Injured Witness Testimony Crucial: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in 1988 Double Murder Case

The Supreme Court upheld the appellants’ conviction under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC, affirming the High Court’s judgment. It ruled the case did not fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, as the assault with sharp weapons in furtherance of common intention established murder, not culpable homicide. The ocular and medical evidence was found reliable.

Facts Of The Case:

On May 19, 1988, an altercation arose between two groups of relatives over a land boundary dispute in a sugarcane field. The appellants, led by Molhar and Dharamvir, allegedly damaged a ridge (mendh) on the complainant’s side. When the deceased Dile Ram objected, a fight ensued. The appellants, armed with lathis, spades, and phawadas, assaulted Dile Ram, Braham Singh, and Bangal Singh (PW-2). Both Dile Ram and Braham Singh later succumbed to their head injuries. The appellants also sustained injuries. Two cross-FIRs were lodged: first by the appellants (FIR No. 65) on May 20, 1988, and second by the complainant (FIR No. 65A) on May 23, 1988, after the victims were hospitalized. The appellants were convicted for murder and attempted murder by the Sessions Court, which was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court, in appeal, examined the evidence, including the testimony of injured eyewitness Bangal Singh and other ocular witnesses, and upheld the conviction, concluding the appellants formed an unlawful assembly with the common intention to commit murder.

Procedural History:

The procedural history commenced with the lodging of two cross-FIRs concerning the incident of May 19, 1988, leading to separate sessions trials. In Sessions Trial No. 56 of 1992, arising from the complainant’s FIR, the Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and additional penalties. Their appeals to the Allahabad High Court were transferred to the Uttarakhand High Court following state reorganization. The High Court, vide its common judgment dated November 29, 2010, dismissed the appeals and affirmed the conviction. Subsequently, the appellants filed the present criminal appeals before the Supreme Court of India, which, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions vide its judgment dated October 28, 2025.

READ ALSO:Supreme Court Clarifies: Pending Cases Don’t Justify Violating Active Court Orders

Court Observation:

The Supreme Court observed that the ocular evidence, particularly the consistent testimony of the injured eyewitness (PW-2), was fully reliable and corroborated by the medical evidence, establishing the appellants as the initial aggressors who used sharp-edged weapons. It held that the case did not fall under the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC, as the nature of injuries, the weapons used, and the attack on vital body parts demonstrated an intention to commit murder in furtherance of a common object within an unlawful assembly. The Court further noted that the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained and that the non-recovery of weapons was not fatal to the prosecution’s case, which was otherwise firmly established by direct witness accounts.

Final Decision & Judgement:

The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeals, upholding the convictions and sentences imposed by the courts below. It affirmed that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, formed an unlawful assembly and committed the murders of Dile Ram and Braham Singh with sharp weapons, bringing their actions squarely under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The Court directed the appellants to surrender forthwith and cancelled their bail bonds. It clarified that the dismissal would not preclude the appellants from seeking remission in accordance with applicable state policy.

Case Details:

Case Title: Om Pal & Ors. vs. State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand)
Citation: 2025 INSC 1262 
Criminal Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 1624 of 2011
Date of Judgement: October 28, 2025
Judges/Justice Name: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Download The Judgement Here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *