Back
2025 Supreme(All) 4040
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Salil Kumar Rai, Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, JJ.
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
S. Vijai Singh - Respondent
Government Appeal No. - 2576 of 1985
Decided On : 11-12-2025
For the Appellant : A.G.A.
For the Respondent: Aditya Upadhyay, Ambrish Pandey, M.p. Yadav, Ram Bilas Yadav, S.k. Yadav
In criminal trials, suspicion cannot substitute for proof. Testimonies riddled with material contradictions, improvements from initial investigation statements, and unnatural conduct during an incident lack credibility, thereby failing to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Principles regarding appreciation of evidence in criminal trials - Necessity of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
(B) Evidence - Testimony of eye-witnesses - Impact of material contradictions and improvements made at trial compared to initial statements recorded during investigation - Testimony becomes unreliable when witnesses fail to withstand cross-examination and offer inconsistent versions of events - Unnatural conduct of witnesses, including failure to seek assistance or intervene during a violent occurrence, creates suspicion regarding their presence at the scene. (Paras 13, 15, 16, 20)
(C) Motive - Enmity as a double-edged weapon - Serves as a potential motive for crime but also for false implication - Suspicion, regardless of its strength, cannot substitute for legal proof - A conviction requires cogent evidence that establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 23, 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an appeal against the trial court's order acquitting several individuals charged with murder and unlawful assembly. The prosecution alleged that the victim was attacked in the presence of several eye-witnesses. The trial court set aside the prosecution's case, identifying significant inconsistencies and doubting the presence of the eye-witnesses at the scene, concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court determined that the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses was marred by material contradictions and wholesale improvements from their earlier recorded statements, rendering them untrustworthy. Their behavior at the scene of the purported incident, specifically the lack of any attempt to aid the victim or report the incident to nearby villagers, was deemed highly unnatural and suspicious.
Issues: Whether the acquittal order was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and whether the prosecution successfully discharged its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: Testimony fraught with significant contradictions and improvements compared to initial statements lacks credibility and fails to establish the presence of witnesses. Enmity is a double-edged sword; thus, conviction cannot rest on mere suspicion or on biased, unreliable testimony without corroboration, as proof beyond reasonable doubt is the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence.
Result: Appeal dismissed; judgment and order of acquittal confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context and summary of factual background and trial history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. conflicting contentions regarding the appreciation of evidence by the trial court. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. assessment of witness reliability and credibility regarding presence at scene. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. legal sufficiency of evidence and the doctrine that suspicion cannot replace proof. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. final order of dismissal and upholding the lower court acquittal. (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This Government Appeal No. 2576 of 1985 under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 22.05.1985 passed by learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in Session Trial No. 64 of 1984, whereby the accused-respondents, namely, Shanti Vijay Singh, Shatru Vijay Singh, Chandra Vijay Singh, Rama Singh, Hazari Bania, Ram Samujh, Ramapati Singh, Shreeram Yadav, Murlidhar Shukla and Paras Yadav have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 147, 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The accused- respondents Ram Briksh Singh, Sesh Vijay Singh and Rajeshwari Lal have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 148 and 302 IPC.
2. As per prosecution version, facts of the case are that on 12.08.1982, which was Sri Krishna Janmastmi day, deceased Girijashankar Lal was going to Lakshmipur market on a cycle alongwith his younger daughter Km. Pushpa, who was seated in his front on the frame of the cycle. Complainant Nalin Kumar was following him and was at a distance of 10-15 paces. At about 10.30 A.M., when Sri Girijashankar Lal reached on the Kacha road near the grove of Sri Yunus Khan, accused Ram Briksh Singh and Shesh Vijai Singh armed with country-made pistol, accused Rajeshwari Lal armed with knife and rest of the accused carrying lathies emerged from the said grove and surrounded Sri Girijashankar Lal. He stopped the cycle and Km. Pushpa immediately got down from the cycle with a push. Thereafter, Ram Briksh Singh and Shesh Vijai Singh fired with their country-made pistols, consequently he sustained injuries and tumbled down. Thereafter, accused persons lifted and took him near the ditch lying to the east of the road and threw him down there. Whereafter, accused Rajeshwari Lal sawed his neck with his knife. Rest of the accused had been holding Sri Girijashankar Lal and when Sri Girijashankar Lal died, the accused persons threw his dead body in the water in the nearby ditch. When accused Rajeshwari Lal was cutting the neck of Sri Girijashankar Lal, Km. Pushpa was entreating the accused and begging for the life of her father, but accused Shanti Vijai Singh threatened and pushed her back. Pancham and Ayodhya, who were coming from the road, saw this occurrence, when the accused noticed their presence on the spot, they threatened and chased them and they fled away raising hue and cry. The accused then ran away. Nalin Kumar, Pancham and Ayodhya then came back to the spot and in the meantime some other villagers also reached there. Complainant Nalin Kumar asked them to supervise the dead body. He started for the police station on his cycle. After covering a distance of 5-6 Km., when he reached in village Mohnapur Dhala, he purchased some papers and prepared a report giving details of this occurrence, took it to Police Station Purandarpur and lodged the same there at 12.15 P.M.
3. Thereafter, on the information of complainant Nalin Kumar, a case was registered against the named accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC. Investigation of the case was handed over to S.I. Ravindranath Pandey (PW-5). He started investigation of the case, inspected the place of incident, prepared the panchayatnama (inquest report) of the deceased Girijashankar Lal, sent his body for autopsy and also prepared the site plan. After completing all the formalities of the investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the a
