Back
Shot in the Dark: Allahabad HC Stands by Wife's Testimony, Upholds Husband's Attempted Murder Conviction After 41 Years
In a striking reaffirmation of the power of an injured victim's testimony, the has dismissed a 1985 criminal appeal, upholding the conviction of Rameshwar Dayal under (attempt to murder). Justice Abdul Shahid, in a detailed 16-page order delivered on , termed the wife, Vimla Devi, a " " whose account left no room for doubt. The court cancelled the appellant's bail, directing him to surrender within 15 days to serve the remaining portion of his seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence—a case originating from a midnight shooting in 1983.
A Midnight Betrayal in Mainpuri Village
The saga began on , in a village under , Mainpuri district. Rameshwar Dayal, then around 20 years old, filed an FIR claiming 3-4 unknown miscreants scaled a ladder to their rooftop home, shot his 18-year-old wife Vimla Devi, and fled without looting anything. Vimla suffered severe firearm wounds: two entry wounds on her left leg (one fracturing the bone), an exit wound, and lacerations on her palm and finger, as detailed in the initial medical report (Ext. Ka-2).
But the investigation took a sharp turn. At S.N. Medical College, Agra, Investigating Officer Ramji Lal Sharma recorded Vimla's statement on : her husband, enraged over unmet dowry demands for a motorcycle, had tricked her into believing intruders were at the door, then fired three shots—two into her leg from behind and one into her hand. She alleged years of maltreatment, beatings, drunkenness, and illicit relations, aimed at eliminating her for a second marriage. The IO converted the case from (house-trespass) to , filing a chargesheet against Rameshwar alone.
The trial court convicted him in , sentencing him to seven years' RI and a Rs. 500 fine. Bail was granted the same day, and the appeal lingered for decades.
Defense Fires Back: Miscreants, Not Motive
Appellant's counsel, led by , argued the prosecution hinged solely on Vimla's testimony—no independent witnesses, no gun recovery, no forensic link. They highlighted inconsistencies: Vimla claimed shots from behind (facing west, shooter east), yet identified her husband; injuries were non-fatal, not on vital parts, meriting downgrade to (voluntarily causing hurt). The initial FIR by Rameshwar, village rumors dismissed, and a broken ladder undermining the intruder story were cited. Citing Sivamani v. State (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1581), they urged sentence reduction to time served, noting no dowry genesis or criminal history.
Prosecution's Bulletproof Case: Wife Knows Best
The AGA countered that Vimla, as wife and injured, was a incapable of misidentifying her abuser. Quality trumps quantity in witnesses ( ). Circumstances sealed it: no hospital visit by Rameshwar, Vimla's leg rendered ineffective (she walks with a stick), permanent separation from the matrimonial home, family pressure for dowry. Hostile witnesses like Nanhi Devi (devarani) and defense alibi witnesses (brother Lajja Ram, villager Babu Ram) contradicted on ladder use and intruder escape, while the IO noted the ladder's broken steps made intrusion implausible.
Why the Court Pulled No Triggers on Doubt
Justice Shahid meticulously sifted the evidence, prioritizing of the injured over medical discrepancies ( Mallapa Siddappa Alakanur v. State of Karnataka , 2009). Non-recovery of the gun or ballistics wasn't fatal ( Vineet Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P. , 2008 SC). Motive—dowry motorcycle demand, cruelty, infidelity—was immaterial in direct evidence cases ( Arjun Malik v. State of Bihar , 1994 SC). Vimla's credibility shone: no false implication likely from a spouse ( Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. , 2010 SC). Shoddy probe elements couldn't benefit the accused ( Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana , 2009 SC). The court rejected intruder theory—no loot, improbable ladder, uncorroborated defense.
As noted in contemporaneous reporting by the bench emphasized the "strange" pre-incident relations and husband's temperament, integrating Vimla's unyielding stance.
Key Observations
"The injured is the real wife of the accused-appellant. There is no question of mis-identification by the wife about her husband. The incident was occurred during mid night within the house."
"She is the injured witness, who has vehemently supported the prosecution story and specifically given evidence against her own husband. She is injured and best reliable evidence in this case. Her evidence is absolutely trust worthy."
"It is settled law that it is quality of witness is the matter and not the quantity."
Justice Served Cold: Surrender or Arrest
The appeal was dismissed, conviction affirmed.
"The criminal appeal stands dismissed,"
ruled Justice Shahid, cancelling bail and ordering surrender by
, or arrest by the
. Now around 60, Rameshwar faces the remnants of a 1980s sentence amid evolving jurisprudence on witness reliability. This ruling reinforces that an injured eyewitness—especially a spouse—carries "built-in guarantee" of truth, potentially guiding future domestic violence prosecutions where physical evidence lags.
