2026 Supreme(All) 664

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
J.J. MUNIR, SANJIV KUMAR, JJ.
Santosh and others - Appellants 
Versus 
State of U.P. - Respondents 
Criminal Appeal No. 7543 of 2006 Along with Criminal Appeal No. 7713 of 2006
Decided On : 11-05-2026

An omission in framing charges does not invalidate a conviction unless it causes prejudice or failure of justice. Injured eye-witness testimony holds high evidentiary value, and in the presence of consistent direct evidence, the absence of a proven motive does not undermine the prosecution case.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 215, 313, 464, 465.

(B) Error in Framing Charge - An omission in charge particulars, such as the name of a victim, is not material unless it has actually misled the accused or occasioned a failure of justice. Procedural irregularities do not invalidate a trial if the overall evidence and substance of the matter clearly inform the accused of the allegations. (Paras 29-37)

(C) Testimony of Injured Witness - The evidence of a witness who sustained injuries during the occurrence carries a special status as an inherent guarantee of their presence at the scene, and such testimony should be relied upon unless there are major contradictions that shake the core of the prosecution story. (Paras 44-46)

(D) Motive - In cases based on direct ocular evidence, the proof of motive is not a strictly essential requirement for conviction, as atrocious crimes may be committed with varying or undiscoverable impelling factors. (Paras 68-71) (E) Scrutiny of Evidence - Minor contradictions arising during lengthy cross-examination of witnesses do not suffice to discredit the reliability of a consistent and trustworthy eye-witness account. (Paras 51-55)

Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged their convictions for murder, attempt to murder, and house trespass, arguing that the charge framed at trial was defective due to the exclusion of one deceased person's name. They further contended that the presence of eye-witnesses was doubtful due to alleged inconsistencies, and that the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive for the incident.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the accused were throughout aware of the charges against them and that the procedural omission did not cause any prejudice or failure of justice. The testimony of the injured eye-witness was found credible and consistent, and minor discrepancies were deemed natural given the duration of the cross-examination. The direct eyewitness account remained the most reliable basis for holding the appellants guilty.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the effect of an error in framing charges on the validity of a trial, the probative value of testimony provided by injured eyewitnesses, and whether the inability to prove a specific motive is fatal when direct evidence exists.

Ratio Decidendi: A trial cannot be invalidated by procedural omissions unless such errors contribute to a failure of justice or prejudice the defense. Injured witnesses provide a strong, reliable account of events, and where their testimony remains consistent with medical evidence, surrounding contradictions are considered trivial. Proof of motive is secondary in the presence of clear and trustworthy direct evidence.

Result: Appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences affirmed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and prosecution evidence (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. detailed witness testimonies and documentary evidence (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21)
3. defence positioning and exclusionary evidence (Para 22 , 23)
4. summary of rival contentions and appeal grounds (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. impact of defective charges on trial fairness (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
6. establishing promptness of fir and venue (Para 38 , 39 , 40)
7. reliability of injured and eye-witness accounts (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
8. adverse inference regarding non-examined witnesses (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60)
9. investigation standards and motive significance in crime (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)
10. final judicial reasoning and order of conviction (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)

Judgment :

Sanjiv Kumar J.

1. All the above three Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2006 passed by Sri Shyam Sundar, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Mainpuri, in Session Trial No. 128 of 2002 (State Vs. Santosh and Others). As all the above three Criminal Appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 29.11.2006, and therefore, all of them are being decided by a common judgment.

2. The Criminal Appeal No. 7543 of 2006 has been filed by appellants, to wit, Santosh son of Charan Singh, Kamlesh son of Sua Ram, Ram Naresh son of Sonelal and Ram Pal son of Kanaujiya Lal; Criminal Appeal No. 7712 of 2006 has been filed by appellants- Satyvir Singh, Shiv Vir Singh and Ram Avtar all sons of Sonelal and Criminal Appeal No. 7713 of 2006 has been filed by the appellants- Sukhvir son of Charan Singh and Arvind Singh son of Ram Naresh, all residents of Village- Nagla Bandh, Police Station- Kisni, District- Mainpuri, against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6 Mainpuri, in Sessions Trial No. 128 of 2002, as aforesaid.

3. By the impugned judgment and order, all the appellants, to wit, Santosh, Kamlesh, Ram Naresh, Ram Pal, Satyavir Singh, Shiv Vir Singh, Ram Avtar, Sukhvir, Arvind Singh have been found guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of one year’s for offence punishable under Section 147 Indian Penal Code (in short’ IPC’); one year’s imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 148 IPC; appellants Kamlesh and Ram Naresh were further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and in default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo further imprisonment of four months; all the appellants were also convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine they were further directed to undergo imprisonment for a term of four months and lastly, all the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term of three years under Section 452 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine they were further directed to undergo imprisonment for a term of four months, and it was directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant Om Prakash son of Sri Sarman Singh Yadav, Resident of Village- Nagla Bandh, H/o Mudausi, Police Station- Kisni, District- Mainpuri, filed a written information (tehrir) dated 19.08.2001 before Incharge Police Outpost -Mogaon, Police Station- Kisni, District Mainpuri, stating therein that he is serving in the Army and had come to his village on leave. There was enmity over abadi land between Om Prakash and Santosh, Sukhvir Yadav and Kamlesh natives of his village. About one month

Click Here to Read the rest of this document