Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 686

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, Sanjiv Kumar, JJ.
Gram Lodhi Alias Salig Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 1466 of 2001
Decided On : 27-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ambrish Kumar Kashyap, Ambrish Kumar, Ambrish Kumar A.c., J.s. Gangar, Jai Singh Parihar
For the Respondent:Govt. Advocate

In criminal proceedings, significant discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical reports, coupled with evidence indicating an ante-timed FIR, undermine the prosecution's case, entitling the accused to the benefit of reasonable doubt when the prosecution fails to provide credible or independent corroborating evidence.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 452 - Appeal against conviction for murder - FIR timing - Prosecution must prove FIR was lodged promptly to maintain its evidentiary value and spontaneity - When evidence suggests an FIR is ante-timed, such as contradictions in documentation or references to the victim's death before the formal record, the entire case against the accused becomes suspect. (Paras 35, 39, 40)

(B) Evidence - Ocular evidence versus medical findings - Major contradictions between the nature of injuries recorded in a post-mortem report and the testimony of eye-witnesses, specifically regarding the trajectory of bullets and the number of shots allegedly fired, render the prosecution's case unreliable - Testimony from solely interested witnesses, unsupported by independent evidence, fails to meet the test of being beyond reasonable doubt when the source of identification in the dark is questionable. (Paras 46, 47, 49)

Facts of the case:
The case originated from an appeal against a conviction for an incident involving the shooting of a victim at his residence. The prosecution asserted that the accused broke into the house, fired a shot, and fled. The trial court convicted the accused based on the testimony of family members. The defense challenged the conviction, arguing that the FIR was ante-timed, the medical evidence contradicted the ocular narrative, and that there was a lack of independent eyewitnesses.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the timing of the FIR, noting inconsistencies that suggested the document was created after the victim had already passed away to align with a fabricated narrative. Medical evidence regarding multiple gunshot injuries and their trajectories directly contradicted the claim of a single shot. The absence of reliable source-of-light evidence and the failure to examine available independent witnesses further eroded the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses.

Issues: 1. Whether the FIR was authentic and recorded at the time stated by the prosecution. 2. Whether the ocular testimony provided was sufficient to prove the identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt, especially when contradicted by forensic evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The conviction was found to be based on conjecture rather than solid evidence. Where the medical testimony contradicts the eyewitness accounts, and the procedural integrity of the FIR is deeply compromised (raising the possibility of it being ante-timed), the court must resolve the doubt in favor of the accused, notwithstanding the existence of an alleged motive or enmity.

Result: Appeal allowed; judgment and order of the lower court set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges.

Table of Content
1. summary of trial facts and prosecution evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
2. appellate arguments and trial court findings analysis. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
3. fir timing and procedural integrity assessment. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
4. reliability of witnesses and contradiction of medical evidence. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
5. acquittal due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)

JUDGMENT :

Sanjiv Kumar J.

1. The instant Criminal Appeal, under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., has been preferred by appellant/convict Gram Lodhi alias Salig Ram son of resident of Village- Mothi Katra, Police Station- Garautha, District- Jhansi, against the judgment and order dated 16.03.2001 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Session Trial No. 159 of 1998, arising out of Case Crime No. 251 of 1998 (State Vs. Gram Lodhi alias Salig Ram), under Sections 452, 307 and 302 IPC, Police Station- Rath, District- Hamirpur.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, appellant Gram Lodhi alias Salig Ram has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). He has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC, and it was directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that informant Smt. Vidya Devi wife of late Chetram, daughter of Nathhu resident of village Kasba Khera, Police Station- Rath, District- Hamirpur, submitted a written application (tehrir) (Ext. Ka-6) dated 15.06.1998 before the Incharge Police Station- Rath, District- Hamirpur, stating therein that she lives in her father’s house in Village- Kasba Khera since last 30 years, because she has no brother. Yesterday i.e. 14.06.1998, while all the family members were sleeping in courtyard after taking dinner, she awoke when accused Gram jumped in her house from the house ruins at 12 O’ Clock midnight. The accused shot at her husband Chetram by pistol with the intention to kill. Upon scream, the accused ran away. Her dewar Bahadur, who came to invite them, was sleeping outside the house, saw and challenged him. Some neighbors also reached there but Gram could not be caught. About 11 months ago there arose a dispute between the accused and her husband over his husband’s bua’s land situated in Village- Kheri Kadaura, Police Station- Garautha, District- Jhansi and accused Gram shot at her husband due to the above dispute. The bullet had hit at her husband’s chest. She, her father and some villagers admitted her husband in District Hospital, Rath for treatment and she has come to lodge the report. Upon this information FIR under case crime No. 251 of 1998, Section 452, 307 IPC was registered at Police Station Rath at 02.00 a.m. and the investigation commenced.

4. Injured Chetram succumbed to the injuries in hospital and the case was converted to Section 302 IPC. The Investigating Officer reached at the place of occurrence and collected plain earth and blood-stained earth and a bullet and prepared its fard baramadgi (Ext. Ka-3). He also inspected a lantern and handed it over in possession and prepared its supurdaginama (Ext. Ka-2). The inquest of the deceased was prepared alongwith related papers. The body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. In post-mortem six ante-mortem injuries were found and in the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of informant and other witnesses and after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet under Section 452, 307 and 302 IPC before Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur.

5. The concerned court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the ac