IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, Sanjiv Kumar, JJ.
Virendra - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. -2849 of 1987
Decided On : 01-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the criminal case (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. arguments presented by the appellant (Para 20 , 27 , 28 , 30) |
| 3. court's reflections on the prosecution evidence (Para 23 , 26 , 31) |
| 4. determining the reliability of witnesses and fir delay (Para 32 , 42 , 50 , 53) |
| 5. final judgment and acquittal of the appellant (Para 55 , 57 , 58) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjiv Kumar, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants, namely, Virendra, Onkar and Ajab Singh @ Bali, against the judgment and order dated 02.12.1987 passed by Mr. N.P. Verma, the then learned Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, in Sessions Trial No.61 of 1986, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C.), Police Station Ahmad Garh, District Bulandshahar.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant Virandra has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, he has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The other appellants, Onkar and Ajab Singh @ Bali have been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.
3. During the course of the hearing of this criminal appeal, appellants Virendra and Ajab Singh @ Bali have died, and the appeal stands abated against them vide order dated 17.07.2018. This appeal has been heard at the instance of the surviving appellant, Onkar Singh, alone.
4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant, Ram Ji Lal, son of Leeladhar, resident of village Satbara, Police Station Ahmad Garh, District Bulandshahr, filed a written first information (Ex.Ka-1) on 11.02.1985 at 6:30 a.m. at Police Station Ahmad Garh, stating therein that the marriage of Dayawati, daughter of Rajpal and grand daughter of Devi Ram, was to be solemnized on 13.02.1985. On 10.02.1985, Devi Ram (brother of the informant) went to Bulandshahr to purchase articles for the marriage. In the night at about 8:45 p.m., the informant was lying in the Dewari, while his nephew Rajendra was lying in a room (kotha). In the courtyard, Smt. Shakuntla (wife of Rajendra), Smt. Mehar Shri (wife of Rajpal), Smt. Dayawati (daughter of Rajpal) and some other women of the locality were singing wedding songs. A lantern was lit there, and the main door of the house open. The convits Virendra, Onkar, and Ajab Singh alias Bali entered the informant’s house. Virendra Singh caught hold of the informant and asked about the gun belonging to his brother Devi Ram. The informant replied that Devi Ram had taken it along with him to Bulandshahr. Meanwhile, Onkar and Ajab Singh alias Bali caught hold of Rajendra and Ajab Singh alias Bali, attacked him with a lathi. The women ran inside the room. The informant, Rajendra and others raised alarm and caught hold of the assailants, but they managed to free themselves and ran outside. In the process, a woolen coat and a woolen sheet from the convicts was snatched. In the pocket of the said coat, a loaded country-made pistol was kept. They bolted the door from inside. Shortly thereafter, all the three accused climbed on their roof through the adjacent house of one Tirkhi. The informant also climbed on the roof. Virendra pulled the dried grass from thatch and set it afire near the staircase. Hearing the commotion, villagers arrived at the spot. Some of them opened fire using their licensed weapons and surrounded the informant’s house to approach the miscreants. Ram Avtar Singh, Kunwar Sen, Hari Singh, Kanti Prasad, and others raised alarm. Rajendra fired two shots from the jangla (window) and said from within the house that no miscreants were inside, asking them to open the door (from the outside) a





In criminal law, reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused; failure to provide timely evidence can undermine the prosecution's case.
The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to substantial doubts regarding the credibility of witness testimo....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on credible evidence, including witness testimony and medical findings, even absent direct physical evidence like weapon recovery.
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and a reliable dying declaration, emphasizing the established motive of caste rivalry.
Prosecution has failed to prove charges levelled against accused persons under Sections 302/34, 201 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act by any reliable, cogent and independent evidence to hilt beyond reas....
The conviction of the appellants for double murder was upheld as the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible witness testimonies and medical evidence, despite the absence of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.