Over two decades on, HC acquits 3 in murder case

More than two decades after three convicts were sentenced to life in a murder case, they will walk free with the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitting them of the charges.

After a thorough examination of the evidence and legal principles, the court found that the prosecution’s case lacked credibility.

The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma asserted that the absence of evidence regarding certain aspects of the matter led to the conclusion that the prosecution “concocted a false story”.

The Bench, during the course of the hearing, was told that Bhagirath Lal employed Ravi Bahadur as a driver after purchasing a car. He, along with his children, went to Mansa for a wedding on August 25, 2001, but found the car missing.

Subsequently, the Delhi Police apprehended a person with the “stolen” car. The prosecution claimed two witnesses present at a dhaba overheard the accused saying that Ravi Bahadur had been strangled to death.

The matter was brought the notice of the Bench after the convicts challenged the order passed by the Mansa Additional Sessions Judge in May 2004, holding them guilty of murder and other offences under Sections 302, 382, 201 and 34 of the IPC. The court was assisted in the matter, among others, by legal-aid counsel Viren Sibal.

The prosecution relied heavily on the “last seen together” theory propagated by a witness, who claimed that an accused was last seen with Ravi Bahadur before his disappearance. However, the court found several inconsistencies in this theory.

“The absence of the evidence leads to a conclusion that the prosecution has concocted a false story, that deceased Ravi Bahadur arrived at the venue of marriage located at Surya Palace, Mansa, and also further concocted a story that Ravi Bahadur was engaged as a driver on the crime vehicle,” the Bench asserted.

The prosecution also presented a witness, who claimed to have overheard the accused discussing the murder and theft of the vehicle. However, the court dismissed this evidence as hearsay and lacking credibility.

The Bench observed that the witness failed to identify a co-accused in the court, and no test identification parade was conducted. The court emphasised that hearsay evidence could not form the basis of a conviction, especially when key witnesses failed to identify the accused.

The medical evidence presented by a doctor, who conducted the autopsy, was also scrutinised. While he initially expressed the opinion that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation, he admitted during the cross-examination that there were no visible signs of strangulation on the body.

The prosecution claimed that the body was recovered based on the disclosure statements of the accused. However, the court found several flaws in this recovery process. The recovery was made from an open and accessible place, which could have been known to others besides the accused.