Allahabad High Court
Ram Singh Alias Ram Singha Alias Ram ... vs State Of U.P. on 16 October, 2025
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Judgment reserved on 12.08.2025
Judgment delivered on 16.10.2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1054 of 2016
..Petitioners(s)
Versus
..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s)
:
Aditya Yadav, Ashish Bajpayee, Kalp Dev Mishra, Pradeep Kumar, Praveen Kumar Singh, Rajeev Lochan Shukla, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sushil Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
AGA P.K. Srivastava
Court No. - 44
HONBLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HONBLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.
(per Tej Pratap Tiwari, J.)
1. Heard Sri Kalp Dev Mishra and Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.
2. Present criminal appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 02.02.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ghazipur, in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2012 (State of U.P. vs. Ram Singh alias Ram Singha alias Ram Singhwa & Another) arising out of Case Crime No. 1839 of 2010, under Sections 328, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment of six months.
3. The prosecution story emerges with a written report dated 23.06.2010 submitted by the first informant, Brijesh Chandra Yadav, Superintendent, District Jail, Ghazipur (P.W.-2), stating therein that on 21.06.2010, the under trial prisoners namely, Ram Bachan Yadav, Wasim Ahmad, Guddu @ Raj Kumar and Suresh Yadav consumed some poisonous substance in a soft beverage Pepsi, due to which prisoner Ram Bachan Yadav, Wasim Ahmad and Guddu @ Raj Kumar fell seriously ill. The Medical Officer of the jail, attended them at 6 p.m and looking to the seriousness of the patients, referred them to District Hospital, Ghazipur, where they were treated for some time not satisfied with the improvement of the prisoners health, the Medical Officer of District Hospital, Ghazipur referred them for B.H.U., Varanasi. They were at once taken to the B.H.U, Varanasi in police custody, by jail ambulance. Sri Rakesh Prasad Varun (Jail Pharmacist) also accompanied them. Sri Rakesh Prasad Varun had informed the informant Brijesh Chandra Yadav (P.W.-2) telephonically that prisoner Wasim Ahmad died on the way to B.H.U. Hospital, whereas prisoner Ram Bachan Yadav died during his treatment at B.H.U. Hospital in the night. The third prisoner Guddu @ Raj Kumar, was undergoing treatment at B.H.U. Hospital. The death of the above two prisoners prima facie appeared to have been caused by administering some poisonous substance in Pepsi, that resulted into the death of two prisoners whereas the third prisoner, namely, Guddu @ Raj Kumar (in unconscious state), was admitted at B.H.U. Hospital. The fourth jail inmate namely Surendra Yadav recuperated and is languishing in jail. The aforesaid complaint made by Brijesh Chandra Yadav (PW-2) marked as Exhibit Ka-2.
4. On the aforesaid written complaint made by Brijesh Chandra Yadav (PW-2), an FIR was lodged on 23.06.2010 at 18.15 hours, at Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur under Sections 328/302 IPC against unknown prisoners, who had administered the poison in Pepsi, that resulted in the death of prisoners Ram Bachan Yadav, and Wasim Ahmad and also Guddu @ Rajkumar, who was unconscious and under went treatment. The prisoner Surendra Yadav is in jail. The said FIR has been exhibited and marked as Exhibit Ka-8.
5. Subsequently, Sub-Inspector D.P. Singh (PW-10) prepared the Recovery Memo of Pepsi bottle, on 21.06.2010. In the said memo, it is mentioned that the under trial prisoners namely Ram Bachan Yadav, Wasim Ahmad and Guddu @ Rajkumar drank Pepsi before they lost consciousness. In that bottle, small quantity of Pepsi was remained. The same has been sealed with cloth and on which the witnesses have affixed their signatures. The Recovery Memo has been marked and exhibited as Exhibit Ka-6.
6. Thereafter the Panchayatnama of the deceased Wasim Ahmad was conducted on 23.06.2010 between 1.30 pm - 2.30 pm, in the presence of Ramjeet Maurya-(PW-1), which is marked and exhibited as Exhibit Ka-1. Likewise the Panchayatnama of Ram Bachan Yadav was also done on 22.06.2010 between 3.50 pm to 4.50 pm, which is marked and exhibited as Exhibit Ka-5A. The Panchayatnama of the third deceased, Guddu @ Raj Kumar was done on 26.06.2010 between 12.30 pm to 01.30 pm by the Medical Officer L.B.S. Government Hospital, Ram Nagar, Varanasi, which is marked and exihibited as Exhibit Ka-15.
7. Thereafter, postmortem examination were carried out. The Autopsy Examination Report of Wasim Ahmad was commenced at 05.45 pm on 23.06.2010, and completed by 7.00 pm. This autopsy examination was conducted by Dr. Vinay Kumar Sharma, examined as PW-8 at the trial. The Autopsy Examination Report is proved as Exhibit Ka-4 at the trial. Likewise, the autopsy of deceased Ram Bachan Yadav was conducted by Dr. Vinay Kumar Sharma on 23.06.2010 between 7.05 pm-8.10 pm, which is marked and exhibited as Exhibit Ka-5 at the trial. The autopsy of third deceased Guddu it commenced on 26.06.2010 at 03.00 pm. It was completed by 4.30 pm by Dr. Krishna Kumar Ojha (PW-7), which is marked and exhibited as Exhibit Ka-3. After the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted by Investigation Officer Dheerendra Pratap Singh, In-charge Inspector (PW-10), Police Station Kotwali, against the accused Ram Singh @ Ram Singha @ Ram Singhwa and accused Surendra Yadav in Case Crime No. 1839 of 2010 under Sections 328 and 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, Ghazipur, which is marked as Exhibit Ka-7A at the trial. On the trial being committed to the Court of Session, the charge was framed by the Sessions Judge against accused Ram Singh @ Ram Singha @ Ram Singhwa and Surendra Yadav under Section 328 and 302, read with Section 34 IPC. On being denied the charges against them, the trial of the accused commenced.
8. At the trial, besides the above, documentary evidence, the prosecution relied upon the oral testimony of 12 witnesses. At the first instance, Ramjeet Maurya (Naib Tehsildar), has been examined as (PW-2). He proved the Panchayatnama of the deceased Wasim Ahmad as Exhibit Ka-1.
9. Thereafter Brijesh Chandra Yadav (P.W-2), retired Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Ghazipur was examined. He deposed that on the day of occurrence, Pepsi was administered by some of the prisoners, that led to the death of two under trial prisoners, namely, Ram Bachan Yadav and Wasim Ahmad and caused serious ailment to two other under trial prisoners namely Guddu @ Raj Kumar and Surendra Yadav. He further stated that due to consumption of the Pepsi consisting of noxious substance, the prisoner Ram Bachan Yadav and Wasim Ahmad were sent to BHU, Varanasi for treatment and while they were on the way to Varanasi, prisoner Wasim Ahmad died and prisoner Ram Bachan Yadav died during treatment. The third prisoner Guddu @ Raj Kumar was offered treatment at BHU, Varanasi but he died during treatment. The fourth prisoner Surendra Yadav was treated at the Jail hospital. He later recovered. All the three ailing prisoners were sent to BHU, Varanasi with Rakesh Prasad Varun (Pharmacist) who had informed the complainant Brijesh Chandra Yadav (PW-2) about the death of the prisoners on telephone. The witness further stated that he got to know that some prisoners had arranged Pepsi with poisonous substance in it, that had caused such incident. The aforesaid narration was typed and signed by him which was further sent to the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur on 27.06.2010, and has been proved by the said witness as Exhibit Ka-2.
10. In his cross-examination, the said witness has stated that he had lodged the FIR on the basis of information, he had gathered. He further deposed that the information regarding the Pepsi having poisonous substance was communicated to him by some prisoners and jail employees, which had resulted into the illness of all four prisoners.
11. Thereafter, the prosecution examined the eye witnesses namely, Ritesh Singh alias Bantu Singh (PW 3), Ajay Chaubey (PW 4), Manoj Kumar (PW 5). These witnesses were also languishing in the District Jail, Ghazipur at the time of the occurrence.
12. In the examination-in-chief, Ritesh Singh alias Bantu Singh (PW 3) has stated that he was prisoner in the District Jail, Ghazipur on 21.06.2010 at about 4:30 p.m., he was present near the jail canteen. At that time, prisoner Manoj Kumar Gupta and prisoner Ajay Chaubey were also present there. Both were looking towards the toilet situated behind the jail canteen, whereupon he too looked in that direction. At that time, Ajit Chaubey, Durga Chaubey, and Krishn Kant also came there and were looking towards the said toilet. Then accused Ram Singh took out a paper packet from his pocket and handed it over to accused Surendra Yadav. Thereafter, Ram Singh, with the assistance of Surendra Yadav, mixed a powder-like substance into the bread. On being asked, the prisoners standing nearby quietly informed the witness that Ram Singh and Surendra Yadav were mixing poison in the bread and planning to kill someone. The witness further stated that accused Ram Singh and accused Surendra Yadav also kept the bottle of Pepsi and plastic glasses, with them. Thereafter, three prisoners, namely, Wasim Ahmed, Ram Bachan, and Guddu, came and sat there. At that moment, accused Ram Singh remarked that they had been waiting for them for a long time to have snacks. He then served the bread, mixed with the poisonous substance from the aforesaid packet, to the said three prisoners, who ate the bread and also drank Pepsi. Accused Ram Singh himself also drank Pepsi. The witness categorically stated that after consuming the bread and Pepsi, the three prisoners, namely Wasim Ahmed, Ram Bachan, and Guddu, said that they are going to their respective barracks. Accused Ram Singh remarked the work has been done. He had heard and seen the whole incident. Soon thereafter, the health of the aforesaid prisoners deteriorated. Whereupon, they were first taken to the jail hospital and thereafter referred to an outside hospital. On the next day, he came to know that prisoner Wasim Ahmad and Ram Bacchan had died. The very next day, Guddu @ Raj Kumar also died. It was informed that the cause of death of the three aforesaid prisoners was due to consumption of poisonous bread. During cross examination conducted on 29.11.2012, he deposed that the deceased were given bread at about 4:30 p.m. Thereafter, he returned to his barrack at about 5:00 p.m., and deceased Ram Bachan also returned to the barrack at about 4:45 p.m. The witness admitted, that out of fear, he did not inform any person that poison had been mixed in the bread of the deceased. He also deposed that Ajit Chaubey returned to the barrack with him, at about 5:00 p.m. and further admitted that he did not disclose this incident to anyone, on that day.
13. Then, Ajay Chaubey was examined as (PW-4). He did not support the prosecution story during his examination-in-chief. He was declared hostile.
14. Thereafter, Dr. Krishna Kumar Ojha was examined as (PW-7). He proved the post-mortem report of Guddu. The post-mortem of prisoner Guddu was conducted by him alongwith Dr. Anil Kumar on 27.6.2010 at about 3.00 pm. The post-mortem report number is 1129/10. Constable C.P. No. 417, Suresh Ram, Police Station Lanka brought the body. The dead body was identified by the deceaseds brother Jai Prakash and Prison Guard Virendra Singh (District Jail, Ghazipur) and Head Constable Sri Chandra Bharti (District Jail, Ghazipur). The deceased was admitted to Sir Sunder Lal Hospital, BHU, on 22.6.10 at 1.40 am and was under treatment in the ICU (bed No. 6). He died on 25.6.10 at 8.15 PM. The hospital registration number was 20534.
The dead body was having following Antemortem Injuries:- Injury No. (1)- Erosions on lips and tongue just below left corner of mouth. (2) .5 cm stitched surgical wound on front of right shoulder.
Internal Examination- Inside head membranes were congested. Brain weighed 1314 gms. Congested. Teeth 14 each. Larynx and vocal cords were normal except mild C.S.I.C. In right side of chest, chest membrane was stuck to chest wall. Left lung had failed. Membrane was pale. Cavidi NAD Right lung 319 gms right 573 gms Both were congested. Anaerobic. Pus was present on palpation. Heart 183 gms. Chambers half filled. In abdomen, peratorium was congested. Cavidi NAD. Stomach weighed 195 gms. Inside which 50 gms of black coloured pasty material was found. Mucosa was congested. Mucus and gas was found in small intestine and mucosa was congested. Large intestine contained fecal matter and gas. Liver was congested 1179 gms. Gall bladder was swollen. Spleen was congested 95 gms. Pancreas was congested. Kidney right 102 gms and left 88 gms both were congested.Bladder was empty and urethra was normal. The cause of death could not be ascertained. The viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. All the relevant documents were submitted to the lanka police station. The post-mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-3.
15. Thereafter, Dr. Vinay Kumar Sharma was examined as PW-8. On 23.06.2010 at 5.45 pm, the autopsy of Wasims body was done by Dr. Vinay Kumar Sharma and under the supervision of Assistant Dr. D. Sahay. The deceased was brought dead to S.S. Hospital Varanasi on 21.06.2010 at 11.50 PM. Which is mentioned in record no. 3.
External examination of the deceased : Deceased was a man of average height 175 cm, weight 61 Kg. The deceaseds both eyes and mouth were open. There was no stiffness in the body. The stomach was bloated. There was green colored discoloration on the buttocks. Skin and hair were coming out when pulled. Decomposition had occurred in the entire body. Nails were blue, condensed eye. The mucous membrane inside the mouth on both the lips and both the sides of the mouth was memetic. The coracoid was closed.
Internal examination- Brain membrane was congested and brain weighed 900 grams. Teeth were 16 upper and 16 lower. There was carious burn in upper part of oesophagus. Right lung weighed 312 grams and left 379 grams and both were congested. Heart weighed 140 grams there was no blood in the chamber. Peritoneum was congested. Stomach contained 60 grams black coloured corrosive substance. Membrane was congested. Small intestine membrane was congested. Large intestine had stool and gas. Yellow sac was filled with gas. Liver weighed 748 grams and was congested. Kidney was 61 grams and decomposed. Right kidney was 70 grams left kidney was 75 grams both were congested and decomposed. In his opinion death had occurred about 2 days ago. As the cause of death was not clear, the viscera was preserved and the viscera was given to the constable along with the sample video cassette. The autopsy report is in the handwriting and signature of Dr. D. Sahay. The autopsy report has been prepared under supervision of Dr. Vinay Kumar Sharma, which has been marked as Exhibit Ka-4.
16. Post-mortem of Ram Bachan- On the same day by post-mortem No. 1070/10 at 7.50 pm, the body of deceased Ram Bachan Yadav was identified by his relative Musafir Yadav son of Kedar Yadav and his brother.
External examination - The deceased was of normal height, eyes were closed and mouth was open. There was no stiffness in the whole body. Stomach was bloated. There was diarrhoea in the buttocks. Decay was evident in the body. Nails were blue and pupil of the eye was congested.
Internal examination - The membrane of the brain was congested. Weight of brain was 1580 grams. Number of teeth was 16/16. Weight of right lung was 525 grams, weight of left lung was 622 grams. Both were congested. Weight of heart was 232 grams, there was no blood in the chamber of heart. Peritoneum was congested. There was 50 ML of aloe coloured substance in the stomach. The mucus of stomach and small intestine was congested. There was stool and gas in large intestine. Liver weighed 1264 grams and was congested. Gall bladder contained gas. Spleen weighed 134 grams and was congested. Pancreas was also congested. Right kidney weighed 153 grams and left kidney weighed 151 grams, both were congested. Viscera was preserved as the cause of death was not clear. There were total 7 documents in the postmortem report. All these seven documents were signed by both doctors. P. Yam. 5.0. Lanka Second copy with video cassette Original sent to D.I.G Varanasi First copy / C.M.O Varanasi. The report contains paper number 8A/13 to 8A/18. The witness identified his signature after seeing it and said that the PM report is signed by Dr. D. Sahay, whose writing is in it. The autopsy report is marked as Exhibit Ka-5.
17. Thereafter, the Investigation Officer D.P. Singh (PW-10) was examined. He did the investigation. He inspected the place of incident and prepared map. He further stated that a bottle of Pepsi was recovered. In cross-examination, he (P.W-10) clarified that bread was not sold in the jail canteen. On 28.6.10, statements of the witnesses mentioned in the Panchayatnama of deceased Ram Bachan Yadav, Shri Musafir Yadav, Shri Brijesh Kumar, Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, Shri Janglu, Shri Nandlal Yadav were recorded in the case diary.
18. Then, prosecution examined Murlidhar Mishra, the then ADM, Ghazipur, as PW-9 before whom the Panchayatnama of deceased Ram Bachan Yadav was done. He proved that Panchayatnama as Exhibit Ka-5.
19. The prosecution has also examined Constable Bhim Singh as PW-11, who has perused the handwriting of HCP Awadhesh Prasad, who had lodged the FIR. The FIR was marked as Exhibit Ka-8 and Ka-9.
20. The prosecution has also produced Sunil K. Srivastava, as (PW-12), the then Naib Tehsildar, Varanasi. He has proved the Panchayatnama of deceased Raj Kumar @ Guddu which is marked as Exhibit Ka-15.
21. After, the completion of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded by the Court on 3.10.2010 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Both the accused persons stated they had been falsely implicated. After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial court convicted the appellants, as stated earlier
22. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned AGA for the State.
23. At the first instance the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the report of the incident was filed two days later, on June 23, 2010. This delay raises doubt about the prosecution version and suggests that the jail administration may have sought to protect the jail officials and its staff. Secondly, Brijesh Chandra Yadav (PW2) admitted that the barracks were searched after the incident, but no incriminating material was found during the inspection by senior officers. This proves that no poisonous material was found in the District Jail after the incident. In his cross-examination, (P.W-2) had stated that neither Pepsi bottle was recovered in his presence, nor any report was prepared about the same. The evidence indicates that the investigation officer recovered a Pepsi bottle from the prison after the incident. Thirdly, Ritesh Singh (P.W-3) stated that he witnessed the entire incident from a distance of 8-10 feet. Yet, he could not identify the direction of the broken toilet. He stated, he was disoriented and therefore, could not tell the direction. At the time of the incident, the accused were speaking loudly while they were mixing the poison, which is very unusual for this nature of secret act, amounting to preparation and commission of most heinous offence. It creates doubt about the credibility of his testimony. Fourthly, Ajay Chaubey (P.W-4), categorically denied that he had gone to the canteen at 4:00 p.m. on the day of occurrence, or that the accused had purchased Pepsi, glasses, or bread in his presence. He also denied having heard any conversation between the accused to mix poison in the Pepsi or to serve it to the three deceased and one injured prisoners. He was declared hostile witness by the ADGC and with the courts permission, was cross-examined. However, in his cross-examination, the witness denied his statements under Section 161 of the CrPC. The witness has stated that bread and Pepsi were not sold in the prison canteen. Thus, the statement of this witness provides no support to the prosecutions case. Next Manoj Kumar (P.W-5) supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief. During his cross-examination conducted on the same day, he resiled from his version on the very next day and denied his earlier statements. Question arises as to how far such a witness can be trusted. Who supported the prosecution case in the examination-in-chief and also supported the prosecution case in the cross-examination conducted on the same day but on the very next day denied the statements made in the examination-in-chief. Lastly, the defence also suggests that prosecution fabricated the story to gain a desired advantage.
24. First submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the report of the incident was filed two days later, on June 23, 2010. This inordinate and unexplained delay shows that the administration wanted to protect the jail authorities. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Brijesh Chandra Yadav (PW-2) had admitted that the barracks were searched after the incident but no incriminating material was found by senior officers. This proved that no poisonous material was found in the jail after the incident. Therefore, the story and recovery of Pepsi and bread containing poisonous substance is highly doubtful. It has further been said that the whole prosecution story begins with the report submitted by (P.W-2) Brijesh Chandra Yadav, who happens to be the Jail Superintendent of the district jail, Ghazipur. In the instant complaint, the prosecution story raises the narration of administering poisonous substance mixed with Pepsi by the prisoners to the prisoners whereupon three died but no report regarding examination of the recovered Pepsi was received to establish that there any poisonous substance was mixed in the Pepsi. The prosecution has, changed the whole story and a new story emerged later stating that some poisonous substance was mixed with the bread served to the prisoners, that caused their deaths.
25. In fact, the prosecution has no reliable eye-witness who has seen the occurrence. The narration of the sole eye-witness Ritesh Singh (PW-3) is highly doubtful, as he has stated that he witnessed the entire incident from a distance of about 8 to 10 feet. Although, he could not indicate the direction of the broken toilet. He has also stated that he was disoriented and, therefore, could not tell the direction. He further narrated that at the time of incident, Ram Singh and Surendra Yadav were speaking loudly to each other which was heard by him and other prisoners. This creates doubt as it is very unusual and uncommon that prisoners who were preparing to commit heinous crime or would have discussed the same in such a casual manner. So far as the statement pertaining to Ajay Chaubey (PW-4) is concerned, he has categorically denied that he went to the canteen at 2.00 pm on the date of occurrence or that the accused had purchased Pepsi, glasses or bread, in his presence. He also denied knowledge of any conversation between the accused, regarding poisonous substance being mixed in Pepsi to be served to the deceased prisoners. Though, he was declared hostile witness by the State represented through ADGC (Criminal), however, in his cross-examination, the witness denied his statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The witness has further stated that the bread and Pepsi were not sold in the prisoners canteen. Thus the statement of this witness provides no support to the prosecutions case. Next, is the statement made by Manoj Kumar (PW-5), who has supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief and even in the cross-examination conducted on the same day, but he denied on the very next date his earlier statement. Therefore, to his statement, obvious question arises as to how far such witness can be trusted. Lastly, the defence argument also suggest that prosecution has fabricated the story to gain a desired advantage as the rules and regulations provided by Jail Manual were not followed.
26. On the other hand, learned AGA submitted that the prosecution has proved his case beyond all reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant, on the basis of evidence produced during the trial. The prosecution witness Ritesh Singh (PW-3) has supported the entire prosecution story and has stated that he himself saw all the appellants mixing the poison in the bread while they were sitting on the platform near the toilet. The prosecution narration based on the FIR has duly been established by conducting the inquest and the postmortem of the deceased prisoners. The verdict of the learned Sessions Court is absolutely based on evidence and has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, must be confirmed by this Appellate Court.
27. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, at the first instance, it is notable that the complaint was made by the then Superintendent of District jail, Ghazipur namely Brijesh Chandra Yadav, (PW-2 at the trial). On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was lodged on 23.06.2010. He has narrated in the complaint that the incident had taken place on 21.06.2010. According to him, four under trial prisoners were administered Pepsi containing mixed with poisonous substance, by the appellants, namely, Ram Singh @ Ram Singha @ Ram Singhwa and Surendra Yadav (both prisoners). It finds mention in the said complaint that after consuming the said Pepsi, prisoners Ram Bachan Yadav, Wasim Ahmad and Guddu @ Raj Kumar fell seriously ill. They were first treated at the jail hospital, but looking to their deteriorating condition, they were shifted to BHU, Varanasi by the jail ambulance accompanied by the jail Pharmacist, Sri Rakesh Prasad Varun (not examined). The prisoners Wasim Ahmad died while on the way to BHU, Varanasi, whereas prisoner Ram Bachan Yadav died during his treatment in BHU. The third prisoner Guddu @ Raj Kumar had continued to undergo treatment at the BHU, Varanasi. The complainant, Brijesh Chandra Yadav (PW-2) also narrated that prima facie two prisoners died after consuming Pepsi containing poisonous substance. The fourth prisoner Surendra Yadav was reported to be in a fit state and had remained in the District Jail, Ghazipur. Significantly, the complaint is silent about the delay in lodging the FIR, though the incident is said to be occurred on 21.06.2010 in the afternoon, but it was reported by the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur on 23.06.2010 at 18.15 hours (Exhibit-Ka-8).
28. It is understandable that in case of sudden tragedy, an ordinary person may take sometime to prepare himself before approaching the authorities as it causes mental trauma, but in the present case, the complainant (PW-2), being a Superintendent of Jail, entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding all the inmates, did not suffer from such disability. He ought to have acted wholly promptly to report the matter to his higher authorities, particularly when the incident had resulted in the death of two prisoners. On the point of lodging the belated FIR, the said witness did not disclose who has also been examined as prosecution witness (PW-2), therefore, it is unexplainable that Jail Superintendent who is under obligation to supervise the jail has failed to inform his higher authorities, when some of the prisoners have died. It is also the duty of the Jail Superintendent as mentioned in Rule 608 and 894 of the Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual, 2022.
Rule:- 608. Information on death of a prisoner. On the death of a prisoner the Superintendent shall give information to the nearest relative or friend of the deceased, through a messenger or through the police station concerned or by any other expedient means and shall send radiogram or fax to the State Government, Director General, Deputy Inspector General of the Range, National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commission, District Magistrate of the district in which the jail is situated, the District Magistrate of the district to which the deceased belonged and to the Court concerned.
The prisoner's warrant, duly endorsed shall be returned to the Court concerned. Notice of the death shall also be sent to the Municipal Officer of health if the jail is situated within the limits of a municipality or the station officer-in-charge of the police station if the jail is situated in a rural area. Information shall also be sent to the Registrar of Births and Deaths.
Rule:- 894. Serious occurrence. When a suicide or death under abnormal conditions or escape or wrong release or assault or disturbance or any other unusual or serious occurrence has taken place in any jail, the Director General (Prisons) shall submit a report of such occurrence immediately to the State Government followed by a further report within a period of one month, indicating the action taken by him and his recommendations, if any, in regard to the removal of any defects in the system of the jail administration.
29. In the case of USA Agencies and others versus The Commercial Tax Officer 2013SCC OnLine Mad 2062, Madras High Court stated that the question whether shall is mandatory or directory depends on the language, intention of legislature and scheme and design and whether consequences spelt. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Manbodhan Lal AIR 1957 SC 912. It was submitted by one of the counsels that the petitioners mainly insist on the alternative prayer to declare Section 19(11) as directory and not mandatory instead of striking down the provision. Therefore, in the present case non compliance of the aforesaid rules of Jail Manual is evident.
30. On the point of delay in lodging FIR in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma and others versus State of Chhattisgarh and another (2016) 9 SCC 1 it has been held that
Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. In our opinion, such extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by Respondent No. 2 herein against the appellants, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, Respondent No. 2 herein has tried to rope the appellants in criminal proceedings. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the FIR deserves to be quashed. In this context, it is apt to quote the following decision of this Court in Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2012) 4 SCC 379 wherein it was held as under:-
12. The FIR in a criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of the eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it loses the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of large number of consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informants version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the firsthand account of what has actually happened, and who was responsible for the offence in question.
31. In the case of Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 SCC 393 it has been held thus:
It is in the evidence of Valanjiaraju that the house of Muthuswami is at a distance of three furlongs from the village of Valanjiaraju. Police Station Valavanthi is also at a distance of three furlongs from the house of Muthuswami. Assuming that Muthuswami PW was not found at his house till 10.30 p.m. on March 12, 1970, by Valanjiaraju, it is not clear as to why no report was lodged by Valanjiaraju at the police station. It is, in our opinion, most difficult to believe that even though the accused had been seen at 2 p.m. committing the murder of Madhandi deceased and a large number of villagers had been told about it soon thereafter, no report about the occurrence could be lodged till the following day. The police station was less than two miles from the village of Valanjiaraju and Kopia and their failure to make a report to the police till the following day would tend to show that none of them had witnessed the occurrence. It seems likely, as has been stated on behalf of the accused, that the villagers came to know of the death of Madhandi deceased on the evening of March 12, 1970. They did not then know about the actual assailant of the deceased, and on the following day, their suspicion fell on the accused and accordingly they involved him in this case. First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained. In the present case, Kopia, daughter-in-law of Madhandi deceased, according to the prosecution case, was present when the accused made murderous assault on the deceased. Valanjiaraju, step-son of the deceased, is also alleged to have arrived near the scene of occurrence on being told by Kopia. Neither of them, nor any other villager, who is stated to have been told about the occurrence by Valanjiaraju and Kopia, made any report at the police station for more than 20 hours after the occurrence, even though the police station is only two miles from the place of occurrence. The said circumstance, in our opinion, would raise considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of those two witnesses and point to an infirmity in that evidence as would render it unsafe to base the conviction of the accused-appellant upon it.
32. So far as, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding statement made by Brijesh Chandra Yadav (PW-2) is concerned, that barracks were searched after the incident and no incriminating material was found during the inspection by senior officers & the alleged Pepsi bottle said to contain poison was recovered by D.P. Singh (PW-10) Investigating Officer on 21.06.2010 in the presence of Prisoner Rajesh Kumar and Ram Briksh Ram, which was further sealed in a cloth available. It is Exhibit-Ka-6. It further creates doubt as the said witness in his cross-examination has reiterated that no Pepsi bottle was recovered in his presence and there was no report prepared with respect to that Pepsi bottle. In these circumstances, either the recovery memo Exhibit Ka-6 prepared by the Investigation Officer D.P. Singh (PW-10) is to be doubted or the statement made by the complainant himself on oath as PW-2 is to be kept aside.
33. Now, with regard to the reliability of the statement of Ritesh Singh (PW-3), who is said to be the sole eye-witness in this case, and who has narrated in his statement that he witnessed the entire incident from a distance of about 8 to 10 feet, he could not even identify the direction of the toilet. The said witness has further stated on oath that the appellant Ram Singh and Surendra Yadav, who were speaking loudly to each other that work has been done. The said witness has stated about the occurrence, that at the place of incident, the appellant Ram Singh and Surendra Yadav were having bottle of Pepsi with plastic glasses. Thereafter, prisoner Wasim Ahmad and Ram Bachan Yadav, Guddu @ Raj Kumar and Suresh Yadav came and sat down. At that time, the appellant Ram Singh stated that we have been waiting for them to have snacks. The bread laced with poisonous substance were served to the aforesaid three prisoners, who ate them. Accused Ram Singh, also consumed Pepsi thereafter, Wasim Ahmad, Ram Bachan Yadav, Guddu @ Raj Kumar went to their barrack. Then the accused Ram Singh said that work has been done. The said witness has again reiterated that he saw the whole incident and heard it and thereafter he went to his barrack. The said witness has further stated in his cross-examination that the accused Ram Singh and accused Surendra Yadav were talking to each other in such a loud voice as was heard by all of the prisoners present there. He has further deposed that regarding the said incident neither he nor anybody else informed the jail officers. The Investigation Officer enquired about the occurrence after five-six days. It is noteworthy that the general practice prevalent in the jail, creates doubt about the providing of bread laced with poison by two of the prisoners to three other prisoners separately. Usually the jail prisoners are provided breakfast/lunch/dinner at a fixed time and place and that too as per schedule and norm. Generally the lunch time suppose to be around 01 pm or thereafter. However, when we look to the narration made by the present witness, relating to the serviing bread laced with poison to the deceased it creates doubt, as it is the jail authorities who provide breakfast or lunch to all the jail inmates at a specified time and place. As such, the narration as made by the present witness does not appear to be truthful being contrary to the jail practices. Also, no reason has been assigned by the prosecution regarding the motive with the accused to serve bread laced with poisonous substance, to the deceased. No iota of evidence exists on the record that may create any basis that there was animosity between the accused and the deceased. In absence of any such evidence, pertaining to the inimical relationship between them, the statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant is wholly unreliable and, therefore, need to be ignored.
34. So far as statement made on oath by Manoj Kumar (PW-5) is concerned, it is clear that in India the principle of falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus does not apply. In the present case the Court cannot wholly ignore the statement of a witness. The Court is required to separate truth from falsehood, and any corroborated portion of his evidence can still be relied upon. This witness had supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief, as resulted from his narration but on the very next day he denied from his earlier statement. Therefore, he cannot be relied at all. Such type of witnesses are not trustworthy and it is not possible to differentiate between the reliable and the unreliable parts of his evidence and the Courts are under obligations to test the truthfulness of the statement made by such witness by other evidences.
35. In the light of discussion made hereinabove, the learned counsel for the appellants has been able to create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and thus the accused appellants are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the conviction order dated 02.02.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ghazipur, in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2012 (State of U.P. vs. Ram Singh alias Ram Singha alias Ram Singhwa & Another) arising out of Case Crime No. 1839 of 2010, under Sections 328, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., as stated above, is liable to be set aside.
36. Consequently, the instant appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 02.02.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ghazipur, in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2012 (State of U.P. vs. Ram Singh alias Ram Singha alias Ram Singhwa & Another) is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from the charges of offence by granting them benefit of doubt.
37. Since the appellants namely Ram Singh Alias Ram Singha Alias Ram Singhwa and Surendra Yadav have already been released on bail, as such, their sureties and bail bonds shall stand discharged subject to compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
38. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment and order be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith.
(Tej Pratap Tiwari, J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.)
September 16.10.2025
NSC/Manoj
