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

2026 Supreme(All) 366

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, DEVENDRA SINGH-I, JJ.
Rammu and others -Appellants 
Versus 
State of U.P. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of 1987
Decided On : 10-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Amar Chandra, Chandra Bhushan Verma, P.N. Mishra, Rajesh Kumar Verma, Ran Jeet Singh, Sunil Kumar
For the Respondents: A.G.A.

Accused's claim of self-defence not properly considered by the trial court, resulting in a miscarriage of justice and violation of fair trial principles.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 323 - Life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for assault resulting in death - Conviction of appellants overturned due to lack of consideration of self-defence and one-sided investigation - Court emphasized the need for fair trial principles and proper evaluation of evidence (Paras 29, 51).

(B) Criminal Law - Self-defence - Court acknowledged that the appellants had sustained injuries during the incident, indicating their claim of acting in self-defence (Paras 50, 52).

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Rajpal after an altercation over a financial dispute. The incident occurred on August 18, 1986, involving mutual altercations between the accused and the deceased (Paras 1-3, 4-6).

Findings of Court:
The trial court's judgment was set aside as it failed to properly consider the accused's self-defence claims and the investigative deficiencies, leading to a lack of a fair trial (Paras 52-54).

Issues: The main issues involved whether the appellants acted in self-defence during the incident and the fairness of the trial based on the evidence presented (Paras 29, 50, 52).

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the trial court had committed a manifest error of law by ignoring the self-defence argument of the accused and not properly considering all evidence, including their injuries during the incident (Paras 33, 37).

Result: Appeal allowed and conviction of appellants overturned (Paras 54, 55).

Table of Content
1. appeal against conviction and sentence (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. factual background of the case (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. medical evidence related to injuries (Para 11 , 12 , 15)
4. defendants' statements and evidence (Para 18 , 26 , 27)
5. arguments made by the parties (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
6. analysis of evidence and prosecution's delay (Para 32 , 36 , 37 , 49)
7. final orders and conclusion (Para 53 , 54 , 55)

Judgment :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against a judgement and order dated 29.4.1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 403 of 1986 whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 IPC and six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC.

2. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 08.09.2025, appeal filed on behalf of appellant Nos. 1 and 4 namely Rammu and Misri has been disposed of as abated. We are only concerned with the appeal filed on behalf of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 namely Chet Ram and Rameshwar.

Facts of the case

4. The facts that formed the bedrock of the present criminal appeal are that a written report was given by Bhikhari Lal (hereinafter referred to as the first informant) at the police station Khudaganj, district Shahjahanpur on 19.08.1986 with the allegations inter alia that Rajpal and Babu Ram lived in village Kapsenda, but started living in village Baraura for the last five or six years. They had constructed a house in this village. Rajpal had advanced a sum of Rs. 220/- (rupees two hundred twenty only) as loan to Rameshwar and Rameshwar had given his one and a half bigha of land to Rajpal in lieu of interest. It was agreed between the parties that whenever Rameshwar pays the amount, Rajpal would free the field. The first information report further recounts that Rameshwar took possession of the land, but did not return the money. A day before the occurrence Rajpal went to Rameshwar to demand the money, whereupon Rameshwar had said that he will give it. On the date of occurrence, at about 05:00 PM, Rameshwar, Chet Ram, Rammu and Misri armed with lathis went to the door of Rajpal and started beating him with lathis. At that time, Babu Ram and his wife Somwati were inside the house. The first informant was also inside the house of Rajpal. He and Babu Ram tried to save Rajpal, whereupon they also assaulted Babu Ram with lathis. Babu Ram and the first informant also plied lathis in self defence, due to which accused persons have also received injuries. Thinking Rajpal dead, they left him and fled. While the first informant was taking Rajpal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and Babu Ram (hereinafter referred to as the injured) to the police station on bullock-cart for lodging the report, on the way near village Sara at about 12:00 in the night, Rajpal succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the first informant returned to the village. Due to excessive rain, the first informant could not go to the police station to lodge the report. At the home, he got the report scribed (Ext. Kha-1) by Jaivir Singh and put his thumb impression after hearing it and handed over at the police station in the morning.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered at case crime No. 84 of 1986, under Sections 302/323 IPC, police station Khudaganj, district Shahjahanpur at 08:15 AM on 19.08.2026.

6. After the registration of the case, the investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-4, SI Girish Kumar, who recorded the statement of the first informant Bhikhari and the Head Muharrir at the police station and then went to the spot with necessary papers. On the way there were two rivers, which were flooded at that time and there was excessive rain. He reached the spot, prepared inquest report, photo lash, challan lash, sample seal, letter to the Chief Medical Officer, Ext. Ka 5 to Ka-9. He recorded

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