Brutal Assault with Lathis Shows Clear Knowledge of Likely Death: Allahabad High Court Upholds 304 IPC Conviction in Group Attack Case

“The nature, number and gravity of injuries, coupled with the manner of assault, clearly establish knowledge that such acts were likely to cause death”,  Allahabad High Court Refuses to Dilute Offence to Mere Grievous Hurt

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, in a long-pending criminal appeal, delivered a significant verdict in Bhoolan and Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, arising from a deadly 1993 group assault that resulted in the death of one Jageshwar. A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad upheld the conviction of appellants Surajpal, Brij Lal and Jagatpal under Sections 304/34 IPC, 325/34 IPC, 323/34 IPC and 506(2) IPC, while modifying their sentence to ten years rigorous imprisonment, in view of the delay and their advancing age.

Rejecting the contention that the act amounted only to grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC, the Court observed, “It is not necessary that there should be a deliberate intention to cause death… what is required is the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, which has to be inferred from the totality of circumstances.”

The appeal, pending since 2001, challenged the judgment of conviction passed by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli in S.T. No. 210/1995, where the accused were initially sentenced to life imprisonment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC. The case stemmed from a group assault with lathis and dandas, targeting the deceased and two other victims, including an advocate.

“Ocular Testimony of Injured Witnesses Cannot Be Disbelieved Merely Because Villagers Were Not Examined” – Court Affirms Evidentiary Primacy of Injured Eye-Witnesses

The High Court refused to give any weight to the argument that non-examination of independent witnesses was fatal to the prosecution’s case. It noted that the eye-witnesses were themselves injured in the same incident, and their testimonies were cogent, natural, and fully corroborated by medical evidence.

The Court emphasized, “The testimony of injured witnesses stands on a higher pedestal, as they are least likely to shield the actual assailants and substitute them with innocent persons.”

It held that once the presence of injured witnesses is medically established, mere non-production of villagers who reached the spot later is immaterial. The prosecution had no obligation to “multiply witnesses”, and what mattered was the quality of evidence, not the quantity.

The trial court had convicted all accused based on the consistent statements of PW-2 and PW-3—both of whom suffered serious injuries—and found their account fully supported by medical records, including X-rays and the post-mortem report.

“Injuries Were Not Caused by Fall—Brutality and Coordination Point to Pre-meditated Group Attack” – Court Discards Defence Theory

On the key defence argument that injuries, particularly stab-like wounds, may have resulted from a fall, the Court carefully analyzed medical and ocular evidence. The post-mortem had revealed six injuries, including compound fractures and two stab-like wounds on the forearm. The defence sought to argue these were inconsistent with lathi blows.

However, the Court noted that the stab injuries were not classical incised wounds but obliquely shaped, narrow, and lacking clean margins. The medical expert had admitted that such injuries could result from falling on a sharp or pointed surface. Nonetheless, the Court concluded that the version of a fall was unconvincing.

The Bench observed, “The deceased had sustained multiple fractures and blunt injuries all over his body, which could not have occurred merely by falling… the coordinated manner of the attack, the choice of location, and the presence of weapons clearly suggest a premeditated assault.”

It added that the possibility of one or two injuries being caused during the fall did not dilute the overall culpability of the accused whose joint act resulted in death.

“Identification on Bright Moonlit Ekadashi Night is Reliable—Accused Known to Victims” – Court Rejects False Implication Argument

The Court also dismissed the plea that the incident occurred at night and hence identification was doubtful. It held that the date of the incident, 4th March 1993, coincided with Ekadashi, a night with sufficient moonlight. More importantly, the victims and accused were co-villagers with pre-existing enmity over land, and hence easily recognisable.

The Bench stated, “Where the assailants are known persons, the requirement of artificial light is considerably diluted… Recognition depends not just on facial features, but also on voice, stature and familiarity.”

The Court found no basis to presume false implication, particularly as the injuries to the complainant’s father and the two injured witnesses were medically proven and corresponded to their statements.

“Conviction Under Section 504 IPC Cannot Be Sustained in Absence of Specific Allegations” – Abuse Not Enough Without Provocation to Breach Peace

While upholding the main convictions, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 504 IPC, finding that the essential ingredients were not made out. The FIR and testimonies merely alleged that abuses were hurled, without specifying the language or showing any provocation leading to breach of peace.

The Court held, “Mere allegation of abuse, without disclosure of specific words or proof of resulting provocation, does not fulfil the statutory requirements of Section 504 IPC.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P., the Bench reiterated that intentional insult must be of such a nature as to provoke violence or public disorder, which was not evident in this case.

“Life Sentence Modified to 10 Years R.I. Considering Delay and Age” – High Court Balances Justice with Equity

Given that the incident occurred more than 30 years ago and the appeal had been pending since 2001, the Court took a humanitarian view. The surviving appellants were all over 50 years of age. Accordingly, the Court reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 IPC.

The Court further directed that the fine imposed be enhanced from ₹2,000 to ₹20,000 per appellant, with the aggregate amount of ₹60,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.

“Balancing the demands of justice with considerations of equity, the sentence imposed deserves to be modified,” the Court concluded.

The appellants, who were on bail, were directed to surrender within 15 days, failing which they were to be taken into custody by the trial court to serve their sentence.

Date of Decision: 16 January 2026