Conviction for Murder Upheld: Allahabad HC Rejects Plea Against Life Sentence

In a decisive ruling, the Allahabad High Court has affirmed the life imprisonment sentences of two individuals convicted for the brutal stabbing of a family member over a land dispute, emphasizing that the testimonies of related witnesses remain credible if they are natural and consistent.

Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, sitting as a division bench, delivered the verdict while dismissing the appeal filed by the convicts. The court noted that the prompt filing of the First Information Report and the clear, natural accounts provided by the deceased's wife and son left no room for doubt regarding the appellants' guilt.

Direct Evidence Trumps Allegations of Interested Witness Bias

The appellants challenged their conviction primarily on the ground that the eyewitnesses the son and wife of the deceased were 'interested witnesses.' They argued that such testimony, in the absence of independent witnesses, should be discarded. However, the Court rejected this contention, observing that the presence of family members at the scene of a broad-daylight incident occurring in front of their own house is entirely natural.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible."

Invoking the principles established in Brahm Swaroop and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( "2011 (6) SCC, 288": 2010 CaseBase(SC) 697), the bench reiterated that minor discrepancies in testimony do not corrode the core of the prosecution's case. Furthermore, citing State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Another ( "(1981) 2 SCC 752": 1981 CaseBase(SC) 125) and Sucha Singh and Another v. State of Punjab ( "(2003) 7 SCC 643": 2003 CaseBase(SC) 1764), the Court clarified that 'related' is not synonymous with 'interested' in legal parlance.

Consistency in Medical Evidence and Prosecution Narrative

No Contradiction Between Injury and Post-Mortem Reports

A significant point of contention was a perceived discrepancy between the initial injury report and the final post-mortem report regarding the number of wounds. The Court clarified that the second 'wound' mentioned in the post-mortem report was, in fact, a surgical incision made for a rubber drain during treatment. The Bench found no conflict between the medical findings and the eyewitness accounts of a single knife blow to the abdomen.

Investigative Lapses Do Not Benefit the Accused

While acknowledging that the Investigating Officer failed to collect blood-stained soil or recover the murder weapon, the Court held that the prosecution cannot be penalized for such laches. The Bench emphasized that the consistent ocular evidence outweighed these procedural lacunae.

The Court has following directions:

"The accused-appellants, Neksey and Lakhan Singh, were on bail, however, during the pendency of the appeal, they failed to appear before the Court either personally or through counsel. Consequently, Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against them, pursuant to which they were arrested and remanded to jail custody. At present, the accused-appellants are in jail. They are directed to serve out the remaining sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 23.07.1990. Let a copy of this judgment and order be transmitted forthwith to the learned Trial Court along with the Lower Court Record, as well as to the concerned jail authorities, for necessary compliance."

Background:

The dispute originated from a conflict over five bighas of land purchased by the deceased, Munna Lal, an army veteran. On May 21, 1989, a discussion regarding land shares escalated when the accused, Neksey (the deceased's brother) and Lakhan Singh (Neksey’s son), arrived armed with a kanta and a knife. Neksey allegedly held Munna Lal from behind while Lakhan Singh stabbed him in the abdomen. Munna Lal passed away during treatment on May 28, 1989.

The Trial Court had convicted the duo under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court, after a thorough re-evaluation of the evidence under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the testimonies of defense witnesses, concluded that the defense evidence was unreliable and aimed solely at shielding the culprits. Consequently, the High Court affirmed the 1990 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Etawah.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1476 of 1990
Case Title: Neksey and another Versus State of U.P.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): K.m. Misra, Shyam Kishore Yadav
For the Respondent(s): Sushil Kumar Pandey, A.G.A.-Ist

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 197