Allahabad HC Affirms Life Sentences in 2008 Fatehpur Murder, Corrects Conviction to Section 302 Read with Section 34 IPC
A Division Bench upheld life imprisonment for four appellants convicted of murdering Bhura Singh in a property dispute, while correcting the trial court's inadvertent omission of Section 34 IPC from the conviction.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the 2013 conviction of four accused persons — Dinesh Chandra Shukla, Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, Anil Kumar Shukla, and Sunil Kumar Shukla — for the murder of Bhura Singh on 11 October 2008 in District Fatehpur. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Fatehpur had convicted each appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 each, with one year's additional rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The High Court affirmed those sentences but altered the conviction to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, finding that the trial court's omission of Section 34 from the operative order was a minor irregularity, not a ground for acquittal.
The Property Dispute Behind the Murder
The prosecution case traced the motive to a registered sale deed executed on 7 October 2008 — just four days before the murder. Bhura Singh had purchased a fallen-down mud house from one Awadhram in the village. The house was situated close to the residence of appellant Dinesh Chandra Shukla. Awadhram's widowed daughter-in-law, Rupa Devi, lived in the house and also worked in the accused's households. According to the prosecution, the appellants had hoped to eventually obtain the house and Awadhram's agricultural land through Rupa Devi. Bhura Singh's purchase of the property frustrated that plan.
When the appellants subsequently had the property measured by an advocate, Bhura Singh, his son Rajendra Singh (PW-1), and his elder brother Jhaller Singh (PW-2) went to Ram Swaroop Singh — who had good relations with Dinesh Chandra — for a compromise. While the three were talking with Ram Swaroop outside his house, all four appellants arrived armed. Dinesh Chandra Shukla carried a single-barrel gun, Akhilesh Chandra Shukla and Anil Kumar Shukla each carried a double-barrel gun, and Sunil Kumar Shukla carried a rifle. After exhorting the victims not to escape, the appellants chased them, climbed onto the roof of Ram Swaroop's house, and fired indiscriminately. Bhura Singh was shot and died on arrival at Vijaipur Hospital. The FIR was registered the same evening at 5:30 pm at Police Station Kishunpur as Case Crime No. 273 of 2008 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Arguments Raised by the Appellants
The appellants, represented by Senior Counsel Sri Mangla Prasad Rai assisted by Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, raised several challenges. They argued that Bhura Singh had a criminal history and was likely murdered by someone else, making the prosecution a case of false implication. PW-1 and PW-2 were said to be unreliable, with the defence pointing to PW-2's cross-examination statement that he had not seen the injuries of the deceased as proof he was absent from the spot.
The delay in the FIR reaching the Chief Judicial Magistrate — it was received on 15 October 2008 — was advanced as evidence that the FIR was ante-timed and ante-dated. The ballistic report was said to be fatal to the prosecution because the four 12-bore empty cartridges recovered from the spot did not match the two DBBL guns recovered from the appellants. It was also argued that no specific role had been assigned to any individual appellant, and that the trial court had convicted all four under Section 302 IPC alone — without the aid of Section 34 — without recording which shot hit the deceased.
The State and the informant's counsel, including Senior Counsel Sri Kamal Krishna assisted by Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, opposed the appeal and urged dismissal.
How the Bench Evaluated the Eye Witnesses
The judgment, authored by Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, framed five specific questions for determination and addressed each in turn. On the reliability of PW-1 and PW-2, the court undertook a detailed examination of their depositions against the site plan (Ex.Ka-11) prepared by the Investigating Officer.
PW-1 Rajendra Singh, the informant and son of the deceased, described the incident in detail — the direction of pathways, the positions of surrounding houses, the location of Ram Swaroop's main door, the Dharamshala, and Bhagat Singh's house where he and PW-2 took shelter. The court found that every spatial description given by PW-1 in cross-examination corroborated points marked in the site plan, and that his deposition on date, time, place, and manner of the incident was fully consistent.
The defence argument that PW-2 had admitted to not being an eye witness was dealt with specifically. The court held that PW-2's statement — that he was not present — referred to his absence during the Investigating Officer's subsequent spot inspection, not to absence during the incident itself. PW-2 had consistently described the date, time, and manner of the shooting throughout his cross-examination, and his account of the surrounding locality also matched the site plan. The court found both witnesses to be reliable eye witnesses who were present on the spot.
On the argument that neither PW-1 nor PW-2 signed the inquest report, the court relied 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 to hold that there is no requirement in law for an eye witness to sign the inquest report, and non-mention of a witness's name in the inquest report cannot be a ground to reject their testimony.
Medical Evidence, the FIR Delay, and the Ballistic Report
The autopsy of Bhura Singh, conducted on 12 October 2008 by PW-4 Dr. P.K. Pandey, found two multiple firearm wounds — one covering the chest and abdomen and one on the left arm. Six small metal pellets were recovered from the body, including one from the left ventricle of the heart. The cause of death was recorded as shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem firearm injuries.
The appellants argued that the injuries were on the front of the deceased's body, which was inconsistent with him being shot while running away from the accused. The court resolved this by reading the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 together with the site plan. Both witnesses stated that when the shots hit Bhura Singh, the deceased was slightly behind them near the south-western corner of Bhagat Singh's house, facing west — the direction from which the shots came. The court found it entirely plausible that the deceased had turned back to check whether he was still within the line of fire, consistent with the Supreme Court's observation in State of Bihar v. Ram Padarath Singh (1998) 6 SCC 240 about the instinct of self-preservation prompting a fleeing person to look back.
On the FIR delay, the court noted that the FIR was registered at 5:30 pm on 11 October 2008 and the inquest was conducted the same day between 6:45 pm and 7:45 pm at Vijaipur Hospital. All related documents — the inquest report, letters to the CMO, and challan papers — were prepared on 11 October 2008 bearing the case crime number, and were available when the post-mortem was conducted on 12 October 2008. The police station was 14 km from the place of incident. The informant and PW-2 first took the injured Bhura Singh to Vijaipur Hospital before going to the police station. Drawing on Rama Devi v. State of Bihar (2024) 10 SCC 462 and Jafel Biswas v. State of W.B. (2019) 12 SCC 560, the court held that delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate is not, by itself, fatal and that the appellants had demonstrated no prejudice. The FIR was found to be prompt and genuine.
On the ballistic report, the court acknowledged that three of the four 12-bore empty cartridges recovered from the spot did not match the two DBBL guns recovered from the appellants, and the fourth could not be compared. However, relying on Rakesh and Another v. State of U.P. (2021) 7 SCC 188 and Vineet Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P. (2007) 14 SCC 660, the court held that recovery of the actual weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction. The FSL report confirmed that the pellets recovered from the deceased's body were fired from a firearm. The court reasoned that the appellants' licensed guns were likely not the actual weapons used — consistent with the Investigating Officer's finding that Dinesh Chandra Shukla's licensed SBBL gun had already been deposited before the incident — and that the actual weapons used were not recovered. This did not cast doubt on the credible and consistent depositions of PW-1 and PW-2.
Common Intention and the Missing Section 34
The most consequential legal question was whether the absence of Section 34 from the trial court's operative conviction order vitiated the sentence. The trial court's judgment at page 24 had expressly held that the appellants committed murder in a pre-planned manner with common intention. The FIR, the charge sheet, the charges framed, and the questions put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. all invoked Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The omission of Section 34 from the sentencing order was, the High Court found, a mere inadvertent irregularity.
The Division Bench drew extensively on the Supreme Court's three-judge bench decision in Suresh and Another v. State of U.P. (2001) 3 SCC 673, which held that Section 34 IPC is a rule of evidence and not a substantive offence, and that for it to apply, two conditions must be met: the criminal act must have been done by more than one person, and each individual act must have been done in furtherance of a common intention shared by all. It also cited Ram Naresh v. State of U.P. (2024) 1 SCC 443, which reiterated that common intention can be formed on the spur of the moment and does not require prior discussion or a formal plan.
Applying these principles, the court found on the facts that all four appellants arrived together armed with deadly weapons, surrounded the deceased and his family, exhorted to kill them, climbed onto the roof together, and fired indiscriminately before fleeing together. This sequence of conduct, from arrival to departure, established a pre-arranged plan and common intention beyond doubt. It also relied on Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC 615, where the Supreme Court had itself altered a conviction from Section 302 IPC alone to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC in similar circumstances.
The court further addressed the argument that no specific individual shot could be attributed to any particular appellant. Section 34 IPC, the judgment explained, does not require each co-accused to have individually committed the fatal act. What is required is that each participated in furtherance of the common intention — and here, all four arrived armed, fired simultaneously from the roof, and fled together.
Outcome
The Division Bench dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 3107 of 2013. The judgment and sentence dated 3 July 2013 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 2009 was affirmed against all four appellants — Dinesh Chandra Shukla, Anil Kumar Shukla, Sunil Kumar Shukla, and Akhilesh Chandra Shukla. The conviction was altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The life sentences and fines of Rs. 10,000 each, with one year's additional rigorous imprisonment in default, were upheld. The appellants, who were on bail, had their bail bonds cancelled and were directed to be taken back into custody forthwith to serve the remaining part of their sentences.