# Gendan Lal v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 370
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1954 of 1993
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gendan-lal-v-state-of-u-p-53084
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 164 & 313 - Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Section 307 - Arms
Act,1959 - Section 25 & 25(A)(1) - Criminal
appeal - against conviction and sentence - FIR
- alleged that the appellant, due to old enmity,
shot injured inside a courtroom during trial
proceedings - Investigation - led to recovery of
the weapon - chargesheet - Trial - during trial,
five prosecution witnesses supported the case
and the appellant was convicted and sentenced
- Appeal - The Court concluded that the
prosecution has convincingly established the
guilt of the accused who fired a close-range
shot at the victim within a functioning
courtroom during ongoing trial proceedings -
The accused was immediately apprehended at
the scene with the weapon and live ammunition
in his possession - The testimonies of PW1
(eyewitness) and PW2, along with corroborative
medical and investigative evidence, substantiate
the prosecution's narrative - In view of these
circumstances, the non-examination of any
specific
individual
as
witness
bears
no
consequence - The appeal lacks merit and is
therefore dismissed - held, the conviction of the
appellant is upheld - As regards the sentence of
life imprisonment, it is observed that the offence
was committed in broad daylight inside a
courtroom in full session while the Presiding
Officer was on the dais recording St.ments -
This is an exceptional case warranting the
maximum punishment, as rightly awarded by
the trial court - Consequently, the sentence of
life imprisonment, along with other imposed
penalties, is affirmed - The appellant is
directed
to
surrender
before
the
court
concerned forthwith - Appeal dismissed. (Para -
35, 36, 39, 40, 45, 46)

Criminal Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,913 of 67,061. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39913 for what follows._

370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstances. PW-7 Ram Bharosey son of
Bhim had stated that he had seen the
accused persons abusing Babu Singh and
threatening him not to turn his head
towards the land in Raipur or he would be
killed. He was, however, not the named
witness and stated in his cross-examination
that he had come on his own to make the
statement. PW-8 Mishri Lal, Investigating
Officer had stated in his cross examination
that the informant never told him that Babu
Singh had any dispute/scuffle between the
accused persons one day prior to the
incident.

21. We have also gone through the
statements of accused persons recorded
under
Section
313
Cr.P.C.
Nothing
incrimining could be noticed.

22. From the discussion made
hereinabove, we are of the opinion that
there is absence of the dead body of Babu
Singh in the present case. The charge of
destroying the evidence was not proved by
the prosecution and therefore, the very first
link of circumstances is missing and
broken; the motive for committing such
murder is also missing as once it comes out
that her father filed a suit for partition and
shares were made and all the accused
persons have agreed to the same. The
alleged incident of scuffle one day prior to
the incident was also not alleged in the first
information report, which should have been
actually done in case any such scuffle had
taken place one day prior to the incident.
The recovery of articles, namely, halfbroken spectacle and blood-stained stick of
Babu Singh from the spot is also doubtful
and PW-3-Durwasa in her statement had
not referred to the stick in the first
information report and in any case, same
was not sent for chemical examination and
in her cross-examination she admitted that
she had taken the broken spectacle frame
from the spot and does not know as to who
has
handed
over
the
same
to
the
Investigating Officer and that she had not
handed over the same to the I.O., therefore,
recovery of said half-broken frame from
the spot is not worth belief. No weapon was
recovered,
and
therefore,
the
empty
cartridge also could not be connected with
the offence. We therefore, find that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove
its case; the chain of circumstances is not
complete in the present case, therefore,
judgment of conviction is liable to be set
aside.

23.

The
present
appeal
is
accordingly
allowed.
The
impugned
judgment and order of the trial court dated
28.01.1993 convicting and sentencing the
appellants is hereby set aside and the
appellants are acquitted of the all charges
levelled against them. Bail bonds are
discharged. They need not surrender.

24. Copy of this judgment be sent
to the court concerned for necessary
compliance.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 370
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1954 of 1993

Gendan Lal ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel
for
the
Appellant:
3 All. Gendan Lal Vs. State of U.P.
371
Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, Sri Virendra
Kumar Kori, Sri Raj Kumar Vaish, Sri P.K.
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 161, 164 & 313 - Indian
Penal Code,1860 - Section 307 - Arms
Act,1959 - Section 25 & 25(A)(1) - Criminal
appeal - against conviction and sentence - FIR
- alleged that the appellant, due to old enmity,
shot injured inside a courtroom during trial
proceedings - Investigation - led to recovery of
the weapon - chargesheet - Trial - during trial,
five prosecution witnesses supported the case
and the appellant was convicted and sentenced
- Appeal - The Court concluded that the
prosecution has convincingly established the
guilt of the accused who fired a close-range
shot at the victim within a functioning
courtroom during ongoing trial proceedings -
The accused was immediately apprehended at
the scene with the weapon and live ammunition
in his possession - The testimonies of PW1
(eyewitness) and PW2, along with corroborative
medical and investigative evidence, substantiate
the prosecution's narrative - In view of these
circumstances, the non-examination of any
specific
individual
as
witness
bears
no
consequence - The appeal lacks merit and is
therefore dismissed - held, the conviction of the
appellant is upheld - As regards the sentence of
life imprisonment, it is observed that the offence
was committed in broad daylight inside a
courtroom in full session while the Presiding
Officer was on the dais recording St.ments -
This is an exceptional case warranting the
maximum punishment, as rightly awarded by
the trial court - Consequently, the sentence of
life imprisonment, along with other imposed
penalties, is affirmed - The appellant is
directed
to
surrender
before
the
court
concerned forthwith - Appeal dismissed. (Para -
35, 36, 39, 40, 45, 46)

Criminal Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. Vs Phool Singh 2022 (4) ADJ 397
(DB),
2. St. of Karnataka Vs Suvarnamma, (2015) 1
SCC 323,

3. Gajoo Vs St. of Uttarakhand, (2012) 9 SCC
532,

4. Balu Sudam Khalde Vs St. of Mah. 2023 13
SCC 365,

5. Rakshpal & anr. Vs St. of U.P. 2025 (2) ADJ
462 (DB),

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

7. Kaptan Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2020 (1) ADJ 106
(DB),

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

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

10. Baban Shankar Daphal & ors.Vs The St. of
Mah., 2025 SCC Online SC 137,

11. Dharnidhar Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 7 SCC
759,

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

13. Satbir Singh & ors.Vs St. of U.P., (2009) 13 9
SCC 790,

14. Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy Vs
St. of AP, (2006) 11 SCC 444,

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

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

17. Darya Singh Vs St. of Pun., AIR 1965 SC
328, Masalti Vs St. of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202,

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

19. Anil Kumar Vs St. of U.P. LAWS (ALL) 2015 8
274,
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
20. Ravi Karan Vs St. of U.P. LAWS (ALL) 2019
11 333,

21. Rameshwar Vs St. of U.P. LAWS (ALL) 2022
7 215.

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

1. This criminal appeal has been
preferred assailing the judgement and order
dated
25.10.1993
passed
by
Special/Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 373 of
1986
convicting
and
sentencing
the
appellant under section 307 IPC to undergo
imprisonment for life and under section 25
Arms Act to undergo sentence of three
years rigorous imprisonment, directing all
the sentences to run concurrently.

2. By the order dated 10.11.1993,
the appellant was released on bail.

3. The prosecution story, in brief,
is that the complainant and the accused
persons were residents of Village Kharkari,
Police Station Katra, District Shahjahanpur.
Accused Gendan Lal was the cousin
(mausera bhai) of co-accused Karan Lal
and he was the resident of Village Madhra,
Police Station Bisalpur, District Pilibhit.
Both sides had previous enmity due to
which, one person from both sides had
been murdered. Injured Ram Bharose was
the uncle of complainant Raja Ram. One
FIR was lodged for the murder of Balak
Ram against accused sides and another
FIR was lodged for the murder of Munna
Lal (brother of accused Karan Lal)
against the complainant side. Both the
cases were pending before the Court of
District
&
Sessions
Judge-I.
Ram
Bharose, the injured and his brothers
Brijpal and Mahendrapal and one Ram
Saran were accused in the said case of
murder of Munna Lal.
4. The prosecution version is that
on 16.6.1986 at 12.30 p.m. in the Court of
District & Sessions Judge-I, Shahjahanpur
within the jurisdiction of Police Station
Sadar Bazar, the trial of murder of Munna
Lal (brother of accused Karan Lal) was
going on in which, injured Ram Bharose
(PW2), Mahendra Pal, Brij Pal and Ram
Saran were standing in the witness box as
accused persons. Complainant Raja Ram
who was the prosecution witness in the said
case was present in the Court for getting his
evidence recorded against accused Karan
Lal.
Accused
Karan
Lal
was
the
complainant in the case of murder of
Munna Lal and his testimony was getting
recorded in the Court along with one
witness Dafedar. Accused Gendan Lal was
also present in the said courtroom to whom
accused Karan Lal indicated something by
his fingers. On his indication, accused
Gendan Lal took out a country-made pistol
of 315 bore and fired at the injured Ram
Bharose Lal (PW2) which hit him on his
back. Accused Gendan Lal then tried to
escape from the courtroom but he was
caught by the complainant Raja Ram and
Court Moharrir Ram Shankar along with
his country-made pistol with one fired
empty cartridge inside the pistol. Apart
from this, five live cartridges were also
recovered from the right pocket of accused
Gendan Lal. He was taken to the police
station by the complainant Raja Ram and
Court Moharrir Ram Shankar. The written
report was prepared on the way to the
police station which is Ex. Ka-1. Accused
Gendan Lal and injured Ram Bharose Lal
were taken to the concerned police station.
Thereafter, a chick report (Ex. Ka-5) was
prepared by PW4 Constable Om Prakash
Sharma on 16.6.1986 at 12.50 p.m. and he
also made GD entry of the said incident
which was registered as Case Crime No.
298 of 1986 and 299 of 1986 (Ex. Ka-6).
3 All. Gendan Lal Vs. State of U.P.
373
5. On the basis of written report
of the complainant, a first information
report was lodged against two accused
persons namely, Gendan Lal and Karan
Lal being S.T. No. 373/86 under Section
307 IPC. Accused Karan Lal was also
charged under Section 307 read with
Section 34 IPC while accused Gendan
Lal was also charged under Section 25
(A)(1) of the Arms Act in S.T. No.
374/86. Co-accused Karan Lal was later
on exonerated by the trial court from the
charges levelled against him.

6. In order to establish the
prosecution case, five witnesses were
examined namely, PW1 Raja Ram, PW2
Ram Bharose Lal, PW3 Dr. Amarlal and
PW4 Constable Om Prakash Sharma, P.S.
Mal Khana, Sadar, Shahjahanpur, PW5 S.I.
Vijendra Prasad Singh Yadav, P.S. Visalpur
as ocular evidence.

7. In addition to above, the
prosecution produced certain documents,
which were exhibited during the trial as
under:

(i) FIR Ext. Ka-5; (ii)
Written report Ext. Ka-1; (iii)
Recovery Memo of country made
pistol live and empty cartridge and
arrest of accused Ext. Ka-2; (iv)
Recovery Memo of blood stained
clothes Ext. Ka-3; (v) X-Ray report
Ext. Ka-8; (vi) Injury report Ext.
Ka-4; (vii) Charge-sheets (Mool)
Ext. Ka-10 and Ka-11; (viii)
Permission of District Magistrate
Ext. Ka-9; and (ix) Site Plan Ext.
Ka-7.

8. We have heard Sri Raj Kumar
Vaish along with Sri P.K. Srivastava,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Om Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for
the State respondents.

9. Submissions of Sri Vaish,
learned counsel for the appellant are mainly
that it is a case of defective investigation;
the prosecution has withheld its best
witness namely, Constable/Head Muharrir
Rama
Shankar
Dwivedi
who
was
instrumental in arresting the accused
Gendan Lal inside the courtroom itself and
was also witness of fard baramadgi of the
weapon and cartridges; there is no ballistic
expert report in respect of the weapon so
recovered and used and the cartridges so
recovered and used to connect the same
with the offence so committed; the
signatures of the appellants were not taken
on the fard baramdagi; the presence of the
appellant inside the courtroom by itself is
not sufficient to indicate that he had
committed any assault or offence as no
other employee of the courtroom was
examined to prove the prosecution story;
PW1 and PW2 are highly interested
witnesses as the informant PW1 Rajaram is
nephew of the injured and PW2 Ram
Bharose Lal himself is injured and belong
to the anti party with whom the appellant's
side was having cross criminal cases; PW2,
the injured states that the fire-arm injury
was caused to him from back side and he
had seen the accused subsequent to
sustaining of the injury by him, therefore,
this by itself is not sufficient to prove that
the appellant was the assailant; PW5, the
Investigating Officer has submitted that he
had recorded the statement of the Presiding
Officer present in the courtroom but
unfortunately he died before recording of
the statement, therefore, there should have
been a reference to the statement of the
Presiding Officer recorded under section
161 Cr.P.C. which, does not find place in
the judgment. It is lastly submitted that the
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellant has no previous criminal history,
and the prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, in
any case, the maximum sentence has
incorrectly been awarded in the present
case and as he was detained in jail during
trial
for
some
time,
therefore,
the
punishment be modified accordingly.

10. Learned counsel for the
appellant has placed reliance on the
judgments of this Court in the cases of Anil
Kumar vs. State of U.P. LAWS (ALL) 2015
8 274; Ravi Karan vs. State of U.P. LAWS
(ALL) 2019 11 333; and Rameshwar vs.
State of U.P. LAWS (ALL) 2022 7 215.

11. Per contra, learned AGA
submitted that date, time and place of the
occurrence is not in dispute. Heinous
offence has been committed inside the
running courtroom with Presiding Officer
on the Dias while statements of the
witnesses were being recorded. He further
submitted that there had been a close range
firing as charring and tattooing was present.
PW2 Ram Bharose Lal himself is the
sufferer of injury and victim and his
presence is not in doubt. The informant
Rajaram was also admittedly present inside
the courtroom in a cross case and is related
to the injured Ram Bharose Lal being his
nephew. It was submitted that Dr. Amar
Lal, PW3, had duly certified the injury
suffered by the victim and his testimony
could not be dislodged even in cross
examination. He further submitted that it is
a case of prompt FIR. The incident had
taken place at 12:30 p.m. on 16.6.1986 and
the report was lodged at 12.50 p.m. i.e.
after 20 minutes and the distance of police
station is only half a kilometer from the
court premises. The accused was arrested
on the spot and the key witness in the
present case is the injured victim himself
who is still carrying the bullet inside his
body and his sole testimony itself was
sufficient to convict the appellant.

12. We have perused the record
and considered the rival submissions.

13. Before proceeding further, it
would be appropriate to refer to various
relevant judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court
as well as of this Court on related witnesses
as well as on injured witnesses.

14. 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
3 All. Gendan Lal Vs. State of U.P.
375
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)

15. 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)

16. 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."

17. 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.
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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)

18. 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)

19. 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)

20. 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)
3 All. Gendan Lal Vs. State of U.P.
377
21. 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)

22. 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.
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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)

23. 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.
3 All. Gendan Lal Vs. State of U.P.
379
(Emphasis supplied)

24. 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 photographic memory
and to recall the details of an
incident. It is not as if a video tape
is replayed on the mental screen.
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
time-sense 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
3 All. Gendan Lal Vs. State of U.P.
381
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 inconsistent with that of the
prosecution, the nature of such plea
or case and the probabilities in
respect of it will also have to be
taken into account while assessing
the
value
of
the
prosecution
evidence."
(Emphasis supplied)

25. Paragraph 48 of Pahalwan
Singh and others vs. State of U.P., 2020 (6)
ALJ 166 is quoted under:

"48. Thus, in view of
aforementioned decisions of the
Supreme Court, it is now a settled
position of law that the statements
of the interested witnesses can be
safely relied upon by the court in
support of the prosecution 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 evidence,
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 there is no reason
as to why the statement of so-called
'interested witnesses' cannot be
relied upon by the Court. It would
be hard to believe that the close
relatives shall leave the real culprit
and
shall
implicate
innocent
persons falsely simply because they
have enmity with the accused
persons.
(Emphasis supplied)

26. Insofar as the testimony of
injured witness is concerned, this Court in
Kaptan Singh vs. State of UP, 2020 (1) ADJ
106 (DB) has, in paragraph 20, observed as
under:

"20. Close scrutiny of the
evidence shows that the statements
of (PW-1) Vimla Devi and (PW-2)
Ram Singar Pandey are clear,
cogent and credible. Theyhave
been
subjected
to
crossexamination, but they remained
stick to the prosecution version and
no such fact, contradiction or
inconsistency could emerge, so as
to create any doubt about their
testimony. Keeping in view the fact
that after incident, deceased as well
as injured were taken to hospital
and were admitted there and that on
the same night deceased Ram
Niwas Rao has succumbed to
injuries, it is apparent that the first
information report of the incident
was lodged without any undue
delay. Version of (PW-1) Vimla
Devi finds corroboration from
382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
testimony of (PW-2) Ram Singar
Pandey and is fully consistent with
medical evidence. It is also to be
kept in mind that (PW-2) Ram
Singar
Pandey
has
himself
sustained injuries in the same
incident. In Jarnail Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2009) 9SCC 719, the
Supreme
Court
reiterated
the
special evidentiary status accorded
to the testimony of an injured
accused. The fact that the witness
sustained injuries at the time and
place of occurrence, lends support
to his testimony that he was present
during the occurrence. In case, the
injured witness is subjected to
lengthy
cross-examination
and
nothing can be elicited to discard
his testimony, it should be relied
upon. Similar view was expressed
in the case of Krishan v. State of
Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 513-514 of 2014
Baleshwar Mahto and another v.
State of Bihar and another, decided
on 9.1.2017, has reiterated the law
as under :
''28. The question of the
weight to be attached to the
evidence of a witness that was
himself injured in the course of the
occurrence has been extensively
discussed by this Court. Where a
witness to the occurrence has
himself
been
injured
in
the
incident, the testimony of such a
witness is generally considered to
be very reliable, as he is a witness
that comes with a built-in guarantee
of his presence at the scene of the
crime and is unlikely to spare his
actual assailant(s) in order to
falsely implicate someone.
''Convincing evidence is
required to discredit an injured
witness.'' [Vide Ramlagan Singh v.
State of Bihar [(1973) 3 SCC
881:1973 SCC (Cri) 563:AIR 1972
SC 2593], Malkhan Singh v. State
of U.P. [(1975) 3 SCC 311 : 1974
SCC (Cri) 919 : AIR 1975 SC 12],
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab
[(1983) 3 SCC 470 : 1983 SCC
(Cri) 681], Appabhai v. State of
Gujarat [1988 Supp SCC 241 :
1988 SCC (Cri) 559 : AIR 1988 SC
696],
Bonkya
v.
State
of
Maharashtra [(1995) 6 SCC 447 :
1995 SCC (Cri) 1113], Bhag Singh
[(1997) 7 SCC 712 : 1997 SCC
(Cri) 1163], Mohar v. State of U.P.
[(2002) 7 SCC 606 : 2003 SCC
(Cri) 121] (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh
Kumar v. State of Rajasthan
[(2008) 8 SCC 270 : (2008) 3 SCC
(Cri) 472], Vishnu v. State of
Rajasthan [(2009) 10 SCC 477 :
(2010)
1
SCC
(Cri)
302],
Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v.
State of A.P. [(2009) 12 SCC 546 :
(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 630] and
Balraje v. State of Maharashtra
[(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC
(Cri) 211] 29. While deciding this
issue, a similar view was taken in
Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab
[(2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC
(Cri)
107],
where
this
Court
reiterated the special evidentiary
status accorded to the testimony of
an injured accused and relying on
its earlier judgments held as under:
(SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29)
''28. Darshan Singh (PW 4)
was an injured witness. He had
been examined by the doctor. His
testimony could not be brushed
aside lightly. He had given full
3 All. Gendan Lal Vs. State of U.P.
383
details of the incident as he was
present at the time when the
assailants reached the tubewell. In
Shivalingappa
Kallayanappa
v.
State of Karnataka [1994 Supp (3)
SCC 235 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694]
this Court has held that the
deposition of the injured witness
should be relied upon unless there
are strong grounds for rejection of
his evidence on the basis of major
contradictions and discrepancies,
for the reason that his presence on
the scene stands established in case
it is proved that he suffered the
injury during the said incident.
In State of U.P. v.