Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on October 28 upheld the conviction of four persons in a double murder case, rejecting their criminal appeal pending since 2011. The Court held that despite the delay in lodging the FIR and the non-recovery of weapons, the prosecution case rested on direct eyewitness testimony, which was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence establishing that the appellants had knowingly and intentionally attacked the complainant's side with dangerous weapons.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, relying upon Nankaunoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh(2016), held:

"From the above discussion, there remains no doubt in our minds that the present appellants in furtherance of their common intention formed an unlawful assembly. Inncha and Dharamvir stood armed with sharp edged deadly weapons committed the murder of Braham Singh and Dile Ram, while in order to achieve their common intention, they had also inflicted such injuries on the physical person of Bangal Singh knowing fully well that had Bangal Singh died on account of the said injuries they ought to have been held guilty of causing his murder in this matter."

In Nankaunoo, the Court held that in light of unimpeachable oral evidence that is corroborated by the medical evidence, non-recovery of murder weapon does not materially affect the case of the prosecution. "Any omission on the part of the investigating officer cannot go against the prosecution's case. Story of the prosecution is to be examined dehors such omission by the investigating agency. Otherwise, it would shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice," it was held.

The Court has directed the Appellants to surrender and the bail granted to them stands cancelled. It said that if the Appellants file for remission, it shall be considered strictly in terms of the State policy by the competent authority.

To briefly state the facts, two sets of First Information Report (FIR) were lodged in 1988 by close relatives against each other after the Appellants (those who filed appeals) broke the ridge between their farmlands, which was a matter of a pending land boundary dispute. A fight ensued between them in the sugarcane field where they were working, in which ultimately, two people died and one suffered fatal injuries, leading to death.

In FIR 65(second FIR), out of which the present appeal arises, 7 persons(Molhar, Kantu, Om Pal, Narendra, Ranvir, Inchha Ram, and Dharamvir) were found guilty under Sections 302 read with 149, and Sections 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court stated that the appellants had initiated the fight, and the nature of the injuries and evidence provided that it was knowingly and intentionally caused.

They were sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, and a fine of Rs. 10,000 in addition to the individual sentencing that they received. On the other hand, in FIR No. 65A, all persons were acquitted.

Aggrieved by their conviction, five persons appealed before the Allahabad High Court, of whom one of them died during the pendency. One of them also filed a criminal revision challenging the acquittal of others in the first FIR. It was argued that the two persons died as a result of a free fight and not premeditated murder.

Since Uttar Pradesh was bifurcated to Uttarakhand in 2000, the matters were transferred to the Uttarakhand High Court and in 2010, it dismissed all appeals and the criminal revision.

Supreme Court's findings

Delay in FIR and non-recovery of weapon not fatal

It was the argument of the Appellants that they were the ones to first lodge FIR, and the complainants only lodged cross-FIR after 3 days of the incident as an afterthought. However, the bench rejected the argument stating that the delay was well explained by one of the deceased's son that he had to take his father and uncle, and nephew to the hospital in Chandigarh from Muzaffarnagar and after coming from there, he lodged an FIR.

Moreover, the Court explained that the law here is well-settled that in case of direct evidence, the delay in filing FIR can't be considered fatal. It relied upon State of H.P. vs. Gian Chand(2001), in which it was held that if the delay in lodging FIR can be explained to the satisfaction of the Court, then it can't be a ground for discarding the entire case of prosecution.

Similarly, the Court held that non-recovery of weapons was not fatal in a case where there is consistent medical evidence and ocular evidence.

Testimony of injured eyewitness holds presumption of truth

The Court upheld the testimonies of the injured eyewitness and the two other eyewitnesses, as it found that the prosecution could not prove that there was anything glaring or palpable in it.

It said that the injured eyewitness was the grandson(also the complainant) of one of the deceased, and various judgments have settled the law that the testimony of an injured eyewitness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the crime scene, and there is a presumption of truth attached to it. The grandson had said that the Appellants were armed with spades, while the complainants were armed with lathis.

"It is settled that the testimony of an injured eyewitness is accorded a special status in law. As being a stamped witness, his presence cannot be doubted. The testimony of an injured eyewitness has its own relevancy 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 the injured eyewitness should be generally given due importance unless there are glaring contradictions."

It relied upon Jarnail Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab(2009).

Intention to cause death can be gathered from various factors

Further, the Court addressed the argument of the Appellants that their case falls under the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC because the acts were not premeditated. Fourth exception says 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 having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that as held in Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy v State of AP(2006), the intention to cause death can be gathered from a combination of factors like nature of weapon used, whether the weapons were carried by the accused or picked on spot, whether the blow was aimed at a vital body part etc.

It stated that while the other side attacked with lathis, the Appellants carried spades, phawadas, and the injuries caused from it resulted in the deaths: "From the medical evidence on record, it stands established that the death of both the deceased persons was the result of ante-mortem injuries. The nature and extent of these injuries, coupled with the surrounding circumstances, leave no doubt that they were intentionally inflicted. The use of the sharp edges of spades, phawadas to deliver fatal blows on the heads of the deceased demonstrates that the assailants acted with a clear motive and object of permanently eliminating them, thereby committing their murder."

Case Details: OM PAL & ORS v. STATE OF U.P (NOW STATE OF UTTARAKHAND)|CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1624 OF 2011

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1037

Click Here To Read Order