Allahabad High Court
Ran Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 6 November, 2025
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RESERVED
Court No. - 90
HONBLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
HONBLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
(Per Hon'ble Harvir Singh, J., delivered for the Bench under Chapter VII, Rule 1 (2) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.)
1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Tiwari, assisted by Sri Omkar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.8.1984 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 1984 (State Versus Ran Singh and another), by which the appellants were convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section-34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
3. The prosecution story as unravelled in the verbal report (Ext Ka 1), lodged by Ajay Pal Singh on 1.11.1983, is that Ravindra Singh (deceased), R/o village Fakirpur, on 21.10.1983 around 12.30 PM, while he was returning home after ploughing his field and his brothers, Ajaypal Singh (PW-1) and Jagdish Singh (PW-2), were mowing grass in the same field, and when Ravindra Singh reached near Jhamman Singh's field, he was assaulted by accused Ran Singh with spear (bhala) and Ajit Singh with baton (laathi) with the intention to kill. Upon raising alarm, brothers of Ravindra Singh, namely, Ajay Pal Singh (PW1) and Ajit Singh (PW2), along with one Jhabulal Nai (PW-4), R/o village Mujhaiya and other villagers, reached the spot. Upon yelling by the people present on the spot, both the accused fled away towards the village. Thereafter Ajaypal Singh (PW-1) rushed the injured Ravindra Singh to Sadar Hospital, Mainpuri, where Ravindra Singh succumbed to his injuries. Since Ajaypal Singh was alone, he remained with the dead body and on the next day, i. e. 1.11.1983, at 14.45 hrs., he got the verbal report lodged at police station-Kotwali.
4. Prior to lodging of the verbal report on 1.11.1983, at 14.45 hrs., a report was sent by Dr. P. P. Shukla, Emergency Medical Officer, District Hospital Mainpuri, on 31.10.1983 to Thana Kotwali, stating therein that Ravindra Singh, aged about 33 years, was brought dead by his younger brother Ajaypal Singh on October 31, 1983, at 5:30 PM. This information was recorded in the General Diary on October 31, 1983, at 18.05 hrs. as Report No. 39.
5. Sub-Inspector V. S. Tyagi inspected body of Ravindra Singh on November 1, 1983. Inquest was drawn (Exhibit Ka-3) and dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Dr. A. K. Upadhyay conducted the post-mortem on November 1, 1983, at 2:30 PM and prepared his report. Post mortem report (Ext. Ka 14) disclosed multiple ante mortem injuries, including lacerated wounds, incised wounds and abrasions on head, face, arms and legs of deceased Ravindra Singh. On internal examination, fracture in the right parietal bone, torn membranes on the right side and torn brain on the right side of the head, were found. The cause of death was found to be injuries and hemorrhage. Heart was found empty, semi digested food was found in the stomach, small and large intestines half filled, gall bladder full, urinary bladder empty.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid verbal report Ext. Ka 1, F. I. R. against accused Ran Singh and Ajit Singh was registered at Police Station-Dannahar on 01.11.1983 at 14.45 hrs. S. I., V. S. Tyagi. The investigation of the case was entrusted to P. W. 7 Mr. S. S. Sharma, S. O., Dannahar, who conducted the investigsation and submitted chargesheet (Ext. Ka 13) in the Court against the accused under Section 302 IPC. On the basis of said chargesheet, learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of the Sessions, made over the case to the Court of Sessions, which was thereafter transferred to the Court of VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mainpuri for trial, who vide order dated 13.3.1984 framed charges against the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, which was read out and explained to them. The accused-appellant abjured the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses. Their testimony in brief is enumerated hereunder:
8. P.W.1-Ajay Pal Singh deposed that, he had four brothers. Ravindra was killed. Now only Jogendra and Jagdish are alive. Accused Ran Singh and Ajit Singh were both real brothers. Their father's name is Ram Chandra Singh, who was a constable in the police. Ram Chandra Singh and his father (Ajay Pal Singh) were real brothers. His father had died about three years ago. His uncle Ram Chandra Singh and his family had a grudge against them. About one and a half years earlier, his watch had been stolen by the accused Ajit Singh. They accused Ajit of committing theft, which led to a rift. His father and uncle's land had gone into the possession of Veer Sahay Lodhi. His father and uncle demanded money from uncle to contest the case. The uncle said that, he is in service and did not have money. Then his father said that, if he wins the case of land, he would not give its share to his uncle. The uncle agreed to it. His father won the case of land and cultivated it. After his father's death, the uncle took over the entire land. This also led to causing enmity between their families. A quarrel took place on 13/08/1983. The fight was over one of his spare pants (trouser). Accused Ran Singh had claimed that the pant belonged to his father. This led to a fight between his brother Jagdish and Ran Singh. Ran Singh had beaten his brother Jagdish. At the same time, his elder brother Ravindra (deceased) and he reached the spot and had beaten up accused Ran Singh. Due to this, Ran Singh and his family harboured enmity. On 31/10/1983, his brother Ravindra was returning home after ploughing the field with his bullocks, he and his brother Jagdish were removing grass from the same field. When Ravindra reached near Jhamman Singh's field, the accused Ran Singh and Ajit Singh came out of the Chari field, which belonged to Chandra Roop, and started assaulting Ravindra. Ran Singh hit him with a spear, and Ajit Singh used a baton. Ravindra shouted for help, and then he and Jagdish saw the incident and ran shouting towards the spot. Jhabbu, R/o Ujhaiya, Lal Naai had come from the road, and Jagvijay Singh had come from Soma's field. They had seen the accused beating his brother. When he and the witnesses reached the spot, both the accused had run away toward the northwest. The place, where the fight took place, was visible from the field, where he and Jagdish were collecting grass. When the accused ran away, he and his family had brought their injured brother home on a cot. His brother had sustained baton and spear injuries and blood was oozing. There were total 1011 visible injuries. When the accused had attacked his brother, it was around 12:30 in the afternoon. When they had brought his brother at home, many villagers had arrived, amongst whom, Udayveer, Sushila Devi, etc. were present. In the presence of those persons, his brother had named the accused. He had taken his brother on a cot from home to Atpura, where the bus stop is situate, and from there, he had brought him to Mainpuri by bus. As soon as they reached the hospital, his brother had died. He had not left his brother alone at any point of time. The doctor had informed Mainpuri police station about his brothers death. When his brother had died at the hospital, it was around 5:00 to 5:30 in the evening. No one had come on the same night, despite the doctor informed about the death. In the morning, the inspector had visited. His brothers body was lying at the hospital. The inspector had prepared his brothers inquest. In the morning, the body had again been sent to the post mortem house along with a constable. He had also accompanied them. When the doctor had arrived at the post mortem house, he had gone to the police station and narrated the incident there and got the report written. The report had been read out to the witness. Thereupon defence counsel had objected to this and said, that the report cannot be proved. The objection was not accepted. After hearing, the witness stated that he had narrated the incident and got the report written, and had signed it after it was read out to him. Exhibit Ka-1 had been marked on it.
9. Thereafter Sri N. R. Mishra, Advocate counsel for defence put P.W.-1, Ajay Pal Singh to cross examination, who deposed that on 11.5.1984 he and the accused had been living in separate houses. Previously he and the accused had one house. There was a raft (partition) in the middle. He lived in one part, and the accused lived in the other. Both portions had separate exits. This raft had existed, since before he could remember. He did not know whether his father or his uncles fields had been divided into separate plots. They did not own any land in the joint name. Jhamman's field is situated at a distance of one furlong from his house. Ishan river is at a distance of one and half furlong towards south. His village was located at the north-west of Jhamman's field. The field in which he had been mowing grass at the time of the incident, is situated towards south-east of Jhamman's field. The field belonging to him was about 8 bigha and is located along the banks of Ishan river. A garden called Ram Baag, is situated between his and Jhamman's field, over which, about 2025 trees are standing. Adjacent to his field, on the northern side, Tukman Singhs field is situated. At the time of the incident, crop of pigeon pea (arhar ki dal) was standing over Tukman Singhs field. Towards south-east of Jhamman Singh's field, fodder (chari crop) approximately 89 feet tall, belonging to Chandrarup Singh was standing. At the time of murder, he was studying in tenth class at Dayanand Intermediate College, Jyoti, which was two miles distant from from his village. He used to go to school, both by bicycle and on foot. On the day of the incident, timing of school was 7:30 AM to 11:00 AM. Attendance at the college used to be marked at 7:00 AM. On the day of the incident, he did not go to school. He had not submitted any leave application for that day. Even afterward, no application for leave was submitted. If a student is absent without sanctioned leave, the fine used to be imposed for that day. There was no special reason for his absence from school on that day. While the report was being written, he had told Diwan ji that, on the day of the incident, he had been picking grass in his field and, upon hearing the noise, he had rushed to the spot. If Diwan ji did not mention this fact in the report, he (the witness) cannot assign any reason for the omission. The witness's attention was drawn to the written report. It was incorrect to say that, he had gone to school or that the school was open till 12:30 p.m. on that day, or that he was not in the field. Therefore, the above-mentioned details were not recorded in the report. The field was being ploughed for the last 24 days. By the day of the incident, one and half bighas of land had already been ploughed. His brother Jagdish Singh was around 2021 years old, his brother Jugendra Singh was about 24 years old, and the deceased Ravindra was approximately 3032 years of age. At the time of the incident, his brother Ravindra, Ravindras wife Ram Kanti, son Amar Pal, daughter Sarita, brothers Jogendra Singh and Jagdish Singh, he himself, and his mother Bittan were residing in the house. Jugendra Singhs wife, Nanhi Devi, was also residing there. His sister, namely Bitaya, was married in the village Naraki. It was incorrect to say that Jugendra Singhs wife Nanhi had gone to Bitayas house in Naraki on the day of the incident. The true fact was that Nanhi was present at home. Jugendra Singh was in Delhi during those days. Jagdish Singh had failed in High School, whereas Jugendra Singh had studied up to the Intermediate. My watch, which was stolen was of Titus brand. I had the watch, since last 5-6 years. The watch was stolen from the room of my tubewell. The watch was stolen in 1982. I do not remember the month and date. I did not tell the Diwan about the animosity arisen due to theft of the watch. There was no specific reason for not telling him this. Theft of the watch was not reported. He does not know, when his father and uncle lost their land in Veer Sahai's Chak. I have not seen any paper of the case, wherefrom he could know that his father won over the case. The case was decided before his birth. He further deposed that he has four bighas of land adjacent to Veer Sahai Lodha's Chak and two bighas of land of Ram Chandra Singh. We have had this land, since before we gained consciousness. Ram Chandra lost 12 bighas of land in 3-4 years due to illness. There is a ridge between my field and Ram Chandra's field. The ridge existed before he gained consciousness. He further deposed that, it is wrong to say that Ran Singh and Ajit Singh were ploughing only their share of land. I did not depose to the inspector that "About 9 months ago my uncle Ramchandra Singh and his sons Ajit Singh and Ran Singh ploughed their share of land." When the witness was confronted with the statement written by the investigating officer, he said that I cannot give any reason, why he had so written. We have filed an application in respect of the incident occurred on 13/8/83. I do not know in which court this application is being heard and on which date. I have not given any statement in this case. In that application, there is no mention of any grudge regarding the theft of the watch, Veer Sahay Lodha's land, or enmity regarding the empty pants. Ran Singh has filed a case regarding assault on 13/8/83, against me and my brothers Jagdish Singh and Ravindra Singh in the police station. We have appeared in this case and all of us got bailed out ourselves. For my bail, sureties have been furnished by Jaivijay and Ramchandra Singh, resident of Jhabbalpur. My brother Jagdish Singh was bailed out by Udayveer Singh and Ramveer. Jaivijay and Udayveer Singh are witnesses in this case. After a theft case was filed against my brother Jugendra Singh and Jaivijay, Panni Lal's sons Lal Singh and Siya Ram etc. were beaten up. A report was lodged against my brother Jugendra Singh and Ravindra Singh, witness of this case Jaivijay Singh and 11 other people for the assault on Lal Singh. Ravindra Singh did not appear in that case and was shown absconding and a case was registered against rest of the people in which all of them were sentenced to 2 years each. When my brother Ravindra Singh was sentenced, he appeared in court and got himself bailed out. I do not know that the date, in that case was fixed on 1.11.1983 in the Magistrate's court. We were pulling out the grass by hand and collecting it at one place in the field. We were collecting the grass in the middle of the field. The heap of grass had taken up the space of 2-3 cots. When the inspector came for investigation, he saw that heap of grass. The inspector came on the third day of the incident. I had narrated the incident, what I had seen and got it written in the report and after that I had told the inspector. In between, I had not told any other police officer nor did I tell anyone else. At the time of the incident, ploughs were operating in the field, which were far away. Those ploughs were at a distance of 3-3 fields from my field. That distance is approximately one to one and half furlong and 15-16 ploughs were operating. And these were running all around. Only Jaivijay had reached on hearing the noise and no other ploughman had reached. While writing the report to the Diwan ji, those who had reached the spot, did not name Jaivijay. He himself said that, I did not remember. Apart from Jhabbu Lal, Jagdish and many other villagers had reached on raising alarm by Ravindra. I cannot tell the name of any of other people from the village who had come, because I could not see them. As soon as the accused saw us, they started demanding money. At that time, I was not having money, so I got frightened that the accused might kill me too. My brother had been lying in Jhamman Singh's field for 10-15 minutes. I had brought the cot. I had got written in the report that Uday Veer and Sushila Devi were present before whom my brother told the names of the people, who killed him. When the attention of the witness was drawn to the written report Exhibit Ka-1, he said that he cannot assign any reason, why the above details were not written. I had deposed to the Inspector that my brother named the persons who killed him, before Uday Veer Singh and Sushila Devi. When the attention of the witness was drawn to his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, which was recorded before the investigation officer, he said that he cannot assign any reason, why the names of Sushila Devi, and Uday Veer Singh have not been mentioned in his statement. After staying at home for half an hour, 5-6 persons departed the house carrying a cot. Jaiveer Singh, Jagveer Singh, Praveen Singh, Munna and I went. Munna is the son of Jagram Singh, who is my uncle. He was brought to the hospital on this cot. I took my brother to the hospital from Atpura by bus. The cot was returned from Atpura itself. I did not got written in the report that, I took my brother from Atpura by bus. But I told the inspector. He could not tell the reason, why the inspector had not written this fact in his statement. He had brought his brother alone by bus. None of the people who had brought the cot had accompanied. Even after his asking them, no one accompanied him. The bus had stopped at Fariha bus stand. The entire city of Mainpuri is situated between Fariha bus stand and the hospital. He had taken his brother from the bus stand to the hospital by a rickshaw. It was not true that he had taken his brother to the hospital on a cot. He had not told the inspector in his statement that then took him to the hospital in Mainpuri on a cot. When the witness's attention was drawn to this statement, he stated that he did not know, how it had been written. His brother Jagdish had stayed at home for arranging the money and other necessary things. He came on the next day around 2.00 to 2:15 p.m. at the time of lodging report at the police station. He did not depose to the inspector that we two brothers were present near the dead body in the hospital. When the attention of the witness was drawn to his statement, he said that he could not tell the reason, why this statement had been written. He also did not depose to the inspector that there was no one with the dead body except we two brothers. That is why, I did not got the report lodged earlier. If the inspector had written this in his statement, he could not give any reason for it. On the way from the bus station leading to the hospital, Kotwali police station is situated first and thereafter the hospital is located on the same road. Kotwali is about 100 steps away from the hospital. When his brother had died at the hospital, he had informed the doctor that he wanted to lodge a report. However, the doctor had not written the report and had advised him to approach to the police station Kotwali. He had not reduced any report in writing regarding the incident for handing over to the doctor for forwarding it to Kotwali. He had also not asked any employee of the hospital to stay with the dead body, while he would go to the police station to lodge a report. Upon being informed, amongst the police force, Ram Sahay and Nan Singh, had arrived same night and had stayed throughout the night, and remained present there until the panchayatnama was prepared. He was with the dead body, whole night. In the morning, the inspector had arrived at 8 o'clock. When he asked the inspector to get the report lodged, the inspector asked to prepare the Panchayatnama first. After the inspector had written the Panchayatnama and sealed the dead body, he had not gone to the police station to report the incident. He could not assign any reason for that. He was acquainted with Munna Singh, son of Jhabbu Singh, who belonged to his village. Munna Singh had been present, while the panchayatnama was being prepared. He had remained with him until the evening. They did not accompany the dead body to post mortem house. They reached post mortem house afterward. When the body reached post mortem house, only thereafter they proceeded to the police station. Post mortem house was one and half miles away from the hospital. He deemed it proper to be with the body, so he accompanied the body to post mortem house, rather going to the police station. He had not instructed Munna Singh to stay with the body, while he would go to the police station. Ravindra Singh had eaten two or three parathas around 11:00 a.m. that day. After that, he had not eaten anything else, till he was murdered, he had consumed only water. It was incorrect to say that, Ravindra was inflicted injuries at night or that he was assaulted on the way along the river. It was also incorrect to say that he (the witness) had gone to school on that day and when returned at 12:30 p.m., only then he received the information of the incident. It was also incorrect to say that when he reached to Ravindra, Ravindra was unconscious and was unable to speak. It is also untrue to say that his brother Jagdish had gone to Narki (used colloquially to question Jagdish's presence). It was incorrect to claim that he had not witnessed the incident. It was false to allege that he had fabricated a story and waited for Jagdish, and only after Jagdish came to the police station, the report was lodged. It was also wrong to say that the accused had been falsely implicated due to enmity.
10. P.W.-2 Jagdish in his examination-in-chief has deposed that, it had been 67 months since his brother had been murdered. The incident had occurred around 12:30 p.m. He and Ajay Pal were present at the field at that time. His brother Ravindra was returning home after ploughing the field. While passing by Chandra Roops pasture, which lies near Jhammans field, the accused Ran Singh and Ajit had emerged from Chandra Roops pasture. Ran Singh was carrying a spear and Ajit had baton in his hands. Both assaulted his brother. His brother had cried out, and upon hearing the screams, he and Ajay Pal had rushed to him. By the time, Jhabbu Naai from the road and Jaivijay from the nearby field had come, then accused Ran Singh and Ajit had fled towards the north-west. He had seen that his brother had sustained baton stick and spear injuries. His brother Ajay Pal had brought a cot from home. By that time, other villagers had also gathered. They had laid his brother on the cot and taken him home. His brother had remained at home for about half an hour. The villagers had asked him about the incident, he had told them that Ran Singh and Ajit had assaulted him with a spear and a stick. Thereafter Ajay Pal and other villagers had taken his brother to Atpura on a cot. He had stayed at home, because there was no other male member present in the house. In his cross-examination, P. W. 2 deposed that on the day of the incident, when he reached the field, about 1 to 2 bighas of land had already been ploughed. He had reached the field around 9:00 A.M. His brother Ravindra had gone with the plough between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. Ajay Pal had gone along with Ravindra. The 1 to 2 bighas of land had been ploughed over a period of about 4 hours. He had taken food to the field at 9:00 a.m. When he offered the food, his brother had not eaten it. He and Ajay Pal had picked grass and collected it in the middle of the field. Later, they had thrown the grass outside the field boundary. It was incorrect to say that, when Ravindra went home after ploughing the field, he and Ajay Pal had followed him. The inspector had questioned them. He did not state My brother Ravindra Singh was coming to the village after ploughing the field. I and Ajay Pal Singh were also coming after working in the field, leaving our brother Ravindra Singh behind. He stated that the accuseds father was posted as Hawaldar at Aligarh, and that on his persuasion, the inspector had twisted his statements. He had come to know about it only after speaking with Court Sahib. That is why he had not complained to any police officer earlier. He had shown the place to the inspector from where he had seen the incident. He had not shown the location to the inspector suggesting that he had been following Ravindra along with Ajay Pal. He and Ajay Pal were not armed with any weapon. When he looked around, he had seen Jaivijay plough being run nearby. The accused and the plough had been at similar distance. They had cried out for help, but no one had come. They were afraid that the accused might kill them as well. That is why they had not approach the scene. The fight had lasted for about 5 to 6 minutes. Within 5-6 months, his brother had been struck thrice with spear. At the time of the incident, his brother had been wearing a full-sleeved terrycot shirt. The shirt had torn due to spear wounds. They had given water to their brother Ravindra at the place of occurrence. He had not deposed to the inspector in his statement recorded before him, that he was in his field at the time of the incident and ran from there after hearing his brother's screams because the inspector did not ask him. He himself had not mentioned it because he had not recalled the details clearly, due to the panic spread on the moment. However, he had told the inspector in his statement that the villagers had questioned Ravindra Singh, and then Ravindra had told them that Ran Singh and Ajit Singh had assaulted him with spears and sticks . The Inspector must have deliberately not written this in my statement, because he had connived with the accuseds father. He had stated that Ravindra was taken on a cot only upto Atpura and not from the house to the hospital. He had told the inspector this fact that Ravindra was taken on a cot only upto Atpura. However, the inspector had not included this fact in his statement, most likely for the same reason previously mentioned, for the inspector's acquaintance with the accuseds father. The inspector had omitted this part from his statement for the same reason already explained that the inspector had a connection with the father of the accused and had thus manipulated the statement deliberately. He had reached Mainpuri on the next day at around 4 PM, where he met Ajay Pal near Kotwali police station. It was incorrect to say that whole night both brothers had stayed with the dead body at the hospital. They had not given any such statement to the inspector that both of them were present near the body till the next morning. Nor he had made any statement to the inspector that he had sent his brother Ajay Pal Singh to Kotwali Mainpuri for lodging a report, because no one else from the village had accompanied them apart from the two brothers. The reason due to which the inspector had written these things in the statement was the same as already stated his partiality due to links with the accuseds father. It was false to claim that he was in village Narki on the day of the incident, and that when he arrived at Kotwali the next day, Ajay Pal got the report lodged on his (Jagdishs) instructions. It was also untrue to allege that he was giving a false statement due to any grudge / animosity. He stated that, it is incorrect to state that Jhamman Singh was unable to hear the sounds coming from the field or to witness the incident. He affirmed that the events were clearly visible and audible from the place of incident.
11. P.W.-3, Vijendra Singh, who was posted as a Sub-Inspector at Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, has deposed that on 31st October, 1983 and 1st November 1983, he was serving as Sub-Inspector. On 31st October 1983, at around 6:05 p.m., he received a memo from the hospital informing him that a person named Ravindra Singh had died and his dead body was lying in the hospital premises. Acting upon the information, the Station House Officer instructed him to take the necessary legal action, including the preparation of the Panchayatnama. Following these instructions, he took the Panchayatnama register along with other necessary documents and articles from the police station and proceeded and reached to outpost Ganesh Gurj. From where, he along with two constables, went to the hospital. On reaching the hospital, he saw the deceased Ravindra Singhs body lying in an open space in front of the pathology room. Since the place was not illuminated with electric lights, it was not possible to carry out the Panchayatnama proceedings during the night. Therefore, as a precautionary measure, he left the two constables at the hospital to guard the dead body throughout the night. The next morning, on 1st November 1983, Vijendra Singh went to Sadar Hospital, Mainpuri, to carry out the Panchayatnama proceedings. He appointed Panchas for the purpose and started filling out the Panchayatnama. A spot inspection was conducted, during which he examined the injuries, physical appearance, clothing, and other relevant details of the deceased. After inspection, he, along with the Panchas, came to the conclusion, formed an opinion regarding the cause of death, and the proceedings were completed on the spot. The Panchayatnama was written and signed by him in the presence of the Panchas, which was marked as Exhibit 2 and included in the file. The Panchas also signed the document on the spot. He then prepared various related documents on the same site, including the challan nash (Ext. Ka 3), photo nash (Exhibit 4), a letter addressed to the Chief Medical Officer (Ext. Ka 5), and a letter to the Reserved Inspector (Ext. Ka 6). All of these were written by him. The dead body of the deceased, Ravindra Singh, was sealed at the scene, and a sample seal was prepared, which was included in the file and marked as Ext. Ka 1. After sealing the body, he handed it over to Constables Ram Sahay and Man Singh for sending it for the post-mortem. In his opinion, Ravindra Singh had died due to multiple ante mortem injuries sustained on his body.
12. In his cross-examination P. W. 3 Vijendra Singh deposed that on the night of 31st October 1983, when Sub-Inspector Vijendra Singh went to the hospital, Constable 201 Ram Sahay and Constable 2693 Man Singh accompanied him. He deployed both the constables there to guard the dead body and instructed them not to let anyone touch or disturb it. None of the persons present near the dead body during the night, expressed any wish to report the matter to him. When he went to the hospital in the morning, both constables were found present near the dead body. The deceaseds brother was also present there and said that some people from their house are on the way, requesting him to wait for a while. However, Vijendra Singh asked him that it was already too late and they could not wait any longer. He prepared a list of the persons present over there and completed the requisite proceedings. Regarding lodging of the report, the deceaseds brother suggested that they should enquire from other persons from the village, as someone might have lodged a report at the Dannahar Police Station. It did not happen that the deceaseds brother asked him to record their report first, but rather he was told that the Panchayatnama would be completed first, and then the report would be lodged. There was no blood in the pit where the body had been placed while filling it. The pit in which the body was kept was privately owned. Vijendra Singh came to know from the hospital memo that the death had occurred at 5:30 p.m., as it was mentioned that the dead body had been brought at that time. Therefore, he recorded the time of death as not known. He had inquired from the persons who were present with the body at the time of death, and they told him that there had been a fight in the afternoon, and death occurred while the body was being brought at night. However, he could not ascertain the exact time of death because the deceaseds brother was nervous. The brother of the deceased was not included among the Panch witnesses as other people were present to constitute the Panch, and also, because he was nervous. The payment for the transportation and post mortem of the body was made after it was brought in, but Vijendra Singh did not make payment.
13. P. W. 4 Jhabbu Lal, in his examination-in-chief has deposed that about seven months ago around 12:30 in the afternoon, he was traveling from his village Ujhaiya to Fakirpur by road. While on the way, he heard an uproar about a distance of one furlong, turning to direction of the sound, he saw two men were assaulting a person. He ran towards the scene and saw that in the field belonging to Dr. Jhamman Singh, Ransingh and Ajit were assaulting Ravindra, the brother of Jugendra. Ajit was hitting him with baton, and Ransingh was attacking him with a spear. Jaivijay, who was ploughing a nearby field, as well as Ravindra's brothers Jagdish and Ajay Pal, also reached the spot. When they reached the sprt, Ajit and Ransingh fled towards the village. Jhabbu Lal went over to Ravindra, who was injured and bleeding. Ajay Pal ran to his house and brought a cot. Meanwhile, some other villagers arrived and laid Ravindra on the cot and took him to his house. The witness also went to his house and then returned to his own home.
14. P. W. 4 Jhabbu Lal in his cross-examination deposed that the village of the accused was situated at a distance of approximately two and half to three furlongs from the witnesss village. He was going to Fakirpur flour mill to get flour, though there was a flour mill in his own village owned by Shivvir Singh, who himself had stated that it is operated by electricity, the witness was getting his flour grinded at the mill of Punu Kachhi, which runs on a diesel engine. He had put 20 kilograms of grain five to six days prior to Diwali for grinding. Punnu Kachhi maintained a book to record the names of persons, weight and type of grains laid there. The witness could not exactly recall that how many days before Diwali, he collected the grain, it may have been one or two days later. He had laid the grain in a sack himself and did not know, whether electricity was supplied to the village during that time. The incident occurred four to five days prior to Diwali. On the day of the incident, the witness had no other work besides going to Fakirpur to collect the flour. During his visit from his village to Fakirpur, he did not see anyone walking ahead of or behind him on the road; he was walking alone without having anything in his hands. Four to five fields were lying between the road and Jhamman Singh's field. These fields had ridges, but there was no grass visible on them. Out of these fields, only in Ram Prakashs field there were some small, decaying maize plants still standing. In the village where the incident occurred, crops such as millet, pigeon pea, and paddy were commonly cultivated. These four or five fields were naturally irrigated. There was small banyan tree that is why people planted paddy in the area. Typically, by the time of Diwali, the millet crop gets ripened, and some varieties of paddy also matured, though not all of them. It was incorrect to claim that, at the time of the incident, millet crops were standing in all four or five fields and that nothing could be seen from the road. When the witness heard the noise, besides the individuals, already named, there were other persons also working in distant fields, who also arrived later. Those distant workers had been ploughing their fields. To reach Jhamman Lals field from the road, one had to cross over ridgesthere was no clearly defined path. It was a series of field ridges and cultivated land. The witness rushed to the location upon hearing the uproar. When he was about 2025 steps away from the scene of the occurrence, the assailants fled away. By the time he reached Jhamman Singhs field, the accused already ran away. As he came closer, he called out many times. No sound was coming from the road prior to that. When he arrived, Ravindra had already fallen to the ground. He could not recall, whether Jhamman Singhs field is extended along north to south or from east to west. He was also unable to estimate the exact length of the fieldwhether it was 50 steps or 150, he could not specify how far Ravindra was lying from the northern boundary. Ravindra was found lying face down. The witness did not know, whose field bordered Jhamman Singhs field to the north. Similarly, he was unaware of the ownership of the field located to the west of Jhamman Singhs field. Where Ravindra was lying from there the western boundary of the field was approximately 3540 steps away. He could not state the exact length or the east-west span of Jhamman Singhs field. He denied the suggestion that his inability to measure was due to not witnessing the incident. He admitted that he did not own any field in that area and had never been there before. He did not disclose the purpose of his visit to the Inspector. The inspector neither asked, nor was there any specific reason to disclose it. As far as he could recall, the inspector had questioned him only to that extent. The inspector had summoned him from his village Ujhaiya to Fakirpur. Before informing the inspector, he had informed the villagers about the incident, as it was customary. After witnessing the incident and prior to summoning by the inspector, he had not visited Fakirpur to enquire, whether the police had initiated an investigation. Prior to recording his statement before the inspector, he had come to know that Ravindra had died in the hospital. He came to know about Ravindras death on the evening of the first day in his village. Prior to recording his statement before the Inspector, he had no knowledge that any other police official had visited the village. At the time of the incident, he remained at Jhamman Singhs field for not more than 15 minutes. He did not inform the inspector that he had gone to Ravindra's house from the site where Ravindra died, even though the inspector had asked him about it. He stated that there was no specific reason for not mentioning it. He stayed at Ravindras house for about half an hour. After Ravindra was taken to the hospital by other persons, he returned to his own house. Ravindras daughter-in-law was the only lady, who had accompanied him. Jagdish had not gone with him. He himself stated that Vijay Pal had gone. He mentioned that he possessed five bighas of land in his own name, and seven bighas were in his mothers name. One of his aunts was married in Narki village. Ajay Pals sister was also married in Narki village. He is the barber (Nai) by caste. The marriage of Ajay Pals sister was materialized by the Thakurs of their village, who already had relatives in Narki village. He denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the incident. He admitted having received gifts on festivals and invited for dining, but denied that due to this reasons, he is giving false testimony.
15. P. W. 5 Constable Gaya Prasad in his examination-in-chief deposed that he stated on oath that on 01.11.1983, he was posted at Kotwali as a Constable. On that day, at 14:45 hours, Ajay Pal Singh had orally lodged a report to him against Ran Singh and Ajit Singh under Section 302 IPC. He had written down exactly what was narrated. After reading out the contents to Ajay Pal Singh, he had obtained his signature on the written chik. Upon seeing Ext Ka 1, the witness confirmed that it was in his handwriting and bears his signature. He also stated that he had brought the original G. D. in which it is recorded vide Report No. 30, dated 01.11.1983 at 14:45. A carbon copy of this entry was also available in the file. He stated that the original General Diary (GD), containing Report No. 39 dated 31/10/1983 at 18:05 hours, was before him. It had endorsement, including the entry of two memos regarding the death of Ravindra Singh, which had been received from Sadar Hospital, Mainpuri. These entries were made in the handwriting of Shankar Singh, Diwanji 68 and under his signature. Shankar Singh had been posted with him and he recognized his handwriting and signature. He added that a carbon copy of this GD was available on the file. He verified, signed and exhibited as Ext. Ka-8.
16. P. W. 5 in his cross examination had deposed that according to the above-mentioned GD, Sub-Inspector Brijendra Singh was deputed to prepare the Panchayatnama (inquest report) of the deceased Ravindra Singh. It was mentioned in the said GD that Sub-Inspector Tyagi would call upon the constables from the police outpost, for the purpose. He stated that, while Ajay Pal was getting the report lodged, he had not informed him that on the day of the incident, he was cutting grass in his field, heard a noise and witnessed the incident from there and reached the spot. Ajay Pal had also not mentioned that his brother had named the assailants before Uday Veer and Sushila Devi, who were present. In the above-mentioned GD case, it was recorded that he had sent a notice through a constable, however, the name and number of the constable were not mentioned.
17. P. W. 6 Head Constable Naval Singh in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 1/11/1983, he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Dannahar. On that day, at 6:15 PM, he received a complaint under Section 302 IPC against the accused Ran Singh and Ajit Singh from Police Station Kotwali, Mainpuri. On the basis of this complaint, he registered a case under Section 302 against Ran Singh and Ajit Singh at Police Station Dannahar as Case Crime No. 164. Reference of this is recorded vide report number 25 dated 1/11/1983 at 18:15 hours. He brought the original G. D. with him. This entry is made in his handwriting and bears his signature. A true copy of this GD has been submitted and exhibited as Ext. Ka 9.
18. In his cross examination P. W. 6 Naval Singh deposed that Police Station Dannahar is situated at MainpuriShikohabad road. The distance between Dannahar police station and Mainpuri is about 1314 kilometers. Trucks, tempos, and buses are frequently plied between Mainpuri and Shikohabad.
19. P. W. 7 Sri S. S. Sharma, S. O. has stated in his examination-in-chief, that in November 1983, he was posted as Station Officer, Police Station Dannahar and he personally investigated this case. On 2/11/83, he recorded the statements of Head Constable Naval Singh, and witnesses Ajay Pal, Jagdish, Jaivijay Singh, Jhabbu Lal, Udayveer, Sushila Devi, and other residents of the village. He prepared the site map after reaching the spot of the incident. The place of occurrence is the same, and the Khasra number is written in my handwriting and signature. Ext. Ka-10 was marked on it. After reaching the place of the occurrence, he collected sample of the blood-stained and plain earth, kept them in separate boxes, and prepared a Fard (seizure memo) on the spot. The text of the Fard was written in his handwriting and signature. Witness signatures and thumb impressions were obtained on it. Ext. Ka-11 was marked on it. The house of the accused Ran Singh and Ajit Singh was searched on the spot. However, nothing related to the case was recovered from there, he prepared search memo on the spot, which is in his handwriting and signature. After reading out the contents of the report, he obtained the signatures of the witnesses and got the FIR registered. Exhibit Ka-12 was marked on it. He received the Panchayat Nama and post-mortem report of the deceased Ravindra Singh, the transcript and copy whereof, which was endorsed in the case diary. On 14/11/83, he recorded the statements of the accused in jail. On 21/11/83, he recorded the statement of Constable clerk Gya Prasad, and on 25/11/83 the statement of S. I. Brijendra Singh was recorded. Subsequently, upon collecting sufficient evidence against the accused Ran Singh and Ajit Singh, he submitted the charge sheet, which was in his handwriting and signature. Exhibit A-13 was marked on it. A sealed box was opened in the court, and upon seeing the plain earth, taken out of it, the witness stated that it was the same earth that was seized by the police from the spot. It was marked as Material Ext. I. Another sealed box was opened in the court, and upon seeing the blood-stained earth taken out of it, the witness stated that it was the same earth, which was recovered from the spot. It was marked as Material Ext. II.
20. P. W. 7 Sri S. S. Sharma, I. O. in his cross-examination has deposed that he did not take any action on 1/11/83. Before setting the investigation in motion, he had not inspected the village crime notebook; he saw it only after returning. He was not aware that the deceased Ravindra was absconding in any other case. However, he came to know that Ravindra, who was the deceased, had been an accused along with Ran Singh in a case under Section 323/324 IPC. He had not inspected the court record of that case, but had seen it at the police station. The complainant Ajay Pal had informed him that Ravindra had filed the case. He admitted that he did not verify the fact by examining the court record. He also did not inspect the record of the case that was going on between Veer Sahay Lodhi and Bhagwan Singh. He stated that he had recorded only Veer Sahays statement and on his statement confirmed that the case is pending. He further said that he did not visit the field in respect of which the dispute was pending between Veer Sahay and Bhagwan Singh. He stated that on 2/11/83, he had started the investigation at 6:00 AM at the police station and reached the village of the incident at 9:00 AM. He recorded the statements of witnesses Ajay Pal, Jagdish, and Jhabbulal standing on the road near the village. Witness Ajay Pal deposed before him that "about nine months ago, my uncle Ram Chander Singh and his sons, namely, Ajit Singh and Ran Singh ploughed half of their share of land." He stated that he has filed the extract of the above statement, which was exhibited and marked as Ext. Kha-1. P. W. 7 further clarified that the witness Ajay Pal did not disclose him that "My brother named the persons who killed him in front of Udayveer Singh and Sushila Devi." Instead, Ajay Pal stated that "When we picked Ravindra Singh and brought him home, my brother Ravindra Singh disclosed in front of the women and men of the village that Ran Singh and Ajit Singh had beaten him with baton and spears and inflicted injuries upon him." Ajay Pal also deposed that "then we took him (Ravindra Singh) on a cot to the hospital at Mainpuri." He confirmed that he had filed the extract, and the same was exhibited as Ext. Kha-2. P. W. 7 further deposed that Ajay Pal also stated that "there was no one near the dead body except we two brothers, so we could not get the report lodged earlier." He stated that he had filed the extract, which was exhibited and marked as Ext. Kha-3. P. W. 7 also deposed that the witness Jagdish stated that "My brother Ravindra Singh was coming to the village after ploughing the field. I and Ajay Pal Singh were also coming to the village after working in the field, following my brother Ravindra Singh." He stated that he has filed the extract of the above statement, which was exhibited and marked as Ext. Kha-4. He clarified that witness Jagdish did not state in his statement that "When the villagers questioned Ravindra Singh, he told them that Ran Singh and Ajit Singh assaulted him with spears and batons." He explicitly confirmed that Jagdish did not make any such statement. P. W. 7 further stated that the witness Jagdish did not tell that "Ravindra was taken to Atpura on a cot." Witness Jagdish also stated in his statement that "We both brothers remained were near the dead body and in the morning the police in the hospital." (हम दोनों भाई लाश के पास रहे सुबह को पुलिस अस्पताल में.....) He confirmed that he filed the extract, and the same was exhibited and marked as Ext Kha-5. Jagdish also stated in his statement that "I deputed my brother Ajay Pal Singh to Kotwali Mainpuri for lodging the report, because apart from two brothers, no one from the village had gone with us." P. W. 7 confirmed that he filed the extract, which was exhibited and marked as Ext. Kha-6. He admitted that he had not mentioned in the case diary that he saw the field from which Ravindra was returning after ploughing on the day of the incident. In fact, he did not inspect that field. He searched the plain and blood stained earth, and the house of the accused also. He clarified that the time is not mentioned on the extract. He himself stated that in the case diary the time of reaching the place of incident is mentioned as 11:00 AM. He said that he had first prepared the site plan, and thereafter he collected the blood stained and plain earth. In the site plan he has marked the place from where he has collected plain and blood stained earth as "A". He stated that the map was prepared first, and the places shown therein, were later marked in the Index as per the proceedings. In Fard Ext. Ka-11, it is shown that blood-stained earth was collected from the place of incident. The place of incident is marked in the site plan as A. Besides the place A, he did not find blood anywhere else. He did not mark any blood-stained mattress or cot was brought. After closing the first paper (parcha), he went to the police station and did not record the names of the witnesses in the G. D., whose statements he had recorded, as such this was not a practice. He did not send the blood-stained earth for forensic examination, since he did not deem it necessary. The dates on which the papers (parchas) of Case Diary were received by the office of Circle Officer, were not recorded by the C.O. Office. He denied the allegation that he had conducted a false investigation in collusion with the complainant.
21. P. W. 8 Medical Officer Shri A.K. Upadhyay, who had conducted the post mortem on the person of the deceased had noted as many as eleven injuries, proved the autopsy report and contents thereof and the autopsy report has been exhibited as Ext. Ka 10. During cross-examination he has further stated that such injuries could not have been caused by a spear, even if it had sharp edges.
22. Thereafter, the statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC. have been recorded by putting all the incriminating circumstances to the appellants. The appellants denied incriminating circumstances and have expressed ignorance regarding the prosecution and explained the prosecution evidence by attributing false implication due to long cherished animosity and strained relations.
23. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants Ran Singh and Ajit Singh were real brothers. The uncle of P. W. 1, namely Ram Chandra and his family has a grudge against them and submitted that about one and a half years ago, his watch was stolen by the accused Ajit Singh. The accused Ajit Singh was named in committing theft, which led to a rift between the families. P. W. 1 further submitted that, after the death of his father, his uncle took over the entire land, which was the matter of litigation, therefore, taking possession of the land also led to developing enmity between the parties. The complainant side has made a false story, that some fight took place between the brother of P. W. 2 Jagdish and accused / appellant Ran Singh, in which Ran Singh is stated to have beaten the brother of P. W. 1, namely Jagdish and in retaliation, the elder brother of P. W. 1, namely Ravindra (deceased) and P. W. 1 reached the spot and have assaulted the accused Ran Singh. The said story has been fabricated and there is no truth in the said story, whatsoever. The incident, which has been shown to have occurred on 31.10.1993, the deceased was not assaulted or beaten up by the appellants Ran Singh and Ajit Singh. Even if, it is assumed that some altercation took place, then the presence of Jagdish has been shown doubtful and the place where the incident took place, is not visible from the field where Jagdish was collecting grass.
24. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the deceased was assaulted by someone else and not the accused, had the witnesses were present at the place of incident, they would have followed the assailants, i.e. the appellants, but nothing has come on record that, at the time of the incident, P. W. 1 Ajay Pal Singh, Ravindra and Jagdish were in the nearby area, if that be so, then two assailants would have been caught by four persons and the appellants would have followed them, in order to catch hold of the appellants. The plea of the complainant that the deceased was brought to home on a cot in an injured condition and it was only when the deceased was brought at home, the accused persons were nominated, who committed the offence. At one point of time, P. W. 1 Ajay Pal Singh has stated that the doctor informed Mainpuri Police Station about the death of deceased Ravindra, whereas it has also been stated that when the doctor arrived at the post mortem house, then P. W. 1, Ajay Pal Singh had gone to the police station and narrated the incident. At one point of time P. W. 1, Ajay Pal Singh has stated that, he was present over night at the mortuary and later on police arrived and inquest report was prepared and first information report was written then and there.
25. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the said witness P. W. 1 Ajay Pal Singh was a school going student and he was very much present in the school on the date of incident and was not on leave and it is matter of record, as stated by P. W. 1 Ajay Pal Singh that, neither he submitted any leave application on the date of incident nor afterwards. P. W. 1 Ajay Pal Singh did not assign any reason for not attending the school on the said date, as the incident took place in the afternoon.
26. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the presence of P. W. 1 Ajay Pal Singh is doubtful inasmuch as, Ajay Pal Singh was in the school and on hearing the news of his brother, he was planted as a witness. It is also submitted that on the fateful day, the wife of Joginder Singh, namely, Nannhi had gone to visit Narki, where her daughter was married and therefore, the presence of Nannhi is also doubtful.
27. Learned counsel for appellant has also submitted that in order to wreak vengeance, the appellants have falsely been implicated in the present case for the reason that the appellant Ran Singh filed a case of assault on 13.8.1983 against P. W. 1 and his brothers Jagdish and Ravindra Singh in the police station and that is why Ran Singh has been made accused for causing death of Ravindra. The statement of P. W. 1 that many people from the village have also reached the spot of incident is totally false, as P. W. 1 failed to disclose the name of any of the villagers and the presence of Jhabboo Lal and Jagdish has also been managed to plant them as eyewitnesses. P. W. 1 at one point of time stated that, he has taken his deceased brother to the hospital on a cot and later on resiled from the same and stated that his brother was taken to hospital on a rickshaw. The statement made by P. W. 1 that two brothers, i. e. P. W. 1 Ajay Pal Singh and P. W. 2 Jagdish stayed at hospital, whereas, in his earlier statement P. W. 1 stated that he stayed at mortuary in the hospital and his brother Jagdish had gone to collect the money. P. W. 1 Ajay Pal Singh in his cross-examination stated that, when he stayed at hospital in the night, the police inspector arrived at 8.00 oclock and thereafter inquest report was prepared and after preparing the inquest report, he did not visit the police station to lodge the first information report and the said first information report was written at the hospital itself. Hence, the testimony of P. W. 1 Ajay Pal Singh is doubtful and not at all reliable.
28. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that on hearing the scream, Jhabboo Nai from the road and Ran Singh from the nearby field have arrived, but at a later stage Jagdish has stated that P. W. 1 Ajay Pal Singh and P. W. 2 Jagdish had cried for help, but none had arrived. Thus, Jhabboo Nai and Jagdish have been planted as witness to the incident. It has also been stated by P. W. 2 Jagdish that, when P. W. 1 Ajay Pal Singh brought a cot from the house, other villagers also gathered at the place of incident and these villagers allegedly asked the deceased, as to who attacked him, but none of such villagers were produced as a witness, who would have testified that, they had some conversation with the deceased, prior to his death. Thus, the testimony of P. W. 1 Ajay Pal Singh and P. W. 2 Jagdish is contradictory and does not reconcile with each other. P. W. 2 Jagdish had stated that he stayed at home and P. W. 1 Ajay Pal Singh had stayed at hospital, whereas P. W. 1 stated that both the brothers had stayed at the hospital. P. W. 2 Jagdish had stated that P. W. 1 Ajay Pal Singh, his brother, both were collecting grass in the field, but at later stage, stated that both P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 were heading towards village, following deceased Ravindra Singh.
29. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that there are variations and contradictions in the testimonies of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2, thus, both are not reliable.
30. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that P. W. 4 Jhabboo Nai was heading towards the village Fakirpur by road and after hearing the screams, he stopped there on the road and saw that the assailants / appellants Ran Singh and Ajit Singh were assaulting Ravindra, whereas P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 have stated that deceased Ravindra was heading towards home, thus, the witnesses have failed to ascertain, whether deceased was going on the way or was in the field, when the incident took place. P. W. 4 Jhabboo Lal submitted that, by the time cot was brought at the place of incident, none of the villagers had arrived there but the villagers arrived thereafter. P. W. 4 in his cross-examination has stated that, by the time he could reach Jhamman's field, accused had already run away and stated that when he arrived at the spot, Ravindra had fallen on the ground, then the question of assaulting the deceased at the hands of assailants / appellants was not witnessed by P. W. 4 Jhabboo Nai. The road and field is at quite distance, where it is difficult to recognize any person from such a distance.
31. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that P. W. 8 Medical Officer Shri A.K. Upadhyay in his cross-examination has stated that the injuries inflicted upon the deceased, could not have been caused by a spear, even if it had sharp edges and argued that the deceased died as a result of some accident and not that of as suggested by the injuries inflicted upon, as per the statement of P. W. 8, Medical Officer. He has also submitted that all other witnesses are formal in nature and entire investigation has been conducted in an irrational and haphazard lopsided manner and the police officials did not follow the correct procedure established by law and the investigating officer in connivance with the father of the deceased, has submitted a false chargesheet, thereby falsely implicating the appellants in the present case.
32. Per contra, leaned AGA has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the witnesses are the most natural witnesses, whose presence at the time of incident has been clearly established. The date, time and manner in which the incident has taken place, has been cogently and firmly established by their testimony and they have narrated the incident in a most natural manner and the defence has not been able to elicit any material contradiction and inconsistencies in their submissions, except minor contradictions here and there, which in the background of the fact that the witnesses are rustic witnesses and such minor contradictions are quite natural, taken on such flimsy grounds. The entire prosecution story cannot be thrown overboard, which otherwise inspires confidence.
33. Learned AGA has further submitted that the medical report completely corroborates the prosecution story and there are no material contradictions, so as to disbelieve the prosecution story and the witnesses. He has further submitted that the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, nowhere ruled out that the injury sustained by deceased Ravindra could not be caused in the manner as alleged.
34. Learned AGA has further submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the trial court after analytically appreciating the entire evidence and material on record, has rightly convicted the appellants and sentenced them, which order does not suffer from any illegality and there is no real reason to reverse the finding of conviction recorded by the trial court and the impugned judgment and order is liable to be affirmed.
35. The said witnesses have been cross-examined at great length and we find that though, there are certain minor contradictions here and there, but that does not otherwise affect the credibility and truthfulness of the said witness. Moreover, it is germane to point out here, that the witnesses in the instant case are rustic witnesses and some minor contradictions in their testimony may occur, however, on the said grounds, the otherwise reliable testimonies of the witnesses cannot be thrown overboard.
36. Before analyzing the credibility of the other ocular witnesses, we may note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent case reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 596, Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs. State of Maharastra, has held that:
27. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness.
37. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master (2010) Vol. 12 SCC 324 has clearly held that:
24. The basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole. The rustic witness as compared to an educated witness is not expected to remember every small detail of the incident and the manner in which the incident had happened more particularly when his evidence is recorded after a lapse of time. Further, a witness is bound to face shock of the untimely death of his near relative(s). Therefore, the court must keep in mind all these relevant factors while appreciating evidence of a rustic witness.
38. Reference may be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirath vs. State of Haryana (1995) AIR 5 ACC 96:
"it has to be noted that it would be erroneous to accord undue privacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eye witnesses account, which has to be tested independently and not treated as 'variable' keeping in view the medical evidence as constant."
39. In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of Gujarat (1983) 2 SCC 174, the Supreme Court noted as follow:
"Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye-witnessess, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence."
40. The above principle of law has been consistently followed by the Supreme Court in a large number of cases. In Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Court has referred to Maniram vs. State of U.P (1994) SCC (Cri) 1242 : State of U.P. vs. Dinesh (2009) 11 SCC 566: State of U.P. vs. Hari Chand (2009) 13 SCC 542 and culled out the following principle :-
"39. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved."
41. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we find that there is no contradiction between medical evidence and the oral evidence in the instant case.
42. The medical evidence also lends credence to the prosecution case against the appellants. The post-mortem report also points out conclusively to the culpability of appellants for the commission of the offence.
43. Now coming to the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are relatives and interested witnesses being brothers hence, their statement could not be relied upon.
44. The above noted submission was considered by Supreme Court elaborately way back in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab 7 AIR (1953) SC 364. The Court observed that ordinarily a close relative would not spare the real culprit, who has caused the death and implicate an innocent person. His/her evidence can only be discarded when it is established that the witness has a cause, due to enmity to implicate him falsely. In Dalip Singh (supra) case also the testimonies of two women witnesses were impeached on the ground that they were close relatives of the deceased. Following principles were enunciated in Dalip Singh (supra):-
"26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth."
45. In Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452, same principles were reiterated:-
4. The central evidence against the appellant consisted of the three eye-witneses, namely, P.W. 3 Harbhajan Singh, P.W. 5 Chanan Kaur and P. W. 6 Kesar Kaur. It is true that the three witnesses were relations of the deceased and bore animus against the accused but as the occurrence had taken place near the door of the house of the deceased these persons were the natural witnesses and were in fact sitting in the court-yard when the occurrence took place. It may be difficult to get witnesses from the village when an assault of the type suddenly takes place in the house of the deceased. It is well settled that the evidence of interested or inimical witnesses is to be scrutinised with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being a partisan evidence. If on a perusal of the evidence the Court is satisfied that the evidence is creditworthy there is no bar in the Court relying on the said evidence. The High Court was fully alive to these principles and has in fact found that the evidence of these three witnesses has a ring of truth. After having perused the evidence ourselves also we fully agree with the view taken by the High Court. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has not made any attempt to dwell into the intrinsic merits of the evidence of these witnesses but has rejected them mainly on general grounds most of which are either unsupportable in law or based on speculation. The evidence of the eye-witnesses is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 7 Kundan Singh to whom the whole occurrence was narrated immediately after the accused left the house. There is also the evidence of Balbir Singh, P. W. 17, who is a Sarpanch of the village and an independent witness and who proves that the appellant Piara Singh had made an extra judicial confession before him in which he admitted to have committed the murder of the deceased Surjit Singh along with his companions Kashmir Singh, Gian Singh and Joginder Singh. This witness also proves that Kashmir Singh on being narrated by the details made a disclosure which resulted in the recovery of the Kirpan from the sugar- cane field of Meja Singh for which a search list was prepared and the Kirpan was also found stained with human blood. According to the Investigating Officer an empty cartridge was also found at the spot and he sent the same to the Ballistic Expert along with the rifle recovered from Piara Singh who was a constable in the Border Security Force and the Ballistic-Expert found that the empty could have been shot from the rifle in question. These circumstances fully corroborate the evidence of the eye-witnesses. Finally, there is the medical evidence of Dr. Jatinder Singh who performed the postmortem examination on the deceased and he found as many as 7 incised wounds on the various parts of the body of the deceased and 7 incised punctured wounds on some vital parts of the body. Apart from these injuries the deceased had also sustained a gun shot injury with a wound of entry and exit on the left buttock, which according to Dr. Jatinder Singh could be; caused by a fire- arm including a rifle. The Doctor further deposed that the contusions and abrasions were caused by a blunt weapon and the other incised wounds were caused by a sharp cutting instrument like the Gandasa. Another Doctor was examined by the Sessions Judge as Court Witness No. 1 who on seeing the post-mortem report of Dr. Jatinder Singh was of the view that Injury No. 11 could not have been caused by a rifle and much capital was made by the accused but of the evidence given by Dr. Paramjit Singh."
46. A three Judge Bench in Hari Obula Reddy Vs. State of A.P., (1981) 3 SCC 675 observed as under:-
"13. ...it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon."
47. Again in S. Sudershan Reddy and others Vs. State of A.P, (2006) 10 SCC 163, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"12. We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more oftern than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.
15. We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dilip Singh case in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses."
48. In this context the reference may be made to the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Kamta Yadav vs. State of Bihar (2016) 16 SCC 164: Nand Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh (2015) 1 SCC 776.
49. Thus, we find that there are unbroken line of authorities to the fact that evidence of eye-witness, if found forceful, cannot be discarded simply because the witness was a relative of the deceased. The only caveat is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution.
50. Applying the aforesaid principles of law, we find that the testimony of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 inspires confidence and as such, cannot be thrown overboard. Close scrutiny of their testimony clearly shows that they had witnessed the incident in question and have narrated the prosecution story and they cannot be said to be interested witnesses as argued by learned counsel for the appellants. 96. From the submissions of the eye-witnesses, we are satisfied about the commission of the offence by the appellants and thus, we are of the opinion that the trial court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and the learned counsel for the appellants could not point any perversity in the finding of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court awarded to the appellants.
51. There being no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the recorded conviction and sentence of the appellants, we affirm the impugned judgment and order dated 6.8.1984 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 1984 (State Versus Ran Singh and another).
52. The present appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Appellant No.1 and 2 are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They are directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks to undergo the remaining part of their sentence, failing which, the trial court is directed to adopt coercive measures for securing their presence.
53. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the trial court concerned along with the lower court record for information and necessary compliance.
(Rajiv Gupta,J) (Harvir Singh)
November 6, 2025
HR
