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) 737

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, SANJIV KUMAR, JJ.
Ram Das and others – Appellants
Versus 
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1989
Decided On : 29-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Nirbhay Singh, Tahira Kazmi, Tahira Kazmi A/c
For the Respondent: DGA

A criminal conviction cannot stand where there is an unexplained delay in reporting the incident and significant, irreconcilable contradictions between the prosecution's ocular evidence and the medical reports, as the burden of proof is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Appeal - Murder - Prosecution evidence must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Trial court decision found to be based on conjectures and incorrect appreciation of evidence. (Paras 19, 32, 33)

(B) First Information Report - Delay - Lodging report more than 24 hours after incident without plausible explanation raises doubt regarding spontaneity and suggests potential for after-thought or embellishment. (Paras 23-25)

(C) Evidence - Ocular vs. Medical Testimony - Where witness statement regarding the direction of gunshot attack is squarely contradicted by medical findings, ocular evidence is rendered unreliable; failure to examine other available eyewitnesses warrants adverse inference. (Paras 29-31)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the offence of murder. The prosecution case rested on oral testimony alleging that the victim was shot from behind while running. However, the medical report documented multiple gunshot entry wounds predominantly on the front side of the body. Furthermore, the report was filed with a significant delay of over 24 hours, and one of the cited eyewitnesses turned hostile during the trial.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the prosecution failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging the report. It noted that the inconsistency between the ocular evidence provided by the sole remaining material witness and the medical findings cast sufficient doubt on the prosecution version. The court concluded that when ocular testimony does not align with medical evidence and the prosecution fails to produce critical witnesses, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, the evidentiary effect of an unexplained delay in lodging the report, and the impact of contradictions between ocular testimony and medical expert findings.

Ratio Decidendi: In a criminal trial, if the prosecution fails to eliminate reasonable doubt—particularly through inconsistencies between oral testimony and medical evidence, and by failing to produce available independent witnesses—the conviction cannot be sustained. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution throughout, and conjecture is insufficient for conviction.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted.

Table of Content
1. overview of criminal appeal case and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. presentation of prosecution witnesses and medical forensic analysis. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. competing arguments regarding reliability of testimony and evidence. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
4. legal consequences of delayed fir and burden of proving motive. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. evaluation of eyewitness credibility versus medical contradictions. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
6. acquittal due to failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 32 , 33 , 35 , 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT :

Sanjiv Kumar, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by three convicts Ram Das, Suraj Singh and Munendra against the common judgment and order dated 12.01.1989 passed by Sri Sarnam Singh, the then Ist Additional Session Judge, Farrukhabad, in Session Trial No. 9 of 1985 connected with Session Trial No.210 of 1985, under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’).

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants, namely Ram Das, Suraj Singh and Munendra were held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant, Ram Ratan, son of Bhairav, a resident of Village Nardoli, Police Station Sikanderpur Baish, District Etah submitted a written application (tehrir) at Police Station Kampil, District Farrukhabad, stating therein that on 17.07.1984, his brother of full blood, Asha Ram, had gone to Kampil to meet his aunt (Bua). While returning to Village Nardoli along with Baba Ravi Giri, Sohan Lal and Ram Deen, near Village Nakara falling within local limits of Police Station Sikanderpur Baish, four men, namely Vinod Kumar, Ram Das, Suraj Singh and Munendra Singh, residents of Village Nagla Malikhan, Police Station Patiyali, District Etah, intercepted and surrounded them and pointed country-made pistols at his brother, Asha Ram and his companions. Despite repeated requests and entreaties to spare him, Munendra Singh instructed his companions to leave the others unharmed and thereafter shot at Asha Ram, declaring that Asha Ram had earlier killed his father, Kishan Pal and that the time had come to take revenge. Thereupon, Munendra Singh, Ram Das and Suraj Singh opened fire employing their country-made pistols to shoot the informant’s brother, Asha Ram, causing his death on the spot. Vinod Kumar stood nearby, brandishing his country-made pistol (tamancha) and threatening the informant and others. Upon alarm being raised, all the accused fled from the scene towards Jinol. It is further said that on the previous day, the informant had gone to Police Station Sikandarpur, District Etah to lodge a report, but the same was not registered on the ground that the offence fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kampil. Thereafter, the informant proceeded to lodge the present First Information Report. The incident is stated to have occurred on 17.07.1984 at about 12:00 noon.

4. On the basis of this information, First Information Report being Case Crime No. 141 of 1984, Section 302 I.P.C. was lodged at Police Station Kampil on 18.07.1984 at 12:20 p.m.. The investigation was entrusted to D.R. Mishra, Station House Officer of the police station concerned. The Investigating Officer commenced investigation and reached the place of occurrence, from where he collected plain earth, bloodstained earth, bloodstained umbrella and a towel and prepared a recovery memo thereof. He also prepared the site-plan and recorded the statements of the informant and other witnesses. The inquest of the deceased was held, an inquest report was prepared and the body was sent for autopsy. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted and the cause of death was opined as shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem gunshot injuries.

5. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Vinod Kumar, Ram Das and Su

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