1. Appeal against conviction for murder — Firearm shot at close range — Conflict with medical evidence regarding absence of blackening. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 1429
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Siddhartha Varma, Jai Krishna Upadhyay, JJ.
Tej Singh And Others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 1554 of 1987
Decided On : 29-09-2026
Important Points
Conviction is unsustainable when ocular evidence is irreconcilably conflicted with medical evidence ruling out the alleged manner of occurrence, and when the prosecution fails to examine material natural witnesses, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
Subject
Criminal Law - Homicide
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.34
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.161, S.313
UTTAR PRADESH ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT : S.176
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.161, S.313
UTTAR PRADESH ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT : S.176
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Ocular Evidence vs. Medical Evidence - Where ocular evidence asserts a close-range shooting but medical evidence positively rules out close firing due to the absence of blackening, scorching, or tattooing, the testimony of the eye-witness becomes doubtful. If direct evidence is not supported by expert evidence and is totally inconsistent with medical evidence, it constitutes a fundamental defect in the prosecution case unless reasonably explained, which can discredit the entire case. (Paras 21, 22 and 24)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Non-examination of material witnesses - When material witnesses who were naturally present at the scene of the crime and essential to the unfolding of the narrative are withheld by the prosecution without reasonable explanation, an adverse inference must be drawn that their evidence, if produced, would have been unfavorable to the prosecution. (Paras 28, 30, 31 and 33)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Chance Witness - The credibility of a chance witness is assessed based on the naturalness of their presence at the scene and the timeliness of their statement. An unexplained delay in recording the statement of such a witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. strongly indicates the possibility of the witness being planted. (Para 35)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was allegedly shot in the chest from close range during the night in the presence of family members. The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of the informant and a chance witness who claimed to see the accused fleeing the scene. Medical evidence revealed that blackening, scorching, and tattooing were completely absent around the wound. It was noted that the wife and daughter of the deceased, who were sleeping adjacent to him, were not examined by the prosecution. There was also evidence of a long-standing property dispute between the parties.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the ocular evidence regarding the manner of firing was irreconcilably conflicted with the medical evidence. The non-examination of natural witnesses and the unnatural presence and delayed statement of the chance witness created substantial doubt. Additionally, the informant's claim of heavy rain as a reason for the delay in filing the FIR contradicted the claim that the family was sleeping outdoors in an open enclosure.
Issues: Whether the conviction could be sustained given the gross contradiction between ocular and medical evidence and the non-examination of material natural witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: Ocular evidence may be disbelieved when medical evidence completely rules out the possibility of the ocular version being true. Furthermore, when the prosecution fails to examine witnesses essential to the narrative who were indisputably present at the scene, it constitutes a serious infirmity in the proof of the case, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
Result: Appeal allowed and the judgment of the trial court set aside; appellant acquitted.
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Non-examination of material witnesses - When material witnesses who were naturally present at the scene of the crime and essential to the unfolding of the narrative are withheld by the prosecution without reasonable explanation, an adverse inference must be drawn that their evidence, if produced, would have been unfavorable to the prosecution. (Paras 28, 30, 31 and 33)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Chance Witness - The credibility of a chance witness is assessed based on the naturalness of their presence at the scene and the timeliness of their statement. An unexplained delay in recording the statement of such a witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. strongly indicates the possibility of the witness being planted. (Para 35)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was allegedly shot in the chest from close range during the night in the presence of family members. The prosecution's case rested on the testimony of the informant and a chance witness who claimed to see the accused fleeing the scene. Medical evidence revealed that blackening, scorching, and tattooing were completely absent around the wound. It was noted that the wife and daughter of the deceased, who were sleeping adjacent to him, were not examined by the prosecution. There was also evidence of a long-standing property dispute between the parties.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the ocular evidence regarding the manner of firing was irreconcilably conflicted with the medical evidence. The non-examination of natural witnesses and the unnatural presence and delayed statement of the chance witness created substantial doubt. Additionally, the informant's claim of heavy rain as a reason for the delay in filing the FIR contradicted the claim that the family was sleeping outdoors in an open enclosure.
Issues: Whether the conviction could be sustained given the gross contradiction between ocular and medical evidence and the non-examination of material natural witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: Ocular evidence may be disbelieved when medical evidence completely rules out the possibility of the ocular version being true. Furthermore, when the prosecution fails to examine witnesses essential to the narrative who were indisputably present at the scene, it constitutes a serious infirmity in the proof of the case, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
Result: Appeal allowed and the judgment of the trial court set aside; appellant acquitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- criminal law
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.B.L. Gour
For the Respondent: A.G.A.
For the Appellant : A.B.L. Gour
For the Respondent: A.G.A.
Table of Contents
2. Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to material contradictions, medical evidence, and withheld natural witnesses. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
3. Ocular evidence of close-range firing contradicted by medical evidence showing no blackening or tattooing, rendering prosecution doubtful. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 34 , 35 , 36 )
4. Where medical evidence completely rules out ocular version, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. (Para 27 , 37 )
5. Appeal allowed — Conviction and sentence set aside — Appellant acquitted of all charges. (Para 38 , 39 )
6. When does medical evidence override ocular testimony in a criminal trial?
If medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the injuries occurring as alleged by eyewitnesses, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. (Para 27 , 32 )
7. What inference arises from non-examination of material witnesses?
An adverse inference may be drawn that their evidence would have been unfavorable to the prosecution if natural witnesses present at the scene are withheld without explanation. (Para 28 , 33 )
8. Is delay in recording a chance witness's statement under Section 161 CrPC significant?
An unexplained delay of 5 days in recording the statement of a chance witness strongly indicates the witness was introduced later as a setup by the prosecution. (Para 35 )
9. What is the legal test for drawing an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act?
If material witnesses essential to unfolding the prosecution case are withheld without explanation, the court may presume their evidence would have been unfavorable to the prosecution. (Para 31 , 33 )
JUDGMENT :
Jai Krishna Upadhyay, J
1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.05.1987 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in Sessions Trial No. 378 of 1986 arising out of Case Crime No. 475 of 1985, Police Station Kasganj, District Etah convicting and sentencing the appellant Udai Bhan under Section 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment and accused Tej Singh and Mehtab Singh were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. According to the prosecution narrative recorded in the written report (Ex. Ka-1) submitted by the informant Prem Kumar (PW-1), the incident occurred in the intervening night between 7th and 8th July 1985 at around 2:00 AM in Village Pathraki, Police Station Kasganj, District Etah. The deceased, Dal Chand, aged about 65 years (father of the informant), along with his wife Smt. Shyama Devi and daughter Savitri Devi, was sleeping on cots inside the enclosure (gher) where a lantern was lit. The informant was sleeping on a separate cot nearby. On hearing the barking of dogs, the informant, his mother, and his sister woke up and saw three persons entering from the northern side towards his father's cot. They were identified as co-villagers Tej Singh (armed with a lathi), Mehtab Singh (armed with a spear), and Uday Bhan Singh (armed with a country-made pistol). When the informant and his family tried to stop them, Tej Singh extorted Uday Bhan Singh, stating that Dal Chand was harassing them through continuous litigation and should be finished off. Thereupon, Uday Bhan Singh extended his hand and fired a gunshot from his country-made pistol at Dal Chand's chest, causing his death. Upon the family raising an alarm, the assailants ran away towards Village Behta. Shankar (PW-2) and Hari Singh, who were allegedly loading mangoes near a tree on the roadside, claimed to have seen the accused fleeing in the light of their torches. The deceased Dal Chand, Tej Singh, and Mittu were real brothers born to Kalyan Singh. While Tej Singh and Mittu were born to one mother, Dal Chand was born to another. Following the death of Kalyan Singh, agricultural land was mutated in the names of all three brothers. However, Tej Singh and Mittu challenged Dal Chand's parentage, claiming he was not the son of Kalyan Singh, and initiated litigation which was pending before the High Court at Allahabad. Due to enmity and greed over agricultural land, the accused allegedly murdered Dal Chand. The informant stated that due to fear of the assailants in the night and rain, he could not go to the police station immediately.
3. On the basis of the written report (Ex. Ka-1) presented by Prem Kumar, chick FIR No. 475 of 1985 under Section 302 IPC was registered at Police Station Kasganj on 08.07.1985 at 6:45 AM by Head Moharrir.
4. Investigating Officer Sub Inspector, Babu Ram (PW-3) took over the investigation, copied the FIR and GD entries into the case diary, recorded statements of witnesses, and reached the spot. He conducted inquest proceedings over the body of the deceased (Ex. Ka-4) and prepared the accompanying documents, including Chalan Nash (Ex. Ka-5), Photo Nash (Ex. Ka-6), letter to R.I. (Ex. Ka-7), letter to C.M.O. for post-mortem (Ex. Ka-8), and sample seal (Ex. Ka-9). The body was sent to the District Hospital Mortuary, Etah where post-mortem of the body of the deceased was conducted by PW-4. He recorded that death occurred due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from ante-mortem injuries.
5. The Investigating Officer collected blood-stained string (baan) from the cot, a cardboard wad (tikli) (Ex. Ka-10), blood-stained and simple earth (Ex. Ka-11), seized the burning lantern under Supurdginama (Ex. Ka-12), and inspected the torch of witness Hari Singh (Ex. Ka-13). He prepared the site plan (Ex. Ka-14) and recorded statements of witnesses. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-15) was submitted against all three accused under S
