HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
Rajnish Kumar, Zafeer Ahmad, JJ.
Basheer Ahmad And others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 926 of 2001
Decided On : 09-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against conviction under section 302/34 ipc. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution case: accused fired at deceased during oil distribution. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. investigation and post-mortem confirm firearm injuries causing death. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. charge-sheet filed; trial convicts appellants to life imprisonment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. defense: witnesses unreliable due to enmity, contradictions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. prosecution: consistent eyewitnesses, medical corroboration, prompt fir. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. prompt fir lodgment; no delay or fabrication doubt. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. eyewitnesses reliable; consistent incident narration. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 9. enmity no bar; unsubstantiated defense allegations rejected. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 10. quality over quantity of evidence; witnesses wholly reliable. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 11. medical evidence corroborates ocular testimony fully. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 12. investigation supports case; non-examination not fatal. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 13. no two views possible; conviction upheld on direct evidence. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 14. appeal dismissed; sentence confirmed. (Para 52 , 53) |
JUDGMENT :
Rajnish Kumar, J.
(1) Heard Sri Rishad Murtaza, learned Counsel for the appellant nos. 1, 2 and 4, Sri Rahul Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant no.3, Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Amar Nath Dubey, learned Counsel for the complainant.
(2) The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here-in-after referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) emanates from the judgment and order dated 09.10.2001 passed by learned Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court), Pratapgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 506 of 1994; State Versus Bashir Ahmad and others, arising out of Case Crime No.220 of 1994, under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (here-in-after referred to as “I.P.C.”), Police Station Jethwara, District Pratapgarh.
FACTS
(3) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 13.07.1994, complainant, Ram Pratap Singh, submitted a written report (Ext. Ka. 1), stating therein that he is the Gram Pradhan of Gram Sabha Walipur Parsan. On 13.07.1994, he and Shri Sita Ram, son of Lallu Ram Jaiswal, Gram Pradhan of Sidhour, was distributing kerosene oil at Shamsherganj Bazaar (Market). At around 07:30 a.m., Bashir son of Minhaj, Wakeel Ahmad son of Minhaj, Hamid son of Chhote Khan and Bhullar son of Umar Khan, residents of village Sidhour (Nauturwa), Police Station Jethwara, District Pratapgarh, came to the fair price shop and fired with gun and country-made pistol upon Sita Ram Pradhan, as a consequence of which, Sita Ram Pradhan died on the spot. Ganga Prasad Singh, son of Choharja Singh and Shamsher Singh, son of Mataprasad Singh, residents of village Walipur Parsan, Police Station Jethwara, District Pratapgarh, who came to bring Kerosene Oil, saw the accused persons firing. On hearing the firing, several villagers ran, upon which the accused persons fled away towards their home.
(4) On the basis of the aforesaid written report (Ext. Ka.1), F.I.R., bearing Case Crime No. 220 of 1994, under Section 302 I.P.C., was registered on 13.07.1994 at 09:15 A.M. at police station Jethwara, district Pratapgarh against four accused persons, namely, (1) Bashir son of Minhaj, (2) Wakeel Ahmad son of Minhaj, (3) Hamid son of Chhote Khan and (4) Bhullar son of Umar Khan.
(5) The investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Girivar Giri (P.W.3). On 13.07.1994, the Investigating Officer S.I. Girivar Giri, after getting investigation, got copy of the F.I.R. and the report and reached at the place of incident and prepared the inquest report of the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. He recovered the blood stained soil and plain soil, empty cartridges, wed (tikuli), bullet and pellet etc. from the place of occurrence and prepared recovery memo of it. He also prepared site plan.
(6) The postmor
Reliable eye-witness testimony of natural witnesses, consistent with medical evidence and prompt FIR, sustains murder conviction under 302/34 IPC despite alleged enmity.
Conviction for mass murder under 302/149 IPC set aside due to unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence from related witnesses; doubtful night identification, improbable presence/story; benefit of do....
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 significance of corroborative eyewitness testimony in criminal cases, with minor discrepancies not undermining evidence credibility, unless they affect core facts established beyond reasonable do....
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
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.