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) 3721

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, SANJIV KUMAR, JJ.
Arbind Singh and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1992 of 1984
Decided On : 19-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri Desh Ratan Chaudhary, Sri Shobh Nath Pandey, Sri Vijaya Nand Singh.
For the Respondent: A.G.A.

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 testimonies.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Appeal against conviction - The appellants were convicted of murder due to failure to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution's case relied on testimony from relatives, which was found unreliable due to contradictions and doubts regarding their presence (Paras 21, 43, 53). The trial court's judgment was based on incorrect appreciation of facts, and the acquittal was ordered (Paras 54, 56).

(B) Burden of Proof - In criminal cases, the burden lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any failure in this regard should lead to a verdict in favor of the accused (Paras 27, 53).

(C) Motivation - The prosecution's claim of a motive based on prior disputes was deemed weak, as events surrounding the alleged motive lacked a clear connection to the crime (Paras 40, 41).

Table of Content
1. appeal by convicts against conviction and sentencing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. overview of incident and fir lodged. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. testimonies of eyewitnesses regarding the murder. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. expert testimony on cause of death. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. defense arguments challenging prosecution. (Para 19 , 23 , 24)
6. trial court's conviction analysis and findings. (Para 21 , 27 , 30)
7. discussion on motive and reliability of eyewitnesses. (Para 40 , 41 , 42)
8. conclusion on acquittal of appellant due to insufficient evidence. (Para 53 , 54 , 56)
9. final orders and procedural directives following judgment. (Para 57 , 58 , 59)

JUDGMENT :

Sanjiv Kumar, J.

1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellants/ convicts Arbind Singh son of Bishwanath Singh and Bhola Nath Dubey son of Deo Narain Dubey, both residents of Village-Bhaiswar, Police Station-Ghorawal, District- Mirzapur, against the judgment and order dated 20.07.1984 passed by the Additional Sessions, Judge, Mirzapur in Session Trial No. 101 of 1983, State Vs. Arbind Singh and Another .

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant Bhola Nath Dubey to undergo imprisonment for life, finding him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and the appellant Arbind Singh to imprisonment for life for offence punishable under .

3. The present Criminal Appeal in regard to accused appellant no. 2 Bhola Nath Dubey son of Deo Narain has abated, by an order of the Court dated 22nd August, 2025. Therefore, the present Criminal Appeal now proceeds on behalf of appellant No. 1/convict, Arbind Singh, only.

4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant Ram Murat son of Bihari Singh, resident of Village- Bhaiswar, Police Station- Ghorawal, District- Mirzapur submitted a written information (tehrir) dated 15.09.1982 (Ext. Ka-2) before Incharge, Police Station- Ghorawal, District- Mirzapur, stating therein that on 14/15.09.1982 at about 12 midnight the informant’s father Bihari Singh son of Jhuri Singh, aged about 60 years, was sleeping on a cot in the living room (Baithka) situate towards northern side of his house. On the other cots, two in number, the informant, his cousin Shiv Murat (fufera bhai), and Gauri Shankar, were sleeping. Upon hearing (aahat) some one’s footsteps the informant got up. He woke up Shiv Murat and Gauri Shankar. Four miscreants came near the door of the Baithka. The informant flashed his torch to spot them. One of the miscreants shot at his father, leading the informant to raise alarm. The miscreants made good then escape as were chased. Meanwhile, Ram Surat son of Lalji a resident of the adjacent house, came out of (his house) with his torch. The miscreants were chased across some distance but they fled away towards the south. One of the miscreants was identified as Arbind Singh son of Biswanath Singh and other was Bhola Pandit both residents of Village- Bhaiswar, Police Station- Ghorawal. He had identified the rest of the two miscreants, by face. When they returned to the living room (Baithka), the informant found his father lying dead on the cot.

5. Upon this information a chik FIR (Ext. Ka-16) under Section 302 IPC , bearing Case Crime No. 51 of 1982, was lodged at police station Ghorawal, District Mirzapur, against accused Arbind Singh, Bhola Pandit and two unknown men. The investigation of the case was entrusted to Station Officer of the Police Station, Diwakar Mishra. The inquest report was prepared alongwith connected papers. The post- mortem examination of the deceased was done, whereupon it was found that the deceased had sustained firearm injures and the cause of death was opined as shock and hemorrhage as a result of the ante-mortem injuries. The investigating officer inspected the torch and prepared its supurdaginama marked (Ext. Ka-4). He prepared a fard baramadgi of one lungi, found after a few days towa

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