Allahabad High Court
Raj Kumar @ Babli And Others 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:138001-DB Reserved On:- 8.5.2025 Delivered On:-13.08.2025 In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1217 of 1984 Appellant :- Raj Kumar @ Babli And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Maithali Sharan Pipersenia,Satish Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- D.G.A. with Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1493 of 1984 Appellant :- Hari Pratap Sharma And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Satish Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon’ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.
(Per: Hon’ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.)
1. Heard Shri Maithali Sharan Pipersenia, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Shri Rahul Asthana, learned AGA for the State. No one is appearing in the connected appeals, therefore, we appoint Shri Maithali Sharan Pipersenia, as Amicus Curiae in the connected appeal as well and have heard the connected appeal as well.
2. The appellants Raj Kumar @ Babli, Smt. Sabita and Neeru have challenged their conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 6 Bareilly by judgement dated 23.4.1984 passed in Session Trial No. 85 of 1982 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1217 of 1984. The appellants have been convicted under section 302 r/w 149 IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life. Further they have also been convicted under section 307 r/w 149 IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment. The above appellants have been convicted under section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment each and all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
3. In connected criminal appeal No. 1493 of 1984 appellants Hari Pratap Sharma and Rajendra @ Munna have challenged their conviction under section 302 r/w 34 IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life. Further the above named appellants have been convicted under section 307 r/w 149 IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment each. Further they have been convicted under section 148 IPC and they have been sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment each and all the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
4. The prosecution story in brief is that the informant Pratap Singh son of Bachchu Singh resident of village Karmpur Thakuran, P.S. Bhojipura Hal, Bareilly has given the written report dated 1.11.1984 to Ijjatnagar police station stating therein that he along with his mother, father and brother used to reside in the quarter of Kattha factory. On the same day, at about 5 P.M., his brother Mahesh and Prem were assaulted by Rajendra @Munna and Babli @ Raj Kumar. At about 8 P.M. his father Bachchu Singh had gone to complaint about the said incident to their father Hari Pratap Sharma. Soon a verbal quarrel took place between his father and Hari Pratap Sharma and at this stage Rajendra @Munna and Babli @ Raj Kumar son of Hari Pratap who resided with their father in same Kattha factory armed with knife dragged his father in the quarter of Nand Kishor Agrawal where Raj Kumar @ Babli, Savita and Neeru caught hold of his father and Hari Pratap and Rajendra @ Munna inflicted stab blows to him. When the informant reached to save his father, he was also given a stab blow on his person and on hearing noise, his mother Premwati and his brother-in-law (bahnoi) Ahivaran Singh, Nand Kishore and his daughter Sushma and many other people reached there and saw the incident and they tried to save them.
5. Informant and his father received grievous injuries and his Bahnoi (brother-in-law) Ahivaran Singh took them in the jeep of the factory driven by one Lakshmi Ram driver to the government hospital. While being taking to the government hospital, the father of the informant succumbed to his injuries whereas the informant was medically examined and he was admitted for treatment. The informant has stated that since the injuries were grievous and serious therefore instead of going to police station, he went to the hospital and got a report written by his brother-in-law Ahivaran Singh.
6. On the basis of the above written report, a case was registered against five persons namely Raj Kumar @ Babli, Smt. Sabita and Neeru, Hari Pratap Sharma and Rajendra @ Munna. The investigation was conducted and after the conclusion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted by the investigating officer.
7. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of session for trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly framed charge against the appellants Hari Pratap Sharma and Rajendra @ Munna under sections 148, 302 read with 149 IPC and 307 read with 149 IPC. The appellants/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Similarly learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against Raj Kumar @ Babli, Smt. Sabita and Neeru under section 147 IPC 302 r/w 149 and 307/149 IPC on the same date. The above named appellants/accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. The prosecution, in order to bring home the charges against the appellants, produced 9 witnesses i.e. P.W.1 Ahibaran Singh, P.W. 2 Sushma Devi, P.W. 3 Pratap Singh, P.W. 4 Dr. B.K. Endley, P.W. 5 Santosh Kumar Sharma, P.W.6 Ghanshyam Pandey, P.W. 7 Dr. S.K. Saxena, P.W. 8 Dr. C.P. Srivastava and P.W. 9 Chote Khan.
8. The prosecution has also proved documentary evidence, as written report- Ext. Ka 1, recovery memo of blood stained shirt- Ex.Ka2, recovery memo of blood stained and plain brick- Ex Ka. 3, recovery memo of Cap, Shoes and Slippers- Ex. Ka 4, recovery memo of blood stained knife- Ex. Ka 5, recovery memo of blood stained Cloth- Ex.Ka 6, P.M. report- Ex. Ka 9, Site plan with index- Ex. Ka.11,Panchayatnama- Ex. Ka 17, injury report- Ex.Ka25, Ex. Ka 27, Ex. Ka 28 and report of chemical examiner- Ex.Ka 29.
9. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied their involvement and stated that the witnesses had deposed against them due to enmity and being relatives of the informant. The defence has also produced four defence witnesses, namely, Dr. A.N. Singh D.W.1, Lacchi Ram D.W.2, J.K. Bahdia D.W.3 and Khangari Lal D.W.4.
10. Learned trial court after hearing the prosecution and defence passed the judgement impugned and convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused as stated above. The appellants in both the appeals have taken the ground that the judgement of conviction and order of sentence impugned is against the weight of the evidence and contrary to law and sentence passed is too severe.
11. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants submitted that the judgement of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned trial court is bad in the eye of law and learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence available on the record in the right perspective.
12. He further submitted that there is no motive for commission of offence and the incident took place on the sudden provocation. He further submitted that the first information report has been lodged too promptly which casts doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution story and that the first information report is ante time. He further submitted that scribe of the first information report is not the injured person. Learned counsel further submitted that all the witnesses are interested and related witnesses and no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution before the court. He further submitted that prosecution has failed to satisfactorily explain the injuries on the person of the accused which casts doubt on the prosecution version. He further submitted that the possibility of accused acting in self defence cannot be ruled out. They have received injuries on their person and it is quite possible that informant side first attacked and the appellants acted in their self defence.
13. Learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that as per prosecution version the deceased was dragged into the quarter of Nand Kishore Agrawal which is not worth believable as to why the accused persons would drag the deceased to the house of a third person and the said Nand Kishore Agrawal has not been produced as a witness though he has been named as an eye witness in the first information report. Non production of such an important independent witness is fatal to the prosecution case.
14. Learned Amicus Curie for the appellants draws attention towards the statement of D.W. 1 Dr. A.N. Singh in which he has stated that at the time of incident appellant/accused Hari Pratap Sharma was on duty which raises doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case.
15. Learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that the even if the prosecution case is taken to be true and proved, the case does not fall under section 302 IPC. He further submitted that case at best falls under section 304 part II as the incident took place at the spur of the moment and without any intention.
16. On the other hand, learned AGA has supported the judgment of the learned trial court and has submitted that P.W. 3 is the injured witness and there are two other eye witness and they were present at the place of occurrence and the first information report is prompt. He further submitted that weapons of the offence have been recovered and the motive for commission of the crime was immediately prior to the incident the accused persons had assaulted the son of the deceased.
17. Learned AGA further submitted that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove the case against the appellants beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and no interference is called for by this court in appeal.
18. 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.”
19. 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.”
20. 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)
21. P.W. 1 Ahivaran is scribe of the first information report. This witness has stated in his examination-in-chief that the incident took place at about 7:30 to 8 P.M. and he reached at the place of occurrence on hearing hue and cry being raised by his brother-in-law Pratap Singh. This witness has stated when he reached at the place of occurrence he saw the accused Hari Pratap Sharma, Raj Kumar, Rajendra Kumar, Neeru and Sabita were present in the courtyard of Nand Kishore Agrawal. He saw the accused Hari Pratap Sharma and Rajendra Kumar were armed with knife and they were giving stab blow to Bachchu Singh and other three accused, namely, Neeru, Sabita and Raj Kumar had caught hold of his father-in-law Bachchu Singh and his brother-in-law P.W.3 Pratap Singh was in kneeled down position and tried to save his father. This witness has further stated that Nand Kishore, his daughter Sushma and his wife were present in their house and they saw the incident. He has further stated that blood was spilled in the courtyard of the house and cloths of the accused persons were also soaked with blood. This witness has further stated that Hari Pratap Sharma was bearing pant, shirt and cap which was dress prescribed for the workers of the factory and Neeru was bearing Salvar, Suit and Sabita was bearing dhoti. He has further stated that the blood was spilled on the pant of Hari Pratap Sharma and on the cloth of Neeru and Sabita. This witness has given a vivid account of the incident. In cross examination, this witness has stated that he had gone to his ‘sasural’ the house of deceased Bachchu Singh for eating a feast. He further stated that he used to visit ‘sasural’ often. This witness has proved the first information report that he wrote the same on the dictation of P.W. 3 Pratap Singh. This witness has proved Exhibit Ka 1 to Ext Ka 6.
22. In cross examination this witness has further stated that he entered the courtyard of Nand Kishore Agrawal through the main gate. When Pratap Singh received stab injuries he was present there. He did not try to save his father-in-law and none of the accused persons attacked him. Pratap Singh was trying to save his father by kneeling down and while doing so he has received injuries from behind.
23. Similarly, P.W. 2 Sushma, the daughter of Nand Kishore Agrawal in whose quarter the incident is said to have taken place, has supported the prosecution case and has given vivid account of the incident. In cross examination, this witness has stated that Sabita, Neeru had caught hold of the hands of Bachchu Singh whereas Raj Kumar had caught hold of his legs. This witness further stated that the incident of fight with knife took place before Ahivaran Singh and Pratap Singh reached there.
24. P.W. 3 Pratap Singh, the son of the deceased is an injured witness. This witness has supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief. He stated that when his father had gone to complaint to the accused Hari Pratap he heard a noise and came out then he saw Hari Pratap, Raj Kumar and Sabita were dragging his father to the quarter of Nand Kishore Agrwal. He also followed his father and reached the house of Nand Kishore Agrawal where he saw Hari Pratap and Rajendra were giving stab blows to his father and rest of the accused persons were catching hold of him. Nand Kishore was also present there and soon his daughter Sushma reached there and on hearing her cry Ahibaran and his mother (mother of the witness) also reached there. This witness has stated that the accused persons left the place of occurrence after stabbing his father and him and there were stab injuries on the person of his father and the electric bulb was lighted in the house of Nand Kishor Agrawal. This witness further stated that when his father reached hospital, the doctor declared him dead and he was admitted to the hospital for treatment. He dictated the first information report to Ahivaran P.W. 1 and P.W. 1 wrote whatever he stated to him. This witness has been consistent in his cross examination as well and the defence has not been able to extract any material contradictions in his cross examination. This witness has stated in his cross examination that his father was lifted by Ahibaran and Lacchi Ram and both of them took him to jeep and Ahivaran accompanied him to the hospital. Doctor came to the vehicle where he declared his father dead and dead body of his father was brought down from the jeep and this witness was medically examined at about 9 to 9:50 P.M. This witness has denied the suggestion that Hari Pratap was seen by him while coming from his quarter before the house of Nand Kishore and this witness has also denied the suggestion that he and his father had attacked Hari Pratap and Hari Pratap went towards his house by screaming. The first information report is prompt and P.W. 3 Pratap Singh, the injured witness is wholly reliable.
25. Though there are some minor discrepancies in the statement of P.W. 1 Ahibaran Singh and P.W. 2 Sushma but those are not material and they are eye witnesses and they have seen the occurrence.
26. The medical evidence of P.W. 4 Dr. B. K. Endley who conducted the postmortem of the deceased shows the following injuries on the person of the deceased, Bachchu Singh:-
1. Incised wound 1.1/2 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm on the right side face at a distance of 3 cm from the right angle of mouth.
2. Incised wound was 2.1/2 cm x 1.1/2 cm deep in the cavity on the left side of the chest and upper side. 3 cm below the left rib bone, 8 cm above the left bile and below that the second rib was cut. The left lung and heard were also cut.
3. Incised wound 3 cm x 1cm x 3 cm deep on the left side of abdomen, 4 cm below the edge of rib on left side and 3 cm from the middle line. There was a horizontal cut downwards in the left lobe of the liver.
4. Incised wound 2 cm x ½ cm deep to flesh on left side of abdomen tending 3 to 5 cm from the chest.
5. Incised wound 2 cm x ½ cm deep upto flesh in left side of womb. It was horizontal , 2 cm below the armpit.
6. Abrasion 2 cm 4 cm on the right knee in front.
7. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on the front side of left knee.
27. Similarly P.W. 7 Dr. S.K Saxena who medicolegally examined P.W. 3 Pratap Singh found following injuries:-
1. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1.2 cm x depth not probed of left side of back of chest 1.5 cm lateral to spine just medial to the bone of left scapula put under observation x-ray advised.
2. Incised wound 2.2 cm x 1.2 cm x muscle deep on edge side back of chest over scapula 5 cm lateral to injury no. 1.
In the opinion of doctor both the injuries were caused by sharp aged weapon.
28. P.W. 5 is investigating officer of the case and he has given a detailed description regarding the investigation conducted by him and has proved various prosecution papers and he has also sent the blood strained cloths of accused for chemical examination. This witness has further stated that he referred the accused Neeru for medicolegal examination as he saw injuries on her person and PW 8 Dr. C.P. Sharma has medicolegally examined accused Neeru and has found following injuries on her person:-
1. Contusion 5 cm x 1 cm red in colour on upper outer part of right elbow.
She complained of headache but there was no visible injury.
29. Similarly this witness has also medicolegally examined the accused Hari Pratap and has found following injuries:-
1. Incised wound measuring 2 cm x 0.3 cm in skin on upper part of thumb side of left palm.
2. Wound ½ cm x ¼ cm on the palmer side between the thumb and the finger of the right hand, complaint of pain on the left shoulder, there was no visible injury. and no other external injury was found on his person.
30. In the opinion of this witness, the injuries of accused Neeru could have been caused by the elbow being hit during scuffle and injuries of Hari Pratap could have been caused by slip of knife while giving stab blow to someone. This witness has further stated that the injury no. 2 of Hari Pratap are superficial and self suffered.
31. P.W. 9 is the formal witness who took the dead body of deceased Bachchu Singh for postmortem after getting the same sealed.
32. The defence has also produced four witnesses which are as under:-
A. D.W. 1 Dr. A.N. Singh has stated in his examination-in-chief that when he reached the factory he saw the accused Hari Pratap was on duty and near about 8:15, 8:30 and 8:45 P.M., he went to the factory and he saw the accused Hari Pratap was on duty at the gate of the factory and Hari Pratap had suffered some injuries in hand but injuries were not serious in nature.
B. Similarly D.W. 2 Lacchi Ram, the driver has stated that he was employed as a mechanic in the factory and usually he does not drive the vehicle but in emergency he can drive vehicle. On 1.11.1981, he had taken Bachchu Singh on the order of Dr. A.N. Singh to the hospital and he saw Sardar Singh Rathore, the then Security Officer there but he did not see Hari Pratap, the accused herein. He has further stated that he does not know who was the Chaukidar on duty. He did not go to the house of Bachchu Singh and he was sitting on the steering.
C. Similarly, D.W. 3 J.K. Bahdia has stated some complaint had been received against Bachchu Singh and he had brought his personal file in which several complaints were registered against him. This witness further stated that on 1.11.1981 he was out of the factory.
D. Similarly, D.W. 4 Khangari Lal has stated that he was Guard in the factory and he was on duty on 1.11.1981 and on that day he was summoned by Security Officer Sardar Singh Rathore who told him that Hari Pratap Sharma, the group leader was going to police station and you do duty in his place.
33. From the evidence available on record, P.W.3 is injured witness and he is wholly reliable and it is well settled that statement of injured witness stands on higher pedestal than any other witness. Similarly P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are also eye witnesses who are also worth believable despite some minor discrepancies in their statements. Their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.4 Dr. B.K. Endley and P.W.7 Dr. S.K. Saxena.
34. So far as argument of learned Amicus Curiae that the injuries on the person of the accused Neeru and Hari Pratap have not been explained by the prosecution, it is evident that P.W. 8 who medicologically examined above named accused persons has clearly stated that the injury sustained by Neeru could have been caused due to hit on the surface in a scuffle whereas the incised wound of Hari Pratap could have been caused due to slip of knife while stabbing someone else and the other injuries of Hari Pratap are superficial and self suffered, therefore, the injuries caused on the accused have properly been explained by the prosecution.
35. The motive of the offence has been proved by the witness P.W. 3 that his father had gone to complaint to Hari Pratap regarding earlier incident which had taken place in which his brothers were assaulted by the sons of Hari Pratap.
36. It is well settled that in the case of direct evidence motive is not of much significant and over all testimonies of defence witnesses have not been able to raise any doubt that the offence was not committed by the accused persons.
37. On overall appreciation of the evidence available on record we find that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt before the learned trial court. We also find that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and has returned the legally sound finding and also the judgment of learned trial court is well discussed and well reasoned
38. In view of the above, both the appeals are devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed .
39. The Criminal Appeal No. 1217 of 1984 (Raj Kumar @ Babli and Others vs. State of U.P.) and Criminal Appeal No. 1493 of 1984 ( Hari Pratap Sharma And Another vs. State of U.P.), are accordingly dismissed.
40. Let a copy of this order be communicated by the Registrar (Compliance) to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for compliance within a week.
41. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly is also directed to send his compliance report within two months to this Court.
42. Lower court record be sent to the concerned Court forthwith.
43. Registrar General of this Court is also directed to pay an honorarium of Rs. 15,000/- for each appeal to Sri Maithali Sharan Pipersenia, learned Amicus Curiae for rendering effective assistance in the matter.
Order Date :-13.08.2025
SY/Virendra