"A Son's Murder, A Father's Fight for Justice – Why the Court Acquitted the Accused"


 

Introduction

In this tragic case, a father, Udeshwar Yadav, accused his son's in-laws of brutally murdering his son. However, after years of legal proceedings, the trial court acquitted all accused due to lack of concrete evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies. The father challenged this decision in the Patna High Court, seeking justice, but the court upheld the acquittal.

This case highlights the complexities of criminal trials, the importance of reliable evidence, and the challenges in securing convictions based solely on circumstantial claims.

The Allegations: A Brutal Murder?

The case originated in Bhagalpur district, Bihar, with an FIR filed on August 9, 2015. The complainant, Udeshwar Yadav, alleged that his son was tied to a pole and mercilessly beaten to death by his in-laws at their residence in Mansarpur. He named:

  1. Amarnath Yadav (father-in-law)

  2. Gaurav Yadav (brother-in-law)

  3. Sonika Devi (wife of the deceased)

  4. Nirmala Devi (mother-in-law)

  5. Suman Devi (sister-in-law)

According to the complaint, the accused used iron rods, lathis, and sharp weapons (gandasa), leaving the victim with severe injuries that led to his death. The informant claimed that when he tried to intervene, he was pushed away.

The Investigation and Trial

  • Police immediately registered the case and, after investigation, filed charge sheets against Amarnath Yadav, Sonika Devi, and Nirmala Devi, keeping the case open against the others.

  • Later, police submitted an additional charge sheet against Gaurav Yadav, Suman Devi, and Ram Bilas Yadav, leading to a full-fledged trial.

  • The trial began with the framing of charges under Section 302/34 IPC (Murder with common intent) against all accused.

The prosecution relied heavily on witness testimonies, including the father (informant), the victim’s brother and sister, and medical evidence.

Key Witness Testimonies – Strengths and Weaknesses

The trial court examined eight witnesses, but two were declared hostile.

1. The Informant (Father - PW3)

✅ Claimed to be an eyewitness and repeated his FIR statements.
❌ Contradicted himself under questioning:

  • At one stage, he said his daughter-in-law (victim’s wife) was at her in-laws' house during the murder.

  • Later, he claimed she was among the attackers at her parents' house.
    ❌ He could not explain what he did immediately after the murder, which raised doubts.

2. Victim’s Brother (PW1)

✅ Claimed to have received information about the murder.
❌ Not an eyewitness, only a hearsay witness.

3. Victim’s Sister (PW2)

✅ Claimed she rushed to the scene after hearing about the murder.
❌ Her behavior seemed suspicious:

  • She was present near the dead body, but her name was missing from the police inquest report.

  • Her testimony did not align with forensic findings.

4. Medical Evidence (PW6 – Doctor)

❌ Contradicted the FIR and father’s claims:

  • No broken teeth, despite allegations of an iron rod being forced into the victim’s mouth.

  • No injuries caused by a sharp weapon (gandasa).

  • No pistol wounds, as claimed in the FIR.

Trial Court’s Verdict – Why Were They Acquitted?

The trial court did not trust the prosecution’s case due to:
✅ Contradictory testimonies by the father and sister.
✅ Medical evidence disproving the father’s claims.
✅ No solid independent eyewitnesses.
✅ No forensic evidence connecting the accused to the murder.

The court ruled that the accused must be given the benefit of doubt and acquitted them on October 26, 2019.

Appeal to the Patna High Court – Was Justice Denied?

Unhappy with the acquittal, the father appealed to the Patna High Court under Section 372 CrPC. However, the High Court upheld the acquittal, stating:

  • The trial court’s decision was well-reasoned.

  • The prosecution failed to provide convincing evidence.

  • There was no legal ground to overturn the acquittal.

On November 30, 2022, the High Court dismissed the appeal, bringing the legal battle to an end.

Conclusion: A Case of Justice Served or a Failed System?

This case raises critical questions about the justice system:

  • Did the lack of proper evidence allow guilty people to walk free?

  • Was the father’s testimony unreliable, or did he fail to get justice for his son?

  • How can investigations ensure better forensic and witness support in future cases?

While the law favors the accused in the absence of strong evidence, this case also underscores the emotional pain of families who believe they have been denied justice.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSMxNDI1IzIwMTkjMSNO-vO--ak1--vZPUYv--ak1--E=