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) 403

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rishad Murtaza, A.K. Srivastava, Ashok Kumar Singh, Girish Kumar Pande, Jaikaran, Rahul Kumar Singh, Saurabah Srivastava, Saurabh Srivastava
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate, Amar Nath Pandey

Reliable eye-witness testimony of natural witnesses, consistent with medical evidence and prompt FIR, sustains murder conviction under 302/34 IPC despite alleged enmity.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 374, 313 - Criminal Appeal against conviction for murder by firearms in broad daylight - Two eye-witnesses with natural presence at public distribution point - Consistent testimony on roles, weapons, manner of assault - Fully corroborated by medical evidence (four entry/exit wounds, blackening, tattooing indicating close-range) - Prompt FIR within 1.5-2 hours - Alleged enmity/political rivalry requires scrutiny but not rejection where testimony reliable, cogent - Empty stomach not fatal to time of incident per eye-witnesses - Non-examination of others not adverse where case proved by examined witnesses - Conviction/life sentence upheld. (Paras 25, 29, 30, 39, 40, 51)

(B) Evidence Act, 1882 - Section 114(g) - Witnesses - Quality over quantity; interested/natural witnesses not discarded if wholly reliable post-scrutiny, corroborated materially - Bare defence allegations (illicit relations, pressure) insufficient without proof - Chance witness label inapplicable to those with explained natural presence - Two views possible only if reasonable doubt; here none. (Paras 33, 34, 35, 46)

(C) Medical vs Ocular Evidence - Consistency essential but minor variations in sequence excused in panic/firing chaos - Injuries match described body parts (stomach, shoulder, neck, face); cause shock/haemorrhage confirmed. (Paras 39, 41)

Facts of the case:
Victim shot multiple times by four assailants using pistols/gun during morning kerosene distribution at fair price shop; eye-witnesses (complainant distributing for village and purchaser) detailed assault, threats, flight; prompt written report led to FIR; recovery of empties, blood; post-mortem multiple ante-mortem firearm injuries; trial convicted to life RI/fine; appeal on witness credibility, inconsistencies, enmity.

Findings of Court:
Eye-witnesses wholly reliable, consistent, corroborated by medical/investigation; no material contradictions; defence unsubstantiated; prosecution proved beyond doubt; no perversity in trial findings.

Issues: Reliability of eye-witnesses amid enmity; ocular-medical consistency; time of death; chance/independent witness status; withheld evidence; contradictions in assault manner.

Ratio Decidendi: Direct testimony of reliable natural eye-witnesses, mutually corroborative and matching medical findings with prompt FIR, proves guilt; enmity double-edged sword; requires scrutiny/corroboration but sustains conviction absent reasonable doubt or alternate view.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

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

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