The High Court at Allahabad has dismissed a 41-year-old criminal appeal, affirming the seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of a man convicted of attempting to murder his wife. Justice Abdul Shahid, presiding over the case, held that the testimony of the injured wife is of “sterling” quality, noting that she could not have misidentified her own husband as the assailant.
Background of the Case
The incident dates back to the night of February 22-23, 1983, in Mainpuri district. The appellant, Rameshwar Dayal, initially lodged an FIR alleging that 3-4 unknown miscreants had entered his house and shot his wife, Smt. Vimla Devi. However, during the investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO), Sri Ramji Lal Sharma, grew suspicious after finding discrepancies in the scene of the crime—specifically a broken ladder that would have been impossible for intruders to use.
Upon recording the statement of the injured wife at S.N. Medical College, Agra, the IO discovered that it was the husband who had fired the shots. The motive was attributed to strained relations and unmet dowry demands for a motorcycle. Consequently, the case was converted from Section 459 IPC to Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) IPC, and Rameshwar Dayal was made the sole accused.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Counsel: Learned Senior Counsel Sri Akhilesh Singh argued that the prosecution relied solely on the testimony of the wife without independent witnesses. He contended that since the injuries were on her back, she could not have identified the assailant. He further argued that the injuries were not fatal and suggested the conviction be modified to Section 323 or 324 IPC. Reliance was placed on Sivamani and another Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2023) to support a reduction in sentence.
State’s Counsel: The learned AGA for the State countered that the wife suffered firearm injuries within her matrimonial home and that “the wife could not mis-identify her husband as an offender.” It was highlighted that the husband did not even take her to the hospital or visit her during treatment, and the wife never returned to her matrimonial home as her leg became permanently ineffective.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court emphasized the weight of an injured witness’s testimony. Citing Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh (2016) and State of U.P. Vs. Naresh (2011), the Court observed:
“It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubts. However, the burden on the prosecution is only to establish its case beyond reasonable doubts and not all doubts.”
The Court rejected the defense’s theory of unknown miscreants, noting that the intruders allegedly fled without stealing anything, which “does not inspire any confidence.” On the quality of evidence, the Court stated:
“The injured Smt. Vimla Devi is the wife of accused-appellant… It is highly improbable that she have any doubt about identification of her husband. It is also highly improbable that she has falsely implicated her husband in the said offence.”
The Court further noted that even if the firearm was not recovered, it was not fatal to the case, as ocular evidence from a trustworthy witness prevails over minor medical discrepancies. Regarding the motive, the Court remarked that while direct evidence makes motive immaterial (Arjun Malik Vs. State of Bihar, 1994), the demand for a motorcycle and the appellant’s illicit relations provided a clear background for the crime.
The Decision
Justice Abdul Shahid affirmed the judgment and order of conviction dated February 20, 1985, and the sentence dated February 23, 1985, passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri.
“The criminal appeal stands dismissed,” the Court ruled. The appellant, who had been on bail since 1985, had his bail cancelled. The Court directed him to surrender before the trial court within fifteen days to serve the remainder of his seven-year sentence. The C.J.M., Mainpuri, was instructed to ensure the arrest of the appellant if he failed to surrender within the stipulated period.
Case Details:
- Case Name: Rameshwar Singh (Dayal) vs. State
- Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 1985
- Bench: Justice Abdul Shahid
- Date: March 19, 2026
