Twists and Turns in Justice: Supreme Court Upholds judgement in 1995 Uttar Pradesh Homicide Amid Witness Testimony Reversal
Category: Criminal Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
Case Title: Hanna v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Case No.: 246 Of 2024
Dated on: May 01, 2024
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
Facts of the case
In Uttar Pradesh, a tragic incident took place in the year 1995. Pappu, who was also called as Har Narayan, lost his life under a cloud of uncertainty. The culprits that faced charges such as homicide, rioting and assault were later tried and found guilty.
The appellants established an unlawful assembly and attacked Pappu, according to the prosecution. They had varied weapons and caused him grave injuries. Nevertheless, there was conflicting witness testimonies. Some of the witnesses backed the prosecution's account, but the others did not entirely cooperate.
Notably, the prosecution was initially not supported by the deceased’s mother, PW-1 however she later changed her mind. However, the defence raised issues about the police pinning and pointed out critical omissions or inconsistencies in the testimony given by PW-3 Santosh who is the deceased’s sibling.
However; in spite of the fact that these challenges were met with some difficulty ,tough consequences were greeted by a sanction from the Apex Court consisting of custody till death (Section 302) plus distinct terms pronounced for various contraventions else. It is a call for jeux complexes during Judiciary and whom to trust as friendly witnesses.
Legal Provisions
Indian Penal Code (1860): These regulations govern the process and punishments of crime committed.
Contentions raised by Petitioner
The senior counsel for the petitioner argued that in the first instance, the deceased's Nanhi Bahu (IQ-1) did not agree with the prosecution. This was until after 1 ½ years later when she surprisingly agreed with the prosecution after being recalled where she stated that she had been forced by police into giving false evidence.
The deceased’s brother, PW-3, whose name was Santosh, had some discrepancies in his statements that were quite apparent as pointed out by the applicant’s lawyer. PW-3 had stated that he was at his store when he saw the deceased being assaulted but eventually changed his story by saying that he never saw it happening at the shop. These contradictions were brought before the court.
The petitioner argued that the threat to PW-1 and PW-3 was not believable. Initially, PW-1 claimed that the offenders had been in jail for one and a half years, but then she referred to it much later in her statement.
Contentions raised by Respondent
The prosecution, as told to the respondent, faced initial opposition from the mother of the deceased, PW-1(Nanhi Bahu) but it was argued that she was brought back a year and a half later where she embraced it. In defense of the respondent, the argument was that the woman had been compelled to give some particular proofs by law enforcers leading to doubts as to whether they were true."
PW-3, who is dead's brother, is accused of not saying the truth, misrepresenting and giving conflicting information about what happened.said that he had viewed what he claimed to have followed. As per PW-3 initially stated that he witnessed what he claimed to have followed from his shop. However, he eventually acknowledged that he had not noticed the events from that point on. The defendant argued that PW-3’s inconsistencies in the evidence raised serious doubts about his narration.
Because of these disparities in the facts, the defendant maintained that the third witness, who was the late man’s brother, had given inconsistent and inadequate information, therefore, making the account not credible. Consequently, it became apparent that PW-3 left out some crucial information about the issue making him be accused of being inconsistent in his statements. To be specific, he allegedly said that initially he saw it going and trailed the body from his business premises but later changed his story.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
In Hanna v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the appellants were the accused persons who had been tried and found guilty of offences involving Sections 302 and 323 carrying Sections 149, 147 and 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. For the said offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder but for which life imprisonment was prescribed under Section 302, the appellants received that punishment. There were other sentences for other offences as well.
The incident occurred on 5th October, 1995 and the appellants were accused of killing Nanhi Bahus’ son. Nevertheless, some key prosecution witnesses failed to uphold the case leading to complications in it. Notably, Nanhi Bahu (PW-1), the mother of the deceased, was at first against the prosecution but changed that attitude after being re-called on oath. OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
Written by: Adv Anik
