Failure to Record Injured's S.161 CrPC Statement 'Greatly Impairs' Evidence Value, Leads to Acquittal in Attempted Murder Case: Allahabad High Court - 2025-08-06

Covering Law & Justice.

Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in 25-Year-Old Attempted Murder Case, Cites "Gross Negligence" in Police Investigation

LUCKNOW: In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man convicted of attempted murder over 25 years ago, emphasizing that the police's failure to record the injured victim's statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) "greatly impairs the value of the evidence." Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Kumar, presiding over the Lucknow Bench, set aside the 2000 conviction of Rajendr Yadav, granting him the benefit of the doubt due to glaring contradictions in witness testimonies and fatal procedural lapses during the investigation.

Case Background: A Feast Turned Violent

The prosecution's case stemmed from an incident on February 13, 1994. The informant, Nand Kumar (P.W.1), alleged that he and his brother, Shyam Lal, were invited to a feast at the house of the appellant, Rajendra Yadav. An argument erupted when Shyam Lal asked for food to be served promptly. Following this, other accused allegedly incited Yadav, who then shot Shyam Lal in the chest with a country-made pistol.

Based on this, the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, had convicted Yadav under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The other four co-accused were acquitted. Yadav challenged this conviction in a criminal appeal filed in 2000.

Key Arguments in the High Court

Appellant's Counsel Argued: * The trial was vitiated because the police never recorded the statement of the injured victim, Shyam Lal (P.W.2), under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This denied the appellant a "valuable right" to contradict the witness's court testimony with his initial police statement. * The presence of the key eyewitnesses at the scene was doubtful, citing major contradictions in their accounts of where they were sitting and the source of light. * The victim's own testimony about the direction of the gunshot was medically and physically implausible. He claimed he was shot from the East while moving North-West, which could not have resulted in a frontal chest wound. * No independent witnesses were examined, despite being named in the FIR.

State's Counsel Argued: * The prosecution's case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. * The testimony of an injured witness holds great evidentiary value and should not be discarded. * The FIR was lodged promptly, lending credibility to the prosecution's story.

High Court's Scrutiny: Unraveling the Prosecution's Case

The High Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence and legal arguments, focusing on two critical aspects: the procedural lapse and the credibility of the evidence.

1. The Impact of Not Recording a Section 161 Statement Justice Kumar delved into the legal framework, noting that while police are not obligated to record every statement, it is their duty to do so for material witnesses. The court observed that the failure to record the injured's statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. prejudiced the accused.

"It is also clear that a failure on their part to comply with the requirements of S. 161(3), though does not render the subsequent statement of the witness at the trial inadmissible, it does greatly impair the value of the evidence of that witness."

The Court highlighted that this lapse, for which the trial court had already reprimanded the investigating officer, deprived the appellant of a crucial opportunity for defence.

2. Contradictions and Doubts in Evidence Beyond the procedural flaw, the Court found the prosecution's evidence to be riddled with inconsistencies, rendering it unreliable.

• Implausible Injury: The court found merit in the defence's claim that the injury location was inconsistent with the testimony. It noted, "if the fire was made from the east side, while he was going towards the north-west, it could not have hit at chest in front of his body and it should have been on the back."
• Doubtful Witness Presence: Contradictory statements by the informant and the victim about where they were seated and the absence of a credible light source at the 7 p.m. incident cast serious doubt on their ability to witness the event clearly.
• Lack of Corroboration: The absence of a blood trail from the spot of the shooting to where the victim fell, coupled with the failure to examine any independent witnesses, further weakened the prosecution's narrative.

The Final Verdict: Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt

Citing these cumulative deficiencies, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench ruled that the trial court had erred in convicting the appellant without properly appreciating the contradictions and procedural failures.

"This court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt and in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt, but the learned trial court failed to consider it, therefore, the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable in the eyes of law..."

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the trial court dated January 27, 2000, were set aside, acquitting Rajendr Yadav of all charges.