The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man convicted in a 1987 rape-murder case after nearly 38 years, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court ruled that the testimony of chance witnesses was unreliable.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court has set aside the conviction of Om Prakash, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for rape in a 1987 case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court granted the appellant the benefit of the doubt, emphasizing that suspicion cannot replace proof.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra-I, allowing the criminal appeal and overturning the conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, on October 12, 1987.
Background of the Case
The case relates to the alleged rape and murder of Km. Sudha (19 years), on February 15, 1987, in Village Tarbiatpur, Kanpur Dehat district.
According to the prosecution, the deceased Sudha was residing at the house of her uncle Raj Kumar in the village of Tarbiatpur. On the date of the incident, Raj Kumar’s daughter-in-law developed labour pains and was taken to Bilhaur Hospital, as a result of which the other family members allegedly left the house, leaving Sudha alone.
The complainant, Sheo Kumar (PW-2), along with his nephew Rameshwar, claimed that they returned to the house at around 2:00 PM and allegedly saw the accused Om Prakash, accompanied by an unidentified person, rushing out of the premises. Upon entering the house, they found Sudha lying dead on a cot with a deep incised wound on her neck and circumstances suggesting that she had been subjected to sexual assault before her death.
An FIR was lodged the same day, and Om Prakash was later convicted under Sections 302 and 376 IPC.
Grounds of Appeal
Appearing as Amicus Curiae, Advocate Krishna Kant Dubey argued that:
- The case was entirely circumstantial, with no eyewitness to the crime.
- The prosecution relied on “chance witnesses” whose presence at the scene was doubtful.
- The conduct of witnesses was unnatural, as they neither questioned nor raised an alarm despite allegedly seeing the accused flee.
- The medical evidence contradicted the prosecution’s version, as the fatal injury was too extensive to be caused by a knife.
- An alternative hypothesis, including possible involvement of family members, could not be ruled out.
Observations of the High Court
1. Failure to Prove Circumstantial Chain
The Court reiterated the settled principle laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622) that:
“The circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused.”
The Bench held that the prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstances, leaving room for reasonable doubt.
2. Unreliable “Chance Witnesses”
The Court treated PW-2 (Sheo Kumar) and PW-3 (Laxmi Shanker) as chance witnesses and noted serious doubts regarding their presence and conduct.
The Bench observed:
“The conduct of PW-3 of not making any effort to question or stop the accused while fleeing, nor raising any alarm despite allegedly seeing him armed with a knife, does not inspire confidence.”
Relying on Supreme Court rulings, including Manoj & Ors. v. State of U.P., the Court stressed that testimony of chance witnesses must undergo strict scrutiny.
3. Medical Evidence vs Weapon Theory
The post-mortem revealed a bone-deep incised wound (12 cm × 3.5 cm) severing vital structures like the carotid artery and trachea.
The Court noted:
“Such an injury could have been caused by a heavy sharp weapon like an axe or farsa, and not by an ordinary knife allegedly assigned to the accused.”
This contradiction weakened the prosecution’s version significantly.
The Bench found substance in the defence submission that the prosecution had conveniently shown all family members to be absent from the house at the relevant time, despite the deceased having been brought there to assist a pregnant woman. The Court noted that leaving the deceased alone in such circumstances appeared unnatural.
It further observed that the severity and brutality of the injury inflicted on the deceased suggested that the act may have been committed in a fit of extreme anger, thereby strengthening the possibility of an alternative hypothesis which the prosecution failed to rule out.
The Court held:
“The possibility that the deceased was murdered by her own relatives cannot be ruled out.”
The High Court concluded that:
- The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The evidence on record did not inspire confidence.
- The appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, and acquitted the appellant Om Prakash by extending him the benefit of doubt.
As the appellant was already on bail, his bail bonds were cancelled and the sureties were discharged.
The Court also directed payment of ₹10,000 as professional fees to the Amicus Curiae.
Case Title:
Om Prakash vs. State of U.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 2480 of 1987
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here To Read More Reports On Rape-Murder Case