Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302, 304 Pt. I, 34 — Murder or Culpable Homicide — Intention to kill vs. Knowledge of likelihood of death — Distinction drawn — Accused armed with pike, spear and sticks attacked complainant’s father and uncles during land dispute. Evidence (PW-1) showed that though sharp-edged weapons were carried, only blunt side used; medical evidence revealed only lacerated and contused wounds, no incised wounds. Three persons died from injuries. Held, death caused attributable to acts of accused proved beyond doubt. However, absence of intention to kill established; mere knowledge that injuries inflicted were likely to cause death is inferable. Conviction under S.302 IPC not sustainable; altered to S.304 Pt. I IPC.
Evidence Act, 1872 — Credibility of related witness — Sole testimony — Conviction can be based on sole testimony of related witness if trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence. PW-1 (son/nephew of deceased) found reliable. PW-2 turning hostile immaterial.
Sentence — Accused had undergone 12+ years imprisonment. In facts, sentence already undergone deemed sufficient. Accused directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Held
-
(i) Conviction under S.302 IPC altered to S.304 Pt. I IPC.
-
(ii) Sentence modified to period already undergone (12+ years).
-
(iii) Appellants to be released forthwith.
(B.R. Gavai, CJI and K. Vinod Chandran, J.)
Citation: 2025 INSC 1172 : Criminal Appeal No. 596 of 2014, decided on 26-9-2025 (SC)
2025 INSC 1172
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2014
. Page 1 of 9
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2014
RAGHAV PRASHAD AND OTHERS … APPELLANTS
versus
STATE OF U.P. … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
B.R.GAVAI, CJI.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order
dated 4th July 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad1 in Criminal Appeal u/s 374
Cr.P.C. No. 2259 of 1989 filed by the accused appellants
whereby, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the
judgment and order dated 8th November 1989 passed by the
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karvi (Banda)2 in
Sessions Case No. 88 of 1986 convicting the accused appellants
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1 Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”.
2 Hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2014
. Page 2 of 9
18603. The High Court also upheld the order of sentence dated
15th November, 1989 vide which the Trial Court had sentenced
the accused appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
along with a fine of Rs.6,000/-.
2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are
as under:
2.1. It is the prosecution case that on the morning of
6th August 1986 at 8 o’clock, complainant – Ram Gopal
(PW-1) along with his father Ram Avtar, uncles Namo
Shankar and Girija Shankar and two other persons had
arrived at Baruahaar Ghat for measuring some agricultural
fields for partition where they met the accused appellants –
Raghav Prashad (Accused No.1/owner of adjacent land),
Prem Shankar (Accused No.2/brother of Accused No.1),
Dayanidhi (Accused No.3/Cousin brother of Accused No.1
and Accused No.2) and Late Ram Naresh
(Accused No. 4/Father-in-law of Accused No. 2).
2.2. It is the prosecution case that the accused persons who
were hiding in the Baruahaar Ghat suddenly came out. They
3 Hereinafter referred to as “IPC”.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2014
. Page 3 of 9
had an altercation with complainant’s father and his uncles
over the measurement of agricultural fields and later
started hitting them with pike, sticks, and spear.
2.3. Thereafter, complainant along with his injured father and
uncles went to the Raipura police station in a bullock cart
driven by one Kandhai Lal and an FIR No. 53/1986 came to
be registered at 9:30 AM initially under Sections 307 and
308 read with Section 34 IPC. Subsequently, the injured
persons were sent to the Karvi Hospital in a truck from the
police station.
2.4. Injured Ram Avtar and Namo Shankar succumbed to their
injuries on the same day at Karvi Hospital whereas injured
Girija Shankar also died on same day while being shifted to
another hospital in Allahabad. Hence, charge under Section
302 IPC was added.
2.5. The post-mortem report dated 7th August 1986 noted
various ante-mortem injuries and fractures on the body of
the deceased persons.
2.6. The accused appellants were arrested on 12th August 1986.
The chargesheet was filed and the case being exclusively
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2014
. Page 4 of 9
triable by the Sessions Court was committed for Trial to the
court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karvi
(Banda) by an order dated 13th November 1986 passed by
the Munsiff Court, Karvi. Thereafter, the accused appellants
were released on bail on 7th January 1987.
2.7. Vide judgment and order dated 8th November 1989, the Trial
Court convicted the accused appellants for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC
and vide order dated 15th November, 1989 they were
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith a fine
of Rs. 6,000/-.
2.8. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed Appeal being
Criminal Appeal u/s 374 Cr.P.C. No. 2259 of 1989 before
the High Court which was dismissed vide impugned
judgment and order dated 4th July 2013. The High Court
upheld the judgment and order of the Trial Court and
directed the Trial Court to take necessary steps to ensure
that the accused appellants who were out on bail are
arrested and committed to custody to undergo their
sentence.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2014
. Page 5 of 9
2.9. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal by way of special
leave.
SUBMISSIONS
3. We have heard Shri Raj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for
the appellants and Shri Akshay Amritanshu, learned counsel for
the respondent-State.
4. Shri Raj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the accused
appellants submitted that the prosecution’s case is solely based
on the evidence of PW-1. It is submitted that PW-1 is a related
witness and as such, the conviction cannot rest solely on the
basis of his evidence. In addition, it is submitted that the offence
committed by the accused appellants would not fall under
Section 302 IPC and at the most, the accused appellants could
be convicted for a lesser offence.
5. Per contra, Shri Akshay Amritanshu, the learned counsel
appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the appeal. He
submitted that the appellants have committed the brutal murder
of three persons. It is further submitted that the testimony of
PW-1 is supported by medical evidence and as such, no
interference by this Court would be warranted.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2014
. Page 6 of 9
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material placed on record.
7. The prosecution case basically rests on the testimony of
PW-1, who is the son of deceased Ram Avtar and nephew of
deceased Namo Shankar and deceased Girija Shankar. PW-1 in
his statement has deposed that there was a dispute over the
measurement of agricultural fields between deceased Ram Avtar
and accused No. 1 - Raghav Prashad. PW-1 stated that when he
along with all three deceased and two other persons went to the
agricultural field in Baruahaar Ghat, they saw that the four
accused persons were hiding there and on seeing them, they
came out. It is further stated that the accused persons Raghav
Prashad and Dayanidhi were carrying sticks whereas Prem
Shankar had a pike and his father-in-law had a spear.
8. The perusal of the evidence of PW-1 would reveal that even
though the accused appellants were having sharp weapons
(pike, spear, etc.), they had only used the blunt side of the said
weapons.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2014
. Page 7 of 9
9. It is further to be noted that PW-2 – Chandrika Prasad who
is the son of deceased Namo Shankar had turned hostile.
10. Moreover, the medical evidence would also show that all the
three deceased persons had lacerated and contused wounds only
and there were no incised wounds.
11. As already seen above, a perusal of the evidence of PW-1
would itself reveal that the accused persons Raghav Prashad and
Dayanidhi were carrying sticks whereas the other accused
persons Prem Shankar and Late Ram Naresh who were carrying
the sharp weapons, had only used the blunt side of the weapons.
12. In view of the evidence of PW-1, we do not find any reason
to disagree with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
Trial Court and the High Court that it was the accused
appellants who caused the death of Ram Shankar, Namo
Shankar and Girija Shankar.
13. However, the question that arises for our consideration is
as to whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC would be
tenable or whether the accused are liable to be convicted for a
lesser offence.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2014
. Page 8 of 9
14. We find that though the accused persons could be said to
have the knowledge that the injuries would cause death of the
deceased, there is no material on record to show that they had
the intention to kill them. It is further to be noted that PW-1 had
himself deposed that there was prior enmity between the
Appellant No. 1- Raghav Prashad and deceased Ram Avtar over
the measurement of agricultural fields.
15. We, therefore, find that in the facts of the present case, the
conviction under Section 302 IPC would not be tenable and is
liable to be converted to one under Section 304 Part I of IPC. We
are, therefore, inclined to partly allow the appeal.
CONCLUSION
16. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is partly allowed;
(ii) The conviction of the accused appellants under Section
302 of IPC is converted to one under Section 304 Part 1
of IPC; and
(iii) Accused appellants have already undergone sentence of
more than 12 years. We, therefore, find that the sentence
already undergone by them would subserve the interest
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2014
. Page 9 of 9
of justice. The accused appellants are, therefore,
directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any
other case.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..…………..……………...CJI.
(B.R.GAVAI)
…….........…………………...J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 26, 2025
