Facts:
The incident took place on 5th October 1995. PW-1 – Nanhi Bahu (mother of the deceased – Pappu @ Har Narayan) alleged that the appellants killed her son. The allegation is that the appellants were carrying different weapons, and they assaulted her son.
None of the material prosecution witnesses except PW-3 (Santosh), the deceased’s brother, supported the prosecution. The rest of the alleged eyewitnesses were declared hostile. PW-1 was also declared hostile as she did not support the prosecution. However, after her recall, she supported the prosecution. PW-1 did not support the prosecution initially but later changed her statement after being recalled. Significant omissions and contradictions were found in the evidence of PW-3. The learned senior counsel argued that the evidence of PW-1 should be disbelieved based on documents on record. The appellants have been sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302. Separate sentences have been imposed for the other crimes committed by the appellants. All sentences imposed on the appellants are directed to run concurrently.
Based on legal reports, the Supreme Court of India’s observations in Hanna vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2024 centered on the inconsistencies in witness testimonies presented by the prosecution. The court found these inconsistencies to be significant enough to raise doubt about the guilt of the accused.
Observations
Specifically, the court noted that the testimony of a key eyewitness (PW-1) contained discrepancies. The court also found the testimony of another witness (PW-3) to be unreliable. Due to these weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, the Supreme Court concluded that the guilt of the accused could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution failed to include the widow of the deceased, Malti Bai, as a witness despite her claim of being an eyewitness. The witness PW-1 initially supported the prosecution but later recanted her statement due to alleged threats by the accused. There were material omissions and contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses PW-1 and PW-3, raising doubts about the credibility of their statements. The motive presented by PW-3 was deemed significant and contradictory, leading to skepticism about its validity.
The police did not investigate the allegations of threats made by the witnesses, undermining the credibility of their claims. The witness PW-1 stated she was threatened by the Police to not support the prosecution, casting doubt on her subsequent claims. The inconsistencies and discrepancies in the witness testimonies further eroded the prosecution’s case. PW-3’s testimony is considered unreliable and difficult to believe. Due to this, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The testimony provided by PW-3 is not sufficient to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Judgement:
The bail bonds of the appellants (accused nos. 2 to 6) have been cancelled. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 468/2024 are directed to be immediately set at liberty. The Appeals have succeeded. The impugned judgments dated 26 August 2022 and 6 December 2007 passed by the High Court and Trial Court have been set aside. The conviction and sentence of the appellants have been set aside. The Appeals in Criminal Appeal No. 467/2024, where the appellant is on bail, are allowed accordingly.
Citation:
Case title: Hanna V. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 467/2024
Credits
Vedant Dalvi