HARCHARANversusSTATE

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD


                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1202 of 1987

                                                          Reserved on 03.02.2026
                                                          Delivered on 18.03.2026

Harcharan
                                                                  .....Appellant(s)
                                     Versus
State
                                                                 .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)              :   Keshav Sahai, Rajesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)             :   A.G.A.

Court No. - 48
                   HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

                   HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

                   (Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Singh-I, J.)


1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 23.04.1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court
No.2, Rampur in S.T. No. 97 of 1984 (State vs. Harcharan and
another), under Sections 302/307 IPC, Police Station-Milak, District-
Rampur.

2. The appellant no.1 (Harcharan), for the offence punishable under
section 302/34 and 307 IPC, was convicted and sentenced as under:

(i) Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence
under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and in default of payment
of fine, three months additional imprisonment.

(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.500/- for the
offence under section 307 IPC and in default of payment of fine, one
month additional imprisonment.

3. The appellant no.2 (Sewa Singh), for the offence punishable under
section 302 and 307/34 IPC, was convicted and sentenced as under:

(i) Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence
under section 302 and in default of payment of fine, three months
                                                     CRLA No. 1202 of 1987
                             2


additional imprisonment.

(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.500/- for the
offence under section 307 IPC read with section 34 IPC and in default
of payment of fine, one month additional imprisonment.

All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

4. The appeal against appellant no.2 (Sewa Singh) has already been
abated vide order dated 07.01.2026. Hence, the present appeal
survives only against appellant no.1 (Harcharan).

5. According to prosecution version, there was land related enmity
between the complainant (Gurvachan Singh), deceased (Sardar
Singh), who is real brother of the complainant/informant and the
accused persons. It is alleged that on intervening night of
11/12.06.1983 at around 1:00 AM, while complainant and his brother
(Sardar Singh)/deceased were sleeping at his house, the lamp was
burning as usual, then appellants along with other co-accused
persons namely, Sewa Singh, Banta Singh, Harcharan @ Charan
Singh and Kaka Singh, came to his house, listening the sound of
knocking, he shone the torchlight and asked who it was, at that point
of time, accused (Sewa Singh) has opened fire upon the brother of
the informant/complainant (Sardar Singh) with the intention to kill him,
which hit his forehead, due to which, he died on the spot. Another co-
accused-persons, namely, Banta Singh, Kaka Singh and Harcharan
@ Charan Singh had also fired upon the complainant/informant with
the intention to kill him, which hit his right shoulder. It is further
alleged that he and other witnesses have clearly seen the accused-
persons in the light of torches and lanterns, at the spot.

6. Complainant (Gurvachan Singh) reported the matter to the police
by submitting a Tehrir (Ex.Ka-1) and on that basis, case was
registered on 12.06.1983 at 06.10 am against all the four accused
persons under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC vide FIR Ex. Ka-3.

7. Inquest proceedings were conducted by PW-5 (Om Prakash) and
dead body of the deceased was sealed and sent for postmortem.

8. Post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on
12.06.83 by PW-6, Dr. H.B. Bhat (M.O.) and following ante-mortem
                                                     CRLA No. 1202 of 1987
                             3


injuries were found on the person of deceased:

    "(I) Entry wound of firearm 4 cm x 4 cm brain cavity deep
    on right side of head fort above right ear, no scorching,
    tattooing & blacking of skin, which is connected wound of
    exit in a area of 20 cm x 10 cm on right side of head 3 cm
    above of root of nose.

    Internal examination

    1. all the skull bones are fractured into multiple pieces.

    2. The membranes and brain were not present.

    3. The base of (M) was broken.

    4. Right and left lungs were found congested.

    5. The right side of the heart was full, while the left side was
    empty. The weight was 230 grams.

    6. Half-digested food was present in the stomach.

    7 Spleen and kidney were found congested.

    In my opinion the cause of death was Coma due to head
    injury sustained before death."

9. During investigation, one empty cartridge found at the spot, which
was seized vide seizure memo Ex.Ka-11. One blood-stained Pillow
and 'Gadda' was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.Ka-13. During
investigation blood stained bed sheet & 'Ban' was also recovered and
taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.Ka-12. Also blood
stained soil and plain soil from place of incident was taken in
possession vide recovery memo Ex.Ka-14.

10. After completion of investigation, only two accused persons
(Harcharan Singh @ Charan Singh & Sewa Singh) were charge-
sheeted under the aforesaid sections.

11. Learned trial court framed charge under Sections 302/34 and 307
IPC against the present appellant (Harcharan). Accused-appellant
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
                                                     CRLA No. 1202 of 1987
                             4


12. In order to bring home the guilt of accused-appellant, prosecution
has examined eleven witnesses. Accused-appellant were examined
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied prosecution evidence
and claimed false implication. In his defence, he has adduced two
defence witnesses.

13. After hearing and analysing the evidence on record, the present
accused-appellant was convicted under Sections 302/34 and 307 IPC
vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.1987.

14. Being aggrieved, accused-appellant has preferred the present
criminal appeal.

15. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that accused-
appellant was named on the basis of enmity. It is further submitted
that appellant was not present at the spot and was not involved in
committing the aforesaid crime in any manner. It is further submitted
that there was no source of light at the place of occurrence. Though,
PW-1, in his statement has stated that there was light of torch and
lamp, but the said torch and lamp have also not been seized. It is
further stated that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that there
was enough light to identify the assailants. He has further submitted
that as per prosecution evidence, country made pistol was used in
the alleged incident but there has been no recovery of the alleged
pistol from the possession of the present accused/appellant. It is
further submitted that the main accused (Sewa Singh), who has been
assigned the main role of firing upon the deceased by PW-1
(Guruvachan Singh), has already been died and so far as the present
accused-appellant (Harbachan Singh @ Charan Singh) is concerned,
he has been falsely implicated as he is brother-in-law of accused-
appellant no.1 (Sewa Singh). It is further submitted that there are
serious contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution case
and medical evidence also does not consistent with the oral
evidence. As such, the order passed by the trial court convicting the
accused-appellant is wholly illegal, which is liable to be set aside and
instant appeal may be allowed.

16. Per contra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State has
submitted that appellant was involved in committing the aforesaid
                                                     CRLA No. 1202 of 1987
                              5


offence as is evident from the statements of prosecution witnesses.
Prosecution has also proved motive on the part of the accused-
appellants to commit this crime as a land dispute was going on
between the accused persons and the deceased. It is further
submitted that conviction of accused-appellant is based on evidence,
as such, the order passed by the learned trial court does not warrant
any interference by this Court.

17. We have heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr. S.K. Ojha learned A.G.A-I. for the State-respondent
and perused the trial court record.

18. PW-1 (Guruvachan Singh), who is complainant/informant of the
case. In his testimony, has stated that accused/appellant no.2 (Sewa
Singh) is his real brother and there was a land dispute between him
and accused persons. He further stated that on intervening night of
11/12.06.1983 at around 1:00 AM, while complainant and his brother
(Sardar Singh)/deceased were sleeping at his house, the lamp was
burning as usual, then accused-appellants namely, Sewa Singh,
Banta Singh, Charan Singh and Kaka Singh, came to his house,
listening the sound of knocking, he shone the torchlight and asked
who it was, at that point of time, accused (Sewa Singh) has opened
fire upon the brother of the informant/complainant (Sardar Singh) with
the intention to kill him, which hit his forehead, due to which, he died
on the spot. Another co-accused-persons, namely, Banta Singh,
Kaka Singh and Charan Singh had also fired upon the
complainant/informant with the intention to kill him, which hit his right
shoulder.

19. PW-2, Lalta Prasad has supported the prosecution story and in
his examination-in-chief, has stated that he knows the complainant
(Guruvachan Singh) and resides in the same village. He Further
stated that at time of incident he was sleeping in his house and woke
up after the alarm was raised by the shouting of Guruvachan Singh.
He saw from the wall of his house that four persons armed with
pistols have entered the house of Guruvachan Singh and the
accused Sewa Singh fired upon Sardar Singh (deceased), who had
died on the spot. Though, in his cross-examination, he has stated that
he went at the spot when villagers reached there, hearing the voice of
                                                    CRLA No. 1202 of 1987
                             6


PW-1. All other persons had also fired bullets upon Guruvachan
Singh (PW-1).

20. PW-3 (Bhagwan Das), in his testimony, has also supported the
prosecution story. He has stated that after hearing a noise from the
house of PW-1/complainant, he went on the spot and saw the dead
body of the deceased (Sardar Singh). He has further stated that on
the request of PW-1, he had written the report whatever PW-1 had
said and signed on it.

21. PW-4, K.P. Singh, in his testimony, he has stated that at the time
of the incident he was posted as SO Milak Police Station. He has
further stated that after completion of investigation, he had filed the
charge-sheet. He proved it as Ext.Ka-2(A).

22. PW-5, Om Prakash Singh, in his testimony, he has stated that, in
June, 1983, he was posted at Milak Police Station. He has further
submitted that on the basis of written report filed by PW-1, he had
written and prepared the report. He proved it as Ext.Ka-3.

23. PW-6, Dr. H.B. Bhatt, who is a doctor and was posted at Rampur
Hospital as MO. In his testimony, he has deposed that he has
conducted the postmortem of the deceased. He has further deposed
that deceased was approximately 45 years old at the time of incident
and had died one day prior from the postmortem. He opined that
cause of death of the deceased was 'Coma' due to head injury.

24. PW-7, Grees Kumar, who is a constable and was posted at Police
Station-Milak on 12.06.1983. In his deposition, he has deposed that
he accompanied the I.O. to the scene of the incident and completed
the Panchnama of the deceased.

25. PW-8, R.P. Yadav, in his tesimony, has stated that in June, 1983,
he was posted as Sub-Inspector at Milak Police Station. He has
further deposed that he has investigated the matter and during
investigation, he has recorded the statements of prosecution
witnesses.

26. PW-9, Dr. Sri B.P.L. Saxena, who is currently posted as a ENT
Surgeon at District Hospital, Moradabad. In his testimony, he has
stated that on 12.06.1983, he was posted as MO at Sadar Hospital.
                                                      CRLA No. 1202 of 1987
                              7


He had examined the head injuries of PW-1 (Gurvachan Singh) and
recommended for X-Ray. He had signed on the report. He proved it
as Ext.Ka-22.

27. PW-10, Ram Kumar Singh, on 12.06.1983, he was posted as
Head Moharrir at Mal Khana Sadar, Rampur.

28. So far as the statements of PW-1 (Guruvachan Singh) and PW-2
(Lalta Prasad) are concerned, neither any motive nor specific role,
whatsoever, has been attributed to the present accused (Harcharan
@ Charan Singh). There is no allegation that present accused-
appellant has made exhortation to kill the deceased. Further, it also
appears doubtful that there was any source of light to identify the
assailants. Though, both PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that there was
light of torch and lamp, but the Investigating Officer has not collected
any evidence to substantiate this fact that there was lamp/torch.

29. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of
the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The
burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the
prosecution and it never shifts. Another golden thread, which runs
through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases, is
that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case,
one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his
innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be
adopted. The apex court has reiterated this principal of criminal
justice system in various judgements. In Kali Ram V. State of
Himachal Pradesh; (1973) 2 SCC 808, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as under:

     "One of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept
     in view in our system of administration of justice for criminal
     cases is that a person arraigned as an accused is
     presumed to be innocent unless that presumption is
     rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence as
     may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is
     charged. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is
     upon the prosecution and unless it relieves itself of that
     burden, the courts cannot record a finding of the guilt of the
                                                    CRLA No. 1202 of 1987
                             8


     accused."

30. In Upendra Pradhan V. State of Orissa; (2015) 11 SCC 124, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

     "It is now well settled that benefit of doubt belonged to the
     accused. It is further trite that suspicion, however grave
     may be, cannot take place of a proof. It is equally well
     settled that there is a long distance between 'may be' and
     'must be'."

31. In Golbar Hussain & Ors. V. State of Assam and Anr.; (2015)
11 SCC 242, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

     "There are, however, certain cardinal rules which have
     always to be kept in view in appeals against acquittal.
     Firstly, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the
     accused which has to be kept in mind, especially when the
     accused has been acquitted by the court below; secondly, if
     two views of the matter are possible, a view favourable to
     the accused should be taken thirdly, in case of acquittal by
     the trial judge, the appellate court should take into account
     the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of looking at
     the demeanour of witnesses; and fourthly, the accused is
     entitled to the benefit of doubt. The doubt should, however,
     be reasonable and should be such which rational thinking
     men will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain
     and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy-though
     unwittingly it may be-or is afraid of the logical
     consequences, if that benefit was not given."

32. In the instant case, considering the entire evidence on record, it
appears that it is thoroughly doubtful that PW-1 and PW-2 have seen
the presence of the accused-appellant (Harcharan Singh@ Charan
Singh). Further, it also appears doubtful that there was any source of
light to identify the present accused-appellant. Though, both PW-1
and PW-2 have stated that there was light of torch and lamp, but
during investigation, the Investigating Officer has not collected any
evidence to substantiate this fact that there was lamp/torch. Neither
any motive nor any specific role has been attributed to the present
                                                                                          CRLA No. 1202 of 1987
                                                                  9


                                    accused (Harcharan @ Charan Singh) by the prosecution witnesses
                                    in their depositions. Further, country made pistol, used in the incident,
                                    was not recovered from the accused-appellant. Once a doubt is
                                    created regarding presence of the present accused-appellant at spot,
                                    it would affect entire prosecution case. Taking cumulative effect of
                                    entire facts and evidence, it is apparent that the prosecution has
                                    failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, rather present
                                    accused-appellant deserves benefit of doubt.

                                    33. The net result of the above discussion is that the prosecution has
                                    not been able to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond
                                    reasonable doubt. The trial Court erred in convicting the appellant for
                                    the murder of the deceased. Accordingly, the conviction and
                                    sentence of the accused-appellant (Harcharan @ Charan Singh),
                                    under the aforesaid sections is set aside and the appellant is
                                    acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

                                    34. The appeal succeeds and is allowed.

                                    35. The accused-appellant (Harcharan @ Charan Singh) is on bail.
                                    He need not be surrendered. His personal bonds are cancelled and
                                    sureties are discharged.

                                    36. A copy of this judgment be sent to Court concerned forthwith for
                                    necessary compliance.

                                    March 18, 2026
                                    Ashutosh
                                                                (Devendra Singh-I,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ASHUTOSH SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad