Man Freed After 37 Years in Jail as Allahabad HC Overturns Murder Conviction
In a landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court has set aside a 1989 trial court judgment, freeing a man who spent 37 years in jail for a murder conviction. The court found the original verdict "suffers from infirmity," highlighting a glaring legal anomaly where two co-accused were acquitted on identical evidence.
Court Orders Immediate Release
On February 18, a division bench comprising Justices Siddhartha Varma and Prashant Mishra-I directed that appellant Khunni Lal be released immediately, provided he is not required in any other case. This decision closes a tragic chapter that began with a family land dispute in Farrukhabad district, Uttar Pradesh, back in 1987.
The bench emphasized the inconsistency in the trial court's handling of the case. Co-accused Bhagwan Din and Jagdish were acquitted by the same sessions court that sentenced Khunni Lal to life imprisonment, despite all three facing trial on the same set of evidence. This discrepancy formed the core of the high court's reasoning to overturn the conviction.
Roots in a Violent Land Dispute
The case originated from a bitter boundary dispute over jointly owned property. Khunni Lal, Bhagwan Din, and Jagdish shared a plot and house with complainant Ram Singh, who accused them of encroaching on his portion. Tensions escalated on May 9, 1987, when the three men allegedly destroyed part of Ram Singh's property.
According to evidence presented in court, the confrontation turned deadly when Ram Singh's brother, Mauji, intervened. As Ram Singh grabbed Jagdish's spear, Bhagwan and Jagdish restrained Mauji, while Khunni Lal allegedly stabbed him to death. The accused then fled the scene, firing shots. The crime was reported the following day, leading to arrests and a trial that culminated in Khunni Lal's conviction in May 1989.
Legal Anomaly and Judicial Scrutiny
The Allahabad High Court's verdict underscores a critical flaw in the judicial process. The bench noted that the available evidence suggested the same degree of culpability for all three suspects, yet only Khunni Lal was convicted. This legal anomaly, where identical evidence led to disparate outcomes, rendered the trial court's judgment unsustainable.
Justice Varma and Justice Mishra-I's order marks a significant correction in a case that had languished for decades. It raises important questions about the consistency and fairness of legal proceedings, especially in complex disputes involving multiple accused parties.
Khunni Lal's release after nearly four decades behind bars highlights the enduring impact of judicial errors and the vital role of appellate courts in rectifying them. The case serves as a poignant reminder of the human cost of legal infirmities and the need for rigorous scrutiny in criminal trials.
