Underscoring that the testimony of natural eye-witnesses cannot be discarded on the basis of defense conjectures or minor inconsistencies, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the criminal appeal of four men convicted for the 1994 broad-daylight murder of a Gram Pradhan.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad affirmed the trial court’s 2001 verdict, holding that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants through consistent oral evidence backed by forensic findings.
Background
The case pertains to the murder of Sita Ram, the then Gram Pradhan of Sidhour, on July 13, 1994. The incident occurred at approximately 7:30 A.M. at Shamsherganj Bazaar, Pratapgarh, while the deceased and the complainant, Ram Pratap Singh (P.W.1), were overseeing the distribution of kerosene oil.
According to the prosecution, the four accused—Bashir Ahmad, Wakeel Ahmad (alias Munda), Hamid, and Bhullar—arrived at the fair price shop. Bhullar allegedly pulled the deceased from a platform, while Bashir and Hamid opened fire. As Sita Ram fell, Wakeel Ahmad reportedly fired a double-barrel gun at his face from point-blank range. Sita Ram died instantly. Following a trial, the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Pratapgarh, convicted all four on October 9, 2001, under Section 302/34 of the IPC.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Appellants: The appellants were represented by Sri Rishad Murtaza (for appellants 1, 2, and 4) and Sri Rahul Kumar Singh (for appellant 3). The defense team also included Sri A.K. Srivastava, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Sri Girish Kumar Pande, Sri Jaikaran, and Sri Saurabh Srivastava. They contended that the conviction was based on “chance” and “interested” witnesses who were politically aligned against the accused. They argued:
- Medical evidence suggested the death might have occurred at 4:00 A.M. (due to an empty stomach), contradicting the 7:30 A.M. prosecution story.
- The non-examination of independent local witnesses should lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution.
- Discrepancies in the FIR and the order of the names of the accused indicated deliberation and coaching.
For the State and Complainant: The State was represented by Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A., while the complainant was represented by Sri Amar Nath Pandey and Sri Amar Nath Dubey. They argued that the FIR was lodged promptly at 9:15 A.M., leaving no time for concoction. They emphasized:
- The presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was natural given the distribution of essential commodities.
- The appellants were dreaded criminals, which explained why other locals were too terrified to testify.
- The injury patterns (blackening and tattooing) perfectly corroborated the eye-witness accounts of close-range firing.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court conducted an exhaustive re-appreciation of the evidence, focusing on the quality of the testimony and the legal implications of existing enmity.
1. Reliability of Ocular Testimony: Rejecting the defense’s claim that the witnesses were “chance witnesses,” the Court noted that their presence was natural at the time and place of oil distribution. Relying on Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (1957), the Court reiterated that the law values the quality of evidence over quantity.
“In the case of ocular witness account, if it proves the case, the motive and medical examination are not much relevant but the motive has been shown by defence himself… and it is settled that enmity is a double edged sword, which may be either way.”
2. Reconciling Medical and Oral Evidence: The Court dismissed the defense theory that an empty stomach indicated a pre-dawn murder. It accepted the explanation that the deceased had been fasting the previous day and had not yet eaten or attended to nature’s call. The Court noted that medical opinions on time of death cannot override clear ocular testimony when the latter inspires confidence.
3. Criminal History and Witness Intimidation: The Bench noted the significant criminal antecedents of the appellants, including Wakeel Ahmad (28 cases) and Bashir Ahmad (18 cases). The Court held that in such cases, the prosecution’s failure to examine more locals is understandable.
“No body could have dare to give his/her evidence against the appellants… Merely because certain persons named in the F.I.R. were not examined, it cannot automatically be inferred that their testimony would have been favourable to the defence.”
Decision
The High Court found no merit in the appeal, holding that the trial court’s findings were neither illegal nor perverse.
“This Court finds no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the impugned judgment and order warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.”
The conviction and life sentences were upheld. The Court directed that the appellants shall remain in custody to serve out their sentences.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Basheer Ahmad and 3 others Vs. State of U.P.
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 926 of 2001
- Bench: Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad
- Date: March 9, 2026
