Legal Review and Analysis of Om Pal & Ors vs State of UP Now State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 1262

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: Om Pal & Ors. vs. State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand)
Citation: 2025 INSC 1262
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Sanjay Karol
Date: October 28, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment primarily interprets and applies the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 300: Defines Murder and its exceptions.

• Section 302: Punishment for Murder.

• Section 304 Part II: Punishment for Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder, when the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death.

• Section 307: Attempt to Murder.

• Section 149: Every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offense committed in prosecution of common object.

• Sections 147 & 148: Punishment for Rioting and Rioting armed with a deadly weapon.

3. Basic Judgment Details

This is a Criminal Appeal (No. 1624 of 2011) filed before the Supreme Court of India, along with two connected appeals. The Appellants were Om Pal, Narendra, Ranvir, and Dharamvir, who were convicted for offenses including murder. The Respondent is the State of Uttar Pradesh (now Uttarakhand). The appeal challenged the common judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court dated November 29, 2010, which had upheld the appellants' conviction and life imprisonment sentence awarded by the Trial Court (Sessions Trial No. 56 of 1992). The case arose from a violent clash between two groups of relatives over a land dispute on May 19, 1988, resulting in two deaths.

4. Core Principle of the Judgment: Analysis of Conviction in a Case of Mutual Fight

The Central Issue

The pivotal legal question before the Supreme Court was: Did the High Court err in upholding the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/149 IPC for murder, and should their case be converted to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC, considering it was a "free fight" where both sides sustained injuries?

The Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and legal principles to determine whether the case warranted interference with the concurrent findings of the two courts below. Its reasoning is as follows:

• Scope of Interference under Article 136: The Court began by reiterating the well-settled principle that its power under Article 136 of the Constitution is extraordinary and is to be exercised sparingly. It does not routinely re-appreciate evidence to overturn concurrent findings of fact. Interference is warranted only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the findings are manifestly perverse, based on a misreading of evidence, or result in a grave miscarriage of justice. The Court cited precedents like Mekala Sivaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Shahaja alias Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra to affirm this position.

• Assessment of Ocular Evidence and Credibility of Witnesses: The prosecution's case rested heavily on ocular evidence, particularly the testimony of:
  PW-2 (Bangal Singh): An injured eyewitness.
  PW-3 (Mahendra Singh) and PW-4 (Mohan Lal): Independent eyewitnesses.
  The Court emphasized that ocular evidence is the best evidence unless there are compelling reasons to doubt it. It gave significant weight to the testimony of PW-2, the injured eyewitness. Relying on precedents like Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab and Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court held that the testimony of an injured witness carries a high degree of credibility because their presence at the scene is established, and they are unlikely to spare the actual assailants to falsely implicate others. The Court found that the defence failed to elicit any major contradictions or discrepancies to discredit these witnesses.

• Determination of Aggressors and Common Object: The appellants argued it was a "free fight." However, both the Trial Court and the High Court, after assessing the evidence, had conclusively held that the appellants were the aggressors. The testimony of the witnesses established that the appellants, armed with deadly weapons like spades and phawadas (axes), were the first to assault the complainant party after a verbal altercation. The Court found that the appellants had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of attacking the deceased and others, thus attracting Section 149 IPC.

• Nature of Injuries and Intent to Murder: The Court conducted a detailed review of the medical evidence. The deceased, Dile Ram and Braham Singh, had sustained severe incised wounds on the parietal region of their skulls, which were bone-deep and caused by sharp-edged weapons. The Court applied the principles laid down in Pulicherla Nagaraju vs. State of A.P., which lists factors to determine intention, including:
  The nature of the weapon used (sharp-edged spades/axes).
  The part of the body targeted (the head, a vital part).
  The amount of force employed (bone-deep injuries).
  The Court concluded that the nature and location of the injuries clearly indicated that the assailants acted with the knowledge and intention of causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. Therefore, the offense did not fall under the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC (a sudden fight without premeditation), as argued by the appellants.

• Rejection of Procedural Defenses: The Court also addressed and rejected other procedural arguments raised by the appellants:
  Delay in FIR: The Court held that the 3-day delay in lodging the FIR by the complainant side was satisfactorily explained, as PW-1 was preoccupied with taking the injured to the hospital. Citing State of H.P. vs. Gian Chand, it ruled that a well-explained delay is not fatal to the prosecution's case.
  Non-Recovery of Weapons: Relying on State of Rajasthan vs. Arjun Singh, the Court held that the non-recovery of weapons is not fatal when there is consistent and reliable ocular and medical evidence supporting the prosecution's case.

5. Final Outcome of the Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants.

• The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, affirming the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC.

• The life imprisonment sentences were maintained.

• The appellants were directed to surrender forthwith, and their bail bonds were cancelled.

• The Court clarified that this order would not preclude the appellants from seeking remission in accordance with the law and the state government's policy.

The Supreme Court authoritatively held that in a case of a mutual fight, where the evidence establishes that one group was the aggressor, armed with deadly weapons, and inflicted fatal injuries with the requisite intention, the offense is murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and not the lesser offense under Section 304 Part II IPC.

6. MCQs Based on the Judgment

Question 1: In the case of Om Pal & Ors. vs. State of U.P. (2025 INSC 1262), which factor was pivotal in the Supreme Court's decision to affirm the conviction under Section 302 IPC instead of Section 304 Part II IPC?
a) The appellants had a previous criminal record.
b) The fatal injuries were caused by sharp weapons targeted at the victims' heads, indicating an intention to cause death.
c) The appellants fled the scene immediately after the incident.
d) The prosecution proved the motive with absolute certainty.

Question 2: According to the Supreme Court's judgment, what is the legal significance of the testimony of an injured eyewitness like PW-2 (Bangal Singh) in this case?
a) It requires independent corroboration from at least two other witnesses to be admissible.
b) It is accorded a special status and presumed credible, as injury confirms their presence at the scene.
c) It is generally considered unreliable if the witness is related to the deceased.
d) It can only be used to establish the occurrence of the incident but not to identify the assailants.