Allahabad High Court
Badri Prasad And Others vs State Of U.P. on 19 September, 2025
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:168251-DB
Reserved on 30.7.2025
Delivered on 19.9.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2388 of 1984
Badri Prasad And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Mangla Prasad Rai(Senior Adv.), O.P. Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
D.G.A.
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
(Per Anil Kumar-X,J.)
1. Heard Shri Mangla Prasad Rai, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pavan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Archana Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.
2. Appellants have preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.8.1984 passed by Sessions Judge, NMA, Kanpur in Sessions Trial No. 384 of 1981 wherein appellant no. 1, Badri Prasad has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and appellant no. 3, Kishan has been convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
3. The appeal qua appellant no. 2 has been declared abated vide order dated 09.7.2025.
4. Brief facts of this case is that Mahadeo (PW-1 at the trial) s/o Misri Lal r/o Village Koriya, District Kanpur submitted a written report (Ex. Ka-1) before Police Station- Sajeti Kanpur on 10.4.1981. He alleged that certain litigation between him and Harish Chandra Chaurasiya pertaining to a land owned by him is pending and Harish Chandra, who at present is in possession of the land, has mortgaged it to accused Kishan. On the said day, he was sitting in front of his house on a chabutara at about 8:30 pm. His mother and sister were inside the house. A lantern was lit on chabutara. His brother Chhanni Lal was feeding fodder to cattle. Meanwhile Badri Prasad s/o Jageshwar armed with double barrel gun, Kishan s/o Bhola armed with country made pistol and Kanhaiya Lal s/o Putti Lal wielding a ballam arrived there. When Channi Lal was returning towards his home after feeding fodder, Kanhaiya Lal exhorted Badri Prasad who fired upon Channi Lal and Channi Lal sustained gunshot injuries on his chest and shoulder. Channi Lal immediately fell on the ground and succumbed to the injuries. Kishan also fired upon him (PW-1) but he escaped narrowly. When he raised alarm, his mother Chhediya, sister Urmila, Jagdish s/o Kedar and other villagers arrived on the spot. Upon the arrival of villagers, the accused persons threatened them before leaving the spot. He further stated that murder has been committed at the behest of Harish Chandra Chaurasiya due to old enmity. Dead body of Channi Lal was lying in front of his door.
5. On submission of the written complaint, FIR (Ex. Ka-2) was registered on 11.4.1981 at 00:15 am. Inquest report (Ex. Ka-4) was prepared in the morning of 11.4.1981 at 6:00 am. PW-3 S.O. of P.S. Sajeti Ram Prakash Singh was entrusted to investigate the case. He reached on spot at about 2 O' clock and recorded statements of witnesses. He prepared site plan (Ex. Ka 9) on pointing out of PW-1 Mahadeo. He collected plain and blood-stained soil (material Ex. 1 and 2) from the spot. Simultaneously, he made a recovery memo of lantern (Ex. Ka. 10) found on spot along with recovery memo (Ex. Ka. 11) of loin cloth, shirt worn by deceased, pellets of LG cartridge shot at informant's wall. The Inquest Report (Ex. Ka-4) was prepared, and the dead body was handed over to PW-6 Durga Prasad Pandey, who took the dead body to the mortuary. PW-4 Dr. P.N. Bajpai performed Autopsy on 12.4.1981 and prepared postmortem reports (Ex.Ka-13). After concluding investigation, charge sheet (Ex. Ka. 12) against all accused persons under Section 302 and 307 IPC was submitted by PW-3 Ram Prakash Singh on 31.5.1981.
6. Charges were framed against the appellants under Section 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on 16.7.1982 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur. Charges were read over and explained to the accused persons who denied it and claimed trial. Prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of its case.
7. Prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of its case. Informant PW-1 Mahadeo, real brother of deceased Chhanni Lal has deposed that all the accused were of same family. He has also provided details of civil and criminal cases contested between the families of informant and Harish Chandra, which arose due to a land dispute that led to enmity. He has stated that deceased Chhanni Lal was initially accused of murdering Harish Chandra's brother but was later acquitted. Informant's brother, Putunwa, was also murdered by Harish Chandra and other accused persons but they were also acquitted in that case. Prem Chandra, another brother of Harish Chandra, was murdered six years before this incident. In this case, informant and Chhanni Lal were accused, while the present appellants, Badri Lal and Kanhaiya Lal, were prosecution witnesses. They were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, but their appeal is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court. Apart from it, they also contested litigation before consolidation authorities in relation to disputed land. It was decided in favour of the appellants and same was challenged by the deceased before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has explained that the incident occurred due to enmity between the appellants and informant and his brother as a result of the aforementioned litigation. Apart from stating details of ongoing litigation and enmity, this witness has also endorsed the version of Written Report (Ex. Ka. 1). PW-2, Smt. Chhedia, the mother of the deceased, stated that she was in her courtyard/angan at the time of the alleged incident and came out after hearing gunshots. She saw that all the accused were outside her house armed with guns, country-made pistols, and ballam. Her son was lying on the ground.
8. PW-3 Ram Prakash Singh, Investigation Officer has proved check FIR (Ex. Ka. 2) scribed by Constable Shahabuddin, copy of the G.D. (Ex. Ka. 3), Panchyatnama (Ex. Ka. 4). He has also proved letters for R.I. (Ex. Ka. 5), letter for C.M.O. (Ex. Ka. 6), challan lash (Ex. Ka. 7), photo lash (Ex. Ka. 8), site plan (Ex. Ka. 9) along with material exhibits i.e., blood stained and plain earth (Ex. I & Ex. II), tehmad of deceased (Ex. III), bushirt (Ex. IV), baniyan (Ex. V). He has also proved Recovery Memo of pellets (Ex. VI), tickli (Ex. VII/1 and VII/II).
9. P.W.4 Dr. P.N. Bajpai was Medical Officer in the E.S.I. Dispensary, Kanpur. He has stated that he had conducted postmortem examination on the body of Chhanni Lal on 12.4.1981 at 1:20 p.m. in the mortuary. According to him, the deceased was about 26 years old. His death had taken place two days earlier. According to him, he was average built. Rigor mortis had passed off from both the extremities. Skin was peeling off from places all over the body. Abdomen had distended. Eyes were open and bulging out. Mouth was open.
10. He had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the deceased:
1. Gun shot wound of entry at outside top of right shoulder 2 cm. x 1 cm. X muscle deep. Margins inverted.
2. Gun shot wound of exit 2.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. much deep on the middle of upper part of cavity outside of right half of chest, margins averted, Depth communicating with injury no.1.
3. Gun shot wound of entry 11/22 cm. x 11/2 cm. muscle deep, margins inverted at the middle of outer surface of upper part of right arm.
4. Gun shot wound of exit 1 cm. x 1 cm. muscle deep, margin inverted over outer part of interior axilliary fold of right axilla, depth communicating with injury no. 3.
5. Gun shot wound of entry 11/2 cm 1/4 cm., cavity deep, over outer side of right upper part of right chest.
6. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm. x 1 cm. muscle deep over the middle of upper part of chest margins inverted.
7. Gun shot wound of exit 11/2 cm. x 1 cm. muscle deep below injury no.6. Depth communicating with injury No.6.
8. Gun shot wound of entry 2 cm. x cm. cavity deep on upper half left side chest 2 cm. Below the inner 1/3rd of left clavicle. Clavicle fracture underneath injury no.8.
9. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm. x 1 cm. cavity deep, margins inverted, left side of lower part of chest, 2 cm. lateral to the sternum. Sternum through and through.
10. Gun shot wound of entry cavity deep, margins inverted 1 cm. x 1 cm. on left side of lower part of chest, 10 cm. below the top of shoulder.
On internal examination, the doctor found the brain liquified. Ribs and cartilages were ruptured under the injuries in the thorax region. Pleura was ruptured. Right lung was ruptured. No abnormality was found in the left lung. Pericardium and heart were ruptured. Stomach contained 4 oz of food material. Small and big intestines were half full with gases. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of ante mortem injuries.
11. PW-5 Constable Shahabuddin has proved the entry at report no. 27 in the G.D. and copy thereof (Ex. Ka. 14). PW-6 Constable Durga Prasad Pandey has stated that he along with the Chaukidar had delivered the dead body of the deceased to mortuary for post mortem. PW-7 Constable Ram Autar has stated that case property was entrusted to him for its delivery to FSL at Agra. Statement of appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellants for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. However, all the appellants were acquitted of the charges under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
Finding of Learned Trial Court
12. The learned trial court taking note of enmity has observed that appellant Kishan, mortgagee of Harish Chandra, is in physical possession of 28 bighas of land, which suggests that the accused were directly interested in the land, which may have motivated them to murder Channi at Harish Chandra's instigation. The trial court also ruled out any possibility of false implication by holding that if it had been so, informant could have easily arraigned Harish Chandra as an accused. It was held that testimony of PW-1 Mahadeo and PW-2 Chhedia is natural, as it is evident from their version of the FIR and their testimony before the Court. If they had intended to justify their case, they could have easily stated that both Chhedia and Urmila were also eye witnesses, but they have not done so in the FIR or their testimony.
13. After considering the ocular testimony, the learned trial court also examined the arguments made by the accused that ocular testimony contradicts medical evidence. It was argued that PW-4 Dr. P.N. Bajpai had stated that the size of the firearm injuries varied, and they had occurred from three different directions. Consequently, it was impossible that the deceased had suffered a single gun shot, as consistently stated by the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial court thoroughly addressed this issue. It observed that out of ten firearm injuries, only three had exit wounds, while the remaining four had no exit wounds. The Court further held that the varied size of the injuries was not significant because variation is negligent. Based on these findings, the learned trial Court concluded that all seven entrance wounds and three exit wounds could have been caused by a single gun shot injury. Summing up its conclusion based on ocular testimony and medical evidence, the learned trial Court found the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the IPC. As for the charge under Section 307 of the IPC, the learned trial court held that the prosecution's claim that the shot hit the wall did not find corroboration because cartridge or pellets were not recovered from the spot. The Court also noted that the prosecution's story was that the shot was fired by Kishan from his pistol while he was running at school. Therefore, the court concluded that there was a possibility that the shot was fired to scare away the people.
Arguments of learned counsel for the appellants
14. The learned counsel has submitted that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses alone is sufficient to establish that both parties have a long-standing enmity over a land claimed by the informant and his family. A mere perusal of the ocular testimony and the postmortem report is enough to prove that the alleged incident was not witnessed by the prosecution witnesses, and false implication in this case cannot be ruled out.
15. In support of his contention, the counsel has pointed out that the prosecution story from the very beginning has consistently stated that a single shot was fired by the appellant, Badri Prasad. This fact is narrated in the FIR and eye witness PW-1 Mahadeo has reiterated it in his examination-in-chief. Even during his cross-examination, he has stated this fact again. PW-2 Chhedia's testimony is also consistent on this particular point. However, the postmortem report contradicts this fact. PW-4 Dr. P.N. Bajpai has recorded ten gunshot injuries on the body of the deceased, out of which three injuries have entry wounds as well as exit wounds. He has stated that injuries nos. 6, 9, and 10 are of the same size, while the entry wounds of other injuries are of different sizes. This doctor has also admitted that the injuries will be round in shape if fired from a right angle and oval or irregular in case of oblique firing. He has further admitted that the deceased sustained injuries from three different directions.
16. Learned Counsel submitted that PW-4 Dr. P.N. Bajpai testified that the deceased's skin was peeling, and his brain was liquefied. Medical Jurisprudence of Modi states that brain liquefaction occurs after three to four days of death. The testimony of PW-4 Dr. P.N. Bajpai suggests that the alleged murder was committed by multiple shots, not a single shot, as claimed by the prosecution. The condition of the cadaver indicates that the murder occurred earlier than the prosecution claims, and it was not witnessed. However, the prosecution later fabricated a false story to implicate the present appellants to settle earlier scores.
Argument of learned AGA
17. Learned AGA has submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve prosecution version merely on the basis of earlier enmity between the parties. Incident in this particular case has occurred at 8:30 pm on 10.4.1981 and the FIR was lodged hours later at 00.15 am on 11.4.1981 by PW-1 Mahadeo. Inquest was conducted in the morning of 11.4.1981. FIR was lodged promptly after the occurrence and informant and other witnesses have made an honest account of the incident. The informant has clearly stated in his FIR that Harish Chandra was behind the murder of the alleged victim. However, the informant and other witnesses have not arrayed Harish Chandra as an accused. If enmity is considered a reason for false accusations, it was easy for the informant to implicate Harish Chandra. It was very easy for the informant to claim that incident was also witnessed by his mother and sister. But he has fairly stated that they were inside the house at the time of incident and they came out after hearing gunshot sound. Prosecution story and its witnesses are natural without any embellishment or exaggeration. Appellants have miserably failed to show any discrepancies in evidence which may create doubt with regard to presence of witnesses at the spot. Feeble attempts of appellants to establish discrepancies between ocular testimony and medical evidence is far away from truth.
18. Learned AGA has submitted that prosecution case is that appellant Badri Prasad was holding a double barrel gun and he fired it upon the deceased. It is established fact that bullets in a double-barrel gun consist of multiple pellets, which spread out when fired. The extent of this spread depends on the distance between the shooter and the target. All injuries recorded in postmortem indicate that they are confined to the chest, shoulder, and right arm. This suggests that a single shot was fired from close range, which spread and hit the thorax region of the deceased. The prosecution version is consistent as to this aspect that the deceased was hit by single shot and same finds corroboration from postmortem report. It is settled law that unless medical evidence is entirely inconsistent with ocular testimony, ocular testimony will always prevail. The learned AGA concluded his arguments by stating that there is nothing on record to contradict the unblemished testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and the arguments of the appellants regarding medical evidence lacks merit.
Conclusion
19. Appellants have mainly contended that the injuries noted in post-mortem report suggests that the deceased sustained more than one gun shot injury which rules out the claim of the prosecution that incident was witnessed by P.W.-1 Mahadeo. Learned A.G.A has strongly rebutted this argument by submitting that the seat of injuries is indicative that it was caused by a shot fired from a 12 bore gun and eye witness P.W.-1 Mahadeo has consistently stated that appellant Badri Prasad was holding a gun. In order to consider rival contentions, it will be expedient to appreciate testimony of eye witness along with medical evidence. Learned trial court has meticulously dealt with the testimony of eye witnesses and had held them reliable. Assuming their reliability, it is worth noting that PW-1 Mahadeo, the sole eye witness, has consistently maintained that a single shot was fired by appellant Badri Prasad. On other hand, PW-4 Dr. P.N. Bajpai has specifically stated that injury no. 3, 6, 9 and 10 were round in shape whereas injury no. 1, 5 and 8 were oval/irregular in shape. He has also stated that if a shot is fired from right angle, injuries will be round and if angle is oblique, then injuries will be oval/irregular. He has further stated that injury no. 6, 9 and 10 were of same size and other injuries were of different size. He has also stated that injuries in this case have been caused from three directions. Specific question was put to this witness whether it was a case of three shots and he answered that in all probability it was a case of more than one shot fire. This witness has unhesitatingly stated that size and shape of injuries reflect that shot were fired from three directions.
20. We have also considered the arguments advanced by learned AGA that ocular testimony in this particular case cannot be discarded because it is not in variance with medical evidence. Before drawing any conclusions, it would be relevant to discuss the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases where arguments regarding corroboration or variance in ocular testimony and medical evidence are raised. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484 has held that some inconsistencies between the testimony of eye witnesses and medical evidence cannot be taken as a ground to discard the testimony of eye witnesses. Said proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the general principle which has to be followed by Courts in cases where certain inconsistencies arise between ocular testimony and medical evidence.
21. Apart from it, situation may arise where available ocular evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence. In such situation, oral evidence cannot be given primacy as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Darbara Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 476. In this case, it was held that in event of contradictions between medical and oral evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentary value vis. a vis. medical evidence. It is only when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, then medical evidence becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of available evidence.
22. As discussed in preceding paragraphs, it is evident that ocular testimony in this particular case is consistent that deceased sustained a single fire arm injury. On the other hand, PW-4 Dr. P.N. Bajpai, has consistently stated that more than one firearm injury was sustained by the deceased that too from different directions. Question arises whether testimony of PW-4 Dr. P.N. Bajpai, can be discarded by terming it as an opinion of a expert. It is settled law that the Court is not bound by an opinion given by an expert and it will draw its conclusion independently by considering totality of facts, circumstances and the available evidence. In case of State of Haryana vs. Bhagirath and others, AIR 1999 SC 2005, the Supreme Court has held that if the opinion of medical witness is bereft of logic or objectivity, the Court is not obliged to go by that opinion. On the other hand, in Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484, it was held if medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye witnesses, the testimony of the eye witnesses can be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency and the medical evidence.
23. Taking note of above principles, both testimonies i.e., ocular testimony and medical evidence require deeper evaluation. PW-1 Mahadeo and PW-2 Chhedia have consistently stated that deceased Chhanni Lal had suffered a single gun shot injury. PW-1 Mahadeo has also stated that he was very much present at the spot and the accused persons immediately fled from the spot as he raised alarm. If his testimony is accepted, it will also lead to another conclusion- the accused persons had no chance to fire again.
24. PW-2 Chhedia has also mentioned in her cross-examination that she only heard one shot when she was inside her house. Therefore, there can be no presumption that the accused fired two shots at the deceased. But testimony of PW-4 Dr. P.N. Bajpai, is consistent that the deceased had sustained more than one gun shot injury and has also stated that fire arm injury suggests that they were from different directions. In light of the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it will be relevant that opinion of PW-4 Dr. P.N. Bajpai, is not based on any probabilities rather he has based his opinion upon the size and shape of the injuries noted by him in postmortem report. Therefore, it cannot be said that his opinion is bereft of any logic or objectivity as held in State of Haryana vs. Bhagirath (supra).
25. In this case it is difficult to reconcile the ocular testimony with medical evidence, and the only option available before the Court is to discard the ocular testimony as not reliable. Before discarding ocular testimony of eye witness, it will be expedient to consider other arguments raised by learned AGA in support of prosecution story. It is true that testimony of eye witnesses is consistent which gives impression that witnesses were present on the spot at the time of occurrence. Another relevant fact is that FIR in this case was lodged promptly i.e., 4 hours after the occurrence. If we consider the testimony of eye witnesses, it is evident that it is clearly at variance with medical evidence. One more factor which is relevant in this case is the long-standing enmity between the parties. PW-1 Mahadeo in examination-in-chief has given description regarding murders which had occurred earlier where each party was involved in murdering each others' family members. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Aslam @ Imran vs. State of Madhy Pradesh, 2025 Live Law (SC) 365 has held that enmity is a double edged weapon. On one hand, it provides motive, on the other hand it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication.
26. Keeping in view that both parties were not only inimical to each other but allegedly were also involved in murder of each others' family members, inconsistency which appears between ocular testimony and medical evidence cannot be brushed aside. In such circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that present appellants have been falsely implicated on account of previous enmity. Promptness in lodging FIR is also one factor upon which learned trial court as well as learned AGA has relied upon. It is trite law that promptness in lodging the FIR has great significance because it reduces the chances of tampering or false embellishments. But promptness or delay in lodging FIR is not the sole factor to assess the veracity of prosecution story. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarachand and another vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1971 SC 1891 has held that it is not necessary to attach great deal of importance in every case where FIR has been lodged with promptness. Therefore, prompt FIR in this case alone has no significance for deciding the culpability of appellants. Long-standing enmity between the parties and inconsistency between ocular testimony and medical evidence raises presumption in favour of the appellants. Therefore, appellants deserve to be acquitted, on a benefit of doubt, that exists.
27. In view of the above,the present appeal is allowed and the appellant no. 1 Badri Prasad and appellant no. 3 Kishan are acquitted of the charges.
28. Accordingly, judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. The appellant no. 1 Badri Prasad and appellant no. 3 Kishan is on bail. They need not surrender. Their personal bonds a re cancelled and sureties are discharged. Appellants are directed to furnish bail bonds and sureties in compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the Court concerned within two month from today.
29. The Trial Court's record be remitted back along with copy of this judgment.
30. Compliance report be submitted to this Court at the earliest. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.
September 19, 2025 Ujjawal (Anil Kumar-X,J.) I agree.
(S.D. Singh,J.)