Evidence of Related Witnesses Can’t Be Brushed Aside Merely Due to Their Relationship with the Victim: Allahabad High Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case

“Statements of P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 in Court Are Consistent and Natural—Prior Affidavits Were Manipulated”, Allahabad High Court (Bench comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi) delivered a detailed and emphatic ruling affirming the conviction of two accused under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of Thakurdeen and attempt to murder two other individuals.

The Court upheld the trial court’s 1983 judgment after comprehensively analyzing the credibility of related eyewitnesses, medical-ocular consistency, and legitimacy of motive, concluding that all evidentiary links had been fully established.

The case pertains to an incident dated November 26, 1982, wherein Thakurdeen, son of informant Ghanjua, was murdered in village Kanakhera, District Jalaun, allegedly by Shambhu and Lakhan using tabbals (a sharp weapon). The motive stemmed from a land dispute arising after the remarriage of Thakurdeen’s widowed sister-in-law, Janakiya, to accused Shambhu. Tensions escalated after the informant began preparing for litigation to reclaim agricultural land originally held by Raghubir (Janakiya’s deceased husband).

On the fateful day, eyewitnesses P.W.-2 Ghanjua, P.W.-3 Rasna, and P.W.-4 Kadora testified to having seen the accused ambushing Thakurdeen in a field and killing him with tabbals. When challenged, accused Shambhu allegedly fired upon Ghanjua and Rasna with a country-made pistol, attempting to murder them.

Delay in FIR – Not Fatal

The incident occurred at 7:30 a.m., and the FIR was lodged at 10:15 a.m.—a delay of less than three hours, which the Court found reasonable given the 10 km distance to the police station and the immediate steps taken by the informant.

“...an incident which occurred on 26.11.1982 at about 7:30 a.m. FIR is lodged promptly... There appears no unreasonable delay in lodging FIR. The culminating effect of all these facts is that there is no delay...” [Para 30]

Credibility of Eyewitnesses – Related but Reliable

Despite the accused questioning the credibility of eyewitnesses—notably P.W.-2 (father of the deceased) and P.W.-3 & P.W.-4 (co-villagers and same biradari)—the Court reaffirmed their testimony as consistent, natural, and believable, withstanding extensive cross-examination.

“Statements of P.W.-3 Rasna and P.W.-4 Kadora, cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they allegedly gave some affidavits stating that they had not seen the occurrence... they supported the prosecution version to the hilt.” [Para 54]

“Even if they had voluntarily given some affidavits earlier... it would not make any difference. It is their statements on oath before the court that constitute evidence.” [Para 54]

Medical Evidence – Corroborative, Not Contradictory

The medical evidence by Dr. H.G. Gupta (P.W.-6) confirmed that the injuries were consistent with a sharp-edged weapon like tabbal. Though two puncture wounds were raised as points of contention, the Court clarified that such wounds could have been caused by a tabbal with pointed ends, as described by the witnesses.

“Punctured wound on the deceased have clearly been explained by the prosecution... Doctor conceded that such wounds could be caused by tabbal.” [Paras 66–67]

Motive – Land Dispute Validated by Documentary Evidence

Though motive is not essential where direct evidence exists, the Court still found ample motive stemming from land disputes and attempts by Shambhu to consolidate rights over land that Ghanjua intended to reclaim.

“Though prosecution has not filed any document to show that Ghanjua initiated legal proceedings, Ex. Ka-14 CH-Form shows possession disputes and remarriage of Janakiya with Shambhu—establishing motive.” [Para 57]

Non-Recovery of Weapon – Not Fatal to Prosecution

The Court dismissed the defence’s argument about the non-recovery of the murder weapon (tabbal) and country-made pistol, citing that the accused fled the scene, and the eyewitness and medical evidence sufficed.

“Non-recovery of Tabbal and pistol do not adversely affect the prosecution case when the eyewitness and medical evidence convincingly support each other.” [Para 63]

The Court extensively analyzed eyewitness testimonies, which were corroborated by the medical officer, chemical examiner’s reports, and investigation records. It rejected the defence's affidavits (Ex. Kha-1 and Kha-2), alleged to have been filed by Rasna and Kadora denying their presence at the scene, noting these were fraudulently obtained and retracted in court.

Regarding Section 307 IPC, the Court held that the intent to murder Ghanjua and Rasna was evident from Shambhu firing at them with a pistol.

“Accused Shambhu and Lakhan fired upon the father of the deceased and co-victim Rasna with the intention to kill them. However, they narrowly escaped. Thus, they also committed the offence under Section 307 IPC.” [Para 53]

The eye witnesses’ presence was considered natural, given their proximity to the scene, familial ties, and consistency in depositions.

The High Court concluded that the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, affirming the life imprisonment sentence under Section 302 IPC and five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC, both read with Section 34 IPC.

“The cumulative effect of totality of circumstances shows that all links in the chain are complete... the conclusion of guilt drawn by the court below is fully established.” [Para 73]

The appeal was dismissed, and the Court directed that: “The appellants are on bail. They be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence.” [Para 74]

Additionally, the Court appreciated the assistance provided by Amicus Curiae Mr. Pawan Shukla, awarding him an honorarium of ₹15,000, to be paid by the Court Registry within a month.

Date of Decision: 28 May 2025