Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has acquitted a man and his two sons who had been serving life sentences in connection with a 2015 murder case in Niwari district.
The court found several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and noted that one of the accused, Jitendra Yadav, was reportedly admitted to a hospital in Jhansi at the time of the alleged incident.
Despite the defence maintaining that Jitendra was in hospital when the crime occurred, he remained in custody for nearly 10 years and six months before the High Court acquitted him along with his father and brother.
A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avneendra Kumar Singh heard the appeals and found contradictions in the statements of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The court also noted shortcomings in the prosecution’s efforts to properly establish important evidence.
Murder Took Place in Niwari in 2015
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on November 13, 2015, in Niwari district of Madhya Pradesh.
The prosecution alleged that the main accused, Rajendra Yadav, arrived at the house of Parmanand Yadav along with his sons Satyendra and Jitendra and three unidentified persons.
The group was allegedly carrying weapons, including a licensed firearm, sword, axe and sticks.
The prosecution claimed that the accused attacked Parmanand Yadav and other members of his family. Parmanand died in the incident, while several other family members reportedly suffered injuries.
Following the investigation, Rajendra Yadav and his two sons were prosecuted. A trial court in Niwari subsequently convicted all three and sentenced them to life imprisonment under various provisions of law.
They later challenged the convictions before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Defence Said Jitendra Was in Jhansi Hospital
One of the key issues considered by the High Court was the defence’s claim regarding Jitendra Yadav.
The defence maintained that Jitendra was admitted to a hospital in Jhansi when the alleged murder took place. If established, this would directly challenge the prosecution’s claim that he was present at the crime scene and participated in the attack.
Jitendra nevertheless remained in custody for approximately 10 years and six months while the legal proceedings continued.
The High Court therefore examined whether the prosecution had presented sufficient and reliable evidence to sustain his conviction.
Contradictions in Witness Statements
During the hearing, the High Court identified contradictions in the statements of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.
The bench also considered evidence relating to five injured witnesses. Although their medical reports were reportedly part of the case record, the prosecution failed to properly prove the reports through the required evidence.
The court found that these shortcomings affected the reliability and completeness of the prosecution’s case.
Rather than relying solely on the allegations in the original complaint, the bench examined the evidence presented during the trial as a whole.
High Court Finds Prosecution Case Insufficient
After examining the evidence and circumstances, the High Court found several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s version of events.
The contradictions in witness testimony, shortcomings relating to medical evidence and the defence claim concerning Jitendra’s hospital admission collectively weakened the case against the three accused.
The court consequently allowed their appeals and acquitted Rajendra Yadav, Satyendra Yadav and Jitendra Yadav, overturning the life imprisonment convictions imposed by the trial court.
Nearly a Decade Behind Bars
The case highlights the serious consequences that prolonged criminal proceedings can have, particularly when an accused remains incarcerated while challenging a conviction.
Jitendra’s case is especially notable because he maintained that he was not present at the alleged crime scene and was instead undergoing treatment at a hospital in Jhansi.
After spending around 10 years and six months in custody, the High Court’s decision brought relief to him and the other two appellants.
The ruling also underscores the importance of reliable witness testimony and properly established documentary and medical evidence in criminal trials. A conviction must be supported by evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and significant contradictions or failures to prove crucial evidence can become decisive during an appeal.
The High Court’s decision relates specifically to the evidence and circumstances presented in this case. The acquittal does not suggest that the underlying murder allegations were insignificant; rather, the court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the accused persons’ guilt to the required legal standard.
