Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 523

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SALIL KUMAR RAI, AJAY KUMAR-II, JJ.
Krishan Pal @ Lala And Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1978 of 2011,CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1821 of 2011, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1868 of 2011, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2004 of 2011, CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2195 of 2011
Decided On : 06-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ajay Sengar, Amar Nath Singh, Barun Pratap Singh, Jaiprakash Narain Raj, Prashant Vyas, Rajiv Lochan Shukla, S.p. Sharma, Sanjay Singh, Shagun K. Saran, Surendra Singh, Tarun Pratap Singh, Vijay Singh Sengar, Vinod Kumar
For the Respondent:Amit Misra, Govt. Advocate, Harish Chandra Mishra, Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi (senior Adv.), Suresh C. Dwivedi, Vikas Tiwari, Vimlendu Tripathi

The testimony of injured eyewitnesses carries high evidentiary value and is generally reliable. Where medical evidence proves that injuries inflicted on the victim were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the offense constitutes murder, notwithstanding the nature of the weapons used.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 307 - Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 - Section 7 - Murder - Common object - Culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Assessment of evidence of injured witnesses - Evidentiary value - When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be appreciated, their presence at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in their deposition - It must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused - Evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and their statements are not to be discarded lightly - (Paras 26, 35, 40)

(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 134 - No particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact - It is the quality of evidence and not the quantity that matters - Testimony of a solitary witness can be made the basis of conviction if the evidence is reliable - (Paras 57, 63)

(C) Culpable Homicide vs Murder - Test of Intention and Knowledge - Intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death makes a culpable homicide a murder - If the injury is found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then clause thirdly of Section 300 of the IPC is attracted - (Paras 66, 67, 70)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of the victim and inflicting injuries on family members using various weapons. The prosecution argued that the motive was to punish the victim for providing legal support in a case against the accused. The defense contended that the conviction was based on faulty evidence, highlighted the lack of incised injuries despite the claim of being armed with sharp-edged weapons, and argued that the case amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than murder.

Findings of Court:
The court relied on the testimony of injured eyewitnesses whose depositions remained consistent regarding the date, time, and manner of the incident. It held that the absence of incised wounds did not discredit the prosecution as injuries were caused by the blunt side of weapons. The court dismissed the contention of withholding material witnesses as the quality of the examined injured witnesses was sufficient to prove the case. It rejected the plea for conversion to culpable homicide, finding the assault was premeditated and the nature of injuries was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Issues: Whether the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; whether the non-examination of certain witnesses was fatal to the prosecution; and whether the conviction should be reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Ratio Decidendi: The testimony of injured eyewitnesses holds a special status and provides a strong guarantee of presence at the scene. When the nature of multiple injuries inflicted on vital parts with excessive force clearly indicates an intention to cause death or bodily injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offense constitutes murder under Section 300(3) IPC, and the absence of sharp-edged wounds does not mitigate the criminality if the blunt force trauma was sufficient to be fatal.

Result: Appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed.

Table of Content
1. detailed factual background, procedural history, and evidentiary summary of the murder case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18)
2. summary of prosecution and defense contentions regarding the occurrence and the validity of accusations. (Para 16 , 19 , 20)
3. evaluation of oral and documentary evidence presented in trial to establish the cause of death and investigative consistency. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
4. principles for the appreciation of ocular evidence and the reliability of injured eyewitness testimony. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
5. application of established witness reliability tests to the specific evidence and testimony given in the instant case. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 52 , 53)
6. establishment of the motive through prior criminal history and the ongoing rivalry between the parties. (Para 49 , 50 , 51)
7. legal standard determining whether the non-examination of certain witnesses warrants an adverse inference against the prosecution. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)
8. distinguishing between culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the ipc. (Para 66 , 68)
9. application of the murder test to the nature of injuries, premeditation, and shared common object in communal assault. (Para 67 , 69 , 70 , 71)
10. final confirmation of the conviction, dismissal of the appeals, and issuance of custodial orders. (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)

JUDGMENT :

AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

1. The validity and sustainability of the judgment and order dated 11.03.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No.282 of 2008 (State Vs. Rishipal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.1223 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 307 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi has been challenged by way of instant five connected criminal appeals, whereby the appellants Krishna Pal alias Lala, Rishi Pal, Raghunath, Ranjeet, Bahadur and Udham were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default thereof, to further undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/149 IPC, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC and to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Since these criminal appeals arise out of same case number and judgment, therefore, all these appeals have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. Criminal Appeal No.1978 of 2011 is being treated as a leading case.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, finds place in the F.I.R., which was lodged on the basis of the written report Ex.Ka.-1 given by informant Manoj Kumar, wherein it was narrated that on 01.07.2007 at 10:00 P.M., the informant Manoj Kumar son of Ramashanker, resident of Mustra Village, P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi with his brothers Pushparaj alias Pushpendra, Ashok and informant’s cousin Jagdish, informant’s mother Bitti Bai and wife of Pushparaj namely, Vimla Devi were watching T.V. in their room after having dinner and at that moment they heard knocking at the door of the informant’s house, to which all of them went towards the door and as soon as the brother of the informant Pushparaj opened the door, they saw Krishan Pal alias Lala son of Bhagwandas, Rishi Pal son of Sher Singh of village Mairi and Raghunath alias Batauli son of Gajraj from the informant’s village were standing there, armed with Guns and Rifles while Ranjeet son of Gajraj was armed with an axe, Bahadur son of Betali was armed with a spear and Udham son of Kamal Singh was carrying a knife. All of them with a common object came to the door an