In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has upheld the conviction of a man accused of shooting his wife, affirming a 7-year rigorous imprisonment sentence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court dismissed the decades-old criminal appeal, finding the prosecution’s case proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to 1983, when an FIR was initially lodged alleging that unidentified miscreants had entered the house and shot the complainant’s wife. However, during investigation, the narrative shifted.
Read also:- Allahabad HC Pulls Up Police Lapse, Recommends Faster Coordination with Govt Counsel
The injured woman later stated that it was her husband who fired at her, leading the police to convert the case into one under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder). The trial court convicted the accused in 1985, sentencing him to seven years in prison.
The accused challenged this conviction before the High Court, arguing inconsistencies in evidence, lack of independent witnesses, and non-recovery of the weapon.
The High Court carefully examined witness testimonies, especially that of the injured wife, who appeared as a key witness.
“The injured witness is the wife of the accused and her testimony carries great weight,” the bench observed, emphasizing that the quality of evidence matters more than the number of witnesses.
The Court noted that despite some contradictions in other testimonies, the statement of the injured woman remained consistent and reliable. It found it “highly improbable” that a wife would falsely implicate her own husband in such a serious offence.
Addressing the defence argument about identification, the Court said the incident occurred inside the house, and “there is no question of misidentification when the assailant is the husband.”
The Court also reiterated settled legal principles:
- “It is the quality of evidence, not quantity, which determines the case.”
- Minor inconsistencies or absence of forensic evidence do not automatically weaken a credible prosecution case.
The Court relied heavily on:
- The injured woman’s testimony describing the shooting
- Medical evidence confirming firearm injuries
- Circumstantial factors, including strained marital relations
Read also:- Delhi High Court Allows Early Divorce Plea, Waives One-Year Marriage Rule in Mutual Consent Case
It also noted that the defence version involving unknown miscreants did not inspire confidence, especially given contradictions and lack of supporting evidence.
After evaluating the entire record, the High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment.
“The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt,” the Court held while affirming both conviction and sentence.
The appeal was dismissed, and the Court directed the accused who was on bail to surrender before the trial court within 15 days. It further ordered that failure to surrender would result in coercive action for arrest and imprisonment to complete the sentence.
Case Title: Rameshwar Dayal vs State
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 1985
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Abdul Shahid
Decision Date: 19 March 2026
