Allahabad High Court Relies On Victim-Wife's Testimony To Uphold Man's Conviction In 1983 Attempt To Murder Case

The Allahabad High Court last week upheld the conviction and 7-year rigorous imprisonment of a man who shot his wife in February 1983 inside their matrimonial home over an unfulfilled dowry demand for a motorcycle.

Dismissing the husband's criminal appeal filed in 1985, the Court relied heavily on the testimony of the injured wife, terming her a "sterling witness" whose evidence was absolutely trustworthy.

In its 16-page order upholding the conviction of the husband, a bench of Justice Abdul Shahid also took note of the trustworthy evidence of the wife, the strange relationship between the parties and the temperament of the husband-accused toward the victim-wife: It observed thus:

"The injured is the real wife of the accused-appellant. There is no question of mis-identifcation by the wife about her husband. The incident was occurred during mid night within the house. The relationship between husband and wife were not cordial and strange prior to date of incident. The character and habit of the accused appellant was not good. He is habitual drunkard and having illicit relation with other women. She is the injured witness, who has vehemently supported the prosecution story and specifically given evidence against her own husband. She is injured and best reliable evidence in this case. Her evidence is absolutely trust worthy".

Briefly put, on February 23, 1983, the accused-husband (Rameshwar Dayal) lodged an FIR claiming that three to four unknown miscreants had entered their house at night and fired a gunshot at his wife, Vimla Devi.

However, when the IO recorded the injured wife's statement at a hospital in Agra, she categorically stated that her husband had fired at her left leg and hand after she refused to open her room's door.

She further disclosed that her husband maltreated her over demands for a motorcycle, had illicit relations with other women and wanted to kill her to perform a second marriage.

Following this, the police converted the case to an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and filed a charge sheet against the husband.

In February 1985, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, convicted and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ under Section 307 IPC. Challenging the judgment, he moved the HC.

It was the primary contention of his counsel that the prosecution only relied on the statement of the injured wife, and no independent witness had recorded their statement or supported the prosecution's story, and the nature of the injuries is neither fatal nor on a vital part of the body.

It was thus argued that the nature of the injury may go up to the injury under Section 323 and 324 IPC, and hence, the conviction should be modified, and the sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone.

It was also argued that the appellant-husband never demanded any dowry, nor has any genesis of dowry been proved by the prosecution.

On the other hand, the AGA has submitted that the wife's evidence is of sterling quality and she could not have misidentified her husband as an offender. It was also contended that the wife statement of the injured is absolutely reliable and admissible. Hence, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

Perusing the prosecution's evidence, the Court concluded that it is highly improbable that the victim-wife would falsely implicate her husband, and her evidence was of sterling quality.

In this regard, the bench relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2009 wherien it was held that where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in-guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone.

The bench also took note of other circumstances, including the fact that the wife, whose leg became totally ineffective due to the gunshot wounds, never returned to her matrimonial home after the incident and that she had faced atrocities at the hands of her husband before the incident.

The bench also relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Mallapa Siddappa Alakanur and others vs State of Karnataka 2009 to stress that in criminal trials, medical evidence and ocular evidence are trustworthy and should be preferred over medical evidence.

Thus, concluding the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court affirmed the 1985 trial court judgment. The Court cancelled the appellant's bail and directed him to surrender before the trial court within fifteen days to serve out the remainder of his sentence.

Case title - Rameshwar Singh vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 124

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 124

Click Here To Read/Download Order