NEW DELHI: The Allahabad high court, on July 17, upheld the murder conviction of an 82-year-old man and told him to surrender and go back to prison to finish his life sentence, after finding no grounds to overturn the trial court’s judgment or reduce his punishment. The court held that while sending him back to jail after nearly 40 years was troubling, it did not have the special powers the Supreme Court has under Article 142 of the Constitution to cut down his sentence.1984 murder case: What was the dispute?The case goes back to March 25, 1984, when Babu Lal allegedly attacked his brother, Ganga, with an iron tool used for digging field. The prosecution alleged that he came up from behind and hit his brother on the head three to four times. Ganga died on the spot. His wife was also hurt when she tried to stop the attack, as per the court order.A sessions court convicted Babu Lal in October 1984 for the murder of his brother and sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, along with one year’s rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 IPC. He then challenged the conviction before the Allahabad high court.However, during the pendency of the appeal, he was granted bail after serving about five years in prison and remained out on bail for nearly four decades until the high court finally decided his appeal.Before the high court, Babu Lal challenged his conviction on several grounds. His counsel argued that the prosecution had failed to examine a key witness, had not established a credible motive for the murder, and had failed to prove the intention to kill. He further argued that the weapon used was an agricultural tool rather than a conventional weapon, and therefore, at most, the offence would amount to causing grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC, not murder.What did the Allahabad high court say?The bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay turned down all the arguments made on Babu Lal’s behalf. They said the case against him was proven beyond doubt, based on what the victim’s wife and daughter had told the court as eyewitnesses, and this was backed up by the post-mortem report. They also said that the police not questioning one more witness did not make the case weaker, since courts decide guilt based on the evidence that was actually brought before them during the trial.“In criminal jurisprudence, it is well settled that the best evidence rule does not apply, and its non-production in trial would not disturb the substratum of the prosecution’s case. The prosecution’s case is always to be assessed on the basis of evidence adduced by it before the learned trial court,” the court observed.The bench also rejected the argument that this couldn’t be called murder just because a farm tool was used instead of a regular weapon. They said one has to look at the whole situation to figure out if there was an intent to kill, including how the attack happened and which part of the body was hit.“The intention to commit murder cannot be dismissed only on account of nature of weapon used. More particularly, the intention is to be adduced by that part of human anatomy which was targeted by the assailant, coupled with the knowledge… that the use of the article to target a vital part of the human body would cause grievous hurt which, in the ordinary course of nature, may result in death or will result in death,” it further added.The court pointed out that Babu Lal had hit the victim on the head again and again, after sneaking up on him from behind and hiding the weapon, so the victim had no chance to protect himself. It said the sheer violence of the attack made it clear he meant to kill, and upheld the murder conviction on that basis.The judges also looked at Babu Lal’s request to lower his sentence since he was now 82 years old. But they found nothing in the case, like a sudden quarrel or provocation, that would let them change the charge from murder to something lesser, or cut down the sentence.“The fact that the appellant would have to go back to jail after 40 years, no doubt, disturbs this court but this court, not being vested with powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, cannot do otherwise but send the appellant now back to jail to complete the remaining part of his life sentence.”Accordingly, the high court threw out the appeal, cancelled Babu Lal’s bail, and ordered him to surrender before the trial court right away. It also said that if he doesn’t surrender, the trial court should issue an arrest warrant to bring him back to jail.
