Allahabad High Court acquits murder accused who was sentenced to death by trial court

The Allahabad High Court last week acquitted a murder accused who was awarded death penalty by the trial court [Ram Pratap @ Tillu v State of UP]..A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Sameer Jain said that though motive and abscondence may give rise to strong suspicion, merely on the basis of those two circumstances, an accused cannot be held guilty.while allowing the appeal, and setting aside trial court judgment reasoned that the case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of appellant could not be completed."The reference to confirm the death penalty is answered in negative and reference to confirm the death penalty awarded to accused-appellant Ram Pratap @ Tillu is rejected. The judgment and order of the trial court is set aside. The appellant Ram Pratap @ Tillu is acquitted of all the charges for which he has been tried. The appellant shall be released forthwith, unless wanted in any other case," the Court ordered. .The judgment was passed in an appeal against an order of conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah for the offence of murder, awarding the appellant the death sentence with a fine of ₹5 lakh..The case arose when six members of a family were brutally murdered over a property dispute between two brothers. The appellant was the deceased's brother who, after disposing his entire property, was pressurising his brother for money. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, with an associate's help, murdered the deceased and his 5 family members and fled.On examining the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the appellant while acquitting the co-accused. Finding that the case fell under the category of rarest of rare, the death penalty was awarded..The appellant submitted that the trial court committed a grave error in convicting him since there was no admissible evidence in the case. It was brought to the court's attention that there were no eye-witness accounts of the incident, and the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence.It was also submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed in proving the incriminating circumstances, and chain of circumstances.The appellant discussed the trial court's heavy reliance on the motive behind the crime, and the appellant's subsequent abscondence as incriminating circumstances. However, it was stated that these circumstances by themselves could not form the basis of conviction.The appellant submitted that he was entitled to be acquitted but, in the alternative the facts of the case and the nature of evidence did not warrant a death penalty..Noting that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and lacked eye witness accounts, the division bench said that situations when a conviction could be recorded in a case based on circumstantial evidence was well settled.In relation to this, reliance was placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Shatrughna Baban Meshram Vs. State of Maharashra where the court observed, "it is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.".As a result, it was found that though the prosecution might have successfully proven the motive, and that the appellant made himself scarce after the incident, it was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt any other incriminating circumstances."Merely on the basis of motive and abscondence, though it may give rise to strong suspicion, the accused cannot be held guilty", the order recorded. .Therefore, it was held that in the case at hand, the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of appellant could not be completed. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to be acquitted."For all the reasons recorded above, the judgment of the trial court in our opinion cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.. The reference to confirm the death penalty is answered in negative and reference to confirm the death penalty awarded to accused-appellant Ram Pratap @ Tillu is rejected.".The appellant was represented by advocates Agnivesh, Arimardan Yadav and Jadu Nandan Yadav while Additional Advocate General Ram Naresh Singh appeared for the State..[Read Order]