- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of U.P v. Ram Bahadur Singh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The incident occurred on 6-12-1974 at about 4:30 p.m. during a property dispute between the deceased, Onkar Nath Singh, and the four accused persons. When PW 4 Jagdish Baksh Singh was ploughing a disputed field, the accused objected, leading to an altercation. Bhanu Pratap Singh, armed with a gun, fired at Onkar Nath Singh, hitting him in the chest and again as he attempted to flee; the deceased died on the spot. An FIR was lodged by PW 1 at 7:15 p.m., and investigation commenced immediately.
The Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki, convicted Bhanu Pratap Singh under Section 302 IPC and the remaining three accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. On appeal, the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) acquitted all four accused, citing serious infirmities in the prosecution case. The State of Uttar Pradesh and a private complainant sought to challenge this acquittal before the Supreme Court, resulting in the present criminal appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court’s acquittal of the four accused was so unreasonable or perverse that the Supreme Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to interfere.
- Whether inconsistencies between the eyewitness testimony and the medical evidence, and the unexplained injuries on the prime accused, undermined the prosecution’s version of events.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the High Court’s findings and agreed that significant discrepancies existed in the prosecution evidence:
- Distance of firing: Eyewitnesses claimed the accused fired from 18–20 feet, but the medical evidence recorded tattooing and scorching consistent with a shot fired from about four feet.
- Number of gunshot injuries: The prosecution alleged two shots, yet the post-mortem revealed only one gunshot entry and exit wound, casting doubt on the narrative.
- Injuries to accused: Bhanu Pratap Singh had serious head and lacerated injuries for which the prosecution offered no plausible explanation, suggesting a possible altercation inconsistent with the prosecution story.
Given these infirmities, the Court concluded that the High Court’s assessment was a “plausible view” of the evidence. Under Article 136, interference is warranted only when the lower court’s appreciation of evidence is manifestly erroneous or results in grave miscarriage of justice. Finding neither, the Supreme Court refused to disturb the acquittal.
Holding and Implications
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, thereby upholding the High Court’s acquittal of all four accused.
DISMISSED
Implications: The accused remain acquitted, and the prosecution stands conclusively rejected. The decision turns on fact-specific assessment of evidentiary inconsistencies and does not establish a new legal precedent.
Order
1. Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 1064 of 1996.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 1787 of 1996 has been preferred by the State of U.P against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad at Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 1979. Against the very same judgment one private party has also filed a criminal appeal by way of special leave. In both these appeals the acquittal of the four accused persons is challenged. The accused were tried by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki alleging that they caused the death of Onkar Nath Singh. The incident occurred on 6-12-1974 at 4.30 p.m There was a property dispute between Onkar Nath Singh on the one hand and the accused persons on the other. On the date of the incident, PW 4 Jagdish Baksh Singh was ploughing his field with a tractor. The accused persons raised objections to the ploughing of the field by Jagdish Baksh Singh. It seems that there was a wordy altercation. Accused Bhanu Pratap Singh, who was armed with a gun, fired a shot and hit on the chest of Onkar Nath Singh. When Onkar Nath Singh tried to run away from the place, then he was shot again. Onkar Nath Singh fell on the ground after running a few paces. PW 1 Bikram Shah Singh and PW 4 Jagdish Baksh Singh snatched the gun from Bhanu Pratap Singh. Onkar Nath Singh died on the spot. The first information statement was given by PW 1 at about 7.15 p.m on the same day and PW 8 recorded the same and started investigation of the case.
3. PW 3 Dr V.N Agarwal examined the dead body of Onkar Nath Singh and prepared Ext. Ka 3, post-mortem report. There were two injuries on the body of deceased Onkar Nath Singh. One gunshot wound of entry 6 cm × 4 cm × tissue-deep on front of left-side chest upper part and the other exit injury of 1 cm × 1 cm × tissue-deep on right-side back lower part with direction forward and upward. The doctor opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage. The Sessions Judge found all the four accused persons guilty of murder. Bhanu Pratap Singh was convicted for the offence under Section 302 simpliciter and the other three accused persons were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34.
4. In the appeal preferred by the accused persons, the High Court found that there were serious infirmities in the prosecution case. It is found that oral evidence given by the eyewitnesses was inconsistent with the medical evidence given by PW 3. As per the oral evidence, the accused Bhanu Pratap Singh was standing at a distance of 18 to 20 feet away from the deceased Onkar Nath Singh when he fired. Medical evidence to the effect that tattooing and scorching was present on the adjoining skin, that could have been caused only if the firing had been done from a distance of four feet. Reason given by the High Court cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. It may also be noted that the accused Bhanu Pratap Singh had sustained serious injuries on his body. He was examined by PW 1 Dr A.P Mahanti. One injury was an incised wound on the top of the head in the intraparietal region, scalp-deep and there were other lacerated injuries. The prosecution could not give any rational explanation as to how the accused Bhanu Pratap Singh sustained these injuries. Moreover, according to the prosecution there were two gunshot injuries at the instance of Bhanu Pratap Singh and both of them hit the deceased whereas the injuries on the body of the deceased could only show that Onkar Nath Singh received only one gunshot. All these are not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. It naturally creates suspicion and under these circumstances we feel that the High Court has taken a plausible view. This is not a fit case where this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 can interfere with such findings. These two appeals fail and are dismissed.
Alert