Allahabad High Court
Ramesh vs State Of U.P. on 7 July, 2026
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:134775-DB
RESERVED ON 12.5.2026 DELIVERED ON 7.7.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1434 of 1987
Ramesh
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Mohan Chand, Ramanand Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.G.A.
Court No. - 43
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
HON’BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
( Per Hon’ble Siddharth,J.)
1. Heard Ms. Amrita Rai Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant; Mr. G.N. Kannaujia, learned A.G.A.-Ist appearing for the State-respondents; perused the material on record and the judgment of the learned trial court.
2.This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 18.5.1987 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Etah inS.T. No. 41 of 1986 convicting and sentencing the appellant to under go life imprisonment under section 302 I.P.C.
3.The prosecution case is that the informant, Chandra Pal and the accused belong to the same village. On 18.12.1984 at about 8 P.M. dispute took place between the father of the informant, Harkesh and accused, Ramesh, Bihari and Hetram because of theft of utensils daily.The sister of the informant, Smt. Ganga Shri abused them and then all the three caught hold of his father in the court yard.The accused-appellant, Ramesh, inflicted a knife blow in the stomach of his father and he fell down. The mother and sister of the informant saw the entire incident. The informant called his ‘Tau’, (elder uncle) Ram Swaroop, and with his help took his father in a rickshaw to the doctor near the bus stand.They were stopped by the people of the office of accused, Hetram, when they reached the doctor,he asked them to go to the district hospital.The people of the office of accused, Hetram. did not permitted him to lodge First Information Report on the ground that Rs. 2,000/- shall be spent in lodging the same and in the same amount they can get their father treated.Thereafter the informant and his ‘Tau’, (elder uncle) took Harkesh to Mohan Lal and on 19.12.1984 at about 3 P.M. they took Harkesh to Delhi by bus to the house of the brother of the informant, Nand Kishore, but he died in the way.The informant reached the Delhi bus stand in the night with dead body of his father and called his brother. Some one informed the police on phone ,thereafter police came and got the postmortem of the dead body of Harkesh conducted.Thereafter his last rites performed at Delhi and his ‘terahwii’ was also performed at Delhi.
4.The report of the incident was orally lodged at Kotwali Etah on 1.2.1985 at 18.45 hours and after entry in the G.D., case under section 302 I.P.C. was registered as case crime no. 88 of 1985.
5.After investigation of the case by Sub-Inspector, Dori Lal and completion of necessary formalities, charge sheet was submitted against the accused.
6.The trial court summoned the accused, Ramesh, on 12.12.1986 for facing trial under section 302 I.P.C. and co-accused, Het Ram, and Bihari, for facing trial under section 302/34 I.P.C. and charged were framed accordingly against the accused, which they denied and sought trial.
7.To prove the prosecution case, prosecution examined P.W.1, A.S.I., Om Prakash,; P.W.2, constable, Bhopal Singh; P.W.3, Chaandra Pal (informant); P.W.4, Smt. Ganga Shri; P.W.5,Ram Swaroop; P.W.6, Dr. L.T. Ramani, Civil Hospital, Delhi and P.W.7, S.I. Dori Lal.
8.The accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied commission of any offence and alleged false and malicious prosecution in this case on account of enmity.
9. P.W.1, stated before the court that on 20.12.1984, he was posted at police outpost, Turkman Gate, Delhi as A.S.I. At 8 A.M. ,Shyamal Das Gupta, informed on phone at police outpost, Turkman Gate that his worker has suffered knife blow in Etah.He was taken to the hospital at Etah, where doctor asked him to report to the police. The police at Etah did not registered his complaint and he was being brought to Delhi for treatment, but he died near Bulandshahr in the way.His dead body is lying in the house number 2900, Bulbili Khana P.S. Delhi. P.W.1. After making entry in the G.D. regarding the information received he went to the aforesaid house alongwith constable, Bhopal Singh, where he found the dead body of the deceased, Harkesh, lying in the court yard of the house with his sons, Chandrapal, and Nand Kishore, brother Ram Swaroop and many other persons present. He proved that signatures of the aforesaid persons who were present there on the inquest report. He further stated that he found that the incident took place at Etah.Therefore investigation was to be be carried out at Etah.He proved that after inquest proceeding he sent dead body of Harkesh for postmortem. The clothes of the deceased were deposited in the police station and all the papers of the case and material evidence collected were sent to the Etah.
10.P.W.2, Het Ram, proved that he was posted as constable in police outpost, Trukman Gate,Delhi and took the dead body of Harkesh, alongwith constable, Dhan Singh and after postmortem handed over the dead body of the deceased to his son, Nand Kishore.
11.P.W.3,Chandra Pal,informant proved the prosecution case as alleged in the First Information Report in examination-in-chief. In his cross examination, he admitted that incident was seen by number of persons of the village but he stated before the court that no one has seen the knife blow being inflicted on the deceased.The trial court ignored the contradictions because of the time gap of two years.
12. P.W.4, Ganga Shri, is the sister of P.W.3 and daughter of the deceased, she proved the prosecution case as per allegations in the First Information Report.
13. P.W.5,Ram Swaroop, brother of the deceased also proved the incident as per First Information Report version. The trial court believed the statement of P.W.5 and held that it corroborated the statements of P.W.3 and P.W.4.
14.P.W.6, Dr. L.T. Ramani, found an incised stab wound 1.5 cm x 0.4 cm placed obliquely on the umblical region abdomen in mid line 5 Cms above the umbilicus. Right end of wound is acutely cut, and margins are regular.No other mark of any external injury were seen.
15. P.W.7, Dori Lal, the investigating officer proved that First Information Report was registered in his presence by constable Ram Veer Singh on the oral statement of P.W.3. It was read over to P.W.3.Thereafter he put his thumb impression on the same. He also proved the G.D. entry of the same. He proved entire investigation record.
16.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that trial court absolved co-accused, Het Ram and Bihari, of the charge under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. but convicted the appellant under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that it is a case of false implication of the appellant.The First Information Report in this case is delayed by 45 days and there is no justification furnished for the same.The prosecution has failed to produce most vital evidence before the court to prove the prosecution case . Chandra Pal is an interested witness, who had enmity with appellant.. There is no independent witness of the incident.The defence of the accused was not examined by the trial court at all.Deceased suffered single blow in his stomach some where and he died at Delhi.Shyamal Das Gupta, resident of Delhi, informed the police on phone that his employee has suffered knife injury but aforesaid witness was not examined before the court. The prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and there are material contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses hence his appeal deserves to be allowed and appellant be acquitted with all the charges.
17.Learned A.G.A.-1st has opposed the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that there is explanation of delay in lodging of the First Information Report submitted by the prosecution.He has submitted that when the deceased was being taken to Delhi from Etah, he died in the way. Since his son was residing at Delhi, his last rites was performed at Delhi and thereafter his ‘terahwi ‘ was also performed at Delhi. When informant and his family members returned to Etah, they lodged the First Information Report at the police station. It has come in the statement of P.W.3 that his First Information Report was not lodged by police station, Etah when he took his injured father from district hospital to the police station. He has submitted that informant is a poor man and police did not registered his First Information Report promptly. Only after police received papers from the police at Delhi regarding inquest and postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and evidence collected by the P.W.1 at Delhi, First Information Report was lodged.
18.He has further submitted that only because of non-production of witness by the prosecution, prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. The incident took place inside the house of P.W.3, and therefore his sister and ‘Tau’ (elder uncle), were the most natural witness of the incident, who were inside the house.The outsiders only gathered on the scene of the incident out of curiosity. He has submitted that prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt, hence this appeal may be dismissed.
19. After taking into consideration of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued mainly on three points (1) there is delay in lodging the FIR without any explanation, (2) there are material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses, and (3) the material witnesses have not been examined and purportedly withheld by the prosecution.
(I) Delay in lodging in FIR without any explanation:-
In the instant case, the FIR was lodged by the complainant after an inordinate and largely unexplained delay of 45 days at Police Station, which renders the FIR in this case wholly unreliable. The delay in lodging the FIR corrodes the credibility of the prosecution story. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases held that delay in loading the FIR creates a doubt, if the said delay is not properly explained.
In Thulia Kali v. The State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393, the Supreme Court, emphasising the necessity of explaining the delay in lodging FIR, as follows:
“12… First Information Report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the First Information Report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained….”
. In Meharaj Singh &Ors. v. State of U. P. &Ors, (1994) 5 SCC 188 the Supreme Court has observed:
“12. … The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eye witnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the FIR, was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts generally look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in dispatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. Prosecution has led no evidence at all in this behalf. The second external check equally important is the sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in the inquest report. Even though the inquest report, prepared under Section 174 Cr. P.C. is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still in embryo state and had not been given any shape and that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR…”
In Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 714 the Supreme Court has observed:
“15. This Court has consistently highlighted the reasons, objects and means of prompt lodging of FIR. Delay in lodging FIR more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultation, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Thus, FIR is to be filed more promptly and if there is any delay, the prosecution must furnish a satisfactory explanation for the same of the reason that in case the substratum of the evidence given by the complainant/informant is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety. [Vide: State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) 15 SCC 582]”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishan Singh Vs. Gurpal Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 775 with regard to the effect of delay in lodging FIR has held as under:
“22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging a FIR, the Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an after thought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vide :Chandrapal Singh &Ors. Vs. Maharaj Singh &Anr., AIR 1982 SC 1238; State of Haryana &Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal &Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604; G. Sagar Suri &Anr. Vs. State of U.P. &Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754; and Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. &Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 531).
In Jai Prakash Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that extraordinary delay in lodging of FIR raises grave doubt regarding the truthfulness of allegations. The Hon’ble Court held as under:
“12. The FIR in a criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye- witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it looses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large number of consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informant’s version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first hand account of what has actually happened, and who was responsible for the offence in question.”
Relying upon the judgment of Jai Prakash Singh (supra), in Manoj Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2016) 9 SCC 1, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that delay in lodging FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought and on account of delay, FIR not only gets bereft of advantage of spontaneity, danger of coloured version or exaggerated story being introduced in FIR, creeps in. It further held that extraordinary delay in lodging FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made therein.
(II)The material contradictions in the testimony of witness.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC 657 has held that:30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide State v. Saravanan (2008) 17 SCC 587)
31. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and the other witness also makes material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence. (Vide State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh (2009) 11 SCC 106) ***
34. In State of Rajasthan v. Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752, while dealing with this issue, Apex Court observed as under:
“8. … In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.”
The courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy belongs. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party’s case, material discrepancies do so. (Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P. (2006) 10 5CC 601 and Arumugam v. State (2008) 15 SCC 590) In Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh (2004) 9SCC 186 this Court examined the issue and held:
“9. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of the prosecution version, when the evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.”
While deciding such a case, the court has to apply the aforesaid tests. Mere marginal variations in the statements cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited.
In the case of Krishnegowda and others vs. State of Karnataka (2017) 13 SCC 98: AIR 2017 SC 1657, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:
32. … The minor variations and contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused but when the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses proves to be fatal to the prosecution case then those contradictions go to the root of the matter and in such cases the accused gets the benefit of doubt.
33. ….. As said by Bentham, “witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice”. In the facts on hand, we feel that the evidence of these witnesses is filled with discrepancies, contradictions and improbable versions which draws us to the irresistible conclusion that the evidence of these witnesses cannot be a basis to convict the accused.
In the instant case after perusing the testimonies of the PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-7, this Court finds that there are material contradictions to be considered hereinafter which create serious doubt regarding the story of the prosecution and therefore such type of testimonies of the witness is liable to be discredited.
(III) Non-examination of the material witness:
In Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, AIR 2001(SC) 2328 the Apex Court has opined that:
“19. It is true that if a material witness, who would unfold the genesis of the incident or an essential part of the prosecution case, not convincingly brought to fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made good by examining a witness who though available is not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would oblige the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution by holding that if the witness would have been examined it would not have supported the prosecution case. On the other hand if already overwhelming evidence is available and examination of other witnesses would only be a repetition or duplication of the evidence already adduced, non- examination of such other witnesses may not be material. In such a case the court ought to scrutinise the worth of the evidence adduced. The court of facts must ask itself-whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to examine such other witness, and if so, whether such witness was available to be examined and yet was being withheld from the court? If the answer be positive then only a question of drawing an adverse inference may arise, If the witnesses already examined are reliable and the testimony coming from their mouth is unimpeachable the court can safely act upon it, uninfluenced by the factum of non-examination of other witnesses.”
20.Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the higher standard of proof that must be met in any trial. Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in the criminal trials. When an accused is prosecuted, the prosecution must prove the his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If the judge has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, the judge should pronounce those defendants in guilt. If the judge has no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, then the prosecution has prove its case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
20.The prosecution case suffers from suppression of material witnesses and is liable to be discarded.The prosecution has withheld the best evidence available by failing to examine natural and material witnesses, namely, Shyam Lal Das Gupta, who telephonically informed the police that the body was lying at the place in question; Mohan Lal of Babuganj, in whose house the informant, the deceased, and his uncle spent the night on 18.12.1984; Ramesh Pradhan, alleged to have seen the deceased in an injured condition, Dr. Nirmal, who examined the deceased after he sustained injuries and advised admission to the district hospital. An eyewitness/wife of Tau(Ram Swaroop), Jugaldre, owner of the rickshaw and Nand Kishore/Pooran, owner of the house in Delhi. The unexplained non-examination of these material witnesses entitles this court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution under section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The law is well settled that non-examination of material witnesses, without any valid explanation, casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version and an adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It stands admitted on record that there was previous enmity between the appellant and P.W.3, Chandrapal, which casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution version and probablises the defence plea of false implication. P.W.3 Chandrapal, the informant, is both an interested and inimical witness owing to admitted previous enmity with the appellant, and his testimony is therefore not of sterling quality. It is settled law that the evidence of an interested or inimical witness cannot be accepted at its face value and must be scrutinized with great care and caution and ordinarily requires corroboration from independent sources.
21.In the present case, the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness to corroborate the version of P.W.3/ Informant, despite availability and the entire prosecution case rests solely on the tainted and uncorroborated testimony of an inimical witness; thus, in the absence of corroboration from independent sources, the testimony of P.W.3 is wholly insufficient to sustain conviction and an adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution. There are material contradictions going to the very root of the prosecution case which render the entire version doubtful and unworthy of credence. A conjoint reading of statements of P.W.3 and P.W.5 reveals that they are contradictory to each other and the statement of P.W.1 ASI, Om Prakash is materially inconsistent with and irreconcilable to the deposition of P.W.3, Chandrapal with respect to the genesis of the occurrence, the manner in which the incident allegedly took place and the sequence of events such material inconsistencies between the testimonies of two key prosecution witnesses on vital aspects of the case create a serious dent in the prosecution story, destroy the substratum of the prosecution case and entitle the appellant to the benefit of doubt.
22.The prosecution has failed to prove the place of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt, which is a vital and integral link in the chain of circumstances to establish the guilt of the appellant; it is the specific case of the prosecution that after the alleged incident the body of the deceased was kept at the house of one Nand Kishore; the said Nand Kishore is thus a material witness whose testimony is essential to prove the place of occurrence and the subsequent conduct of the parties; however, the prosecution has withheld the said witness without offering any plausible or satisfactory explanation. Non-examination of Nand Kishore, the owner/occupier of the premises where the body of deceased was allegedly kept, is a fatal infirmity which goes to the root of the matter; withholding of such a crucial and independent witness raises a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution version regarding the place of occurrence and invites an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence establishing the place of occurrence, the very genesis of the prosecution case becomes doubtful and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
23,The investigation conducted by P.W.7/S.I. Dori Lal, is tainted and perfunctory, having been carried out in a casual and unfair manner; the Investigating Officer failed to examine material and natural witnesses, namely, Mohan Lal, from Babuganj, Dr. Nirmal, and rickshaw owner Jugaldre, who could have thrown light on the true genesis of the occurrence and proved the veracity of the prosecution case. Another material witness, namely Dr. Nirmal, who had first medically examined the deceased/injured and could have thrown light on the nature of injuries and the time of occurrence, has been deliberately withheld by the prosecution without any plausible explanation; it is settled principle that when medical evidence does not supports the prosecution case or remains inconclusive, the benefit thereof must necessarily go to the accused.
24.It is trite law that suspicion, however grave or strong, cannot take the place of proof and cannot be the basis for conviction; in a criminal trial, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and where two views are possible, the view favouring the accused must be adopted; thus, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
25. In the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The material contradictions in the ocular testimonies of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 about the manner of incident and subsequent events make the prosecution case doubtful. The FIR was lodged after 45 days and delay in lodging the FIR was also not convincingly explained. The instant criminal appeal has been pending since 1987 before this Court and the incident had taken place in the year of 1984. The age of the appellant was 25 years at the time of the incident and now he is aged about 65 years.
26. The appellate court is under an obligation to consider and identify the error in the decision of the trial court and then to decide whether the error is gross enough to warrant interference. The appellate court is not expected to merely substitute its opinion for that of the trial court and it has to exercise its discretion very cautiously to correct an error of law or fact, if any, significant enough to warrant reversal of the verdict of the trial court.
27. The prosecution case, when judged on the touchstone of totality of the facts and circumstances, does not generate the unqualified and unreserved satisfaction indispensably required to enter a finding of guilt against the appellant. Having regard to the evidence on record as a whole, it is not possible for this court to unhesitatingly hold that charge levelled against the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In contrast, the findings of the trial court are decipherably strained in favour of the prosecution by overlooking many irreconcilable inconsistencies, anomalies and omissions rendering the prosecution case unworthy of credit. This court is of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt as obligated in law and thus, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal thus succeeds and is allowed.
28. In case at hand, this Court finds that the material witness i.e., the mother of the P.W.3, the brother of P.W.3, Nand Kishore; employer of deceased, Shyamal Das Gupta and Mohan Lal, where the deceased was in injured condition at Etah, were not examined and there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and also there is no explanation for delay in lodging the FIR.
29. After giving anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant and learned A.G.A.-Ist for State, in the light of circumstances discussed above, this Court finds substance in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt qua the present appellant.
30.Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned order/judgment of trial court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Criminal Appeal is allowed .
31.The bail bonds of appellant are cancelled. His sureties are discharged.
32. Criminal appeal is allowed.
33.Office is directed to send back trial court record and notify this judgement to the trial court within two weeks.
34. Learned Amicus Curiae is held entitled to her professional fee of Rs.20,000/- payable within three weeks of the raising of bill
(Vinai Kumar Dwivedi,J.) (Siddharth,J.)
July 7, 2026
Atul Kr. Sri.
Â
Â
