Five Convicted for Double Murder as Court Affirms Unlawful Assembly and Dismisses Appeals

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard appeals by Om Pal and others challenging the Uttarakhand High Court’s affirmation of their convictions under Sections 302 read with 149 and 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code arising from a 1988 violent clash over a disputed field boundary.

The Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed concurrent findings of the courts below, holding that the accused acted in furtherance of a common intention as an unlawful assembly and that the injuries and deaths were intentionally inflicted. The Court emphasised the probative value of ocular and medical evidence, noting that “keeping in view the principle that an injured eyewitness enjoys a presumption of truth and the fact that the same is supported by the medical evidence, testimony of PW-2 does not suffer from any infirmity and has to be considered while fixing the guilt of the appellants.” The Court also observed that “delay in filing the FIR cannot be considered to be fatal to the case of the prosecution when there is direct evidence and when the delay in filing the FIR is well explained.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “From the above discussion, there remains no doubt in our minds that the present appellants in furtherance of their common intention formed an unlawful assembly. Inncha and Dharamvir stood armed with sharp edged deadly weapons committed the murder of Braham Singh and Dile Ram, while in order to achieve their common intention, they had also inflicted such injuries on the physical person of Bangal Singh knowing fully well that had Bangal Singh died on account of the said injuries they ought to have been held guilty of causing his murder in this matter.” The appeals were dismissed; the appellants were ordered to surrender forthwith, their bail bonds were cancelled, and they retained the statutory liberty to apply for remission under state policy.

Background The dispute arose from a family boundary quarrel on 19 May 1988, when two rival groups of close relatives clashed in a sugarcane field after the mendh (ridge) between plots was demolished. Two FIRs were lodged: one by the appellants (FIR No.65) and a cross-FIR by the complainant side (FIR No.65A) later alleging that assaults with lathis, phawadas and spades led to the deaths of Dile Ram (died 24.5.1988) and Braham Singh (died 31.5.1988). Sessions Trial No.56 of 1992 (from FIR No.65A) convicted seven accused of murder and attempted murder and imposed life sentences and terms of rigorous imprisonment for other counts; Sessions Trial No.57 of 1992 (from FIR No.65) acquitted the accused. The Uttarakhand High Court after reappraisal dismissed the appeals and upheld convictions, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

The appellants urged that the incident was a free fight, that injuries occurred on both sides, that no specific role was attributed to individuals and that if any culpability existed it would attract lesser offences or exception to murder. They relied on authorities on intent and free fight. The State relied on motive arising from pending consolidation proceedings, the accused being aggressors and the nature of weapons used, and relied on settled precedents including Pulicherla Nagaraju and others. The prosecution placed primary reliance on ocular evidence — notably PW‑2 (an injured eyewitness) and two other eyewitnesses — and on medical evidence documenting deep incised and lacerated cranial injuries to the deceased and multiple injuries to participants. The Court found the injured eyewitness testimony credible, medical evidence corroborative, the delay in lodging the FIR satisfactorily explained, and non‑recovery of weapons not fatal given direct evidence. Applying established tests for intention and unlawful assembly, and following precedent, the Court concluded the case did not fall within the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC and affirmed conviction and sentence.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1262 (Criminal Appeal No.1624 of 2011 et al.) Case Title: Om Pal & Ors v. State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the published judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the published judgment]