# Ramvijay v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 408
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1232 of 2017
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh, Devendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramvijay-v-state-of-u-p-54876
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

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 408
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2026

BEFORE

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

Criminal Appeal No. 1232 of 2017

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

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the conviction of the appellant for the offence of murder is liable to be altered to
culpable homicide not amounting to murder in view of the occurrence having taken place during a sudden
altercation in a heat of passion without premeditation, and whether the case falls under S. 302 or S. 304 PartI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.(Paras 15,28)

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302, 304 Part-I - Nature of offence - Determination whether
offence falls under S. 302 IPC or S. 304 IPC - consideration of no premeditation and incident
took place in a heat of passion - applicability of Exception 4 to S. 300 IPC - conviction altered to
S. 304 Part-I IPC. (Paras 15, 35, 36, 37, 38)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Homicidal death - Postmortem report and evidence of Medical
Officer - no reason to interfere with finding that death of deceased is homicidal and appellant
caused injuries resulting in death. (Paras 14, 32)
3 All. Ramvijay Vs. State of U.P.
409
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 106 - Last seen circumstance - appellant present in house with
deceased and fled immediately after occurrence - failure to discharge burden cast upon him.
(Para 34)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Motive - altercation between accused and deceased over
sleeping - motive to commit murder evident from evidence of prosecution witnesses. (Para 34)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 300 Exception 4 - Sudden quarrel - no premeditation - act done in
heat of passion - appellant has not acted in a cruel and usual manner - benefit of Exception
extended. (Paras 35, 36)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302, 304 Part-I - Sentence - conviction under S. 302 IPC set aside
- altered to S. 304 Part-I IPC - rigorous imprisonment of ten years awarded. (Para 38)
Held: From the perusal of the postmortem report and evidence of the Medical Officer there is no reason to
interfere with the finding that the death of the deceased is homicidal and that it is the appellant who caused
injuries resulting in her death - it is further evident from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that there
was no premeditation and the incident took place in a heat of passion and that the appellant has not acted in
a cruel and usual manner - the cumulative effect of the circumstances entitles the appellant to the benefit of
Exception 4 to S. 300 IPC - consequently the death was caused by acts of the accused-appellant done with
the intention of causing such bodily injury as would likely to cause death and the offence would squarely fall
within the ambit of S. 304 Part-I IPC instead of S. 302 IPC - accordingly conviction under S. 302 IPC is set
aside and altered to S. 304 Part-I IPC and sentence modified to rigorous imprisonment of ten years.
 (Paras
14, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 342; K. Ramakoteswara Rao Vs. State of A.P., 1986 Cr.L.J.
680; Surinder Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (1989) 2 SCC 217; V. Sreedharan Vs. State of
Kerala, AIR 1992 SC 754; Bhera Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 SCC (Cri) 1230; Mochi Raju Vs. State of
Gujarat, JT 2001 (10) SC 398; Sukbhir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 327; Ghapoo Yadav Vs.
State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 528; Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006)
11 SCC 444; Sudhakar Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SC 289;

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Evidence Act, 1872

List of Keywords
homicidal death; sudden quarrel; heat of passion; absence of premeditation; exception 4 Section 300;
intention to cause bodily injury; last seen; burden under Section 106; alteration of conviction; culpable
homicide

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Sessions Trial No. 253 of 2015
convicting the appellant under S. 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment with fine.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, Amicus Curiae
Advs. for the Respondents:
Shri S.K. Obha, Additional Government Advocate-I

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)

1. This criminal appeal has been filed against a judgement and order dated 30.01.2017 passed
by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Sessions
410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Trial No. 253 of 2015 arising out of case crime No. 525 of 2015, under Section 302 IPC, police
station Kaptanganj, district Kushinagar whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the
appellant-Ramvijay to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only)
under section 302 IPC.

Facts of the case

2. The facts that formed the bedrock of the present appeal are that a written report was given
by Ram Rakshha to the Station House Officer, police station Kaptanganj, district Kushinagar that
he was married to Sonmati and from their wedlock one boy and a girl were born. Wife of the first
informant died about 18 years ago. The marriage of Ramvijay, brother of the first informant, was
solemnized with one Indira Devi. After the death of wife of the first informant, both first informant
and his brother Ramvijay by mutual consent started living with Indira Devi as husband and wife.
Indira Devi had three daughters aged about 16, 14 and 8 years and all of them are living in a joint
family. On the date of occurrence, the first informant had gone to bank of river to get the sand out.
All the children were at home. In the night some altercation took place between Indira Devi and
Ramvijay due to which Ramvijay assaulted Indira Devi with spade on her neck, resulting in her
death. Ramvijay fled from the spot and the body of Indira Devi is lying in the house.

3. After registration of the case, the law set into motion. Since, the Station House Officer of
the concerned police station was not present, the investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-7,
SI Arvind Mishra, who was posted at police station Kaptanganj, district Kushinagar. He copied the
FIR in the case diary and rushed to the spot and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and
prepared inquest report in the presence of witnesses of inquest. He inspected the spot on the
pointing out of the first informant and recovered the weapon of assault in the presence of Ram
Rakshha, Lallan Prasad and Shri Ram Singh and prepared memo thereof. He also collected
bloodstained and plain earth and kept it in two different container and prepared memos thereof.

4. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was taken up by PW-8, Jaisraj Yadav. He
arrested the accused at 08:30 hours on 15.3.2015 and recorded his statement. The accused
confessed to his crime. PW-8, Jaisraj Yadav after completion of investigation submitted charge
sheet against the appellant on 07.4.2015 under Section 302 IPC.

5. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 253 of
2015. Learned Sessions Judge, Kushinagar vide order dated 03.6.2015 framed the charge against
the appellant under Section 302 IPC, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home guilt of the appellant beyond the hilt, the prosecution has examined as
many as eight witnesses. PW-1, Ram Rakshha is the first informant of the case, PW-2, Lallan, PW3, Raju, PW-4, Geeta have been examined as witnesses of facts, PW-5, Smt. Sona Devi is the
witness of inquest, PW-6, Dr. Bhavnath Pandey, who conducted autopsy on the body of the
deceased, PW-7, SI Arvind Mishra, who conducted initial investigation and PW-8, Jaisraj Yadav,
the investigating officer, who submitted charge sheet.
3 All. Ramvijay Vs. State of U.P.
411
7. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C, in which he denied the charges levelled against him and submitted that
he has been falsely implicated in this case.

8. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Kushinagar at Padrauna after
hearing the learned counsel for the parties and assessing, evaluating and scrutinizing the evidence
on record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated herein above.

9. Hence this appeal.

Submission on behalf of the appellant

10. Learned counsel for appellant-accused at the very outset submits that he restricts his
argument only to the extent for conversion of the sentence from Section 302 to Section 304 IPC
and submits that since, there was no premeditation and the incident took place in a heat of passion,
considering the injuries received by the deceased, the case shall not traverse beyond the purview of
Section 304 I.P.C.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that motive to commit the incident in
this case is absent.

Submissions on behalf of the State

12. On the other hand, Shri S.K. Obha, learned Additional Government Advocate-I
representing the State submitted that the accused caused injury by spade on the neck of the
deceased, which resulted in her death and there was no grave or sudden provocation, the learned
Trial Court on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, has rightly convicted and sentenced
the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

Analysis and conclusion

13. Heard Shri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant
and leaned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

14. As an abundant precaution, we have gone through the postmortem report and evidence
of the prosecution witnesses. From the perusal of the postmortem report and the evidence of the
Medical Officer, we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding that the death of the
deceased is homicidal. We also do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial court
that it is the appellant who caused injuries to the deceased resulting in her death.

15. Having come to the conclusion that the appellant is liable for the death of the deceased,
we will have to now examine whether the offence committed by the appellant would come under
the ambit of Section 302 IPC or it can be altered to one under Section 304 IPC as argued by the
learned amicus curiae.
412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
16. For better appreciation of the contention of learned counsel for the appellant, we would
like to refer certain pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point in question insofar as
the appellant is concerned.

17. In Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 342, accused on the spur of moment
inflicted a knife blow on the chest of the deceased. The injury proved fatal. The doctor opined that
the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Apex Court observed
that quarrel was of a trivial nature and even in such a trivial quarrel appellant wielded a weapon
like a knife and landed a blow on the chest. In these circumstances, it is inadmissible to infer that
the accused at least could be imputed with the knowledge that he was likely to cause an injury
which was likely to cause death. The Court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 302
IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five
years.

18. In K. Ramakoteswara Rao Vs. State of A.P., 1986 Cr.L.J. 680, a sudden quarrel
arose between the accused and the deceased and the deceased threatened the accused with dire
consequences. The accused stabbed the deceased with knife. The Court convicted the accused
under Section 304 Part-I IPC.

19. In Surinder Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (1989)2 SCC 217, Hon'ble
Apex Court held that if on a sudden quarrel a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon
which is handy and causes injuries out of which only one proves fatal, he would be entitled to the
benefit of the Exception provided he has not acted cruelly. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
number of wounds caused during the occurrence in such a situation was not the decisive factor.
What was important was that the occurrence had taken place on account of a sudden and
unpremeditated fight and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Dealing with the provision
of Exception 4 to Section 300, Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:

 "..... To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a
sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv)
the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the
quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The
number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is
that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted
in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a
cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon
which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of
this exception provided he has not acted cruelly."

20. In V. Sreedharan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1992 SC 754, the accused, as a result of
provocation caused in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, chased the deceased to some
distance and then gave the single fatal blow, it was held that the whole incident was a continuous
sequence. Hence the conviction of the accused was shifted from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I
IPC.
3 All. Ramvijay Vs. State of U.P.
413
21. In Bhera Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2000 SCC (Cri) 1230, accused and the deceased
quarreled and while quarreling the accused in anger suddenly took out the knife and gave knife
blow on the chest of the deceased which resulted in his death. The Apex Court set aside the
conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, instead convicted him under Section 304 Part II
IPC and sentenced him to 5 years imprisonment.

22. In Mochi Raju Vs. State of Gujarat, JT 2001 (10) SC 398, accused appellant and the
deceased started fighting and during the quarrel appellant took out the knife from the pocket and
gave one blow to the deceased on his chest. The Apex Court while convicting the appellant for an
offence under Section 304 Part II, sentenced him to five years rigorous imprisonment.

23. In Sukbhir Singh v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 327, the appellant caused two
Bhala blows on the vital part of the body of the deceased that was sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death. The High Court held that the appellant had acted in a cruel and unusual
manner. Reversing the view taken by the High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that all fatal
injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the purposes of Exception 4 of
Section 300 IPC. In cases where after the injured had fallen down, the appellant did not inflict any
further injury when he was in a helpless position, it may indicate that he had not acted in a cruel or
unusual manner. The Court observed:

24. In Sukhbir Singh Vs. State of Haryaba, (2002) 3 SCC 327, the appellant caused
two Bhala blows on the vital part of the body of the deceased that was sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. The High Court held that the appellant had acted in a cruel and
unusual manner. Reversing the view taken by the High Court this Court held that all fatal injuries
resulting in death cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the purposes of Exception 4 of Section
300 IPC. In cases where after the injured had fallen down, the appellant did not inflict any further
injury when he was in a helpless position, it may indicate that he had not acted in a cruel or unusual
manner. The Court observed:

 "...All fatal injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the
purposes of not availing the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. After the injuries were
inflicted and the injured had fallen down, the appellant is not shown to have inflicted any other
injury upon his person when he was in a helpless position. It is proved that in the heat of passion
upon a sudden quarrel followed by a fight, the accused who was armed with Bhala caused injuries
at random and thus did not act in a cruel or unusual manner.

25. In Ghapoo Yadav Vs. State of M.P. (2003) 3 SCC 528, Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that in a heat of passion there must be no time for the passions to cool down and that the parties had
in that case before the Court worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in
the beginning. Apart from the incident being the result of a sudden quarrel without premeditation,
the law requires that the offender should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
unusual manner to be able to claim the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Whether or not
the fight was sudden, was declared by the Court to be decided in the facts and circumstances of
each case.
414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
26. In Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 11
SCC 444, the Hon'ble Court held thus:

 "Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care
and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part
II. Many petty or insignificant matters - plucking of a fruit, straying of a cattle, quarrel of children,
utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group
clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be
totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no pre-meditation. In fact,
there may not even be criminality."

27. In Sudhakar Vs. State of U.P., (2012)8 SC 289, Honble Supreme Court held as
under:

 "Going by the narration of the facts disclosed, there was nothing to suggest that there
was any premeditation in the mind of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased. Taking into
account the statement of P.W.1 that the deceased was under the influence of liquor and that
whenever he was under the influence of liquor he used to throw the household articles and create a
ruckus in the house was a factor which created a heat of passion in the appellant who as a father
was not in a position to tolerate the behaviour of his son whose misbehaviour under the influence
of liquor was the torment. Therefore, unmindful of the consequences, though not in a cruel manner
the appellant inflicted a single blow which unfortunately caused severe damage to the vital organs
resulting into the death of the deceased. In such circumstances, as rightly contended by learned
counsel for the appellant, we are convinced that the offence alleged and as found proved against
the appellant can be brought under the First Part of Section 304 of IPC. Accordingly, while
affirming the conviction of the appellant, we are only altering the same as falling under Section
304 Part I of IPCin place ofSection 302 of IPC. As far as the sentence imposed on the
appellant in as much as we reached at the conclusion that the conviction should fall underSection
304Part I of IPC, taking note of the sentence already undergone, we find from the Imprisonment
Certificate that the appellant is in jail from 12.07.2004 and he is 60 year old, P.W.1, who is the
wife of the appellant, is left all alone and the appellant having suffered imprisonment for more than
eight years, we hold that the sentence already undergone would be sufficient punishment apart
from the fine imposed with the default sentence as per the judgment of the Trial Court and as
affirmed by the High Court. The appeal stands partly allowed with the above modifications of the
charge and the sentence imposed on the appellant."

28. In the light of the above pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, we shall now proceed
to consider whether case against the accused-appellant falls within the ambit of Section 302 IPC or
Section 304 IPC.

29. PW-5, Dr. Bhavnath Pandey, who conducted autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased
found the following ante-mortem injuries:

 "1. Incised wound 7.00 x 1.5 cm x muscle deep over dorsum of left thumb and index
finger.
3 All. Ramvijay Vs. State of U.P.
415
 2. Incised wound 19 cm x 3 cm x brain cavity deep over back of scalp and neck extending
from point 3.00 cm below left ear to a point 2.00 cm above right ear."

30. On internal examination, doctor found that occipital bone was fractured. Membranes
and brain were lacerated in posterior part. The tissues of neck were divided (cut) posteriorly.

31. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was haemorrhage, shock, coma as a
result of ante-mortem injuries.

32. From perusal of the post-mortem report, it is clear that it was a homicidal death and the
injuries sustained by the deceased was sufficient to cause death.

33. PW-1, Rohit Kumar, who is the first informant of the case has mentioned in his
evidence that his wife died about 18 years prior to the date of occurrence. Accused-appellant is his
brother who was married to Indira Devi (deceased). After the death of wife of the first informant,
both first informant and his brother-appellant by mutual consent started living with Indira Devi as
husband and wife in a joint family. In the night certain altercation took place between Ramvijayappellant and the deceased, due to which appellant assaulted the deceased by spade over her neck,
which resulted in her death. However, in his deposition before the Court, PW-1, Ram Rakshha did
not support the prosecution case and stated that in the morning he had gone to bank of river to get
the sand out and when he came back, he was told that in the village miscreants have come and on
raising noise by the deceased, she was killed by them.

34. The learned Trial Court convicted the appellant on the ground that the appellant was
lastly seen in the company of the deceased as he was present in the house with the deceased and
fled from the house immediately after the occurrence. Learned Trial Court has also held that the
appellant has failed to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. So
far as motive is concerned, learned Trial Court has mentioned that from the perusal of the evidence
of PW-1, Ram Rakshha, who is the first informant, PW-4, Geeta, who is the niece of the accused
and PW-5, Sona Devi, sister of the accused, it is evident that the deceased was living in the house
as wife of both the first informant and the accused-appellant and always altercation took place
between the accused and the deceased over sleeping as the deceased refused to sleep with the
appellant, which was the motive to commit the murder.

35. Further from the perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that
there was no premeditation and the incident took place in a heat of passion and that looking to the
injuries sustained by the deceased, it is apparent that the appellant has not acted in a cruel and usual
manner.

36. The cumulative effect of all these circumstances, in our opinion, should entitle the
appellant to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

37. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court and
looking at the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and the circumstances as enumerated
above, the conclusion is irresistible that the death was caused by the acts of the accused-appellant
416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as would likely to cause death and, therefore,
the offence would squarely come within the ambit of Section 304 part-I IPC, instead of Section 302
IPC.

38. In view of the above conspectus, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC
cannot be sustained. This Court is reluctant in endorsing the life imprisonment. Accordingly, the
conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside, instead, he is convicted under
Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years. Appellant is stated to
be in jail since 15.03.2015. He shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case provided
he has completed the modified sentence of ten years.

39. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid modification in the
impugned judgement and order dated dated 30.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge/FTC-II, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Sessions Trial No. 253 of 2015.

40. Office is directed to transmit the lower court record along with a copy of this order to
the court concerned for compliance.

41. Shri Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned amicus curiae shall be a paid a sum of Rs.
15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) for his assistance to the Court in deciding this appeal.
---------
(2026) 3 ILRA 416
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2026

BEFORE

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

Criminal Appeal No. 3410 of 2016

Mahesh @ Munna Yadav. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable
doubt for the offences under S. 302 read with S. 34 I.P.C. and Ss. 27/30 Arms Act despite hostility of material
witnesses and alleged inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence. (Paras 36,38)

Headnotes
Criminal trial - Appreciation of evidence - Minor discrepancies in testimony due to lapse of time
and human memory do not affect substratum of prosecution case unless going to root -
testimony may still be relied upon if corroborated by other evidence. (Paras 39,40)