# Jagdish & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 96
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2473 of 1987
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Jai Krishna Upadhyay
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagdish-anr-v-state-of-u-p-54426
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(58) The appeal is, accordingly dismissed, upholding the impugned judgment and order passed
by the learned Trial Court. The conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under
Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. is upheld and the sentence awarded is confirmed.

(59) The appellant No.1, Raj Narain has died and the appeal on his behalf has abated, whereas
the appellant No.2, Kamlesh and the appellant No.3, Rajendra Prasad are on bail. The appellant
No.2, Kamlesh and the appellant No.3, Rajendra Prasad are directed to surrender within a period of
two weeks from today before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, who shall send them to jail
to serve out the sentence, failing which, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh shall take
appropriate steps in accordance with law for their arrest to serve out the sentence.

(60) Let a copy of this judgment alongwith Trial Court's Record be transmitted to the Court
concerned forthwith and in any case within a period of one week from today for compliance.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 96
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2473 of 1987

Jagdish & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration.
Matter pertains to whether conviction order is passed after the prosecution case is established beyond
reasonable doubt.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-Section 302- deep-rooted enmity- presence of the eyewitnesses at the crime scene is
surrounded by serious doubt- evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is filled with the discrepancies/contradictory
versions- eyewitnesses claimed that only three shots were fired from a distance of about 7 to 10 stepshowever, the Dr. R.J. Khare, PW5, found injuries caused by four separate shots- conflict between medical and
oral evidence- prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond the reasonable doubt- benefit of doubt
would have to be extended-Appeal allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. S.Govindaraju vs State Of Karnataka (2013) 15 SCC 315
2. Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan,(2016) 16 SCC 192
3. Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 484
4. State of U.P. v. Hari Chand (2009) 13 SCC 542

List of Acts
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
4 All. Jagdish & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
97
List of Keywords
Contradictions; beyond reasonable doubt; medical and oral evidence; recovered; eye-witness.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : R.B. Sahai, Raj Kumar Sharma, Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s):
A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jai Krishna Upadhyay, J.)

1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, the learned AGA for the
State, and perused the material available on record and the judgment of the trial court.

2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated
01.09.1987 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, in Sessions Trial No. 173 of
1987 (State vs. Bachan Singh and others) u/s 302/34 IPC, Police Station - Khaga, District
Fatehpur.

3. During the pendency of this appeal, accused-appellant no. 2 Ram Kumar died and,
therefore, appeal against him is abated vide order dated 02.02.2026.

4. A brief narrative of the prosecution story, as discernible from the F.I.R., is that the
informant is the son of the deceased. He stated that the deceased, Kunjal Prasad, accompanied by
his son and one Udaibhan, R/o village Bharkhana, were going to call for labourers for planting their
paddy crop. In the meantime, they decided to call labourers from village Sangrampur. As soon as
they reached nearby a pond known as 'Gaviyan Talab', they saw that the accused persons, namely
Bachan Singh, Jageshwar, Jagdish, and Ram Kumar, were surrounding the deceased. The accused
Bachan Singh and Jagdish were armed with guns, Jageshwar was with a lathi, and Ram Kumar was
with a 'tamanchha' in their hands. It was about 8:00 am when Jageshwar challenged them to kill the
deceased, shouting that he must not be allowed them to escape. Upon the exhortation, accused
Bachan Singh opened fire with an intention to kill the deceased Kunjal Prasad. The other accused
persons also started firing by their 'tamanchhas' and guns from a very close distance. The deceased
received gunshot injuries and fell down on the ground. Upon hearing the sound of the gunshots,
Sukhlal and Ram Prasad came there and also saw the entire incident. The accused persons, after
opening fire, ran away. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged on 18.07.1986 at 8:00 am under Section 154
Cr.P.C. at police station - Khaga, District-Fatehpur.

5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan and
inquest report of the dead body, recorded the statements of witnesses, and thereafter submitted the
charge sheet on which cognizance was taken, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions
Judge.

6. The accused persons Bachan Singh, Jagdish, and Ram Kumar were charged by the Vith
Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, for an offence punishable under section 302 IPC on
01.05.1987. They denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
98 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined a total of 5 witnesses: P.W.-1,
Shiv Sahai @ Khoonti; P.W.-2, Udai Bhan; P.W.-3, Ram Deen Tiwari; P.W.-4, Shrinath Pathak;
and P.W.-5, Dr. R.J. Khare. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No
evidence in defence was led by the accused persons.

8. PW-1, Shiv Sahai @Khunti, has stated that Kunjal Prasad was his father and he was killed
11 months ago. On the date of the incident, the witness and his father Kunjal Prasad, along with
Udai Bhan, were going to call for labourers from village Sangrampur and when they reached near
'Gaviyan Talab'; there, the witness and Udai Bhan stopped to urinate. While they were urinating,
they saw the accused persons Bachan, Jageshwar, Jagdish, and Ram Kumar surrounding the
witness's father. The accused Bachan Singh and Jagdish were armed with guns, Jageshwar was
with a lathi, and Ram Kumar was with a tamanchha. It was about 8:00 am when Jageshwar
exhorted the other accused persons to kill the deceased. He was shouting that the deceased must not
be allowed to escape, Hearing this the accused Bachan Singh opened fire with an intention to kill
the deceased Kunjal Prasad. Thereafer, the other accused persons also started opening fire by
tamanchha and gun while they had from a very close distance. His father received gunshot injuries
and fell down on the ground.

Hearing the sound of the gunshots, Sukhlal and Ram Prasad came there and also saw the entire
incident. After coming to know about the incident, the witness's younger brother Pappu also came
there. He got a report written by Jagannath and on that basis, the FIR was registered. There were
some existing agricultural disputes between Dwarika Pandit and the accused persons, and because
the witness's father was doing pairavi on behalf of Dwarika Pandit and he had won the case, the
accused persons were inimical with his father. Due to that rivalry Bachan Singh had lodged a false
report against them, and for making a false complaint against them, the witness's father was having
a personal grudge with Bachan Singh. His grandfather's son is Nanga alias Ram Sahai. was the
accused in the murder case of Kedar and Lallu. The accused Bachan Singh was a witness in that
case. Nanga was also a named accused in the robbery that took place in Kanhai Lal's house and was
also an accused in the murder case of Badlu Chamar. The witness stated that he did not know
whether Nanga was an accused in the 325 case of Sangrampur. It is wrong to say that Nanga used
to misbehave because of the influence of his father's position as Pradhan and hence people were
angry with his father. Village Sangrampur was 22 or 23 furlongs away from his village to the west.
Gabiyan pond is located somewhere near his village. People from his village went to Gabiyan pond
for nature's call.

In cross examination, he had stated that, Ram Kumar's village, Tesahi Pur, was 2 to 2 1/2 kms
away from his village. Accused Jageshwar's village was 6-7 kms away. He knew Jageshwar from
before the incident. There were many residents of his village who worked as labourers. They also
worked at his house. But whenever there was a shortage, they had to go to Sangrampur, which was
a larger village with lots of workers available. Udai Bhan came on the 17th. He also needed some
labourers. He had taken many available workers with him so that they could work in his fields. The
witness did not write this in the report and could not tell any reason for not writing the same. It is
wrong to say that they did not go to call any labourer. He had left and thereafter had again come
back on the 18th. He came back as soon as the sun rose on the 18th. He drank tea and ate paan and
had left. Pradhan had gargled; that is why he left at 8 o'clock. He did not have breakfast with tea.
4 All. Jagdish & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
99
He never came to his place for the people before the 17th. It is wrong to say that Udai Bhan was a
close friend of his father and hence his name was falsely written in the report. There were a total of
4-5 fires shot and his father got injured by three of them. Sukhlal and Ram Prasad were present at
the place of occurrence before the incident. He rightly wrote the name of Udai Bhan and Ram
Prasad. The accused persons ran away when several other persons gathered there. It is wrong to say
that he, due to enmity with Ram Gopal Tripathi, had implicated him. It is true that he implicated
Jageshwar because there were talks of a marriage relation between Bachan Singh's brother and the
house of Jageshwar.

9. PW-2, Udai Bhan, has submitted that this incident occurred approximately 11 months ago.
It was around 8:00 am when Kunjal Pradhan, the witness, and the elder son of the decveased were
traveling to village Sangrampur to hire labourers. The witness stated that he and the son of the
deceased both started urinating near a mango tree on the way. After urinating, they observed two
men emerging from the bushes on both sides of the road and they stood in front of Kunjal Prasad.
Jageshwar, who was armed with a lathi, shouted, "Kill the bastard." Following this exhortation,
Bachan fired his gun, and Ram Kumar and Jagdish also fired their weapons at Kunjal Prasad.
Kunjal Prasad was struck, wounded, and fell to the ground. The witness and Khunti shouted, after
which the accused fired again and fled from the spot. Other villagers arrived thereafter. After the
accused left, they saw that Kunjal Prasad was dead. Khunti prepared a report and went to the police
station while the other villagers remained near the body. The Inspector subsequently took the
witness's statement regarding the incident.

The witness further submits that although some people in his own village are labourers, they
were going to call additional labour from village Sangrampur. He states that he had met the
Pradhan by chance and did not go to his home initially. On the 18th, he reached the Pradhan's
house at 7:30 am; the Pradhan had tea but did not have breakfast, as he had already attended to
nature's call. The witness denies that the 'roos' tree is higher than one and a half feet. He sat down
to urinate near a mango tree about 15?20 paces from the edge of the orchard. A Sirsa tree was
located about 7?8 paces west of that spot, and it was near this tree that Kunjal Prasad was shot.
Bachan fired the first shot, which had hit Kunjal Prasad in the chest. The other two accused were
standing next to him had and also fired. In total, five shots were fired. The witness does not
remember whether he specifically mentioned the number of shots to the police. He states that he
studied up to class 8th and did not instruct Khunti on how to write the report. He denies that Kunjal
Prasad was his friend and claims he did not know why the Inspector recorded in his statement that
his friends had surrounded Kunjal Prasad.

10. PW-3, Ram Deen Tiwari, Head Constable at Police Station Khaga, District Fatehpur, had
submitted that on 18-07-1986, he was posted as Head Constable at the Khaga Police Station. On
that day, based on the complaint provided by Shiv Sahay alias Khunti, he prepared the Chik F.I.R.
He had stated that the document, marked as Ex-Ka-2, was in his own handwriting and bore his
signature. Following the preparation of the Chik F.I.R., the case was formally registered as G.D.
No. 17 at 10:00 am. The witness confirmed that the carbon copy of the General Diary (G.D.),
marked as Ex-Ka-3, was prepared in his handwriting and carried his signature. He denied the
suggestion that the report was written several days later after consultation with others.
100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. PW-4, Shri Nath Pathak, had submitted that on 18-07-1986, he was posted as the SSI at
Police Station Khaga, District Fatehpur. He had stated that the case was filed in his presence and he
commenced the investigation on the same day. After recording the statement of Head Mohrir Ram
Deen Tiwari, he proceeded to the scene of the incident, arriving at approximately 14:30 hours.
Upon arrival, he prepared the Panchayatnama (inquest report) of the deceased and, acting on the
opinion of the Panchan, sent the body for post-mortem. After reviewing the Shamil Misil, he
identified the Panchayatnama (Ex-Ka-5) as being in his own handwriting and signature. He further
confirmed that the Challan of the dead body, the photo of the dead body, the letter to the CMO, the
letter to the R.I., and the sample seal stamp were all prepared in his handwriting and signature and
they were all marked as Exhibits Ex-Ka-6 to Ex-Ka-9.

On the same day, the witness inspected the spot and prepared a Nazri map (Ex-Ka-10). He
confirmed its accuracy and his signature. He recorded the statements of eyewitnesses Sukhlal, Udai
Bhan, and Ram Prasad. He also collected samples of blood-stained and plain soil from the spot,
which were sealed in separate boxes and marked as Ex-Ka-11. Additionally, he took possession of
pellets, Tikli, blood-stained clothes, and shoes, documenting the recovery in a Fard (Ex-Ka-12).
During the proceedings, various sealed bundles were opened containing plain soil (Ex-1), bloodsoaked soil (Ex-2), six ticklies (Ex-3/1 to 3/6), two empty cartridges (Ex-4/1 to 4/2), and one pellet
(Ex-5). He also identified the shoes, towel, and pyjama recovered from the deceased (Ex-Ka-6, 7,
and 8).

The witness submitted that after searching for the accused without success, the police returned
to the station at night. He recorded the statement of accused Jageshwar on 30-07-1986 and the
statements of accused Bachan, Jagdish, and Ram Kumar on 02-08-1986. The investigation
concluded with the submission of the charge sheet (Ex-Ka-13) on 03-08-1986. He denied that the
informant failed to come to the station. He noted that witness Udai Bhan did not mention going to
call labour, nor did he mention that two shots were fired in the air; instead, Udai Bhan stated that
his friend Kunjal Pradhan was surrounded from the front. The witness clarified that he prepared the
Panchayatnama after observing the injuries, though the photo was later destroyed. He noted that
Sukhlal was first seen at place 'C' outside the road, arriving from Sangrampur. Finally, he stated
that he recovered six bullets from the seven paces north of the body, though he could not specify
the number of pellets typically found in a 12-bore cartridge.

12. PW-5, Dr. R.J. Khare, has submitted that on 19-07-1986, he was posted as a Medical
Officer at District Hospital, Fatehpur. On that day, he conducted the post-mortem examination on
the body of Shri Kunjal Prasad, which was brought by Constable Mahadev Prasad. The witness
stated that the post-mortem report, marked as Ex-Ka-14, was in his handwriting and bore his
signature. Upon external examination, the deceased was identified as a 65-year-old male of average
built and wheatish complexion. Rigor mortis had set in from both sides of the body at the time of
the examination.

The witness found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:
4 All. Jagdish & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
101

(i) Gunshot wound of entrance 1 cm x 1 cm bone deep, on the inner side of the middle part of
the right ear, on the temple of the right ear. The edges of the wound were cut and turned inwards.
There was lichen and charring around the wound.

(ii) Bullet wound 5 cm x 2 cm deep up to the bone on the right side of the lower lip. The edges
of the wound were torn and irregular and there was no blackness or burn in it. There was a fracture
on the right side of the jaw up and down. On examining this wound I found that the bullet entered
from the lower lip and went up to the throat cavity, breaking the jaw and went down to the throat.
The exit wound of this bullet is 4 cm from the right ear in an area of 8 cm x 8 cm, from here the
bullet came out. The edges of the wound were crushed and irregular.

(iii) Bullet intrusion wound 3 cm x 2 cm deep up to the flesh, 3 cm above the nipple, the edges
of the wound were torn and irregular. The bullet entered the throat cavity and ruptured the internal
organs. The exit wound of the bullet that entered from this wound is 4 cm x 3 cm, 5 cm downwards
from the left nipple. The edges of the wound were crushed and irregular.

(iv) Bullet entry wound measuring 8 cm x 8 cm on the root of the penis, each measuring 1 cm
x 1 cm deep into the flesh on the left thigh. There were six bullet exit wounds, each measuring 2
cm x 2 cm, just near injury No. 4, with irregular and crushed margins

On internal examination, the witness noted that the right upper and lower jaws and the right
temple bone were fractured. The brain and both lungs were congested with blood, the heart was
empty, and the stomach cavity contained blood. While the stomach and small intestine were empty,
the large intestine was filled with faeces. The liver, pancreas, spleen, and kidneys were all found to
be congested.

The witness expressed the opinion that the deceased died from shock and haemorrhage
resulting from these gunshot wounds. At the time of the autopsy, the deceased had been dead for
approximately one and a half days, placing the time of death around 8:00 am on 18-07-1986,
though he noted it could potentially have been between 3:00 am and 4:00 am. He clarified that all
injuries were caused by firearms. He further explained that "lacerated" and "contused" described
the nature of wounds found in injuries No. 2 to 4. He stated that while entry wounds typically have
inverted margins and exit wounds have everted margins, he found the margins in injuries No. 2, 3,
and 4 to be irregular or similar. He maintained that he recorded these observations after direct
inspection and noted that the absence of clean-cut margins ruled out the use of sharp-edged
weapons.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that:

The F.I.R. is the result of consultation with police officials in collusion with each other. There
was every occasion for the false implication of the accused-appellant by the informant. In a
previous incident, one Ram Dulare was murdered in which the accused Bachan Singh was an eyewitness, which ended in conviction. Further, about three months prior to this incident, the father of
accused Bachan Singh was beaten, and an F.I.R. was lodged by Bachan Singh against PW1 Shiv
102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sahai @ Khunti and his brother Har Sahai. The father of accused Bachan Singh died one month
after that incident, and the present incident took place one month after his death.

There was no clear motive to commit the murder of the father of the informant, and had there
been any existing grudge the informant (PW1) would have been forgeted instead. Furthermore, it
was highly improbable that the accused would have spared the informant if he was actually present
at the scene as claimed. The prosecution has failed to establish that the deceased, the informant, and
Udai Bhan (PW2) were going to arrange labor for planting the paddy crop in their field.

PW1 is an interested witness, and his presence at the time of occurrence is doubtful. The claim
that PW1 accompanied the deceased and PW2 while they were leaving for another village appears
unnatural.PW2 Udai Bhan is a chance witness, and his testimony is also not reliable.

There are material contradictions between the oral testimony and the medical evidence. The
post-mortem report shows that the lower large intestine was full of fecal matter. This contradicts
the circumstances of the case because the prosecution claims the deceased was going to village
Sangrampur after relieving himself. The deceased must have been killed in the morning when he
had gone to relieve himself in the field by unknown persons who were not seen by anyone, and the
accused persons have been falsely implicated by the informant due to enmity.

PW5 Dr. R. J. Khare has accepted that the injuries could be the result of four fires, but both
eye-witnesses have stated that only three shots were fired. Both eye-witnesses stated that the firing
took place from 7 to 10 steps away. However, the doctor has opined that Injury No. 1 was inflicted
from close range specifically from within four feet.

14. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State supporting the impugned judgment, has
submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. He vehemently opposed the
appeal, contending that the first informant was an eyewitness whose testimony cannot be easily
brushed aside, and argued that minor discrepancies should not be allowed to vitiate the
prosecution's case. The trial court has rightly convicted the accused persons. It was further
submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, this appeal lacks
merit and is liable to be dismissed.

15. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available
on record we find that the case of the prosecution primarily rests on the testimony of two
eyewitnesses, PW1 (the informant) and PW2 (Udai Bhan) and on the medical evidence. . The
learned counsel for the appellants has strongly argued that the entire story was created after the
incident had occurred previously in consultation with police officials. A look at the history between
the parties reveals a deep-rooted enmity. The accused, Bachan Singh, was an eyewitness in a
previous murder case involving one Ram Dulare, which resulted in a conviction against the
informant?s side. Furthermore, just three months before this incident, Bachan Singh had lodged an
F.I.R. against PW1 and his brother for assaulting his father. In criminal law, motive is a double-
edged weapon, while enmity can provide a motive for a crime, it also provides a very strong motive
for the false implication of innocent persons. We find the story hard to believe because if the
4 All. Jagdish & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
103
accused truly wanted to take revenge against PW1, it made no sense that they would short his
father and left PW1 completely untouched even when he was standing right there.

16. The presence of the eyewitnesses at the crime scene is surrounded by serious doubt as
PW2 admitted that his own village had a population of 100- 150 people including women and
children, who work as labourers and in such circumstance his explanation of going to another
village to hire labourers appeared to be suspicious. Moreover, there is a direct contradiction
between the two witnesses: PW1 in his testimony had stated that PW2, Udai Bhan came to his
house, while PW2 had stated that they met suddenly on the road while he was going to Ranipur to
hire labourers. These inconsistencies, combined with the fact that PW1 is an "interested witness"
makes it dangerous to rely on their testimony alone without strong supporting evidence. This doubt
is further strengthened by PW1's admission during cross-examination that one of the accused,
Jageshwar, was falsely implicated in this matter because of a family marriage dispute. The Hon?ble
Apex Court in the case of S.Govindaraju vs State Of Karnataka (2013) 15 SCC 315 stated that:

23. It is well settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to
take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions were of such magnitude so as to
materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements
in relation to trivial matters, which do not effect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not be
made a ground for rejection of evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire
evidence available, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses, and the appellate
court in the normal course of action, would not be justified in reviewing the same, without
providing justifiable reasons for doing so. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction,
creating a serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of a witness, and the other witnesses also make
material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would not be
safe to rely upon such evidence. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found not to
be minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such
circumstances, the witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in
conflict and contradiction with other evidence available or with a statement that has already been
recorded, then in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt.

17. While discrepancies in the witness evidence often occur in criminal cases, if these
contradictions create such serious doubt in the mind of the Court about truthfulness of the witness ,
then these contradiction go to the root of the matter and in such a case the accused get the benefit of
doubt. As such evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is filled with the discrepancies/contradictory versions,
it leads to the irresistible conclusion that evidence of witness cannot be a base to convict the
accused-appellant.

18. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pankaj v.
State of Rajasthan,(2016) 16 SCC 192 wherein it was emphasised that when the genesis and
manner of the incident itself are doubtful, conviction cannot be sustained. The Court held as under:

25. It is a well-settled principle of law that when the genesis and the manner of the incident is
doubtful, the accused cannot be convicted. Inasmuch as the prosecution has failed to establish the
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstances in which the appellant was alleged to have fired at the deceased, the entire story
deserves to be rejected. When the evidence produced by the prosecution has neither quality nor
credibility, it would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such evidence. After having considered the
matter thoughtfully, we find that the evidence on record in the case is not sufficient to bring home
the guilt of the appellant. In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

19. Another most significant evidence that casts a shadow on the prosecution's case is the
direct conflict between the testimony of ocular witnesses and of the medical evidence. The
eyewitnesses claimed that only three shots were fired from a distance of about 7 to 10 steps.
However, the Dr. R.J. Khare, PW5, found injuries caused by four separate shots. More importantly,
the doctor stated that Injury No. 1 was a "close-range" shot, fired from within four feet. The
Prosecution witnesses also stated the accused fired from the front, but the post-mortem report
shows the entry wound was on the right side of the head near the ear. This means the accused had
to be standing to the right of the deceased, not in front of him. These contradictions that go to the
very root of the case.

20. Further, the medical condition of the deceased?s body reveals circumstances that are
inconsistent with the account given by the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution claimed the
deceased was killed while traveling to another village after having already relieved himself.
However, the post-mortem report clearly shows that his large intestine was full of fecal matter. This
strongly suggests that the deceased was killed very early in the morning, perhaps while he was out
in the fields to relieve himself, and was likely attacked by unknown persons when no one else was
around. It appears the informant discovered the body later and used the opportunity to name his
enemies as the killers.

21. It is true that where there is a conflict between medical and oral evidence, preference is
often given to oral evidence as medical evidence is simply an opinion. However, this principle is
not applicable in the instant case because the oral evidence and medical evidence are poles apart
and do not reconcile with each other. It cannot be said that there is only a minor discrepancy
between the oral and medical evidence; under these circumstances, preference cannot be given to
the oral testimony.

22. In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 484, Hon'ble Court
observed,

Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries
could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can
make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in
the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence
in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place
in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on
the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.
4 All. Vinod Vs. State of U.P.
105

23. In State of U.P. v. Hari Chand (2009) 13 SCC 542, Hon'ble Apex Court re-iterated the
aforementioned position of law and stated that, "In any event unless the oral evidence is totally
irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy.

Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and
ocular evidence can be crystallized to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has
greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular
testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence.
However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the
ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.

24. In the view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, we are of the opinion that the
prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond the reasonable doubt. Hence, the benefit of doubt
would have to be extended to the accused-appellant no. 1, Jagdish. The appeal deserves to be
allowed.

25. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed qua appellant no. 1, Jagdish.

26. Appellant no. 1, Jagdish, is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged. .

27. Let a certified copy of the judgment alongwith trial court record be sent to the concerned
Chief Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court for compliance.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 105
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4964 of 2015

Vinod ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to legality of conviction order in case of no evidence.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-Section 302- Trial Court convicted Appellant to life imprisonment- by the same
judgement co-accused Omkar is acquitted u/s302/201 IPC and appellant Vinod acquitted u/s 201 IPCadmitted facts-all the prosecution witnesses are related to each other- evidences are full of discrepancies -can