# Abbul Hasan v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 848
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 1982
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Vivek Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abbul-hasan-v-state-of-u-p-46643
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Govt. Advocate

Testimony of two witnesses are reliable-cannot
be discarded-merely being mother and friend
of the deceased respectively-prosecution case
established-rightly convicted.

Criminal Appeals dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,890 of 59,276. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39890 for what follows._

848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
assaulted the deceased Daya Shanker with lathi.
Though P.W.1-Darshan had tried to approach the
deceased but when he heard the gun-shots, he and
Ram Ashrey (P.W.4) were frightened and they
stopped at a distance of about 100 paces. Thereafter,
on seeing P.W.1-Darshan, P.W.4-Ram Ashrey and
other persons came nearer to them, the accused
persons ran away from the spot. Thereafter, when
P.W.1-Darshan, P.W.4-Ram Ashrey and others, who
were at a little distance, came, then, they found that
deceased Daya Shanker was dead. The statement of
P.W.4-Ram Ashrey is also in the aforesaid terms.
P.W.9-S.I. Raghuraj Singh, who is the Investigating
Officer of the case, has stated in his examination-inchief that he has recovered potato and guava from the
place where the deadbody of the deceased was lying
under recovery memo (Ext. Ka. 11). It is not the case
of the appellant that the recovered potato and guava
from the place of deadbody of the deceased, was
planted.

(28) Going by the corroborative statements of
P.W.1-Darshan and P.W.4-Ram Asrey, it is
discernible that though they are related to each other
and to the deceased as well, their evidence cannot
discarded by simply labelling them as ''interested' or
witnesses. After thoroughly scrutinizing their
evidence, we do not find any direct or indirect interest
of these witnesses to get the accused/appellant by
falsely implicating him so as to meet out any vested
interest. We are, therefore, of the considered view
that the evidences of P.W.1- Darshan and P.W.4-
Ram Ashrey are quite reliable and we see no reason
to disbelieve them.

(29) In respect of forensic evidence, P.W.8-Dr.
S.P. Rastogi, who conducted the post-mortem of the
deadbody of the deceased, found six lacerated
wounds, two multiple fire arm entry wounds and one
multiple abraded contusion on the body of the
deceased and opined that the deceased died due to
coma as a result of head injury. The post-mortem
report confirms the injuries occurred on the head of
the deceased was by the blunt object like lathi. The
ownership of the lathi has not been disputed by the
appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C.

(30) In the present case, the prosecution has
been successful in proving the motive. There was a
prior long-time enmity between the deceased and the
accused/appellant. The accused/appellant has failed
to prove any circumstances by which it can be said
that he is falsely implicated in the case.

(31) In view of the aforesaid discussions, this
Court is in agreement with the findings of the learned
trial Court and sees no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order dated 28.1.1985
passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing
the accused/appellant for the offence under Section
302 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

(32) The instant criminal appeal is, accordingly,
dismissed. The appellant is in jail and and he shall
serve out the remaining sentence as ordered by the
trial Court.

(33) Let the lower court record along with
certified copy of the present order be transmitted to
the trial court concerned for necessary information
and compliance forthwith.
----------
(2021)12ILR A848
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 1982
Connected with
Criminal Appeal No. 623 of 1982

Abbul Hasan ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
11 All. Abbul Hasan Vs. State of U.P.
849
R.N. Gupta,(Amicus Curaie), Dinesh Chandra
Shukla

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Testimony of two witnesses are reliable-cannot
be discarded-merely being mother and friend
of the deceased respectively-prosecution case
established-rightly convicted.

Criminal Appeals dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Manphool Singh & ors. Vs St. of Har. : (2018) 18
SCC 531

2. Lakshmi Singh Vs St. of Bihar : 1976 Law Suit (SC)
325

3. Jai Prakash Singh Vs St. of Bihar & anr. : 2012(2)
Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 468

4. Bur Singh Vs St. of Pun. : (2008) 16 SCC 65

5. St.of Pun. Vs Karnail Singh : 2003 (3) ACR 2961
S.C.

6. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary Vs St. of Bihar : 2008 (2)
CAR 652 S.C.

7. Gumansinh & ors. Vs The St.of Guj. : AIR 2021 SC
4174

8. Babu Ram & ors. Vs St. of Pun. : (2008) 3 SCC 709
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

1. The convict/appellant, Abbul Hasan,
was tried by the Sessions Judge, Hardoi in
Session Trial No. 514 of 1981 for the offence
under Sections 302, 307 and 324 I.P.C. and in
Sessions Trial No. 575 of 1981 for the offence
under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

2. Vide judgment and order dated
07.08.1982 passed in Sessions Trial No. 514 of
1981, the Sessions Judge, Hardoi convicted the
convict/appellant under Sections 302, 307, 324
I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo :-

"(a) Under Section 302 I.P.C. to
undergo life imprisonment;

(b) Under Section 307 I.P.C. to
undergo five years' R.I.; and

(c) Under Section 324 I.P.C. to
undergo one year's R.I."

All the aforesaid sentences were
directed to be run concurrently.

3. Vide judgment and order dated
07.08.1982 passed in Sessions Trial No. 575 of
1981, the Sessions Judge, Hardoi convicted the
convict/appellant under Section 4/25 of the
Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo six
months' R.I.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid
judgment and order dated 07.08.1982 passed in
Sessions
Trial
No.
514
of
1981,
the
convict/appellant has preferred Criminal Appeal
No. 622 of 1982, whereas convict/appellant has
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 623 of 1982
against the judgment and order dated 07.08.1982
passed in Sessions Trial No. 575 of 1981.

5. The aforesaid two sessions trials i.e.
Sessions Trial Nos. 514 of 1981 and 623 of
1982, arose out of the common incident and the
facts and law involved in the above-captioned
criminal appeals are identical, hence with the
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties,
the above-captioned criminal appeals are being
decided by a common order.

A. FACTS

6. Shorn off, unnecessary details the facts
of the case are as under :-

Om Prakash (deceased), Abbul Hasan
(convict/appellant), Mahesh and Ram Singh
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(injured)
are
the
residents
of
Mohalla
Salamullahganj, Qasba Sandi, District Hardoi.

As
per
the
prosecution,
convict/appellant-Abbul Hasan son of Sallu was
having an evil eye on Kamla (P.W.3), who is the
sister of Om Prakash (deceased) and daughter of
informant-Gomti (P.W.2). On 05.04.1981, in the
noon, a spat and ribaldry took place between Om
Prakash (deceased) and convict/ appellant Abbul
Hasan and thereafter convict/appellant Abbul
Hasan, after giving threatening to Om Prakash
(deceased) to look after him, went from there.
On the same date i.e. on 05.04.1981, at about
07:00 p.m., son of the informant-Gomti (P.W.2),
namely, Om Prakash (deceased), Mahesh Ahir
(P.W.4) and Ram Singh Loniya were returning
from the market to their house. The informantGomti (P.W.2) was also coming behind them
from her field. When Om Prakash (deceased),
Mahesh Ahir and Ram Singh Loniya came near
the house of Dr. Ram Bilash where electric bulb
was burning, all of a sudden convict/appellant
Abbul Hasan armed with knife came in front of
him
(deceased
Om
Prakash)
and
after
challenging her son (deceased Om Prakash),
assaulted him with the knife, as a consequence
of which, her son, Om Prakash (deceased),
raised alarm, thereupon she (informant) had also
raised alarm. When Mahesh (P.W.4) and Ram
Singh, who were accompanied with Om
Prakash, tried to save Om Prakash (deceased)
and also raised alarm, convict/appellant Abbul
Hasan had also assaulted them with the knife.
Thereafter, on listening hue and cry, Jauhari, son
of Nav Shanker and other persons came there
and
challenged
the
convict/appellant
AbbulHasan, thereupon, convict/appellant, after
brandishing the knife, ran from there. The son of
the informant-Gomti (P.W.2) succumbed to
injuries on the spot and Mahesh (P.W.4) and
Ram Singh got injured.

7. The FIR of the aforesaid incident was
lodged by the informant Gomti (P.W.2) at about
07.15 p.m. on the date of the incident on
05.04.1981 at Police Station Sandi, District
Hardoi.

8. The evidence of P.W.10 Chabinath Singh
shows that on 05.04.1981, he was posted as Head
Moharrir at police station Sandi, District Hardoi
and on that date, at about 07.25 p.m., informant
Gomti (P.W.2) came at police station Sandi and
described him the incident, whereupon after
scribing it he read it over to her and, thereafter, she
affixed her thumb impression on it and lodged it at
police station. The F.I.R. was marked as (Ext. Ka.
3).

9. A perusal of the chik FIR shows that the
distance between the place of incident and Police
Station Sandi was 2 furlang. It is significant to
mention that a perusal of the chik FIR also shows
that on its basis, a case crime no. 40 of 1981, under
Section 302/307 I.P.C. was registered against
appellant. After lodging of the F.I.R., injured
Mahesh and Ram Singh, who also came along
with the informant Gomti (P.W.2) at Police Station
Sandi, were sent along with Homeguard Surendra
Kumar and Bhikham to Primary Health Centre,
Sandi, Hardoi for medical examination.

10. The injuries of injured Mahesh (P.W.4)
and Ram Singh were medically examined at
Primary Health Centre, Sandi, Hardoi on
05.04.1981 at 08:00 p.m. and 08.30 p.m.,
respectively, by Dr. A.K. Dixit (P.W.1), who, on
the persons of injured Mahesh (P.W.4) and Ram
Singh, found the following injuries :-

"Injury of Mahesh, son of Dawarika

(1) Punctured incised stabbed wound
10 cm x 11⁄2 cm x intestines with other viscera
came out through the wound so that depth could
not be taken. Fresh bleeding through the wound
on the outer and middle of left abdominal trunk
just below the left lower part of ribs 7 cm above
from axillarial chest."

Dr. A.K. Dixit (P.W.4) opined that the
aforesaid injury is sustained by injured Mahesh
11 All. Abbul Hasan Vs. State of U.P.
851
was fresh and caused by some sharp pointed
object and for the same reason, he was kept
under observation.

"Injury of Ram Singh, son of
Munshilal

1. Incised punctured stab wound 2 cm
x 1⁄4 cm x 1⁄4 cm on the outer and lower part of
left neck 4 cm above from left colar bone from
its middle part. Margins are sharp cutting type
with oozing of blood.

2. Incised punctured wound 11⁄2 cm x
11⁄2 cm x muscle deep on the front and lower part
of outer part of left fore-arm 3 cm below from
wrist joint. Margins are sharp cutting type with
oozing of blood."

In the opinion of Dr. A.K. Dixit
(P.W.4), all the injuries are simple and caused
by some sharp pointed object and duration is
fresh.

11. It is significant to mention that in his
deposition in the trial Court, Dr. A.K. Dixit
(P.W. 1) has reiterated the said cause of injuries
and also stated therein that on 05.04.1981, he
was posted as In-charge Medical Officer,
Primary Health Centre, Sandi. He had examined
the injuries of injured Mahesh (P.W.4) and Ram
Singh. He further deposed that the injuries
sustained by the injured persons could be
attributable by knife (Ext. Ka.1) and these
injuries could be attributable on the injured
Mahesh and Ram Singh on 05.04.1981 at 07:00
p.m. He further stated that as the injury
sustained by injured Mahesh was attributable by
a sharp pointing weapon, therefore, while taking
the injury of injured Mahesh under observation,
he was sent him to District Hospital Hardoi,
however, at the time of medical examination, the
injury of injured Mahesh was fresh.

12. The evidence of P.W.9 Dr. J.V. Singh
shows that he was posted as Reserve Duty
Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Hardoi
between April to May, 1981. On 05.04.1981,
injured Mahesh (P.W.4) came on referral from
Primary Health Centre, Sandi. On 05.04.1981, at
about 09:30 p.m., injured Mahesh was admitted
at Sadar Hospital, Hardoi. He performed the
operation of the injured Mahesh on 05.04.1981
at 11:45 p.m. He further stated that during the
course of operation, the abdomen of injured
Mahesh was opened by giving incision on left
middle upper and middle paramedian and found
that some blood came out from the peritoneum;
three incised wounds of 0.75 cm x 0.75 cm. in
an area of 2 cm were found on transverse colon;
and three incised perforations were found on the
upper one-third part of the intestines in an area
of 10 c.m. Thereafter, the peritoneum on account
of stab wound was also closed and after putting
a rubber drain in the abdomen, the stab wound
was dressed. Dr. J.V. Singh (P.W.9) has proved
his operation notes, recorded on the bed-head
tickets. In his opinion, the injury was grievous
and the same could be said dangerous to life. He
also stated that at the time of admission, injured
Mahesh was in a conscious position, hence at
09:40 p.m., he had given a note on the bed-head
ticket for recording of the dying declaration of
the injured Mahesh but the same could not be
recorded till 11:45 p.m. and thereafter, the
injured was not in a position to give any
statement.

13. The evidence of P.W.8-Harchandra
Singh shows that he was posted as Station Officer
at police station Sandi in the month of April, 1981.
On 05.04.1981, at about 07:25 p.m., informantGomti (P.W.2) came at Police Station Sandi and in
his presence lodged FIR. The chik FIR was written
by Head Moharrir Chabinath Singh (P.W.10) on
describing of the incident by informant Gomti and
on that basis, F.I.R. was registered by Head
Moharrir Chabinath Singh (P.W.10) at 07:25 p.m.
on 05.04.1981. He further deposed that injured
Mahesh (P.W.4) and Ram Singh were also coming
at police station along with informant-Gomti
(P.W.2) and they (injured Mahesh and Ram Singh)
were sent for medical examination along with
Homeguard Surendra Kumar and Bhikham at
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Primary Health Centre, Sandi. At that time, spot of
blood on the shirt of injured Ram Singh was
present, therefore, his shirt was taken by Head
Moharrir Chabinath Singh and sealed it as (Ext. Ka
6). The investigation of the case was conducted by
him. Thereafter, he went to Primary Health Centre,
Sandi for recording the statement of the injured
Mahesh and Ram Singh, wherein he recorded the
statement of injured Mahesh, whereas Ram Singh
was asked to reach on the place of occurrence and
injured Mahesh was referred to the District
Hospital, Hardoi for further treatment. Thereafter,
he reached at the place of occurrence and at the
place of occurrence, the deadbody of the deceased
Om Prakash was found in front of the house of
Ram Bilash Thakur on road. Thereafter, on his
direction, S.I. Ram Shukla Awasthi had prepared
panchayatnama (Ext. Ka. 8), photo lash (Ext. Ka.
9) and challan lash (Ext. Ka. 10). Thereafter,
sealed deadbody of the deceased Om Prakash was
sent for post-mortem at Sadar Mortuary, Hardoi
along with Homeguard Ram Kishore and
Constable Lal Bihari.

14. The post-mortem on the dead body of
deceased Om Prakash was conducted on
06.04.1981 at 04:40 p.m., by Dr. S.K. Luthra
(P.W. 5), who found on his person ante-mortem
injuries, enumerated hereinafter :--

"1. Incised wound 1 cm x .5 cm x
muscle deep over left side of face, 1 cm below
the left eye, tailing present downward. Margins
clean cut.

2. Incised wound 3 cm x 5 cm x
muscle deep 1.5 cm below the left eye. Tailing
present downward. Margins clean cut.

3. Punctured wound 4.5 cm x 2 cm x
chest cavity deep over left side of chest 5 cm
away from the left nipple at 1 to 2 O'clock
position. Elliptical in shape. Margins clean cut.
Director medially and downward.

4. Punctured wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm x
chest cavity deep over left side of back of chest
x chest cavity deep just above the left scapua.
Elliptical in shape. Margins clean cut. Direction
downward, forward and medially.

5. Abrasion over left knee joint 3 cm x
1 cm.

6. Two abrasions over right knee joint.
Each measuring 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm."

The cause of death spelt out in the
autopsy reports of the deceased Om Prakash was
shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries, which he had sustained.

15. It is significant to mention that in his
deposition, in the trial Court, Dr. S.K. Luthra
(P.W. 5) has reiterated the said cause of death
and also stated therein that on 06.04.1981, he
was posted as Medical Officer at District
Hospital, Hardoi. He stated that on internal
examination, he found that 2nd rib of left side
was cut through and through under injuries no. 3
and 4; left pleural cavity contained 350 C.C.
clotted blood; in the left lung, incised wound in
the upper labe 2 cm x 1 cm communicating with
the injury no. 4 was found; a lacerated wound in
lower labe size 3 cm x 1.5 cm communicating
with the injury no.3 was found, which was
through and through in the lung; stomach
contained 6 oz. of paste like food material;
faecal matter and gas was found in large and
small intestine.

In the cross-examination, Dr. S.K.
Luthra (P.W. 5) has stated that there was no
injury in the wedged shaped. Injuries no. 3 and 4
were made from such weapon of which both
sides are sharpen and these injuries could be
attributable by the knife (Ext. Ka. 1).

16. The evidence of P.W.8 S.I. Harchandra
Singh, who is Investigating Officer of the case,
further shows that he inspected the place of the
incident in the presence of informant P.W.2Gomti and injured Ram Singh and prepared the
site plan (Ext. Ka. 11). From the place of
incident, he seized plain and blood stained earth
in containers under a recovery memo. On
11 All. Abbul Hasan Vs. State of U.P.
853
06.04.1981, at 08:00 a.m., he went to village
Badhrai for recording the statement of Mahipal
Singh and he reached Badhrai at about 08:30
a.m. and recorded the statement of Mahipal
Singh. In the village Badhrai, informer had
informed him that convict/appellant Abbul
Hasan is present at Badhrai Bus Station.
Immediately thereafter, he reached the Badhrai
Bus Station from where he arrested the
convict/appellant.
On
interrogation
of
convict/appellant, he informed him that he
murdered the deceased Om Prakash with knife.
Thereafter,
on the pointing
out
of
the
convict/appellant Abbul Hasan, knife (Ext. ka.
1) was recovered from the house of the
convict/appellant in the presence of witnesses
Jagannath, Kuber and Ram Laraitey (P.W.7). He
further deposed that in the recovered knife,
blood mark was present. Thereafter, he
deposited the recovered knife in the malkhana.
He further stated that he had also instructed to
lodge an F.I.R. against the convict/appellant
under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. On the date
itself i.e. on 16.04.1981, he recorded the
statement of witnesses Ram Laraitey (P.W.7),
Kuber, Jagannath and others at the police
station. On 22.04.1981, after completion of
investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet
(Ext. Ka. 15) against the convict/appellant under
Sections 302, 307 and 324 I.P.C.

In
the
cross-examination,
P.W.8Harchandra Singh has denied the suggestion that
the F.I.R. of the case was not lodged on
05.04.1981 and it has been lodged on 06.04.1981
on his instruction. He further stated that the place
from where informant Gomti saw the incident is
not shown in the site plan. He did not see any
gourd burden (cks>k) and sickle at the place of the
incident. The road where the deadbody of the
deceased was lying was made of asphalt. There
was a drain on the side of the road. The mud was
removed from the drain and thrown on the road,
which had dried up, the dead body was lying on it
and the blood was also spread there. There was no
blood spread on the part of the asphalt. He further
denied the suggestion that neither the dead body
nor the blood was found at the place where the
deadbody of the deceased was lying and further
Jauhari did not live in the kothari (cell) near the
spot. He also denied the suggestion that witness
Jauhari was an accused at Police Station Sandi. He
did not find blood on the clothes worn by the
informant Gomti. He had taken the statement of
Dr. Ram Bilash, however, none of the residents
whose houses are shown in the site plan, had given
statement. He denied the suggestion that he did not
record the statement of any witness on 05.04.1981.
He also stated that when he was at Baghrai, then,
he came to know that convict/appellant was going
to surrender in Court. As the convict/appellant was
trying to escape, he was arrested by police by
surrounding him at Badrai Bus Station.

17. The case was committed to the Court of
Session by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi
on 09.07.1981 and the trial Court framed charge
against convict/appellant under Section 302, 307,
324 I.P.C. He pleaded not guilty to the charges and
claimed to be tried and has stated that Om Prakash
was under a wrong belief that he has got illicit
relation with his sister, on account of which, Om
Prakash along with Ram Singh and Mahesh armed
with ''dandas' came to his door and beat him
mercilessly and thereafter, his father and uncle
rushed to save him and in defending him, they
cause injuries to Om Prakash, Mahesh and Ram
Singh with a ''dharia' (a grass cutting sharp edged
weapon). The same day, he went to lodge the
report. He was detained there. His report was not
written and then, he was falsely challaned. The
recovery of the knife at his instance has also been
falsely manipulated. He had a good number of
injuries on account of assault by the deceased and
his companions.

18. It transpires from the record that on the
recovery
of
the
knife
on
the
pointing
out/possession of the convict/appellant Abbul
Hasan after he was arrested in connection with
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Crime No. 4 of 1981, under Section 307/34
I.P.C., which was registered earlier against the
convict/appellant,
the
learned
Magistrate
directed to commit the aforesaid case also for
trial before the Court of Sessions
and
accordingly, Sessions Trial No. 575 of 1981 for
the offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act
against the convict/appellant arose.

19. During trial, in all, the prosecution
examined 10 witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Dr.
A.K. Dixit, who medically examined the
injured Mahesh (P.W.4) and Ram Singh,
P.W.2-Gomti, who is the daughter of the
deceased and informant of the case, P.W.3Smt. Kamla, who is the daughter of the
informant Gomti and sister of the deceased,
P.W.4-Mahesh, who is the injured witness,
P.W.5-Dr. S.K. Luthra, who had conducted the
post-mortem of the deceased Om Prakash,
P.W.6-Jauhari, who is the eye-witness of the
incident, P.W.7- Ram Laraitey, who is the
witness of recovery of knife, P.W.8-Harchand
Singh, who is the Investigating Officer,
P.W.9-Dr.
J.V.
Singh,
who
had
made
treatment of injured Mahesh on referral from
Primary Health Centre, Sandi, and P.W.10H.M. Chavinath Singh, who is the scriber of
the F.I.R. and on describing the incident by
the informant lodged the F.I.R. at Police
Station Sandi, Hardoi.

20. The prosecution, in support of his
case, has also filed before the trial Court an
affidavit of Ram Kishore, Home Guard, who
brought the deadbody of the deceased Om
Prakash
for
post-mortem
examination;
affidavit of Constable Mohan Lal, who
brought two sealed bundles on 05.04.1981;
affidavit of Bhoop, who brought five bundles
on 04.05.1981 to Sadar Malkhana and took the
same from Sadar Malkhana to the office of
Chief Medical Officer for dispatch to the
Chemical
Examiner;
affidavit
of
Head
Constable Jagannath, Moharrir Malkhana;
report of the Chemical Examiner (Ext. Ka.
25); and the report of Serologist (Ext. Ka. 26).

21. From other side, the defence had
examined two witnesses, namely, D.W.1-Dr.
S.C. Rizvi, who had medically examined the
convict/appellant at District Jail, Hardoi and
D.W.2-Sripal, who was the x-ray technician at
Sadar Hospital, Hardoi and had performed x-ray
of the convict/appellant under the supervision of
Dr. A.N. Singh.

22. P.W.2 Gomti, who is the informant and
mother of the deceased Om Prakash, in her
examination-in-chief, has deposed that accused
Abbul Hasan was having evil eye on her
daughter Kamla and in this regard, on the day
when her son Om Prakash was murdered,
altercation took place between her son and
accused Abbul Hasan in the afternoon and
accused Abbul Hasan had threatened her son
Om Prakash to see him. This fact has been
informed by her son Om Prakash to her on the
same day in the afternoon. She further deposed
that prior to one day before the date of incident,
her daughter Kamla had informed her about
accused Abbul Hasan having evil eye on her and
at that time, her son Om Prakash was also
present in the house when her daughter informed
the aforesaid fact to her.

23. P.W.2-Gomti has further deposed that
the incident was about ten months ago. She had
gone to harvest the crops. She was returning
home from the field at around 7 in the evening.
She reached in the corridor of Dr. Ramvilas's
house from the North direction at seven o'clock
in the evening. Her son Om Prakash, Mahesh
and Ram Singh were going ahead of her in the
same direction. When her son Om Prakash
reached in front of Dr. Ramvilas's house,
accused Abbul Hasan came with a knife from
the south side and challenged her son Om
Prakash and started hitting him with a knife.
Thereafter, she raised alarm and Mahesh and
11 All. Abbul Hasan Vs. State of U.P.
855
Ram Singh also after raising alarm tried to save
her son Om Prakash. Accused Abbul Hasan,
thereafter, had also stabbed Mahesh and Ram
Singh with knife. Thereafter, on raising hue and
cry, Jauhari and other passerby came and
accused
AbbulHasan
ran
towards
South
direction with knife. Her son Om Prakash fell
there and died instantly. She also deposed that
blood was oozing out of his body. Ram Singh
and Mahesh also got injuries. She further
deposed that lighting was there coming from the
house of Dr. Ram Bilas near the place of the
incident and from where the passage to her
house turns, there was also a light on the electric
pole. At the same time, she went to the police
station along with Ram Singh and Mahesh and
at the police station, report was written on her
dictation. She has proved the Ext. Ka.3 before
the trial Court.

24. P.W.2-Gomti, in her examination-inchief, has further deposed that she had no
complaint regarding the closed sieve of Kamla.
Accused AbbulHasan used to look at her
daughter with evil eye since a month ago. The
accused Abbul Hasan never molested her
daughter in front of her nor in front of her son
Om Prakash. When her daughter complained
about accused Abbul Hasan to her, then, she told
this to Om Prakash as well. Both, she and Om
Prakash, felt bad on listening the aforesaid. Om
Prakash got very angry, however, he did not say
to her that he would see AbbulHasan when he
meet him next. She further stated that no report
was made against accused Abbul Hasan in the
police station after her daughter told that
accused Abbul Hasan molested her. Her son Om
Prakash did not go in search of accused Abbul
Hasan
on
the
day
when
her
daughter
complained. On the second day i.e. on the day of
the incident, her son Om Prakash came and told
her that a quarrel with accused Abbul Hasan
took place. Her son Om Prakash did not say that
he had gone in search of Abbul Hasan. Her son
Om Prakash told her that quarrel took place with
accused Abbul Hasan at the flour mill of Juber.
She further stated that she and her son Om
Prakash did not make complain about the act of
the accused Abbul Hasan to his mother or father
nor her son Omprakash write any report at the
police station. She denied the suggestion that
accused Abbul Hasan never had an evil eye on
her daughter nor Om Prakash have a fight with
the accused Abbul Hasan. She further deposed
that she has no agricultural land. Her son Om
Prakash was a servant in the confectioner
Kishanlal. Keshanlal's shop is in Nawabganj.
Her son Om Prakash used to stay at the shop
from morning till noon and then he used to go
after having food and returned by 8-3 pm. On
the day of the market, the confectionery shops
were closed at 10 o'clock in the night. On the
day of the incident, her son Om Prakash had
come to eat food when he complained. She
further deposed that on the day of the incident,
her son Om Prakash worked in the shop both in
the morning and in the evening. She deposed
that she did not know the cousin of the accused,
Chirag Ali, however, she knew the father of the
accused. The house of the accused is at 30-40
steps south from the place of the incident.

25. It has also been stated by P.W.2-Gomti
that her son Om Prakash, Mahesh and Ram
Singh were not having any weapon. None of
these three had beaten accused Abbul Hasan. No
blood came out from accused Abbul Hasan. She
denied the suggestion that the arm of accused
Abbul Hasan was broken during the incident.
She further deposed that the Inspector had come
to the spot at 8-9 pm on the day of the incident.
The deadbody of her son Om Prakash was
sealed and left at 10 pm on the same day and
when she reached at police station in the
morning on the next date of the incident, the
body of the deceased was present there. The
Inspector was also present at the police station
till noon. She denied the suggestion that her son
was not murdered in front of the house of Ram
Bilas. She also denied the suggestion that her
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
son Omprakash and injured Ram Singh and
Mahesh had beaten the accused Abbul Hasan
with ''dandas' in front of his house and on
hearing the noise of accused Abbul Hasan, his
family members came and in defense, they hurt
Om Prakash, Ram Singh and Mahesh. She has
also stated that her report was written in the
evening on the date of the incident and her
report was not written on the next date of the
incident. She denied the suggestion that the
report was written on the next day of the
incident on the instruction of police.

26. P.W.3-Kamla, who is the daughter of
the informant-Gomti (P.W.1) and sister of the
deceased Om Prakash, has deposed that a day
prior to the incident, accused AbbulHasan had
behaved with her in bad manner while she was
returning from the market and she had told about
it to her mother (P.W.2-Gomti) and brother
(deceased-Om Prakash). She has further deposed
that on the day of the incident also, when her
brother (deceased Om Prakash) came to the
house in the noon, he had told her that he had a
quarrel with accused Abbul Hasan and accused
Abbul Hasan had threatened to him. She further
deposed that it was in the evening that the
incident resulting in the murder of her brother
(Om Prakash) took place.

27. P.W.4-Mahesh, who is the injured
witness,
in
his
examination-in-chief,
has
deposed that it was about ten months' ago, it was
7 O'clock in the evening. He, Ram Singh and
Om Prakash were going towards the house of
the deceased-Om Prakash from the market and
when they reached the road in front of the house
of Ram Bilas, accused Abbul Hasan came from
South direction with a knife and accused Abbul
Hasan, all of a sudden, became angry and started
stabbing Om Prakash. They raised alarm. When
he and Ram Singh tried to save Om Prakash,
accused AbbulHasan had also stabbed them. At
that time, mother of Om Prakash (informant
Gomti) came from behind and she had also
raised alarm; Jauhari was also coming from his
house; and other persons were also coming
there. Accused Abbul Hasan, after stabbing with
knife, ran towards South direction with knife.
Om Prakash died on the spot. The blood from
the body of Om Prakash was falling. He and
Ram Singh had sustained the injuries. He, Gomti
and Ram Singh had gone to police station and
Gomti had lodged the report. Thereafter, he and
Ram Singh were sent for medical examination at
Sandi hospital, where they were medically
examined. Thereafter, he was referred to Hardoi
Hospital from hospital Sandi, where he was
medically examined. He was admitted at Hardoi
hospital for about one month.

In cross-examination, P.W.4-Mahesh
has stated that he was working at the shop of
Gedan Lal and at the time of the incident, he was
returning from the said shop. He has also stated
that his house and the house of Om Prakash
were in the same passage. His house is situated
in east direction of accused Abbul Hasan after 56 houses. He denied the suggestion that at the
time of incident, they were going towards the
passage of eastern direction. On that date, they
were planned to see drama. Om Prakash told that
firstly dinner be taken, therefore, they were
going to the house of Om Prakash. He was
having friendship with Om Prakash. He further
deposed that at the time of incident, no lathi,
danda was in the possession of him, Ram Singh
and Om Prakash. None of them had beaten
accused Abbul Hasan. No blood of accused
Abbul Hasan was falling on the spot nor accused
AbbulHasan sustained any injury. Accused
Abbul Hasan was not beaten by anyone in their
presence.

28. P.W.4 Mahesh has further deposed that
at the time, when Om Prakash was assaulted, his
mother (P.W.2-Gomti) was behind him about 46-10 steps. He had sustained one knife blow. He
also stated that at the time of incident, Jauhari
was residing at Mohalla Salamullaganj nor
11 All. Abbul Hasan Vs. State of U.P.
857
residing at Nababganj. Prior to one year ago,
Jauhari was residing in one kothari of the
Thakur Ram Bilash. He denied the suggestion
that Jauhari never resided at the kothari near the
place of the incident. Jauhari used to sell
Kewada and Rose. Jauhari was never the servant
at police station. He also denied the suggestion
that on the date of the incident, at about 07:00
p.m., he, Ram Singh and Om Prakash were
assaulted seriously to accused Abbul Hasan by
lathi and danda in his house and also family
members of AbbulHasan were coming to save
him and they were beaten them. He also denied
the suggestion that Gomti (P.W.2) did not lodge
the report on the date of the incident.

29. P.W.4-Jauhari, in his examination-inchief, has stated that it was about ten months
ago. It was 7 O'clock in the evening. He was in
the house. He listened the noises of abuses
coming from the road situated in front of his
house. He came out from the house. The
electricity bulb was lighting in the house of Dr.
Ram Bilash and nearer to it also bulb was
lighting in the electricity poll. He saw that
accused Abbul Hasan was stabbing Om
Prakash, Mahesh and Ram Singh with knife.
The mother of Om Prakash also raised alarm.
Thereafter,
accused
Abbul
Hasan,
after
stabbing, ran towards the South direction. Om
Prakash had sustained injuries and blood was
oozing and he died on the spot and Ram Singh
and Mahesh had also sustained injuries. He
further deposed that firstly he saw the accused
stabbing and then he saw Abbul Hasan running
from there. After the incident, he stayed there.
Inspector came at about 08:00 p.m. The mother
of Om Prakash came along with the Inspector.
Mahesh, Ram Singh had gone along with the
mother of Om Prakash to the police station.
The inspector stayed there till 11:00 p.m. and
thereafter, the inspector had gone to police
station. The mother of Om Prakash had not
gone to police station along with Inspector. He
denied the suggestion that at the time of
incident, he was residing at the house of Ram
Lal and he did not see the incident. He also
denied the suggestion that he has given false
evidence on the pressure of the police against
the accused.

30. P.W.7-Ram Laraitey is the witness for
the recovery of the knife (Ext. 1) at the instance
of the accused Abbul Hasan.

31. D.W.1 Dr. S.C. Rizvi, who was the
Medical Officer, Police Lines, has stated that on
06.04.1981, he was posted as Medical Officer,
District Jail, Hardoi and on that day, at about
05:00 p.m., after detaining the accused Abbul
Hasan in jail, he conducted his medical
examination. On examination of accused Abbul
Hasan, twelve injuries were found on him,
which are as under :-

"1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x
scalp deep 10 cm above right ear on right side of
head.

2.
Traumatic
contused
swelling
(generalized) on whole of lower 1/3 of right
upper arm, Right elbow upper 1/3 of right fore
arm. Local pain and tenderness present,
movements painful and restricted, suspected
fracture. Preserved. Advised X-ray

3. Traumatic generalized swelling on
whole of right wrist and right hand, local pain,
tenderness present, movements painful, and
restricted, suspected fracture present.

4. Lacerated wound 1 cm x .5 cm x
muscle deep over terminal phalanx of right
index finger.

5. Lacerated wound 1 cm x .5 cm x
muscle deep over terminal phalanx of right ring
finger.

6. Lacerated wound 1 cm x .5 cm x
muscle deep on terminal phalanx of right middle
finger.

7. Lacerated wound 1 cm x .5 cm x
muscle deep on terminal phalanx of right little
finger.
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. Contusion 8 cm x 4 cm x blue in
colour on top of left shoulder.

9. Contusion 5 cm x 3 cm x blue in
colour over left scapular region of back.

10. Traumatic generalized swelling on
whole of the left wrist joint, left hand, all the
fingers, local pain and tenderness present,
movements painful and restricted, suspected
fracture. Advised x-ray.

11. Traumatic generalized swelling
with blister formation on whole of the lower 2/3
of right leg. Swelling is huge, local pain and
tenderness present, movements painful and
restricted completely, suspected fracture present.
Advised x-ray.

12. Traumatic generalized swelling on
whole of the lower 1⁄2 of the left leg, local pain
and tenderness present, movements of joints
concerned restricted, suspected fracture present.
Advised for X-ray."

32. It is significant to mention here that
D.W.1 Dr. S.C. Rizvi, has deposed that Injuries
no. 2, 3, 10, 11 and 12 were kept under
observation and rest injuries were simple in
nature. All injuries were caused by hard and
blunt object. Duration was about 24 hours. He
also deposed that all these injuries could have
been caused on 05.04.1981 at about 7:00 p.m.
and could be attributable by danda. In crossexamination, he has stated that there is lesser
possibility of these injuries having been received
at 12 noon on 06.04.981. He has proved injury
report Ext. Kha. 1.

33. D.W.2-Sripal, who conducted x-ray of
the accused/appellant Abbul Hasan, has deposed
that on 10.04.1981, he was posted as x-ray
technician at Sadar Hospital, Hardoi. On
10.04.1981, accused/appellant Abbul Hasan
came in custody at Sadar Hospital, Hardoi for xray.
He
conducted
the
x-ray
of
the
accused/appellant Abbul Hasan in the presence
of Dr. A.N. Singh. He has proved the x-ray
report (Ext. Kha.2). He has also filed four x-ray
plates (Ext. Kha 3 to Ext. Kha 6). It is relevant
to show herein that Ext. Kha 2 shows the
fracture of first metacarpal bone, fracture of
proximal digit of left index and middle finger.
The prosecution has not cross-examined D.W.2.

34. The trial Court believed the evidence
of P.W.2-Gomti, P.W.4-Mahesh, P.W.6-Jauhari,
P.W.7-Ram Laratiey and found the appellant
guilty for the offences punishable under Sections
302, 307, 324 I.P.C. and 4/25 of the Arms Act
and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the
appellants in the manner stated in paragraph 2
and 3, by means of judgments and orders dated
07.08.1982 passed in Special Appeal Nos. 514
of 1981 and 575 of 1981, respectively.

B. APPELLANT'S CASE

35. On behalf of the convict/appellant, Mr.
Dinesh Chandra Shukla, learned Counsel has
made the following submissions :-

(i) The F.I.R. is too prompt to believe
and ante-time.