Name Confusion or Nickname Does Not Create Reasonable Doubt: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction

“Accused Known as Kaushal or Alok Chauhan Had Participated in Fatal Firing with Common Intention” - Allahabad High Court confirmed the conviction and life sentence of the appellant for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, dismissing arguments about mistaken identity, nickname confusion, and related witnesses. A Division Bench of Justice Avnish Saxena and Justice Siddharth delivered a comprehensive 34-page ruling affirming the findings of the Sessions Judge, Etawah.

The case revolved around the 1997 murder of Kamlesh Kumar Gupta, who was shot dead during a marriage ceremony at Jain Dharmshala, Lalpura, Etawah. The appellant was alleged to have fired at the deceased in furtherance of a common intention along with co-accused Deepak Dixit alias Deepu.

“It Is Not of Importance Who Fired the Detrimental Shot”: Court Rules on Common Intention and Joint Liability

Dismissing the appellant’s contention that he was falsely implicated and that he was known as Alok Chauhan and not Kaushal, the Court held that:

“The evidence on record reveals that the accused-appellant came to the place of incident along with co-accused and fired a shot. It is therefore, the conviction has been recorded with the help of act committed by the accused-appellant in furtherance of common intention.”

The Court further clarified: “It is not of importance that who has fired the detrimental shot.”

The bench noted that under Section 34 IPC, once common intention to commit a crime is established, all participants are equally liable, regardless of who delivered the fatal act.

“Witnesses of Fact Are Trustworthy and Their Presence Is Probable”: High Court Affirms Credibility of Father and Brother of Deceased

Rejecting the appellant’s claim that P.W.-1 (father) and P.W.-2 (brother) were interested witnesses, the Court quoted precedent to state that related witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relationship. Citing Ashok Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2008) 12 SCC 173, the bench observed:

“Court cannot lose sight of the ground realities that members of public are generally insensitive and reluctant to come forward… it is in this backdrop that the Supreme Court has held, not to brush aside the testimony of related witnesses merely because they are interested.”

The Court found their depositions consistent, noting that they were eye-witnesses who had named Deepak Dixit and Kaushal (later identified as Alok Chauhan) in the prompt FIR, lodged just over an hour after the incident.

The High Court ruled: “The witnesses of fact are not only trustworthy and consistent in their statements, but their presence at the place of incident is also probable and they are the eye witnesses of the incident.”

“Deceased Was Shot at Close Range—Blackening and Tattooing Confirm Distance of Two Paces”: Medical and Site Evidence Corroborates Eyewitness Testimony

The appellant had argued that blackening and tattooing visible on the wound could not have occurred if the shot was fired from a distance of 10 paces, as claimed by one witness. But the Court rejected this contention, noting that the site plan prepared by the I.O. showed the firing was done from a distance of only two paces, and lay witnesses are not expected to estimate distances accurately.

“The laymen can never be sure about the distance until and unless it has been measured.”

The post mortem report revealed a gunshot wound with blackening, tattooing and charring—signs of close-range firing—and confirmed death due to firearm injury, consistent with the prosecution story.

“FIR Registered Without Delay and with No Oblique Motive”: High Court Debunks Allegations of False Implication

The defence also attempted to cast doubt on the FIR timing, claiming ante-timing and concoction. However, the Court observed:

“Had there been an ante time F.I.R., the F.I.R. would have been lodged directly under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused and not under Section 307 I.P.C.”

The FIR was initially registered under Section 307 IPC, and upgraded to Section 302 IPC only after the victim died in hospital, consistent with police procedure and verified by P.W.-3 (Constable Bhaiya Lal) and P.W.-6 (Dr. P.C. Pandey).

“Appellant’s Argument That He Is Known Only as Alok Fails Against Documentary and Investigative Record”: High Court Dismisses Identity Confusion

The defence argued that the accused was not Kaushal, but Alok Chauhan, and that he was falsely implicated due to mistaken identity. However, the Court relied on:

• Statement of P.W.-5 (I.O. Karanvir Singh Sachan), who confirmed that the appellant was known locally as both Kaushal and Alok.

• Reference to a prior High Court order dated 26.11.1997, which acknowledged that the Magistrate was to verify whether the person named as Alok was indeed the same Kaushal named in the FIR.

• The fact that the accused was identified in dock by both eyewitnesses.

The Court ruled: “The name of Kaushal is mentioned in F.I.R., as per the name disclosed by the people gathered at the place, but during investigation, the real name of Kaushal came into light and therefore the charge sheet has been submitted.”

“Even If There Was Business Rivalry With Another, It Does Not Displace Eyewitness Account Against Appellant”: Motive Not Central When Direct Evidence Exists

The defence tried to raise doubts by suggesting business enmity between the deceased and Popey Jain, at whose sister's wedding the incident occurred. However, the High Court reiterated that motive is not always necessary in cases of direct evidence, particularly where eye-witnesses are available and credible.

The Court concluded: “The trial court has considered the entire evidence in right perspective. There is no infirmity in appreciation of evidence carried out by the trial judge.”

High Court Rejects Plea for Conviction Conversion from 302 to 304 IPC

The appellant also argued for reduction of conviction to Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The Court, however, found that the act was intentional and done with knowledge that it could cause death, thus squarely falling within the purview of Section 302.

“The evidence in the present case does not qualify the ingredients of Section 304 I.P.C., as the act attributed on accused-appellant was intentional and also having knowledge that by the act death would be caused.”

Appeal Dismissed, Bail Cancelled

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal, confirmed the life sentence, and cancelled the bail bonds:

“The accused appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are forfeited. He is directed to be taken into custody.”

The Court ordered that the judgment be sent to the trial court for immediate compliance.

Date of Decision: 16 September 2025