The Supreme Court has set aside the convictions of the surviving appellants in a decades-old murder case after finding serious infirmities in the prosecution’s case.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta has observed that multiple unexplained procedural lapses—including doubts surrounding the timing of the First Information Report (FIR), the delay in forwarding it to the Magistrate, and inconsistencies in the investigation—created substantial doubt, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
The appeals arose from the murder of Harihar Saran in Gonda district, Uttar Pradesh, in June 1977. The accused had been convicted by the Sessions Court in 1981 for offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to life imprisonment. Their convictions were affirmed by the Allahabad High Court in 2011, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, two appellants, including Deo Prasad, passed away, resulting in abatement of the appeals against them.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
According to the prosecution, the deceased was returning from a cattle fair along with the complainant and other companions when the accused allegedly emerged from ambush armed with spears, lathis and other weapons, attacked the deceased, and fled after villagers arrived. The prosecution relied principally on three alleged eyewitnesses, medical evidence and the recovery of bicycles said to belong to the accused to establish their guilt.
The defence consistently maintained that the accused had been falsely implicated owing to longstanding political and personal rivalry between the parties, including previous village election disputes and earlier criminal litigation.
After examining the evidence in detail, the Supreme Court observed that although the eyewitness accounts appeared broadly consistent at first glance, several surrounding circumstances seriously undermined the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
One of the most striking features noted by the Court was that despite the prosecution claiming that the FIR had been registered on the evening of 28 June 1977, the deceased’s body remained unattended throughout the night. The Court questioned why neither the police nor the family members took steps to safeguard or preserve the body, particularly when the police station was only a few miles away.
The Bench found this conduct wholly inconsistent with normal police procedure and natural human behaviour, especially in a murder investigation.
The Court further found no satisfactory explanation for the delay in conducting the post-mortem examination, which took place nearly two days after the alleged occurrence.
More importantly, the Supreme Court attached considerable significance to the fact that although the FIR was allegedly registered on 28 June 1977, it reached the jurisdictional Magistrate only on 30 June 1977. The Bench observed that this unexplained delay assumed great importance when viewed together with other suspicious circumstances surrounding the investigation.
According to the Court, these factors lent considerable support to the defence contention that the prosecution story may have been developed after the investigation had commenced and that the FIR may not have been registered in the manner claimed by the prosecution.
The Supreme Court also highlighted material contradictions between the testimony of the complainant and the contemporaneous police records regarding who had actually accompanied the complainant to the police station for lodging the FIR.
While the complainant maintained that only one companion had accompanied him, the General Diary recorded the presence of two entirely different persons. The Court held that this inconsistency struck at the very genesis of the prosecution case and cast serious doubt on the manner in which the FIR was registered.
The Bench noted that the prosecution attempted to corroborate its version through medical evidence and recovery of bicycles. However, the Court found that the cumulative effect of the unexplained investigative lapses, delayed post-mortem, inconsistencies in witness testimony, and doubtful circumstances surrounding the FIR outweighed the prosecution’s evidence.
The Court also observed that the prosecution failed to satisfactorily dispel the defence allegations regarding manipulation of the investigation and the possibility that the prosecution version had been reconstructed after the event.
Reiterating the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Supreme Court emphasised that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. Where serious procedural irregularities and inconsistencies create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution’s version, the accused are entitled to acquittal.
Holding that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court extended the benefit of doubt to the surviving appellants and set aside their convictions, bringing to an end nearly five decades of criminal litigation.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
