# Dheer Singh & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 827
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 1984
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Praveen Kumar Giri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dheer-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-53266
- **Pages:** 19

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Murder - Direct
evidence - Appeal from conviction -
Intentional
homicide
using
tractor
-
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 &
302/34 - Crushed victim under tractor
wheels
-
Evidence
of
injured
and
independent eyewitness corroborated by
medical and expert evidence - Common
intention - Related Witness - Medical
Corroboration
-

Motive
established-
Ocular vs. Medical evidence - Direct and
cogent
ocular
and
medical
evidence
proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt -
Injured witness testimony has higher
evidentiary value - related witness not
inherently unreliable - Conviction under
Section 302 IPC can be sustained where
the prosecution case is supported by
reliable injured eyewitness testimony,
promptly lodged FIR, and medical and site
inspection evidence.
(Para
-
4,12,31,35,43-47)

Litigation
regarding
passage
(rasta)
was
ongoing between complainant and accused -
confrontation
occurred
where
Mangat
(deceased) was assaulted - complainant was
also injured - While returning from police
station after lodging report, accused and
Yashpal followed on a tractor - Accused drove
the tractor over deceased on exhortation of
Yashpal - resulting in his death - FIR lodged
promptly and medical/post-mortem evidence
corroborated ocular version.(Para - 4, 5, 6, 12,
13, 31)

HELD: - Appellant was found guilty of
intentionally driving tractor over deceased after
prior enmity and assault.
Ocular evidence of injured and independent
witnesses corroborated by post-mortem and
expert opinion. Conviction under Section 302
IPC upheld. Accused directed to surrender and
serve out sentence. (Para - 44-48)

Criminal appeal dismissed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,976 of 64,073. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39976 for what follows._

4 All. Dheer Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
827

64. Let a copy of this order be
communicated
by
the
Registrar
(Compliance) to the Court concerned for
compliance and to proceed in accordance
with law in case the accused fails to
surrender.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 827
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 1984

Dheer Singh & Anr. ... Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Sumit Goyal, Sri Rajrshi Gupta, Sri Rijwan,
Sri Dileep Kumar (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondent:
D.G.A., Sri Anurag Pathak

(A) Criminal Law - Murder - Direct
evidence - Appeal from conviction -
Intentional
homicide
using
tractor
-
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 &
302/34 - Crushed victim under tractor
wheels
-
Evidence
of
injured
and
independent eyewitness corroborated by
medical and expert evidence - Common
intention - Related Witness - Medical
Corroboration
-

Motive
established-
Ocular vs. Medical evidence - Direct and
cogent
ocular
and
medical
evidence
proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt -
Injured witness testimony has higher
evidentiary value - related witness not
inherently unreliable - Conviction under
Section 302 IPC can be sustained where
the prosecution case is supported by
reliable injured eyewitness testimony,
promptly lodged FIR, and medical and site
inspection evidence.
(Para
-
4,12,31,35,43-47)

Litigation
regarding
passage
(rasta)
was
ongoing between complainant and accused -
confrontation
occurred
where
Mangat
(deceased) was assaulted - complainant was
also injured - While returning from police
station after lodging report, accused and
Yashpal followed on a tractor - Accused drove
the tractor over deceased on exhortation of
Yashpal - resulting in his death - FIR lodged
promptly and medical/post-mortem evidence
corroborated ocular version.(Para - 4, 5, 6, 12,
13, 31)

HELD: - Appellant was found guilty of
intentionally driving tractor over deceased after
prior enmity and assault.
Ocular evidence of injured and independent
witnesses corroborated by post-mortem and
expert opinion. Conviction under Section 302
IPC upheld. Accused directed to surrender and
serve out sentence. (Para - 44-48)

Criminal appeal dismissed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED: -

1. Krishna Mochi & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, (2002) 6
SCC 81

2. Masalti Vs St. of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202

3. Darya Singh Vs St. of Punj., AIR 1965 SC 328

4. Appabhai & anr. Vs St. of Guj., AIR 1988 SC
696

5. St. of A.P. Vs S. Rayappa & ors., (2006) 4
SCC 512

6. Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy Vs St.
of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444

7. Satbir Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P., (2009) 13
SCC 790

8. Jayabalan Vs U.T. of Pondicherry, 2010 (68)
ACC 308 (SC)

9. Dharnidhar Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 7 SCC 759
828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. Baban Shankar Daphal & ors. Vs The St. of
Maha., 2025 SCC Online SC 137

11. Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Vs St. of
Maha., (2023) 12 SCC 558

12. Pahalwan Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P.,
2020 (6) ALJ 166

13. Kaptan Singh Vs St. of UP, 2020 (1) ADJ
106 (DB)

14. Neeraj Sharma Vs St. of Chhattisgarh,
(2024) 3 SCC 125

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar
Birla, J.)

1. Heard Shri Dilip Kumar, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rijwan,
learned counsel for the sole surviving
appellant Dheer Singh as well as Shri
Ghanshyam Kumar, learned AGA for the
State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. Present Criminal Appeal has been
filed against the judgment and order
dated 31.01.1984, passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Sessions
Trial No.112 of 1982, convicting and
sentencing
the
appellant
no.1-Dheer
Singh under section 302 IPC and
appellant no.2 Yashpal under section
302/34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for
life to both the appellants.

3. Vide order dated 31.07.2018 the
appeal stood
abated in respect of
appellant no.2-Yashpal. Now the appeal
is surviving only in respect of appellant
no.1- Dheer Singh.

4. Prosecution story in brief is that a
litigation was going on between the
complainant and the accused Dheer Singh
with regard to passage (Rasta). On
13.10.1981 at about 8 a.m. one Kantu,
Vikram, Dharam Pal and one Banwari,
who is stated to be the brother-in-law of
Dharam Pal, tried to block the said way,
which was resented by the deceased
Mangat, whereupon Kantu, father of the
accused Dheer Singh, caught-hold of
Mangat and Dharampal and Banwari
assaulted him with Lathis and when the
complainant-Ramphal tried to save him,
Vikram assaulted him with 'Kulhari' and
Dharam Pal assaulted him with a Lathi.
Complainant and the deceased Mangat
raised an alarm, which invited Megh Raj,
Pahal Singh, Suresh and a number of
other
persons,
who
saved
them.
Complainant-Ramphal and the deceased
Mangat
came
to
their
house
and
thereafter left for the Police Station to
lodge the report. When they reached near
the plot of Shyam Singh, at about 8-30
a.m. the accused Dheer Singh and
Yashpal came there on a tractor, which
was being driven by accused Dheer
Singh. Accused Yashpal is said to have
exhorted Dheer Singh to run the tractor
over Mangat so that he may be taught a
lesson for lodging the report. Accused
Dheer Singh then drove the tractor
towards Mangat who turned towards
south towards the plot of Shyam Singh to
save himself but Mangat was crushed by
the tractor. The complainant claims to
have saved himself by going towards the
North of the road. Mangat was crushed by
the tractor and died on the spot. This
incident is said to have been seen by
Pitamber
and
Sethpal.
Complainant-
Ramphal then went to village Khatkaheri,
lying at a distance of half a kilometre from
there and wrote the report. It was said that
Prem Singh, brother of the complainant-
Ramphal also reached the spot in a tractor
and thereafter both of them went to the
Police Station, Rampur, where the first
information report was lodged at 9-30 a.m.
4 All. Dheer Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
829
on the same day by Head Constable Tejpal
Singh, who prepared the chik-report and
registered the case in the General Diary.

5. Investigation of this case were
entrusted
to
Sri
Balkishore,
Sub
Inspector, who was present at the time the
case was registered in the police station.
He alongwith Head Constable-Tejpal
Singh left for the scene of occurrence. He
found the dead body of the deceased
Mangat lying in the plot of Shyam Singh.
He prepared the Panchayatnama (Ex. Ka5), Diagram (Ex.Ka-6) and Challan of the
dead body (Ex. Ka-7). He wrote a letter
(Ex.Ka-8)
for
the
post-mortem
examination of the dead body and sent
the same for post-mortem examination
through Constables Daya Ram and Kartar
Singh.

6. Dr. J. G. Garg conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body. He
found the following ante-mortem injuries
on the dead body:-

i. Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on
back and right side of skull.

ii. Incised wound horizontal 2.5
cm long, cutting upper 1/3rd part of ear
and separating it.

iii. Abraded contused area 9 cm
x 7 cm on front of right shoulder.

iv. Contusion 7 cm x 2 cm on
front of right upper arm, upper-half part
and oblique.

v. Abraded contusion in an area
of 4 cm x 3 cm on front of left shoulder.

vi. Contusion 8 cm x 1.5 cm
vertical on left upper part, upper 1/4th
part.

vii. Contusion 9 cm x 2 cm on
left lower and outer quadrant.

viii. Contused area 12 cm x 5
cm on front of left thigh upper 1/2 part.

ix. Contusion 7 cm x 2 cm on
front of right thigh horizontal and lower
1/3rd part.

x. Contused area 11 cm x 9 cm
on front of right knee upper part and
thigh about 2. cm below injury No.9.

xi. Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x
muscle deep (2.5 cm deep) on medial
aspect of right leg on upper 1/3rd part.

xii. Contused area 12 cm x 8 cm
on front of left knee upper half and thigh
lower part.

xiii. Abrasion 2.5 cm x 2 cm on
front of left leg upper 1/3rd part.

7. In the opinion of Dr. J. G. Garg,
the deceased Mangat had died as a result
of the injuries sustained by him on his
head.

8. Thereafter investigation was
started by the Investigating Officer and
after concluding the same a charge-sheet
was submitted against the accused persons.
The accused pleaded not guilty to the
charge and denied to have murdered
Mangat. They claim to have been falsely
implicated due to enmity and Party-Bandi.

9. The prosecution has examined as
many as 7 witnesses, namely, P.W.1Ramphal, the complainant, and P.W.2-
Pitamber Singh were the alleged eyewitnesses of the incident. P.W.3- Head
Constable Tejpal has prepared the chick
report and registered the case in the general
diary. He has also proved the other relevant
G.D. entries. P.W.4- Sri Balkishore has
initially investigated the case. He has also
proved
the
charge-sheet
against
the
accused.
P.W.5-
Dr.
J.G.
Garg
has
conducted the post-mortem of the dead
body of the deceased Mangat while P.W.6
Dr. Satish Kumar had medically examined
Ramphal with regard to the incident which
830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is stated to have taken place at 8 a.m.
P.W.7-Head Constable Sahukar Singh had
conducted the technical examination of the
tractor. Dr. Krishna Kumar Singhal Expert
appeared as CW-1 to given expert medical
opinion.

10. The prosecution has also
submitted documentary evidence, which
were marked as Exhibit Ka-1-Written
Report, Exhibit Ka-2-First Information
Report,
Exhibit
Ka-3-General
Diary,
Exhibit Ka-5-Panchayatnama, Exhibit Ka6-Diagram, Exhibit Ka-7-Challan of the
dead body, Exhibit Ka-8-Letter for the post
mortem examination written by P.W.4,
Exhibit
Ka-9-Memo,
Exhibit
Ka-10Recovery Memo of Cycle Atlas, Exhibit
Ka-11-Site Plan Exhibit Ka-12-Chargesheet
Mool, Exhibit Ka-13, Post Mortem Report,
Exhibit Ka-14-Injury Report.

11. Undisputed fact is that accusedDheer Singh was the nephew of the
accused Yashpal. Both the accused and the
complainant- Ramphal, who is son of the
deceased- Mangat belong to one family.
They were descendants of one Hoshiar
Singh. Accused Yashpal was one of the
nephews and accused Dheer Singh was
one of the grandsons of deceased Mangat
by family relationship. A litigation was
also going on between the family
members of the deceased and the accused
with regard to passage (Rasta).

12. Before proceeding further it may
be noted that in the first information
report dated 13.10.1981 there is a
reference of two incidents. One, that had
taken place at about 8.00 am when Kantu,
Vikram, Dharam Pal and one Banwari,
who is stated to be the brother-in-law of
Dharam Pal, tried to block the passage in
respect whereof a dispute was pending
between the parties for quite sometime
and
litigation
was
also
going
on.
Allegation is that in the aforesaid
incident, Kantu, father of accused Dheer
Singh, caught-hold of Mangat, father of
the
informant,
and
Dharampal
and
Banwari assaulted him with Lathis and
when the complainant- Ramphal tried to
save him, Vikram, who was holding axe
in his hand, assaulted Ramphal on his
shoulder and Dharam Pal also attacked
him with a Lathi. On raising alarm certain
persons came there and on seeing them
accused persons ran away from the spot.
The second incident mentioned in the
first information report (with which we
are concerned in the present appeal), is
the incident that had taken place at 8.30
am when the informant Ramphal and his
father-Mangat were going to police
station for lodging the first information
report about the incident that had taken
place at 8.00 am and when they reached
near the plot of Shyam Singh, accused
Dheer Singh and Yashpal came there on a
tractor, which was being driven by
accused Dheer Singh. Mangat who was
riding his bicycle was dashed from
behind by the tractor and was crushed
under the wheels of the tractor and died
on the spot. In so far as the first incident
which had allegedly taken place at 8.00
am, criminal prosecution on Kantu,
Vikram, Dharam Pal, had taken place
under section 323/34 and 324/34 IPC in
Criminal Case No.2664 of 1999 wherein
the examination in chief of PW-1,
Ramphal who is the informant herein was
recorded but thereafter he did not turn up
for cross examination and no one appeared
from the prosecution side on various dates
fixed for recording of the prosecution
evidence.
In
absence
of
prosecution
evidence
the
accused
persons
were
acquitted for want of prosecution by the
4 All. Dheer Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
831
judgment and order dated 28.02.2001
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Saharanpur.

13. Shri Dilip Kumar, learned Senior
Counsel has produced a certified copy of
the aforesaid judgment obtained in the year
2001 itself, after perusal whereof the same
was returned to learned Senior Counsel
after retaining photocopy of the same. On
the basis of said judgment he sought to
submit that as the prosecution had not
pressed the criminal prosecution in the
alleged first incident that has taken place on
the same day about half an hour prior to the
present incident hence, the prosecution
story in the present case is not worth belief.

14. On merit, learned Senior Counsel
at the very outset, fairly admitted that the
tractor dashed the deceased- Mangat is not
in dispute. He, however, submits that the
incident is purely accidental in nature and
the surviving appellant Dheer Singh has
been wrongly convicted and punished
under Section 302 IPC. The judgment is
contrary to law and is based on wholly
incorrect appreciation of evidence on
record.

15. Elaborating his argument, he has
drawn the attention to the medical report,
ante mortem injuries at page 77 of the
paper book, which reflects that as many as
13 injuries were suffered by the deceased.
It is submitted that only injury no.1 on the
head of the deceased is fatal and that there
was no crush injury on the dead body of the
deceased, which clearly shows that the
ocular evidence is incorrect and concocted
and is not corroborated by the medical
evidence. Attention in this regard was
drawn to the statement of PW-1-Ramphal,
wherein, he had stated that accused Dheer
Singh was driving the tractor and accused
Yashpal (now deceased) was sitting on the
mudguard of tractor and on the instigation
of Yashpal, Dheer Singh speeded up the
tractor and hit Mangat father of the
complainant from behind. Mangat after
being hit by the tractor fell down in the
field of Shyam Singh thereafter accused
Dheer Singh with the intention to kill
Mangat ran over the tractor over him.
Attention was also drawn to statement of
Dr. J.G. Garg, who had conducted the post
mortem to contend that as per his cross
examination there was no crushing injury
on the dead body of the deceased and in his
opinion the deceased died because of head
injury. He has further drawn the attention to
the statement of PW-5 that in case the
tractor ran over the deceased there is every
possibility of fracture in his bone. It is
submitted that although there were as many
as 13 injuries, however, there was no
fracture and cause of death as opined by the
Doctor was head injury. The submission,
therefore, is that the eye witness account of
PW-1-Ramphal who is the son of the
deceased is concocted and cannot form
basis for conviction of the appellant.

16. He further contended that it is
only for this reason initially the first
information report was registered under
section 304 IPC, which was subsequently
converted under section 302 IPC. It was
also submitted that even the expert opinion
given by CW-1, Dr. Krishna Kumar
Singhal reflects that no definite opinion
about the deceased having been crushed
under the wheels of the tractor was
expressed by him, who has deposed as CW1 after having been summoned by the
court. It is highlighted that even the expert
has not given any definite opinion as to
whether if the deceased is crushed under
the wheels of the tractor the bone may or
may
not
get
fractured.
Submission,
832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore, is that although it is not proved
that deceased died because of crushing
under the wheels of the tractor. Submission,
therefore, is that it is not in dispute that
tractor dashed the deceased, however,
injuries suffered by the deceased is only
accidental in nature and no case of
conviction under section 302 IPC is made
out on perusal of the evidence on record.
During course of argument learned Senior
Counsel has taken us through the statement
of the witnesses, post mortem report,
statement of Doctor conducting the post
mortem and the expert opinion report. The
site plan was also placed before us.
Argument was also made that first
information report was not in existence
when the panchnama was prepared by the
Investigating Officer and therefore, the
entire prosecution story is faulty and
baseless.

17. Lastly, it is submitted that no case
for conviction under section 302 IPC is
made out on appreciation of evidence and
although not admitted but at the worst an
offence may have been committed under
section 304 IPC. Submission, therefore, is
that the sole surviving appellant Dheer
Singh is liable to be acquitted from charges
under section 302 IPC.

18. Per contra, Shri Ghanshyam
Kumar, learned AGA for the State
Respondents submits that in respect of the
first
incident
admittedly
criminal
prosecution had taken place and it is quite
apparent that the examination-in-chief of
PW-1-Ramphal, who is the informant
herein, had also been recorded in that
criminal prosecution, however, acquittal
was for want of prosecution as having been
convicted of the charge under section 302
IPC the prosecution side did not pursue the
criminal prosecution in respect of offence
under Section 323/34 and 324/34 IPC,
therefore, acquittal in the aforesaid criminal
prosecution is of no consequence. He
further submitted that it is a case of prompt
FIR. The second incident had taken place at
8.30 am whereas the first information
report was lodged at 9.30 am on the same
day and the distance of police station is 4
miles. He submits that the ocular evidence
is intact to the effect that the deceased was
dashed by the tractor, which was driven by
accused, Dheer Singh. This fact is also
admitted
by
learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing for the appellant and further the
ocular evidence is to the effect that when
the deceased fell down in the field of
Shyam Singh, the tractor was taken down
towards him and he was crushed under the
wheels of the tractor. Submission, therefore
is that clearly there was intention to kill
Mangat and incident is not at all accidental
in nature. He submits that undisputedly,
there was enmity between the parties and
just half an hour before the present
incident, first incident had taken place at
about 8.00 am wherein the deceased and
the informant both were beaten by the
accused persons who are directly related to
the present accused. It was also pointed out
one proceeding under section 133 Cr.P.C.
was also pending between the parties.

19. By drawing attention to Post
Mortem Report, statement of PW-5-J.G.
Garg, statement of expert, CW-1-Dr.
Krishna Kumar Singhal he submitted that
medical evidence clearly supports the
ocular version. The doctor who had
conducted the post mortem had clearly
stated that injuries could have been caused
by crushing under the wheels of the tractor.
The expert report is also not contrary to the
medical evidence. He submitted that in any
case the eye-witness account will have
preference over the medical report and the
4 All. Dheer Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
833
informant is the injured witness who had
suffered injuries in the first incident which
had taken place just half an hour before the
present incident and it was also submitted
that Pitambar Singh, PW-2 is independent
eye witness and the presence of PW-1 and
PW-2 is not disputed. It was also pointed
out that to satisfy itself the learned
Sessions Judge had conducted spot
inspection and found the site plan
prepared by the Investigating Officer to
be in order and proper and to remove
any doubt the court had also called for
expert opinion and expert-Dr. Krishna
Kumar
Singhal
had
appeared
and
submitted his report and proved his
report by appearing him as CW-1 and
his opinion to the effect that the said
injury could have been caused by
crushing under wheels of the tractor.
Submission, therefore, is that it clearly
proved beyond any shadow of doubt
that there was an intention to kill the
deceased and offence have committed
under section 302 IPC. The surviving
appellant Dheer Singh himself was
driving the tractor and, therefore, there
is no illegality or infirmity in the
judgment of conviction.

20. We have considered the rival
submissions and perused the records.

21. Before proceeding further, it
would be appropriate to refer to various
relevant judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court
as well as of this Court.

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
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
834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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
4 All. Dheer Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
835
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:

"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
836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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.
4 All. Dheer Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
837

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
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. Minor discrepancies on
trivial matters not touching the core of the
case, hyper technical approach by taking
sentences torn out of context here or there
from the evidence, attaching importance to
some technical error committed by the
investigating officer not going to the root of
the matter would not ordinarily permit
rejection of the evidence as a whole.

29.5. Too serious a view to be
adopted on mere variations falling in the
narration of an incident (either as between
the evidence of two witnesses or as between
two statements of the same witness) is an
unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.

29.6. By and large a witness
cannot
be
expected
to
possess
a
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
photographic memory and to recall the
details of an incident. It is not as if a video
tape is replayed on the mental screen.

29.7. Ordinarily it so happens
that a witness is overtaken by events. The
witness could not have anticipated the
occurrence which so often has an element
of surprise. The mental faculties therefore
cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb
the details.

29.8. The powers of observation
differ from person to person. What one may
notice, another may not. An object or
movement might emboss its image on one
person's mind whereas it might go
unnoticed on the part of another.

29.9. By and large people cannot
accurately recall a conversation and
reproduce the very words used by them or
heard by them. They can only recall the
main purport of the conversation. It is
unrealistic to expect a witness to be a
human tape recorder.

29.10. In regard to exact time of
an incident, or the time duration of an
occurrence, usually, people make their
estimates by guess work on the spur of the
moment at the time of interrogation. And
one cannot expect people to make very
precise or reliable estimates in such
matters. Again, it depends on the timesense of individuals which varies from
person to person. ]

29.11.
Ordinarily
a
witness
cannot be expected to recall accurately the
sequence of events which take place in
rapid succession or in a short time span. A
witness is liable to get confused, or mixed
up when interrogated later on.

29.12. A witness, though wholly
truthful, is liable to be overawed by the
court atmosphere and the piercing cross
examination by counsel and out of
nervousness mix up facts, get confused
regarding sequence of events, or fill up
details from imagination on the spur of the
moment. The sub- conscious mind of the
witness sometimes so operates on account
of the fear of looking foolish or being
disbelieved though the witness is giving a
truthful
and
honest
account
of
the
occurrence witnessed by him.

29.13. A former statement though
seemingly inconsistent with the evidence
need not necessarily be sufficient to amount
to
contradiction.
Unless
the
former
statement has the potency to discredit the
later statement, even if the later statement
is at variance with the former to some
extent it would not be helpful to contradict
that witness.

[See
Bharwada
Bhoginbhai
Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983 Cri LJ
1096 : AIR 1983 SC 753, Leela Ram v.
State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 3717, and
Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1959
SC 1012]

30. To put it simply, in assessing
the value of the evidence of the eye-
witnesses, two principal considerations are
whether, in the circumstances of the case, it
is possible to believe their presence at the
scene of occurrence or in such situations as
would make it possible for them to witness
the facts deposed to by them and secondly,
whether there is anything inherently
improbable or unreliable in their evidence.
In respect of both these considerations, the
circumstances either elicited from those
witnesses themselves or established by
other evidence tending to improbabilise
their presence or to discredit the veracity of
their statements, will have a bearing upon
the value which a Court would attach to
their evidence. Although in cases where the
plea of the accused is a mere denial, yet the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses has
to be examined on its own merits, where the
accused raise a definite plea or puts
forward
a
positive
case
which
is
4 All.