Allahabad High Court
Raju Alias Kamla Kant vs State on 3 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:72050
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2120 of 1985
Raju Alias Kamla Kant
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Shatrughan Singh, Sunil Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.G.A.
Reserved on 5.1.2026
Delivered on 3.4.2026.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 30.7.1985 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 245 of 1984 (State Versus Raju), by which the appellant was convicted under Sections 364 and 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years’ R. I. under Section 364 IPC and seven years’ R. I. under Section 307 PC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, prior to two years of the incident in question, theft was committed by the accused Raju, in the house of complainant, Ram Lal, where, Ram Lal caught him at the spot, but Raju managed to escape and named FIR was lodged, leading to Raju’s arrest and thereafter his trial, and imprisonment. This developed enmity between them.
4. On 19th June 1984, around 4:00 PM in village Rithwan (P. S. – Asothar, District Fatehpur), while complainant Ram Lal was returning home from his fields, the appellant / accused Raju, along with his two companions, namely, Bhola (deceased) and Chhottan Singh (deceased) intercepted him on the way.
5. All the three accused were armed with country-made pistols. They caught hold of Ram Lal, beat him, and Raju reminded them, that he was instrumental in sending him to jail. They explicitly stated that, they would drag him to the jungle and kill him there. Raju pointed his pistol at Ram Lal’s back, whereas all the three, dragged him towards the jungle.
6. After covering some distance, Ram Lal saw witnesses Kalika Prasad, Chandra Bhan, and Indra Pal (a tailor). He raised an alarm and cried for rescue. The three witnesses approached and asked the accused to release Ram Lal. In response, Raju fired with his country-made pistol at them. The shots struck Indra Pal on the forehead and head area (multiple pellet wounds), causing him to fall injured. Raju fired again at Kalika Prasad and Chandra Bhan, but they managed to escape without being hurt. The two witnesses ran towards their village for help.
7. Upon hearing hue and cries, Krishna Dutta and Ram Sajiwan Pradhan arrived, who were holding their licensed firearms, including other villagers armed with guns, while others carried lathis and dandas. The accused party fired at the approaching group with intent to kill. The complainant, Ram Lal escaped during the chaos and joined the villagers. The accused and his companions fled away, firing indiscriminately. The villagers chased them in self-defense, exhorting them to surrender or face death.
8. The villagers, including licensed firearm holder, namely, Vijai Singh Pradhan from village Semri, chased the accused party to village Chhitampur and managed to besieged them. During the ensuing exchange of fire, Chhottan Singh was shot, and died on the sport in front of Mahipat Bhunjwa’s house along with his pistol nearby. Raju and surviving companion Bhola kept fleeing towards the area between villages Akupur and Chhitampur.
9. Meanwhile, some other persons from village Chhitampur (Pati Rakhan and others) and from village Akupur (Ram Naresh Pradhan and others) joined the pursuit. They fired in self-defense and fire hit Bhola, who fell and died on the spot with his pistol recovered nearby. Raju ran further and fell into a well in a grove at village Akupur, along with his pistol. A crowd gathered, demanding his surrender, pulled him out using a rope, and arrested him. He had sustained various injuries. The entire incident took place at about 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
10. First of all, the complainant Ram Lal went home (after the accused’s arrest), got a written report (Ext. Ka-1) scribed by Krishna Dutta, and lodged it at P. S. Asothar, around 2:00 AM on 20th June 1984 (about 8-10 hours later).A formal FIR (Ext. Ka 30) was registered, and investigation followed, under the supervision of S. I., S.N. Shukla.
11. Medical evidence shows contusions on Ram Lal’s back, shoulder, and chest (examined around 5:00-5:30 AM on 20 June; duration assessed as fresh-6 hours, with 4-hour margin aligning to incident time). Indra Pal suffered multiple firearm entry wounds on forehead/head, eye swelling, and lip injury (examined -6:30 AM). Post-mortem of the two deceased, namely, Chhottan Singh and Bhola Tiwari on 21.6.1984 (21st June) confirmed gunshot wounds as cause of death, and contusions / lacerations, as a result of beating them by the villagers with lathis / dandas after they fell. Post mortem report of the deceased were exhibited as Ext. Ka 26 and Ext. 27.
12. Recoveries included country-made pistols and cartridges near both bodies, blood-stained/plain soil samples, and site plans. The charge sheet, exhibited as Ext. Ka 25, was filed against Raju.
13. Raju pleaded not guilty, while his statement was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, alleging false implication, due to enmity with Ram Lal and Chandra Bhan, with the collusion of police. He led no defense evidence.
14. The Trial Court considered and rejected all the defense arguments.
15. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined following five witnesses:-
(I) P. W. 1 Ram Lal (complainant);
(ii) P. W. 2 Chandra Bhan;
(iii) P. W. 3, Indra Pal (injured);
(iv) P. W. 4, S. N. Shukla (I. O. of the case); and
(v) P. W. 5, Badri Prasad (constable). Their testimony, in brief, are enumerated in the following paras.
16. P. W. 1, Ram Lal, who is victim, as well as complainant, has testified that he was returning from his fields to his house in village Rithwan on 19.6.1984 at about 4:00 P.M. Accused Raju (alias Kamla Kant), deceased Bhola, and deceased Chhottan Singh (all armed with country-made pistols) met him on the way. They caught hold of him, beat him, and Raju reminded him that he had sent Raju to jail earlier in a theft case. They dragged him towards the jungle saying they would kill him there. Raju was pointing his pistol at Ram Lal’s back. When they reached near Kalika Prasad, Chandra Bhan, and Indra Pal (Tailor), Ram Lal raised an alarm and requested them to rescue him.
16A. The three witnesses came forward to help. Raju opened fire, one shot hit Indra Pal (who fell down). Raju fired a second shot towards Kalika Prasad and Chandra Bhan, but they escaped. On hearing the alarm, licensees Krishna Dutta, Ram Sajiwan Pradhan and other villagers (armed with guns, lathis and dandas) reached the spot and challenged the accused party. In the ensuing firing and chaos, Ram Lal managed to escape and joined the villagers. The accused group fled towards village Chhitampur while firing. The villagers chased them. Bhola and Chhottan were killed in the crossfire / encounter. Raju was finally arrested after he fell into a well in village Akupur along with his pistol. Ram Lal got the written report (Ext. Ka.1) scribed by Krishna Dutta and lodged the FIR (Ext. Ka 30) at P. S. Asothar at 2:00 A.M. on 20.6.1984.
16B. He explained the eight hours’ delay in reporting the incident, by stating he first went home after the 6:00 P.M. arrest and then travelled to the police station, arriving at 2:00 A.M.16. During cross examination, P. W. 1, Ram Lal (complainant) was questioned about the delay in F. I. R., was lodged at 2:00 A. M. when the incident ended at 6:00 P. M. He testified that after the arrest of the accused, he first went to his house before getting the written report scribed. About the preparation of the report, It was asked to him that the written report was prepared at the police station in collusion with the police. He denied this aspect, though the defense noted, there were no folds in the paper (Ext. Ka. 1). About the use of the word “Yesterday”: he was grilled on why he used the word “Yesterday” (kal) in a report dated 19.6.1984 the same day as the occurrence.
17. P. W. 2 Chandra Bhan, who is an eyewitness had deposed that, he was one of the three persons (along with Kalika Prasad and Indra Pal) who came to rescue Ram Lal after hearing the alarm. He requested the accused to release Ram Lal. Accused Raju fired at them; one bullet hit Indra Pal. Raju fired another shot towards Chandra Bhan and Kalika Prasad, but they escaped unhurt. He fully corroborates the abduction, dragging, and firing incident described by PW-1 and PW-3.
18. In the cross examination, it was suggested to eyewitness, P.W. 2, Chandra Bhan, that he had a “little enmity” with the accused Raju. However, the trial Court noted that there was no documentary evidence produced by the defense to prove its allegation.
19. P. W. 3 Indra Pal, who is injured eyewitness has testified that when he attempted to rescue Ram Lal, Raju fired a country-made pistol directly at him. His testimony was supported by his injury report (Ext. Ka. 29), which showed multiple firearm wounds on his forehead and head.He and the other factual witnesses admitted that after the two accomplices (Bhola and Chhottan) were shot by license-holders, the angry mob beat the fallen men with Lathis and Dandas. He confirms the same sequence as abduction of Ram Lal , alarm raised , rescue attempt, firing by Raju.
20. P. W. 3, Indra Pal (Injured Witness) in the cross-examination has deposed that he (along with P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) admitted that after the two accomplices (Bhola and Chhottan) fell from gunshot wounds, they were beaten with Lathis and Dandas by the village people. This was used by the defense to explain the contusions found in the post-mortem reports, that were not mentioned in the F.I.R. On being questioned about the medical report, stating that his injuries were “1/4 day old” (approx. 6 hours) at 6:30 A.M., which the defense argued, meaning thereby he got injured at 10:00 P.M. or 11:00 P.M., not 6:00 P.M.
21. P. W. 4, S. I. S. N. Shukla, who is I. O. of the case and conducted the inquest of the deceased accomplices, Bhola and Chhottan Singh, and sent them for post-mortem, has deposed that he recovered country-made pistols and empty cartridges near the bodies of the deceased. He prepared the site plans (Exts. Ka. 16, 20, 23, and 24) and collected blood-stained soil from the scenes. During cross-examination, he admitted a slight discrepancy regarding the direction of the well, where Raju was caught, stating it was east of Akupur, while the site plan showed it as west.
22. P. W. 4, S. I. S. N. Shukla (Investigating Officer), during cross-examination, when confronted about the site plan’s discrepancies, that there was contradiction between his oral statement and his own site plan (Ext. Ka. 23), he stated before the trial Court, that the well, where Raju was caught, was one furlong away towards east of Akupur, whereas the site plan showed it towards the west. Further, he admitted that neither he had specifically stated the distance between the police station and the village in his records, nor he was asked during the initial investigation.
23. P. W. 5, Constable Badri Prasad, who is formal witness has deposed, that he got the FIR registered at the police station. He pepared the chik report on the basis of the written complaint (Ext. Ka.1). His evidence relates, mainly to the timing and procedural aspects of the FIR . He testified to his inability to provide the exact distance between village Rithwan and the Police station.
24. P.W. 5, Constable Badri Prasad in his cross-examination admitted his inability to tell the specific distance between village Rithwan and the police station.
25. Thereafter, the statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC have been recorded by putting all the incriminating circumstances to the accused / appellant. The appellant denied incriminating circumstances and has expressed ignorance regarding the prosecution and explained the prosecution evidence by attributing false implication due to long cherished animosity and strained relations and stated that the witnesses Chandra Bhan and Ram Lal were inimical to him, due to which they falsely implicated him in collusion with the local police. He has further stated that, he could not file any document as he was in jail. He had further stated that he would lead no evidence in defence.
26. The learned trial Court held that the prosecution succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt with regard to abduction or kidnapping of Ram Lal with the intent to murder, attracting Section 364 IPC, and firing at Indra Pal and others with the intent to cause death, attracting Section 307 IPC.
27. Three prosecution witnesses, namely, Ram Lal (injured complainant, P. W.1), Chandra Bhan (independent, P. W.2), and Indra Pal (injured, P. W. 3) were found reliable, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence, recoveries, and prevailing circumstances.
28. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was not involved anywhere and has falsely been implicated. Trial Court, while convicting and sentencing the appellant, did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective, had the trial Court considered the evidence on record, the chain of events, in which there are contradictions at large, appropriate orders, leading to appellant’s acquittal, would have been passed.
29. Learned counsel further submitted that the gun shot injuries are superficial in nature and no weapon was recovered immediately and the belated recovery of weapon, cannot be considered as incriminating evidence against the appellant. The appellant has been implicated due to long standing animosity between the parties.
30. Learned counsel for also submitted that there are variations at large between the statements of P. W. 1 , P. W. 2, P. W. 3 recorded during course of trial and if the testimony of all the three witnesses are taken into consideration, then no conclusion, whatsoever, can be drawn that the appellant was ever involved in the said incident.
31. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the abductee Ram Lal has gone missing somewhere. However, the cause of death has been assigned to the appellant. The prosecution has concocted the story that Raju, Bhola (deceased) and Chuttan (deceased), they never intercepted the deceased, while he was going from field but the said Ram Lal sustained injuries, same cannot be assigned to accused / appellant.
32. Learned counsel for appellant has further submitted that, it is alleged that many villagers gathered at the place of incident, but none of the independent witnesses was produced during trial. Raju was nominated for the reason that P. W. 2 Chandra Bhan had enmity with accused / appellant Raju.
33. Learned counsel also submitted that the injuries inflicted upon P. W. 3 Indrapal were caused during scuffle and it is not certain that the said gun shot was fired by any of the assailants and further submitted that the injury ought to have been caused by the mob, wherein two co-accused Bhola and Chutttan were shot by the licensed gun holders and the angry mob. The medical report has suggested that Indrapal sustained bullet injuries and therefore the medical report is supported by the testimony of P. W. 3, Indrapal.
34. It is also submitted that the entire investigation was conducted in an irregular manner and if thorough investigation would have been conducted in the matter, name of the actual assailants would have surfaced, but the appellant has been falsely implicated and prayed that the instant appeal is liable to be allowed.
35. Per contra, leaned AGA has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the witnesses are the most natural witnesses, whose presence at the time of incident has been clearly established. The date, time and manner in which the incident has taken place, has been cogently and firmly established by their testimony and they have narrated the incident in a most natural manner and the defence has not been able to elicit any material contradiction and inconsistencies in their submissions, except minor contradictions here and there, which in the background of the fact that the witnesses are rustic witnesses and such minor contradictions are quite natural, taken on such flimsy grounds. The entire prosecution story cannot be thrown overboard, which otherwise inspires confidence.
36. Learned AGA has further submitted that the medical report completely corroborates the prosecution story and there are no material contradictions, so as to disbelieve the prosecution story and the witnesses. He has further submitted that the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, nowhere ruled out that the injury sustained by deceased Ravindra could not be caused in the manner as alleged.
37. Learned AGA has further submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the trial court after analytically appreciating the entire evidence and material on record, has rightly convicted the appellants and sentenced them, which order does not suffer from any illegality and there is no real reason to reverse the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court and the impugned judgment and order is liable to be affirmed.
38. After hearing learned counsel on behalf of appellant and learned AGA for the State, it can be seen that the said witnesses have been cross-examined at great length and Court finds that though, there are certain minor contradictions here and there, but that does not otherwise affect the credibility and truthfulness of the said witness. Moreover, it is germane to point out here, that the witnesses in the instant case are rustic witnesses and some minor contradictions in their testimony may occur, however, on the said grounds, the otherwise reliable testimonies of the witnesses cannot be thrown overboard.
39. Before analyzing the credibility of the other ocular witnesses, the Court may note that the Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent case reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 596, Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs. State of Maharastra, has held that:
“27. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person’s mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness.”
40. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U. P. Vs. Krishna Master (2010) Vol. 12 SCC 324 has clearly held that:
“24. The basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole. The rustic witness as compared to an educated witness is not expected to remember every small detail of the incident and the manner in which the incident had happened more particularly when his evidence is recorded after a lapse of time. Further, a witness is bound to face shock of the untimely death of his near relative(s). Therefore, the court must keep in mind all these relevant factors while appreciating evidence of a rustic witness.”
41. Reference may be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirath vs. State of Haryana (1995) AIR 5 ACC 96:
“it has to be noted that it would be erroneous to accord undue privacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eye witnesses account, which has to be tested independently and not treated as ‘variable’ keeping in view the medical evidence as constant.”
42. In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of Gujarat (1983) 2 SCC 174, the Supreme Court noted as follow:
“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 eye-witnessess, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.”
43. The above principle of law has been consistently followed by the Supreme Court in a large number of cases. In Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Court has referred to Maniram vs. State of U.P (1994) SCC (Cri) 1242 : State of U.P. vs. Dinesh (2009) 11 SCC 566: State of U.P. vs. Hari Chand (2009) 13 SCC 542 and culled out the following principle :-
“39. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised 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.”
44. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the Court finds that there is no contradiction between medical evidence and the oral evidence in the instant case.
45. The medical evidence also lends credence to the prosecution case against the appellant. The post-mortem report also points out conclusively to the culpability of appellant for the commission of the offence.
46. Now coming to the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that P. W. 1, P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 are from the same village and interested witnesses, hence, their statement could not be relied upon.
47. The above noted submission was considered by Supreme Court elaborately way back in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab 7 AIR (1953) SC 364. The Court observed that ordinarily a close relative would not spare the real culprit, who has caused the death and implicate an innocent person. His/her evidence can only be discarded, when it is established that the witness has a cause, due to enmity to implicate him falsely. In Dalip Singh (supra) case also the testimonies of two women witnesses were impeached on the ground that they were close relatives of the deceased. Following principles were enunciated in Dalip Singh (supra):-
“26. 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.”
48. In Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452, same principles were reiterated:-
4. The central evidence against the appellant consisted of the three eye-witneses, namely, P.W. 3 Harbhajan Singh, P.W. 5 Chanan Kaur and P. W. 6 Kesar Kaur. It is true that the three witnesses were relations of the deceased and bore animus against the accused but as the occurrence had taken place near the door of the house of the deceased these persons were the natural witnesses and were in fact sitting in the court-yard when the occurrence took place. It may be difficult to get witnesses from the village when an assault of the type suddenly takes place in the house of the deceased. It is well settled that the evidence of interested or inimical witnesses is to be scrutinised with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being a partisan evidence. If on a perusal of the evidence the Court is satisfied that the evidence is creditworthy there is no bar in the Court relying on the said evidence. The High Court was fully alive to these principles and has in fact found that the evidence of these three witnesses has a ring of truth. After having perused the evidence ourselves also we fully agree with the view taken by the High Court. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has not made any attempt to dwell into the intrinsic merits of the evidence of these witnesses but has rejected them mainly on general grounds most of which are either unsupportable in law or based on speculation. The evidence of the eye-witnesses is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 7 Kundan Singh to whom the whole occurrence was narrated immediately after the accused left the house. There is also the evidence of Balbir Singh, P. W. 17, who is a Sarpanch of the village and an independent witness and who proves that the appellant Piara Singh had made an extra judicial confession before him in which he admitted to have committed the murder of the deceased Surjit Singh along with his companions Kashmir Singh, Gian Singh and Joginder Singh. This witness also proves that Kashmir Singh on being narrated by the details made a disclosure which resulted in the recovery of the Kirpan from the sugar- cane field of Meja Singh for which a search list was prepared and the Kirpan was also found stained with human blood. According to the Investigating Officer an empty cartridge was also found at the spot and he sent the same to the Ballistic Expert along with the rifle recovered from Piara Singh who was a constable in the Border Security Force and the Ballistic-Expert found that the empty could have been shot from the rifle in question. These circumstances fully corroborate the evidence of the eye-witnesses. Finally, there is the medical evidence of Dr. Jatinder Singh who performed the postmortem examination on the deceased and he found as many as 7 incised wounds on the various parts of the body of the deceased and 7 incised punctured wounds on some vital parts of the body. Apart from these injuries the deceased had also sustained a gun shot injury with a wound of entry and exit on the left buttock, which according to Dr. Jatinder Singh could be; caused by a fire- arm including a rifle. The Doctor further deposed that the contusions and abrasions were caused by a blunt weapon and the other incised wounds were caused by a sharp cutting instrument like the Gandasa. Another Doctor was examined by the Sessions Judge as Court Witness No. 1 who on seeing the post-mortem report of Dr. Jatinder Singh was of the view that Injury No. 11 could not have been caused by a rifle and much capital was made by the accused but of the evidence given by Dr. Paramjit Singh.”
49. A three Judge Bench in Hari Obula Reddy Vs. State of A.P., (1981) 3 SCC 675 observed as under:-
“13. …it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon.”
50. Again in S. Sudershan Reddy and others Vs. State of A.P, (2006) 10 SCC 163, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
“12. We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more oftern than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.
15. We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dilip Singh case in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses.”
51. In this context the reference may be made to the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Kamta Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2016) 16 SCC 164: Nand Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh (2015) 1 SCC 776.
52. Thus, the Court finds that there are unbroken line of authorities to the fact that evidence of eye-witness, if found forceful, cannot be discarded, simply because the witness was from the same village, that of the injured. The only caveat is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution.
53. Applying the aforesaid principles of law, Court finds that the testimony of P. W. 1 Ram Lal (complainant), P. W. 2 Chandra Bhan and P. W. 3 Indra Pal inspires confidence and as such, cannot be thrown overboard. Close scrutiny of their testimony clearly shows that, they had witnessed the incident in question and have narrated the prosecution story and they cannot be said to be interested witnesses as argued by learned counsel for the appellant. From the submissions of the eye-witnesses, the Court is satisfied about the commission of the offence by the appellant and thus, I am of the opinion that the trial court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and the learned counsel for the appellant could not point any perversity in the finding of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court awarded to the appellant.
54. There being no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the recorded conviction and sentence of the appellant Raju, judgement and order dated 30.7.1985 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 245 of 1984 (State Versus Raju), is affirmed.
55. The present appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Appellant in on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He is directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks to undergo the remaining part of his sentence, failing which, the trial court is directed to adopt coercive measures for securing his presence.
56. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the trial court concerned along with the Trial Court record for information and necessary compliance.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
April 3, 2026
HR
Â
Â