In a quiet but tense atmosphere inside Court No. 43, a two-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Sandeep Jain delivered a significant ruling on Monday, setting aside a 1996 conviction in a Fatehpur murder case. Justice Rai authored the detailed opinion, explaining why the court could not sustain the life imprisonment awarded to Shailendra Kumar Mishra for allegedly killing his wife Sunita Devi.
Background
Sunita Devi’s tragic death dates back to 26 July 1991 in Fatehpur district. According to the prosecution, Sunita - who had earlier been widowed after her first husband died in an air crash - was resisting repeated demands from Mishra to hand over her money and property.
Her brother, Vijay Krishna Tripathi, lodged the FIR, claiming he heard a gunshot, rushed to the scene, and later that Sunita herself narrated the incident before dying. The prosecution leaned heavily on the statements of Sunita’s children - then minors - and tried to establish that Mishra fired the gun intentionally during a financial dispute.
But as the appeal unfolded over years, cracks widened in the prosecution narrative.
Court's Observations
Justice Rai spent considerable time highlighting contradictions and improvements in witness testimonies. He noted that PW-1 (Sunita’s brother) “was an interested witness with financial stakes” in her property, adding that his version in court was strikingly different from what he said in the FIR.
“The bench observed, ‘The presence of PW-1 at the place of incident is not proved and his testimony does not inspire confidence.’”
Child witnesses PW-4 (Soni) and PW-5 (Abhay), the children present in the house during the incident, also came under scrutiny. Justice Rai emphasised that their statements recorded five years later showed signs of tutoring, especially because they were living under the guardianship of PW-1. He referred to nationwide jurisprudence about the vulnerability of child witnesses, remarking that “their memories may have been clouded by domestic gossip and conversations.”
The court also examined the accused’s explanation under Section 313 CrPC. Mishra admitted that the firing occurred but insisted it was accidental during a tussle - allegedly sparked by the presence of one Pradeep, whom he suspected of having an inappropriate relationship with Sunita.
Crucially, the court held that the prosecution never disproved this explanation.
“The bench noted, ‘An accused’s statement cannot be dissected; the exculpatory part cannot be rejected while accepting the incriminating portion.’”
Justice Rai further criticised the prosecution for not examining independent witnesses, including neighbours and Mithilesh - whose statements could have clarified the events immediately after the gun fired. He called this omission “fatal” to the prosecution.
Even the medical evidence, though limited, did not contradict the possibility of a scuffle. PW-6, the doctor, admitted that one injury “could have resulted from a struggle.”
Decision
After walking through legal precedents, logical inconsistencies, contradictions, and missing links in the prosecution case, the bench concluded that two interpretations were possible - intentional murder or accidental firing. And where two views exist, criminal law demands giving the accused the benefit of doubt.
Justice Rai’s final pronouncement cut through the tension that had built up in the courtroom:
“The prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubt that the appellant intentionally fired at the deceased… the conviction is set aside.”
Shailendra Kumar Mishra, who had already spent long years in the shadow of the accusation, was formally acquitted. His bail bond was cancelled, and sureties discharged. The case ended at that point, without further directions or observations.
Case Details: Shailendra Kumar Mishra vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 1996
