Criminal Conviction Can’t Be Sustained On Mere Possibility; View Favourable To Accused Must Prevail If Evidence Admits Two Views: Allahabad High Court

The High Court was considering the criminal appeals preferred against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby all four accused persons were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Sections 302, 34 of the I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Sections 307,34 with the direction that both sentences would run concurrently.

The Division Bench of Justice Garima Prashad and Justice Siddharth held, “Criminal conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of possibility or suspicion. Where the evidence on record admits of two views, the view favourable to the accused must prevail. In the facts of the present case, the surviving appellants in both the appeals are entitled to the benefit of doubt.”

Factual Background

It was the case of the prosecution that on May 25, 1983, the informant Tej Singh, along with some residents of Raibha village, were proceeding towards a well situated near the temple of Vankhandi Mahadev when an altercation took place between Than Singh and the son-in-law of one Nabba alias Nappa. During the said altercation, a quarrel and scuffle took place between them. The persons accompanying them intervened, and the quarrel was pacified. It was further alleged that when Than Singh and Tikam Singh were exercising near a hut situated in the agricultural field of Ganga Singh, the accused persons, namely Raghuveer Singh, Bharat, Natthi, and Jagram came there with a gun, a pistol and knives. Upon reaching there the accused persons stated that Than Singh should be punished as he had beaten the son-in-law of Nabba.

When Than Singh raised an alarm, Tikam Singh, Tej Singh, Shaitan Singh and others rushed to save him. It was further alleged that the accused persons then assaulted Tikam Singh also with knives. As per the prosecution, Raghuveer Singh and Bharat fired from their respective firearms. On hearing the alarm and upon being challenged by the persons who had gathered at the spot, the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. Than Singh and Tikam Singh sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, inquest proceedings were conducted on the dead body of Than Singh and the body was sent for postmortem examination. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 302 and 307.

Reasoning

Considering the factual aspects of the case, the Bench found that the homicidal death of Than Singh was clearly proved from the testimony of the Doctor and the post-mortem report. Noting that the informant himself admitted that he remained away from the place where the assault was actually taking place, the Bench stated that his ability to observe the occurrence clearly and assign a precise role to each accused became doubtful. As per the Bench, this doubt became all the more significant when he claimed that Raghuveer Singh and Bharat fired from close range with the intent to kill.

“If the allegation of close-range firing were correct, some objective corroboration would ordinarily be expected. However, admittedly no empty cartridge was recovered from the place of occurrence. No firearm injury was found either on the deceased or on PW-2. No firearm was recovered from Bharat. In such circumstances, the version of PW-1 regarding firing does not inspire full confidence. Once the allegation of firing against Bharat becomes doubtful, his role in the incident also becomes doubtful”, it added.

The Bench also took note of the material contradiction between the witnesses as to the occurrence. “PW-1 stated that he saw the incident from the temple side and reached the place of occurrence only after the accused had fled. PW-2, however, stated that upon his raising alarm, Tej Singh and Shaitan Singh came from the temple where they were bathing. This contradiction is not merely formal. It goes to the root of the matter, namely whether PW-1 was actually present at the place of occurrence in a position to witness the assault or whether he came later. Such contradiction weakens the prosecution version”, the order read.

The Bench further stated, “No doubt, conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. does not always depend on the injury being grievous. Intention and manner of assault are material. But here the prosecution case itself is uncertain on several material particulars: the exact role of the surviving appellants, the alleged firing, the attribution of knife injuries, and even the reason why Tikam Singh was targeted when he had no connection with the original quarrel. In such circumstances, the uncertainty about the medical evidence concerning his injuries becomes one more factor entitling the appellants to benefit of doubt.”

The Bench was thus of the view that the prosecution had failed to establish a clear and reliable chain of circumstances connecting appellants Natthi and Bharat with the alleged crime. The evidence suffered from inconsistencies, absence of corroborative material, and lack of proof regarding the specific role of the accused.

The Bench thus held that the appeals of Raghuveer Singh and Jagram stood abated on account of their death during pendency of the appeals. Allowing the appeals, insofar as they related to appellants Natthi and Bharat, the Bench ordered, “The judgment and order dated 08.02.1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Agra in Sessions Trial No. 363 of 1983, convicting appellants Natthi and Bharat under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C., are hereby set aside. Appellants Natthi and Bharat are acquitted of all charges by extending to them the benefit of doubt.”

Cause Title: Jag Ram and another v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:51268-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, T. Ghosh, T. Rathore

Respondent: Addl. Govt. Advocate

Click here to read/download Order