SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 2204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD 
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, JJ. 
Tunku Singh And Another – Appellant 
versus
D.G.A., Gautam Chaudhary, Harish Chandra Yadav, Pawan Kumar, Sarvanand Pandey – Respondent  
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2625 of 1982 
Decided on : 14-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Amit Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondent: D.G.A., Gautam Chaudhary, Harish Chandra Yadav, Pawan Kumar, Sarvanand Pandey

The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; reliance on testimonies from interested witnesses without corroboration can undermine a conviction.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34 - Criminal trial - Conviction of appellants under section 302/34 IPC was challenged. The factual backdrop involves a murder allegedly motivated by property disputes. The court emphasized the duty of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting deficiencies in eyewitness corroboration and reliance on chance witnesses. The principles of scrutinizing the testimonies of interested witnesses were applied. (Paras 24, 30, 31)

Facts of the case:
The incident occurred on 12th May 1981, resulting in the death of Ram Saran Singh. The complainant, Bachan Singh, lodged an FIR on the same day, alleging that Tunku Singh and Bachau Singh shot the deceased due to a property dispute. The FIR described the presence of eyewitnesses who fled due to fear of the assailants. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to present crucial evidence from the main eyewitness, Mullu, and had relied too heavily on testimonies from relatives of the deceased. Consequently, sufficient doubt was cast over the credibility of the prosecution's case. (Paras 29, 30)

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, the absence of significant witnesses, and the prosecution's failure to establish motive with solid evidence. (Paras 24, 28)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that when critical eyewitnesses are absent, and the testimonies presented are from interested parties, the burden of proof lies inadequately met by the prosecution, leading to overturning the conviction. (Paras 30, 31)

Result: Appeal allowed. The lower court's judgment is set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual context of the murder incident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. witness testimonies establishing the relationship and events. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. challenges to witness credibility. (Para 18 , 19 , 24)
4. legal standards for evidence of chance witnesses. (Para 20 , 21)
5. critique of prosecution's evidence and witness selection. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
6. court's assessment of evidence and appeal conclusion. (Para 29 , 30)
7. result of the appeal and court orders. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)

(Per: Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.10.1982 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in S.T. No. 497 of 1981, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 302 /34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that upon the alleged incident having taken place on 12th May 1981,wherein Ram Saran Singh, alias Chittoo, had died, a first information report was lodged on 12th May 1981 itself at 21:05 hours under Section 302 of I.P.C. which describes an incident of murder that occurred on the same day i.e. on 12th May 1981, at around 16:00 hours. The F.I.R. was lodged by Bachan Singh, who is the complainant and also the husband of the sister of the deceased.

3. According to the F.I.R., Bachan Singh and his wife had visited the residence of the deceased, Ram Saran Singh @ Chittoo, on the occasion of the Mundan ceremony, scheduled for 20th May 1981, in the village of Amilihapal. On the day of the incident, Bachan Singh and Ram Saran Singh (deceased) had gone together to the house of Mullu (carpenter), at approximately 16:00 hours. Both sat on a cot (charpai) lying on barotha at Mullu's residence. Meanwhile, Ram Saran Singh asked Mullu to go to the nearby Potter and arrange for supply of hunda (earthen pot) and parai (firewood) required for his son's mundan ceremony on 20th May 1981. While they were engaged in conversation, Bachau Singh and Tunku Singh, both sons of Pratap Singh arrived at the place with countrymade pistols. Bachau Singh, from a very close range, fired a shot at Ram Saran Singh (deceased) at his neck. Second shot was then fired by Tunku Singh. The complainant, Bachan Singh, immediately ran towards the courtyard (angan) out of fear. The witnesses Shiv Saran Singh @ Bagga Singh and many other persons of the village rushed to the spot on hearing the sound of gun shot. On their arrival, the accused persons ran away from the spot. They could not catch the accused persons on account of fear of the fact that the assialants were and with countrymade pistols. It was mentioned that the motive behind the murder was some property dispute. It was alleged that the deceased Ram Saran Singh @ Chhitoo Singh had previously done Pairvi in the transfer of the property by Kailash Singh to his sister's sons Hari Baran Singh and Balwant Singh. Kailash Singh was the cousin brother of Pratap Singh. It was on account of this enmity,Tunku Singh and Bachau Singh had murdered the deceased Ram Saran Singh @ Chhitoo Singh. On receiving gun shot injuries, Ram Saran Singh @ Chhitoo Singh died. Bachan Singh (complainant), leaving the deadbody on the cot under the care of Mullu carpenter and other persons of the village, came to the police station to lodge the F.I.R.

4. The FIR was scribed by Angad on the dictation of first informant Bachan Singh. Head Moharrir Dwarika, on the basis of above written report Ext. Ka-1 recorded the F.I.R. Ext. Ka-3 on 12.5.1981 at 21.05 hours. He then registered the case in the G.D. Ext. Ka-4 at its serial no. 30, on the same day. He also prepared special report Ext. Ka-5 and sent it to the authorities, through constable shamshuddin on 13.5.1981 at 6:10 A.M. The Investigating officer Sri Balikaran Singh, P.W. 4 was not at the police station at that time. He had gone for search on that date. He reached police out post Chhivlaha in the night of 12/13.5.1981

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top