Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Sri Pal Singh And Others on 24 September, 2025
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:173727-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1688 of 1987
State of U.P.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Sri Pal Singh And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
A.G.A.
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Radhey Shyam Shukla
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.
1. Heard learned A.G.A. for the appellant-State and perused the record.
2. This is a very old appeal.
3. The present Government Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.03.1987 passed by Shri Parmeshwar-III, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No.378 of 1985 (State Vs. Sri Pal Singh, Vijai Bahadur, Raj Bahadur and Shri Krishana) whereby the learned court below has acquitted the accused persons of offence under Section 302, 394, 412 IPC.
4. In a nutshell, the prosecution story arose that the deceased Krishna Singh was shot dead during night hours at around 11:30 p.m. on 12.05.1985 while he was sleeping at the wheat purchase center where he had stayed over night for the purposes of transacting sale of wheat brought by him. The FIR was registered at P.S. Banda on 13.05.1985 at about 05:10 a.m. That FIR was got registered by Badam Singh son of the deceased (PW-1). He disclosed that he alongwith his brother Naresh Pal Singh (PW-2) had seen the occurrence. During investigation, besides preparation of the Inquest Report, autopsy examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Vinod Kumar Mishra (PW-3). He proved the following ante mortem injuries:-
" 1- Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm x on right side chin, 2 cm below the right angle of mouth.
2- Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm on the right side tip of nose.
3- Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1/2 cm on the left back 5 cm lateral to spine and 14 cm below left angle (lower) of scapulla margins inverted, direction back to front.
4- Gunshot wound of exit 3 cm x 3 cm on the right side chest just below right clavicle 4 cm lateral to manutrum sternum, margins inverted.
5- Gun shot wound of entry 10 cm x 2 cm over right fore-arm inner aspect 2 cm above right wrist joint, blackenning around the wound present. Margins lacerated and inverted. Direction from back to front.
6- Gun shot wound of exit 10 cm x 3 cm on the outer aspact of right fore-arm, anteriorily, margins lacerated everted. There is fracture of radius bone lower end.
7- Gun shot wound of entry 18 cm x 6 cm x bone deep on the dorsal aspect of leg 11 cm above the right ankle margins lacerated and inverted. There is fracture of tibia right lower end. Direction from back to front.
8- Gun shot wound of exit 18 cm x 4 cm x bone deep 10 cm below the right knee. margins lacerated and everted fracture of right tibia bone lower end.
9- Gunshot wound of entry 1-1/2 cm x 1-1/2 cm x cavity deep on right side abdomen 0.3 cm above right iliac crest. 19 cm last to umblious, blackening the margins are inverted. Direction from right to left.
10- Gunshot wound of exit 4 cm x 3 cm on the left side abdomen. Margins everted, intestines coming out.12 cm left and lat. to umblicus.
11- Gunshot wound of entry 5 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep on the medial aspect right thigh 10 cm below inguinal ligament. Margins lacerated and inverted. Direction right to left down wards to upwards, fracture of left hip bone.
12- Gun shot wound of exit 3 cm x 5 cm cavity deep on left side lower abdomen, 17 cm below the umblicus margin everted lacerated.
13- Lacerated wound 4 cm x 3 cm on the front of base of penis."
5. At the trial, both Badam Singh (PW-1) and Naresh Pal Singh (PW-2), the eye-witnesses of the occurrence produced by the prosecution established that the deceased was done to death by causing five gun shot injuries. They also claimed that the acquitted accused had robbed the licensed firearm of the deceased.
6. While such case was set up and was relied by the prosecution, it is equally true that the prosecution made no effort to explain the lacerated wound on the right side of the nose as also another lacerated wound at the base of the penis of the deceased besides the abrasion injury suffered on the right chin.
7. While that first doubt existed with respect to non-explanation of those injuries, other doubts arose on the strength of the recovery of the licensed weapon of the deceased from a third person also named Sri Krishna.
8. Third doubt arose on the evidence led by Om Prakash (CW-1) and Zafar Khan (CW-2) both employees of wheat purchase center. While Om Prakash (CW-1) was a salesman of the Saadhan Sahkari Samiti, Zafar Khan (CW-2) was a 'palledaar'/manual laborer at that purchase center. Both proved that the deceased had reached the purchase center to sell wheat brought by him. Having sold the wheat he stayed back, over night. Both witnesses further disclosed that they were sleeping at the center when the occurrence was caused. On hearing gun shot they ran to the place of occurrence and found the deceased lying dead. They informed Ram Bharose the Guard on duty. During their cross-examination, it emerged that neither Badam Singh (PW-1) nor Naresh Pal Singh (PW-2) were present at the time of occurrence. They were present with him in the morning but not at the time of occurrence and they arrived later with the police, in the next morning. In view of such doubt existing learned court below has acquitted the accused persons.
9. Having heard learned AGA and perused the record, we find that prosecution story has been found riddled with reasonable doubts both as to the presence of two eye-witnesses namely Badam Singh (PW-1) and Naresh Pal Singh (PW-2) and as to the occurrence. Once the presence of the witness is doubted, the very premise of the prosecution story is shaken. Second though the witnesses described the gun shot injuries alone, it is noticeable that one lacerated wound suffered by the deceased on his face near the nose and another lacerated wound suffered on his private part remained unexplained. Keeping that in mind, we find no error has been committed by learned court below in acquitting the accused.
10. To the extent the appraisal of evidence by learned court below may not have suffered from any perversity as may lead to a singular conclusion of guilt against the accused persons, we find no room exists for any interference specially at this belated stage.
11. Accordingly, the present Government Appeal is dismissed.
(Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
September 24, 2025
Virendra
