Man on life term acquitted by SC courtesy of mismatched shoe imprints, dicey testimony, and a milkman

In an interesting case that reached the Supreme Court on Wednesday, a man who was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in 2009 was acquitted by the apex court after it found several gaps in the investigation including a mismatched shoe print. -- Reports ETV Bharat's Sumit Saxena.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday acquitted a man sentenced to life imprisonment in 2005 in a murder that took place in 2002 after the apex court noted inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.

A bench comprising Justices A S Oka and Rajesh Bindal said: “According to the prosecution, there were foot marks of the shoes/footwear of the accused near the house where the incident took place. The prosecution took the moulds of the foot marks...The footwear/shoes of both the accused were taken into custody...But, the shoes of the present appellant did not match the moulds of the imprint of the shoe taken by the prosecution”.

The murder case dates back to December 30, 2002, wherein one Bhanmati was allegedly murdered in Haryana by Pradeep and another accused. The main witness in the case was the victim's son Ajay, who, at the time of the incident, was 11 years old. According to the FIR based on Ajay’s statement, the accused had entered the deceased house through a window during the night and after fatally injuring the woman with a knife, fled through the same window.

They had also injured Ajay with the same knife. At about 5 am, when one Surender, a milkman, came to the house, Ajay disclosed to him that the accused had murdered his mother with a knife. The milkman reported the incident to Ajay’s uncle Rajinder Singh who came to the spot and thereafter, Ajay’s father Satpal also arrived. Satpal was working as a Mahant of a temple which is why he was not at home at the time of the murder.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court, however, noted that the prosecution’s case was heavily dependent on the testimony of Ajay, who claimed to have seen the accused inflicting fatal injuries by knife on his mother. The bench noted that in the cross-examination, the witness volunteered that the accused present in the court had murdered his mother and they were drunk.

However, he accepted that the allegation that the accused were drunk was not recorded in his statement to the police, said the bench. The top court said: “After closely scrutinising the evidence of PW­1 Ajay (the son of the deceased) and considering what we have already observed, the possibility of the witness being tutored cannot be ruled out...In the facts of the case, it will not be safe to base the conviction only on the testimony of PW­1 Ajay which does not inspire confidence”.

The top court also noted that the prosecution did not examine the milkman, who was a crucial witness in the case. "The prosecution has not explained why the milkman was not examined as a witness, though he was available. He was a very important witness who was the first person to whom PW1 Ajay disclosed what he had allegedly seen. Till the milkman came, there was no one who could have tutored Ajay," noted the bench.

The top court’s judgment came on a plea filed by Pradeep who challenged the January 12, 2009 judgement of Punjab and Haryana High Court, which dismissed his appeal against the order of conviction by the trial court. The trial court had sentenced both accused to life imprisonment.

Allowing Pradeep’s appeal against the high court judgment, the top court said: "The impugned judgments of the High Court dated 12th January 2009 and the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 31st January 2005 are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences alleged against him”.