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) 2324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD 
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN IDRISI, JJ.
Gendan Lal – Appellant 
Versus
State of U.P. –Respondent 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1954 of 1993 
Decided on : 25-03-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Praveen Kumar Srivastava,Virendra Kumar Kori
For the Respondent: A.G.A.

Witness testimony, particularly that of injured victims, holds significant weight in criminal cases, affirming convictions despite claims of investigative defects or witness bias.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 307 - Arms Act - Section 25 - Conviction for attempted murder inside a courtroom - Appellant convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for firing at the victim, who was injured and testified against the accused - Prosecution case upheld despite claims of defective investigation and interest of witnesses - Sole testimony of injured witness sufficient for conviction. (Paras 1, 12, 39, 44)

(B) Witness Testimony - The law recognizes the testimony of injured witnesses as highly credible, particularly when corroborated by other evidence - Relationship to victim does not automatically render a witness biased or unreliable. (Paras 14-30)

(C) Defective Investigation - The court can still rely on evidence if it is credible, even when the investigation is found to be defective - This does not invalidate the prosecution's case outright. (Paras 30-32, 40)

Facts of the case:
The appellant Gendan Lal, motivated by previous enmity, attempted to murder Ram Bharose Lal within the courtroom, resulting in injury - Witness testimony established the incident's occurrence and the identity of the shooter.

Findings of Court:
The conviction was upheld as the evidence presented was reliable, and the incident occurred in the presence of the court's officers, corroborating the prosecution's claims.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies and the effect of investigation defects on the trial's outcome.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the injured victim's testimony alone could sufficiency support the conviction, emphasizing the importance of the presence and credibility of injured witnesses.

Result: Appeal dismissed, conviction affirmed, and the appellant directed to surrender to serve sentence.

Table of Content
1. final judgment and order of the court. (Para 45 , 47 , 48)

(Per: Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred assailing the judgement and order dated 25.10.1993 passed by Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 373 of 1986 convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 307 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and under section 25 ARMS ACT to undergo sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment, directing all the sentences to run concurrently.

2. By the order dated 10.11.1993, the appellant was released on bail.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant and the accused persons were residents of Village Kharkari, Police Station Katra, District Shahjahanpur. Accused Gendan Lal was the cousin (mausera bhai) of co-accused Karan Lal and he was the resident of Village Madhra, Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit. Both sides had previous enmity due to which, one person from both sides had been murdered. Injured Ram Bharose was the uncle of complainant Raja Ram. One FIR was lodged for the murder of Balak Ram against accused sides and another FIR was lodged for the murder of Munna Lal (brother of accused Karan Lal) against the complainant side. Both the cases were pending before the Court of District & Sessions Judge-I. Ram Bharose, the injured and his brothers Brijpal and Mahendrapal and one Ram Saran were accused in the said case of murder of Munna Lal.

4. The prosecution version is that on 16.6.1986 at 12.30 p.m. in the Court of District & Sessions Judge-I, Shahjahanpur within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar Bazar, the trial of murder of Munna Lal (brother of accused Karan Lal) was going on in which, injured Ram Bharose (PW2), Mahendra Pal, Brij Pal and Ram Saran were standing in the witness box as accused persons. Complainant Raja Ram who was the prosecution witness in the said case was present in the Court for getting his evidence recorded against accused Karan Lal. Accused Karan Lal was the complainant in the case of murder of Munna Lal and his testimony was getting recorded in the Court along with one witness Dafedar. Accused Gendan Lal was also present in the said courtroom to whom accused Karan Lal indicated something by his fingers. On his indication, accused Gendan Lal took out a country-made pistol of 315 bore and fired at the injured Ram Bharose Lal (PW2) which hit him on his back. Accused Gendan Lal then tried to escape from the courtroom but he was caught by the complainant Raja Ram and Court Moharrir Ram Shankar along with his country- made pistol with one fired empty cartridge inside the pistol. Apart from this, five live cartridges were also recovered from the right pocket of accused Gendan Lal. He was taken to the police station by the complainant Raja Ram and Court Moharrir Ram Shankar. The written report was prepared on the way to the police station which is Ex. Ka-1. Accused Gendan Lal and injured Ram Bharose Lal were taken to the concerned police station. Thereafter, a chick report (Ex. Ka-5) was prepared by PW4 Constable Om Prakash Sharma on 16.6.1986 at 12.50 p.m. and he also made GD entry of the said incident which was registered as Case Crime No. 298 of 1986 and 299 of 1986 (Ex. Ka-6).

5. On the basis of written report of the complainant, a first information report was lodged against two accused persons namely, Gendan Lal and Karan Lal being S.T. No. 373/86 under Section 307 IPC . Accused Karan Lal was also charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC while accused Gendan Lal was also charged under Section 25 (A)(1) of the ARMS ACT in S.T. No. 374/86. Co-accused Karan Lal was later on exonerated by the trial court from the charges levelled against him.

6. In order to establish the prosecution case, five witnesses were examined namely, PW1 Raja Ram, PW2 Ram Bharose Lal, PW3 Dr. Amarlal and PW4 Constable Om Prakash Sharma, P.S. Mal Khana, Sadar, Shahjahanpur, PW5 S.I. Vijendra Prasad Singh Yada

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