Back
2025 Supreme(All) 4035
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, Sanjiv Kumar, JJ.
Gaya Prasad and others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 2193 of 1984
Decided On : 19-12-2025
For the Appellant : Sri Chandra Prakash Tiwari, Sri Kameshwar Singh
For the Respondent: A.G.A.
Convictions based on direct, consistent eye-witness testimony are maintainable even when witnesses are related to the victim, provided the evidence is credible and corroborated by medical findings, as minor procedural delays during investigation do not inherently undermine the prosecution's case.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 and Section 34 - Murder - Common intention - Conviction - Where the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused through consistent direct evidence, a plea of false implication must be supported by substantial proof which is absent, rendering the conviction sustainable. (Paras 35, 48, 60)
(B) Evidence - Credibility of witness - Testimony of related witnesses - Testimony of eye-witnesses who are relatives of the deceased cannot be discarded solely on account of their relationship if their account is consistent, cogent, and inspires confidence. (Paras 50-52)
(C) Evidence - Delay in recording statement - Mere delay in recording the statement of a witness under the Code of Criminal Procedure does not automatically invalidate their testimony, especially when the delay is well-explained by the context of the incident and legal proceedings. (Para 54)
(D) Evidence - Motive - In a case supported by direct eye-witness evidence, motive is of secondary importance, yet a clear motive stemming from disputes over inheritance strengthens the reliability of the prosecution’s narrative. (Para 58)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of an individual who was assisting in agricultural work on the complainant's property. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, driven by a dispute over the inheritance of ancestral property, attacked the victim with blunt weapons and a projectile weapon. The defence claimed that the FIR was ante-dated and the victim was killed by unidentified persons due to his alleged prior criminal history.
Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence of the eye-witnesses to be consistent and reliable, noting that their presence at the scene was established by the ongoing agricultural activity. The lack of medical-legal discrepancies and the strong motive substantiated the prosecution's case. The court rejected the defence's claim of a blind murder, concluding that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The central issues addressed were the reliability of eye-witness testimony where witnesses were related to the victim, the impact of the alleged delay in investigation procedures, and whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under common intention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that eye-witness testimony, even from related persons, holds evidentiary value if credible and free from material inconsistencies. An appellate court will not disturb a conviction where the factual findings of the trial court are backed by consistent ocular and medical evidence. The foundational evidence provided proved the shared common intent of the attackers to commit murder.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural status and initiation of criminal appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual basis of the prosecution case and investigative steps. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. testimonies of prosecution witnesses and medical findings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. defense stance recorded under section 313 crpc. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. conflicting contentions regarding evidence and witness reliability. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. court analysis of fir validity, witness credibility, and incident sequence. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 7. corroboration: medical evidence, lack of delay, and estabishing motive. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 8. application of section 34 ipc regarding shared common intention. (Para 60) |
| 9. final appellate verdict and sentencing order compliance. (Para 61 , 62 , 63) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjiv Kumar, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by appellants/convicts Gaya Prasad, Achhoo @ Kalloo, Dinesh @ Munna and Babu Tiwari, against the judgment and order dated 10.08.1984 passed by Mr. D.R. Singh the then Special Judge, (E.C. Act), Banda in S.T. No. 2 of 1984 State Vs. Gaya Prasad and others, arising out of (Case Crime No.706 of 1983), under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Banda.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).
3. The present Criminal Appeal in regard to accused appellant no. 1 Gaya Prasad has abated, vide order dated 15th October, 2025. Therefore, the present Criminal Appeal now proceeds in regard to appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, to wit, Achhoo alias Kalloo, Dinesh alias Munna and Babu Tiwari only.
4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant, Shiv Narain Tiwari son of Matthu Tiwari, resident of Village- Mahokhar, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Banda, gave verbal information at Police Station- Kotwali District- Banda on 23.08.1983 at 5.30 P.M., that Gaya Prasad son of Late Ram Narayan Tiwari, his nephew of full blood, has three major and three minor sons. The informant had not married. While living jointly with his nephew, he was not even given the bare necessaries, including food. He owns 35 bighas of land. Therefore, about 11 years ago, he married Smt. Shyam Bai, a widow and a resident of village Pardawa, police station Mau. Her first husband, Shyam Bihari had died long ago and she was begging her living in order to look after her two minor sons and a minor daughter. After marrying her, the informant marriage off her only daughter. Her elder son namely Shatrughan had renounced the world and become an ascetic. He lives in Chitrakoot. Her younger son, Nathu @ Ayodhya lives alongwith him and his mother at his house. A daughter was born of the wedlock of parties, who is about 3-4 years old.
5. It was reported that today, at about 3 p.m. the informant and his wife Smt. Shaym Bai had gone to his field located towards west of the abadi by the side of a canal for supervising the sowing of paddy and her son Nathu @ Ayodhya was grazing cattle while sitting on the southern side of the canal. Sukhiya Arakh, Malkhan and Saukhi were sowing paddy in his field. The three accused namely Gaya Prasad Tiwari, Acchoo @ Kallu and Dinesh @ Munna carrying lathis and another Babu Tiwari came there, approaching from the direction of the village Mahokhar Their field was adjacent to the informant’s. Therefore, he was under the impression that the accused were proceeding to their field, but as soon as all four of them reached close to Nathu @ Ayodhya, Gaya Prasad exhorted to the other catch Nathu, saying that he had come forward as the complainant’s heir to own ancestral properties. Thereupon, Babu Tiwari took out a country made pistol, hidden in his pocket, and shot to kill N
