Allahabad High Court
Krishna Kumar Singh @ Bhondal And Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 13 August, 2025
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138009-DB
Judgement Reserved On:-16.5.2025
Judgement Delivered On:-13.08.2025
In Chamber
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3004 of 1983
Appellant :- Krishna Kumar Singh @ Bhondal And Ors.
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Kiran Bala,Manu Saxena,Rakesh Kumar Rathore
Counsel for Respondent :- D.G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.
(Per: Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.)
1. Heard Sri Abhishek Nayak along with Mrs. Kiran Bala, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri O.P. Dwivedi, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record.
2. By way of this appeal the appellants have challenged their conviction under section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life by judgment and order dated 7.12.1983 passed by learned Special Judge Economic Offences, Allahabad in Session Trial No. 321 of 1982.
3. The appeal stood abated in respect of appellant no. 1 Krishna Kumar Singh on 1.5.2025 and in respect of appellant no. 2 Paras Nath Patel on 28.3.2025.The instant appeal survives only in respect of appellant no. 3 Ram Abhilash Singh.
4. Prosecution case in brief is that the informant P.W. 2 Srichand filed a written report stating therein that his Sister Sarita Devi was married to one Ashok Kumar nephew of Ram Sunder of village Jankipur P.S. Pura Mufti. The said Ashok Kumar was the lone son of his father and he had huge landed property. In order to grab the said landed property Amar Singh, Krishna Kumar, Vijay Singh and Arjun Singh, the sons of Ram Sunder had murdered the said Ashok Kumar. Since the death of said Ashok Kumar, informant and his brother Harishchandra were looking after the property of their sister Sarita and due to which Ram Sunder and his sons became inimical to them. On 1.6.1982 the marriage of the daughter of Ram Sajiwan was performed. The informant has stated that he along with his cousin brother-in-law Balwant Singh, his brother Harish Chandra and many other relatives were present in the marriage ceremony and after marriage ceremony was over and after having their meal, they were sleeping towards the west of the house of Ram Sajeewan Patel. The brother of the informant Harishchandra and his cousin brother-in-law Balwant Singh were sleeping on cot. Srichand was sitting on a cot towards the west of the house of Ram Sajiwan. Sewa Lal was also sitting on the same cot and chhotey Lal was sitting on the ground near them and and they were discussing about the marriage ceremony. At about 3:30 A.M. Krishna Kumar @ Bhodal, Ram Abhilash and Paras Nath came from the hospital side. Krishna Kumar @ Bhodal opened fire on his brother Harish Chandra by clinging his gun on him and similarly Paras Nath opened fire on Balwant Singh by clinging his gun on him (Balwant Singh). Both of them Harish Chandra and Balwant Singh died on the spot. Ram Abhilash stood pointing his gun towards the informant and was exhorting that anyone who tried to catch them, he would also lose his life. The informant further stated that gas lamp was burning 10-12 paces towards East and he has seen the accused persons in the light of the gas lamp. After committing the offence the accused fled towards west.
5. On the basis of the above written report, the first information report was lodged against Krishna Kumar Singh @ Bhodal, Paras Nath and Ram Abhilash under section 302 IPC. Investigation was commenced and the investigating officer after conclusion of the investigation submitted charge sheet. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of Session for trial. Trial stood transferred to the court of learned Special Judge Economic Offences, Allahabad
6. The learned trial judge framed charge against Krishna Kumar Singh, Paras Nath Patel and Abhilash Singh under section 302 r/w 34 IPC whereas Krishna Kumar Singh @ Bhodal and Paras Nath also charged under section 302 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
7. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses, namely, Chhote Lal- P.W. 1, Shrichand- P.W. 2, Sewa Lal-P.W.3, Dr. K.P. Srivastava- P.W. 4, Kashi Nath- P.W. 5, Ramakant Mishra- P.W. 6 and Amar Nath Singh- P.W. 7.
8. The prosecution has also proved documentary evidence, as written report- Ex. Ka 1, P.M. Report- Ex. Ka 2, Panchayatnama- Ex. Ka 3, P.M. Report- Ext. Ka 12, Panchayatnama- Ex. Ka 13, recovery memo of blood stained and plain soil- Ex. Ka 25, recovery memo of blood stained rope of cot- Ex. Ka 26, Recovery memo of empty cartridge and tickli- Ex. Ka 27, Recovery memo of gas lantern and supurdaginama- Ex. Ka 28, Charge sheet 'Mool'- Ex. Ka 29 and Site Plan with Index- Ex. Ka 24.
9. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied their involvement and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant Ram Abhilash further stated that he has been implicated in the case because he had made efforts to procure the police guard in the house of co-accused Krishna Kumar because his brother Amar Singh and Rajendra Singh had been murdered and this fact was known to informant Srichand and he became inimical towards him and therefore he was implicated in this case falsely.
He has further stated that he had completed M.A. and was student of law and was also active in students politics.
10. After hearing prosecution and the defence, learned trial court passed the judgement and order impugned.
11. Learned counsel for the surviving appellant Ram Abhilash submitted that he was not related to the deceased or the other accused and there was no motive for him to commit the said offence.
12. Learned counsel further submitted that the role of firing has not been assigned to the surviving appellant. He also submitted that since he is neither related to the deceased nor to the accused and he was also not related to Ram Sajeevan Patel whose daughter was married on 1.6.1982, there was no occasion for him to remain present in the said wedding ceremony. He further submitted that no weapon has been recovered from the possession of the appellant or at his instance. He further submitted that the appellant had arranged for police guard at the house of co-accused Krishna Kumar Singh for security as his two brothers Amar Singh and Arjun were murdered in property dispute.
13. Further submission of the learned counsel is that since there was no motive on the part of the appellant, his case cannot be covered with the aid of section 34 IPC as since there was no meeting of mind with the co-accused Krishna Kumar Singh and Paras Nath.
14. Learned counsel further submitted that the informant Shrichand is highly tainted and inimical witness as he has admitted in cross examination that he and his deceased brother Harish Chandra were sentenced to imprisonment of life for the murder of Amar Singh.
15. Learned counsel further submitted that this witness has stated in his cross examination that Ram Sunder, the father of co-accused Kishana Kumar was doing parvi in that case. Learned counsel submitted that the informant P.W. 2 is a previous convict for the offence of murder of the brother of co-accused Krishna Kumar therefore the testimony of Srichand is tainted and cannot be believed. He further submitted that P.W. 1 is sfaff (Sewak) of P.W. 2 therefore his testimony is also not worth believable.
16. Learned counsel further submitted that as per first information report and as per the testimonies of eye witnesses, the appellant Ram Abhilash has been assigned the role of pointing his gun towards them in order to prevent them from catching the other co-accused. The appellant Ram Abhilash has not been assigned the role of firing. He further submitted that if appellant Ram Abhilash had any motive he would definitely have opened fire from his gun. Further submission is that apart from the above there is no evidence against the appellant and the presence of the eye witnesses at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful and the appellant has been implicated in this case only because he had made efforts in arranging the police security for co-accused Krishna Kumar Singh.
17. On the other hand, learned AGA has supported the judgment and order passed by learned trial court and submitted that P.W.1 has stated that the appellant Ram Abhilash is son of maternal uncle of co-accused Krishna Kumar and since Krishna Kumar was inimical towards the deceased as there were many criminal cases relating to heinous offences were lodged, he was also having motive for commission of the offence.
18. Learned AGA further submitted that it is worth believable that the appellant Ram Abhilash was present along with the appellant Krishna Kumar and Paras Nath since deceased and he had active participation in the commission of the offence though there is no allegation that he opened fire on any one of the deceased.
19. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to take note of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of reliability of testimony of injured witness, in the case of Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo vs The State Of Punjab, AIR 2024 SC 4810, paragraph no.12 and 13 whereof are quoted below:-
"12. Also, it is worth indicating that P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.5 are "injured witnesses" or "injured eye-witnesses" in this case. The sworn testimonies provided by injuredwitnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight. Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility. If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence. Therefore, the suspicion raised by the appellants regarding the genesis of the case is rendered unfounded.
13. The abovementioned conclusion stands fortified with reference to paragraph 26 of the decision of this Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra12. The relevant passage is reproduced as under:
"26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
20. In a recent judgment of Dheer Singh and Others vs State of U.P. , 2025 (4) ADJ 791, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Vivek Kumar Birla, J.) was a member has considered the law as to why a realistic approach to be adopted by Criminal Courts, which appreciating evidence in Criminal trial. The law in respect of injured, related and interested witness was also considered extensively, paragraph nos.22 to 35 whereof reads as under:-
"22. In Krishna Mochi and others vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid emphasis on realistic approach to be adopted by the criminal courts while appreciating evidence in criminal trial, paragraph 32 whereof is quoted as under:
"32. The court while appreciating the evidence should not lose sight of these realities of life and cannot afford to take an unrealistic approach by sitting in an ivory tower. I find that in recent times the tendency to acquit an accused easily is galloping fast. It is very easy to pass an order of acquittal on the basis of minor points raised in the case by a short judgment so as to achieve the yardstick of disposal. Some discrepancy is bound to be there in each and every case which should not weigh with the court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case. In case discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of pebbles, the court should tread upon it, but if the same are boulders, the court should not make an attempt to jump over the same. These days when crime is looming large and humanity is suffering and the society is so much affected thereby, duties and responsibilities of the courts have become much more. Now the maxim "let hundred guilty persons be acquitted, but not a single innocent be convicted" is, in practice, changing the world over and courts have been compelled to accept that "society suffers by wrong convictions and it equally suffers by wrong acquittals". I find that this Court in recent times has conscientiously taken notice of these facts from time to time........."
(Emphasis supplied)
23. In Masalti vs. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202, Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 14 observed as under:
" 14. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. ... The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice."
(Emphasis supplied)
24. In Darya Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 328, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also taken the view that related witness does not necessarily mean or is equivalent to an interested witness. A witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of litigation; a decree in a civil case, or in seeing a person punished in a criminal trial, paragraph 6 whereof is quoted as under:
" 6. On principle, however, it is difficult to accept the plea that if a witness is shown to be a relative of the deceased and it is also shown that he shared the hostility of the victim towards the assailant, his evidence can never be accepted unless it is corroborated on material particulars."
25. In Appabhai and another vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 11 observed as under:
""11.........Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused. The Court, however, must bear in mind that witnesses to a serious crime may not react in a normal manner. Nor do they react uniformly. The horror stricken witnesses at a dastardly crime or an act of egregious nature may react differently. Their, course of conduct may not be of ordinary type in the normal circumstances. The Court, therefore, cannot reject their evidence merely because they have behaved or reacted in an unusual manner....."
(Emphasis supplied)
26. Similar view has been taken in State of A.P. vs. S. Rayappa and others, (2006) 4 SCC 512 wherein it has been observed that it is now almost a fashion that public is reluctant to appear and depose before the court especially in criminal cases and the cases for that reason itself are dragged for years and years, paragraph 6 whereof is quoted as under:
"6......by now, it is a well-established principle of law that testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness. A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as interested witness. The term interested postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused person being convicted somehow or the other either because of animosity or some other reasons."
(Emphasis supplied)
27. In Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of AP, (2006) 11 SCC 444, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 16 has held as under:
"16. In this case, we find that the trial court had rejected the evidence of PW1 and PW2 merely because they were interested witnesses being the brother and father of the deceased. But it is well settled that evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or closely related to the deceased, if it is otherwise, found to be trustworthy and credible. It only requires scrutiny with more care and caution, so that neither the guilty escape nor the innocent wrongly convicted. If on such careful scrutiny, the evidence is found to be reliable and probable, it can be acted upon. If it is found to be improbable or suspicious, it ought to be rejected. Where the witness has a motive to falsely implicate the accused, his testimony should have corroboration in regard to material particulars before it is accepted."
(Emphasis supplied)
28. In Satbir Singh and others vs. State of U.P., (2009) 13 SCC 790, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 26 held as under:
"26. It is now a well-settled principle of law that only because the witnesses are not independent ones may not by itself be a ground to discard the prosecution case. If the prosecution case has been supported by the witnesses and no cogent reason has been shown to discredit their statements, a judgment of conviction can certainly be based thereupon ...... "
(Emphasis supplied)
29. In Jayabalan vs. U.T. of Pondicherry, 2010 (68) ACC 308 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 21 held as under:
"21. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim."
(Emphasis supplied)
30. In Dharnidhar vs. State of U.P., (2010) 7 SCC 759, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is no hard and fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case, paragraphs 12 and 13 whereof is quoted as under:
"12. There is no hard and fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the case of Jayabalan v. U.T. of Pondicherry [(2010)1 SCC 199], this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim. The Court held as under:
" 23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim.
13. Similar view was taken by this Court in Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P. [AIR 2010 SC 917], where the Court stated the dictum of law that a close relative of the deceased does not, per se, become an interested witness. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing the conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to disputes and deposes before the Court only with that intention and not to further the cause of justice. The law relating to appreciation of evidence of an interested witness is well settled, according to which, the version of an interested witness cannot be thrown over- board, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same.
14. In the light of the above judgments, it is clear that the statements of the alleged interested witnesses can be safely relied upon by the Court in support of the prosecution's story. But this needs to be done with care and to ensure that the administration of criminal justice is not undermined by the persons, who are closely related to the deceased. When their statements find corroboration by other witnesses, expert evidence and the circumstances of the case clearly depict completion of the chain of evidence pointing out to the guilt of the accused, then we see no reason why the statement of so called `interested witnesses' cannot be relied upon by the Court."
(Emphasis supplied)
31. In a very recent judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Baban Shankar Daphal and others vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC Online SC 137 in respect of testimony of witness which should not be discarded merely because of relation with victim, the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in paragraphs 27 and 28, held as under:
"27. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the eyewitnesses to the incident were all closely related to the deceased and for prudence the prosecution ought to have examined some other independent eyewitness as well who were present at the time of the unfortunate incident. This was also the view taken by the Trial Court, but the High Court has correctly rejected such an approach and held that merely because there were some more independent witnesses also, who had reached the place of incident, the evidence of the relatives cannot be disbelieved. The law nowhere states that the evidence of the interested witness should be discarded altogether. The law only warrants that their evidence should be scrutinized with care and caution. It has been held by this Court in the catena of judgments that merely if a witness is a relative, their testimony cannot be discarded on that ground alone.
28. In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses, particularly those who are close relatives of the victim, is often scrutinized. However, being a relative does not automatically render a witness "interested" or biased. The term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the victim. Courts must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of their statements rather than labelling them as untrustworthy.
(Emphasis supplied)
32. In a recent judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 12 SCC 558 has observed that the appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task and has summed up the judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case, paragraphs 29 and 30 whereof is quoted as under:
"29. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
29.1 While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
29.2. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
29.3 When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
29.4. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
29.5. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
29.6. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
29.7. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
29.8. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
29.9. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
29.10. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
29.11. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
29.12. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
29.13. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness.[See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : AIR 1983 SC 753, Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 3717, and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1959 SC 1012]
30. To put it simply, in assessing the value of the evidence of the eye- witnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, the circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or puts forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence."
(Emphasis supplied)
33. Paragraph 48 of Pahalwan Singh and others vs. State of U.P., 2020 (6) ALJ 166 is quoted under:
"48. Thus, in view of aforementioned decisions of the Supreme Court, it is now a settled position of law that the statements of the interested witnesses can be safely relied upon by the court in support of the prosecution story. But this needs to be done with care and to ensure that the administration of criminal justice is not undermined by the persons who are closely related to the deceased. When their statements find corroboration by other evidence, expert evidence and the circumstances of the case clearly depict completion of the chain of evidence pointing out to the guilt of the accused, then there is no reason as to why the statement of so-called 'interested witnesses' cannot be relied upon by the Court. It would be hard to believe that the close relatives shall leave the real culprit and shall implicate innocent persons falsely simply because they have enmity with the accused persons.
(Emphasis supplied)
34. Insofar as the testimony of injured witness is concerned, this Court in Kaptan Singh vs. State of UP, 2020 (1) ADJ 106 (DB) has, in paragraph 20, observed as under:
"20. Close scrutiny of the evidence shows that the statements of (PW-1) Vimla Devi and (PW-2) Ram Singar Pandey are clear, cogent and credible. Theyhave been subjected to cross-examination, but they remained stick to the prosecution version and no such fact, contradiction or inconsistency could emerge, so as to create any doubt about their testimony. Keeping in view the fact that after incident, deceased as well as injured were taken to hospital and were admitted there and that on the same night deceased Ram Niwas Rao has succumbed to injuries, it is apparent that the first information report of the incident was lodged without any undue delay. Version of (PW-1) Vimla Devi finds corroboration from testimony of (PW-2) Ram Singar Pandey and is fully consistent with medical evidence. It is also to be kept in mind that (PW-2) Ram Singar Pandey has himself sustained injuries in the same incident. In Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9SCC 719, the Supreme Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case, the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon. Similar view was expressed in the case of Krishan v. State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 513-514 of 2014 Baleshwar Mahto and another v. State of Bihar and another, decided on 9.1.2017, has reiterated the law as under :
''28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.
''Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.''[Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar [(1973) 3 SCC 881:1973 SCC (Cri) 563:AIR 1972 SC 2593], Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P. [(1975) 3 SCC 311 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 919 : AIR 1975 SC 12], Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 681], Appabhai v. State of Gujarat [1988 Supp SCC 241 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 559 : AIR 1988 SC 696], Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra [(1995) 6 SCC 447 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1113], Bhag Singh [(1997) 7 SCC 712 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1163], Mohar v. State of U.P. [(2002) 7 SCC 606 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 121] (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [(2008) 8 SCC 270 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 472], Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 10 SCC 477 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 302], Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2009) 12 SCC 546 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 630] and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] 29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107], where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29) ''28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka [1994 Supp (3) SCC 235 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694] this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand [(2004) 7 SCC 629 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2021] a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana [(2006) 12 SCC 459 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 214]). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the Courts below.''
30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.'' In this very judgment, relationship between the medical evidence and ocular evidence was also discussed, based on number of earlier precedents, as under: ''33. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath [(1999) 5 SCC 96 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 658] it was held as follows: (SCC p. 101, para 15) ''15. The opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion shall be tested by the Court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the Court is not obliged to go by that opinion. After all opinion is what is formed in the mind of a person regarding a fact situation. If one doctor forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion on the same facts it is open to the Judge to adopt the view which is more objective or probable. Similarly if the opinion given by one doctor is not consistent with probability the Court has no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is said by the doctor. Of course, due weight must be given to opinions given by persons who are experts in the particular subject.'' In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694, the Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
It has been held that law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
(Emphasis supplied)
35. In a recent judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeraj Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) 3 SCC 125 in respect of importance of injured witness in a criminal trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in paragraphs 22 and 23, held as under:
"22. The importance of injured witness in a criminal trial cannot be over stated. Unless there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by the defence to doubt such a witness, this has to be accepted as an extremely valuable evidence in a criminal Trial. "
23. In the case of Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355 this Court summed up the principles which are to be kept in mind when appreciating the evidence of an injured eye-witness. This court held as follows:
"26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
21. In the case of Rakshpal and Another vs. State of U.P. 2025 (2) ADJ 462 (DB), it was observed in paragraph no.24 as under: -
"24. In a recent judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeraj Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) 3 SCC 125 in respect of importance of injured witness in a criminal trial, the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in paragraphs 22 and 23, held as under:
"22. The importance of injured witness in a criminal trial cannot be over stated. Unless there are compelling circumstances or evidence placed by the defence to doubt such a witness, this has to be accepted as an extremely valuable evidence in a criminal Trial.
23. In the case of Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355 this Court summed up the principles which are to be kept in mind when appreciating the evidence of an injured eye-witness. This court held as follows:
"26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
(Emphasis supplied)
22. As per the first information report lodged by P.W. 2 a description has been made regarding enmity between the appellant Krishna Kumar since deceased and the informant side and it is alleged that his brother-in-law Ashok Kumar was murdered by co-accused Krishna Kumar with the help of Arjun Singh and Amar Singh.
23. P.W. 2 Srichand, the informant in his cross examination has admitted that he and his deceased brother Harishchandra have been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Amar Singh, the brother of appellant Krishna Kumar since deceased.
24. From the above it is evident that the accused Krishna Kumar and the informant Shrichand were highly inimical towards each other however there is no allegation that the appellant Ram Abhilash was ever involved in any of the cases. The appellant Ram Abhilash is said to be maternal cousin of appellant Krishna Kumar (since deceased). The appellant Ram Abhilash has stated in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. that he has been implicated in the case only due to the fact that he had made efforts in arranging police guard for the security of Krishna Kumar whose brother Amar Singh had been murdered and informant Srichand was having enmity with him on account of this.
25. P.W. 2 Shrichand and P.W. 3 Seva Lal, all the eye witness have stated in their testimonies that the appellant Ram Abhilash was armed with gun and he stood pointing the gun towards them and prevented them from catching the co-accused Krishna Kumar and Paras Nath. In other words, all the witness have stated the appellant was armed with a gun and has facilitated the co-accused Krishna Kumar and Parash Nath in escaping from the scene after committing the offence.
26. P.W. 1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have given detailed account mainly relating to the act committed by co-accused Krishna Kumar and Paras Nath since deceased. We are not concerned with those portions of testimonies of P.W. 1, 2 and 3.
27. P.W. 4 K.P. Srivastava has conducted post mortem of the deceased Balwant Singh and has found following injuries:-
A. 1-1/2 x1x cavity deep over left side of chest, 5" below the medial cut of clavicle (left) just lateral to stemum. Charring, blackening and scorching present.
B. 1"x1"x cavity deep, 1"lateral and just below injury no. 1. Injuries nos. 1 and 2 are wounds of entry.
C. 2"x 2-1/2 x cavity deep, 1/2" lateral to injury no. 2 which is wound of exit.
D. Multiple fire arm wounds in the area of 3" to 2-1/2 over front of left arm, 2-1/2" above the left elbow joint. It is wound of entry. Individual size of pellets 1/8"-1/2". All the injuries are caused by fire arms.
Internal examinations:-
Fourth to seventh left side ribs over anterior aspect were fractured. Plaura left side punctured and conjested left lung lacerated and conjested. Pericordium lacerated heart lacerated and empty about 300 c.c. altered blood was found in the thought cavity.
Abdominal examination stomach, Semi digested food found bladder empty small intenstine ½ full, large intestine ½ full. Gall bladder empty urinary bladder empty. Caused of death.
28. P.W. 4 K.P. Srivastava has conducted post mortem of the deceased Harishchandra and has found following injuries:-
A. 1"x 1" x cavity deep over left side of front of chest 1-1/2" below the medial 1/3 of left clacicle lung bulging wound of entry caused by fire arm. Medium sized 10 pallets and a piece of wadding were recovered from the wound and were sent to SSP. Allahabad in a sealed envelop through CMO, Allahabad.
Internal Examination:-
Seemed left rib fractured punctured and congested right lung conjusted, left lung congested and lacerated pericaratium lacerated. Heart lacerated. Major lacerated. Chist cavity full of blood about 600 C.C. blood found.
Stomach:- Semi-digested food present. Small intestine of half full. Large intestine half full. Gall bladder empty. Urinary bladder empty.
29. In the opinion of doctor the cause of death were shock and haemorrhage and excessive bleeding on account of ante-mortem injuries and the time of death of the deceased was possible on 3:30 A.M. on 2.6.1982.
30. P.W. 5 is Constable Kashi Nath who has taken the dead body of Harischandra and Balwant Singh for getting the post mortem done.
31. P.W. 6 is formal witness who has proved injuries whereas P.W. 7 Amar Nath Singh is the investigating officer of the case.
32. From the evidence available on the record, the prosecution has not alleged any motive on the appellant Ram Abhilash for the commission of the offence. As stated above Srichand P.W.2, the informant is life convict for the murder of one Amar Singh, the brother of co-accused Krishana Kumar whose testimony is tainted and since the appellant Ram Abhilash was instrumental in getting security of the said Krishna Kumar he has been falsely implicated as stated by him in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant was not related to Ram Sajevan Patel whose daughter was married on 1.6.1982 and incident took place soon after the marriage.
33. The defence taken by the appellant raises doubt on the prosecution story. Moreover, the appellant is maternal cousin of co-accused Krishna Kumar and he was having no direct enmity with the informant side. There was no occasion for him to accompany the other co-accused person, namely, Krishna Kumar and Paras Nath to the place of occurrence and facilitate them in the commission of the crime and fleeing away. If he had any motive on his part, he would have definitely opened fire on the deceased or other persons of the informant side since he was alleged to have gun in his hand.
34. Apart from above, nothing has been recovered from the possession of the appellant on his pointing out.
35. In view of the above, we find that the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence at the time of commission of offence is highly unnatural and doubtful. We also find that since the prosecution has failed to prove motive on the part of appellant Ram Abhilash and since the informant P.W. 2 was inimical towards him as already discussed, the false implication of the appellant/accused is not ruled out and the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
36. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and the conviction of appellant Ram Abhilash under section under section 302 read with 34 IPC is liable to be set aside and appeal is liable to be allowed.
37. Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court in Session Trial No. 321 of 1982 in respect of surviving appellant Ram Abhilash is hereby set aside.
38. As appellant is already on bail. He need not to surrender and sureties are discharge forthwith.
39. Let a copy of this order be communicated by the Registrar (Compliance) to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for compliance within a week.
40. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad is also directed to send his compliance report within two months to this Court.
41. Lower court record be sent to the concerned Court forthwith.
Order Date :- 13.08.2025
SY/Virendra
