Nathu Ram And Another vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 4376 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Nathu Ram And Another vs State Of U.P. on 11 August, 2025

Author: Subhash Chandra Sharma

Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135588
 
Court No. - 84
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 692 of 1983
 

 
Appellant :- Nathu Ram And Another
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Shukla,V.C. Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.3.1983 passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Session Trial No. 180 of 1982 (State Vs. Nathu Ram and another) arising out of Crime No. 157/158/159 under Section 307 IPC & Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station Ajitmal, District Etawah, by which the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants for a period of five years imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and six months imprisonment under Section 25 Arms Act.

3. Facts in brief are that on 3.7.1981 at about 6.00 pm the complainant Constable Shambhu Dayal with his colleague Constable Shatughan Singh was on petrol duty and was present at canal Pulia near Village Barela, Police Station Ajitmal, where two persons came there towards Village Navalpur on Bicycles and when the constables tried to stop them, they threw the cycles and ran away. The constables chased them and on their cry, Harpal Singh, Campotar Singh, Prem Narain, Badan Singh, Tulsi Ram and others came there and also chased the appellants. The appellant Nathu Ram made fire on them with Pistol on the police party but no any injury was sustained by them. The appellants were arrested by the police and recovery of one Tamancha and two live cartridges was made. Fard was prepared and they were brought to the police station and case was registered against the appellants. The investigation of the case was handed over to SI Omkar Singh, who visited the spot and prepared the site plan and after recording the statement of witnesses found the case, prima faice, established and filed the charge-sheet.

4. The learned court concerned took cognizance of the offence and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. case was committed for trial.

5. Learned trial court framed the charges against the appellants, which were read over to them and explained but they denied and claimed for trial.

6. The prosecution examined PW-1 Campotar Singh, PW-2 Badan Singh, PW-3 Constable Shambhu Dayal, PW-4 Tulsi Ram and PW-5 SI Omkar Singh.

7. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the allegations and also the statements made by witnesses. They stated the recovery to be false and did not adduce any evidence in defence.

8. The learned trial court, after hearing the argument of defence as well as the argument of prosecution, passed the judgment and order in question against which this appeal has been preferred before this Court.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that in this case the prosecution story is totally false. The police has implicated the appellants falsely for committing attempt to murder. PW-1 is Campotar Singh, who is public witness and turned hostile. PW-2 Badan Singh is also public witness but he was aged about 70 years at the time of alleged incident and his eye sight was also not able to see the remote objects. He was suffering from Cataract and was not able to see the things from the distant place but under pressure of police he attended the court for examination. There are major contradictions in his statements and are not reliable. PW-3 Constable Shambhu Dayal is informant and PW-4 Tulsi Ram is also said to be a public witness. He has also not supported the prosecution version as well but stated that when he heard the noise he reached on the spot and the police had already arrested the appellants before he arrived on the spot. In this way, he can also not be said to be an eye-witness of the fact that any fire was made with Tamancha by the appellants. PW-5 is SI Omkar Singh who has not conducted the investigation in proper way but he submitted charge-sheet. Other Constable Shatrughan Singh, who was accompanying the informant, has not been examined by the prosecution. In this way, the case against the appellants under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act do not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. Even though, learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid, which cannot be said to be sound but the finding recorded by the learned trial court being erroneous is liable to be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges.

10. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case the appellants were arrested on the spot by the informant PW-3 with his colleague Constable Shatrughan Singh. Though PW-1 has turned hostile but PW-2 Badan Singh and PW-4 Tulsi Ram have supported the prosecution version. The contradictions in their statements are minor in nature and do not falsify their testimony. None examination of Constable Shatrughan Singh has no effect on the prosecution. The shortcomings committed by Investigating Officer during the course of investigation cannot be said to affect the prosecution case adversely. The learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellants on the basis of material on record. There is no any error of fact or law in the judgment passed by the learned trial court dated 17.3.1983 but this appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

11. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that Constable Shambhu Dayal and Constable Shatrughan Singh were on petrol duty on 3.7.1981 at about 6.00 pm. When they reached near Village Barela at about 6.00 pm, two persons were seen by them coming towards Village Navalpur. They tried to stop them but they started running away. The Constables made alarm on which some villagers came there and they also started chasing them. In the way, the appellants took out Tamancha and made fire on the police personnel but they escaped and no injury was caused to them. Thereafter the appellants were arrested by the police and a countrymade pistol, two live cartridges and a Khokha cartridge were recovered from the possession of appellant Nathu Ram and three live cartridges were recovered from the possession of appellant Ram Shanker. The recovered articles were taken into possession and recovery memo was prepared, then they came to the police stations and FIR was got registered. During the course of trial, PW-1 Campotar Singh said to be a public witness was examined but he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version regarding the incident, arrest and recovery. PW-2 Badan Singh is also a public witness, who was aged about 70 years at the time of alleged incident, which took place at about 6.00 pm. He said that he was suffering from Cataract and got his Eyes operated just prior to the alleged incident. His eye sight was very weak. Even though, he stated that he saw the appellants while running from 500-600 steps. This does not inspire confidence that a person, who has got his Eyes operated and in age of 70 years, could identify the appellants from the distance of 500-600 steps away. In this way, the testimony of PW-2 Badan Singh cannot be said to be wholly reliable, despite there are some other contradictions in his testimony. PW-3 Constable Shambhu Dayal is the informant himself, who lodged the FIR. He arrested the appellants. Sine he made arrest of appellants, therefore, he may be interested witness in getting the appellants convicted. The prosecution did not examined Constable Shatrughan Singh who was also accompanying the informant (PW-3). P.W.4 Tulsi Ram has stated on page 4 of his cross-examination that he reached on the spot 1-2 minutes after arrest of accused persons. It also shows that this witness did not see the accused persons while making fire on the police party. PW-5 I.O. has though proved the investigation but his conduct during the course of investigation was not satisfactory and he did also not conduct the investigation of the case in proper manner. The prosecution sanction was taken by the I.O. but nowhere in the prosecution sanction order passed by the District Magistrate gets mentioned that the recovered material was produced before him. In this way, the prosecution sanction can also not be said to be valid. On taking entire evidence on record, into consideration, it appears that in this case the prosecution could not prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment and order dated 17.3.1983 passed by learned trial court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

12. As a result, this criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 17.3.1983 passed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah in Session Trial No. 180 of 1982 (State Vs. Nathu Ram and another) is set aside and the appellants Nathu Ram and Ram Shanker stand acquitted. They are on bail and they need not to surrender before the learned trial court and their personal bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

13. Copy of this judgment along-with original trial court record be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. A compliance report be sent to this Court within two months. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.

Order Date :- 11.8.2025

Anil