In a landmark decision highlighting the devastating consequences of judicial delay, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted 100-year-old Dhaniram, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment in a 1982 murder case. His appeal against the conviction remained pending for more than 40 years, effectively keeping him under the cloud of criminal charges for nearly half his lifetime.
A division bench comprising Justices Chandradhari Singh and Sanjeev Kumar set aside the conviction, citing the extraordinary delay, inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, and the advanced age of the accused.
The main accused in the case was never apprehended, and the only co-accused died during the prolonged appeal process. The ruling has reignited concerns over India’s slow judicial system and the human cost of justice that arrives decades too late.
A Verdict Shaped By Time And Delay
The High Court’s judgment marks the end of a legal battle that began over four decades ago. Dhaniram had been convicted by a sessions court in Hamirpur in 1984 for his alleged role in the murder of a man named Gunwa.
While he was granted bail shortly after filing an appeal, the case remained stuck in judicial limbo year after year. By the time the appeal finally came up for a decisive hearing, the appellant had reached the age of 100.
In their ruling, the judges observed that such prolonged pendency of a criminal appeal cannot be ignored while evaluating a case. The bench pointed out that the extraordinary passage of time had weakened the prosecution’s case and made it difficult to rely on decades-old evidence.
They further noted that the main accused, Maiku who was alleged to have fired the fatal shot was never arrested, which created serious gaps in the chain of accountability. Taking these factors into account, the court held that Dhaniram deserved the benefit of the doubt and ordered his acquittal.
Although no formal reactions were issued by the state prosecution following the judgment, legal observers have described the verdict as a strong message about the need for faster and more efficient disposal of criminal appeals. For Dhaniram and his family, the ruling brought a long-awaited sense of relief after years of uncertainty and social stigma.
The Crime That Triggered A Lifetime Of Litigation
The case dates back to August 9, 1982, when Gunwa was shot dead in Hamirpur district, Uttar Pradesh. According to the prosecution, the murder was the result of a long-standing land dispute. Investigators alleged that the actual shooter was a man named Maiku, while Dhaniram and another accused, Sattidin, had instigated the attack and shared a common intention to commit the crime.
Based on this version of events, a trial court convicted Dhaniram and Sattidin in 1984 and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Both men challenged the verdict in the Allahabad High Court and were granted bail while their appeals were pending. What followed was not a swift judicial review but decades of waiting. Hearings were repeatedly adjourned, files were delayed, and the appeal remained unheard.
During this prolonged period, co-accused Sattidin passed away, and the prime accused Maiku continued to evade arrest. As years turned into decades, Dhaniram grew old while still carrying the burden of a criminal conviction. By the time the High Court finally took up the matter in earnest, he was a frail centenarian seeking closure more than punishment or vindication.
In reviewing the case, the High Court found that the prosecution had failed to conclusively establish Dhaniram’s role beyond reasonable doubt. Witness statements were inconsistent, the main perpetrator was never produced before the court, and the enormous delay had further weakened the reliability of the evidence. Considering all these circumstances together, the bench ruled that upholding the conviction would amount to a grave miscarriage of justice.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
This judgment is far more than an isolated legal decision it is a powerful reminder of the human stories buried beneath India’s massive judicial backlog. When an appeal takes 40 years to be heard, justice ceases to serve its true purpose. For the accused, it means decades of anxiety, social exclusion, and uncertainty. For victims’ families, it means a lifetime without closure or accountability. For society at large, it erodes faith in the fairness and effectiveness of the legal system.
The acquittal of a 100-year-old man under such circumstances may be legally correct and morally compassionate, but it also reflects a deeper institutional failure. Courts across the country are burdened with millions of pending cases, inadequate infrastructure, and chronic delays. While judges and lawyers work within these constraints, the ultimate sufferers are ordinary citizens whose lives remain on hold.
