Nearly five decades after a murder in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of three surviving accused, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found serious flaws in the investigation, questioned the timing of the First Information Report (FIR), and concluded that the prosecution's version of events could not safely be relied upon.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the alleged murder of Harihar Saran in Gonda district on June 28, 1977. The accused were prosecuted for offences including murder with unlawful assembly under the Indian Penal Code. In 1981, the trial court convicted the accused and imposed life imprisonment. The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, affirmed the convictions in November 2011.
The surviving appellants then challenged the High Court's judgment before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, two appellants died, resulting in the abatement of their appeals.
Court's Observations
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta closely examined the prosecution evidence and found multiple circumstances that raised substantial doubt about the case.
The Court noted that although the prosecution claimed the FIR was promptly registered, several surrounding circumstances did not support that version. It found the unexplained delay in conducting the post-mortem examination, the fact that the deceased's body remained unattended overnight despite the police reaching the spot, and the delayed forwarding of the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate to be significant shortcomings.
The Bench observed:
“The facts taken together convince us that the FIR (Exhibit Ka-14) is a post investigation document.”
The Court further held that these circumstances seriously weakened the prosecution's claim regarding the timing of the incident and the presence of the alleged eyewitnesses.
Eyewitness Testimony Found Unreliable
The Supreme Court also scrutinised the evidence of the eyewitnesses and found material inconsistencies in their testimonies.
It observed that once doubts arose regarding the presence of the eyewitnesses and the authenticity of the prosecution's version, the entire prosecution case became unreliable.
The Bench remarked:
“The prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the occurrence took place... in the manner alleged by the so-called eye-witnesses.”
The Court also rejected the prosecution's reliance on the recovery of two bicycles allegedly belonging to the accused. It held that no convincing evidence established ownership of those bicycles or connected them to the accused persons.
Supreme Court's Decision
Allowing the appeals of the surviving accused, the Supreme Court set aside both the trial court's 1981 judgment and the Allahabad High Court's 2011 decision.
The Court acquitted Hira Lal, Raj Bux and Subedar of all charges after holding that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Since the acquittal was based on the benefit of doubt arising from serious defects in the prosecution case, the Bench said it was unnecessary to examine the plea of juvenility raised on behalf of Subedar.
Raj Bux and Subedar, who were already on bail, were discharged from their bail bonds, while no further direction was required in respect of Hira Lal, who had already been released pursuant to remission.
Case Details
Case Title: Deo Prasad & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (with connected Criminal Appeals)
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 239 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 236, 237 & 238 of 2013
Judge: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Decision Date: July 15, 2026
