Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 2193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, JJ
Attar Singh And Others – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1846 of 1983
Decided on : 16-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.N. Mishra, A.N. Mulla, I.K. Chaturvedi, R.R. Singh, Saurabh Chaturvedi
For the Respondent: D.G.A. Satish Kumar Tyagi

The court upheld the conviction of the surviving appellants based on reliable ocular evidence from injured witnesses, emphasizing the special status of such testimony in criminal cases.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, and 307 - Criminal appeal against conviction for murder and rioting - Conviction upheld for surviving appellants based on direct ocular evidence from injured witnesses - Prosecution's case found credible despite defense claims of false implication and lack of motive - Evidence indicated deceased was involved in theft, justifying defense actions - Acquittal of some accused based on age does not affect others' convictions. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 12, 49)

(B) Evidence - Ocular evidence - Testimony of injured witnesses given special status and reliability - Minor discrepancies in testimony do not undermine core prosecution case - Direct evidence from multiple eyewitnesses corroborated by medical evidence. (Paras 32, 46)

(C) Right to private defense - Recognized when confronted with imminent danger - Prosecution's claim of motive unestablished; defense actions deemed reasonable under circumstances. (Paras 6, 11, 46)

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and conviction details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. summary of the prosecution's case and evidence presented. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments presented by the defense counsel. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. court's observations on the prosecution's evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. legal principles regarding testimony and evidence. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
6. importance of injured witnesses in criminal trials. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
7. analysis of witness testimonies and evidence. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
8. court's evaluation of the prosecution's case. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
9. final judgement and reasoning. (Para 47 , 48)
10. conclusion and order. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)

(Per: Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

1. Heard Shri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Aditya Prakash alongwith Shri Saurabh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the surviving appellants, Shri Satish Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the informant, Shri O.P. Dwivedi, learned AGA-I for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. Present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 02.08.1983, passed by Ist. Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in S.T. No. 73 of 1982 (State Vs. Attar Singh and Others) convicting and sentencing appellant Boondi and Khajan Singh to 18 months R.I. under section 148 of I.P.C. and sentencing the remaining appellant namely; Attar Singh, Bani Singh, Om Prakash, Nathu Singh son of Afimi, Harphool, Tej Ram, Tota Ram Chhattar, Buddha, Omi, Nathu son of Khacheru, Sarni, to one years R.I. under section 147 of Indian Penal Code and further sentencing all the appellants to life imprisonment under section 302 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C. further sentencing all the appellants to undergo 5 years R.I. on each count under section 307 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C. and further sentencing all the appellants to 6 month R.I. under section 323 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C. The sentences on all the counts shall run concurrently.

3. Vide order dated 20.04.2012 the appeal stood abated in respect of appellant no.10-Boondi son of Harpal Singh and Appellant no.11-Harphool son of Chhajju; vide order dated 21.08.2017 the appeal stood abated in respect of appellant no.1-Attar Singh son of Johri Singh, appellant no.5- Nathu son of Khacheru, appellant no.6-Buddha son of Murari; vide order dated 09.09.2021 the appeal stood abated in respect of appellant no.4-Nathu son of Afimi, appellant no.8-Omi son of Sukhan, appellant no.14-Khazan son of Chhaju Singh; and vide order dated 03.04.2025 the appeal stood abated in respect of appellant no.12-Tej Ram son Phartey. Now the appeal is surviving only in respect of appellant no.2- Bani Singh son of Johari Singh, appellant no.3-Om Prakash son of Johari Singh, appellant no.7-Chittar son of Murari, appellant no.9-Serni son of Manglu, appellant no.13-Tota Ram son of Pratap Singh.

4. The prosecution story in brief is that accused Harphool and Nathu happened to be relatives of the first informant Brahmjeet. They had some dispute with Fagna, father of the first informant, for passage (Rasta) on account of which relations between them were strained. On 28.10.1981 at 8.00 PM informant- Brahmjeet, and his father Fagna and witnesses Ram Singh, son of Sukkhan, Chaman Lal, Dal Chand, sons of Hari Singh were sitting at the platform (Chabutara) of Fagna. When they were talking about the distribution potato, Atar Singh, Bani Singh, Om Prakash, Jai Singh, Nathu son of Afimi, Harphool, Tej Ram, Tota, Phool Singh, Boondi, Chhattar, Budha, Omi, Nathu son of Khacheru, Sarni, Khajan, Dharampal and Johari armed with lathis and ballam reached there and exhorted that they would see who stop them from passing through the passage and began to assault them with lathis and ballam. The father of the complainant- Fagna also wielded lathi in his self-defence whereupon the miscreants named above, surr