NEW DELHI: Justice can serve little purpose if not delivered timely – a truth underscored by a 1977 murder case.Though Supreme Court acquitted a person in the case – drawing curtains on a long drawn-out battle and marking a moment of triumph for the citizen who had all along denied committing the crime he was accused of and convicted for – the redemption came after he had served sentence of life imprisonment – remitted by UP govt. Hearing a challenge to Allahabad high court’s verdict in the 49-year-old murder case in Uttar Pradesh, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta acquitted the three surviving accused in the case – two died during pendency of the matter – who had been sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court and HC.Out of the surviving accused, SC granted bail to two in 2013, but the bail plea of Hiral Lal was rejected, and he had to serve his sentence. He came out of jail only after UP govt remitted his sentence.
SC finds infirmities in prosecution case
SC held that there were serious infirmities in the prosecution case while accounts of witnesses were marked by inconsistencies. It granted the accused the benefit of doubt. The court refused to accept the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses and said the defence plea that the occurrence did not unfold in the manner projected by the prosecution cannot be “brushed aside as fanciful or speculative”. “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. 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,” it said.“The entire edifice of the prosecution story, being founded upon the testimony of these witnesses, stands breached and cannot be sustained. The trial court as well as HC fell in error in overlooking these vital infirmities and in relying upon the highly doubtful testimony of the so-called eyewitnesses to affirm the guilt of the accused. Consequently, we are of the considered view the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt, and they are entitled to the benefit thereof,” the bench said.
