State of U.P vs Ram Raksh Pal And Others

Salil Kumar Rai, J

In light of the office report dated 31.10.2025, the appeal is declared to have abated so far as it concerns with opposite party No. 3, namely, Diwan Chand Thareja. The appeal survives for adjudication only in respect of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Ram Rakshpal Gupta and Rama Kant.

List has been revised. No one appears for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.

Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present Government Appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order dated 08.10.1987 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rampur in Session Trial No. 740 of 1985, arising out of Case Crime No. 560 of 1984, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Civil Lines, District-Moradabad, whereby the accused, namely, Ram Rakshpal Gupta, Rama Kant and Diwan Chand Thareja have been acquitted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

As per prosecution case, on the basis of a written report (Ex.Ka.2) dated 19.09.1984, lodged by the informant Hemant Kumar (PW-2), son of the deceased (Ram Kripal Gupta), an FIR dated 19.09.1984 (Ex.Ka.6) was registered against the accused-respondents, namely, Ram Rakshpal Gupta, Rama Kant and Diwan Chand Thareja under Section 302 of IPC. In the report, it is alleged that there was a long-standing property dispute between Ram Rakshpal and Advocate, Ram Kripal Gupta (the deceased). During the dispute, Ram Rakshpal sold his house to Diwan Chand Thareja and his wife, who were then also added to the court case. Deceased-Ram Kripal Gupta also objected to a building map submitted by Diwan Chand to the Moradabad Development Authority (MDA) and as Diwan Chand had illegally constructed some shops, the MDA ordered for their demolition. His appeal was rejected, and a revision was still pending before the State Government. Due to these issues, relations between both the parties became spoiled, and the accused allegedly wanted to harm the deceased. The deceased's two sons, Hemant Kumar and Pushpendra Kumar Gupta, used to accompany and watch over him. On 19 September 1984, after visiting the MDA office, the deceased was returning home on a bicycle with his sons and a companion named Devendra. Near F.T.S. College Road, two motorcycles suddenly stopped in front of them. One motorcycle carried accused Ramakant and Ram Rakshpal; the other was driven by an unknown man with Diwan Chand Thareja sitting behind. Thereafter, the deceased tried to turn his bicycle onto the unreconstructed road, and Hemant jumped off and tried to run. Pushpendra Kumar Gupta also stopped his cycle. At that moment, Ramakant and Diwan Chand came forward and fired at the deceased with pistols. Ram Kripal Gupta fell to the ground and died on the spot. All the accused then fled away.

Investigating Officer, Anand Swaroop Sharma (PW-7) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan of the alleged incident and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completing all formalities relating to the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons, namely, Ram Rakshpal Gupta, Rama Kant, and Diwan Chand Thareja, under Section 302 of the IPC.

The learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons, namely, Ram Rakshpal Gupta, Rama Kant, and Diwan Chand Thareja, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.

In the present case, prosecution produced Dr. U.C. Srivastava (PW-1), Hemant Kumar (PW-2), Devendra Kumar (PW-3), R.N. Dubey (PW-4), Pushpendra Kumar Gupta (PW-5), Shishu Kumar Singh (PW-6) and Anand Swaroop Sharma (PW-7) as prosecution witnesses. After recording oral evidence and after filing of documentary evidence by the prosecution, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

The accused persons denied the questions put up before them in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and stated that they were falsely implicated in the present case. The accused persons also stated that they were not present at the day, time and place of occurrence.

In the present case, defence produced Chaman Lal Ganju (DW-1), Satyavrat Trivedi (DW-2), Dayanand Arora (DW-3), Dungar Singh (DW-4) and Shivcharan Lal (DW-5) as defence witnesses. Defence also produced documentary evidence in the record.

After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution, defence and also perusing the evidence produced by the prosecution and defence, learned trial Court found that evidence of the prosecution witnesses does not inspire any confidence. Trial Court found that evidence of prosecution witnesses was not trustworthy. Trial Court also found that major contradictions and improvements were present in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Overall, learned Trial Court after discussing and analyzing all the evidence available on record, found that prosecution was totally unsuccessful to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Due to this reason, learned Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons, namely, Ram Rakshpal Gupta, Rama Kant, and Diwan Chand Thareja. The said acquittal order dated 08.10.1987 has been challenged by the State by filing the present government appeal.

Learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that eye-witnesses, informant-Hemant Kumar (PW-2), Devendra Kumar (PW-3) and Pushpendra Kumar Gupta (PW-5) have seen the alleged incident by their own eyes and they were physically present at the place of incident but on the ground of minor contradictions found in their evidence, the Trial Court has totally disbelieved their testimony. Learned A.G.A. also contented that evidence of eye-witnesses corroborates the evidence of each other and ultimately, oral evidence corroborates the medical evidence and the prosecution by adducing documentary and oral evidence has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt but Trial Court on the ground of minor contradictions of doubt, discarded the reliable evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that judgment and order dated 08.10.1987 passed by the Trial Court is totally against the settled principle of law and also the evidence in this regard. Hence, the present government appeal is liable to accepted, as such, the judgment and order dated 08.10.1987 passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

In the light of the arguments as advanced by the learned A.G.A., we have perused and gone through the material evidence as available on record.

We find that this case was registered on the information given by Hemant Kumar (PW-2), who is the son of deceased, Ram Kripal Gupta. After going through this evidence, we find that PW-2 in his examination-in-chief has supported the prosecution story as alleged in the written report (Ex.Ka.2) but on perusal of his cross-examination, we find that PW-2 was not present on 19.09.1984 at the place of occurrence at about 4:30 PM. During his cross-examination by the defence, it amply transpires and becomes clear that when PW-2 heard the news of murder of his father, thereafter, he reached the place of occurrence.

The evidence as given by PW-2 in his cross-examination clearly establishes the fact that PW-2 has not really seen the alleged incident with his own eyes. From perusal of the cross-examination of PW-2, we find that PW-2 is not the eye-witness of the alleged incident. Statement and evidence as given by PW-2 in his cross-examination make this fact amply clear that PW-2 was not an eye-witness of the alleged incident. Prosecution tried to project the PW-2 as an eye-witness of the alleged incident.

The prosecution produced Devendra Kumar as PW-3, who is claimed to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. This witness is stated to be a friend of Hemant Kumar (PW-2) and Pushpendra Kumar Gupta (PW-5), the sons of the deceased. Although this witness supported the prosecution story in his examination-in-chief, as narrated in the written report (Ex.Ka.2), a closer examination of his cross-examination reveals that he made major contradictory statements. Upon perusal of his cross-examination, it transpires that this witness is not an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. The prosecution has attempted to project him as an eye-witness, but his evidence suggests that he is a chance witness who was later presented by the prosecution to fortify its case.

The prosecution also produced Pushpendra Kumar Gupta (PW-5), the son of the deceased, Ram Kripal Gupta as an eye-witness. This witness supported the prosecution story in his examination-in-chief, as stated in the written report (Ex.Ka.2). However, upon perusal of his cross-examination, it is clear that this witness is not an eye-witness of the alleged incident. Despite attempting to support the prosecution case, the evidence of this witness fails to establish that he was actually present at the scene of the crime. It is apparent that this witness was not present at the time and place of occurrence of the alleged incident and, therefore, he cannot be considered an eye-witness to the incident.

It is evident from the written report (Ex.Ka.2), the evidence of informant, Hemant Kumar (PW-2), prosecution witness Pushpendra Kumar Gupta (PW-5), as well as the documentary evidence, that there were ongoing civil and criminal litigation between the deceased Ram Kripal Gupta and the accused persons. It is also clear that the deceased had multiple litigation with other individuals, and there were several enemies and adversaries. The informant, Hemant Kumar (PW-2), has filed a written report (Ex.Ka.2) against the accused persons naming them culprits. Apart from the named accused persons, there were many other enemies of the deceased Ram Kripal Gupta, however, the informant Hemant Kumar (PW-2), who is not an eye-witness to the alleged incident, has named the accused persons as culprits, likely due to the existing enmity and pending litigation.

It is settled principle of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions that only on the ground of enmity no person can be held guilty for the commission of crime. For holding guilty any person for commission of any crime, the prosecution is duty-bound to adduce evidence and prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, which they have failed to do in this case.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofSushil And Others v. State of U.P. 1995 SSC (Cri.) 388 and in the case of State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh (2003) 3 SCC 153, has held that:

"Enmity is a double edged weapon which cut both ways. It may constitute motive for the commission of the crime and at the same time it may also provide a motive for false implication."

Therefore, we find that the accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of enmity. To establish guilt, the prosecution must present foolproof evidence, either circumstantial or direct, or establish a last seen together scenario, that clearly connects the accused to the crime.

In the present case, the prosecution lacks direct evidence and witnesses. The key witnesses, Hemant Kumar (PW-2), Devendra Kumar (PW-3), and Pushpendra Kumar Gupta (PW-5), are not the eye-witnesses of the incident, which undermines the credibility of their testimony. As a result, their evidence cannot be relied upon beyond reasonable doubt.

In the case in hand, it appears that the prosecution has relied heavily on the fact that there were ongoing civil and criminal litigation between the deceased, Ram Kripal Gupta and accused persons. Due to this reason, prosecution implicated the accused persons. It also appears that due to doubt and suspicion against the accused persons, prosecution has wrongly named accused persons for the commission of crime with the purpose of retaliation/revenge but it is also settled law that mere suspicion and doubt, however, so strong cannot take place of proof or evidence. For holding any person guilty for commission of any crime strong evidence beyond reasonable doubt must be adduced by the prosecution.

Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1156 of 2021 in the case of State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra And Another; decided on 12.02.2021 has held that:

" It is well settled by a plethora of judicial pronouncement of this Court that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt."

This proposition has been reiterated in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam; reported in AIR 2013 SC 3817. Therefore, it appears that prosecution due to suspicion and doubt against accused persons wrongly and purposely named them in the murder of the deceased, Ram Kripal Gupta but law is settled that only on the ground of suspicion and doubt no person can be held guilty for the commission of any crime. It is also settled principle that heinous the crime, stronger the proof of evidence and without adducing evidence beyond reasonable doubt no person can be held guilty for commission of heinous crime like murder etc.

We also gone through the judgment and reasoning given by the learned Trial Court and we find that learned Trial Court has fully discussed and analysed both prosecution and defence witnesses in minute details. Trial Court has discussed both oral and documentary evidence as adduced by prosecution and defence. By mentioning and discussing the prosecution and defence witnesses including oral and documentary evidence, Trial Court also found that prosecution witnesses i.e. Hemant Kumar (PW-2), Devendra Kumar (PW-3) and Pushpendra Kumar Gupta (PW-5) were not eye-witnesses of the alleged incident. Trial Court in a fully stretched, lengthy and well discussed judgment found that Hemant Kumar (PW-2), Devendra Kumar (PW-3) and Pushpendra Kumar Gupta (PW-5) were not eye-witnesses of the alleged incident as stated by the prosecution. We find that judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.10.1987 passed by the learned Trial Court is just and proper. No interference is warranted by this Court.

In the light of the above discussions, we do not find any force in the arguments advanced by learned A.G.A. for the State, as such, the present government appeal filed by the State is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The judgment of this Court shall be sent to the Trial Court for necessary compliance. The Trial Court records be transmitted back to the Trial Court.