Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 2250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vivek Kumar Birla, Praveen Kumar Giri, JJ.
Dheer Singh and Others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 1984
Decided On : 28-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sumit Goyal
For the Respondent: Anurag Pathak

The testimony of injured witnesses holds significant evidentiary value and can support a conviction for murder when corroborated by medical evidence, establishing intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Appeal - Conviction of appellant under Section 302 IPC for murder of Mangat - The incident occurred during a dispute over a passage - Appellant drove a tractor over Mangat, resulting in his death - Court upheld conviction, finding sufficient evidence of intent to kill, corroborated by both ocular and medical evidence. (Paras 2, 46)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of injured witnesses - The court emphasized that the testimony of injured witnesses is accorded special status and cannot be dismissed solely due to their relationship with the deceased if corroborated by other evidence. (Paras 30, 36)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Mangat, who was crushed by a tractor driven by the appellant during a dispute over a passage. The incident was witnessed by the complainant and an independent witness. (Paras 4, 46)

Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC, finding that the prosecution's evidence was credible and established intent to kill. (Paras 46, 47)

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of eyewitness testimony and the nature of the incident (accidental vs. intentional). (Paras 14, 46)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence of injured witnesses, when corroborated by medical evidence, is sufficient to uphold a conviction for murder. The appellant's actions were deemed intentional, not accidental. (Paras 30, 46)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

Table of Content
1. the appeal is against a conviction for murder. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of the incident leading to the murder conviction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. family ties and ongoing litigation context. (Para 11 , 12)
4. defense argues the incident was accidental. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. defense claims insufficient evidence for murder conviction. (Para 16 , 17)
6. prosecution maintains the conviction is justified. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
7. court emphasizes the importance of eyewitness testimony. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
8. court affirms the reliability of medical and eyewitness evidence. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
9. court finds compelling evidence for conviction. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
10. court confirms intention to kill based on evidence. (Para 45 , 46)
11. final order dismissing the appeal and confirming conviction. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Kumar Birla, J.

1. Heard Shri Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rijwan, learned counsel for the sole surviving appellant Dheer Singh as well as Shri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. Present Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.1984, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No.112 of 1982, convicting and sentencing the appellant no.1-Dheer Singh under section 302 IPC and appellant no.2 Yashpal under section302/34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life to both the appellants.

3. Vide order dated 31.07.2018 the appeal stood abated in respect of appellant no.2-Yashpal. Now the appeal is surviving only in respect of appellant no.1-Dheer Singh.

4. Prosecution story in brief is that a litigation was going on between the complainant and the accused Dheer Singh with regard to passage (Rasta). On 13.10.1981 at about 8 a.m. one Kantu, Vikram, Dharam Pal and one Banwari, who is stated to be the brother-in-law of Dharam Pal, tried to block the said way, which was resented by the deceased Mangat, whereupon Kantu, father of the accused Dheer Singh, caught-hold of Mangat and Dharampal and Banwari assaulted him with Lathis and when the complainant-Ramphal tried to save him, Vikram assaulted him with 'Kulhari' and Dharam Pal assaulted him with a Lathi. Complainant and the deceased Mangat raised an alarm, which invited Megh Raj, Pahal Singh, Suresh and a number of other persons, who saved them. Complainant-Ramphal and the deceased Mangat came to their house and thereafter left for the Police Station to lodge the report. When they reached near the plot of Shyam Singh, at about 8-30 a.m. the accused Dheer Singh and Yashpal came there on a tractor, which was being driven by accused Dheer Singh. Accused Yashpal is said to have exhorted Dheer Singh to run the tractor over Mangat so that he may be taught a lesson for lodging the report. Accused Dheer Singh then drove the tractor towards Mangat who turned towards south towards the plot of Shyam Singh to save himself but Mangat was crushed by the tractor. The complainant claims to have saved himself by going towards the North of the road. Mangat was crushed by the tractor and died on the spot. This incident is said to have been seen by Pitamber and Sethpal. Complainant- Ramphal then went to village Khatkaheri, lying at a distance of half a kilometre from there and wrote the report. It was said that Prem Singh, brother of the complainant- Ramphal also reached the spot in a tractor and thereafter both of them went to the Police Station, Rampur, where the first information report was lodged at 9-30 a.m. on the same day by Head Constable Tejpal Singh, who prepared the chik-report and registered the case in the General Diary.

5. Investigation of this case were entrusted to Sri Balkishore, Sub Inspector, who was present at the time the case was registered in the police station. He alongwith Head Constable-Tejpal Singh left for the scene of occurrence. He found the