# Sia Ram & Ors v. State

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 787
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1986
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Jitendra Kumar Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sia-ram-ors-v-state-53448
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections
302/149,
304
Part
II/149,
325/149 & 323/149 - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973- Section 313 - Appreciation of
evidence of inimical and injured witnesses -
While appreciating the testimony of the inimical
witness closer scrutiny is required - Exception 4
to Section 300 IPC - Sudden fight without
premeditation - Culpable homicide is not
murder if it is committed without premeditation
in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a
sudden quarrel and without the offender's
having taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner - Conversion of
conviction from Section 302/149 IPC to Section
304 Part II/149 IPC - Appellants along with
several others were charged for forming
unlawful assembly and assaulting Shyam Lal
when he resisted the grazing of accused's
bullocks in his field. Trial court convicted all
under
Sections
302/149
IPC
with
life
imprisonment besides conviction under Sections
325/149 and 323/149 IPC. On appeal, during
pendency, the appeal abated for most accused
and survived only for Sukh Ram and Bhupal.
Prosecution relied on testimony of injured
witnesses and medical evidence. Defence
challenged delay in FIR, contradictions in
witnesses' statements, and absence of specific
proof as to who inflicted the fatal blow. Held :
Court held that the testimony of inimical
witnesses requires closer scrutiny but injured
witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 were found reliable.
Independent witness PW-5's presence was
disbelieved. Medical evidence disclosed ten
injuries on deceased of which only two were on
vital parts, one fatal lathi blow on the head
being
responsible
for
death.
From
the
appreciation of evidence on record it was found
that the injury received by all the five injured
were simple in nature whereas only one
lacerated wound and one contusion was found
on the head of the deceased Shyam Lal. All the
accused except accused Sukh Ram were armed
with lathi and Sukh Ram was armed with Kanta.
There was only one incised wound on the
person of the deceased which was not on the
vital part. Prosecution not been able to
successfully prove that the act of the accused
was premeditated and that accused took undue
advantage. Incident took place due to sudden
fight. Prosecution not been able to prove that
the offence committed by the accused falls
under Section 302 IPC. The offence committed
by the accused falls under Part II of Section 304
IPC. Prosecution failed to prove that there was
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an intention on the part of the accused to
commit the murder of the deceased Shyam Lal
because only one lacerated wound has been
found on his head. A large number of persons
assaulted the deceased by lathies and one lathi
fell on the head of the deceased which proved
fatal, therefore, the intention of causing death
cannot be inferred. Prosecution failed to prove
offence against surviving appellants Sukh Ram
and Bhupal under Section 302/149 IPC.
Considering that the incident occurred more
than 40 years back and appellants had already
undergone about two months' imprisonment,
sentence reduced to period already undergone
with fine of Rs. 25,000/- each payable to heirs
of deceased. Conviction under Sections 325/149
and 323/149 IPC maintained but sentence
modified to run concurrently. Appeal partly
allowed. (Para 35, 38, 39)

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,943 of 57,351. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39943 for what follows._

5 All. Sia Ram & Ors. Vs. State
787
year. The conviction of appellant
under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes
and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is
hereby set aside.

41. The appellant is on bail. He is
directed to surrender before the trial court
for undergoing the remaining sentence,
within a month from the date of this
judgment, failing which the learned trial
court will be at liberty to proceed against
him, in accordance with law. The fine, if
deposited, by the appellant, shall be paid to
the victim 'K'.

42. Let the trial court record along
with a copy of this judgment be transmitted
to the trial court concerned through
Registrar
(Compliance)
forthwith,
for
compliance.The compliance report be also
submitted to this Court.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 787
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1986

Sia Ram & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri P.N. Mishra, Sri Javed Alam (A.C.)

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections
302/149,
304
Part
II/149,
325/149 & 323/149 - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973- Section 313 - Appreciation of
evidence of inimical and injured witnesses -
While appreciating the testimony of the inimical
witness closer scrutiny is required - Exception 4
to Section 300 IPC - Sudden fight without
premeditation - Culpable homicide is not
murder if it is committed without premeditation
in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a
sudden quarrel and without the offender's
having taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner - Conversion of
conviction from Section 302/149 IPC to Section
304 Part II/149 IPC - Appellants along with
several others were charged for forming
unlawful assembly and assaulting Shyam Lal
when he resisted the grazing of accused's
bullocks in his field. Trial court convicted all
under
Sections
302/149
IPC
with
life
imprisonment besides conviction under Sections
325/149 and 323/149 IPC. On appeal, during
pendency, the appeal abated for most accused
and survived only for Sukh Ram and Bhupal.
Prosecution relied on testimony of injured
witnesses and medical evidence. Defence
challenged delay in FIR, contradictions in
witnesses' statements, and absence of specific
proof as to who inflicted the fatal blow. Held :
Court held that the testimony of inimical
witnesses requires closer scrutiny but injured
witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 were found reliable.
Independent witness PW-5's presence was
disbelieved. Medical evidence disclosed ten
injuries on deceased of which only two were on
vital parts, one fatal lathi blow on the head
being
responsible
for
death.
From
the
appreciation of evidence on record it was found
that the injury received by all the five injured
were simple in nature whereas only one
lacerated wound and one contusion was found
on the head of the deceased Shyam Lal. All the
accused except accused Sukh Ram were armed
with lathi and Sukh Ram was armed with Kanta.
There was only one incised wound on the
person of the deceased which was not on the
vital part. Prosecution not been able to
successfully prove that the act of the accused
was premeditated and that accused took undue
advantage. Incident took place due to sudden
fight. Prosecution not been able to prove that
the offence committed by the accused falls
under Section 302 IPC. The offence committed
by the accused falls under Part II of Section 304
IPC. Prosecution failed to prove that there was
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an intention on the part of the accused to
commit the murder of the deceased Shyam Lal
because only one lacerated wound has been
found on his head. A large number of persons
assaulted the deceased by lathies and one lathi
fell on the head of the deceased which proved
fatal, therefore, the intention of causing death
cannot be inferred. Prosecution failed to prove
offence against surviving appellants Sukh Ram
and Bhupal under Section 302/149 IPC.
Considering that the incident occurred more
than 40 years back and appellants had already
undergone about two months' imprisonment,
sentence reduced to period already undergone
with fine of Rs. 25,000/- each payable to heirs
of deceased. Conviction under Sections 325/149
and 323/149 IPC maintained but sentence
modified to run concurrently. Appeal partly
allowed. (Para 35, 38, 39)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar
Sinha, J.)

1. Heard Sri Javed Alam, learned
Amicus Curiae for the appellants, Sri O.P.
Dwivedi, learned AGA-Ist for the State and
perused the record.

2. Present Criminal Appeal has
been preferred against the judgement and
order dated 21.12.1985 passed by learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 455 of 1983
convicting and sentencing the appellant
nos. 1 to 15 under section 302 read with
section 149 IPC with life imprisonment
and 3 years rigorous imprisonment and
fine of Rs. 1000/- each of them under
section 325 read with 149 I.P.C. and in
default of payment of fine to further
undergo
three
months
rigorous
imprisonment, further convicting all the
accused under section 323 read with
section 149 I.P.C. and sentencing each
of
them
to
6
months
rigorous
imprisonment.
3. Vide order dated 16.7.2024, the
appeal stood abated in respect of appellant
no. 1- Sia Ram S/O Durgt, appellant No. 3
Dori S/O Kesho, appellant no. 4 Ragghu
S/O Rohan, appellant no. 5- Dharam Pal
S/O Rohan, appellant no. 6 Toti S/O
Khyali, appellant no. 8- Rameshwar S/O
Bhoji, appellant no. 9- Mool Chand S/O
Bhoji, appellant no.- 10- Man Singh S/O
Bhoji, appellant no. 11- Janki S/O Kewal,
appellant no. 12 Munshi S/O Kewal,
appellant no. 13- Baboo S/O Hari,
appellant No. 14 Ram Singh S/O Neksoo
and appellant No. 15 Moti S/O Behari.
Now the appeal is surviving only in respect
of appellant no. 2 Sukh Ram S/O Sia Ram
and appellant no. 7- Bhupal S/O Khyali.

4. The prosecution story, in brief, is
that informant Chet Ram gave a report to
the police station on 22.3.1982 stating
therein that in the evening of 21.3.1982 at
about 5 P.M. his brother Shyam Lal saw
the bullocks of the accused Rameshwar
grazing his field of wheat. Seeing damage
to his crop, Shyam Lal caught the bullocks
and was taking them to cattle pound and
when he came near the land of Gram
Samaj, accused Rameshwar objected to
him for taking away bullocks but Shyam
Lal said that bullocks had destroyed his
crops, therefore, he would not let the
bullocks free. On this, Rameshwar called
his family members and soon Sukh Ram
armed with Kanta, Siya Ram, Dori,
Ragghu,
Dharam
Pal,
Toti,
Bhupal,
Rameswar, Mool Chand, Maan Singh,
Janki, Munshi, Anar, Babu, Ram Singh and
Moti, all armed with lathi reached there.
The accused Siya Ram exhorted his
colleagues to settle the matter with the
informant's brother on which informant's
brother Shyam Lal raised noise. Hearing
his noise the witnesses Mahaveer, Punni,
Chet Ram (informant), Natthu, Shiv Dayal,
5 All. Sia Ram & Ors. Vs. State
789
Natthu Lal, Daal Singh, Lal Singh came
there and saw the accused were beating
Shyam Lal with their lathies. When the
informant and witnesses tried to defend
Shyam Lal, accused persons had also
beaten them as a result of which Mahaveer,
Chet Ram, Punni, Shiv Dayal, Nathu
sustained injuries. The informant's brother
Shyam Lal, after telling about the incident
died on the spot.

5.
On
the
basis
of
above
information, first information report was
lodged and inquest of the dead body was
conducted and same was sent for post
mortem.

 5.1. It is also mentioned in the
FIR that one case under section 307 I.P.C.
was lodged by accused side against the
prosecution side in which prosecution side
were acquitted and due to this relationship
between prosecution side and the accused
side were inimical.

6. Medico legal report of injured
Chet Ram, Punni, Nathu, Shiv Dayal were
also prepared as they received injuries in
the incident. X-ray reports of injured Nathu
son of Narayan, Mahaveer and Chet Ram
were also prepared.

7. The investigating officer after
conducting the investigation submitted the
charge sheet to learned Magistrate who
took cognizance on the charge sheet and
committed the case to the court of session.
The case was transferred to the court of
learned Ist Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Budaun for trial. Learned trial court
framed charges against accused Siya Ram,
Sukh Ram, Dori, Raghoo, Dharam Pal,
Toti, Bhupal, Rameshwar, Mool Chand,
Man Singh, Janki, Munshi, Babu, Ram
Singh and Moti under sections 148, 147,
302 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149, 325 r/w 149 and
323 r/w 149 I.P.C. whereas accused Sukh
Ram has also been charged under section
324 I.P.C. Accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed for trial.

8. The prosecution has examined as
many
as
eight
witnesses,
namely,
informant Chet Ram- P.W.1, Punni-P.W. 2,
Dr. M.L. Verma- P.W.3, Manak Singh-
P.W. 4, Daal Singh-P.W. 5, Dr. S.R. Gupta,
P.W. 6 who has conducted the post martem
of deceased Shyam Lal, Harish Chandr,
S.I.-P.W. 7 and Om Prakash Singh- P.W. 8.
After closure of the prosecution evidence,
the statement of all the accused persons
have also been recorded under section 313
Cr.P.C. wherein accused appellant No. 2
Sukh Ram and appellant no. 7- Bhupal
have admitted in their statements recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C. that some
litigation
took
place
between
the
prosecution party and the victim and the
incident had taken place due to that but
they have denied their involvement in the
case and have denied that they have
committed the offence.

9. The prosecution has also proved
documentary evidence, as injury report-
Ext. Ka 1, Ka 2, Ka 3, Ka 4 & Ka 5,
Supplementary report- Ext. Ka 6 & Ka 7,
X-Ray report- Ext. Ka 8 & Ka 9,
Panchayatnama- Ext. Ka 10, site plan with
index- Ext. Ka. 18, recovery memo of
blood stained and plain soil- Ext. Ka. 19,
Charge sheet 'mool'- Ext. Ka 20, F.I.R.-
Ext. Ka. 21 and written report- Ext. Ka. 24.

10.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant
submitted
that
the
first
information report is highly delayed for
which no explanation has been offered by
the prosecution. Learned counsel further
submitted that the incident took place in
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
day light in the village but no single lady
has been named as witness which makes
the prosecution case highly doubtful.
Further, learned counsel submitted that four
injured witnesses belong to one family and
all the injuries suffered by them are
fabricated so as to give colour to the
prosecution case. It has also been submitted
by learned counsel that the deceased used
to supply cartridges to the dacoits. The
deceased had a gun which was seized by
the police and the deceased has ceased to
supply the cartridges to the dacoits and on
account of this dacoits killed the deceased.
Learned counsel further submitted that the
weapon used in the offence has not been
recovered.

11.
Learned
counsel
further
submitted that large number of persons
have been roped in this case and
prosecution has not been successful to
prove which accused gave the fatal blow to
the deceased. He further submitted that
there are material contradictions in the
statement of witnesses which go to the root
of
the
case
causing
doubt
on
the
prosecution version.

12. On the other hand, learned
AGA submitted that one person has died
and five persons have received injuries in
the incident. He further submitted that such
a large number of persons receiving
injuries itself supports the version of the
prosecution. He further submitted that
explanation of delayed F.I.R. as given by
the informant is satisfactory as fall of night
took place soon after the incident and no
arrangement of any conveyance could be
made for reaching the police station.

13.
Learned
AGA
further
submitted that admittedly there was enmity
between prosecution side and the deceased
and enmity has resulted in the commission
of the offence committed by the accused.
All the injured witness have supported the
prosecution case and P.W. 5 Dal Singh is
an independent witness who has also
supported the prosecution case.

14. Learned counsel submitted that
in view of the above, prosecution has been
able to prove its case against the surviving
appellants Sukh Ram and Bhupal beyond
reasonable doubt and learned trial court has
passed well reasoned judgement which
needs no interference by this court. Lastly,
he submitted that appeal deserves to be
dismissed.

15. This court is tasked with the
duty to re-appreciate evidence available on
the record of the learned trial court so as to
reach at the conclusion whether the
prosecution has been able to bring home
the charge against surviving appellants
Bhupal and Sukh Ram beyond the shadow
of reasonable doubt.

16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo and
others vs. State of Punjab, Criminal
Appeal No. 1389 of 2012 has held in
paragraph no. 12 and 13 as under :-

 "12. Also, it is worth indicating
that P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.5 are "injured
witnesses" or "injured eye-witnesses" in
this case. The sworn testimonies provided
by injured witnesses generally carry
significant
evidentiary
weight.
Such
testimonies
cannot
be
dismissed
as
unreliable unless there are pellucid and
substantial discrepancies or contradictions
that undermine their credibility. If there is
any exaggeration in the deposition that is
immaterial to the case, such exaggeration
should be disregarded; however, it does not
5 All. Sia Ram & Ors. Vs. State
791
warrant the rejection of the entire evidence.
Therefore, the suspicion raised by the
appellants regarding the genesis of the
case is rendered unfounded.

 13.
The
abovementioned
conclusion stands fortified with reference
to paragraph 26 of the decision of this
Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. vs.
State of Maharashtra12. The relevant
passage is reproduced as under:

 "26. When the evidence of an
injured eye-witness is to be appreciated,
the under-noted legal principles enunciated
by the Courts are required to be kept in
mind:

 (a) The presence of an injured
eye-witness at the time and place of the
occurrence cannot be doubted unless there
are
material
contradictions
in
his
deposition.

 (b)
Unless,
it
is
otherwise
established by the evidence, it must be
believed that an injured witness would not
allow the real culprits to escape and falsely
implicate the accused.

 (c) The evidence of injured
witness has greater evidentiary value and
unless compelling reasons exist, their
statements are not to be discarded lightly.

 (d) The evidence of injured
witness cannot be doubted on account of
some embellishment in natural conduct or
minor contradictions.

 (e) If there be any exaggeration or
immaterial embellishments in the evidence of
an injured witness, then such contradiction,
exaggeration or embellishment should be
discarded from the evidence of injured, but
not the whole evidence.

 (f) The broad substratum of the
prosecution version must be taken into
consideration
and
discrepancies
which
normally creep due to loss of memory with
passage of time should be discarded."

17. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph no. 27 of the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh vs. Naresh and Others, 2011 SCC
Online SC 450, observed as under:-

 "27. The evidence of an injured
witness must be given due weightage being a
stamped witness, State V DAYA CHAND FIR
no.299/10 PS NARELA Page No.10 of
16 thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His
statement is generally considered to be very
reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared
the actual assailant in order to falsely
implicate someone else. The testimony of an
injured witness has its own relevancy and
efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the
time and place of occurrence and this lends
support to his testimony that he was present
during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of
an injured witness is accorded a special
status in law. The witness would not like or
want to let his actual assailant go unpunished
merely to implicate a third person falsely for
the commission of the offence. Thus, the
evidence of the injured witness should be
relied upon unless there are grounds for the
rejection of his evidence on the basis of major
contradictions CRL. A. No. 694/2010 Page 7
of 13 and discrepancies therein. (Vide Jarnail
Singh v. State of Punjab,m Balraje v. State of
Maharashtra and Abdul Sayeed v. State of
M.P.)"

18. In Mahavir Singh vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1141 of 2007, Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed in paragraph no. 18 as under:-

 "18. The High Court has attached
a lot of weight to the evidence of the said
Madho Singh (PW 9) as he is an
independent witness. On perusal of the
record, it appears that the said person
already had deposed for the victim family
on a number of previous occasions, that too
against the same accused. This being the
fact, it is important to analyze the
jurisprudence on interested witness. It is a
settled principle that the evidence of
interested witness needs to be scrutinized
with utmost care. It can only be relied upon
if the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is
cogent, credible and trustworthy. Here we
may refer to chance witness also. It is to be
seen that although the evidence of a chance
witness is acceptable in India, yet the
chance witness has to reasonably explain
the presence at that particular point more
so when his deposition is being assailed as
being tainted."

19. In Vinod Jaswantray Vyas
(Dead) through Lrs. vs. the State of
Gujrat, Criminal Appeal No. 2038 of
2017, Hon'ble Supreme court observed in
paragraph nos. 44 and 45 as under:-

 "44. We are conscious of the
proposition
that
where
there
are
contradictions inter se between the
opinion of the Medical Jurist and the
ocular testimony, generally, the evidence
of the eyewitnesses should be given
precedence.
However,
where
the
contradiction is so prominent that it
completely demolishes the version of the
eyewitnesses who are interested and
partisan, in such cases, the Court should
be circumspect in admitting the evidence
of the eyewitness while ignoring the
convincing
opinion
of
the
Medical
Expert.

 45. Our view is fortified by the
judgment of this Court in the case of
Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh and
Others. v. State of Haryana wherein, it
was held as below: -

 "38. Thus, the position of law in
such a case of contradiction between
medical and ocular evidence can be
crystallised to the 8 (2011) 7 SCC
421 effect
that
though
the
ocular
testimony of a witness has greater
evidentiary
value
vis-à-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."
 (emphasis supplied)

20.
Admittedly,
relationship
between the prosecution side and the
accused side was inimical as it is clear from
the version of the first information report
due to previous criminal case registered
under
section
307
I.P.C.
against
prosecution side by the accused side.

21. It is well settled that while
appreciating the testimony of the inimical
witness closer scrutiny is required. It is
held in paragraph no. 33 to 38 of Hon'ble
Supreme Court Judgement Raju Alias
Balachandran and others vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, (2012) 12 SCC 701,which
reads as under:-

 "33. For the time being, we are
concerned with four categories of witnesses
5 All. Sia Ram & Ors. Vs. State
793
- a third party disinterested and unrelated
witness (such as a bystander or passer-by);
a third party interested witness (such as a
trap witness); a related and therefore an
interested witness (such as the wife of the
victim) having an interest in seeing that the
accused is punished; a related and
therefore an interested witness (such as the
wife or brother of the victim) having an
interest in seeing the accused punished and
also having some enmity with the accused.
But, more than the categorization of a
witness, the issue really is one of
appreciation of the evidence of a witness. A
court should examine the evidence of a
related and interested witness having an
interest in seeing the accused punished and
also having some enmity with the accused
with greater care and caution than the
evidence of a third party disinterested and
unrelated witness. This is all that is
expected and required.

 34. In the present case, PW-5
Srinivasan is not only a related and
interested witness, but also someone who
has an enmity with the appellants. His
evidence, therefore, needs to be scrutinized
with great care and caution.

 35. In Dalip Singh v. State of
Punjab, 1954 SCR 145 this Court
observed, without any generalization, that
a related witness would ordinarily speak
the truth, but in the case of an enmity there
may be a tendency to drag in an innocent
person as an accused - each case has to be
considered on its own facts. This is what
this Court had to say:

 "A witness is normally to be
considered independent unless he or she
springs from sources which are likely to be
tainted and that usually means unless the
witness has cause, such as enmity against
the accused, to wish to implicate him
falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would
be the last to screen the real culprit and
falsely implicate an innocent person. It is
true, when feelings run high and there is
personal cause for enmity, that there is a
tendency to drag in an innocent person
against whom a witness has a grudge along
with the guilty, but foundation must be laid
for such a criticism and the mere fact of
relationship far from being a foundation is
often a sure guarantee of truth. However,
we are not attempting any sweeping
generalisation. Each case must be judged
on its own facts. Our observations are only
made to combat what is so often put
forward in cases before us as a general
rule of prudence. There is no such general
rule. Each case must be limited to and be
governed by its own facts."

 36. How the evidence of such a
witness should be looked at was again
considered in Darya Singh v. State of
Punjab, (1964) 3 SCR 397. This Court was
of the opinion that a related or interested
witness may not be hostile to the assailant,
but if he is, then his evidence must be
examined very carefully and all the
infirmities taken into account. It was
observed that where the witness shares the
hostility of the victim against the assailant,
it would be unlikely that he would not name
the real assailant but would substitute the
real assailant with the "enemy" of the
victim. This is what this Court said:

 "There can be no doubt that in a
murder case when evidence is given by
near relatives of the victim and the murder
is alleged to have been committed by the
enemy of the family, criminal courts must
examine the evidence of the interested
witnesses, like the relatives of the victim,
very carefully. But a person may be
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
interested in the victim, being his relation
or otherwise, and may not necessarily be
hostile to the accused. In that case, the fact
that the witness was related to the victim or
was his friend, may not necessarily
introduce any infirmity in his evidence. But
where the witness is a close relation of the
victim and is shown to share the victim's
hostility to his assailant, that naturally
makes it necessary for the criminal courts
examine the evidence given by such witness
very carefully and scrutinise all the
infirmities in that evidence before deciding
to act upon it........ [I]t may be relevant to
remember that though the witness is hostile
to the assailant, it is not likely that he
would deliberately omit to name the real
assailant and substitute in his place the
name of the enemy of the family out of
malice. The desire to punish the victim
would be so powerful in his mind that he
would
unhesitatingly
name
the
real
assailant
and
would
not
think
of
substituting in his place the enemy of the
family though he was not concerned with
the assault. It is not improbable that in
giving evidence, such a witness may name
the real assailant and may add other
persons out of malice and enmity and that
is a factor which has to be borne in mind in
appreciating the evidence of interested
witnesses. On principle, however, it is
difficult to accept the plea that if a witness
is shown to be a relative of the deceased
and it is also shown that he shared the
hostility of the victim towards the assailant,
his evidence can never be accepted unless
it is corroborated on material particulars."

 37. More recently, in Waman v.
State of Maharashtra, (2011) 7 SCC 295
this Court dealt with the case of a related
witness (though not a witness inimical to
the assailant) and while referring to and
relying upon Sarwan Singh v. State of
Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 369, Balraje v. State
of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673,
Prahlad Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(2011) 4 SCC 262, Israr v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2005) 9 SCC 616, S. Sudershan
Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006)
10 SCC 163, State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, Jarnail Singh v.
State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 and
Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10
SCC 477 it was held:

 "It is clear that merely because
the
witnesses
are
related
to
the
complainant
or
the
deceased,
their
evidence cannot be thrown out. If their
evidence is found to be consistent and true,
the fact of being a relative cannot by itself
discredit their evidence. In other words, the
relationship is not a factor to affect the
credibility of a witness and the courts have
to scrutinise their evidence meticulously
with a little care."

 38. The sum and substance is that
the evidence of a related or interested
witness
should
be
meticulously
and
carefully examined. In a case where the
related and interested witness may have
some enmity with the assailant, the bar
would need to be raised and the evidence of
the witness would have to be examined by
applying a standard of discerning scrutiny.
However, this is only a rule of prudence
and not one of law, as held in Dalip Singh
and pithily reiterated in Sarwan Singh in
the following words:

 "The evidence of an interested
witness does not suffer from any infirmity
as such, but the courts require as a rule of
prudence, not as a rule of law, that the
evidence of such witnesses should be
scrutinised with a little care. Once that
approach is made and the court is satisfied
5 All. Sia Ram & Ors. Vs. State
795
that the evidence of interested witnesses
have a ring of truth such evidence could be
relied upon even without corroboration."

22. In paragraph no. 18 of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement passed
in State of Haryana vs. Mohd. Yunus and
others, (2024) 3 SCC 180 which reads as
under:-

 "18. Although, appellant - Mohd.
Jamil (A2) and Akhtar Hussain (A4) were
tried separately and the statement of
witnesses were recorded twice, firstly, in
the trial against three accused persons
(Mohd. Yunus (A1), Mohd. Jamil (A2) &
Ghasita (A3)) and secondly, in the trial
against Akhtar Hussain (A4), the fact
remains that both the star witnesses of the
prosecution namely Deenu (PW-7) and
Ahmad (PW-8) are disbelieved in the
second trial by clearly stating that their
statements are contradictory, the facts are
twisted and improvements are made. For
trial under Section 302 IPC, if a witness is
branded as untrustworthy having allegedly
twisted the facts and made contrary
statement, it is not safe to impose
conviction on the basis of statement made
by such witness. When there is an effort to
falsely implicate one accused person,
statement made by such an eyewitness
cannot
be
relied
without
strong
corroboration. Moreover, there is material
on record proving previous enmity between
the parties as mentioned in paragraph 25
of the trial court judgment."

23. In the backdrop of the above,
this court has to appreciate the evidence of
the prosecution witness.

24. P.W.1 Chet Ram who is the
informant of the case has supported the
prosecution case in his examination-inchief
and
has
stated
that
appellant
Sukkhi(Sukh Ram) was armed with kanta
and other accused were armed with lathies
had assembled at the place of occurrence
and they were beating Shyam Lal. On
hearing, Lal Singh and Nathu reached at
the place of occurrence.

25. This witness is an injured
witness. This witness is consistent in cross
examination regarding his narration of the
incident. The defence has not been able to
extract any material contradiction from the
cross examination of this witness.

26. Similarly, P.W. 2 Punni who is
also injured witness has supported the
prosecution case in his examination in
chief. In cross examination there are some
improvements but they are not of such
nature so as to erode the credibility of this
witness.

27. P.W. 3 Dr. M.L. Verma has
conducted the medical examination of the
injuries of the witnesses. He prepared
injury reports of each witnesses which are
Ext. Ka.1, Ext. Ka 2, Kxt. Ka 3, Ext. Ka 4
and Ext. Ka. 5.

28. Similarly, P.W. 5 Dal Singh
who is said to be independent witness has
stated in his examination in chief that he
and his brother Lal Singh had gone to
purchase potato from the field of Natthu
Pandit and he saw the incident. In cross
examination, this witness has stated that
marriage of the daughter of his brother
Vijay Singh was scheduled to take place
three weeks later and for the purpose of
marriage, he had gone to purchase potato.

29. It is highly improbable and
unbelievable that a person residing in a
village will go to purchase potato for
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
marriage ceremony scheduled three weeks
later.

30. Further this witness has stated
in his cross examination that he had given
some wrong statement to the investigating
officer regarding the incident. This witness
has
further
made
some
material
improvement in his statement before
learned trial court to his earlier statement
made before the investigating officer. The
presence of this witness at the place of
occurrence is doubtful, therefore, the
prosecution cannot take advantage of the
evidence of this witness.

31. P.W. 6 Dr. S.P. Gupta who
conducted the post mortem of the deceased
Shyam Lal and prepared post mortem
report Kxt. Ka 15 according to which the
deceased Shyam Lal has received ten
injuries out of which injury no. 1 and 7 are
on the vital part and other injuries are on
non vital part. The injuries received by
deceased are as under:-

 A. Lacerated wound 1 cm m 0.5
cm over the left side of head 10 cm above
the ear with contusion in an area of 14 cm
x 13 cm on the left side of head. On
dissection clotted blood was present under
the injury no. 1. There was depressed
fracture of left parietal bone with liner
fracture of frontal bone.

 B. Abraded contusion 1.5 cm x 1
cm on the middle part of nose on the front
aspect.

 C. Contusion in an area of 13 cm
x 14 cm on the dorsum of left.

 D. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5
cm on the lateral aspect of middle phalynx
of little finger right hand. Fracture present
under bhobynx.

 E. Abraded contusion 1 cm x 0.5
cm on the joint of ring finger right side.

 F. Contusion 8 cm x 1.5 cm on
the back of left side of chest placed
obliquely 2 cm below the scapular angle.

 G. Contusion 11 cm x 2 cm on the
back of chest left side placed obliquely 8
cm below the injury no. 6.

 H. Contusion 11 cm x 2 cm on the
lateral side of left chest back.

 I. Multiple contusion in an area
of 18 cm x 7 cm on the back of left side
abdomen.

 J. Contusion 5 cm x 1.5 cm on the
lateral aspect of left arm 4 cm below the
left shoulder. On opening clotted blood was
present in the muscle.

32. P.W. 7 Harish Chandra S.I.
and P.W. 8 Om Prakash Singh are
investigating officer of the case. P.W. 4
Manak Singh is the witness of inquest.

33. Sixteen persons have been
charged for inflicting injuries on the
deceased Shyam Lal. The prosecution has
not been able to prove who caused the fatal
blow. Moreover except injury no. 1 which
is lacerated wound on the head and injury
no. 7 which is contusion on the head, no
other injuries are on the vital parts. The
incident took place at the spur of the
moment.

34. Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC
reads as under:-
5 All. Sia Ram & Ors. Vs. State
797
 "
Exception
4.-Culpable
homicide is not murder if it is committed
without premeditation in a sudden fight in
the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel
and without the offender's having taken
undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
unusual manner."

35. From the appreciation of
evidence on record it is found that the
injury received by all the five injured are
simple in nature whereas only one lacerated
wound and one contusion have been found
on the head of the deceased Shyam Lal. All
the accused except accused Sukh Ram were
armed with lathi and Sukh Ram was armed
with Kanta. There is only one incised
wound on the person of the deceased which
is not on the vital part, therefore, the
prosecutiont
has
not
been
able
to
successfully prove that the act of the
accused was premeditated and that accused
took undue advantage. The incident took
place due to sudden fight, therefore the
prosecution has not been able to prove that
the offence committed by the accused falls
under section 302 IPC.

36. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph no. 9 of the judgement of
Mahesh Balmiki Alias Munna vs. State of
M.P., (2000)1 SCC 319 held as under:-

 "9. Adverting to the contention of
a single blow, it may be pointed out that
there is no principle that in all cases of
single blow Section 302 I.P.C. is not
attracted. Single blow may, in some cases,
entail conviction under Section 302 I.P.C.,
in some cases under Section 304 I.P.C and
in
some
other
cases
under Section
326 I.P.C. The question with regard to the
nature of offence has to be determined on
the facts and in the circumstances of each
case. The nature of the injury, whether it is
on the vital or non-vital part of the body,
the weapon used, the circumstances in
which the injury is caused and the manner
in which the injury is inflicted are all
relevant factors which may go to determine
the required intention or knowledge of the
offender and the offence committed by
him. In the instant case, the deceased was
disabled from saving himself because he
was held by the associates of the appellant
who inflicted though a single yet a fatal
blow of the description noted above. These
facts clearly establish that the appellant
had intention to kill the deceased. In any
event,
he
can
safely
be
attributed
knowledge that the knife blow given by him
is so imminently dangerous that it must in
all probability cause death or such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death."

37. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph no. 7 of the judgement of Stalin
vs. State represented by the inspector of
police, (2020) 9 SCC 524, held as under:-

 "7. Heard learned counsel on
behalf of the respective parties at length.
As observed hereinabove, the only aspect
which is required to be considered in the
present appeal is whether the appellant -
accused
has
committed
an
offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC or any
other
lesser
offence,
more
particularly, Section 304 Part II IPC?

 7.1 It is the case on behalf of the
appellant - accused that as it is a case of
single injury, Section 302 IPC shall not be
attracted
and the
case
would
fall
under Section
304 Part
II IPC.
While
considering the aforesaid submission, few
decisions of this Court on whether in a case
of single injury, Section 302 IPC would be
attracted or not are required to be referred
to:
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 7.1.1 In Mahesh Balmiki v. State
of M.P., (2000) 1 SCC 319, this Court
while deciding the question of whether a
single blow with a knife on the chest of the
deceased would attract Section 302 IPC,
held thus: (SCC pp. 32223, para 9) "9. ...
there is no principle that in all cases of a
single
blow Section
302 IPC
is
not
attracted. A single blow may, in some
cases,
entail
conviction
under Section
302 IPC, in some cases under Section
304 IPC
and
in
some
other
cases
under Section 326IPC. The question with
regard to the nature of offence has to be
determined on the facts and in the
circumstances of each case. The nature of
the injury, whether it is on the vital or nonvital part of the body, the weapon used, the
circumstances in which the injury is caused
and the manner in which the injury is
inflicted are all relevant factors which may
go to determine the required intention or
knowledge of the offender and the offence
committed by him. In the instant case, the
deceased was disabled from saving himself
because he was held by the associates of
the appellant who inflicted though a single
yet a fatal blow of the description noted
above. These facts clearly establish that the
appellant had the intention to kill the
deceased. In any event, he can safely be
attributed the knowledge that the knifeblow
given by him was so imminently dangerous
that it must in all probability cause death
or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death." 7.1.2 In Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai
Nayak v. State of Gujarat (2003) 9 SCC
322, this Court while discussing the
ingredients of Exception 4 of Section 300
IPC, held thus: (SCC pp.32728, para 11)
"11.
The
fourth
exception
of Section
300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight.
The said Exception deals with a case of
prosecution (sic provocation) not covered
by the first exception, after which its place
would have been more appropriate. The
Exception is founded upon the same
principle, for in both there is absence of
premeditation. But, while in the case of
Exception 1 there is total deprivation of
selfcontrol, in case of Exception 4, there is
only that heat of passion which clouds
men's sober reason and urges them to
deeds which they would not otherwise do.
There is provocation in Exception 4 as in
Exception 1, but the injury done is not the
direct consequence of that provocation. In
fact, Exception 4 deals with cases in which
notwithstanding that a blow may have been
struck, or some provocation given in the
origin of the dispute or in whatever way the
quarrel may have originated, yet the
subsequent conduct of both parties puts
them
in
respect
of
guilt
upon
an
equalfooting. A "sudden fight" implies
mutual provocation and blows on each
side. The homicide committed is then
clearly
not
traceable
to
unilateral
provocation, nor could in such cases the
whole blame be placed on one side. For if
it
were
so,
the
Exception
more
appropriately
applicable
would
be
Exception
1.
There
is
no
previous
deliberation or determination to fight. A
fight suddenly takes place, for which both
parties are more or less to be blamed. It
may be that one of them starts it, but if the
other had not aggravated it by his own
conduct it would not have taken the serious
turn
it
did.
There
is
then
mutual
provocation and aggravation, and it is
difficult to apportion the share of blame
which attaches to each fighter. The help of
Exception 4 can be invoked if death is
caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a
sudden fight, (c) without the offenders
having taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner, and (d) the fight
must have been with the person killed. To
bring a case within Exception 4 all the
5 All.