- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Prem Datta Gautam v. State Of U.P .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant and eleven co-accused were tried by the IInd Temporary Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, for offences arising out of a shooting incident that occurred at 6:00 p.m. on 22 March 1968 in Village Naunidh, District Aligarh. An FIR was lodged by Bishambar Singh, Gram Pradhan of Village Pachawari, at 7:40 p.m. the same evening. During the incident, Raj Pal sustained gun-shot injuries and later died; several others, including Ombir Singh, Sri Chand, Bishambar Singh, Jaswant Singh and Rajpal Singh, were also injured. The prosecution alleged that the appellant fired a shot with his licensed single-barrel gun while two co-accused fired country-made pistols. All twelve accused were convicted and sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment.
On appeal, the Allahabad High Court doubted the testimony of the injured eyewitnesses but relied on the evidence of Constable Mohabbey Ali, who arrived immediately after the incident and claimed to have recognised four fleeing assailants, including the appellant. The High Court upheld the convictions of those four accused and Register (identified as armed with a pharsa) while acquitting the remaining seven. Four of the convicted persons sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court; their petitions were dismissed, leaving only the appellant’s case for consideration in the present judgment delivered by A. Alagiriswami, J.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the conviction of the appellant could be sustained primarily on the testimony of Constable Mohabbey Ali, given alleged enmity between the appellant and local police officers.
- Whether the appellant’s asserted motive—namely, that he would have targeted Bishambar Singh rather than the deceased Raj Pal—created sufficient doubt to overturn the conviction.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Because of existing enmity with Bishambar Singh (PW 1), the appellant would logically have shot at Bishambar Singh, not Raj Pal; this discrepancy undermines the prosecution case.
- Constable Mohabbey Ali was allegedly biased due to ongoing hostility between the appellant and officials of Police Station Gonda, leading to false implication.
Prosecution/State's Position
- The medical evidence conclusively established that Raj Pal died of gun-shot wounds.
- Constable Mohabbey Ali’s testimony was credible: he recognised only four of the twelve fleeing accused and had no personal motive to falsely implicate the appellant.
- The timing of the police arrival likely curtailed further shooting, explaining why Bishambar Singh was not targeted.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court first reaffirmed that the cause of death—gun-shot wounds—was undisputed. Turning to evidentiary concerns, the Court held that even discounting the testimony of injured eyewitnesses, Constable Mohabbey Ali’s evidence alone established the appellant’s presence and armed participation. The Court rejected the motive-based argument: entrenched group enmity meant the appellant’s choice of target did not undermine the prosecution narrative.
On the allegation of police bias, the Court noted that the appellant’s complaints against police officials arose after the incident; therefore, they could not plausibly have influenced the constable’s contemporaneous observations. The Court found it significant that Mohabbey Ali implicated only four identifiable assailants despite allegedly receiving all twelve names from PW 1—an indication of his credibility. The defence suggestion of false testimony lacked any cross-examination showing personal animus on the constable’s part. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the High Court’s reliance on his testimony was sound and free from legal infirmity.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed; Conviction and Sentence Affirmed.
The Supreme Court’s decision leaves undisturbed the High Court’s judgment upholding the appellant’s conviction. The ruling directly affects only the parties and does not articulate any new legal principle; it primarily endorses the evidentiary sufficiency of a single credible police eyewitness when corroborated by surrounding circumstances.
A. Alagiriswami, J.— The appellant and 11 others were prosecuted and tried before the IInd Temporary Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, under various sections of the Penal Code in respect of an incident which took place at 6 p.m on 22nd March, 1968 in Village Naunidh, 4 miles from Police Station Gonda, District Aligarh. The first information report was lodged by Bishambar Singh, Gram Pradhan of Village Pachawari at 7.40 p.m and he was later examined as PW 1. In that incident one Raj Pal son of Goberdhan received bullet injuries as a result of which he died later. Ombir Singh (PW 10) Sri Chand (PW 2), Bishamber Singh (PW 1), Jaswant Singh and Rajpal Singh had also received various injuries. Admittedly there was a good deal of enmity between the party of the complainant and the party of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge convicted all the 12 accused to various terms of imprisonment. The allegation against the appellant was that he fired a shot with a single barrel gun, and two other accused had countrymade pistols which they also fired and the death of Raj Pal was due to those injuries. The ballistic expert who examined the gun belonging to the appellant, which was a licenced one, found that it was not in a working condition but all the same gave evidence that the spent cartridge which was recovered from the place of occurrence was not fired from the gun of the appellant. Quite obviously this evidence could not be accepted. At the most he could have been in a position to say that he could not say whether the cartridge had been fired from the gun belonging to the appellant. Be that as it may, on appeal the High Court of Allahabad considered that it was not safe to rely upon the evidence of the witnesses who were injured during the incident. But there was the evidence of Mohabbey Ali, constable, who reached the place immediately after the incident and gave evidence that he saw twelve people running away of whom he could recognise four including the appellant, and there was another person who had a gandasa whom he could not recognise. According to the evidence of the other witnesses it was the accused Register who was armed with a pharsa. Accepting that evidence and the evidence of Mohabbey Ali the High Court upheld the conviction of the four (sic) the latter recognised as well as Register but acquitted the other seven. Four of them preferred special leave petitions to this Court and they have all been dismissed. We have now to consider only the case of the appellant.
2. That the death of Raj Pal occurred due to gun shot wounds was clearly established by the medical evidence and even leaving out of account the evidence of other witnesses, the evidence of Mohabbey Ali established that the appellant was armed with a single barrel gun. Two points were urged on his behalf before this Court: One that admittedly there was a good deal of enmity between him and PW 1, Bishambar Singh, and that there was no reason why he should shoot at the deceased Raj Pal instead of shooting at Bishambar Singh. But it is established by evidence in the case that there was bitter enmity between the party of the complainants and the party of the accused and if the appellant chose in the first instance to shoot at one of them rather than another that cannot be said to throw any doubt on the truth of the prosecution case. Possibly, before he could do anything more the approach of the police constables might have made the appellant and others take to their heels. The other point urged, which is the only matter in respect of which the case of the appellant can be said to differ from that of the other accused whose conviction was upheld by the High Court, is that there was enmity between the police officials of Police Station Gonda and the appellant and therefore Constable Mohabbey Ali was falsely deposing against him. It is true that the appellant seems to have sent a number of petitions against the police officials but that was all after the incident. He is said to have given an item of news in a newspaper complaining against the police and it is said that that was responsible for the police officers being inimical towards him as the Circle Officer held an inquiry against the police as a result of appellants complaint. We are not impressed with this argument. That the constable Mohabbey Ali's evidence is trust worthy is seen from the fact that though he says PW 1, Bishambar Singh, gave him the names of all the 12 accused, he gave evidence that he could recognise only 4 of them including the appellant and he could see that another man was carrying a pharsha. There is nothing which prevented him from implicating all the 12 accused if he really wanted to give false evidence. While the appellant might have complained against the police officers there is no particular reason why a mere canstable should get angry and develop an inimical attitude towards the appellant so as to implicate him in a murder case. Even in the cross- examination of the constable it was not suggested that he had any personal enmity against the appellant. The only suggestion was that he was deposing falsely.
3. We are, therefore, satisfied that the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant does not suffer from any infirmity. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Alert