Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, on October 28, upheld the conviction of four individuals in a double murder case, dismissing their criminal appeals pending since 2011. The Bench concluded that the appellants, who were part of an unlawful assembly arising from a land boundary dispute, had deliberately assaulted the complainant’s side with sharp weapons, causing two deaths. It observed that the prosecution’s case was supported by consistent eyewitness accounts and corroborating medical evidence, and that neither the delay in filing the FIR nor the absence of recovered weapons undermined the proof of the appellants’ culpability.

The matter arose from an incident dated May 19, 1988, involving a violent confrontation between two related families over an agricultural boundary dispute. Two First Information Reports (FIRs) were registered regarding the same event. The first, lodged on May 20, 1988, by the appellants’ side, alleged that members of the opposing group had attacked them. The second, filed on May 23, 1988, by the complainant’s side, stated that the accused had assaulted their family members with lathis, spades, and axes, causing grievous injuries to three persons, two of whom later died.

Also Read: Extra-Judicial Confession Unreliable Without Independent Corroboration; Supreme Court Acquits Death Row Convict In Child Rape-Murder Case

Both FIRs led to separate trials. In Sessions Trial No. 56 of 1992, the appellants were found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment and fines. In the cross-case (Sessions Trial No. 57 of 1992), the opposing party was acquitted. The High Court of Uttarakhand, by a common judgment dated November 29, 2010, upheld the convictions.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the incident was a “free fight” without premeditation and that their case fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. They contended that the delay in filing the FIR and non-recovery of weapons weakened the prosecution’s case. The respondent State maintained that the appellants were the aggressors, motivated by an ongoing land dispute and consolidation proceedings, and had inflicted deliberate and fatal blows.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of injured and eyewitnesses, corroborated by postmortem and medical evidence establishing the cause of death. The Court examined the oral and medical evidence, the nature of injuries, and the intent inferred from the use of sharp-edged weapons in determining the appellants’ culpability under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC.

The Court observed that interference under Article 136 of the Constitution must be limited, stating that it “should be slow in interfering with the concurrent findings unless there is manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice.”

It recorded: “The parties are close relatives… there was a long-standing dispute due to a land boundary issue, and on the day of the incident, an altercation took place resulting in injuries on both sides and the death of two individuals.” The Bench stated that both the Trial Court and the High Court “relied on the testimonies of eyewitnesses and injured witnesses which clearly established that the appellants had been the aggressors.”

On evidentiary assessment, the Court noted: “Ocular evidence is the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it.” Regarding the injured eyewitness, it stated: “The testimony of an injured eyewitness is accorded a special status in law… his presence cannot be doubted.” It recorded further that “the defence had not challenged the version of PW-2, but had admitted his presence at the spot of occurrence.”

Discussing motive, the Court observed: “Motive, though not a sine qua non, lends strength to the prosecution’s case and fortifies the Court in its ultimate conclusion.” It found that the existing boundary dispute “clearly establishes the motive for the commission of the offence.”

Rejecting the plea under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, the Court stated: “From the medical evidence, the nature and extent of injuries leave no doubt that they were intentionally inflicted.” It found that “use of sharp edges of spades and phawadas to deliver fatal blows on the heads of the deceased demonstrates a clear motive and object of permanently eliminating them.”

Regarding procedural objections, it observed: “Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be considered fatal when there is direct evidence and the delay is well explained.” The explanation given by the complainant—taking the injured to hospital and lodging the report upon return—was held “probable and natural considering the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The Court stated: “Non-recovery of weapons cannot be considered fatal if there is consistent medical and ocular evidence corroborating the prosecution’s version.”

The Bench held: “From the above discussion, there remains no doubt that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, formed an unlawful assembly… and committed the murder of two persons while inflicting injuries on another knowing fully well that had he died, they would have been guilty of his murder.”

Also Read: JJ Act | Allahabad High Court Orders Release of Detenue, Holds Child Alleged To Be In Conflict With Law Cannot Be Jailed Even During Age Inquiry

“The appeals, being sans merit, stand dismissed. The appellants shall surrender to custody forthwith and it will be the duty of the Trial Court to see that they are taken into custody. The bail bonds stand cancelled accordingly.”

“Nothing mentioned above shall preclude the appellants from making an application for remission in accordance with law and the applicable policy of the State Government. In the event such an application is preferred, it shall be considered by the competent authority on its own merits, strictly in terms of the available policy of the State Government.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant(s): Mr. Devvrat, AOR; Mr. Shalinder Saini, Adv.; Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv.; Ms. Harshita Sharma, Adv.; Ms. Swati Setia, Adv.; Mr. Nitin Jain, Adv.

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kuldeep Parihar, D.A.G.; Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR; Mr. Ajay Bahuguna, Adv.; Ms. Ikshita Parihar, Adv.

Case Title: Om Pal & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (now State of Uttarakhand)
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1262
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1624 of 2011 etc.
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra