Allahabad High Court
RAKSHA PAL AND OTHERSversusSTATE
- Decided
- Bench
- TEJ PRATAP TIWARI
Holding
The appellate court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and, on the benefit of doubt, set aside the convictions.
Summary
The appellants Sadhu Singh and Amit Singh were convicted under IPC Sections 304 read with 34 and 325 read with 34 for the death of Atar Singh and injuries to Bhure Singh. On appeal, the High Court examined the prosecution evidence, noting the absence of timely medical reports, contradictions in witness statements, and lack of specific participation by the accused. The Court held that these deficiencies created reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. Citing Supreme Court precedents on the benefit of doubt, the Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were released on bail. The Court also noted the appellants' advanced age as a factor for sympathetic consideration.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved the charges under Sections 304/34 and 325/34 beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether contradictions and lack of medical evidence create reasonable doubt.
- Whether the principle of benefit of doubt applies to set aside the convictions.
- Whether the age and health of the accused warrant any consideration in sentencing.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304, 325, 334, 34
Subjects
- criminal law
- IPC
- Section 304
- Section 325
- benefit of doubt
- evidence
- conviction
- appeal
- age of accused
- medical evidence
- contradictions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 734 of 1987
Raksha Pal and others
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rakesh Kumar Singh, S.k. Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.
1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by appellants
Raksha Pal, Sadhu Singh, Mansha Ram and Amit Singh
challenging the judgement and order dated 07.03.1987 passed by
7th Additional Sessions Judge, Etah in Session Trial No. 189 of
1986 (State vs. Raksha Pal and others) under Sections 325 / 34
and 304 / 34 I.P.C., Police Station Soron, District Etah whereby all
the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section
304 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to undergo 10 years rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and the appellants
were further convicted and sentenced under Section 325 I.P.C.
read with Section 34 I.P.C. to undergo one year rigorous
imprisonment and in default of payment of fine, the appellants
were to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. All the
sentences were to run concurrently.
2. During the pendency of the instant criminal appeal, the
appellant no. 1 Raksha Pal and appellant no. 3 Mansha Ram
2
CRLA No. - 734 of 1987
have died, on behalf of them, the instant criminal appeal was
abated by this Court. The present appeal is being decided only for
the appellant no. 2 Sadhu Singh and appellant no. 4 Amit Singh.
3. As per the prosecution story, the incident occurred on
22.08.1985 at 12:00 noon, when the accused persons, namely
Mansha Ram, Raksha Pal, Amit Singh, and Sadhu, having their
field nearby the field of complainant, assaulted the complainant
(Bhure Singh) and his brother, Atar Singh, (subsequently died on
25.08.1985). After the post-mortem examination, the case was
registered. It has further been stated in the written report (Ex.Ka-
1) that he was examined by a doctor at Kasganj and was advised
for X-ray and when the X-ray (Ex.Ka-16) was done, a fracture of
the left index finger was found. On the basis of the aforesaid
report, a Non-Cognizable Report was lodged by the concerned
police.
4. After the investigation, the charge sheet was filed on
05.09.1985, under Sections 325, 506, 304 I.P.C. against all the
aforesaid four accused persons. The said charge sheet was
marked and exhibited as Ex.Ka-14 at the trial.
5. The panchayatnama of the body of the deceased was done
on 26.08.1985 at 10:00 a.m. which was marked and exhibited as
Ex.Ka-6 at the trial. After this, the post mortem was conducted on
27.08.1985 by Dr. S.R. Gupta (P.W.-4) which was marked and
exhibited as Ex.Ka.-2.
6. In the post mortem report of the deceased Atar Singh,
following anti-mortem injuries were found :-
1. contusion 2 cm x 2 cm on posterior aspect of skull
in mid-line 10 cm above occipital protuberance. On
dissension conjetion present in layer out on the skull
bone not exposed
3
CRLA No. - 734 of 1987
2. abrasion scabbed 3 cm x 1.5 cm on back of right
elbow joint
3. scabbed abrasion on dorsum of root of index finger
of right hand size 1 cm x 1 cm
4. scabbed abrasion 2 cm x 1.5 cm on back of left
elbow joint.
5. scabbed abrasion 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm on right side
scrotum front aspect
6. scabbed abrasion 3.5 cm. x 2.5 cm on front of left
knee joint just below patella.
7. The injuries caused to the complainant Bhure Singh has
also been proved by the prosecution during the trial as Ex.Ka-15
and 16 at the trial.
8. The charge sheet has been filed by I.O. concerned and
thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Session,
whereby the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against
the aforesaid accused persons under Sections 325 read with
Section 34 I.P.C. and 304 I.P.C., on which the accused persons
denied the charges and claimed for trial.
9. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the
witnesses as follows : -
Prosecution Name of Paper proved Role
witnesses witnesses
P.W.-1 Bhure Singh Supported the Complainant
F.I.R. version (witness of
fact)
P.W.-2 Aram Singh Supported the Injured
prosecution
story
P.W.-3 Ram Swaroop Supported the Injured
prosecution
story
P.W.-4 Dr. S.R. Gupta Prepared the Doctor
4
CRLA No. - 734 of 1987
post mortem
report of
deceased Atar
Singh
P.W.-5 Sri Ram Prepared and Constable
Bahadur proved the
Gautam Chik report and
general diary
P.W.-6 S.I. Sugadh Prepared and Sub-Inspector
Singh proved the
inquest report,
challan Nash
and photonash
P.W.-7 Dr. I.P. Singh Proved the Medical Officer,
injury report Primary Health
and medical Center,
examination Kasganj
report
P.W.-8 Dr. Shamshad Proved the X- Radiologist
Akhtar ray report of
Bhure Singh
and X-ray plate
10. After the prosecution witnesses were examined, the
statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. In their statements, the accused persons have stated
that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity and village
party politics.
11. The learned Sessions Judge, having heard the learned
counsel for the parties and perusing the records available, had
convicted the accused-appellants, as stated above.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA
for the State of U.P. and perused the records.
13. At the first instance, learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that as per the prosecution story, the incident in
question took place on 22.08.1985, in which complainant Bhure
Singh (P.W.-1) and Atar Singh (deceased) got injuries by the
5
CRLA No. - 734 of 1987
accused-appellants, but since the time of the occurrence i.e.
22.8.1985 till the death of Atar Singh, there is no medical report
of Atar Singh, submitted and proved by the prosecution side,
which unerringly creates doubt on the prosecution story. As
regards, the second injured person, namely, Bhure Singh
(complainant) P.W.-1, is concerned, he has not been medically
examined before 25.08.1985. He has been examined on
26.08.1985 by the Medical Officer of PHC, Kasganj, Etah. This is
also builds the doubt in the prosecution story. After this, learned
counsel for the appellants, submitted that, since lodging of the
First Information Report and till the statements on oath made by
the prosecution witnesses, in court, the allegations levelled
against all the accused-appellants are of general nature. No
specific role has been assigned to any of the accused-appellants,
except the statement of P.W.-2, Aram Singh, who has specifically
alleged that the injuries caused by lathi by Mansha Ram resulted
into the death of Atar Singh (the deceased). Likewise, the
deposition made by prosecution witness P.W.-3, Ram Swaroop,
specifies, that he reached the spot after the occurrence had taken
place. This finds support by the statements of the doctor who
conducted the autopsy of the deceased, Atar Singh. Learned
counsel for the appellants has pointed out that the death was
caused due to neurogenic shock, which is stated to be possible by
injury no. 1. He has further submitted that injury no. 1 was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
14. Referring to the statement of P.W.-6, Sugadh Singh (I.O.),
learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that Bhure Singh
(P.W.-1) and Aram Singh (P.W.-2) had informed him that they had
taken treatment from a private doctor, Dr. Satya Prakash Gupta.
However, when the statement of the said witness was recorded,
Dr. Satya Prakash Gupta, has denied having treated any patient,
particularly Bhure Singh and Aram Singh.
6
CRLA No. - 734 of 1987
15. Referring on the aforesaid contradictions, learned counsel
for the appellants has emphasized that these contradictions
creates a doubt in the prosecution case and, on the basis of it, the
accused-appellants deserves acquittal. He further pointed out that
in the instant case, there are two surviving appellants, namely,
Sadhu Singh and Amit Singh are more than 60 years of age and
the learned counsel for the appellants prayed for leniency looking
to the age as well as physical and mental hazard which they have
suffered during last three decades.
16. Per contra, Ms. Harshita Rani, learned AGA for the State of
U.P. had strongly opposed the arguments submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellants and had submitted that as the
doctors in the Government Hospital / PHC were not available
because of which the complainant (P.W.-1) Bhure Singh and Atar
Singh (deceased) did not get the treatment between 22.08.1985
to 25.08.1985. In the instant case, the deposition of the
prosecution witness made on oath in open court by P.W.-1 Bhure
Singh (who is also injured in the instant case) cannot be doubted.
So far as the minor discrepancies / contradiction in the statements
of the prosecution witnesses of fact, is concerned, the Apex Court
in Brahm Swaroop and Another Vs. State of Uttar Padesh,
2011 (6) SCC 288, paragraph 16 as under :-
"It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the
evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial
matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution
case, may not prompt the court to reject the evidence in
its entirety. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way
corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as
omissions or contradictions." Difference in some minor
details, which does not otherwise affect the core of the
prosecution case, even if present, would not itself prompt
the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and
discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and
7
CRLA No. - 734 of 1987
shifting through the evidence to separate truth from
untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court
comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary
evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an
undue importance should not be attached to omissions,
contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the
heart of the matter and shake the basis version of the
prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a
human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb
all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in
the statements of witnesses."
17. Learned AGA finally submits that the order of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned trial court, assailed by means of
the present criminal appeal, needs no interference by this Court,
as the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.
19. At the first instance, it would not be out of context to quote
the provision of law under which the present accused-appellants
have been charged and tried. In this context, Sections 304, 325
and 334 I.P.C. are quoted herein below :-
“Section 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.—
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to
murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act
by which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death,or with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with
both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to
8
CRLA No. - 734 of 1987
cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to
cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Section 325:- Punishment for voluntarily causing
grievous hurt:-
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section
335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
Section 334 Voluntarily causing hurt on
provocation :-
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt on grave and sudden
provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to
be likely to cause hurt to any person other than the
person who gave the provocation, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to one month, or with fine which may
extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”
20. Looking to the charges levelled against the appellants in the
light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellants as well as the learned AGA, it would be appropriate to
examine the lapse, if any, on the part of the prosecution to prove
its case, with regard to the injuries. Undoubtedly, as per the
documentary as well as the oral evidences available on record, it
is evident that neither the injured nor the deceased were taken to
any hospital or clinic for treatment prior to 25.08.1985. As per
prosecution, the person who succumbed to injuries has sustained
injuries of a serious nature; however, the lack of evidence on this
point creates a doubt, which goes in favour of the appellants.
21. The next point which has been argued by the learned
counsel for the appellants regarding the contradictions /
9
CRLA No. - 734 of 1987
discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution witnesses is
also not to be ignored, as there were several persons who have
seen the occurrence, when it took place, but none of the
independent witness has been examined by the prosecution.
Moreover, neither the report (NCR) nor the statements of the
prosecution witnesses speaks about the specific role of the
accused-appellants. On this point, if the statement made by P.W.-
2, Aram Singh, regarding the injury, alleged to have been caused
to the deceased, Atar Singh, by Mansha Ram, is seen where he
has stated that this resulted to his death, also creates doubt, if
seen in the light of post mortem report (Ex.Ka.-2) where the cause
of death is shown due to neurogenic shock caused by injury no. 1.
The benefit of such doubt to give in favour of the accused-
appellants.
22. Reliance to be placed on the judgment of the case Pankaj v.
State of Rajasthan, (2016) 16 SCC 192, where the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held :-
“It is a well-settled principle of law that when the
genesis and the manner of the incident is doubtful,
the accused cannot be convicted. Inasmuch as the
prosecution has failed to establish the circumstances
in which the appellant was alleged to have fired at
the deceased, the entire story deserves to be
rejected. When the evidence produced by the
prosecution has neither quality nor credibility, it
would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such
evidence. After having considered the matter
thoughtfully, we find that the evidence on record in
the case is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of
the appellant. In such circumstances, the appellant
is entitled to the benefit of doubt”.
10
CRLA No. - 734 of 1987
23. In Natthu v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 3547, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:-
“...One of the 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. [Vide Kali Ram v. State of Himachal
Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808; State of Rajasthan v.
Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180; Chandrappa v. State
of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; Upendra Pradhan
v. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124 and Golbar
Hussain v. State of Assam, (2015) 11 SCC 242]. In
the instant matter, considering evidence on record
and analysis made herein above, we are of the
considered opinion that prosecution has concealed
genesis of incident and has not come up with true
facts and the presence of alleged eye witnesses at
the scene of offence appears to be doubtful and
consequently all the accused-appellants are entitled
for benefit of doubt.”
24. Further, considering the age of the accused persons as
mentioned in their statements recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C., both the accused-appellants would now be more than 60
years old, and the mental agony which they seems to have
suffered over the last three decades, also makes them entitled for
sympathetic consideration by this Court.
25. On the basis of considered discussions made herein above,
it is clear that the benefit of doubt exist, which goes to the
accused-appellants. Thus, the present criminal appeal deserves
11
CRLA No. - 734 of 1987
to be allowed on the ground of benefit of doubt as raised by the
learned counsel for the appellants.
26. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed.
27. The order of conviction and sentence of the accused
appellants, namely, Sadhu Singh and Amit Singh, dated
07.03.1987 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge,
Etah is hereby set aside. The appellants are said to be released
on bail and the sureties are discharged.
28. Copy of this judgement along with original records of
learned court below be transmitted to the court concerned for
necessary compliance. Compliance report be submitted to this
Court at the earliest. Office is directed to keep the compliance
report on record.
(Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.)
February 23, 2026
Manoj
Digitally signed by :-
MANOJ KUMAR YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…