The Supreme Court on October 28 affirmed the conviction of four individuals in a 1988 double murder case, dismissing their criminal appeals pending since 2011. The Court held that the absence of weapon recovery and delay in filing the FIR did not undermine the prosecution’s case, which was supported by consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence proving that the appellants intentionally attacked the victims with deadly weapons.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, relying on Nankaunoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016), observed:

“There remains no doubt that the appellants, acting in furtherance of their common intention, formed an unlawful assembly. Inncha and Dharamvir, armed with sharp-edged weapons, murdered Braham Singh and Dile Ram. They also injured Bangal Singh with the knowledge that his death could result from those injuries, thereby rendering themselves liable for murder.”

In Nankaunoo, the Supreme Court had earlier ruled that when unimpeachable oral testimony is corroborated by medical evidence, the non-recovery of the weapon of offence is immaterial. Any lapse by the investigating officer cannot discredit the prosecution’s version if the core evidence remains reliable.

Accordingly, the Court directed the convicts to surrender and cancelled their bail, clarifying that any application for remission shall be considered strictly in accordance with the State’s policy by the competent authority.

The case originated from a land boundary dispute between relatives that escalated into a violent confrontation in a sugarcane field in 1988. Two FIRs were filed—one by each faction—after the appellants allegedly demolished the ridge dividing their farmlands, triggering a fight that led to the deaths of Braham Singh and Dile Ram, and serious injuries to Bangal Singh.

In FIR No. 65, seven accused—Molhar, Kantu, Om Pal, Narendra, Ranvir, Inchha Ram, and Dharamvir—were convicted under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment plus fines. In the cross-case (FIR No. 65A), all accused were acquitted.

The convicted persons appealed to the Allahabad High Court, which later transferred the case to the Uttarakhand High Court after the State’s bifurcation in 2000. The High Court dismissed all appeals and a connected criminal revision in 2010.

Supreme Court’s Key Findings

1. Delay in FIR and Non-Recovery Not Fatal

The appellants argued that the complainant’s FIR was delayed by three days, suggesting it was an afterthought. The Court, however, found the delay justified as the informant—the deceased’s son—had to rush the injured victims to a Chandigarh hospital before lodging the complaint. Citing State of H.P. v. Gian Chand (2001), the Bench reiterated that when a reasonable explanation exists, delay in filing FIR cannot vitiate the prosecution’s case.

Similarly, the Court reaffirmed that non-recovery of the weapon does not affect the case if there is credible medical and ocular evidence linking the accused to the crime.

2. Injured Eyewitness Testimony Carries Presumption of Truth

The Bench gave substantial weight to the testimony of the injured eyewitness—grandson of one deceased—who described how the appellants, armed with spades and phawadas, attacked while the complainants wielded only lathis.

Relying on Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2009), the Court reiterated that an injured eyewitness’s testimony bears a presumption of truth, as their very injuries guarantee their presence at the crime scene. Unless significant contradictions exist, such testimony deserves special evidentiary value.

3. Clear Intention to Kill Established

Rejecting the appellants’ plea that the deaths resulted from a sudden fight (falling under the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC), the Court held that the attack was intentional and deliberate. Referring to Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006), it emphasized that intent to cause death can be inferred from factors like the nature of weapons, the manner of assault, and the body parts targeted.

Here, the use of sharp-edged spades and phawadas to strike vital parts such as the head proved that the appellants acted with the motive of permanently eliminating the victims. The medical evidence confirmed that the ante-mortem injuries were the direct cause of death.

Case Title: Om Pal & Ors. v. State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand)

Criminal Appeal No.: 1624 of 2011