December 18, 2025, set aside the conviction of Amrit Lal, Harish Chandra, and Kallu, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Ram Dulare in a case dating back to July 8, 1982.

The Original Case

According to the prosecution, Ram Dulare was brutally assaulted by eleven accused persons in the early hours of July 8, 1982, in a field near Bhadri village in Soraon, Allahabad district. The prosecution alleged that the victim, a laborer who was guarding a brinjal crop, was beaten by the accused with sticks and subjected to fatal injuries that resulted in his death at the scene.

The informant, Ram Kishor, who was the victim’s brother, had filed an FIR claiming that he and his uncle Pancham witnessed the assault. Based on this complaint, Case Crime No. 109 of 1982 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at Soraon Police Station.

Death During Appeal Process

Of the original eleven accused convicted in 1987, eight died during the prolonged appeal process. The appeals had been pending since 1987 when Criminal Appeal No. 1071 and Criminal Appeal No. 1069 were filed against the conviction by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad.

The court recorded the abatement of appeals for the deceased accused in November 2025, leaving only three surviving appellants: Amrit Lal, Harish Chandra, and Kallu.

Critical Flaws in Prosecution Case

The High Court identified multiple serious discrepancies that undermined the prosecution’s case:

Contradictory Medical Evidence: The two eyewitnesses claimed that a stick (lathi) was forcibly inserted into the victim’s rectum, causing bleeding from the nose and rectum, with blood dropping onto the ground. However, Dr. A.K. Nigam, who conducted the post-mortem examination, testified that there were no signs of bleeding from the nose or rectum, the rectum was normal, and there was no internal injury to the stomach. The medical evidence completely contradicted the eyewitness accounts.

Doubtful Presence of Witnesses: The court found the presence of the two eyewitnesses at the scene “highly doubtful.” The prosecution claimed an unknown person informed witness Pancham about the assault, who then informed the victim’s brother. The court noted it was “very unlikely that some unknown person would pass on such information to a stranger.”

Unnatural Conduct: The witnesses claimed they went to the scene empty-handed despite knowing that a group of men was beating their relative. “This conduct of the witnesses is very unnatural,” the court observed, noting that normally one would pick up a weapon to help save a close relative.

Timeline Inconsistencies: According to the witnesses, the assault lasted approximately an hour with eleven assailants causing only ten injuries. The court found this “highly unnatural and improbable,” stating that if the accused had intended to kill the victim, “it would not have taken more than five to ten minutes.”

Route Selection: The informant admitted taking a longer route to the crime scene while other villagers took the shortest route and arrived first. The court found this conduct “unnatural” for someone rushing to save his brother.

FIR Irregularities: There were contradictions about where and when the First Information Report was written. The witnesses gave conflicting accounts about whether it was written at Soraon roundabout or at the police station, raising doubts about the FIR’s authenticity.

No Independent Witnesses: Despite the prosecution claiming many villagers were present at the scene, no independent witnesses were examined. The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hem Raj v. State of Haryana that when eyewitness presence is doubtful, failure to examine independent witnesses “assumes significance and gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution.”

Political Rivalry Angle

The defense argued that the accused were falsely implicated due to village politics. The informant admitted in court that there were two political factions in the village—one supporting “Bhayia Lal” (the informant’s side) and another supporting the appellants. The court noted this admission gave force to the defense’s claim of false implication.

Court’s Final Observations

Justice Sanjiv Kumar, delivering the judgment, concluded: “The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective and reached a wrong conclusion regarding the appellants’ guilt upon conjectures and improper appreciation of evidence.”

The court found it was “a blind murder and the deceased was murdered by someone else, in the dark hours of night, away from the populated area of the village.”

Release Orders

The High Court directed the immediate release of all three appellants if they are not wanted in any other case. Before release, the acquitted men were ordered to execute personal bonds of Rs. 25,000 each for their appearance in case an appeal is filed against their acquittal.

The case highlights serious concerns about wrongful convictions and the importance of thorough evidence evaluation. The three men spent decades either in custody or under the shadow of life imprisonment for a crime the High Court has now determined was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal experts note that this case underscores the critical need for timely justice, as eight of the eleven originally convicted accused died during the appeal process without seeing their cases resolved.