Non Recovery Of Weapon, FIR Filing Delay Not Fatal: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Four Decades Old Double Murder Case
Noting that concurrent findings of fact were well-supported by credible eyewitness and medical evidence, the Apex Court declined to reappreciate the evidence in a matter arising from a decades-old incident and upheld the convictions.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Supreme Court
Confirming the conviction of several persons for causing the death of two individuals in an incident that occurred more than four decades ago, the Supreme Court dismissed criminal appeals filed against the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand.
The Apex Court was hearing criminal appeals challenging concurrent findings of guilt under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, while quoting from its previous ruling in Shahajan Ismail v. The State of Maharashtra, noted that “…the powers of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution are very wide but in criminal appeals this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact save in exceptional circumstances.”
Advocate Devvrat, AOR, represented the appellants, while Kuldeep Parihar, D.A.G., appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Background
The matter arose from a violent confrontation between two related groups following a dispute regarding agricultural land. Several persons sustained serious injuries, and two later succumbed during treatment. Two FIRs were registered, one immediately and another after a few days.
After the trial, the Sessions Court held that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly and inflicted fatal injuries with dangerous weapons. Convictions were recorded under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC and lesser offences relating to rioting.
The Uttarakhand High Court later affirmed the findings based on eyewitness accounts, medical evidence and corroborating circumstances and dismissed the appeals. The present appeals were thereafter filed before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court reiterated that its powers under Article 136 are to be exercised sparingly and not as a routine second appeal on facts. Unless findings of the Trial Court and High Court suffer from perversity, illegality, or omission of material evidence, concurrent conclusions are not to be disturbed.
Emphasising that “the testimony of the injured eyewitness should be generally given due importance unless there are glaring contradictions”, the Court held that “the testimony of an injured eyewitness has its own relevancy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence.”
The medical evidence, the Bench observed, established that the “death of both the deceased persons was the result of ante-mortem injuries.”
On the argument of delayed FIR, the Court noted that the injured were immediately shifted for medical treatment, and the delay in filing the FIR on that account was acceptable. “Delay in filing of the FIR cannot be considered to be fatal to the case of the prosecution when there is direct evidence and when the delay in filing the FIR is well explained”, the Bench remarked.
The Court also rejected the contention that non-recovery of weapons weakened the case, holding that “where in light of unimpeachable oral evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence, non-recovery of murder weapon does not materially affect the case of the prosecution.”
The Bench further declined to invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, while stating that “the nature and extent of these injuries, coupled with the surrounding circumstances, leave no doubt that they were intentionally inflicted.”
Conclusion
Finding no reason to interfere with concurrent findings that were based on credible evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed all the criminal appeals.
The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were upheld, with a direction that the appellants surrender to custody. The Court, however, observed that they are free to apply for remission, which the competent authority may consider independently in accordance with the law.
Cause Title: Om Pal & Ors v. State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1262)
Appearances
Petitioners: Advocates Devvrat, AOR, Shalinder Saini, Shivam Singh, Harshita Sharma, Swati Setia and Nitin Jain
Respondent: Kuldeep Parihar, D.A.G., with Advocates Akshat Kumar, AOR, Ajay Bahuguna, and Ikshita Parihar