INTRODUCTION
The fundamental principle of criminal justice was significantly upheld on December 18, 2025, when the Allahabad high court released three men who had been imprisoned for nearly 38 years after being found guilty of murder in 1987. The division bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Sanjeev Kumar held that prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and concluded that the deceased was murdered by some other unknown person. Their decision brings to an end a criminal proceeding that originated more than four decades ago and reflects the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that convictions are founded only on credible and reliable evidence.
BACKGROUND
The case traces its origin to the death of Ram Dulare, whose body was discovered in the early hours of 8th July 1982 near a railway line in Bhadri Village, falling within the jurisdiction of Soraon police station in Prayagraj district, Uttar Pradesh. According to the First Information Report, eleven persons were alleged to have assaulted the deceased during the night using lathis, kicks and fists, and it was further alleged that one of the accused had inserted a lathi into the victim’s body, resulting in fatal injuries.
Following investigation, the accused were charged under section 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The sessions court, by its judgment dated 13 April 1987, convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The convicts preferred appeals before The High court, but the matter remained pending for decades. During this period, eight of eleven convicts passed away, leaving only three surviving appellants-Amrit Lal, Harish Chandra and Kallu whose appeals ultimately came up for final hearing before the division bench.
KEY POINTS
While reappreciating the entire evidence on record, the high court identified serious infirmities in the prosecution case. The primary witnesses relied upon by the prosecution were close relatives of the deceased who claimed to be eyewitnesses. However, their testimony revealed that they did not witness the incident as it occurred and had reached the scene only after several villagers had already gathered. The court found their conduct unnatural and their version unreliable.
A critical factor that weighed with the court was the contradiction between the ocular evidence and medical evidence. The post-mortem examination failed to support a crucial aspect of the prosecution’s narrative, particularly regarding the manner in which the fatal injuries were allegedly inflicted. These inconsistencies struck at the root of the prosecution story.
The court further noted that although several villagers were said to have been present at the spot, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. This omission, in the court’s view, cast serious doubt on the credibility of the case and warranted drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution
Reiterating the settled principle that the burden of proof in a criminal trial lies entirely on the prosecution, the bench held that the cumulative effects of the contradictions, improbabilities and lack of reliable evidence made it impossible to sustain the conviction.
The court observed that: “It was a blind murder committed in the dark hours of the night, away from the Abadi, and the real offender remains unknown.”
On this basis, the court concluded that the deceased had indeed been murdered, but not by the accused person who had been convicted by the trial court.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Allowing the appeals, the High Court set aside the judgement of conviction and the sentences of life imprisonment imposed in 1987. The three surviving appellants were acquitted of all charges, and the court directed that they be released forthwith unless required in any other case. The judgement has been widely noted for highlighting the catastrophic consequences of prolonged incarceration based on defective investigation and unreliable evidence.
CONCLUSION
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling serves as a potent reminder that a criminal conviction must be based only on evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of proof. The case highlights the significant human cost of erroneous conviction and the pressing need for thorough investigation, prompt trials, and stringent judicial review. After nearly forty years in prison, the acquittal serves as a warning and affirms the judiciary’s role as the last line of defense for individual liberty.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: NISHTHA JAIN
