Previous 17 / 48 Next

17 I had been in police station from 28.10.08 to 29.10.08. I had seen all the accused persons in police station. I cannot say the name of any other persons except Hari Om. Neither I had seen any person talking on mobile near the vehicle at the spot on 28.10.08 nor did I have any conversation with the person talking on mobile.” C. PW3 Harpal Singh, witness in respect of Exhibits Ka-6 and Ka-7, proved those documents and stated:“Darogaji had collected the fingerprint on shelf, box, attachee, utensils and glasses of the kitchen form the spot in my presence as specimen. On it, my signature and the signature of Mukesh Kumar were taken. One Diwanji was also present with Darogaji. Memo was prepared on the spot. This witness has recognised signature on Memo (Paper No.5A/2). On this, Exhibit Ka 7 was marked.” D. PW4 Shankarlal, milkman stated in his examination in chief:“Family of late Fauzi Rajpal comprised of his wife, a daughter and three sons. I knew everyone. The date was 28th in the year 08. It was Deepawali festival. I had gone to the house of Fauzi Rajpal Singh to deliver the milk at about 6:45 AM. I made a call at the entrance of their house. No one responded. I knocked the door even then no one responded. I pushed door whereupon door opened. Then, (Ujjwal) small child of late Rajpal came to me weeping from inside. Then I peeped inside the room of the house and found wife and elder son of Fauzi Rajpal lying dead on the cot. Blood was lying there. A girl and a boy were lying dead in the other room. On seeing them, I got perturbed. I took Ujjwal in my arms and informed Dr. Satyapal who is brother of Fauzi. Then I returned to the place of incident with him. By then, crowd had gathered. Thereafter, I had

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