45 Years After Conviction, Supreme Court Acquits Man in 1977 Murder Case
NEW DELHI: In a case that underscores the adage 'justice delayed is justice denied', the Supreme Court has acquitted a man convicted for a murder that occurred in 1977. The court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies and that the testimony of alleged eyewitnesses was unreliable. The accused had already served his life sentence before being released on remission.
The incident took place on June 28, 1977, in Uttar Pradesh. Three individuals were charged with murder. The trial court convicted them in 1981, and the Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction. Two of the accused died during the pendency of the appeal. The third, Hiral Lal, had his sentence remitted by the Uttar Pradesh government after serving life imprisonment. Two other accused were granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2013.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeal and scrutinized the evidence. The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish the time of occurrence and that the eyewitnesses gave contradictory accounts, making their presence at the crime scene highly improbable. The defence's argument that the occurrence did not happen as alleged could not be dismissed as fanciful, the court said.
'We are persuaded to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the occurrence took place in the afternoon of June 28, 1977, or in the manner alleged by the so-called eyewitnesses,' the bench observed. 'Consequently, their presence at the crime scene becomes not merely doubtful but highly improbable, and the prosecution case cannot be sustained on such uncertain and unreliable evidence.'
The Supreme Court further stated that the entire edifice of the prosecution story was built on the testimony of these witnesses, and with their credibility shattered, the case could not stand. The trial court and the High Court had overlooked these vital infirmities and relied on doubtful testimony, the bench added.
The judgment serves as a stark reminder that justice delayed can indeed be justice denied. While the acquittal brings closure to the legal battle, it cannot compensate for the decades lost. The case underscores the need for a more efficient judicial system to prevent such instances where individuals spend years in prison only to be exonerated later.
This decision is a significant comment on the importance of the standard of proof in criminal cases. The principle of 'benefit of doubt' must be rigorously applied, the court emphasized.
