Previous 16 / 48 Next

16 vehicle and he was talking on phone. I asked Hari Om, ‘brother why are you standing at this time’ whereupon Hari Om replied that I am talking to Faujin Nirdosh Devi. Then we left for our home. I knew Hari Om @ Hero because he had been tenant at the place of Nirdosh Devi. In the same night, the incident had taken place. I had received information in the morning. I became sure that Hari Om @ Hero and his accomplices committed murder of Nirdosh Kumari and her three children and the miscreants committed loot.” This witness also proved recovery memo Ext.Ka-5 and deposed that on 29.10.2008 at about 05.00 p.m., accused Hari Om had taken out a chhuri/knife from the bricks lying near the southern wall of the house of one Sikia. Nothing was suggested to the witness in his cross examination that Hari Om had not been the tenant of Smt. Nirdosh Devi. In his cross examination conducted on 01.03.2011, the witness stated:“On 28.10.08, when police came on the spot then I was on the spot. Then, neither I had any conversation with police nor made any attempt to talk to the police. I did not tell to the police about the Tavera vehicle being parked on 28.10.08.” But in his cross examination dated 10.03.2011, the witness stated:“On 1.3.11 I had given the statement that I did not have any conversation with police and I did not make any attempt to talk to the police. I had conversation with the police at police station and it did not take place on the spot.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Hari Om @ Hero

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

India

Nationalities

Indian

Case Title: Hari Om @ Hero v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Age at Offence: 40

Age Group at Offence: Adult (18 to 59)

Gender: Male

Religious Group at Offence: Hindu

Vulnerable/ Marginalised Group

Socio-economic Status

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: 20.5937

Longitude: 78.9629

Jurisdiction - Geolocation (linked CASE BRIEF): India

Contributing TRP Partner

The Square Circle Clinic (India)

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Retentionist

Case Current Status: Closed: Acquitted

Year when sentenced to Death Row: 2010s: 2015

Method of Execution: Hanging

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Murder: Multiple Victims

Expert Evidence

Forensic/Medical evidence: Autopsy/Post mortem
Forensic/Medical evidence: Fingerprint/palmprint/footprint

Case Background (300 words max): In the Sessions Trial, six accused persons were tried for dacoity and the murder of four people. The Trial Court convicted Accused No. 1, Hari Om, and sentenced him to death. The other accused persons were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the death sentence for Hari Om, affirmed the life imprisonment sentences for Accused Sanjay@Sonu and Saurabh@Sanju, and acquitted the remaining three accused persons.

The four key circumstances against the accused were:

Testimony of PW 5, the lone survivor and five-year-old son of the deceased. Recovery of a knife at the instance of Accused Hari Om. Testimony of a prosecution witness who claimed to have seen Hari Om near a red Tavera vehicle in the neighborhood. Fingerprints lifted from a glass inside the house matched those of Sanjay@Sonu and Saurabh@Sanju. The Court acquitted all the accused and held:

The testimony of the child witness, who was about five years old at the time of the incident, was deemed unreliable and not safe to rely upon. With the child witness's testimony being untrustworthy, the remaining evidence consisted of the recovery of a knife and the statement of a prosecution witness who claimed to have seen Hari Om near a red Tavera vehicle. The prosecution failed to link the call received by the deceased to Accused Hari Om, and there were discrepancies between the witness’s testimony and the time of the call. These inconsistencies led the Court to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to convict Hari Om under Section 396 IPC, and he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Regarding Sanjay@Sonu and Saurabh@Sanju, the Supreme Court found the fingerprint evidence insufficient. The procedure for lifting fingerprints from the glass was not specified, and there was no record of the method used or whether the constable who conducted the procedure was an expert. Additionally, the constable was not examined, and there was no evidence of the procedure used to analyze the fingerprints. Since Sanjay@Sonu and Saurabh@Sanju were unknown to the child and had not undergone Test Identification, and their identification in court was their first appearance, the fingerprint evidence alone was inadequate to support their conviction. As a result, they were granted the benefit of the doubt.

This case is notable for highlighting the importance of proper procedures in fingerprint evidence collection and handling.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.)

For Hari Om:

The main witness is a child witness: PW5 , the youngest child of Smt. Nirdosh Devi, was five years old at the time of the incident.
Recovery of Weapon cannot alone establish guilt of the accused HariOm: A knife (chhuri) was allegedly recovered based on the accused Hari Om's indication. However, the trial court rejected the theory of admissibility under Section 27 of the Evidence Act due to the absence of a memorandum, though it considered the recovery admissible under Section 8 of the Act. This evidence alone, however, was not deemed sufficient to establish guilt.
Accused seen near crime scene not proved: Accused Hari Om was allegedly seen near the house of the victim, next to a red Tavera vehicle by PW2 Ompal Singh and one Ram Prakash. However, Ram Prakash and Raju, another witness, were not examined during the trial, leaving only the testimony of PW2 Ompal Singh, which was found to be doubtful.
Fingerprint Evidence: The sample fingerprints of Hari Om did not match any of the fingerprints taken from the house of the deceased.

For Sanjay @ Sonu and Saurabh @ Sanju

Apart from the evidence that their sample fingerprints matched those lifted from the house of the deceased, no other evidence was presented to suggest or implicate their involvement in the crime.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max)

Legal Representation Received

Second Appeal: Pro bono
Pre-trial: Unknown
Trial: Unknown
Appeal: Unknown

Special Procedures Used

Amicus Curiae / "Watching Brief"

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): 396,412- INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

Judicial Precedents: Musheer Khan and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Ram Shankar Singh and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Saktu and Ors. vs. State of U.P. Suryanarayana vs. State of Karnataka State of U.P. vs. Krishna Master and Ors. Manmeet Singh vs. State of Punjab Panchhi and Ors. vs. State of UP Prakash and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Kandayanathil vs. State of Kerala Raja Ram Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Bihar Dattu Ramrao Sakhare and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra State of U.P. vs. Ashok Dixit and Ors. Digamber Vaishnav and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh Radhey Shyam vs. State of Rajasthan Prakash vs. State of Karnataka Hukam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan

Language of Case Materials

English

Primary Documents

Hari Om @ Hero v. State of UP.pdf
English
Download View

Death Penalty Defence - Asia

Select target paragraph3

Hari Om @ Hero

Primary Documents

Notifications