Supreme Court Refused To Interfere With Acquittal Of Union Minister Ajay Mishra ‘Teni’ In 23-Year-Old Murder Case

The Supreme Court in the case Rajeev Gupta vs. Ajay Mishra Alias Tani observed and has refused to interfere with order of Allahabad High Court upholding the acquittal of Union Minister of State for Home, Ajay Mishra Teni, in the murder case of Prabhat Gupta, he being a rising student leader, was killed in broad daylight in Lakhimpur Khiri district in the year 2000.

In the present case, the four people, including Union Minister Teni, were named as accused. The Lower Court acquitted in Teni in 2004.
Therefore, the revision plea was filed by the complainant or revisionist (Santosh Gupta/father of deceased Prabhat Gupta) before the High Court, against the lower court’s order.

However, the revision was admitted in February 2005 and was connected with the Criminal Appeal filed by the state government against the acquittal order.
The High Court in the case observed and has dismissed the revision petition and the State’s appeal. In this background, the instant appeal was being filed by the legal heir of the complainant.

The bench comprising of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal in the case was hearing the matter.
The Supreme Court stated that it is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the High Court and the Trial Court.

Facts of the Case:
The court stated that the allegations against Teni are that he had a dispute with the deceased regarding the Panchayat elections. Thus, the deceased was shot dead by Teni and co-accused Subhash alias Mama. As per the state’s case, the trial court ignored the eyewitness testimony.

It has been argued by Teni that the trial court had not found the alleged eyewitness testimony to be reliable and the trial court was justified in acquitting him of the offence.
The High Court bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Om Prakash Shukla found the Trial Court’s order ‘to be a plausible and sustainable view, especially when the Trial Court had the advantage of seeing and assessing the demeanour of witnesses.’
Further, the court concluded that there was no perversity in the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that the evidence recorded in the present case has been appreciated in its correct perspective and the Trial court has at no point of time missed the woods of the tree and this court do not find any perversity in the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and in any case, the law presumes double presumption in favour of the accused after a due adjudication by the trial Court.