# Dault Ram & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 229
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 1984
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Jitendra Kumar Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dault-ram-ors-v-state-of-u-p-53492
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

Sections 302, 302/34, 307, 307/34, and 323 IPC
was
sustainable
in
light
of
alleged
inconsistencies and doubts raised by the
defence and Amicus Curiae.

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section - 34, 302, 307, 323 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 -
Criminal Appeal - aagainst Conviction and
Sentence - FIR lodged alleging commission of
offences of Murder with Common Intention,
Attempt to Murder with Common Intention, and
Voluntarily Causing Hurt - Accused's Statement
recorded
under
Section
313
CrPC
-
Investigation completed - Charge-sheet filed -
Sessions Trial commenced - Conviction and
Sentence awarded - Appreciation of Evidence -
Amicus Curiae raised concerns regarding delay
in FIR, inconsistencies in witness testimonies,
and absence of physical evidence - Court's finds
that - (i) Testimonies of injured witnesses
placed on higher evidentiary footing; one
prosecution
witness
remained
consistent
throughout
cross-examination
on
material
particulars; defence failed to elicit any material
contradiction - (ii) Minor contradictions and
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
improvements noted in witness statements,
however, on material aspects, the testimonies
found to be wholly reliable - (iii) Motive
established through prior enmity between
parties, lending credence to prosecution's case -
(iv) Trial Court rightly relied upon consistent
eyewitness accounts and corroborating medical
evidence;
findings
supported
by
cogent
reasoning - held - testimonies are wholly
reliable and the defence has not been able to
extract any material contradiction - hence, court
did not find any illegality or perversity in the
judgement and charges were proven beyond
reasonable doubt - consequently, Appeal is
dismissed. (Para - 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 40, 41)
Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Rakshpal and Another vs. State of U.P. 2025 (2)
ADJ 462 (DB); Dheer Singh and Others vs State
of U.P. , 2025 (4) ADJ 791; Baljinder Singh @
Ladoo vs The State Of Punjab, AIR 2024 SC
4810; Criminal Reference No.1 of 2024, In Re-
Procedure to be followed In Hearing of Criminal
Appeals
vs.
State
of
U.P.,
decided
on
22.01.2025; K.S. Panduranga v. State of
Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721; Surya Baksh
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC
222; State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, AIR 2004 SC
1490); Neeraj Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
(2024) 3 SCC 125;
LIST OF ACTS
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Murder - with common intention; Attempt to
murder with common intention; Voluntarily
causing hurt; conviction and sentence; Life
Imprisonment; Injured Witness; FIR Timing;
Eyewitness Testimony; Medical Corroboration;
Common
Intention;
Postmortem
Report;
Enmity; Contradictions; Appeal Dismissed.

CASE ARISING FROM
From Judgment and order dated 10.02.1982 of
Session Trial Court Etah in Session Trial No.
545/1981.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Advocates for the Appellants: Sandeep Kumar
Dubey, Kundan Singh, Amicus Curiae.
Advocates for the Respondents: DGA, AGA.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,666 of 64,143. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39666 for what follows._

7 All. Dault Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
229
persons who are deliberately involved in
such acts directly or behind the curtain
with oblique motive or to settle their score
adopting different modus-operandi are
hazardous to the civilized society and they
are not entitled for any sympathy in justice
delivery system. High Courts are sentinels
of justice with extraordinary and inherent
power to ensure that rights and reputation
of people are duly protected. Considering
the gravity and nature of offence as well as
misuse of social media platforms, this
Court cannot shut its eyes. The Government
is also not expected to act as a silent
spectator.

10- Accordingly, Government is
directed to take appropriate remedial
measures/steps in order to control and
eradicate such proliferating and booming
devastating menace, to stop the misuse of
social media platforms and to maintain
healthy atmosphere in the society, which is
the most important and essential factor for
a civilized society."

8. As a fall out and consequence of
above discussions as well as considering
the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, keeping in view the submissions
advanced on behalf of parties, nature of the
contents allegedly shared by the applicant,
gravity of offence and their potential
impact on societal harmony, role assigned
to applicant and severity of punishment, I
do not find any good ground to release the
applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, the bail application of
applicant is rejected.

10.
It
is
made
clear
that
the
observations contained in the instant order
are confined to the issue of bail.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 229
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 1984

Dault Ram & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sandeep Kumar Dubey, Kundan Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
D.G.A.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the conviction of appellants under
Sections 302, 302/34, 307, 307/34, and 323 IPC
was
sustainable
in
light
of
alleged
inconsistencies and doubts raised by the
defence and Amicus Curiae.

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section - 34, 302, 307, 323 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 -
Criminal Appeal - aagainst Conviction and
Sentence - FIR lodged alleging commission of
offences of Murder with Common Intention,
Attempt to Murder with Common Intention, and
Voluntarily Causing Hurt - Accused's Statement
recorded
under
Section
313
CrPC
-
Investigation completed - Charge-sheet filed -
Sessions Trial commenced - Conviction and
Sentence awarded - Appreciation of Evidence -
Amicus Curiae raised concerns regarding delay
in FIR, inconsistencies in witness testimonies,
and absence of physical evidence - Court's finds
that - (i) Testimonies of injured witnesses
placed on higher evidentiary footing; one
prosecution
witness
remained
consistent
throughout
cross-examination
on
material
particulars; defence failed to elicit any material
contradiction - (ii) Minor contradictions and
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
improvements noted in witness statements,
however, on material aspects, the testimonies
found to be wholly reliable - (iii) Motive
established through prior enmity between
parties, lending credence to prosecution's case -
(iv) Trial Court rightly relied upon consistent
eyewitness accounts and corroborating medical
evidence;
findings
supported
by
cogent
reasoning - held - testimonies are wholly
reliable and the defence has not been able to
extract any material contradiction - hence, court
did not find any illegality or perversity in the
judgement and charges were proven beyond
reasonable doubt - consequently, Appeal is
dismissed. (Para - 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 40, 41)
Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Rakshpal and Another vs. State of U.P. 2025 (2)
ADJ 462 (DB); Dheer Singh and Others vs State
of U.P. , 2025 (4) ADJ 791; Baljinder Singh @
Ladoo vs The State Of Punjab, AIR 2024 SC
4810; Criminal Reference No.1 of 2024, In Re-
Procedure to be followed In Hearing of Criminal
Appeals
vs.
State
of
U.P.,
decided
on
22.01.2025; K.S. Panduranga v. State of
Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721; Surya Baksh
Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC
222; State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, AIR 2004 SC
1490); Neeraj Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh,
(2024) 3 SCC 125;
LIST OF ACTS
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Murder - with common intention; Attempt to
murder with common intention; Voluntarily
causing hurt; conviction and sentence; Life
Imprisonment; Injured Witness; FIR Timing;
Eyewitness Testimony; Medical Corroboration;
Common
Intention;
Postmortem
Report;
Enmity; Contradictions; Appeal Dismissed.

CASE ARISING FROM
From Judgment and order dated 10.02.1982 of
Session Trial Court Etah in Session Trial No.
545/1981.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Advocates for the Appellants: Sandeep Kumar
Dubey, Kundan Singh, Amicus Curiae.
Advocates for the Respondents: DGA, AGA.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar
Sinha, J.)

1. Heard Shri Sandeep Kumar Dubey,
learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on
behalf of the appellants, Shri O.P. Dwivedi,
learned AGA-Ist, for the State and perused
the record.

2. By means of this criminal appeal,
the
appellants
have
challenged
their
conviction under Sections 302, 302/34,
323/34 of IPC, whereas appellant Daulat
Ram and Makrand alias Mukandi have
been convicted under Sections 307/34, 307
and 323 IPC. Both the appellants have been
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
under Sections 302, 302/34 IPC and 5 years
RI for the charge under Section 307/34 and
307 IPC respectively and 6 months RI for
the charge under Section 302 IPC. All the
sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.

3. In Surya Baksh Singh vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC 222, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is
always not necessary to adjourn the matter
in
case
both
appellants
or
his
counsels/lawyers are absent and the Court
can decide the appeal on merits after
perusal of the record and the judgement of
the trial Court. It has further been observed
that if the case is decided on merits in the
absence of the appellant, the higher court
can remedy the situation. It has also been
observed that appointment of Amicus
Curiae is also on the discretion of the court.
In paragraph 26 of the said judgement, it
was held that it is always not essential for
7 All. Dault Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
231
the High Court to appoint an Amicus
Curiae, paragraphs 24 and 26 of the said
judgement whereof are quoted as under:

"24. It seems to us that it is
necessary for the Appellate Court which is
confronted with the absence of the convict
as well as his Counsel, to immediately
proceed against the persons who stood
surety at the time when the convict was
granted bail, as this may lead to his
discovery and production in Court. If even
this exercise fails to locate and bring forth
the convict, the Appellate Court is
empowered to dismiss the appeal. We fully
and respectfully concur with the recent
elucidation of the law, profound yet
perspicuous, in K.S. Panduranga v. State
of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721. After a
comprehensive
analysis
of
previous
decisions our learned Brother had distilled
the legal position into six propositions:-

"19.1. that the High Court cannot
dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution
simpliciter without examining the merits;

19.2. that the Court is not bound
to adjourn the matter if both the Appellant
or his Counsel/lawyer are absent;

19.3. that the court may, as a
matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn
the matter but it is not bound to do so;

19.4. that it can dispose of the
appeal after perusing the record and
judgment of the trial court.

19.5. that if the accused is in jail
and cannot, on his own, come to court, it
would be advisable to adjourn the case and
fix
another
date
to
facilitate
the
appearance of the Appellant-accused if his
lawyer is not present, and if the lawyer is
absent and the court deems it appropriate
to appoint a lawyer at the State expense to
assist it, nothing in law would preclude the
court from doing so; and

19.6. that if the case is decided on
merits in the absence of the Appellant, the
higher court can remedy the situation.

25.....

26. Reverting back to the facts of
the present case a perusal of the impugned
order makes it abundantly evident that the
High Court has considered the case in all
its complexities. The argument that the
High Court was duty-bound to appoint an
amicus curiae is not legally sound.
Panduranga correctly considers Mohd.
Sukur Ali v. State of Assam (1996) 4 SCC
729 as per incuriam, inasmuch as the latter
mandates the appointment of an amicus
curiae and is thus irreconcilable with Bani
Singh vs. State of U.P. (1996) 4 SCC 720.
In the case in hand the High Court has
manifestly discussed the evidence that have
been led, and finding it of probative value,
has come to the conclusion that the
conviction is above Appellate reproach
correction and interference. In view of the
analysis of the law the contention raised
before us that it was essential for the High
Court to have appointed an amicus curiae
is wholly untenable. The High Court has
duly undertaken the curial responsibility
that fastens upon the Appellate Court, and
cannot be faulted on the approach adopted
by it. In this respect, we find no error."

4. The aforesaid view has been
followed by the Hon'ble Full Bench in
Criminal Reference No.1 of 2024, In Re-
Procedure To Be Followed In Hearing
Of Criminal Appeals vs. State of U.P.,
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
decided on 22.01.2025, paragraph Nos. 151
and 152, whereof are quoted as under:

"151. The crux of the aforesaid
observations
of
the
three
celebrated
judgments
rendered
by
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bani Singh and others
Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh Singh Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and K.S.
Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13,
thus, covers the entire length and breadth
of Question No. 5 formulated by the
Division
Bench
at
Lucknow
for
consideration by this Bench and no fresh
exercise, in our considered opinion, is
required to be undertaken by this Bench,
including on one point which has been
highlighted by the Division Bench at
Lucknow i.e. whether the amicus curiae
may be appointed even when the presence
of the convict, appellant or accusedrespondent may be secured and without his
consent.

152.
The
aforesaid
legal
precedents would evidently canvass that the
emphasis of the Apex Court has been on
providing opportunity of being heard to the
appellant who is willing to cooperate with
the appellate court or his counsel and in
this regard a process to cause his presence
for the purpose of giving opportunity of
being heard is required to be issued to him
and when the court is satisfied that such
appellant is deliberately avoiding his
presence before the court, in such a
situation, the court may dispose of the
appeal in the manner approved by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh and
others Vs. State of U.P. 11, Surya Baksh
Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 12 and
K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka 13
(i.e. after perusing the record/evidence visa-vis judgment of the trial court with the
assistance of prosecutor and Amicus, if
appointed) and we do not have any reason
to deviate from the settled proposition laid
down by the Apex Court in the above
mentioned
cases,
moreover,
the
appointment of amicus is only for the
purpose to provide fair trail to the
appellant and also for rendering the
assistance to the Court."

5. We, therefore, proceed to consider
the appeal on merits with the help of
learned Amicus Curiae and learned AGA
for the State.

6. The prosecution story in brief is that
Raj Kumar Singh, the deceased, Raghuveer
Singh, PW-1 complainant lived in the
rented house and the accused Daulat Ram
lived in the house adjacent to their house.
On the previous night at about 8 o'clock he
and Raj Kumar Singh Pradhan were sitting
on the roof and talking when Daulat came
to the roof in the state of intoxication and
started abusing both of them. Raj Kumar
Singh objected to this, on which Daulat
abused and kicked the Pradhan, on which
the Pradhan himself slapped him thrice. On
this Daulat said that he will see in the
morning. This morning he and Raj Kumar
Singh Pradhan came to Panchayat Udyog
Nangaon at GT Road Etah, Raj Kumar
Singh took off his clothes and started
bathing and he sat on the takhat in front and
started reading the newspaper, when at
about
7:30
in
the
morning
Daulat,
Makarand alias Mukandi started hurling
abuses. They came inside and Makrand
challenged him saying that Daulat you will
not get such a good chance. On this Daulat
took out a knife and attacked Raj Kumar
Singh. The informant ran to save Raj
Kumar Singh while screaming. On this
Makrand alias Mukandi stabbed him in the
back.
On
his
screaming
Ram
Pal,
Chowkidar, residnet of village Nabada,
7 All. Dault Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
233
police station Bagwala, Ram Chandra son
of Ratanlal Brahmin village Nagariya
police station Nidholi Kal Lal Saheb son of
Layak Singh Thakur village Nabada police
station Bagwala, Lal Saheb son of Layak
Singh
Thakur
village
Chintapur
and
Ramveer Singh son of Chhote Singh
resident presently Shikohabad Road Etah
reached there. Ram Pal Chowkidar also got
injured while trying to save Raj Kumar
Singh. All these people have seen the
incident and saved them. Daulat and
Makrand alias Mukandi stabbed and ran
away showing the knife. Pradhan Raj
Kumar died while being taken to the
hospital due to severe injuries.

7. The investigation of the case was
conducted by the investigating officer and
after conclusion of the investigation he
submitted charge sheet against the accused
Daulat Ram and Makrand alias Mukandi in
the Court.

8.
The
learned
Magistrate
took
cognizance on the charge sheet submitted
to the Court of Session for trial. The
learned trial Court framed charge against
the appellants accused under Sections 302,
302/34, 307, 307/34 IPC. The appellants
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for
trial.

9. The prosecution has examined eight
witnesses before trial Court, namely, PW-1
Raghuveer Singh, PW-2 Rampal Singh,
PW-3
Ram
Chandra,
PW-4
Naseem
Ahmad, PW-5 Bhagwan Singh, PW-6 S.K.
Singh, PW-7 Mashoor Murtza, PW-8 Dr.
M. Sharma. The prosecution has proved
Written Report as Ext. Ka1, FIR as Ext.
Ka2, Site plan with index as Ext. Ka4,
Injury Report as Ext. Ka5, Panchayatnama
as Ext. Ka6, Recovery memo of blood
stained and plaint shirt & Baniyan as Ext.
Ka10, P.M. Report as Ext. Ka28, Charge
sheet Mool as Ext. Ka29 as documentary
evidence.

10. PW-6, Swatantra Kumar Singh
M.O. City Hospital Etah examined the
injured Raghuveer Singh and found the
following injuries on his person:-

"1- Khass 1 cm x 1/4 cm on the
nose on the left side 1 cm below the bridge
of the nose.

2- Cut wound 2 cm x 3/4 cm deep
up to the flesh on the left side of the back
and 4 cm below the back fold of the armpit
on the outer side.

3- The injuries were ordinary,
injury no. 1 was caused by rubbing and
injury no. 2 was caused by a sharp weapon
and was fresh at the time of inspection. The
injured was brought to Kotwali police
station by constable no. 724 Dhaniram.

On the same day at 10.30 am, he
examined the injuries of Rampal Singh son
of Daulat Singh. The following injuries
were found on his person :-

"1- Khass 5 cm x 1/4 cm on the
chest on the left and downwards going up
to the stomach from Navel (broken)
towards the point above 13 cm.

2- The injuries were simple and
caused by rubbing and were fresh at the
time of inspection. He had prepared the
injury report of both the injured at the time
of inspection. It is in front of me and my
signature is there. The thumb impressions
and identification marks of the injured are
there on them. Ex. 4 and Ex. 5 were put on
them.
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3- The injuries of both the injured
could have been caused on 18.4.81 up to 71/2.

4- Injury no. 2 of Raghuveer
Singh could have been caused by a knife.
Injury no. 1 could have been caused by
rubbing of nails, rubbing of a piece of
wood or the blunt part of the knife.

5- There could be a difference of
5 hours between the injuries of both the
injured, not more than that.

11. PW-8, Dr. Shri M. Sharma was
posted as Medical Officer, E.S.I., Hospital,
Agra was conducted the postmortem of the
deceased and following injuries were found
on his person :-

"1. Cut wound just above the
navel in 12 O, clock position 5 cm x 1.5 cm
x cavity deep. From which strands of
intestines were coming out.

2. Cut wound 9 cm away from
navel and 4 cm x 1.5 cm x cavity deep in 11
O clock position. Strands of intestines were
coming out.

3. Scratched bruise marks 4 cm x
3 cm on left shoulder in front. On internal
examination of the dead body:

4. Abdominal wall was cut at the
place of injury in stomach and blood was
present. Pritom was also cut at the place of
injury. There was about 15 oz blood in the
cavity. Teeth were 16 by 16 and the larynx
was empty, small intestine was also empty
and cut at four places. There was stool in
the large intestine.

5. In my opinion the cause of death
was due to shock and bleeding due to above
mentioned 1 and 2 injuries. And these
injuries 1 and 2 were sufficient to cause the
death of the deceased. These injuries 1 and 2
were caused by knife and injury no. 3 by
blunt object on 18.4.81 at 9.00 a.m. he had
prepared the postmortem report on the same
day and time. It is in my handwriting and
signature. Ex. K-28 was put on it.

6. The clean clothes recovered
from the body of the deceased, dhoti, Ex. K4,
towel, Ex. K3 were stamped and handed over
to the above mentioned constable.

7. Injury no. 3 could have been
caused by falling and rubbing on the iron
railing.

8. The death of the deceased could
have occurred on 17/18.8.81 at 3-4 a.m.

12. After closure of prosecution evidence
the statement of appellants-accused was
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which
the accused denied their involvement in the
case. The appellants accused also stated in their
statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they
were roped in this case due to enmity.

13. The learned trial Court after hearing
the arguments of prosecution and the defence
and on perusal of the records passed the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence
impugned.

14. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that
the first information report is ante-time as the
incident took place at 07:30 a.m. and the first
information report has been lodged at 08:00
a.m. It does not look probable as to the
lodging of the first information report in
such a short period of time.

15. Learned Amicus Curiae further
submits that the first information report
7 All. Dault Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
235
does not find mention on the inquest and
the letter referring the injured to the
hospital by the police.

16. Learned Amicus Curiae further
submits that it is highly unbelievable that a
person would take bath in a factory where
there is no tab and the investigating officer
has not shown any tab in the premises of the
factory.

17. Further submission of learned
Amicus Curiae is that the stab wound injuries
are said to have been caused on the person of
the deceased Raj Kumar Singh but there is no
hole in the 'Baniyan' (vest) which raises
doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case.

18. Learned Amicus Curiae further
submits that the statements of PW-1 and PW2 are contradictory on the point of deceased
falling on the ground. Further PW-3, who is
said to be an eye witness has deposed to the
effect that the incident took place at 09:30
a.m. which is contradictory to the prosecution
story and the statements of PW-1 and PW-2.

19. Learned Amicus Curiae further
submits that the prosecution has failed to
establish the charge against the appellants
beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and
they are liable to be acquitted of the charge
levelled against them.

20. Per contra, learned AGA for the
State has supported the judgment of the
learned trial Court and has submitted that the
case is of the direct evidence and PW-1 and
PW-2 are wholly reliable and their reliability
is of higher decree as they are injured
witnesses as they have received the injuries in
the incident.

21. Learned AGA further submits that
motive for the commission of offence is
fully established as prior to the incident an
altercation had taken place between the
deceased and the accused Daulat Ram and
the accused/ appellants have admitted in
the statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court that
they have been roped in this case due to
enmity.

22. Learned AGA further submits that the
testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are corroborated
by the medical evidence of PW-6 and PW-8,
who have conducted the postmortem of the
deceased Raj Kumar Singh and medically
examined the injured complainant Raghuveer
Singh and Ram Pal Singh.

23. Learned AGA further submits that
though the time of the incident as deposed
by the PW-3 is contradictory to the time as
mentioned in the first information report
but since PW-1 and PW-2 are wholly
reliable then this contradiction does not go
to the root of the case.

24. Learned AGA has argued that the
prosecution has been able to prove this case
against the appellants beyond reasonable
doubt and the judgement of conviction and
order of sentence recorded by the learned
trial Court is just and proper and it does not
call for any interference by this Court in
appeal.

25. Before proceeding further, it
would be appropriate to take note of law
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in
respect of reliability of testimony of injured
witness, in the case of Baljinder Singh @
Ladoo vs The State Of Punjab, AIR 2024
SC 4810, paragraph no.12 and 13 whereof
are quoted below:-

"12. Also, it is worth indicating
that P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.5 are "injured
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
witnesses" or "injured eye-witnesses" in
this case. The sworn testimonies provided
by
injuredwitnesses
generally
carry
significant
evidentiary
weight.
Such
testimonies
cannot
be
dismissed
as
unreliable unless there are pellucid and
substantial discrepancies or contradictions
that undermine their credibility. If there is
any exaggeration in the deposition that is
immaterial to the case, such exaggeration
should be disregarded; however, it does not
warrant the rejection of the entire evidence.
Therefore, the suspicion raised by the
appellants regarding the genesis of the
case is rendered unfounded.

13.
The
abovementioned
conclusion stands fortified with reference
to paragraph 26 of the decision of this
Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. vs.
State of Maharashtra12. The relevant
passage is reproduced as under:

"26. When the evidence of an
injured eye-witness is to be appreciated,
the under-noted legal principles enunciated
by the Courts are required to be kept in
mind:

(a) The presence of an injured
eye-witness at the time and place of the
occurrence cannot be doubted unless there
are
material
contradictions
in
his
deposition.

(b)
Unless,
it
is
otherwise
established by the evidence, it must be
believed that an injured witness would not
allow the real culprits to escape and falsely
implicate the accused.

(c) The evidence of injured
witness has greater evidentiary value and
unless compelling reasons exist, their
statements are not to be discarded lightly.

(d) The evidence of injured
witness cannot be doubted on account of
some embellishment in natural conduct or
minor contradictions.

(e) If there be any exaggeration
or immaterial embellishments in the
evidence of an injured witness, then such
contradiction,
exaggeration
or
embellishment should be discarded from
the evidence of injured, but not the whole
evidence.

(f) The broad substratum of the
prosecution version must be taken into
consideration and discrepancies which
normally creep due to loss of memory with
passage of time should be discarded."

26. In a recent judgment of Dheer
Singh and Others vs State of U.P. , 2025
(4) ADJ 791, a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, of which one of us (Vivek Kumar
Birla, J.) was a member has considered the
law as to why a realistic approach to be
adopted
by
Criminal
Courts,
which
appreciating evidence in Criminal trial. The
law in respect of injured, related and
interested witness was also considered
extensively,
paragraph
nos.22
to
35
whereof reads as under:-

"22. In Krishna Mochi and others
vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81, the
Hon'ble Apex Court laid emphasis on
realistic approach to be adopted by the
criminal
courts
while
appreciating
evidence in criminal trial, paragraph 32
whereof is quoted as under:

"32. The court while appreciating
the evidence should not lose sight of these
realities of life and cannot afford to take an
unrealistic approach by sitting in an ivory
tower. I find that in recent times the
7 All. Dault Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
237
tendency to acquit an accused easily is
galloping fast. It is very easy to pass an
order of acquittal on the basis of minor
points raised in the case by a short
judgment so as to achieve the yardstick of
disposal. Some discrepancy is bound to be there
in each and every case which should not weigh
with the court so long it does not materially
affect
the
prosecution
case.
In
case
discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of
pebbles, the court should tread upon it, but if
the same are boulders, the court should not
make an attempt to jump over the same. These
days when crime is looming large and
humanity is suffering and the society is so much
affected thereby, duties and responsibilities of
the courts have become much more. Now the
maxim "let hundred guilty persons be acquitted,
but not a single innocent be convicted" is, in
practice, changing the world over and courts
have been compelled to accept that "society
suffers by wrong convictions and it equally
suffers by wrong acquittals". I find that this
Court in recent times has conscientiously taken
notice of these facts from time to time........."

(Emphasis supplied)

23. In Masalti vs. State of U.P.,
AIR 1965 SC 202, Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph 14 observed as under:

" 14. But it would, we think, be
unreasonable to contend that evidence
given by witnesses should be discarded
only on the ground that it is evidence of
partisan or interested witnesses. ... The
mechanical rejection of such evidence on
the sole ground that it is partisan would
invariably lead to failure of justice."

(Emphasis supplied)

24. In Darya Singh vs. State of
Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 328, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has also taken the view that
related witness does not necessarily mean
or is equivalent to an interested witness. A
witness may be called interested only when
he or she derives some benefit from the
result of litigation; a decree in a civil case,
or in seeing a person punished in a
criminal trial, paragraph 6 whereof is
quoted as under:

" 6. On principle, however, it is
difficult to accept the plea that if a witness
is shown to be a relative of the deceased
and it is also shown that he shared the
hostility of the victim towards the assailant,
his evidence can never be accepted unless
it is corroborated on material particulars."

25. In Appabhai and another vs.
State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 11
observed as under:

""11.........Experience reminds us
that
civilized
people
are
generally
insensitive when a crime is committed even
in their presence. They withdraw both from
the victim and the vigilante. They keep
themselves away from the Court unless it is
inevitable. They think that crime like civil
dispute is between two individuals or
parties and they should not involve
themselves. This kind of apathy of the
general public is indeed unfortunate, but it
is there everywhere whether in village life,
towns or cities. One cannot ignore this
handicap with which the investigating
agency has to discharge its duties. The
court, therefore, instead of doubting the
prosecution case for want of independent
witness must consider the broad spectrum
of the prosecution version and then search
for the nugget of truth with due regard to
probability if any, suggested by the
accused. The Court, however, must bear in
238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mind that witnesses to a serious crime may
not react in a normal manner. Nor do
they react uniformly. The horror stricken
witnesses at a dastardly crime or an act
of egregious nature may react differently.
Their, course of conduct may not be of
ordinary
type
in
the
normal
circumstances. The Court, therefore,
cannot reject their evidence merely
because they have behaved or reacted in
an unusual manner....."

(Emphasis supplied)

26. Similar view has been taken
in State of A.P. vs. S. Rayappa and others,
(2006) 4 SCC 512 wherein it has been
observed that it is now almost a fashion
that public is reluctant to appear and
depose before the court especially in
criminal cases and the cases for that
reason itself are dragged for years and
years, paragraph 6 whereof is quoted as
under:

"6......by now, it is a wellestablished principle of law that testimony
of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence
cannot be discarded on the ground that he
being a relation of the deceased is an
interested witness. A close relative who is a
very natural witness cannot be termed as
interested witness. The term interested
postulates that the person concerned must
have some direct interest in seeing the
accused person being convicted somehow
or the other either because of animosity or
some other reasons."

(Emphasis supplied)

27. In Pulicherla Nagaraju @
Nagaraja Reddy v. State of AP, (2006) 11
SCC 444, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph 16 has held as under:

"16. In this case, we find that the
trial court had rejected the evidence of
PW1 and PW2 merely because they were
interested witnesses being the brother and
father of the deceased. But it is well settled
that evidence of a witness cannot be
discarded merely on the ground that he is
either partisan or interested or closely
related to the deceased, if it is otherwise,
found to be trustworthy and credible. It
only requires scrutiny with more care and
caution, so that neither the guilty escape
nor the innocent wrongly convicted. If on
such careful scrutiny, the evidence is found
to be reliable and probable, it can be acted
upon. If it is found to be improbable or
suspicious, it ought to be rejected. Where
the witness has a motive to falsely implicate
the accused, his testimony should have
corroboration
in
regard
to
material
particulars before it is accepted."

(Emphasis supplied)

28. In Satbir Singh and others vs.
State of U.P., (2009) 13 SCC 790, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 26 held
as under:

"26. It is now a well-settled
principle of law that only because the
witnesses are not independent ones may not
by itself be a ground to discard the
prosecution case. If the prosecution case
has been supported by the witnesses and no
cogent reason has been shown to discredit
their statements, a judgment of conviction
can certainly be based thereupon ...... "

(Emphasis supplied)

29. In Jayabalan vs. U.T. of
Pondicherry, 2010 (68) ACC 308 (SC), the
Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 21 held
as under:
7 All. Dault Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
239

"21. We are of the considered
view that in cases where the court is called
upon to deal with the evidence of the
interested witnesses, the approach of the
court, while appreciating the evidence of
such witnesses must not be pedantic. The
court must be cautious in appreciating and
accepting the evidence given by the
interested witnesses but the court must not
be suspicious of such evidence. The
primary endeavour of the court must be to
look for consistency. The evidence of a
witness cannot be ignored or thrown out
solely because it comes from the mouth of a
person who is closely related to the victim."

(Emphasis supplied)

30. In Dharnidhar vs. State of
U.P., (2010) 7 SCC 759, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that there is no hard and fast
rule that family members can never be true
witnesses to the occurrence and that they
will always depose falsely before the Court.
It will always depend upon the facts and
circumstances of a given case, paragraphs
12 and 13 whereof is quoted as under:

"12. There is no hard and fast
rule that family members can never be true
witnesses to the occurrence and that they
will always depose falsely before the Court.
It will always depend upon the facts and
circumstances of a given case. In the case
of Jayabalan v. U.T. of Pondicherry
[(2010)1 SCC 199], this Court had
occasion to consider whether the evidence
of interested witnesses can be relied upon.
The Court took the view that a pedantic
approach cannot be applied while dealing
with the evidence of an interested witness.
Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown
out solely because it comes from a person
closely related to the victim. The Court
held as under:

" 23. We are of the considered
view that in cases where the court is called
upon to deal with the evidence of the
interested witnesses, the approach of the
court, while appreciating the evidence of
such witnesses must not be pedantic. The
court must be cautious in appreciating and
accepting the evidence given by the
interested witnesses but the court must not
be suspicious of such evidence. The
primary endeavour of the court must be to
look for consistency. The evidence of a
witness cannot be ignored or thrown out
solely because it comes from the mouth of a
person who is closely related to the victim.

13. Similar view was taken by this
Court in Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P.
[AIR 2010 SC 917], where the Court stated
the dictum of law that a close relative of the
deceased does not, per se, become an
interested witness. An interested witness is
one who is interested in securing the
conviction of a person out of vengeance or
enmity or due to disputes and deposes
before the Court only with that intention
and not to further the cause of justice. The
law relating to appreciation of evidence of
an interested witness is well settled,
according to which, the version of an
interested witness cannot be thrown over-
board, but has to be examined carefully
before accepting the same.

14. In the light of the above
judgments, it is clear that the statements of
the alleged interested witnesses can be
safely relied upon by the Court in support
of the prosecution's story. But this needs to
be done with care and to ensure that the
administration of criminal justice is not
undermined by the persons, who are closely
related to the deceased. When their
statements find corroboration by other
witnesses,
expert
evidence
and
the
240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstances of the case clearly depict
completion of the chain of evidence
pointing out to the guilt of the accused,
then we see no reason why the statement of
so called `interested witnesses' cannot be
relied upon by the Court."

(Emphasis supplied)

31. In a very recent judgement
rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Baban
Shankar Daphal and others vs. The State of
Maharashtra, 2025 SCC Online SC 137 in
respect of testimony of witness which
should not be discarded merely because of
relation with victim, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has, in paragraphs 27 and 28, held
as under:

"27. One of the contentions of the
learned counsel for the appellants is that
the eyewitnesses to the incident were all
closely related to the deceased and for
prudence the prosecution ought to have
examined
some
other
independent
eyewitness as well who were present at the
time of the unfortunate incident. This was
also the view taken by the Trial Court, but
the High Court has correctly rejected such
an approach and held that merely because
there
were
some
more
independent
witnesses also, who had reached the place
of incident, the evidence of the relatives
cannot be disbelieved. The law nowhere
states that the evidence of the interested
witness should be discarded altogether.
The law only warrants that their evidence
should be scrutinized with care and
caution. It has been held by this Court in
the catena of judgments that merely if a
witness is a relative, their testimony cannot
be discarded on that ground alone.

28.
In
criminal
cases,
the
credibility of witnesses, particularly those
who are close relatives of the victim, is
often scrutinized. However, being a relative
does not automatically render a witness
"interested"
or
biased.
The
term
"interested" refers to witnesses who have a
personal stake in the outcome, such as a
desire for revenge or to falsely implicate
the accused due to enmity or personal gain.
A "related" witness, on the other hand, is
someone who may be naturally present at
the scene of the crime, and their testimony
should not be dismissed simply because of
their relationship to the victim. Courts must
assess the reliability, consistency, and
coherence of their statements rather than
labelling them as untrustworthy.

(Emphasis supplied)

32.
In
a
recent
judgement
rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Shahaja
@ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2023) 12 SCC 558 has
observed that the appreciation of ocular
evidence is a hard task and has summed up
the
judicially
evolved
principles
for
appreciation of ocular evidence in a
criminal case, paragraphs 29 and 30
whereof is quoted as under:

"29. The appreciation of ocular
evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or
straight-jacket formula for appreciation of
the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved
principles for appreciation of ocular
evidence in a criminal case can be
enumerated as under:

29.1
While
appreciating
the
evidence of a witness, the approach must
be whether the evidence of the witness read
as a whole appears to have a ring of truth.
Once that impression is formed, it is
undoubtedly necessary for the Court to
scrutinize the evidence more particularly
7 All. Dault Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
241
keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks
and infirmities pointed out in the evidence
as a whole and evaluate them to find out
whether it is against the general tenor of
the evidence given by the witness and
whether the earlier evaluation of the
evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy
of belief.

29.2. If the Court before whom
the witness gives evidence had the
opportunity to form the opinion about the
general tenor of evidence given by the
witness, the appellate court which had not
this benefit will have to attach due weight
to the appreciation of evidence by the trial
court and unless there are reasons weighty
and formidable it would not be proper to
reject the evidence on the ground of minor
variations or infirmities in the matter of
trivial details.

29.3
When
eye-witness
is
examined at length it is quite possible for
him to make some discrepancies. But courts
should bear in mind that it is only when
discrepancies in the evidence of a witness
are so incompatible with the credibility of
his version that the court is justified in
jettisoning his evidence.

29.4.