Wife And Two Neighbours Witnessed Midnight Shooting Of Sleeping Man; Allahabad HC Upholds Two Life Sentences

The appellants challenged their convictions under Section 302 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, respectively, and their life sentences imposed by the Sessions Judge, Faizabad.

The prosecution case was that, around midnight on 27/28 August 1984, Ranjeet Singh shot Rajendra Prasad while he was asleep in the verandah of his home; Sarvajeet Singh allegedly accompanied him, armed with a firearm and carrying a torch.

The deceased’s wife, Malti (PW-2), and neighbours Radhey Shyam (PW-4) and Indrajeet (PW-5) were presented as eyewitnesses.

The FIR was lodged at about 11:30 a.m. the following day, approximately eleven hours after the incident; the informant, the deceased’s brother, said he had learned of the incident that morning and travelled to the village before reporting it.

The post-mortem disclosed a fatal firearm injury.

Sections 302 and 34 IPC govern murder and joint liability where an offence is committed in furtherance of common intention.

Under Section 157 CrPC, the police must forward the report of an offence to the Magistrate, but delay in forwarding it does not, by itself, vitiate the trial or require acquittal where the prosecution case is otherwise established by reliable evidence (Jafar Biswas v. State of West Bengal).

An FIR is not substantive evidence, and delay in lodging it may raise concern about embellishment, but a satisfactory explanation can answer that concern.

Motive is not indispensable where trustworthy direct evidence proves the offence; enmity may support either false implication or commission of the offence and therefore calls for careful scrutiny of the evidence (Shivraj Bapuray Jadhav v. State of Karnataka and Sanaullah Khan v. State of Bihar).

Medical estimates of digestion and time of death are approximate, and non-recovery of the weapon is not necessarily fatal where other reliable evidence proves the offence.

The Court accepted the explanation that the informant was away from the village and that Malti had no adult male family member available to report the crime during the night; it therefore found the FIR delay adequately explained.

It scrutinised the eyewitnesses in light of the parties’ prior enmity, but found Malti’s account credible and held that PW-4 and PW-5 had witnessed the shooting after responding to the alarm and using their torches to identify the appellants.

The single fatal firearm injury was consistent with the eyewitness account, and the Court considered the medical evidence compatible with the stated time of the incident.

It further held that Sarvajeet’s presence, armed with a firearm and flashing a torch to facilitate the shooting, supported the finding of common intention; neither the non-recovery of the weapon nor the delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate displaced the otherwise reliable prosecution evidence.

It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the convictions and life sentences; as the appellants were on bail, it cancelled their bonds, directed them to surrender immediately to serve the remaining sentences, and ordered the trial court to secure their presence and report compliance.