CASE ANALYSIS: HALLU v.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Submitted by:
Abhishek Kumar
Batch: 2021-26, BBA.LLB
DIVISION - A
PRN: 21010224005

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

In
January, 2024

Under the Guidance of

Dr. Sakshi Tiwari
Course In-charge
Symbiosis Law School NOIDA
Email: -Sakshi@symlaw.edu.in

1
 INDEX

SL NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. Acknowledgement 3
2. Certificate 4
3. Introduction 5
4. Issues 6
5. Rules 7
6. Analysis 8
7. Conclusion 11
8. Bibliography 12

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

With all due respect, I would like to thank Dr. Sakshi Tiwari ma’am for allotting me this topic
for the project work so that, with all the research I could know more and more about the
subject and the topic and get a better understanding of Criminal Procedure Code and Indian
Penal Code.

3
 CERTIFICATE

The case analysis entitled ‘HALLU V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH’ submitted to

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Criminal Law Practice as part of Internal Continuous
Evaluation is based on my original work carried under the guidance of Dr. Sakshi Tiwari.
The materials borrowed from the other sources and incorporated in the research have been
duly acknowledged. I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for
plagiarism, if any detected later on.

4
INTRODUCTION
The killings of Jagdeo and Padum in Rancharia in 1966 set off a convoluted judicial drama.
The first report was inconsistent and left out the accused; it was postponed by one day.
Conflicting timings and unrelated instances were inserted in later reports. The medical
assessment indicating blunt-force damage clashed with eyewitness reports of particular
weapons. The High Court ignored disparities and depended on the “implicit reliability” of the
eyewitnesses in spite of these obvious contradictions, which resulted in a faulty conviction.
These mistakes were discovered by a careful investigation, which also revealed an
unresolvable case without any solid proof against the defendants. Because the prosecution’s
case was inconsistent and there was insufficient proof, the High Court’s decision was
reversed, clearing the accused.

5
ISSUES

1. Whether the high court was justified in setting aside the order of trial court?

2. Whether the unreliable evidence provide enough ground to register FIR?

6
RULE

 Section 154, Criminal Procedure Code

 Section 149, Indian Penal Code

 Section 302, Indian Penal Code

 Section 154, Indian Penal Code

 State Of Uttarakhand vs Sohan Singh, 2007 CRILJ 3703.

 Ramchandra vs State of Rajasthan (2024: Rj-Jd:2706).

 Chaudhari Ramjibhai Narasangbhai vs State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 313.

7
ANALYSIS

The case in hand was one of the complex ones as the High Court has taken completely
different approach in analysing the case than that of the Sessions Court.

Addressing the issues in the case, the Supreme Court went onto scrutinising the
considerations of the Sessions Court to discard the evidence of witnesses which resulted in
the acquittal of the accused/s. According to Supreme Court the consideration of Session
Court were the ones under-written:

1. There were significant differences about the location of Jagdeo’s assassination; the
police had removed scraps from Jagdeo’s home’s walls but had not sent them to a
chemical analyst to see whether they contained blood traces;
2. The widows of Jagdeo and Padum claimed that their husbands had been attacked
with spears and axes, but the bodies of the men were found to be free of punctures
and lacerations.
3. On the morning of the day after the event, the police station received up to three
separate reports, although none of them included the appellants’ names.
4. One of those reports claimed that the event occurred at night, while the prosecution
contends that it actually occurred during the day, at around 1:00 p.m.
5. There was insufficient and untrustworthy evidence to support the accused’s
motivation for the murder.

The learned Sessions Judge was thus entitled to conclude that the accusation against the
accused was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the Apex Court’s substantial
justifications. As per court, worst-case scenario, one may argue that there were two plausible
interpretations of the data. It is well-established that the High Court should not have altered
the acquittal ruling under such circumstances.

The Supreme Court demonstrates the reference to several significant considerations High
Court’s interference with the acquittal ruling was not warranted, as the Supreme Court
demonstrates with reference to several significant considerations. The event is said to have
occurred on May 9, 1966, at around 1:00 p.m., but no one in the hamlet felt compelled to
report it to the authorities until the following morning. Tibhu, the son of Jagdeo, one of the
victims, was the first person to call the police following the tragedy.

8
On the 10th, Tibhu went to the Rancharia Police Station between 8 and 15 a.m. and informed
the officers that Jagdeo and Padum had been killed the afternoon before. Tibhu listed the
names of up to ten people in that report who, in his words, had taken part in the assault;
however, none of the eighteen accused were included in the lengthy list, with the possible
exception of “Bentha Satnami,” whose name could be read in a way that could lead one to
believe that one of the accused was mentioned. In an intriguing admission during his trial,
Tibhu stated that he had gone to the police to report a completely unrelated occurrence. A
woman named Dharmin informed him that the eighteen accused were responsible for the
murders1 of Jagdeo and Padum. However, it is surprising that he listed the names of a whole
other group of people in addition to omitting the names of the current accused. This relates to
the first information2 that was ever provided to the police.

The Court also highlighted the importance of report given by Tibhu and opined there is a
severe defect in the report provided by Tibhu, and the Sessions Court was correct in
mentioning this defect as one of the reasons the appellants were found not guilty. The
appellants’ names were not mentioned in the report, but the High Court declined to give it
any weight on the grounds that even though it was early in the process, it could not be
considered a First Information Report under section 154 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code
because Tibhu was not directly involved in the incident and the report was based solely on
hearsay evidence. In this parlance, Supreme Court made the opinion that, the High Court
erred glaringly because Section 154 does not mandate that the Report be provided by
someone who was directly aware of the occurrence that was reported. The section describes
information that an officer in charge of a police station received regarding the commission of
a crime that is punishable by law4. Tibhu had provided such information, and the inquiry had
started as a result of that information.

Dharamdas, who was interviewed for the case as an eyewitness, went to the police station
between 11 and 45 a.m. and reported information on a completely unrelated occurrence in
which he claimed to have been assaulted with a lathi by a youngster he did not know.
Naturally, this cannot be considered the First Information Report on the offence in issue, but
the High Court failed to note that Dharamdas may have been an eyewitness, and if he had
visited the police station many hours after the occurrence, it was odd that he made no

1
The Indian Penal Code, 18.
2
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, §154.
3
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, §154.
4
Chaudhari Ramjibhai Narasangbhai vs State Of Gujarat AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 313.

9
mention of it. It is noteworthy to add that both the trial court and the High Court have
disregarded Dharmdas’ testimony. Subsequently, a third report is presented to the police, this
one from a man named Vishal Das, the village’s Kotwar between the two previous reports.
According to Vishal Das’s Report, Ex. P-47, he provided the information at the police station
on the 10th at around ten in the morning. The High Court ruled that this material ought to be
regarded as the case's First Information Report. This is obviously incorrect, in our opinion.
Aside from the legitimacy of the High Court's ruling, Vishal Das’s Report virtually
completely dismantles the prosecution’s case.

The Apex Court also mentions that prosecution claims that the event in issue occurred in the
afternoon on September 9th, but Vishal Das claimed in his report that it occurred on the night
of September 10th, or early on September 10th. Additionally, Vishal Das made it clear in his
report that he had no idea who had attacked Jagdeo and Padum. The High Court did not give
these circumstances the weight they deserved and instead noted that the assault was carried
out by a big group of 17 or 18 people, therefore it did not really matter that Vishal Das did
not specify the identities of the attackers. Court had the opinion that the implications that
arise from the accused’s names not being mentioned in a First Information Report must differ
depending on the circumstances of each case. However, the High Court disregarded the fact
that the village’s Kotwal was unaware of the attackers’ identities even after twenty hours had
passed, and that he claimed the incident had occurred at night. It goes without saying that the
entire “Superstructure of the prosecution Case” would collapse if the event had happened at
night. Musammat Dev Kunwar and Musammat Mahatrin, two eyewitnesses, assert that they
saw the occurrence on the assumption that it occurred in the late afternoon of September 9.
The trial court was “primarily influenced by the so-called discrepancies in the three reports
lodged with the police,” the High Court said in its ruling. We may note that a number of
factors affected the trial court and that there is no common "so-called” cause for the
differences across the three Reports. The disparities are crucial because they have the
potential to discredit the eyewitnesses’ testimony and demonstrate that the occurrence
occurred in the shadows and was most likely not seen by anybody.

The Apex Court also pointed out that Dr. Jain’s postmortem report reveals that three bruises
and a hematoma were discovered on Jagdeo’s body. Two bruises and four lacerations were
discovered on Padum’s torso. The medical data plainly refutes the eyewitnesses’ account of
the two men being assaulted with lathis, spears, and axes. Not a single wound that was
discovered on Jagdeo and Padum’s bodies could have been inflicted by an axe or spear.

10
However, the High Court declined to give this part of the case any weight, stating that the
witnesses had not claimed that the miscreants had used a spear or delivered axe strikes from
the sharp side as a weapon that might pierce the High Court 5. The claim is that since they
were applied from the blunt side, the eyewitness testimony may be securely believed. It
would have been reasonable to assume that, in most cases, when a witness reports using an
axe or spear, there is no reason to believe that they are referring to the blunt side of the
weapon. If such is the case, it is the prosecution’s responsibility to ask the witness to clarify
whether a blunt weapon was employed as a piercing or sharp-edged device.

Later Court emphasized upon the fact that numerous times, the High Court noted that
Musammat Dev Kunwar and Musammat Mahatrin were “implicitly reliable” and presented a
contrary view that Finding witnesses whose evidence can be implicitly relied upon is
typically difficult6. It is usually a good idea to evaluate witness testimony in light of the
case’s objective circumstances. The High Court not only failed to accomplish that, but it also
denied itself the opportunity for a judicial review of the shortcomings that the Apex Court
mentioned in passing by convincing itself that the two eyewitnesses were inherently
trustworthy.

5
State Of Uttarakhand vs Sohan Singh 2007CRILJ3703.
6
Ramchandra vs State of Rajasthan (2024: Rj-Jd:2706).

11
CONCLUSION

The murder cases of Jagdeo and Padum are a sobering reminder of how crucial it is to
carefully examine the facts and refrain from depending solely on conjecture in the sake of
justice. Despite being overruled in the end, the High Court’s decision highlights the
possibility of injustices occurring when proper vigilance is not followed. It is a story meant to
serve as a warning, highlighting the importance of careful examinations, critical evaluations
of the available data, and a steadfast dedication to maintaining the standards of unbiased and
fair justice.

Ultimately, the judgement of the High Court came to an end due to the cumulative effect of
these flaws. The prosecution’s case was unsustainable due to inconsistent testimony, a dearth
of credible evidence, and a disrespect for objective facts. The verdict’s reversal is proof of
how crucial it is to carefully consider all available information and preserve the due process
rights in the sake of justice.

There are concerns regarding the investigation’s rigour and procedural adherence due to the
incident’s considerable reporting delay, disparities in the FIRs, and the absence of supporting
documentation7. The High Court’s disregard for these issues raises questions about its
comprehension of due process and how crucial it is to guaranteeing justice. A significant
weakness in the High Court’s reasoning is that it assumed the eyewitnesses’ “implicit
reliability” without closely evaluating their testimony in the context of the objective
evidence. This unquestioning trust in eyewitness testimony compromises the values of fair
and impartial justice and creates a risky precedent, particularly when faced with contradicting
evidence.

The ruling rendered by the High Court in the Jagdeo and Padum case should serve as a lesson
to the judicial system. It draws attention to the risks associated with rejecting objective facts,
believing eyewitness stories at face value, and dismissing discrepancies. This case serves as a
reminder of the vital role that meticulous examination, following the law, and a dedication to
justice have in making sure that justice is served. It is a call to unflinching devotion to
sustaining the highest standards of judicial practice and ongoing vigilance.

7
Rao, K. S. (2001). CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM — REQUIRED REFORMS. Journal of the Indian Law Institute,
43(2), 155–173. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43951765.

12
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Statutes

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Cases referred

• State Of Uttarakhand vs Sohan Singh 2007CRILJ3703.

• Ramchandra vs State of Rajasthan (2024: Rj-Jd:2706).
• Chaudhari Ramjibhai Narasangbhai vs State of Gujarat AIR 2004 SUPREME
COURT 313.

Journal Articles

• Rao, K. S. (2001). CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM — REQUIRED REFORMS.

Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 43(2), 155–173.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43951765.

• Drèze, J., & Khera, R. (2000). Crime, Gender, and Society in India: Insights from
Homicide Data. Population and Development Review, 26(2), 335–352.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/172520

• Ramraj, V. V. (2000). MURDER WITHOUT AN INTENTION TO KILL. Singapore

Journal of Legal Studies, 560–589. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24868151

• Sornarajah, M. (1994). THE DEFINITION OF MURDER UNDER THE PENAL

CODE. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 1–28.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24866686

13