Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Om Pal & Ors – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. (Now State Of Uttarakhand) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1624 of 2011 With Criminal Appeal Nos.1613-1614 of 2011
Decided on : 28-10-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 307 [Section 103 read with Sections 190 and 109 of BNS] – Murder and attempt to murder – Common object of unlawful assembly – Life imprisonment – Parties are close relatives – There was long-standing dispute between rival parties due to pending land boundary dispute – Appellants had been aggressor – Nature of injuries as well as evidence available on record itself proved that injuries had been knowingly and intentionally inflicted with due, proper and sufficient motive and object, in order to inflict fatal injuries on head of both deceased persons resulting in their death – Present case is not the one based on circumstantial evidence, but is based on ocular evidence – Ocular evidence is the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it – Injured eyewitness enjoys presumption of truth and same is supported by medical evidence – Fact of a prior enmity on account of boundary dispute clearly establishes motive for commission of offence – Non-recovery of weapons cannot be considered fatal to case of prosecution if there is consistent medical and ocular evidence – Injuries were intentionally inflicted – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 26, 29, 33, 39, 43, 45, 49 and 52)
(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Testimony of an injured eyewitness is accorded special status in law – Testimony of an injured eyewitness has its own relevancy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during occurrence – Testimony of injured eyewitness should be generally given due importance unless there are glaring contradictions – Injury to witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime – Deposition by injured eyewitness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Paras 35 and 37)
(C) Criminal Law – Motive – Evidentiary value – Motive although is a relevant factor in all criminal cases, it, however, is not a sine qua non for establishing guilt of accused persons – Motive even in a case which rests on an eyewitness account, lends strength to prosecution’s case and fortify Court in its ultimate conclusion – Fact of motive has to be seen in light of other cogent evidence available. (Para 42)
Facts of the case:
In present set of appeals is directed against the common judgment and order dated 29.11.2010 whereby the High Court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the appellants against their conviction under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Appellants shall surrender to custody forthwith and it will be the duty of the Trial Court to see that they are taken into custody. The bail bonds stand cancelled accordingly.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. The present set of Appeals is directed against the common judgment and order dated 29.11.2010 whereby the High Court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the appellants against their conviction under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 [“IPC”].
2. In the present set of Appeals, Criminal Appeal No.1624 of 2011 is filed by appellants – Om Pal, Narendra and Ranvir; Criminal Appeal No.1613 of 2011 is filed by Dharamvir; and Criminal Appeal No.1614 of 2011 was filed by Inchha Ram, who has passed away during the pendency of the present Appeals. Therefore, Criminal Appeal No.1614 of 2011 preferred by Inchha Ram stands abated and the same is, accordingly, dismissed as such.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
3. In the present case, two sets of First Information Reports2 [“FIR”] were lodged with regard to the same incident which took place on 19.05.1988.
THE FIRST FIR
4. FIR No.65 dated 20.05.1988 was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of the IPC from the side of the appellants stating that one Molhar along with his brother Kantu and his sons, Narendra, Om Pal, Inchha, Ranvir and Pardeep were cutting sugar cane and at the same time, Dile Ram, Ved Pal, Bengal Singh, Sher Singh entered the field of the appellants along with lathis, tabals and axes and started attacking the appellants. There was a fight that ensued and, in the process, Kantu, Narendra, lnchha received several injuries.
THE SECOND FIR
5. FIR No. 65A/1988 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324 and 506 of the IPC was lodged by the opposite/complainant side on 23.05.1988 that Molhar and Dharamvir Singh damaged their boundary of the field on 19.05.1988 and, thereafter, the appellants started beating Dile Ram with lathis, tabals, axes, phawara due to which Dile Ram, Braham Singh and Bangal Singh received serious injuries, both were taken to hospital where Dile Ram succumbed to the injuries on 24.5.1988 and Braham Singh expired on 31.5.1988.
6. Taking into account the two sets of FIR, FIR No.65 gave rise to Session Trial No.57 of 1992 and FIR No. 65A emanated into Session Trial No.56 of 1992.
7. In Session Trial No.56 of 1992, out of which the present Appeals have arisen, all the seven accused persons were found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. Each of them were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of ?10,000/- under Section 302/149 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of ?10,000/- under Section 307/149 IPC. Additionally, the accused persons were individually sentenced to the following:
| Appellant | Offence | Sentence |
| Molhar | Section 147 IPC | R.I. for 2 years |
| Kantu | Section 147 IPC | R.I. for 2 years |
| Om Pal | Section 147 IPC | R.I. for 2 years |
| Narendra | Section 147 IPC | R.I. for 2 years |
| Ranvir | Section 147 IPC | R.I. for 2 years |
| Inchha Ram | Section 148 IPC | R.I. for 2 years |
| Dharamvir | Section 148 IPC | R.I. for 2 years |
8. On the other hand, in Sessions Trial No.57 of 1992, which emanated from FIR No. 65A lodged by the appellants, all the accused persons were acquitted.
9. Aggrieved by the judgment in Session Trial No.56 of 1992 convicting the appellants, three separate appeals were preferred — Criminal Appeal No.1516 of 2001 by Molhar and Dharamvir, Criminal Appeal No.921 of 2001 by Kantu and Criminal Appeal No.922 of 2001 by Om Pal, Narendra, Inchha Ram and Ranvir before the Allahabad High Court.
10. Aggrieved by the judgment in Session Trial No.57 of 1992, Criminal Revision No.321 of 2001 was filed by Molhar Singh before the Allahabad High Court.
11. All the three criminal appeals and the criminal revision were transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 after the formation of the Stat
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
