Allahabad High Court Affirms Conviction in Twin Fatal Stabbings and Dismisses Surviving Accused's Appeal

A Division Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad heard an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. challenging a Sessions Court conviction and sentence arising out of Case Crime No. 215 of 1978 (Police Station Kotwali, Faizabad) for offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC. The appeal proceeded only on behalf of the surviving appellant, Mukundi Singh, after the other convicted co-accused died during the pendency of the appeal.

The High Court affirmed the convictions and concurrent sentences imposed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the prosecution proved the occurrence, identity and role of the accused by ocular testimony corroborated by inquest and post-mortem evidence, and that procedural lapses such as non-conduct of a test identification parade or delay in forwarding the F.I.R. to the Magistrate did not vitiate the trial. The Court noted established principles on identification: "The identification of the accused in court constitutes substantive evidence" and reiterated that "the failure to hold it does not ipso facto make the evidence of identification inadmissible." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Upon a careful consideration of the entire evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order has rightly been passed by the learned trial Court in accordance with law after proper appreciation of the evidence and material available on record. No illegality, perversity or error has been pointed out, which may warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction."

Background The prosecution alleged that on 13 May 1978, at about 6:15 p.m., a group of persons including the accused assaulted Prabhakar and Ram Anjor near Tarang Talkies, Faizabad, with knives; both victims died at the spot. The complainant Ram Abhilakh filed a written report the same evening; the police registered F.I.R. No. 215/1978. Investigating officers conducted inquests, recovered blood-stained soil and a piece of cloth, and the post-mortems by Dr. R.P. Mishra recorded multiple ante-mortem stab and incised wounds causing death by shock and haemorrhage. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses and produced post-mortem, inquest and recovery documents. The trial court convicted Avadh Narain, Balwant Singh, Mukundi Singh and Jangi (Balram Singh) under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and concurrent terms; fines were imposed.

On appeal, counsel for the accused challenged the conviction on multiple grounds: alleged ante-date/ante-time lodging of F.I.R., non-compliance with Section 157 Cr.P.C. (non-forwarding of F.I.R.), rejection of an application for test identification parade (TIP), absence of independent witnesses, and claimed contradictions in medical and photographic evidence. The State urged that ocular testimony, inquest and post-mortem findings formed a coherent chain of evidence and that the trial court had properly appreciated the evidence.

The High Court analysed the evidence and authorities. It held that the time of occurrence and the F.I.R. timing were supported by witness testimony and inquest/post-mortem records, and that some procedural lapses (including delay in forwarding the report to the Magistrate) were not per se fatal, citing jurisprudence including Jafel Biswas v. State of West Bengal. On identification, the Court reviewed Supreme Court guidance in Rajesh v. State of Haryana and observed that a TIP was not a statutory right of the accused and "may lend corroboration" but its absence did not automatically render court identification inadmissible. The Court likewise rejected the contention that related witnesses were automatically unreliable, citing settled authorities that relationship alone did not negate credibility. After weighing ocular evidence, inquest and surgical post-mortem opinion (noting the relative expertise of the surgeon who conducted autopsies), the Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal by Mukundi Singh was dismissed; he was directed to surrender within two weeks to serve the sentence, failing which the trial court would take steps for arrest. The Court ordered transmission of the judgment and trial record to the concerned court forthwith.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. - 962 of 1982 Case Title: Avadh Narain and others Vs. State of U.P. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): I.B. Singh, Senior Advocate; Mridul Rakesh; Ishan Baghel; Nishar Ahmad; Shiwa Kant Tiwari; Sajeet Kumar Singh (holding brief) For the Respondent(s): Govt. Advocate; D.K. Singh; K.K. Singh; Pavan Kumar Mishra, A.G.A.