Holding

The High Court correctly upheld the convictions, finding that the prosecution evidence, including the eye‑witness testimonies, was reliable and sufficient to establish the offences under Sections 302 read with 149 and 148 IPC.

Summary

The trial court acquitted the accused of murder, but the High Court convicted them under Sections 302 read with 149 and 148 of the IPC. The appellants argued that the FIR was lodged late, that the eye‑witnesses (PW‑1 and PW‑4) gave contradictory and unreliable statements, that their testimony conflicted with the post‑mortem report, and that there was no motive for the crime. The Supreme Court examined the delay in filing the FIR, the credibility of the eye‑witnesses, the consistency of their accounts with medical evidence, and the alleged lack of motive. It found that the delay was satisfactorily explained, the minor inconsistencies were insignificant, and the ocular testimony was corroborated by the autopsy findings. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR defeats the prosecution case
Whether the eye‑witness testimonies of PW‑1 and PW‑4 are reliable despite minor inconsistencies and the timing of their statements
Whether contradictions between the ocular testimony and the post‑mortem report create reasonable doubt
Whether a motive for the accused is necessary to sustain conviction under Sections 302, 149 and 148 IPC
Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused on the basis of the above contentions

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 302

Subjects

murderculpable homicide not amounting to murdercommon intentioneye‑witness testimonyFIR delaymotivecriminal trialconvictionSections 302, 149, 148 IPC

Judgment

INDRA PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P . 991

.\.

1 case. Trial court disbelieving the prosecution version, A
acquitted them. High Court, in appeal, convicted the
accused u/s 302/149 and s.148 IPC. Hence the present
appeals by two of the accused.
Appellants-accused contended that there was delay
in lodging FIR; that there were several contradictions in B
the evidence of PWs 1 and 4; that evidence of PW-4 was
,IA not reliable as the fact that his statement was recorded.
by the police after 7-8 days of the incident renders his
presence on the scene of occurrence doubtful; that·
ocular testimony of ;PWs 1 and 4 were at variance with c
the medical evidence; that there was no motive to commit.
the murder; that the deceased being a member of gang.
of dacoits might have been killed in gang rivalry and
accused had been falsely implicated; and that PWs 1 and
4 were interested witnesses. D
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
i
,; HELD: 1.1. The High Court has subjected the
prosecution evidence to critical scrutiny and has reached
the conclusion that so far the appellants are concerned, . E
the charges under Sections 302 read with Section 149,
IPC and Section 148, IPC are fully established against
them. The prosecution has successful!~ proved its case
against the appellants. [Para 15] [1004-D-E]
1.2. The testimony of P.Ws.1 and 4 has been found F
-~ to be satisfactory, consistent and credible by the High
Court. Both the witnesses have been subjected to
searching cross-examination by the defence, but nothing
tangible material has been extracted from their evidence
to create any shadow of doubt to disbelieve and discard .G
their truthful testimony. [Para 13] [1003-H; 1004-A-B]
,A.
1.3. The approach of the trial judge in appreciating
the evidence of the eye- witness was wholly unwarranted
and uncalled for. The presence of P.W. 4 at the time of the
incident has
, I
been fully proved on record and his H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008]' 16 S.C.R.

A evi~~m~e i~ CQn~i~\~nt arid trustworthy to prove that the
..
accused persons had fired gun shots at the deceased on
the day of occurrence when he along with deceased; his
father P.W. 1, and other co-villagers were returning fr~m
the railway station to their village. It has come in the
B evidence of P.W. 1 that his son was a patient of asthma
and therefore he used to be vigilant that his son should
not fake much physical strain and because of that reason
he went to the railway station to share with his son the
burden of the load of one bag containing 15 kgs. of 'khalli'.
c There is nothing wrong if P.W. 1 had gone to the railway
station for extending some help to his son. Thus, The
entire approach of the t~ial court in appreciating the
evidence of the eye witnesses is perverse and grossly
improper. [Para 11) (1000-D-H; 1001-A]
D 1.4. If the eye witness is related to the deceased; his
evidence has to be accepted if found to be reliable and
believable because he would honestly be interested in
ensuring that real culprits are punished. [Para 14] (1004-
B-C]
E 1.5. There was no deliberate delay ori the part of PW
1 in reporting the crime to the police. P.W. 1 has given
explanation that due to fear from the accused and non-
availability of conveyance, he could not promptly go to
the police station to lodge FIR of the occurrence. In the
F circumstances of the case_, the explanation offered by
P.W. 1 for not lodging the FIR soon after the occurrence,
was quite satisfactory and convincing. [Para 9] (997-G;
998-B]
1.6. High Court has rightly held that the trial judge
G has given undue importance to minor inconsistencies
appearing in the statements of the two eye-witnesses
which are of very trivial nature and the accused could not
have been acquitted on such insignjficant contradictions.
P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 have categorically rstated before the
H
INDRA PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 993

,. Court that in addition to torch light it was moonlit night A
--1
in which the accused were easily recognized by them. It
is the evidence of P.W. 7 that at about 9:30 a.m. on the
following morning of the incident, he took torches from
P.W. 1 and the witness 'S' and on inspection thereof,
these were found in working condition. [Para 1O] [999-G- 8
H; 1000-A]
,I -+ 1.7. The High Court has rightly held that there was
no real inconsistency between the ocular testimony of
eye-witnesses and medical evidence. The finding of the
trial judge on this point was contrary to the proper
c
appreciation of the eye-witnesses account corroborated
by the medical evidence. [Para 12] [1003-C]

1.8. It is not correct to say that there was no motive
for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased D
because as per the prosecution evidence, the accused,
bore grudge against the brother of the deceased at
i whose instance dacoity was committed and P.W. 1
>
appeared as a defence witness for an accused therein.
There is no evidence to support the contention that since E,
the deceased was a member of the gang of dacoits, there
was every possibility that he might have been killed in a
gang rivalry and the appellants have been falsely
implicated in the present case. [Para 13] [1003-0-F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
F
~ No. 1247 of 2006 .

. From the final Judgment and Order dated 9.12.2005 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal
No. 2004of1981. G
'·

~
Daya Krishan Sharma and Kaushal K.L. Gautam for the
Appellants.

S.R. Singh, Mohd. Fuzail Khan and Anil Kumar Jha for the
Respondent. H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by t-

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. Both these appeals
arising out of the common judgment· and order dated ·
09.12.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High.Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal No. 2004 of
B
1981, were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this
common order. By the impugned order, the High Court while }- \
setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated "June 5, 1981
recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in
Sessions Trial No. 293 of 1980, convicted the accused under
c Section 302 read with Se~tion 149 and Section 148 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life
and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Subedar Singh (P.W. 1)
D has got three sons, namely, Jai Karan Singh, Shiv Karan Singh
and Ram Karan Singh. P.W. 1 lodged F.l.R. (Ex. Ka.1) on
24:07.1980 at 6:15 a.m. at Police Station, Sumerpur situated -Y
at a distance of about 15 kms. from village Patyora, alleging
therein that in the year ·1975 dacoity was committed at ttie
E house of his co-villager Lalloo Singh, who doubted that the
offence was committed at the instance of his son Ram Karari
Singh and on that account Lalloo Singh had entertained grudge
against him and his family members.
. One. Raja
. . bhiah, resident
~

of village Surauli was also involved in the said dacoity case and
F P.W. 1 appeared as a defence witness for accused Rajabhiah
and for that reason also, sons of Lalloo Singh used to threaten .
··~
him with dire consequences. He alleged that on 23rd July, 1980
his son Jai Karan Singh had gone to the market at Sumerpur
and in the evening P.W. 1 went to Yamuna South Bank-railway
station to receive his son, who was to bring some essential ~""
G
articles from the market. At about 7:30 p.m., the train reached
;....,_
at Yamuna South Bank station. Jai Karan Singh along with Shiv
Nath Kewat, Dayalu (P.W. 4) and many other persons got down
. from the train. He took gunny bag containing 15 seers of 'khalli'
from Jai Karan Singh who was carrying one more bag
H
INDRA PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [LOKESHWAR 995
SINGH PANTA, J.]
containing 3-4 kgs. of sugar. All of them proceeded towards A
__, the village. At about 8:30 p.m., they took a turn from Link Road
for the pathway going to the village and Jai Karan Singh was
going a· few paces ahead of them. Ayodhya Singh son of Lalloo
Singh and Indra Pal Singh son of Prithvi Singh armed with
~
DBBL guns and Ranvijay Singh son of Lalloo Singh along with B
' one Jagat Singh son of Rajwa Singh armed with SBBL guns
. and Ram Bahadur Singh son of Lalloo Singh who was carrying
I _f lathi and torch were waiting for the arrival of his son Jai Karan
Singh by the side of the pathway. Ayodhya Singh fired gunshot
at Jai Karan Singh and immediately thereafter Ranvijay Singh~ c
Jagat Pal Singh and Indra Pal Singh indiscriminately fired
rounds at Jai Karan Singh with their respective guns. Jai Karan
Singh, on receiving fire arm injuries, fell down near the water.
channel and ridge of the field of one Brinda Singh towards east
side of the path way. The.witnesses present at the spot flashed
D
torches at the faces of the accused and recognized them in
torch light. The accused, after committing the crime, fled away
from the scene of occurrence. ·
'i
3. P.W. 1 with the help of his co-villagers took the body of
deceased Jai Karan Singh to his house at village Patyora. He E
got FIR scribed from his son Shiv Karan Singh (P.W. 5) at 3:00
a.m, on the following day of the incident and thereafter went to
the Police Station, Sumerpur. He handed over the report to the .
H.M. Rajendra Veer Singh (P.W. 6) who prepared Check Report
on the basis of which FIR (Ex. Ka.1) came to be registered. F
Sub-Inspector Asha Ram Tripathi (P.W. 7) took up investigation
4 of the crime in his hand and rushed to the place where the dead
body of Jai Karan Singh was laid. He drew inquest
proceedings on the dead body and prepared an Inquest Report
(Ex.Ka.5) and other nec~ssary papers (Ex. Ka.6 & Ka. 7) and G
then handed over the dead body in a sealed cover (Ex.Ka.9)
along with other necessary papers to Constables Raghuraj
_,J
Singh and Raja Ram for being taken to the doctor for post
mortem. He also recorded statements of the witnesses. Site
Plan (Ex. Ka.12) was also prepared and from the place of
H
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 16-S.C.R.

A occurrence blood-stained sample was taken into possession
vide Memo (Ex. Ka;9). Two empty cartridges and. 3 tiklis, etc.
r-
were collected vide Me·mo (Ex.Ka,10) from the s'cene of
occurrence. After receipt of thepost mortem report (Ex.Ka ..5)
from Dr. P.N, Singh (P.W. 2) ancl on completion ofJhe
B investigation, P.W. 7 submitted charge sheet against the
accused persons. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and
claimed trial.
+.' I

4. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 - Subedar Singh,
father of the deceased and Dayalu P.W, 4 as eye witnesses of ,..
c the occurrence; P.W. 2 Dr. P.N. Singh conducted autopsy on
the body of Jai Karan Singh on 25 July, 1980 at 11:00 a.m.;
P.W. 3 - H.G. Dibiya produced the case papers In the court;
}'
P.W. 5- Shiv Karan Singh, brother of the deceased, was scribe
of report (Ex. Ka. 1) on the dictation of his father; P.W. 6- H.M.
D Rajendra Vir Singh prepared the check report at the police
station on the basis of the written report handed over to him by
P.W. 1 who made an entry regarding registration of the crime
in G.D. and P.W. 7 Sub-Inspector Asha Ram Tripathi.
-r
Investigating Officer of the case. I-

E
5. The accused in their statements recorded_under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 denied the
allegations of the prosecution. They pleaded that they have
been framed in a false case due to enmity. The learned trial
F judge disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
and found the accused not guilty of the charges levelled against
,
them and accordingly, acquitted them.
+-
I.
I-
6. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal of the accused
recorded by the trial judge, the State of U.P. filed an appeal
G before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court ii

by its impugned judgment and order allowed the said appeal
~-·
and convicted the accused persons under Section 302 read ·
with Section 149 and Section 148 IPC and sentenced them in
the manner noticed above. The judgment of the High Court
H reveals that accused-Ram Bahadur has died, therefore, the
INDRA PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [LOKESHWAR 997
SINGH PANTA, J.]

A
' -1 appeal against him stood abated by order dated 03 June,
2005.

7. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment
and order of the High Court, Indra Pa! Singh and Jag at Singh,
the appellants herein, filed Criminal Appeal No. 1247 of 206 8
and Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2007 respectively. It appe~rs
from the record that Ayodhya Singh and Ranvijay Singh have
I~ not questioned the judgment of the High Court holding them
guilty of the charges.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants c
and the learned counsel for the State and they have taken us
through the evidence of the witnesses and other materials on
record.

9. Learned senior counsel for the appellants first submitted D
that there was considerable delay in lodging the FIR (Ex. Ka1)
by P.Y..J. 1 t.herefore, no reliance can be placed on such a
i- document. On examination of the evidence, it is clea~ly
I>
established that the occurrence took place on 23.07 .1980 at
about 08:30 p.m. near village Patyora in which the accused E
allegedly fired gun shots at Jai Karan Singh and FIR of the
occurrence was lodged at about 6: 15 a.m. on the following
morning at Police Station, Sumerpur which is situated at a
distance of about 15 km from the place of occurrence. The High
Court observed in its order that no specific question was put
F
to P.W. 1-Subedar Singh, the informant, as to why he did not
~ lodge FIR of the occurrence at police post Surauli which is
quite near to village Patyora. On appraisal of the evidence of
P.W. 1, we find that he has given explanation that due to fear
from the accused and non-availability of conveyance, he coulp
not promptly go to the police station to lodge FIR of the G
occurrence. He stated that after the murder of Jai Karan Singh
4 by the accused, he with the help of his co-villagers took th~
dead body of his son from the place of occurrence to his house
and since they were all wailing and grief stricken he got the
report of the occurrence scribed by his second son Shiv Karan H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A Singh (P.W.5) at about 3:00 a.m. on the following morning and
then at about 4:00 a.m. he proceeded to the police station,
Sumerpur and handed over the written report to the police
official presentthere. In these circumstances, the explanation
offered by P.W. 1-Subedar Singh for not lodging the FIR soon
B after the occurrence, in our view, was quite satisfactory and
convincing and there was no deliberate delay on his part in
reporting. the crime to the police. The first contention therefore,
cannot sustain.

10. It was next contended on behalf of the appellants that
C the learned trial judge has noticed several contradictions and . '
omissions in the versions of P.W. 1 - Subedar Singh and P.\N.
4 - Dayalu, the alleged eye witnesses and therefore, their
evidence has been rightly rejected by him, but on the contrary
the High Court has mis-appreciated the evidence and found the
D accused guilty on unsatisfactory and unbelievable evidence. In
order to appreciate this submission, we have independently
. I
examined the evidence of both the witnesses. It is the evidence
of P .W. 1 that on 23rd July he had sent his son Jai Karan Singh
(deceased) to Sumerpur market by train for purchasing khalli
E for the cattle and sugar for household use and his son was to
return to the village in the same evening and therefore he went
to the South Block railway station where the train reached at
?tbout 8:00 p.m. Jai Karan Singh got down from the train and
he was carrying one gunny bag containing 15 kgs of khalli and
F second bag containing 3 kgs. sugar. He took gunny bag of khalli
from his son and started going to their house along with Shiv
Nath, Laali, Dayalu (P.W. 4) and others who also alighted from ·-1- I

the same train. Jai Karan Singh was going few paces ahead
of him and other co-villagers. They left the Link Road and took ·
G turn on the pathway leading to their village and when Jai Karan .
Singh reached near the field of one Brinda Singh, Ram Bahadur
Singh (accused-dead) shouted that their enemy had reached
and should be killed. Ayoqhya Singh fited at Jai Karan Singh
with DBBL gun followed by Jagat Singh, appellant iri Criminal
H Appeal No.· 90 of 2007; Indra Pal Singh appellant in Criminal
•
INDRA PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [LOKESHWAR 999
• SINGH PANTA, J.]

-" i Appeal No.1247 of 2006 and Ranvijay Singh each fired at his A
son with their respective guns and on receiving the fire arm
inj'uries, Jai Karan Singh fell near the water channel of the field
of Brinda Singh. P.W. 1 and other persons accompanying him
recognized all the accused in the torches' light which they were
carrying with them and also in the moonlit night. the accused, B
after committing the crime, fled away from the scene of
~ occurrence. He requested Jagani, his co-villager, who was also
;
, coming back from the railway station and going to the village,
to inform the members of his family about the murder of Jai
Karan Singh. He with the help of his companions present at the c
place of occurrence took the dead body of his son to his house.

---, P. W. 4 - Dayalu fully corroborated the testimony of P. W.
1. He deposed that he recognized the appellants and other
accused persons clearly in the moonlit night and in the light of
torches flashed by Shiv Nath and Ram Bahadur Singh at the D
time of occurrence. The trial judge has disbelieved the version
i of P.W. 4 - Dayalu on the ground that the witness only stated
j
that accused Ram Bahadur Singh and witness Shiv Nath (not
examined) were accompanying P.W. 1 and deceased Jai
Karan Singh and they flashed their torches and no other person E
was in possession of any torch, whereas P.W. 1-Subedar Singh
stated that he and Shiv Nath flashed torches on the faces of
the accused. This minor discrepancy appearing in the
evidences of P.W.1 and P.W. 4 is insignificant and immaterial
to discard the testimony of P.W. 4 that he wa~ not present at F
-\- the place of occurrence. P.W. 1 has stated in the FIR that he
and Shiv Nath flashed torches on the faces of the accused and
in the torch light the accused were clearly recognized who after
committing crime, had fled away from the scene of occurrence.
P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 have categorically stated before the Court G
.(
that in addition to torch light it was moonlit night in which the
.-1 accused were easily recognized by them. It is the evidence of
P.W. 7 that at about 9:30 a.m. on the following morning of the
incident, he took torches from P.W. 1 and Shiv Nath and on
inspection thereof, these were found in working condition. Thus, H
--i
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A the High Court has rightly held that the trial judge has given
undue importance to such minor inconsisteneies appearing in
the statements of the two eye witnesses which are of very trivial
nature and the accused could not have been acquitted on such
insignificant contradictions.

11. The learned senior counsel then contended that the
statement of P.W. 4 was recorded by the Investigating Officer
after about 7-8 days from the date of occurrence which would
also prove that P.W. 4 was notpresent on the spot as projected -
by the prosecution. It is the evidence.of P.W. 4. that in the early
C morning of the following day of occurrence, he had gone to
Hamirpur for doing work and stayed there for about 7-8 days:
The trial judge disbelieved the testimony of this witness on the
ground that ttie witness could not disclose the name of the shop
keeper from whom he purchased blade for his randdha at
·D Sumerpur market on the day of occurrence. We are of the
considered view that the approach of the trial judge in
appreciating the. evidence of the eye witness was wholly
unwarranted and uncalled for. The presence of P.W. 4 at the
time of the incident has been fully proved on record and his
E evidence is consistent and trustworthy to prove that the accused
persons had fired gun shots at Jai Karan Singh on the day of
occurrence when he along with deceased Jai Karan Singh; his
father P.W. 1, and other co-villagers were returning from the
railway station to their village. The trial judge observed that as
F per the post mortem repo·rt deceased Jai Karan Singh was a
young man of 35 years of age and of good. built and, therefore
there was no need for P.W. 1-Subedar Singh to go to th~
railway station to take a bag of khalli from Ns son and carrY'
the same from the railway station to the village. It has come in
G the evidence of P.W. 1 that his son Jai Karan Singh was a
patient:of asthma and therefore he used tq be vigilant that his
son should. not take much physical strain a11d because of that
reason hewent to the railway station to share with ~is son the
burden of th.e load of one bag containing 15 kgs. of 'khalll. We
H dp not find anything wrong if P.W. 1 ha_d gone .tq,the railway
INDRA PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [LOKESHWAR 1001
SINGH PANTA, J.]

.,.
A
station for extending some help to his son. Thus, The entire A
1 approach of the trial court in appreciating the evidence of the
eye witnesses is perverse and grossly improper.

12. Learned senior counsel for the appellants next
contended that the ocular testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 4·has been 8
rightly discarded by the learned trial judge as their testimony
is at variance with the medical evidence. It was contended that
~i both the eye witnesses have stated that 4 gun shots were fired
at the victim, but a perusal of the post mortem report wou!d go .
to show that P.W. 2 - Dr. P.N. Singh found only 3 fire arm
wounds on the body of the deceased. We have examined the
c
evidence of Dr. P.N. Singh, who at the relevant time, was posted
as Surgeon at District Hospital, Hamirpur, and conducted
autopsy on the dead body of Jai Karan Singh on July 25, 1980
at about 10:00 a.m. and found the following ante mortem
injuries:- D
I
1. Gun shot wound of entry 4.5 cm X 4 cm X brain deep
1 on the left side of head near the external ear, upper part
~
of external ear was lacerated, the brain matter was seen
coming out of the wound, tattooing was present all around, E
fracture of left temporal bone was present.

2. Gun shot wound of entry 2.5 cm X 2 cm X bone deep
on the left side of upper part of the neck near the ear
lobule, lower part of the external ear with ear lobule was
F
lacerated, tattooing was present.
-i
3. Gun shot wound of exit 14 cm. X 6 cm X brain deep on
the left side of forehead and face, extending to the left eye,
nose and right eye,
G
4. Gun shot wound of entry 1.5 cm X 1.5 cm X chest cavity
deep on the right side of the chest in mid-auxiliary line.

5. Gun shot wound of exit 2 cm X 2 cm X ctiest cavity
deep on left side of chest, lower part in posterior auxiliary
line 16 cm below and behind the'left nipple. H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 $.C.R.

A 6. Gun shot wound of exit 3 cm X 3 cm X abdominal cavity
deep on the left side of back, 4 cm outer to mid·line.
·.--
. Face was disfigured due to injuries and left eye destroyed
completely and the right eye was· collapsed. On internal
.B examination of the dead body, Dr. P.N. Sing~.:_ P.W. 2 observed
that there was fracture of left temporal, parietal, frontal and left
lower jaw and both upper jawbones. Membranes of the brain
were torn and lacerated at several places. The brain was pulpy
and seen coming out of the wound. The bone of the skull was
C fractured. Five small rounded pellets were recovered from the
cranial cavity. ·

There was fracture. of the left 8th rib behind and right 7th
· . rib in the front. Pleura were lacerated at several places. The
right Jung was lacerated and lower lobe at two places. The
D pericardium was punctured at 4 places, two in front and two . I

behind. The heart was empty and punctured at four places, .... -~
corresponding to that in the pericardium. There was about half. t- .. ~
litre blood in the right chest cavity. Two wadding were recovered.·.· ...
from the left side chest cavity arid three pea sized pellets were
E recovered from one in between 6th and 7th· ribs on the left side
and one pellet in between 3rd and 4th rib on the left side and
n.ea.r the lower part of sternum with the fracture of sternum.

· · In the opinion of the doctor, the.death of Jai 'Karan Singh
wa~ as a result of head injuries and cerebral laceration and
F' shock and those injuries were' sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to ~ause his death. A perusal. pf)he post mortem
report.would go to.show that.gun shot wounds of exhibit nos. 5
and 6 were corresponding to gun shot wounds of entry nos. 2
and 4. Injury' no. 3- lacerated gun shot wound of exit 14 cm X
G 6 cm X brain deep on left sides of forehead and:face extending I

on left ey~. nose and right eye was corresponding to ihjury no. \

1 - lacerated wounds (gun shot wound) of entry 4.5 cm X 4cm
X brain de'ep on left side head near external ear, upper part of
internal ear lacerated, brain matter coming out -of the \\found.
H Looking to the size: of both the wounds i.e. one of entry and one
INDRA PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. [LOKESHWAR . 1003
SINGH PANTA, J.]
-i of exit (injury nos. 1 and 3) which would appear with two shots A
fired from gun hitting the deceased on his head over lapping
on left side of his head because in that position only the size
of the wound of exit may be 14 cm X 6cm X brain deep. On
internal examination of the deceased, left temporal parietal anq .
frontal bones were found fractured. Left lower jaw was also .B
found fractured. The brain was pulpy and seen coming out of
!-I the wound. The bone of the skull was also found fractured. Thus,
the High Court has rightly held that there was no real
inconsistency between the ocular testimony of eye witnesses
and medical evidence. The finding of the learned trial judge on c
this· point was contrary to the proper appreciation of the eye
witnesses 1 account corroborated by the medical evidence and
the High Court is right in rejecting the said finding of the trail
court.
13. The learned senior counsel for the appellants then D
contended that there was no motive for the accused to commit
-t the murder of Jai Karan Singh because as per the prosecution
" evidence, the accused, if any, bore grudge against Ram Karan
Singh, the brother of the deceased at whose instance dacoity
was committed at the house of Lalloo Singh and P.W. 1 E
Subedar Singh appeared as a defence witness for accused
Raja bhiah. The learned counsel also contended that since the
deceased was a member of the gang of dacoits, there was
every possibility that he might have been killed in a gang rivalry
and the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present F
r- case. There is no evidence on record to support this contention
and it deserves to be rejected. It was urged by the learned
senior counsel that P.Ws. 1 and 4 are interested witnesses and
as such no implicit reliance can be placed on their testimony
connecting the appellants with the commission of the crime. It G
is no doubt true that P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased.1P.W.
~~
4 is a co-villager of P.W. 1 who has corroborated the testimony
of P.W. 1 on all material aspect of the case and has clearly
recognized the accused persons who on the day'of occurrence
committed the murder of Jai Karan Singh. The testimony of H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R
,..,..

A P:Ws.1 and 4 has been found to be satisfactory; consistent and r- '-

credible by the High Court. Both the witnesses have been
subjected to searching cross-examination by the defence, but
nothing tangible material has been extracted from their
evidence to create any shadow of doubt to disbelieve and
B discard their truthful testirr1ony.

14. It is well-settled that if the eye witness is related to the )...~
deceased, his evidence has to be accepted if found to be
reliable and believable because he would honestly be
interested in ensuring that real culprits are punished. We do no
c find any merit in any of the submissions of the appellants;
therefore, we confirm the convictions.

15. On our examination of the judgment of the High Court,
we find that the High Court has subjected the prosecution
D evidence to critical scrutiny and has reached the conclusion that
so far the appellants herein are concerned, the charges under
Sections 302 read with Section 149, IPC and Section 148, IPC t
are fully established. against them. We are, therefore, satisfied ..
that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against
E the appellants.
16. We, therefore, concur with the view of the High Court
Ci·nd affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants,
di~rniss these appeals.

F K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.
r