Back
2026 Supreme(All) 513
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
Rajnish Kumar, Babita Rani, JJ.
Shakir Ali - Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 163 of 1993
Decided On : 21-05-2026
For the Appellant : Virendra Bhatia, Afaq Zaki Khan, Ali Yawar, Ashish Raman Mishra, Mohammad Sayeed
For the Respondent: Ashok Kumar Verma, Subodh K . Shukla
The testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable and does not require corroboration for consistency. Minor discrepancies do not invalidate the entire prosecution case if the core accusation is supported by medical and forensic evidence. A conviction remains valid if the essential guilt is proved despite failing to establish secondary motives.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307 and 394 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 145 and 155 - Murder, attempt to murder, and voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery - Appeal against conviction - Grounds raised included contradictions in witness depositions, alleged delay in reporting, lack of objective identification, failure by prosecution to establish motive, and inconsistency arising from the acquittal of co-accused on identical evidence. (Paras 17, 21, 26, 32)
(B) Witness Testimony - injured witness - Credibility - The testimony of an injured witness is of great value, as their presence at the scene is generally undisputed, and they are unlikely to falsely implicate innocent persons while sparing the actual culprit. Minor discrepancies, omissions, or contradictions in the testimony of a witness, especially after significant time lapses, do not necessarily render the evidence unreliable if the core facts remain intact. (Paras 23-24, 31, 39)
(C) Appreciation of Evidence - Duty of Court - Courts are required to separate the truth from falsehood and the 'grain from the chaff'. Testimony should not be discarded merely due to existing family relations or lack of corroboration for minor details, provided the ocular evidence is consistent with medical reports and the overall circumstances. (Paras 35, 55, 60)
(D) Criminal Liability - Accomplices - The acquittal of co-accused does not automatically invalidate the conviction of the main accused if the evidence independently establishes his presence and direct participation. The maxim 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' is not a rule of law and does not mandate the rejection of the entire testimony where credible evidence exists. (Paras 48, 55) (E) Motive - Absence of stated motive for a specific charge (robbery) does not entitle an accused to total acquittal if the remaining circumstances (direct eyewitness account, medical reports, forensic evidence of weapon) conclusively establish the guilt of the accused for other grave offences. (Paras 57, 59)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed by the primary accused after being convicted for murder, attempt to murder, and robbery during a violent encounter in a field. The prosecution heavily relied on the testimony of an injured survivor and other witnesses present nearby. The trial court convicted the primary offender but acquitted two co-accused on the same evidence set. The appellant challenged his conviction citing the acquittal of others, material contradictions in witness statements regarding the motive of robbery, and insufficient evidence to prove the alleged theft.
Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld the convictions for murder and attempt to murder, observing that the presence and role of the accused were clearly demonstrated by reliable witnesses and corroborative medical evidence. However, it set aside the conviction for robbery as the prosecution failed to recover the stolen item or provide evidence of physical impact consistent with the alleged robbing act, treating this as an unproven enhancement and extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused.
Issues: Whether the testimony of injured/related witnesses is admissible despite minor inconsistencies; whether acquittal of co-accused necessitates the acquittal of the primary accused; and whether the failure to prove the motive for robbery invalidates the entire conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The evidence of an injured eyewitness is inherently reliable. When inconsistencies in witness statements do not strike at the root of the prosecution case, the court must extract the truthful core. A conviction for serious crimes can be maintained even if certain related charges fail for lack of corroboration, as long as the primary evidence regarding the offence is credible.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; conviction for robbery set aside, convictions for murder and attempt to murder affirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. detailed factual background and trial court's investigative and evidentiary findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 2. defense contentions challenging prosecution credibility, fir delay, and witness reliability. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. analysis of injured witness testimony and reliability of corroborating evidence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 4. principles regarding selective acquittal of co-accused on common evidence. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 5. assessment of motive and application of robbery charges under section 394 ipc. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 6. final appellate court order upholding conviction excluding robbery charge. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
JUDGMENT :
Babita Rani, J.
1. Heard, Shri Afaq Zaki Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Ravi Kant Pandey, Advocate assisted by Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the complainant.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.03.1993 passed by Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1990 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (' IPC') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and further convicting him under Section 394 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and further convicting him under Section 307 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment, with all the sentences being directed to run concurrently.
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred as per their original nomenclature as given at the time of trial.
4. The prosecution story as unfolded is that on 16.09.1989, at around 5:00 AM, the complainant's wife, namely Shanti Devi, and daughter, namely Gayatri Devi, had gone to the field situated on the northern side of their house to answer the nature's call, where accused Shakir Ali, Mohd. Sharif and Deshraj tried to snatch the nose-ring from Shanti Devi. In protest, the wife and daughter of the complainant started raising noise and giving them fight, due to which accused Shakir Ali stabbed Shanti Devi in the stomach while snatching the nose-ring and further chased and stabbed PW2 Gayatri Devi. Hearing the hue and cry, the complainant along with Mishrilal, Budhram, PW3 Hardwar and many other of the village came to the field and seeing them approaching to the place of scene, the accused ran away with their weapons and nose-ring. Shanti Devi died as a result of the stab wounds and PW2 Gayatri Devi was badly injured.
5. Shiv Shankar (PW7) also reached on the spot and wrote the tahrir Ex. Ka.1. under the dictation of complainant PW1 and same was signed by PW1. With the tahrir, injured was carried by PW1 complainant to the police station on rickshaw, where the first information report (Exhibit Ka.3) was registered on the same day at 8:35 a.m. under Sections 394/302/307 of IPC and same was entered into the general diary (Ex. Ka.4). The investigation of the case was conducted by PW8 SHO Yogendra Singh, who went to the scene of occurrence along with Sub-Inspector Surendra Nath Tripathi. The panchnama, challan of the dead body, site map and other documents, bearing Ex. Ka.7 – Ex. Ka.12, were prepared by the Sub Inspector S.N. Tripathi. He also collected the blood stained and plain earth vide recovery memo Ex. Ka.13 and one pair of shoes vide recovery memo Ex. Ka.14 from place of occurrence. Accused Shakir Ali and Mohd. Sharif were arrested on 21.09.1989 and at the instance of Shakir Ali, blood stained knife and clothes were recovered on the same day from the field of the accused Shakir Ali in village Shivpur vide recovery memo Ex. Ka.6, having been prepared on the spot in presence of witnesses and same was seized and sealed and sent to FSL for chem
