Allahabad High Court
Keshav Ram vs State Of U.P. on 27 August, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:152572-DB
Judgment Reserved on 04.07.2025
Judgment Delivered on 27.08.2025
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1984 of 2014
Appellant :- Keshav Ram
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Mishra,Vinay Saran(Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.
(Per Justice Avnish Saxena)
1. Challenge in the present criminal appeal is judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.04.2014 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No.231 of 1991 State Vs. Keshav Ram and another, (arose out of Case Crime No.141 of 1990), under Sections 307, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Merapur, District Farrukhabad and connected Sessions Trial No.18 of 1991 State Vs. Keshav Ram (arose out of Case Crime No.146 of 1990), under Sections 25, 27 Arms Act, Police Station Merapur, District Farrukhabad, whereby the learned trial court has convicted the present appellant and sentenced him with punishment of life imprisonment with Rs.20,000/- fine, in default, 6 months additional imprisonment for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34.
2. It is by way of the impugned judgment that the appellant is convicted for offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C.; acquitted under Sections 25, 27 Arms Act; and acquitted co-accused Virendra S/o Nekram Yadav.
3. Initially, four accused have been charge sheeted in Case Crime No.141 of 1990, namely, Munna Lal, Ram Krishna, Keshav Ram (appellant) and Virendra Singh.
4. The trial ended, being abated against Munna Lal on 09.08.1999 and against Ram Krishna on 14.12.2001, on account of their death. Thus, out of four named accused only appellant is convicted, hence, the ground in the present appeal is to be considered in respect to the solitary role of appellant vis--vis the common intention to commit the crime by the appellant and other accused, who are either passed away or acquitted, because the conviction is recorded under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
5. Sarvesh Singh (P.W.-1) has lodged the F.I.R. for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. on 18.09.1990 at 1:10 hours against four anonymous persons at the Police Station Merapur, Farrukhabad, situated 14 km away from the place of incident, stating that in the intervening night of 17/18.09.1990, at 12:00 in the night, some miscreants knocked at the door of informants uncle Rakshpal Singh, hearing which his aunt, Ramlali (wife of Rakshpal Singh) started shouting hearing which the informants uncle, Shivpal Singh (P.W.2), Chetrapal Singh (Devpal in F.I.R.), Rameshwar, Ramladait (not mentioned in F.I.R.), Ram Saran, the informant and Shaliendra Kumar woke up and came out and saw three miscreants were running towards Silsinda. The informant and the persons gathered had chased them with torch. At that time, Rakshpal Singh, who was resting in a hut outside also came out and apprehended the three miscreants in front of a neem tree. The miscreants being apprehended by Rakshpal Singh had opened fire on him, who sustained gun shot injuries on his right side of chest, neck and arm. One of the miscreants sprinted off from behind and three other miscreants also sprinted away, who were seen in the light of torch and could be identified.
6. On this F.I.R., the investigation was carried out. The injured succumbed to injuries at Primary Health Centre (PHC) Kaimganj on 18.09.1990 at 7:10 a.m. The present appellant was arrested. On his instance, a countrymade pistol was recovered. It is in his disclosure statement that he has fired the detrimental shot on Rakshpal Singh by that countrymade pistol that the appellant is also charge sheeted under the relevant provisions of Arms Act as well, after obtaining the prosecution sanction. Though, other three co-accused were charge-sheeted for offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C.
7. The charge has been framed on 16.12.1991 against all the four accused for committing the offence of murder of Rakshpal Singh in the intervening night of 17/18.09.1990 at 12:00 a.m., carried out in furtherance of common intention, whereas, the present appellant was also charged for offence of carrying and using of unlicensed fire arm.
8. During the trial, P.W.-1 Sarvesh Singh, P.W.-2 Shivpal Singh, P.W.-6 Govind Singh, P.W.-7 Ramlali and P.W.-8 Jamadar Singh have been produced as witnesses of fact. Out of whom, P.W.2 Shivpal Singh, P.W.-6 Govind Singh and P.W.8 Jamadar Singh did not support the prosecution case. P.W.-7 Ramlali has not been produced as eye witness, but, the conviction of the appellant is based on the testimonies of P.W.1 Sarvesh Singh and P.W.-7 Ramlali. The formal witness produced during the trial are P.W.3 Constable Badan Singh, the scribe of chik F.I.R.; P.W.-4 Ranveer Singh Tomar (S.I.), the investigating officer of Case Crime No. 146 of 1990 of offence under Sections 25, 27 of Arms Act; P.W.-5 Kanhaiya Lal, produced as a secondary witness to prove the handwriting of Dr. C.K. Chaturvedi, who has conducted the post mortem examination of Rakshpal Singh and prepared the post mortem report (Exhibit Ka-14). It is pertinent to point out here that P.W.4 Ramveer Singh Tomar (S.I.) also appeared as a secondary witness to prove the documents authored by M.D. Singh (Investigating Officer) of Case Crime No.141 of 1990. Thus, the only primary evidence of P.W.3 Constable, Madan Singh was recorded in the trial court. So far as, the primary evidence of S.I. Ranveer Singh is concerned, he is the Investigating Officer of the case under Arms Act, which ended in acquittal.
9. The learned trial court while appreciating the evidence has found the statement of P.W.-1 Sarvesh Singh as reliable statement, who has named the accused appellant committing the crime. So far as the statement of P.W.-2 Shivpal Singh is concerned, the trial court has appreciated that in the examination-in-chief, this witness has named the accused, but has not relied on his cross-examination, which was carried out after 17 years, wherein he has denied the presence of accused committing the crime. The reason assigned for accepting his examination-in-chief and ignoring the cross-examination is the time gap in recording the same, relied on the case of Vikas Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand 1 and Kulwinder Vs. State of Punjab2, which dealt with the hostile witnesses. The trial court has also considered the statement of P.W.-7 Smt. Ramlali for acquitting the co-accused Virendra Singh and convicting the present appellant.
10. It is submitted by Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court has not appreciated the role and documentary evidences, pertaining to place of occurrence; the medical and ocular testimony; the inconsistent statements of witnesses; the incident occurred in the night, without source of light. The accused appellant was known to the informant and witnesses but despite that the name of accused is not mentioned in the F.I.R; the F.I.R. is ante-time; the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity; no test identification parade has been carried out by the Investigating Officer; the description of accused has not been mentioned in the F.I.R.; P.W.-7 Ramlali is doubtful and unreliable witness, who has stated that the accused wore mask but stated that Virendra Singh was not the accused, who further submits that she knew the appellant before the incident; serious contradictions in the statement of witnesses have been ignored by the trial court. As such, it is prayed that the appeal of the appellant shall be allowed and the judgment of conviction shall be set aside.
11. Sri G.N. Kanaujiya, learned A.G.A. submits that the matter is of 1990. The judgment is of 2014, the witnesses have been examined after a lapse of 17 years. The trial court has rightly considered the role of appellant; after appreciating the statement of witnesses of fact, who have specifically named the appellant in committing the crime. Hence, he submits that the appeal is devoid of merit, there is no ground taken in the appeal, which are tenable in the eyes of law. As such, he submits that the appeal be dismissed.
12. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submission made by the parties and perused the records.
13. The F.I.R. has been registered by Sarvesh Singh on 18.09.1990 at 1:10 a.m. for the incident occurred in the intervening night of 17/18.09.1990 at 12:00 a.m. No accused were named in the F.I.R. Nine persons were assigned roles. The role of shouting on hearing of the voice is assigned to P.W.-7 Ramlali, who first heard the knock on the door of her house. Rest seven persons including the informant had the role of hearing the shouting of Ramlali, came out and chased the accused. The deceased Rakshpal Singh was assigned the role of intercepting the accused, who was shot and succumbed to injuries.
14. The statements of three main witnesses of fact is required to be considered.
15. The statement of P.W.-7 Ramlali, is required to be discussed first, because she is the first, who has heard the knock at her door and shouted. In her examination-in-chief, she has made it clear that she was resting in her house and her husband was resting outside the house, when the miscreants had knocked at the door, she woke up, started shouting on which, Rameshwar, Devpal, Shivpal Singh, Kalyan and Jamadar came there. She further states that when her husband tried to catch the miscreants, Keshav Ram had fired shot at her husband, who was accompanied by two or three miscreants. Her husband was taken to hospital on a tractor, who died on the way. This witness has not named the informant Sarvesh Singh for his presence. The two witnesses, she has named, namely, Shivpal and Jamadar Singh have turned hostile. In her cross-examination, she has specifically denied the role of Virendra Singh in the incident, whereas in her further cross-examination, she has denied to have intimated the name of Keshav Ram to the police that he is involved in the crime. She further stated that by the time, her relatives and villagers came, the miscreants had already fired the shot at her husband and sprinted away. She has specifically stated that she knew Keshav Ram, who has covered his face but she identified him as he resided in the same village. She further admits that she is taking the name of Keshav Ram for the first time during her deposition in Court. This witness is relied on by the trial court, but her statement, which she has given during her deposition casts a doubt on her being trustworthy and reliable, as she has specifically named Keshav Ram in the incident. She has stated that by the time, the villagers and relatives came, the accused were sprinted off, who were covering their faces and she knew Keshav Ram, whom she has identified by his eyes. Had this been the fact then why the appellant is not named in the F.I.R., which is registered in one hour ten minutes of incident, though the police station is situated at a distance of fourteen kilometers from the place of incident. Her statement also casts a doubt on the statement of other witnesses of fact that they have chased the miscreants because this witness has already submitted that by the time relatives and villagers came the accused had sprinted off.
16. P.W.-2 Shivpal Singh in his examination-in-chief has stated that he came out from his house on hearing the shouting of Ramlali and saw that the four miscreants were running towards primary school, one of them slipped off towards the farm and three miscreants, namely, Keshav Ram, Krishna and Munna Lal were identified in the light of torch. His brother, Rakshpal intercepted them, on which, Keshav and Munna Lal had fired at him. He suffered gunshot injuries. He has named Sarvesh, Ramladait, Ram Saran and Shailendra Kumar, who have also witnessed the incident and identified the accused. During his cross-examination, he has specifically stated that Keshav Ram has not committed murder of his brother. He further submitted that by the time, he has heard the shouting of Ramlali and came out of his house, the accused were already sprinted away. The trial court while dealing with the statement of this witness has specifically made observation that the hostile statement of this witness during the cross-examination cannot be considered as cross-examination was carried out after a lapse of 17 years. Even if his cross-examination is kept aside; in the examination-in-chief, he has stated that Keshav Ram and Munna Lal had fired the detrimental shot on Rakshpal, which besides him is witnessed by Sarvesh, Ramladait, Ram Saran and Shailendra Singh. Sarvesh is the informant of the case. Had the accused being recognized and identified at the time of incident then, why the F.I.R. has not been registered with specific names. The examination-in-chief and cross-examination of this witness cannot be ignored because in the cross-examination, he has specifically stated that he has heard the shouting of his sister-in-law, when he came to the place of incident, he found that his brother was injured and accused had sprinted away; it is in tune with the statement of P.W.-7, Ramlali.
17. It is a point of concern that why a person merely on hearing a knock on the door would start shouting, as is reflected from the F.I.R., which speaks that on hearing a knock on the door of the house, Ramlali started shouting. Hence, the statement of P.W.-2 and P.W.-7, Shivpal Singh and Ramlali, respectively projects that the anonymous miscreants came, shot at Rakshpal, hearing the sound of fire, Ramlali started hue and cry, hearing which the relatives and villagers came, but by the time, they arrived, the accused sprinted off, it is because of this fact that the F.I.R. is unnamed.
18. P.W.1 Sarvesh Singh has reiterated the entire written information, which he has given to the police, in his examination-in-chief. He has proved the written information as exhibit Ka-1 and by dock identification, identified accused Munna Lal, who has committed murder of his uncle, Rakshpal Singh. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not know any of the accused prior to the incident. He also do not have any idea whether other witnesses knew the accused at the time of incident. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the witnesses were present at the time of giving written information to the police, but none has disclosed the name of accused. In his further cross-examination, he has stated that Keshav Ram lived in his village. In his further cross-examination, he has stated the presence of the witnesses Shivpal Singh, Devpal Singh, Rajeshwar, Ramladait, Ram Saran, Shailendra Kumar, Kalyan Singh, Govind Singh, Jamadar Singh and Yogendra Kumar. He further stated that none of the witnesses present at the time of writing of first information report had named the accused. It is pertinent to point out here that P.W.-6 Govind Singh and P.W.-8 Jamadar Singh had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.
19. The statements of witnesses of fact when appreciated in totality is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused in committing murder of Rakshpal Singh. The trial court while appreciating the evidence has failed to make an observation that the accused appellant committed the murder of deceased Rakshpal Singh in furtherance of common intention, as it is a pre-requisite to convict a person for an offence in furtherance of common intention that there is a common intention and the crime is committed in furtherance thereof. The Apex Court in the case of Sudip Kumar Sen alias Bittu Vs. State of West Bengal and others3 held that conscious meeting of mind is necessary; pre-concert or distinct previous plan not necessary, but to invoke Section 34 I.P.C. it is to be established that (i) there was common intention on the part of several persons to commit a particular crime; and (ii) the crime was actually committed by them in furtherance of that common intention. As such, the conviction of Keshav Ram either under Section 302 I.P.C. or read with Section 34 I.P.C. cannot be sustained.
20. The appeal deserves to be and is allowed.
Order Date :- 27.08.2025
Shivangi
(Avnish Saxena, J.) (Siddharth, J.)
