# Jag Ram & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 96
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-12
- **Bench:** Siddharth, Mrs. Garima Prashad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jag-ram-anr-v-state-of-u-p-54348
- **Pages:** 12

## Text

_Characters 0–39,986 of 40,380. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39986 for what follows._

96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impressing court as wholly truthful. The conviction can be recorded solely on testimony of single
witness.

51. In view of all these facts and circumstances and evidences, the prosecution has proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt and it is held in Yogesh Singh (supra) that burden on the
prosecution is totally to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and not all doubts. Hence, the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.2.1985/23.2.1985 passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Session Trial No. 504 of 1983 (State Vs.
Rameshwasr Dayal) is hereby affirmed. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and it is
dismissed. The appellant-Rameshwar Dayal is on bail. His bail is cancelled and sureties will be
discharged after his surrender before the trial court. The appellant is directed to surrender before
the learned trial court within fifteen days from today to complete his sentence, failing which the
learned trial court shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

52. The C.J.M, Mainpuri, shall ensure that the appellant-Rameshwar Dayal to be arrested, if
not surrender in stipulated period, and lodged him in jail to serve out the remaining sentence.

53. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the court concerned immediately by email. The trial court record be sent within a week to the trial court.

54. The criminal appeal stands dismissed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 96
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD-12.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 1984 with connected cases

Jag Ram & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the participation of the
surviving appellants in the occurrence and whether conviction under Ss. 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. can be
sustained in the presence of material infirmities in eyewitness testimony and investigation. (Paras 30, 31)

Headnotes
Criminal Law - Appreciation of evidence - Testimony of eyewitness and injured witness -
Presence of informant as eyewitness doubtful as he admitted witnessing occurrence from a
distance and reaching spot after accused fled - Contradiction between informant and injured
witness regarding their presence at time of assault weakens prosecution version. (Paras 32, 34).
3 All. Jag Ram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
97
Criminal Law - Medical evidence - Firearm injuries - Allegation of close-range firing not
supported by objective corroboration - Absence of firearm injuries - non-recovery of empty
cartridges or firearm - Version regarding firing does not inspire confidence. (Paras 33, 35, 45).
Criminal Law - Attribution of role - Knife injuries - Failure to specify which accused inflicted
which injury - Absence of clear attribution renders conviction unsafe. (Paras 36, 44).
Criminal Law - Non-examination of material witnesses - Investigating Officer and treating doctor
- Deprivation of opportunity to test investigation - Nature of injuries not proved - Material
omissions entitle accused to benefit of doubt. (Paras 38, 39, 46).
Criminal Law - Motive - Absence of evidence connecting accused with original dispute - Lack of
motive assumes significance where participation is otherwise doubtful. (Para 40)
Held: The prosecution case insofar as the surviving appellants are concerned is not free from doubt - the
informant admitted that he did not witness the assault from close proximity which renders his ability to assign
specific roles doubtful - the allegation of close-range firing is not supported by recovery of cartridge or firearm
nor by any firearm injury - once the allegation of firing becomes doubtful the role of appellant Bharat also
becomes doubtful - insofar as appellant Natthi is concerned there is no clear attribution of injuries by the
injured witness and absence of such specific role makes conviction unsafe - the prosecution failed to explain
why the injured witness having no connection with the dispute was attacked - non-examination of the treating
doctor leaves the nature of injuries uncertain - non-examination of the Investigating Officer deprived the
defence of opportunity to challenge material aspects of investigation - in absence of motive and in view of
cumulative infirmities the prosecution fails to establish a reliable chain of evidence - applying the settled
principle that suspicion cannot take the place of proof and where two views are possible the one favourable to
the accused must be adopted the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt and conviction is set aside and
acquittal recorded.(Paras 30-51). (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394; Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 2 SCC 317;
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808; State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, (1999) 3 SCC
507; Raees Ahmad @ Raesu v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 208.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
homicidal death; benefit of doubt; eyewitness credibility; contradiction; non recovery of weapon; firearm
allegation; injured witness; non examination of doctor; non examination of investigating officer; absence of
motive; doubtful participation; acquittal

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Against the judgment and order dated 08.02.1984 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-X, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 363 of 1983 (State vs. Raghuveer Singh and others),
convicting the accused under Ss. 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Manju Thakur, A.G.A.-I

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Garima Prashad, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Kamlelsh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the surviving
appellant No.2, namely, Nathhi in Criminal Appeal No.639 of 1984 and appearing as Amicus
98 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Curiae for appellant No.2, namely, Bharat in Criminal Appeal No.428 of 1984 and Ms. Manju
Thakur, learned A.G.A.- I appearing for the State. Perused the record.

2. As both the appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 8.2.1984, they have
been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. These criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated
08.02.1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 363 of
1983 (State vs. Raghuveer Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 131 of 1983, under
Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C., Police Station Achhnera, District Agra, whereby all the four accused
persons, namely Raghuveer Singh, Natthi, Jagram and Bharat, were convicted under Sections
302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and
rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 307/34 I.P.C., with the direction that both the
sentences would run concurrently.

4. During the pendency of the present appeal, appellants Raghuveer Singh and Jagram died. In
view thereof, the appeal stands abated so far as they are concerned. The appeals now survive only
in respect of appellants Natthi and Bharat.

5. The prosecution case, as disclosed in the written report lodged by the informant Tej Singh
and as reflected from the First Information Report, is that on 25.05.1983 at about 6:00 p.m., Tej
Singh, Than Singh, Shaitan Singh and Tikam Singh, residents of village Raibha, were proceeding
towards the well situated near the temple of Vankhandi Mahadev for the purpose of bathing. On the
way, an altercation took place between Than Singh and the son-in-law of one Nabba alias Nappa,
resident of village Madi Har. It is stated that during the said altercation some quarrel and scuffle
took place between them. The persons accompanying them intervened and the quarrel was pacified.
Thereafter they proceeded further towards the temple of Vankhandi Mahadev.

6. It is further alleged in the written report that at about 7:00 p.m., when Than Singh and
Tikam Singh were exercising near a hut situated in the agricultural field (chak) of Ganga Singh, the
accused persons namely Raghuveer Singh, Bharat, Natthi and Jagram came there. Raghuveer Singh
was armed with a gun, Bharat with a countrymade pistol and Natthi and Jagram were carrying
knives. Upon reaching there the accused persons began saying that Than Singh had beaten the sonin-law of Nabba and therefore he should be punished. Thereafter Natthi and Jagram started
stabbing Than Singh with knives. When Than Singh raised alarm, Tikam Singh, Tej Singh, Shaitan
Singh and others rushed to save him. It is further alleged that the accused persons then assaulted
Tikam Singh also with knives.

7. As per the prosecution, Raghuveer Singh and Bharat fired from their respective firearms.
On hearing the alarm and upon being challenged by the persons who had gathered at the spot, the
accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. It is further mentioned in the written
report that Than Singh and Tikam Singh had sustained serious injuries. The informant and other
persons made arrangements to take them to the police station. Tikam Singh was taken on a tractor
while Than Singh was carried on a cot.
3 All. Jag Ram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
99

8. The written report further states that the report of the occurrence was scribed by Babu Lal at
the dictation of the informant Tej Singh and was handed over at Police Station Achhnera on the
same day at about 9:30 p.m. On the basis of the said report the chik First Information Report was
prepared and the case was registered under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. The injured Tikam Singh
was thereafter sent for medical examination to S.N. Medical College Hospital, Agra where he was
examined on the same night.

9. Subsequently, inquest proceedings were conducted on the dead body of Than Singh and the
body was sent for postmortem examination. The post-mortem examination was conducted on
27.05.1983 at about 3:30 p.m. at the Agra mortuary. During investigation, the Investigating Officer
prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the witnesses and
completed other formalities of investigation.

10. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet dated 24.06.1983 was submitted against
the accused persons under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. Since the offences were exclusively triable
by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, Agra by
order dated 01.09.1983. Charges under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. were framed against all
the four accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. In their statements recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the prosecution case and stated that they had been falsely
implicated due to enmity. No defence evidence was led.

11. Before proceeding to examine the rival submissions, it would be appropriate to record in
some detail the evidence adduced by the prosecution. In support of its case, the prosecution
examined five witnesses.

12. PW-1 Tej Singh is the informant and a witness of fact. In his examination-in-chief he
stated that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 25.05.1983, at about 6:00 p.m., he along with Than
Singh, Shaitan Singh and Tikam Singh had proceeded towards the well of Vankhandi Mahadev for
the purpose of bathing. He stated that on the way an altercation took place between Than Singh and
the son-in-law of one Nappa alias Nabba of village Madi Har. According to him, the quarrel was
pacified by the persons present there and the parties thereafter moved ahead. He further stated that
at about 7:00 p.m. Than Singh and Tikam Singh were exercising near a hut situated in the chak of
Ganga Singh. At that time, according to him, the accused persons Raghuveer Singh armed with a
gun, Bharat armed with a country-made pistol, and Natthi and Jagram armed with knives came to
the place of occurrence. He stated that the accused persons began saying that Than Singh had
beaten the son-in-law of Nappa and therefore he should be taught a lesson. According to the
witness, Natthi and Jagram started stabbing Than Singh with knives. When Than Singh raised
alarm, Tikam Singh and others tried to intervene whereupon Tikam Singh was also assaulted. The
witness further stated that Raghuveer Singh and Bharat fired shots from their respective firearms
from close range. Upon hearing the alarm, other persons such as Shaitan Singh, Sahav Singh, Ramo
and Haribhan reached the place of occurrence. On being challenged by them the accused persons
fled away from the spot.

13. The witness further stated that Than Singh had sustained serious injuries and Tikam Singh
had also been injured. Arrangements were made to take them towards the police station. According
100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to him, Tikam Singh was taken on a tractor while Than Singh was carried on a cot. He further
stated that he got the written report of the occurrence scribed by Babu Lal and lodged the same at
Police Station Achhnera at about 9:30 p.m. on the same night. He proved the written report as Ext.
Ka-1.

14. In his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he did not go to the exact place where the
assault was taking place and that he witnessed the occurrence from the side of the temple. He stated
that he had not attempted to save either the deceased or the injured at the time of the assault and
that he reached the place of occurrence only after the accused persons had fled. He admitted that
the temple of Vankhandi Mahadev was situated at some distance from the place where the assault
had taken place. He also admitted that there existed an akhara near the temple. He stated that the
deceased and the injured were exercising near a hut situated in the chak of Ganga Singh. He further
admitted that Raghuveer Singh had been involved in criminal activities including the murder of one
Mahavir and that he had connections with Nappa in certain criminal matters. He denied the
suggestion that the accused persons had been falsely implicated on account of previous enmity.

15. PW-2 Tikam Singh is the injured witness. In his examination-in-chief he stated that on
25.05.1983 he along with Than Singh and others had gone towards the well of Vankhandi
Mahadev. He stated that an altercation had taken place between Than Singh and the son-in-law of
Nappa. After the said incident, according to him, he and Than Singh were exercising near the hut
situated in the chak of Ganga Singh. At about 7:00 p.m., according to the witness, the four accused
persons came there. Raghuveer Singh was carrying a gun, Bharat a country-made pistol and Natthi
and Jagram had knives in their hands. The witness stated that Natthi and Jagram began assaulting
Than Singh with knives. According to him, when he raised alarm and attempted to save Than
Singh, he too was assaulted. He further stated that when all four accused persons arrived he
attempted to run away and at that time Raghuveer Singh fired at him but the shot did not hit him.
He stated that on his raising alarm Tej Singh and Shaitan Singh came from the side of the temple
where they were bathing. He further deposed that he sustained injuries and thereafter he was taken
to the police station and subsequently sent for medical examination at S.N. Hospital, Agra.

16. In his cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that he was related to both the informant Tej
Singh and the deceased Than Singh. He also admitted that he belonged to another village. He stated
that he had sustained three incised wounds. However, he did not clearly specify which accused had
inflicted which injury upon him or upon the deceased. He stated that Natthi and Jagram both had
knives but he could not explain which of them had inflicted the first blow or how many blows had
been caused by each accused. He also admitted that the quarrel earlier in the evening had taken
place between Than Singh and the son-in-law of Nappa. He denied the suggestion that he was not
present at the place of occurrence or that he had falsely implicated the accused persons.

17. PW-3 Ram Sevak is a police constable who proved the formal documents relating to the
registration of the case. He stated that on the basis of the written report given by Tej Singh the case
was registered at Police Station Achhnera. He proved the chik F.I.R. as Ext. Ka-2 and the relevant
G.D. entry as Ext. Ka-3. He also proved the injury memo relating to the medical examination of
injured Tikam Singh as Ext. Ka-4. In his cross-examination nothing substantial could be elicited
3 All. Jag Ram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
101
except that he had no personal knowledge regarding the occurrence and was only proving the
documents prepared in the course of official duty.

18. PW-4 Dr. Sudhir Chandra is the medical officer who conducted the post-mortem
examination of the deceased Than Singh. He stated that he conducted the post-mortem examination
on 27.05.1983 at about 3:30 p.m. at the mortuary in Agra. During the post-mortem examination he
found six ante-mortem incised wounds on different parts of the body of the deceased. He described
the nature, dimensions and location of those injuries. According to him, the injuries were caused by
a sharp-edged weapon such as a knife. In his opinion, the cause of death was shock and
haemorrhage resulting from the ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased. He proved the
post-mortem report as Ext. Ka-5. In cross-examination he stated that the injuries found on the body
of the deceased could have been caused on 25.05.1983 at about 7:00 p.m. and that they were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

19. PW-5 Constable Netrapal Singh was examined as a formal witness to prove the
investigation papers prepared by the Investigating Officer. He stated that the Investigating Officer
who had conducted the investigation in the case was not available in Agra at the time of recording
of evidence. He further stated that he was acquainted with the handwriting and signatures of the
said officer. On that basis he proved the charge-sheet as Ext. Ka-11, the challan of the dead body as
Ext. Ka-10, the letter addressed to the Chief Medical Officer as Ext. Ka-9, the photo lash as Ext.
Ka-8, the panchayatnama as Ext. Ka-7 and the site-plan of the place of occurrence prepared by the
Investigating Officer. In his cross-examination he admitted that he had not participated in the
investigation of the case and that he was only identifying the handwriting and signatures of the
Investigating Officer on the documents.

20. The accused denied the prosecution allegations in their statements under Section 313
Cr.P.C. and claimed false implication.

21. The learned trial court believed the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and convicted all the
four accused under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals were
filed.

22. Learned counsel for the surviving appellants in the appeals has assailed the impugned
judgment on the ground that the prosecution evidence is unreliable and suffers from material
contradictions and omissions. It has been submitted that the original dispute was between deceased
Than Singh and the son-in-law of Nappa and that there was no material to show that Natthi and
Bharat had any connection either with Nappa or with the said quarrel. It has been argued that
Raghuveer Singh was allegedly connected with Nappa in criminal activities, but there is no
evidence of any such connection in respect of Natthi and Bharat. It is further submitted that except
Raghuveer Singh, none of the accused had criminal history, and the prosecution has failed to
establish any motive on the part of the surviving appellants.

23. It has also been argued that PW-1 Tej Singh himself admitted that he did not go to the spot
and saw the occurrence from the temple side. Therefore, his presence as an eyewitness to the actual
assault is doubtful. It is further contended that PW-1 stated that Raghuveer Singh and Bharat fired
102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from close range with intent to kill, but no empty cartridge was recovered from the place of
occurrence and no firearm injury was found either on the deceased or on Tikam Singh. No firearm
was recovered from Bharat. It is submitted that this materially weakens the prosecution story.

24. Learned counsel further submitted that the Investigating Officer was not examined and
PW-5 only formally proved the handwriting and signatures of the Investigating Officer. As a result,
the defence was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the Investigating Officer on material
points such as the place of occurrence, non-recovery of empty cartridge, non-recovery of weapon,
and the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses.

25. It has also been argued that though Tikam Singh is said to have sustained three incised
wounds, the treating doctor who examined him was not produced. Therefore, the nature of the
injuries on his person, whether simple or grievous, remains uncertain. In that view of the matter,
the conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. is unsustainable.

26. Learned counsel has also argued that PW-2 Tikam Singh, though an injured witness, is a
relative of both the informant and the deceased and is thus an interested witness. It is further
submitted that even according to the prosecution case, PW-2 had no connection with the original
dispute and had no enmity with the accused; hence, the reason for attacking him has not been
satisfactorily explained. It is also submitted that PW-2 did not clearly assign the role of inflicting
particular injuries either to Natthi or to Jagram.

27. It is next contended that the prosecution version itself appears unnatural. The distance
between the akhara and the hut is about sixty paces. If there was an akhara near the temple, the
prosecution story that Than Singh and Tikam Singh were exercising near a hut away from the
akhara at about 7:00 p.m. appears unnatural. It has also been argued that the transportation version
is doubtful inasmuch as Tikam Singh is said to have been taken by tractor and Than Singh on a cot
for a distance of three miles to the police station, though even a tractor without trolley would have
had sufficient space. The timeline ending in lodging of the F.I.R. at 9:30 p.m. is stated to be
somewhat doubtful.

28. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has supported the judgment under appeal and submitted
that the homicidal death of Than Singh is fully proved, that PW-2 is an injured witness and his
testimony carries greater weight, and that mere non-recovery of empty cartridge or nonexamination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal in every case. It is urged that the trial court
rightly believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the accused.

29. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that
the homicidal death of Than Singh stands clearly proved from the testimony of PW-4 Dr. Sudhir
Chandra and the post-mortem report. Six ante-mortem incised wounds were found on the person of
the deceased and the cause of death was opined to be shock and haemorrhage resulting therefrom.
To that extent, the prosecution case stands established.

30. The principal question, however, is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving
beyond reasonable doubt the participation of the surviving appellants Natthi and Bharat in the
3 All. Jag Ram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
103
occurrence and whether the charges under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. against them stand
proved.

31. The prosecution substantially rests on the testimony of PW-1 Tej Singh and PW-2 Tikam
Singh. PW-2 is admittedly an injured witness and ordinarily his evidence would carry weight. At
the same time, it is equally well settled that even testimony of an injured witness has to be
scrutinised with care, particularly where the case suffers from material infirmities, contradictions
and surrounding circumstances creating doubt as to the precise manner of occurrence and the role
of each accused.

32. On careful examination of the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution case, insofar
as the surviving appellants are concerned, is not free from doubt. PW-1 Tej Singh, who is the
informant and one of the alleged eyewitnesses, admitted in his cross-examination that he did not go
to the exact place where the assault was taking place and that he witnessed the occurrence from
near the temple side. He also stated that he did not attempt to save either the deceased or the injured
and reached the place of occurrence only after the accused had fled. Once PW-1 himself admits that
he remained away from the place where the assault was actually taking place, his ability to observe
the occurrence clearly and assign a precise role to each accused becomes doubtful. This doubt
becomes all the more significant when he claims that Raghuveer Singh and Bharat fired from close
range with intent to kill.

33. If the allegation of close-range firing were correct, some objective corroboration would
ordinarily be expected. However, admittedly no empty cartridge was recovered from the place of
occurrence. No firearm injury was found either on the deceased or on PW-2. No firearm was
recovered from Bharat. In such circumstances, the version of PW-1 regarding firing does not
inspire full confidence. Once the allegation of firing against Bharat becomes doubtful, his role in
the incident also becomes doubtful.

34. There is also a material contradiction between PW-1 and PW-2 as to the occurrence. PW-1
stated that he saw the incident from the temple side and reached the place of occurrence only after
the accused had fled. PW-2, however, stated that upon his raising alarm, Tej Singh and Shaitan
Singh came from the temple where they were bathing. This contradiction is not merely formal. It
goes to the root of the matter, namely whether PW-1 was actually present at the place of occurrence
in a position to witness the assault or whether he came later. Such contradiction weakens the
prosecution version.

35. The prosecution alleges that Bharat carried a country-made pistol and fired during the
occurrence. Yet, no empty cartridge was recovered, no firearm injury was caused, and no weapon
was recovered from Bharat. Likewise, Natthi is alleged to have been one of the knife-wielders, but
no weapon was recovered from him. Though non-recovery of weapon is not always fatal, where the
case is already resting on doubtful eyewitness testimony and the specific role of the accused is
uncertain, such absence assumes significance.

36. PW-2 stated that Natthi and Jagram were armed with knives. However, he did not clearly
state which of them inflicted which injury either on the deceased or on himself. He did not specify
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
who stabbed first, how many blows were inflicted by whom, or which particular injury is
attributable to Natthi. Since the role of both alleged knife assailants was similar in the prosecution
story, clear attribution was necessary if conviction of the surviving appellant Natthi was to be
sustained. In the absence of such clear attribution, it would be unsafe to hold with certainty that
Natthi participated in the assault.

37. According to the prosecution case itself, the original dispute was between Than Singh and
the son-in-law of Nappa. PW-2 Tikam Singh had no apparent connection with that dispute. He
belonged to another village and there is no evidence of any previous enmity between him and the
accused. Yet, according to his own statement, when all four accused arrived, he tried to run away
and Raghuveer Singh fired at him. The prosecution has not satisfactorily explained why PW-2, who
had no connection with the quarrel, became a target of murderous assault. This unexplained feature
adds to the doubt.

38. The prosecution asserts that Tikam Singh sustained three incised wounds. However, the
treating doctor who examined him was not produced. The injury memo was brought on record
formally, but the nature, seat, depth and seriousness of the injuries were not proved through
medical evidence. Consequently, this Court is left uncertain whether the injuries sustained by PW-2
were simple or grievous. This omission assumes significance while considering the charge under
Section 307 I.P.C. No doubt, conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. does not always depend on the
injury being grievous. Intention and manner of assault are material. But here the prosecution case
itself is uncertain on several material particulars: the exact role of the surviving appellants, the
alleged firing, the attribution of knife injuries, and even the reason why Tikam Singh was targeted
when he had no connection with the original quarrel. In such circumstances, the uncertainty about
the medical evidence concerning his injuries becomes one more factor entitling the appellants to
benefit of doubt. In Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394, the Supreme Court
emphasised that when the prosecution withholds important evidence or leaves material aspects
unexplained, the Court must scrutinise the prosecution version with greater care. Here, the doctor
who examined injured witness Tikam Singh was not examined, with the result that the nature of his
injuries remains uncertain.

39. The Investigating Officer was not produced. PW-5 Constable Netrapal Singh appeared
only as a formal witness to prove the handwriting and signatures of the Investigating Officer on the
investigation papers. The defence was thereby deprived of the opportunity to test the investigation
by cross-examining the Investigating Officer on material points, such as the exact place of
occurrence, whether any cartridge was found, whether any effort was made to recover the alleged
weapons, and how the site-plan was prepared. In Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 2 SCC
317, the Supreme Court held that non-examination of the Investigating Officer is not always fatal,
but where prejudice is caused to the accused on account of inability to bring out contradictions or
challenge material parts of investigation, the same assumes significance. In the present case, the
non-examination of the Investigating Officer has clearly deprived the defence of an opportunity to
challenge important features of the prosecution case. In a case already suffering from certain
infirmities, this omission assumes importance.
3 All. Jag Ram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
105

40. The evidence on record shows that the quarrel which formed the immediate genesis of the
incident was between Than Singh and the son-in-law of Nappa. There is material to suggest that
Raghuveer Singh was connected with Nappa in criminal activities. PW-1 himself stated that
Raghuveer Singh had been involved in criminal activities with Nappa. However, there is no
convincing evidence to show that Natthi and Bharat had any connection either with Nappa or with
his son-in-law. There is no evidence of any prior enmity of Natthi or Bharat with Than Singh or
Tikam Singh. In the absence of motive, and when the evidence regarding their participation is
otherwise doubtful, this circumstance assumes significance.

41. The defence has highlighted that the distance between the akhara and the hut was about
sixty steps. If there was an akhara near the temple, the prosecution version that Than Singh and
Tikam Singh were exercising near the hut away from the akhara at about 7:00 p.m. appears
somewhat unnatural. This circumstance by itself may not be decisive, yet it is one more factor
which prevents the Court from accepting the prosecution case at face value without hesitation.

42. PW-1 stated that Tikam Singh was taken on a tractor while Than Singh was taken on a cot,
though the distance to the police station was about three miles. It has been argued that even without
trolley the tractor had enough space and the separate mode of transport creates some improbability.
This factor may not by itself demolish the prosecution case, but when read cumulatively with the
other circumstances, it adds to the doubt.

43. The principles governing such cases are well settled. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal
Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, the Supreme Court held that the golden thread which runs through the
web of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
and if two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. The Court
cautioned that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. In State of Rajasthan v.
Teja Ram, (1999) 3 SCC 507, it was held that the evidence of related witnesses is not to be
discarded merely on the ground of relationship, but the same has to be scrutinised carefully. In the
present case, PW-2 is related to the informant and the deceased, and though that by itself is not a
ground to reject his testimony, the Court must test it carefully. Upon such scrutiny, the aforesaid
infirmities become material.

44. Insofar as Natthi is concerned, the prosecution alleges that he was one of the two knifewielders. However, no weapon was recovered from him. No blood-stained article connected to him
was recovered. No specific injury was attributed to him by either PW-1 or PW-2 with certainty.
The co-accused Jagram, whose appeal has already abated owing to death, was also assigned a
similar role as one of the knife assailants. Yet PW-2 did not clarify who among the two inflicted
which injury. In the absence of such clear attribution, and in view of the other doubts noticed
above, it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction of Natthi.

45. Insofar as Bharat is concerned, the allegation against him is that he was armed with a
country-made pistol and fired from close range. But no firearm injury resulted, no empty cartridge
was recovered, no weapon was recovered from him, and no independent circumstance corroborates
the allegation of use of firearm. Once the firearm part of the prosecution story becomes doubtful,
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and appellant Bharat is otherwise not shown to have any connection with the original dispute, his
implication also becomes doubtful.

46. The prosecution evidence suffers from material infirmities, namely doubtful presence of
PW-1 at the place of assault, contradiction between PW-1 and PW-2, absence of recovery of
weapon, absence of recovery of empty cartridge despite allegation of close-range firing, lack of
clear attribution of injuries to Natthi, failure to explain why Tikam Singh was attacked though he
had no connection with the original dispute, non-examination of the doctor who treated PW-2, nonexamination of the Investigating Officer, and absence of any convincing motive against Natthi and
Bharat. Taken cumulatively, these circumstances create a reasonable doubt.

47. In this context it is useful to refer to the principle emphasized by this Court in Raees
Ahmad @ Raesu v. State of U.P. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine All 208, wherein this Court
observed that when the prosecution witnesses themselves fail to support the prosecution case and
the remaining evidence suffers from serious infirmities, conviction cannot be sustained merely on
the basis of doubtful material. The Court further held that when the principal evidence relied upon
by the prosecution becomes unreliable, the entire prosecution case collapses. The Court in the said
case further emphasized that criminal courts must be extremely cautious in evaluating evidence
where the main prosecution witnesses do not support the prosecution and the remaining
circumstances do not form a complete chain of guilt. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt
must necessarily go to the accused.

48. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the
prosecution has failed to establish a clear and reliable chain of circumstances connecting appellants
Natthi and Bharat with the alleged crime. The evidence suffers from inconsistencies, absence of
corroborative material, and lack of proof regarding the specific role of the accused.

49. Criminal conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of possibility or suspicion. Where the
evidence on record admits of two views, the view favourable to the accused must prevail. In the
facts of the present case, the surviving appellants in both the appeals are entitled to the benefit of
doubt.

50. So far as appellants, Raghuveer Singh and Jagram are concerned, their appeals stand
abated on account of their death during pendency of the appeals. The appeals, insofar as they relate
to appellants Natthi and Bharat, deserves to be allowed, and are hereby allowed.

51. The judgment and order dated 08.02.1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-X, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 363 of 1983, convicting appellants Natthi and Bharat under
Sections 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C., are hereby set aside. Appellants Natthi and Bharat are acquitted
of all charges by extending to them the benefit of doubt.

52. Both the surviving appellants, namely, Bharat and Natthi are in jail. In case they are not
wanted in any other case, they shall be released forthwith.
3 All. Suresh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
107

53. Let the Trial court record along with a certified copy of this judgment be transmitted to the
court concerned for necessary compliance.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 107
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 737 of 1986

Suresh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to legality of judgment and order of conviction based on solitary testimony and non-recovery
of weapon.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-sec.302-Indian Evidence Act-sec 134- emphasis of the law is not on the quantity,
but on the quality of evidence- prosecution has not established any immediate provocation preceding the
incident- where ocular testimony inspires confidence-the prosecution is not required to prove motive-motive
assumes greater importance in cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence-not of decisive consequence-
conviction recorded by the learned trial court on the basis of the solitary testimony of PW-1 Brij Kishore does
not suffer from any legal infirmity-evidence of PW-1 satisfies the test of reliability-absence of a strong or
immediate motive does not render the prosecution case doubtful - non recovery of the weapon is not fatal -
when there is reliable and cogent ocular testimony -only a corroborative circumstance and not a sine qua non
for sustaining conviction- minor inconsistencies cannot outweigh- convincing eyewitness testimony-Appeal
dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282
2. Chandan v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 6 SCC 799
3. Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 3 SCC 219
4. Om Pal and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2292
5. Mohd. Rojali Ali and others v. State of Assam, (2019) 19 SCC 567
6. Jayabalan v. State (UT of Pondicherry),(2010) 1 SCC 199
7. Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364
8.