CHANDRAPAL AND OTHERSversusSTATE

                             Judgment Reserved On:-07.07.2026
                            Judgment Delivered On:-15.09.2026
         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1647 of 1984

Chandrapal And Others
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : P.N. Mishra, Raghuvansh Misra, Rahul
                                  Misra, Suresh Dhar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : A.G.A.

Court No. - 43
                 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
                 HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

                   (Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth,J.)

1. Heard Sri Rahul Misra and Sri Suresh Dhar Dwivedi, learned counsel for
the appellants and Sri Prem Shankar Prasad, learned AGA for the State.
Perused the Trial Court record and the judgment of the Trial Court.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order
dated 29.05.1984 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, dated
29.05.1984 in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 1983 (State Vs. Chandra Pal and
Others), convicting the appellant Chandra Pal under section 302 I.P.C. and
the appellants, Rampal, Raghunandan and Purushotam, under sections
302/34 I.P.C., and sentencing all of them to life imprisonment.

3. The prosecution case is that complainant, Balak Ram, was irrigating his
field situated at village, Kapura Pur, police station- Khudaganj, with canal
water for sowing purposes since a day before the incident. It is said that on
27-10-1982 in the morning he came to his plot and found the water diverted
from his field to that of accused. Chandra Pal and Purshottam. There was a
paddy crop field where the canal water was diverted. Complainant diverted
water again to his field and forbade, Chandra Pal, from diverting it again to
his field. Complainant then returned home. Then at 9:00 a.m., complainant's
brother-in-law, Babu Ram's, brother Kalyan, accused, Chandra Pal and
Puroshottam and their clan members, Raghunandan and Rampal, indulged in
                                                          CRLA No. 1647 of 1984
                                2


verbal altercation. Thereupon complainant and his son, Jai Veer, emerged
from their house to forbid them from hurling abuses. They spotted accused,
Chandra Pal with country made pistol and rest with lathis. Witnessing the
complainant the accused exclaimed that it was he who had diverted water.
They extended threat. The noise made by complainant attracted his brother-
in-law, Babu Ram. The later's brother, Kalyan, complainant's wife, Angani
and his son, Jai Veer's, wife, Lajjawati, came to the scene of occurrence.
Accused, Chandra Pal, fired from his country made pistol that hit
complainant's son, Jai Veer on his left chest and thumb of right hand. The
complainant and others challenged the accused who then fled away
northward. Injured, Jai Veer, rushed towards his house but fell at his portals.
Complainant then sent for Rampal 'Kori' with his tonga and transported
injured, Jai Veer, his spouse, Agani and Jai Veer's spouse, Lajjawati to the
portals of the police station. By the time they reached, Khudaganj, town Jai
Veer died. The dead body was then transported in that tonga to the police
station.

4. Leaving the dead body there in the custody of the tanga man, Angani and
Lajjawati, and complainant, Balak Ram, entered the police station and
dictated F.I.R. Ex.Ka-1 to the Head Moharir at 10:30 a.m. On the basis of
the F.I.R., a case under section 302 IPC was registered in the G.D. at 10:30
a.m. itself at serial no.11 vide Ex.Ka-13. Investigation of the case was
entrusted to S.I. Dinesh Singh, P.W.-3. He recorded statements of
complainant and witnesses and held inquest proceedings of the dead body
preparing inquest report Ex.Ka-2, diagram of dead body Ex.-Ka-3, Challan
Ex.Ka-4 and letters addressed to C.M.O. Exs. Ka-5 & Ka-6. He sealed the
dead-body in a cloth and retained the sample of seal Ex.Ka-7. He then did
local inspection of the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex.Ka-8.
He also inspected the site of running of canal water. It is Ex.Ka-9. He
recovered blood stained and simple earth Exs. 1 and 2 from the place of
occurrence and prepared the memorandum Ex.Ka-10. The earth was sealed
in two separate boxes. He searched the houses of the accused. The accused
were not traceable. He prepared the memorandum Ex.Ka-11. Further,
investigation was taken up by S.O., Jagdish Chauhan, in his hands. The S.O.
recorded statement of eye witness, Babu Ram.

5. On 28.10.1982 at 03:00 P.M. Dr. P.K. Gupta, P.W.-5, performed autopsy
on dead body of Jai Veer. The dead body was one day old and was of
average built. Rigor mortis stood passed off the upper limbs but was present
                                                          CRLA No. 1647 of 1984
                                3


in the lower ones. Abdomen stood distended. There present faecal matter
present at anus. The surgeon found the following ante mortem injuries on the
person of the victim:-

     (i). Gun shot wound of entry with inverted margins with
     blackening in an area of 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. x cavity deep on left side
     of chest 2 c.m. above left nipple with multiple gun shot wounds of
     entry each .3 c.m x .3 c.m. x skin /and muscle deep all around the
     wound in an area of 10.5 c.m. x 10 c.m.

     (ii) Gun shot wound 3.8 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. x through and through on
     index finger and thumb and dorsum of hand with lower half
     palmar part of wound as wound of entry with inverted margins
     and blackening and upper half (dorsum of hand) above wound
     2.5 c.m., in width as wound of exit with everted in margins.

6. On internal examination of the dead body the doctor found left III and IV
ribs fractured and left side of pleura lacerated. Blood stood accumulated in
cavity. Left lung stood lacerated. Small intestines were empty and large ones
contained faecal matter. The surgeon recovered wading pieces and 49 small
metallic pellets from left side of chest cavity, left lung, tissues and skin of
chest. In the opinion of the surgeon death was caused due to shock and
haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injury no.(i). The surgeon took
'tahmad' underwear, shirt, banian and ring of the deceased, sealed them in a
bundle and handed it over tot he constable. He also sealed the wading pieces
and metallic pellets in an envelop and entrusted it to the constable.

7. After conclusion of investigation the investigating officer submitted
charge-sheet against the accused. The case was then committed to sessions
as aforesaid. On 20.04.1983 a prima facie case under section 302 IPC was
found to be made out against accused, Chandra Pal. Again there was found
to be made out a prima facie case under sections 302/34 IPC against
accused, Purshottam, Raghunandan and Rampal. The accused were charged
accordingly. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

8. The prosecution has produced chik F.I.R. Exs Ka-1, inquest report Ex.
Ka-2 diagram of dead body Ex.ka-3, challan Ex.Ka-4, letters addressed to
C.M.O., Exs. Ka-5 and Ka-6, sample of seal Ex.Ka-7 site plan of place of
occurrence Ex.Ka-8, site plan of irrigated plot Ex.Ka-9 memorandum of
recovery of search of the accused Ex.Ka-11, inquest report Ex.Ka-12 and
                                                           CRLA No. 1647 of 1984
                                 4


g.d. extract Ex.Ka-13. The prosecution has also produced blood stained and
simple earth Exs.1 and 2 and tahmad, underwear, banian, shirt of the
deceased Exs-3 to 6 and pellets Ex.7. The defence has relied upon injury
report of accused, Raghunandan Prasad Exs. Kha-1 and Raghunandan's
F.I.R. Ex.Kha-2.

9. The prosecution has produced, Balak Ram, as P.W.-1, Smt. Agani as
P.W.-2, I.O. Dinesh Singh as P.W.-3, Constable, Sukh Lal as P.W.-4 and Dr.
P.K. Gupta as P.W.-5.

10. In his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., accused, Raghunandan, has
stated that after diverting water towards his field complainant, Balak Ram,
returned home. He has maintained that shortly thereafter while he was
proceeding homeward and came in front of house of Kalyan and Babu Ram,
Balak Ram and Jai Veer encountered him. They encircled him and hurled
invectives upon him. He stated that Jai Veer dealt lathi blow to him. The
accused stated that Balak Ram held his licensed gun that he fired salvo
therefrom with a view to making work of him. He fled to safety. He stated
that he heard sound of gun shot. He asserts that the shot hit Jai Veer and that
he lodged F.I.R. to that effect at the police station and had got himself
examined medically. Accused, Chandrapal, has maintained that complainant,
Balak Ram and his son Hari Singh had dispute. He has maintained that on
ouster from parental home, Hari Singh, was rehabilitated by him in his
house. His case is that it is this enmity that in responsible for his implication
in the instant false case. The case of accused, Purshottam, is that canal water
was running into his field and that it was Balak Ram who had diverted it into
his own field. He maintains that he diverted it again into his field. He then
states that his brother, Raghunandan, diverted water into his field and that
Balak Ram then went home. The case of accused, Rampal is that foundation
of his house stood filled in and that complainant, Balak Ram, took out his
bullock cart some eight days before the incident. He stated that he prevented
Balak Ram from committing mischief and scolded him too. He attributes his
false implication to that enmity.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is settled principle
of the criminal jurisprudence that prosecution should prove its version
beyond reasonable doubt while defense proves only preponderance of
probability in this case on the following basis the defense case seems to be
more probable in comparison to the prosecution case. (State of Punjab Vs.
                                                           CRLA No. 1647 of 1984
                                 5


Gurbux Singh and otherss- 1995 Suppl.(3) SCC). Unexplained injuries on
the person of accused, Raghunandan, clearly shows that the defense version
is more probable than the prosecution case. It clearly shows that the
prosecution has not come with clean hands and true version of the incident
has been suppressed. The genesis of the incident has been concealed and
prosecution has created a false, fabricated and afterthought version to falsely
implicate present appellants to escape their liability. (Laxmi Singh and
others Vs. State of Bihar-1976(4)SCC 394. Highly interested and inimical
witnesses (only mother and father of the deceased), i.e., P.W.-1 and P.W.-2
were produced by the prosecution though there was availability of many
independent witnesses but prosecution produced none of them. Not equal but
greater motive was against P.W.-1, Balak Ram, he was present at scene of
crime. All four accused were armed with lathi and country made pistols but
no one made any attempt to cause injury to him. Whereas Jaiveer (against
whom there was no motive) shot dead by accused appellants. It is very
unusual. Both parties present at police station on same time to lodge their
F.I.R. and accused, Raghunandan, was in injured condition. Prosecution has
not explained the injury found on person of accused Raghunandan (Ext.
Kha-1). Medical report has not corroborated prosecution story in this case
because:-

     a. The wad and 49 pellets which were found in dead body of the
     deceased as mentioned in postmortem examination report was
     not possible from the distance of 5-6 steps/ paces (i.e., about 15
     feet) by country made pistol. It shows that a mass entry of firing
     occurred while in case of a fire coming from the country made
     pistol due to small barrel and very low striking energy in the
     pellets, pellets disperse just after leaving the barrel of country
     made pistol in these situation it was not possible as P.W.-1, P.W.-
     2, stated that the accused fired from 5 steps/paces and made
     solitary fire which hit the deceased because in that situation it is
     not possible and a mass entry and wading found in wound along
     with 49 pellets, blacking also did not come from this distance.

     b. Dr. says in his statement that the injury occurred on the person
     of the deceased (firearm injury) from within 3 feet while
     prosecution case is single shot fired from a distance of 5-6 steps/
     paces (i.e., 12 to 15 feet) and firstly it hit palmer side of hand and
     then on the chest it clearly shows that doctor statement clearly
                                                         CRLA No. 1647 of 1984
                               6


     make impossible the prosecution story, which is stated by the
     prosecution witnesses in their statement about the distance from
     which the solitary shot was fired.

     c. It is also very relevant to mention here that the damages
     caused by a single shot clearly shows that this injury was caused
     by a regular license gun as per the defense story and it can not be
     caused by country made pistol as the prosecution story goes. It is
     also supported by the medical jurisprudence mentioned in
     Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology
     (page no. 264) "the striking energy of fired bullet is proportional
     to its mass (m) and square of its velocity (v) [Energy= 0.5xmxv².]
     it follows that the higher the velocity the greater the striking
     energy and the damage". (Page No. 269) "the muzzle velocity of
     shot fired from standard shotgun are around 1000 ft./second. In
     case of country made hand gun using shotgun ammunition,
     velocities upto and above 500 feet/second have been observed. It
     is clearly shows that a very great and extensive damage occurred
     on the dead body clearly shows that this fire was come from the
     regular licensed shotgun as the defense story stated. It is not
     possible that this injury came from a country made pistol as
     prosecution story stated.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there was a
serious contradiction in statements of both the eyewitnesses where P.W.-1
stated that the deceased after being injured by a gunshot about 30-32 steps
from the door and ran away from that place to the house and fell down while
P.W.-2 states that the deceased fell down on the door of the house after
receiving the gunshot injury. It clearly shows that prosecution made an
afterthought story when P.W.-1 stated that Chandra Pal had spade in the
field while P.W.-2, Balak Ram, empty hand because if it so then while
Chandra Pal and other appellant not made any reaction on the field when the
four appellants having spade on the field while as P.W.-1, Balak Ram, was
alone having no arm with him. It means appellants has no intention to cause
any type of harm to him. It is also very surprising that after the F.I.R. of
Raghunandan that Balak Ram made a fire from his gun which hit deceased
Jaiveer there was no positive action taken by the police/ investigating
agencies to investigate this thing. Even the licensed gun of Balak Ram
neither deposited nor sent for the Forensic Science Laboratory to verify this
                                                          CRLA No. 1647 of 1984
                                7


fact that any fire made from this gun or not. A very important fact in this
case that there is no blood trail found as the prosecution witnesses stated
from scene of crime to the door of the first informant where Jaiveer fell
down. No recovery of any country made pistol or any lathi from pointing out
of any accused. It is also relevant to mention here that according to the
prosecution story after receiving the gunshot wound deceased Jaiveer ran
away from the place to his door about 30-35 steps and after that he fell down
but the great and extensive damages on his body described in doctor's
statement of page no. 32 of the paper book clearly shows that it is not
possible to ran away 30-35 steps after receiving that injury was not possible
and it also falsified the prosecution story.

13. Contrary to the prosecution version, the defence version is that after
diverting the water to his agricultural field of Balak Ram went to his house.
After some time the accused, Raghunandan, was passing from the way
opposite to the house of Kalyan and Babu Ram and going to his house when
Balak Ram (P.W.1) and his son, Jaiveer (deceased) stopped him and started
abusing. Jaiveer was armed with lathi while Balak Ram had licensed gun.
Jaiveer attacked him by lathi and Balk Ram fired on him. He ran towards his
house while running to house he heard the sound of firing. He saw that
Jaiveer suffered fire arm injury which was caused by Balak Ram. The
accused, Raghunandan, claimed that he suffered injuries caused by lathi and
filed his injury report as Exhibit- Kha(2) and two papers in defence at
Exhibit kha(1) before the trial court.

14. Learned AGA has pointed out that the defence version is absolutely
reliable. No father would be careless enough to risk the murder of his son in
the manner alleged by the defence. He has submitted that trial court has
given well reasoned judgment and dealt with defence case in detail.

15. We find that the motive of the crime is clearly made out from the F.I.R.
and proved from the evidence on record. Complainant, Balak Ram, was
irrigating his plots with canal water since the day before the incident, but in
the morning of the day of incident, he found that the water has been diverted
to the field of accused, Puroshotam, by accused, Chandra Pal. Complainant
diverted the water to his field and forbade Chandra Pal from distributing the
same. Thereafter the accused persons gathered near the enclosure of Kalyan,
relative of the informant and started abusing the complainant. When the
complainant along with his son, Jaiveer, came out. Chandrapal pointed out
                                                          CRLA No. 1647 of 1984
                                8


his loaded pistol towards Jaiveer and caused fatal injuries to him.
Purshottam, had admitted that dispute took place regarding diversion of
water on the fateful day, but he alleged that the mistake was on the part of
the complainant. However, Purshottam, has admitted that Ragunandan,
diverted the water to his filed and therefore, it is clear that Raghunandan and
Purshottam, who are cousins made the mistake of diverting water from the
field of Balak Ram, the informant, to their agricultural field. Raghunandan
claimed that after they were returning to their houses, Balak Ram and
Jaiveer met him and challenged him. He fled from the spot and later, he
came to know that the gun shot hit Jaiveer. He also lodged the F.I.R. at the
Police Station. Chandrapal denied that he is related to Purshottam, but
Purshottam has admitted relationship with Chandrapal. The trial court has
found that he was most cogent, potent and proximate motive for the accused
to perpetrate the crime. The motive in this case stands corroborated from the
defence version also regarding the diversion and re-diversion of the water.
We do not find any reason to defer from the findings recorded by the trial
court. The prosecution witnesses of fact are said to have been interested
witnesses being father and mother of the deceased.

16. This Court cannot disbelieve the prosecution case only because the
prosecution witnesses are closely related to the deceased and appeared to be
interested witnesses. It is common experience that no one gets involved in
dispute on third parties. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Singh and Other(Supra) is not warranted
in this case. The trial court has found that there was only lacerated wound in
the injury report of Raghunandan of size 4.5 cm x .5 cm. 6/10 cm located on
left side of head. Injury was simply caused by lathi. Therefore, the defence
case that the prosecution story doubtful and is not correct. Heavy reliance
has been made by the counsel for the appellant on the lack of possibility of
suffering the fire arm injuries by the deceased from 5 to 6 paces by country
made pistol as per the distance of firing stated by the prosecution witness.

17. Regarding argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
injury no.1 suffered on the chest by the deceased was not possible from,
distance of 5-6 steps/paces which is about 15 feet distance by country made
pistol, deserves consideration.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a wad and 49 pellets
were found inside the first wound, which could not have entered wound no.
                                                          CRLA No. 1647 of 1984
                                 9


1 if the firing was made from 5 paces, as stated by P.W.1 and P.W.2. Great
stress has been laid on the argument that the injuries on the person of the
deceased could not have been caused from a distance of 5 feet. In this case,
the witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 are rustics, and P.W.1 has stated in his cross-
examination that the accused persons were at a distance of 20-25 steps away
when firing was made on his son. During cross-examination, he further
stated that the Inspector showed him the place from which the accused,
Chandrapal, fired on his son and the place where Chandrapal suffered
gunshot injury, though he could not tell whether the distance between the
two places was 15 steps or any other distance. He admitted in his cross-
examination that he saw the accused, Chandrapal, taking out a country-made
pistol when he was 5-6 steps away from him, and no firing was made on
him. Meanwhile, P.W.2, the wife of P.W.1, stated that the place where her
son suffered gunshot injuries was 5-6 paces away. It is notable that P.W.-1
and P.W-2 both are rustics. P.W.-1 has stated that when firing took place on
his son, he was 4-5 steps away from the accused. The distance of 5 steps is
dependent upon the height and stride of an individual. The average step
length is also different between men and women. For taller men average
step length may come to 2.5-2.7 feet, while for shorter men it comes about 2
feet. Therefore, for taller men, average step length of 5 steps comes to
around 12.5-13.5 feet, while for the shorter ones it comes to about 10 feet in
5 steps.

19. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have stated the distance between the place from
where Chandrapal fired and the place where he caused the fatal injury to the
deceased to be about 4 to 6 paces. In this regard, the length of the assailant’s
hand and the length of the pistol are also required to be considered, since the
firing would have been made after extending the hand, and the length of the
hand as well as that of the pistol is required to be excluded from the distance
from which the firing was made. The length of the hand varies from person
to person, and the length of a country-made pistol may also vary.

20. Therefore, if the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the firing was made from a distance of about 5 paces is accepted, and a
distance of about 2 paces is excluded, considering the length of the
assailant’s hand and pistol, the actual firing distance would be about 3 paces,
which comes to approximately 6-7.5 feet. If the length of the pistol is further
excluded, the actual distance would be reduced even further. A country-
made pistol is effective at a close range of about 5 to 10 metres
                                                           CRLA No. 1647 of 1984
                                 10


(approximately 15 to 30 feet).

21. In the present case, we have found that the firing was made at the
deceased from a distance of about6-7.5 feet. In view of the discussion made
hereinabove, it cannot be said that the fatal injury could not have been
caused to the deceased by a country-made pistol fired by Chandrapal from a
distance of five paces. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the
appellant on the Parikh Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology
does not advance the case of the appellant, as there is no dispute with regard
to the proposition that the striking energy of a fired bullet is proportional to
its mass and the square of its velocity. In the absence of any details
regarding the type of country-made pistol and the ammunition used therein,
the striking energy and distance of the weapon cannot be calculated.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the role of appellant
No. 1, Chandrapal, in causing the fatal injuries to the deceased is clearly
established. Accordingly, we confirm his conviction and the sentence
awarded by the trial court, along with the findings recorded against the
aforesaid appellant. The implication of the appellant nos. 2 and 3 with the
aid of section 34 IPC needs consideration.

23. In Ramashish Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1999) 8 SCC 555 the Apex
Court considered the ingredients of section 34 IPC as follows. :-

     ". Section 34 lays down a principle of joint liability in the doing
     of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in the
     existence of common intention animating the accused leading to
     the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. The
     distinct feature of Section 34 is the element of participation in
     action. The common intention implies acting in concert, existence
     of a pre-arranged plan which is to be proved either from conduct
     or from circumstances or from any incriminating facts. It
     requires a pre-arranged plan and it presupposes prior concert.
     Therefore, there must be prior meeting of minds. The prior
     concert or meeting of minds may be determined from the conduct
     of the offenders unfolding itself during the course of action and
     the declaration made by them just before mounting the attack. It
                                                                                            CRLA No. 1647 of 1984
                                                                   11


                                         can also be developed at the spur of the moment but there must
                                         be per-arrangement or premeditated concert."

                                    24. We also find that appellant no.2, Purshottam and appellant no.3, have
                                    been implicated in this case on the role of causing lathi blows to the
                                    deceased, but P.W.-5, Dr. P.K. Gupta, has not found any lathi injury on the
                                    person of the deceased. Initially another accused, namely, Rampal, was
                                    assigned the similar role, who has died during the pendency of appeal.
                                    Therefore, we are inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant
                                    no.2, Purhottam and appellant no.3, Raghunandan, and acquit them of
                                    all charges.

                                    25. The appellant no.2, Purhottam and appellant no.3, Raghunandan, are on
                                    bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties
                                    are discharged.

                                    26. However, the conviction and sentence of appellant no.1, Chandrapal, is
                                    confirmed. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
                                    discharged. He shall surrender forthwith and carry out the remaining
                                    sentences.

                                    27. The appeal is partly allowed.

                                    28. Let the record of trial court along with this judgment be returned to the
                                    trial court within 10 days.

                                    September 15,2026.
                                    Abhishek
                                                                    (Vinai Kumar Dwivedi,J.) (Siddharth,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad