In a judgment highlighting the serious consequences of prolonged judicial delays, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted a centenarian man in a murder case that dates back more than four decades. The court granted the accused the benefit of doubt, placing significant weight on the extraordinary length of time his criminal appeal remained undecided.
A division bench comprising Justices Chandradhari Singh and Sanjeev Kumar overturned the conviction of Dhaniram, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment by a sessions court in Hamirpur in 1984. Notably, his appeal against that conviction had been pending before the High Court for over 40 years, an aspect the bench described as highly unusual and deeply troubling.
The case originated from an incident on August 9, 1982, when a man named Gunwa was shot dead in Hamirpur district. The prosecution alleged that the killing was the outcome of a land dispute. According to the case theory, the fatal shot was fired by the main accused, Maiku, while Dhaniram and another individual, Sattidin, were accused of instigating and facilitating the crime, thereby sharing a common intention.
A trial court subsequently convicted Dhaniram and Sattidin for murder with common intention, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Both men challenged the verdict before the High Court and were granted bail while their appeals were pending. However, over the decades that followed, the matter remained unresolved. During this prolonged period, Sattidin passed away, leaving Dhaniram as the sole surviving appellant.
In its detailed ruling, the High Court took note of several critical factors. It observed that the principal accused, Maiku—the person alleged to have actually fired the fatal shot—was never arrested or brought to trial. The bench also pointed out inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution’s case, which weakened the overall evidentiary foundation of the conviction.
Importantly, the court emphasised that the appeal’s pendency for more than four decades, combined with Dhaniram’s extremely advanced age, could not be overlooked. The judges noted that such an inordinate delay undermines the very purpose of justice and has a profound impact on the rights of the accused.
Taking all these circumstances into account, the High Court extended the benefit of doubt to Dhaniram, set aside his conviction, and acquitted him of all charges. It also directed that his bail bonds be discharged.
The ruling is expected to renew debate on systemic delays within the criminal justice system, particularly in long-pending cases where appeals remain undecided for decades, often leaving both accused persons and victims’ families in prolonged uncertainty and distress.
