"Justice Denied or Rightly Served? A Widow’s Fight Against Acquittal in a Murder Case"

 


Introduction

This case revolves around a widow’s legal battle to overturn the acquittal of four men accused of murdering her husband, Suresh Kumar. The case, originally filed in 2015, went through multiple legal proceedings, ultimately leading to an appeal in the Patna High Court. The court’s decision raised important questions about the burden of proof, contradictions in witness statements, and the presumption of innocence in criminal law.

Background of the Case

On March 13, 2015, Suresh Kumar was brutally attacked in broad daylight near his house in Mehus, Sheikhpura. According to the informant, who was also Kumar’s brother, a group of men, including the accused, assaulted Kumar using various weapons. The attackers fled the scene, leaving Kumar gravely injured. He was taken to a local hospital and later referred to Patna for advanced treatment, but he succumbed to his injuries the following day.

The police registered a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Following Kumar’s death, the case was amended to include charges under Section 302 (murder). The accused—Rishi Kumar, Kanhaiya Kumar, Murari Kumar, Shashi Bhushan Kumar, and Ram Pravesh Singh—were arrested and put on trial.

The Trial Court’s Decision

The case proceeded as two separate trials:

  1. Trial Against Rishi Kumar: The court found him guilty under Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) as he had struck a fatal blow with a hoe (kudal). However, since there was no evidence suggesting multiple attacks, his conviction was limited to this lesser charge.

  2. Trial Against Other Accused: The Sessions Court acquitted the remaining four accused due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of concrete medical evidence linking them to the crime.

The verdict was a major setback for the victim’s family. Dissatisfied with the acquittal, Kumar’s widow, Smita Kumari, filed an appeal under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which grants victims the right to challenge an acquittal.

The High Court’s Analysis

The High Court, led by Justices Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Khatim Reza, evaluated the appeal based on the following legal considerations:

1. Right of Victims to Appeal Acquittal

With amendments to the CrPC in 2009, victims have the right to appeal an acquittal without needing prior permission from the court. This amendment was designed to strengthen victim rights and ensure they have a voice in criminal proceedings.

2. Inconsistencies in Witness Statements

The prosecution relied heavily on five eyewitness testimonies. However, their accounts were contradictory, particularly concerning the involvement of the acquitted individuals. Some witnesses claimed that all accused were armed and actively participated in the attack, while others identified only Rishi Kumar as the main aggressor.

3. Medical Evidence

The post-mortem report revealed that Kumar had suffered a single, severe head injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon. There were no additional wounds consistent with the use of rods, crowbars, or other weapons allegedly carried by the other accused. This discrepancy cast doubt on whether they had participated in the attack at all.

4. Legal Precedents on Acquittal

The court referred to Supreme Court rulings emphasizing that an acquittal should only be overturned if the trial court’s decision is demonstrably erroneous or ignores crucial evidence. In Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhunath Jha (2003) and Kallu v. State of M.P. (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that an appellate court must show strong reasons before interfering with an acquittal.

The Final Verdict

After carefully reviewing the evidence, the Patna High Court upheld the acquittal, concluding that:

  • The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the four acquitted men beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • The inconsistencies in witness testimonies weakened the case.

  • Medical evidence supported the theory that only Rishi Kumar had struck the fatal blow.

The court, therefore, dismissed the widow’s appeal, reaffirming the principle that an accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

This case highlights the complexities of criminal law, especially in cases relying on eyewitness testimonies. It also underscores the legal safeguards in place to prevent wrongful convictions, balancing the need for justice with the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ While the decision was a setback for the victim’s family, it reaffirmed the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring convictions are based on strong and consistent evidence rather than speculation.

For victims seeking justice, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of thorough investigations, reliable witness statements, and solid legal arguments in criminal trials.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSMxMzgxIzIwMTkjMSNO-VkXlkUlvgLg=