A bank of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra also observed that the prosecution story contained many lacunae which made the case doubtful and the case against the accused-appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

According to the FIR filed in the case, on August 21, 1982, around 19:30-20:00, victim (Jagram) would have been killed by Ram Babu (Appellant-Defendant) and Kisna (now dead) during a gambling dispute because the accused were hurt that the victim had won the game.

FIR, submitted to the court of first informant (Takdeer Singh)claimed that Kisna used an ax while Ram Babu (Appellant-Defendant) sprayed the victim, and the eyewitnesses (Laxman Singh and Mulayam Singh) would have seen the torch attack.

After the murder, the attackers allegedly dragged Jagram’s body into a well and dumped it there.

At the conclusion of the trial, the Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai, in May 1983, convicted the accused Ram Babu under Section 302 read with Section 201 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Challenging his conviction, the defendant-appellant immediately filed a Criminal Appeal.

Advocate Rajiv Nayan Singhappointed as Amicus Curiae to argue the case on behalf of the appellant, contended that the appellant, Ram Babu, is innocent. He made the following statements:

• The FIR was a backdated one and there were inconsistencies in the FIR regarding the discovery of Jagram’s body as the FIR claimed that the first informant knew that the body was thrown into a well; however, the Panchayatnama indicated that constable Prem Shankar Shukla found the body based on tracks leading to the well, suggesting that this information came to light only after police investigation.
• Had the first informer known the location of the body at the time of the FIR, the police would have searched the well immediately rather than following the trail later.
• The playing cards, which were allegedly used for gambling, were also not recovered.
• If the eyewitnesses had witnessed the crime, they would have acted to intervene or report immediately. Since they did not take such action, it suggested that they were not present during the incident and could have been fabricated by the prosecution to support their case against the accused.

Additional Government Advocate Amit Sinhaon the other hand upheld the judgment of the trial court and held that the case was one of direct evidence based on the eyewitness accounts of PW-3 and PW-4 and the eyewitness account cannot be easily rejected.

After hearing the Amicus Curiae and the Additional Government Pleader, the Court held that the FIR was anticipatory as it observed that if the prosecution had really known that the body was dragged from the crime scene to the well, there would have been no need . for the police to search the body after lodging the FIR.

The Court also noted that if the eyewitnesses had indeed witnessed the murder, the FIR would have been lodged only under Section 302 IPC (murder) rather than including Section 201 IPC (disposal of evidence) , indicating uncertainty about the body’s location.

“In the instant case, we have no hesitation in concluding that until the time the Police came, no one knew where the body was and after the investigation took place and the Police recovered the body. , the FIR was filed and subsequently after a final conference between the first informant and the Police, the accused appellant was named in the FIR.“, noted the Court.

The Court further observed that there could be a possible dispute regarding certain accounting in respect of the biscuit business which was being done by the deceased. Therefore, the first informant and the two eyewitnesses namely Laxman Singh and Mulayam Singh could have conspired to implicate the appellant in the present case.

The Court’s observations came when it noted that though Mulayam Singh, Laxman Singh and the first informant, though they were not from the same family, they were definitely close to each other.

The Court also emphasized that at the time the investigation was made and it was claimed that gambling was done with the help of playing cards, at least an effort should have been made to recover the playing cards and keep them in police custody. Neither the playing cards nor any of the torches by which the incident was seen were taken into custody.

In view of these observations, the Court admitted the appeal and acquitted the accused by canceling the decision of the trial court.

Case Title – Ram Babu Vs. State of UP (CRIMINAL CASE No. – 2163 of 1983)

Case Citation:

Click here to read/download the order