Allahabad HC Affirms Life Sentence of Pravesh in 1998 Murder Rooted in Decades-Long Land Dispute
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction of Pravesh under Section 302/34 IPC for the 1998 murder of Jagpal Singh, finding eyewitness testimony reliable and motive proved through defence witnesses themselves.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 2003 on 29 May 2026, affirming the life sentence imposed on appellant Pravesh by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 148/1998. Pravesh had been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for the murder of Jagpal Singh on 10 April 1998 and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The appeal had been filed by multiple accused, but by the time of decision, co-accused Leela, Mukesh, and Bablu had all died and their appeals had abated. The surviving appeal concerned Pravesh alone. The bench found the prosecution's two eyewitnesses credible, the motive established, and the trial court's reasoning sound.
The Murder on the Canal Embankment
On the morning of 10 April 1998, Jagpal Singh and his brother-in-law Shri Om were riding a bicycle from their village towards Hapur to meet their lawyer in connection with a land dispute case. Jagpal's father, Mahipal, and a companion named Rohtash were following on foot, about 50 to 60 steps behind.
Near a culvert on the canal embankment close to village Eklaidi in District Ghaziabad, four men — Mukesh, Bablu alias Pappu, Pravesh, and Leela — came from the direction of Eklaidi. According to the FIR and the eyewitness depositions, Mukesh gave an exhortation to kill Jagpal. Pravesh and Leela then struck Jagpal with sticks, causing him to fall from the bicycle. Mukesh fired a shot from a country-made pistol that missed. Mukesh and Bablu then attacked Jagpal with the pistol butt and a knife respectively. Pravesh also produced a knife and stabbed Jagpal. When Mahipal and Rohtash shouted, the accused pointed the pistol at them, forcing them to jump into the canal. Shri Om ran towards Eklaidi. Villagers from Eklaidi gave chase; Mukesh was briefly caught in a sugarcane field but escaped.
The FIR, Case Crime No. 47/1998 under Section 302 IPC, was registered at Police Station Dhaulana at 10:30 am the same morning. The post-mortem of Jagpal was conducted on 11 April 1998 by Dr. Shyam Khandelwal at the District Hospital, Ghaziabad. The autopsy surgeon found seven incised wounds, six of which were bone-deep, along with multiple abrasions. Two incised wounds had fractured the underlying bone — one on the occipital region of the head and one above the left eyebrow — with laceration and rupture of brain tissue. The cause of death was recorded as coma resulting from ante-mortem injuries.
On 2 May 1998, Pravesh, Mukesh, and Bablu were taken into police custody. On pointing out by Pravesh, a blood-stained knife was recovered from a clump of grass at the south-eastern corner of a bridge. A country-made pistol was recovered on pointing out by Mukesh, and a knife on pointing out by Bablu.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The trial court convicted Pravesh under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 and one year's additional rigorous imprisonment in default. He was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Pravesh appealed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Before the High Court, counsel for Pravesh raised several challenges. First, that the prosecution had intentionally withheld eyewitness Rohtash, warranting an adverse inference. Second, that PW-1 (Mahipal) and PW-2 (Shri Om) had not signed the inquest report or recovery memos, showing they were not present on the spot. Third, that the statement of PW-2 was recorded late by the Investigating Officer. Fourth, that the prosecution witnesses had improved the prosecution story by attributing a knife to Pravesh when the FIR had only mentioned a stick. Fifth, that the injuries on the deceased — including bone fractures — could not have been caused by a knife. Sixth, that PW-1 and PW-2 were chance witnesses and interested relatives whose evidence should not be relied upon. Seventh, that the defence witnesses, particularly DW-3 and DW-5, had not been given adequate weight by the trial court.
The State, through its Additional Government Advocate, opposed the appeal, contending that the FIR was prompt, the eyewitness accounts were consistent, the weapons were recovered on the pointing out of the accused, and the medical evidence corroborated the oral testimony.
How the Bench Reasoned
Motive. The bench addressed the argument that Pravesh had no personal motive. The land dispute originated in 1972 between informant Mahipal and one Chheda. After Chheda's death, his sons Mukesh and Bablu pursued the litigation. The bench found, from certified copies of court records placed before the trial court, that Civil Suit No. 327/1970 had Chheda, Bramha, Jagvir, and Chanderpal as parties on the opposite side. Bramha is the father of Pravesh. The informant had won the litigation and purchased the disputed land in an auction. The bench observed that Pravesh had stated in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination that there was no litigation between him and the informant's side, but had remained silent about the litigation involving his own father. Co-accused Mukesh had, in his own Section 313 statement, admitted that the land case had been pending between the informant and the father of Pravesh as well. Defence witnesses DW-1 and DW-2 themselves confirmed in their depositions that the civil suit was contested between Mahipal and Pravesh's side. The bench held that the motive to commit the crime was stronger on the accused side, given that their ancestral land had been taken over through litigation.
The bench also applied the principle from Chandan v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2024) 6 SCC 799, that absence of motive is inconsequential when direct evidence establishes the crime. Since reliable eyewitnesses had been examined, motive was in any case not the determinative factor.
Delay in FIR. The incident occurred at 8:45 am and the FIR was registered at 10:30 am. The place of incident was about 12 km from the police station. The bench found no unexplained delay. Head Constable Mulchand PW-3, who registered the FIR, was not cross-examined by the defence, leaving his evidence on the timing of registration uncontroverted.
Non-examination of Rohtash. Rohtash had been cited as a prosecution witness but was not examined by the prosecution. The defence summoned him, but Rohtash appeared before the trial court and filed an application stating that he was old, sick, and a relative of both parties, and requested to be discharged from testifying. Neither side examined him. The bench applied the settled position that it is the quality, not the quantity, of witnesses that matters, drawing on Bhimappa Chandappa v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 11 SCC 323, Joy Devaraj v. State of Kerala, (2024) 8 SCC 102, and Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434. The bench held that since PW-1 and PW-2 had given detailed and consistent evidence, and since Rohtash had himself declined to testify, no adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution.
Non-signing of inquest report. The bench rejected the argument that PW-1 and PW-2 were not eyewitnesses because they had not signed the inquest report or recovery memos. Relying on Brahm Swaroop and Another v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 280, and Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 2 SCC 450, the bench held that there is no legal requirement for an eyewitness to sign an inquest report, and that non-mention of a witness's name in the inquest report is not a ground to reject testimony.
Delay in recording PW-2's statement. The Investigating Officer recorded PW-2's statement on 11 April 1998, the day after the incident. The bench found this was not a delay at all, given the volume of proceedings conducted on 10 April 1998 itself. It applied Firoz Khan Akbar Khan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 627, holding that delay in recording a witness statement does not draw an adverse inference if adequately explained.
Improvement regarding knife. The FIR attributed a stick to Pravesh. The prosecution witnesses in their depositions also stated that Pravesh used a knife. The bench held that the FIR is not an encyclopaedia and need only contain broad facts. The FIR had clearly mentioned that knife injuries were caused to the deceased. The depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding Pravesh's use of a knife were extensively tested in cross-examination and remained unshaken. The bench applied M.G. Eshwarappa and Others v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 4 SCC 558, and found no impermissible improvement.
Bone fractures and knife injuries. The defence argued that the bone-deep fractures found on the deceased's skull could not have been caused by a knife. The bench examined the post-mortem report carefully. The autopsy surgeon had found incised wounds — not blunt-force injuries — at the sites of the fractures. The bench reasoned that the fractures were caused by sharp-edged weapon blows delivered with great force, consistent with knife blows. The autopsy surgeon was not cross-examined by the defence, leaving his evidence uncontroverted.
Reliability of PW-1 and PW-2. The bench applied the principles on appreciation of ocular evidence set out in Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365, and Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 10 SCC 537. The examination-in-chief of PW-1 was conducted on 2 December 1999 and his cross-examination concluded on 25 August 2000. PW-2's examination-in-chief was on 3 November 2000 and cross-examination concluded on 4 April 2001. Both witnesses were cross-examined on multiple dates over extended periods. The bench found that the contradictions pointed out by the defence — such as differing accounts of the number of police personnel at the scene — were minor and did not touch the core of the prosecution case. Both witnesses remained consistent on the date, time, place, and manner of the incident, and on the position of the deceased's body after the attack.
The bench also rejected the argument that PW-1 and PW-2 were unreliable because they had not attempted to save Jagpal. Relying on Motiram Padu Joshi and Others v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) SCC 429, the bench held that each person reacts differently on witnessing a crime, and that PW-1 and PW-2 had explained their conduct: they were threatened with a country-made pistol and jumped into the canal to save their lives.
Defence witnesses. All five defence witnesses — DW-1 through DW-5 — were found to be non-eyewitnesses. DW-1 and DW-2 were witnesses to the alibi of Leela, whose appeal had already abated. DW-4 was a witness to the alibi of Mukesh, also deceased. DW-3 and DW-5 had arrived at the scene after the incident. The bench held that their depositions had no bearing on the presence of Pravesh at the spot.
Recovery of knife. Constable Mangan Singh PW-6 deposed that on 2 May 1998, Pravesh produced a blood-stained knife from a clump of grass at the south-eastern corner of a bridge. The defence did not cross-examine PW-6 on the recovery from Pravesh specifically, leaving that portion of his evidence uncontroverted. Independent witness Lala alias Hariom PW-2 in Sessions Trial No. 149/1999 also confirmed the recovery and stated that the knives were blood-stained. The bench found the recovery proved.
The bench noted that the recovered weapons were not sent to the forensic science laboratory, but held this was merely an investigative lapse that could not benefit Pravesh given the reliable oral and medical evidence on record.
Outcome
The Division Bench dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 2003 in its entirety qua the surviving appellant Pravesh. The judgment and sentence dated 27 January 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 148/1998 and Sessions Trial No. 149/1998 — convicting Pravesh under Section 302/34 IPC to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 and one year's additional rigorous imprisonment in default, and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act to rigorous imprisonment — was affirmed. The bench recorded that Pravesh is in jail and directed that he serve out the remaining part of his sentence. A copy of the judgment was directed to be provided to Pravesh through the concerned Superintendent of Jail, free of cost. All pending applications, including bail applications, were disposed of accordingly.