# Ajab Narain Baranwal & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 122
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1318 of 2007
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Mrs. Renu Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajab-narain-baranwal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-47994
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 147, 302, 325,
323, 307, 504 & 506 -Challenge toConviction- the medical report transpires
that the victim also sustained injuries on
their heads and those were kept under
observation-Prosecution
proved
the
injuries of all the injured and the postmortem
by
cogent
evidence-The
prosecution case is well corroborated by
the medical evidence-Lathi and danda were
recovered from the possession of the
accused-appellants and recovery memo
thereof is proved by P.W.-9- P.W.-2 and
P.W.-3 were injured witness and it cannot
be said that they deposed in Court only
because they are interested in the case but
as an injured witness, they proved the
entire prosecution case-Their presence at
the place of occurrence is very natural and
they inspire confidence in such a way that
the accused-appellants can be convicted on
the evidence of these witnesses-Learned
trial court has given very evince and valid
reasons and elucidated all the evidence and
left no stone unturned in analyzing the
evidence-Hence, no infirmity or perversity
in the judgment and order passed by the
trial court.(Para 38 to 45)

B. 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 an 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
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.(Para 37)
The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,893 of 49,825. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39893 for what follows._

122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. On the basis of above discussion,
the appeal filed by the appellant Jagannath is
liable to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed.

25. Accused appellant no.2 Jagannath is
directed to surrender before the court
concerned with 15 days from today. Failing
which the appellant Jagannath shall be taken
into custody by the court concerned and sent
him to jail to serve out the sentence awarded
by the trial court and confirmed by this Court.

26. Let the copy of judgment and order
as well as the records of trial court be
transmitted to the trial court concerned
forthwith for necessary information and
compliance of this order.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 122
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. RENU AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1318 of 2007

Ajab Narain Baranwal & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sheo Prakash Singh, Aditya Narayan,
Anurag Tilhari, Brij Mohan Sahai, Dashrath
Singh, Kapil Misra, Nagendra Mohan, RP
Misra, R.B.S. Rathaur, Rajendra Prasad
Mishra, S.S. Mishra, Shiv Shankar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate, Amarjeet Singh Rakhra,
S.P. Pandey, Santosh Bhatt

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 147, 302, 325,
323, 307, 504 & 506 -Challenge toConviction- the medical report transpires
that the victim also sustained injuries on
their heads and those were kept under
observation-Prosecution
proved
the
injuries of all the injured and the postmortem
by
cogent
evidence-The
prosecution case is well corroborated by
the medical evidence-Lathi and danda were
recovered from the possession of the
accused-appellants and recovery memo
thereof is proved by P.W.-9- P.W.-2 and
P.W.-3 were injured witness and it cannot
be said that they deposed in Court only
because they are interested in the case but
as an injured witness, they proved the
entire prosecution case-Their presence at
the place of occurrence is very natural and
they inspire confidence in such a way that
the accused-appellants can be convicted on
the evidence of these witnesses-Learned
trial court has given very evince and valid
reasons and elucidated all the evidence and
left no stone unturned in analyzing the
evidence-Hence, no infirmity or perversity
in the judgment and order passed by the
trial court.(Para 38 to 45)

B. 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 an 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
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.(Para 37)
The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Kartik Malhar Vs St. of Bih. (1996) 1 SCC 614
12 All. Ajab Narain Baranwal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
123
2. Rameshwar Vs St. of Raj. (1952) SCR 377=
AIR 1952 SC 54

3. Mohd. Rojali Vs St. of Assam (2019) 19 SCC
567

4. St. of Raj. Vs Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752

5. Amit Vs St. of U.P . (2012) 4 SCC 107

6. Gangabhavani Vs Rayapati Venkat Reddy
(2013) 15 SCC 298

7. Ganapathi Vs St. of T.N. (2018) 5 SCC 549

8. Dalip Singh Vs St. of Punj. (1954) SCR 145

9. Jayabalan Vs U.T. of Pondicherry (2010) 1
SCC 199

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal, J.)

1. The Present Criminal Appeal under
section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
convicted appellants against the Judgment
and Order dated 29.05.2007 passed by Sri
S.P. Nayak, the then Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.4, District Sultanpur in
Sessions Trial No.428 of 1999 (State Vs.
Ajab Narain And Ors.) arising out of Case
Crime No.177 of 1999, under Sections 147,
302, 325, 323, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police
Station
Peeparpur,
District
Sultanpur
whereby convicting and sentencing all the
appellants under Section 147 I.P.C. to
undergo one year R.I. Further convicting
and sentencing them under Section 302/149
I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life and
a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. Further
convicting and sentencing them under
Section 307/149 I.P.C. to undergo five
years R.I. and fine of Rs.3,000/- each.
Further convicting and sentencing them
under Section 325/149 I.P.C. to undergo
three years R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-
each. Further convicting and sentencing
them under Section 323/149 I.P.C. to
undergo six months R.I. Further convicting
and sentencing them under Section 504/149
I.P.C. to undergo six months R.I. and also
convicting and sentencing them under
Section 506/149 I.P.C. to undergo one year
R.I. and all the sentences were run
concurrently and in default of payment of
fine all the appellants have to undergo two
years' additional rigorous imprisonment.

2. Wrapping the facts of the case in
brief that on 16.05.1999 at about 9:00 p.m.,
the father of the complainant Ramashankar
Baranwal (Deceased) was returning after
meeting his counsel Shri Kamta Prasad
Sharma when he reached in front of the
house of accused Shivbahadur Yadav and
Ramkaran Yadav, all the eight accused
obstructed his way by standing cot and
motorcycle in front of him and started
beating his father by lathi and danda. When
his father raised alarm, complainant Arvind
Kumar Baranwal and his brother Sunil
Kumar Baranwal, his uncles Ram Anuj
and Ram Nayak rushed towards the place
of occurrence, then accused started beating
them too and after hearing the chaos,
witnesses Ram Nayan and Ramesh reached
to the place of occurrence and witnessed
the incident and rescued them. They saw
the incident in the light of pole and the light
which was coming from the house of
accused. Accused were threatening to life
and abusing the injured and deceased.
Scriber of F.I.R., Hargovind scribed the
F.I.R. on the dictation of complainant at the
shop of Ramroop and went to lodge the
F.I.R. along with injured by Jeep.

3. On the basis of written report Ext.
Ka-3, the case was registered by Constable
Ramesh Kumar Yadav on 16.05.1999 at
about 23:15 p.m. as Case Crime No.177 of
1999,under Sections 147, 323, 307, 504,
506 I.P.C., Police Station Peeparpur,
District Sultanpur. Chik report Ext. Ka-13
124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was prepared and case was entered in G.D.
No.39 at the same time and date on
16.05.1999 at about 23:15 p.m. All the
injured
were
referred
for
medical
examination at P.H.C., Ramganj, Sultanpur.
The case was entrusted for investigation to
S.I. Shri K.P. Tiwari, who prepared the
copy of written report and prepared site
plan Ext. Ka-15 on the pointing of the
witnesses and recorded the statements of
witnesses Arvind Kumar Baranwal and
Sunil Kumar Baranwal under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and prepared the recovery memo of
blood-stained and plain earth recovered
from the place of occurrence Ext. Ka-16
and on the basis of amended G.D. No.10
Ext.-9, recorded in the case diary the
medical examination of all the injured and
the injuries of Ramashankar Baranwal who
died while taking to hospital and after
preparing recovery memo Ext. Nos.16-21
submitted the charge-sheet in the court
concerned. Subsequently, on the basis of
above, Investigating Officer has submitted
the Charge-sheet No.42 in Case Crime
No.177 of 1999, under Sections 147, 323,
307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station
Peeparpur, District Sultanpur.

4. After taking cognizance of the case,
the C.J.M. concerned committed the case to
the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions
Court on the basis of case diary and other
documentary evidence, framed charges and
read over against all the accused under
Sections 147, 323, 302, 504, 506, 149
I.P.C., Police Station Peeparpur, District
Sultanpur. Accused appellants denied all
the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove the case,
prosecution adduced following witnesses:-

- P.W.-1 Dr. S.N. Rai

- P.W.-2 Arbind Kumar

- P.W.-3 Ram Anuj

- P.W.-4 Dr. A.K. Singh

- P.W.-5 Dr. Subodh Kumar

- P.W.-6 Head Moharrir Ranjit Kumar
Pandey

- P.W.-7 Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta

- P.W.-8 Constable Ramesh Kumar
Yadav

- P.W.-9 Shri K.P. Tiwari

- P.W.-10 S.O. J.N. Shukla

6. After conclusion of prosecution
evidence, statements of accused were
recorded
under
Section
313
Cr.P.C.
Accused were provided the opportunity to
adduce defence witness. The defence
witnesses were produced, which are as
follows:-

- D.W.-1 Dayaram Yadav

- D.W.-2 Paras Nath

- D.W.-3 Mohan Kumar (Record
Keeper)

- D.W.-4 Retd. C.O. Paras Nath
Dwivedi and

- C.W.-1 Ramesh Chandra. witnesses.

7. Learned trial court perusing all the
documentary and ocular evidence in Court
and after hearing the submission of
learned
counsel
for
accused
and
Prosecuting
Officer
reached
to
the
conclusion that P.W.-2 Arvind Kumar
Baranwal complainant of the case, P.W.-3
Ram
Anuj
Baranwal
proved
the
prosecution story very well and formal
witnesses proved the police papers as well.
P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 were injured, who
appeared in Court and their injuries were
corroborated by the evidence of P.W.-1 Dr.
S.N. Rai, P.W.-5 Radiologist Dr. Subodh
Kumar and P.W.-7 Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta
and Court convicted and punished all the
seven accused by the impugned judgment
and order dated 29.05.2007.
12 All. Ajab Narain Baranwal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
125

8. Being aggrieved with the judgment
and order dated 29.05.2007, convicted
appellants have approached this Court by
way of filing the present appeal on the
ground; that the judgment is bad on the
eyes of law and facts. The F.I.R. is antetimed and has been lodged after due
deliberations
and
consultations.
The
prosecution had failed to fix the place of
incident as alleged by the prosecution. The
learned trial court erred in disbelieving the
defence version. There were eight accused
persons alleged to have assaulted the
deceased with lathis but the deceased have
received only one fatal injury resulting in
death and it is not known that out of eight
accused persons, who had caused the said
injury. There is no evidence on record to
indicate that there was prior meeting of
mind among the accused persons and the
object of the accused persons was to cause
death, hence, the accused persons could not
be convicted u/s 302 I.P.C. with the aid of
Section 149 I.P.C. The accused persons
were alleged to have been armed with the
lathis and the injuries to the injured are not
of such nature which warrants their
conviction u/s 307 I.P.C. At the most, the
case would not travel beyond offence u/s
325/149 I.P.C. from the evidence on record.
No independent witness mentioned in the
F.I.R.
has
been
examined
by
the
prosecution and only one witness of the
F.I.R. has been examined. Court Witness
had also not supported the prosecution
case. The sentences passed by the learned
trial court are too severe and is liable to be
dismissed.

9. We have heard, Shri Jyotindra
Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Anurag Tilahari, learned Counsel for
appellant nos.1 and 2, Shri Shiv Shankar
Mishra, learned Counsel for appellant nos.3
and 5, Shri R.B.S. Rathaur, learned Counsel
for appellant nos.4 and 7, Shri Amarjeet
Singh Rakhra and Shri Vashisth Muni
Mishra,
learned
Counsel
for
the
complainant and Shri Umesh Chandra
Verma, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent and perused the record of this
Court as well as the record of trial Court.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants
argued before this Court that the F.I.R. is
lodged
ante-timed
and
after
due
deliberations
and
consultations,
no
independent witness was adduced in trial
court, trial court without applying its mind
and without discussing the injuries of
appellants passed the order, which is
perverse and bad in the eyes of law and is
liable to be set-aside, therefore, it is
requested to set-aside the judgment and
order passed by the trial court dated
29.05.2007.

11. On the contrary, learned A.G.A.
argued that learned trial court discussed
each and every evidence in the judgment
and order and the prosecution has proved
its case beyond reasonable doubt. F.I.R. is
lodged without delay and there are five
injured in this case. The place of
occurrence is not doubtful. The animosity
between the parties is admitted and injured
Ramashankar Baranwal died due to the
injuries sustained during the incident. The
judgment and order passed by the trial
court is in consonance with the law and
facts, hence, the appeal is liable to be
rejected.

12. Before analyzing the evidence on
record, it is desirable to mention the
statements of witnesses in brief:-

P.W.-1 Dr. S. N. Rai, Medical
Officer, Primary Health Centre, Ramganj,
District Sultanpur stated on oath that he
126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
examined injured P.W.-2 Arvind Kumar,
who was brought by C.P. 537, Mahesh
Narayan Dubey and following injuries were
found on his person:-

Injury No.1- Lacerated wound 6 x
0.1 c.m. x scalp deep on the upper side of
head. Above 9 c.m. from the ridge of nose.
Advised for X-ray.

Injury No.2- Lacerated wound 3 x
0.8 c.m. x scalp deep on the left side of
head above 5 c.m. from left ear.

Injury
No.3-
Complain
of
swelling and pain 6 x 3 c.m. in the back
side of forearm and 20 c.m. below right
elbow. Advised for X-ray.

Injury No.4- Contusion 12 x 1.5
c.m. on the back of ribs below 7 c.m. from
left scapula red in colour.

Injury No.5- Complain of pain in
left forearm.

Injury No.6- Complain of pain in
left leg.

Injury No.7- Contusion 7 x 1.05
c.m. on right thigh, 8 c.m. above in patella
bone red in colour.

Injury No.8- Complain of pain in
right leg.

Injury No.9- Complain of pain in
left toe.

All the injuries were opined
simple in nature, except injury nos.1 and 3,
which were advised for X-ray and all the
injuries were caused by hard and blunt
object and fresh.

On the same day, Dr. S. N. Rai,
has
examined
injured
Sunil
Kumar
Baranwal, who was brought by C.P. 537,
Mahesh Narayan Dubey and following
injuries were found on his person:-

Injury No.1- Lacerated wound 1 x
0.5 c.m. x scalp deep on the right side of
head. Above 5 c.m. right ear.

Injury No.2- Abrasion 2.5 x 0.8
c.m. below mastoid process in the right part
of neck.

Injury
No.3-
Complain
of
swelling and pain 7 x 4 c.m. on the back of
left palm 10 c.m. above the left ring finger.
Advised for X-ray.

Injury No.-4 Contusion 7 x 1.5
c.m. 10 c.m. below on the left scapula bone
red in colour.

All the injuries were opined
simple in nature, except injury no.3, which
was advised for X-ray and all the injuries
were caused by blunt object and fresh.

P.W.-1 admitted in his crossexamination by the accused counsel, Shri
Vijay Bahadur Singh that he also examined
the injured accused Umesh and Ram
Karan on 17.05.1999 at about 8:40 p.m.
and 8:30 p.m., respectively. Injured accused
Umesh has sustained following injuries on
his person:-

Injury No.1- Lacerated wound 3 x
.5 c.m. x scalp deep in the right side of
head 9 c.m. above right ear.

Injury No.2- Contusion 8 x 01.5
c.m. on the right shoulder 9 c.m. inside the
right
 shoulder joint, which was red in colour.

Injury No.3- Complain of pain in
left hand.

All the injuries were simple in
nature and were caused by blunt object
within 24 hours.

Injured accused Ram Karan has
sustained following injuries on his person:-

Injury No.1- Abrasion 2 x 1.05
c.m. into outer part of left hand 9 c.m.
above humerus bone of lateral condyle,
which was red in colour.

Injury No.2- Complain of pain in
back of ribs.

All the injuries were simple in
nature and were caused by blunt object
within 24 hours.

13.

P.W.-2
Arvind
Kumar
complainant/injured witness of the case
12 All. Ajab Narain Baranwal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
127
stated on oath that his father was returning
from Bhat Ke Purwa after meeting his
counsel in connection with the case of
consolidation, which was going on with
Ajab Narain, Suresh and others and when
he reached before the house of Shivbahadur
and Ramkaran, accused Ajab Narain,
Suresh Chandra, Umesh Chandra, Girish,
Ramkaran,
Shivbahadur, Rambali
and
Rampal obstructed his way by standing cot
and motorcycle, started beating his father
with lathi and danda when he, his brother
Sunil, uncles Ram Anuj and Ram Nayak
reached to save his father the accused
started beating them also and when they
made hue and cry, the villagers Ram Nayan
and Ramesh reached at the place of
occurrence and rescued them. He further
stated that he recognized the accused in the
light of bulb. He along with his brother
Sunil, uncles Ram Anuj, Ram Nayak and
his father Ramashankar went to the police
station by Jeep and lodged F.I.R. on the
basis
of
written
report
scribed
by
Hargovind on his dictation (Ext. Ka-3). He
further stated that he and his brother Sunil
were
medically
examined
in
P.H.C,
Ramganj and his father and both uncles
Ram Anuj and Ram Nayak were referred
to District Hospital, Sultanpur for medical
examination.

14. P.W.-3 Ram Anuj who is also an
injured witness of the incident corroborated
the statement of P.W.-2 and stated that on
the noise of Arvind Kumar and Sunil
Kumar, he along with his brother Ram
Nayak reached at the place of occurrence
and they too were inflicted injuries on their
person by the accused persons. The
witnesses, Ramesh, Parshuram, Ram Nayan
reached and rescued them and they
recognized the accused in the light of bulb.
He also stated that a civil case was pending
between his brother Ramashankar and
Suresh Chandra and accused persons were
trying to get illegal possession over the
grove land of Babool on which, his brother
wanted to get stay from the Court. This
witness accompanied P.W.-2 while F.I.R.
was lodged by him. He was medically
examined in District Hospital, Sultanpur.

15. P.W.-4 Dr. A. K. Singh, Medical
Officer, District Hospital, Sultanpur has
conducted the autopsy of the dead-body of
the deceased Ramashankar and following
injuries were found on his corpse:-

Injury No.1- Both eyes were out
and corners of eyes were black.

Injury No.2- Blood was oozed
from both the nostrils and ears.

Injury No.3- Lacerated wound 2 x
1 c.m. on the back side of left ear.

Injury No.4- Abrasion 3 x 3 c.m.
on left knee.

Internal Examination.

In the left side of head demporo
parital bone found fractured. Membrane of
brain
found
contracted.
Sub
dural
Haemotoma was present all over the brain.
100 m.l. liquid was present in stomach and
gases were found in intestine and the cause
of death of the deceased was opined due to
shock
of
the
head
injury
and
unconsciousness.

16. P.W.-5 Dr. Subodh Kumar,
Radiologist, District Hospital, Sultanpur
appeared and deposed that on 17.05.1999,
he conducted the X-ray of the left hand
paw of injured Sunil Kumar Baranwal,
whose fifth metacarpal bone was found
fractured. No callus was present.

On the same day i.e. on 17.05.1999,
he conducted the X-ray of the right shoulder,
right forearm and chest of injured Ram Anuj,
whose scapula bone was found fractured and
128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no callus was present. Ulna bone of forearm
was found fractured and no callus was present.
Sixth and seventh ribs were found fractured
and no callus was present.

On the same day i.e 17.05.1999, he
conducted the X-ray of injured Ram Nayak,
whose no bone was found fractured.

All the X-ray films and their reports
were proved by P.W.-5.

17. P.W.-6 Head Moharrir Ranjeet
Kumar Pandey appeared and proved G.D.
No.10 Ext. Ka-9 dated 17.05.1999 at about
7:45 a.m. and the case of Case Crime No.177
of 1999 was converted under Sections 147,
323, 307, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. on the basis of
medical report.

18. P.W.-7 Dr. Anil Kumar Gupta,
District Hospital, Sultanpur has stated on oath
that he examined injured Ram Anuj on
17.05.1999 at about 2:45 a.m., who was
brought by C.P. 537, Mahesh Narayan Dubey
and following injuries were found on his
person:-

Injury No.1- Lacerated wound 6 x
.4 c.m. bone deep 9 c.m. above right and blood
was oozing.

Injury No.(1B)- Lacerated wound 3
x .3 c.m. bone deep 7 c.m. above left ear upto
scalp.

Injury No.2- Lacerated wound 2.5 x
.7 c.m. on the right forehead 1 c.m. above right
eye-brow bone deep.

Injury No.3- Lacerated wound 3.5 x
.4 c.m. bone deep 9 c.m. above left ear upto
scalp.

Injury No.4- Surgical Emphysema
on the back of right scapula and advised for Xray.

Injury
No.5-
Complaint
of
swelling 19 c.m. above left elbow and
advised for X-ray.

Injury
No.6-
Complaint
of
swelling 15 c.m. below left elbow.

Injury No.7- Multiple contusion
45 x 23 c.m. on back area, which was 4 x 3
c.m. in the starting and 10 x 3 c.m. to the
end.

Injury
No.8-
Complain
of
hardness in left part of the chest and
advised for X-ray.

Injury No.9- Abrasion 3 x 0.5
c.m., 7 c.m. below on the patella bone of
the left leg.

Injury No.10- Abrasion 9 x .5
c.m. on the right thigh 9 c.m. above right
knee joint.

Injury No.11- Abrasion .5 x .5
c.m. below 10 c.m. on right foot.

Injury Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8 were kept
under observation and advised for X-ray
and referred to general surgeon for
examination of Injury No.8. All the rest
injuries were simple in nature and caused
by blunt object and six hours old.

P.W.-7 examined injured Ram
Nayak also on the same day i.e. on
17.05.1999 at about 3:20 a.m. brought by
C.P. 537, Mahesh Narayan Dubey and
following injuries were found on his
personon:-

Injury No.1- Lacerated wound 2.5
x 4 c.m. bone deep 6 c.m. above right ear in
the shape of english capital ''H'.

Injury No.2- Lacerated wound 3.5
x .2 c.m., 2.5 c.m. above nose bone deep.
Blood was oozing and advised for X-ray.

Injury
No.3-
Complaint
of
blackening and swelling on the right eyelid.

Injury No.4- Complaint of blood
oozing from right ear.

Injury No.5- Contusion 5 x .3
c.m. on the right side of neck, 1.5 c.m.
below right ear.

Injury No.6- Contusion 12 x 10
c.m. on the right shoulder, containing two
12 All. Ajab Narain Baranwal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
129
abrasions measuring 5 x 2.5 c.m. and 2.5 x
1 c.m. and advised for X-ray.

Injury No.7- Contusion 2 x 1 c.m.
on the hand 2.5 c.m. below right elbow.

Injury No.8- Abrasion 4 x .3 c.m.
inner right thigh 12 c.m. above left knee.

Injury No.9- Contusion 6 x 2 c.m.
on the right thigh, which was written twice
by doctor at serial no.7.

Injury No.10- Contusion 2.5 x 2.5
c.m. on left knee, which was written twice
by doctor at serial no.8.

Injury No.11- Contusion 6 x 2.5
c.m. X 10 x 2.5 c.m. on the back including
abrasion 8 x 5 c.m. below left lungs. All
these injuries are in area of 35 x 40 c.m. on
the back, which was written by doctor at
serial no.9.

Injury Nos.2 to 6 were kept under
observation and advised for X-ray and
referred to Orthopedic. All the remaining
injuries were simple in nature and were
caused by blunt object and six hours old.

Doctor proved the injuries of both
the injured as Ext. Ka-10 and Ext. Ka-11.

This witness mentioned that the
injured Ramashankar had died before
reached to the hospital. He arranged to
keep the dead-body in the mortuary and
informed Police Station Kotwali Nagar by
a letter, which is marked as Ext. Ka-12.

19. P.W.-8 Constable Ramesh Kumar
Yadav, G.R.P. Kanpur Central, who proved
Chik Report as Ext. Ka-13 and G.D. as Ext.
Ka-14.

20. P.W.-9 S.I. Shri K. P. Tiwari,
Incharge
D.C.R.B.,
Siddharth
Nagar
conducted the entire investigation of the
case and proved Site Plan as Ext. Ka-15,
G.D. No.10 as Ext. Ka-16, Recovery Memo
as Ext. Ka-17, Memo of Information as
Ext. Ka-18 & Ka-19 and recovery of blood
stained clothes of injured as Ext. Ka-20.
This witness proved N.C.R. No.77 of 1999
on 24.05.1999, its G.D. and the description
of order to send the report in the Court and
the statements of Constable Moharrir
Ramesh Kumar Yadav and Head Moharrir
Ranjeet. This witness noted the information
of surrender of accused Rampal, Girish @
Arunkant and on that day noted the
description of X-ray report and X-ray plate
of injured Ram Nayak, Arvind Kumar and
Sunil Kumar and recorded the statements
of witnesses S.I. Jai Narayan Shukla and
Constable Ram Saran Singh and recorded
the statements of accused Girish @
Arunkant, Suresh Chandra, Ajab Narain,
Shivbahadur
and
Rambali
and
after
collecting evidence against them, submitted
the Charge-sheet No.42 Ext. Ka-22. This
witness proved the case property recovered
from the place of occurrence and the body
of the deceased and sent those to F.S.L. for
examination.

21. P.W.-10 Station Officer, Shri J. N.
Shukla has stated on oath that on the date
of incident, he was posted as a Chowki
Incharge and the inquest of the dead-body
of the deceased was prepared in his
presence and in the presence of Constable
Ram Saran Singh and handed over the
dead-body of the deceased in the sealed
condition to the above-mentioned constable
and prepared Inquest Ext. Ka-23, Photo
Nash Ext. Ka-24, Sample Seal Stamp Ext.
Ka-25, Letter to R.I. for post-mortem Ext.
Ka-26, Letter to C.M.O. Ext. Ka-27 and
Challan Nash Ext. Ka-28.

22.

After
the
conclusion
of
prosecution
witnesses,
statements
of
accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C..
Accused denied from all the allegations and
evidences produced against them and stated
that they have been falsely implicated in
the case due to previous animosity. It is
130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also stated in the statements recorded u/s
313 Cr.P.C. that Ram Aadhar Yadav
organized dinner in his house and Ram
Karan and Umesh Chandra were also
invited. The deceased Rama Shankar and
injured Sunil Kumar, Arvind Kumar, Ram
Anuj and Ram Nayak were also present
there and suddenly hot exchanges started
between both the parties and the deceased
and other injured started beating Ram
Karan and Umesh Chandra. The crowd
assaulted the deceased Ramashankar and
injured Sunil Kumar, Arvind Kumar, Ram
Anuj and Ram Nayak. The accused were
also medically examined. No incident
occurred on the door of the accused
Shivbahadur Yadav. The police lost his
non-cognizable
report
and
falsely
implicated them.

23. Accused were given opportunity
to adduce defence witness. D.W.-1 Daya
Ram and D.W.-2 Paras Nath corroborated
the statements of accused recorded u/s 313
Cr.P.C.

24. D.W.-3 Mohan Ram deposed that
he was Record Keeper in the Office of
Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur and the
application (N.C.R.) of Jagesar dated
15.05.1999 has been destroyed, as the
limitation period to retain it in the record
room is only two years, which is recorded
in the Weeding Register at Serial No.11 of
1992-99.

25. D.W.-4 Paras Nath Dwivedi, who
was C.O. of the Case Crime No.165 of
1999, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
& Sections 3(1)(10) S.C./S.T. Act, Police
Station Peeprpur, District Sultanpur and
stated on oath that after investigation, he
submitted final report in Case No.133 of
2004 (Jagesar Vs. Ram Nayak), under
Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Sections
3(1)(10) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station
Peeprpur, District Sultanpur in Court No.18
of the A.C.J.M. Court.

26. After defence evidence, Court
summoned
Ramesh
Chandra
S/o
Parshuram as a Court witness, who denied
the entire occurrence.

27. After perusing the evidence on
record and hearing the arguments of the
D.G.C. and the accused, learned trial court
convicted accused Ajab Narain, Suresh
Chandra, Umesh Chandra, Ram Karan,
Shivbahadur Yadav, Rampal Yadav and
Rambali Yadav. Accused Girish Chandra @
Arunkant has been declared juvenile and he
is facing trial separately. Accused-appellant
no.5 Shivbahadur Yadav has expired during
the pendency of the appeal and the appeal
has been dismissed as abated against him.

28. Learned counsel for the appellants
has argued that the F.I.R. is ante-timed and
has been lodged after due deliberations and
consultations. In this context P.W.-2 Arvind
Kumar stated that he along with his brother
Sunil Kumar, his uncles Ram Anuj, Ram
Nayak and his father Ramshankar went to
the police station to lodge the F.I.R. It is
suggested to this witness that the F.I.R. was
lodged on the next day of the incident after
consultation
with
Sub-Inspector
C.P.
Sharma and endorsed in G.D. ante-timed,
to this witness clearly refused. P.W.-9 Shri
K.P. Tiwari stated on oath that the case was
registered in his presence on 16.05.1999
and the investigation was entrusted upon
him. He started investigation immediately
and reached to the place of occurrence at
12:00 a.m. in the mid night. P.W.-10 S.O.
J.N. Shukla deposed in Court that he
reached to the District Hospital, Sultanpur
on 17.05.1999 at 12:00 a.m. and he
conducted the inquest of the deceased from
12 All. Ajab Narain Baranwal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
131
12:00 a.m. to 13:30 a.m. The evidence of
P.W.-9 and P.W.-10 proved that when the
F.I.R. lodged in the police station on
16.05.1999 immediately after lodging the
F.I.R., it was endorsed in G.D. and P.W.-9
S.I. Shri K.P. Tiwari along with P.W.-10
S.O. J.N. Shukla reached to the District
Hospital, Sultanpur, therefore, it cannot be
said that case was registered and entered
ante-timed in the police record. In this
context it is also pertinent to mention here
that as per chik report, the date and time of
occurrence was shown 16.05.1999 at about
9:00 p.m. and the case was registered on
the same day at about 23:15. The distance
of place of occurrence is 10 kms. from
police station and it was stated by P.W.-2
that he reduced in writing the written report
in village Bhadar by Ramroop and the fact
is also proved by the letter written by
Station Officer on the same day on
16.05.1999, which was written to Medical
Officer (Incharge), P.H.C. by which the
injured Ramashankar was sent for medical
examination of the injuries inflicted upon
his body. In this letter Case Crime No.177
of 1999, under Sections 147, 323, 307, 504,
506 I.P.C., Police Station Peeparpur,
District Sultanpur was mentioned. The
letter further revealed that the accused was
referred to District Hospital, Sultanpur on
17.05.1999 and the injured Ramashankar
was declared dead by the doctor at 2:45
a.m. on 17.05.1999. Further the injured
Arvind Kumar Baranwal and Sunil Kumar
Baranwal both sons of Ramashankar, Ram
Anuj and Ram Nayak were sent for
medical examination by police with two
letters of Station Officer dated 16.05.1999
and in both the letters, case crime number
was mentioned and the injured were
examined in the hospital on 17.05.1999.
Meaning thereby, when the injured were
sent to the hospital on 16.05.1999, the case
was already registered in police station,
therefore, there is no strength in the
arguments of learned counsel for the
appellants that report was lodged ante-time.
Learned counsel for the appellants also
argued that I.O. had mentioned Section 302
I.P.C. at the same stroke of a pen when he
inspected and prepared the site plan. In this
context P.W.-9 stated in his statement that
when he was preparing the site plan, he was
informed about the death of injured
Ramashankar and only because of this
reason he mentioned Section 302 I.P.C. at
the same stroke of a pen. He further stated
that when he endorsed first parcha of case
diary Section 302 I.P.C. was not mentioned
therein,
whereas
when
he
received
amended G.D. and injury report of injured,
he mentioned Section 302 I.P.C. in
continuation,
therefore,
argument
of
learned counsel for the appellants is not
tenable that the F.I.R. was lodged in police
station when the death of Ramashankar was
confirmed by doctor. The investigation was
conducted as per due procedure.

29. It has been argued by learned
counsel for the appellants that prosecution
could not fix the place of occurrence.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants
submitted that the witnesses have admitted
in their cross-examination that the incident
occurred in Purwa Majre Gokul in the
village of Dharaura Mishra in the house of
Ramadhar
Yadav,
who
organized
Jagganath Ji Ka Bhaat and invited both
sides i.e. complainant and appellants.
Complainant Arvind Kumar Baranwal,
Sunil Kumar Baranwal, Ram Nayak, Ram
Anuj and Ramashankar started beating
appellants Ram Karan Yadav and Umesh
Chandra
and
the
crowd
beated
complainants
during
intervention.
Appellants produced D.W.-1 Dayaram
Yadav and D.W.-2 Paras Nath to prove this
fact that complainant and his family
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
members were assaulted by the crowd
during the Jagganath Ji Ka Bhaat. In this
context the statement of I.O. K.P. Tiwari is
relevant, who inspected and prepared the
site plan Ext. Ka-15 on the pointing out of
Arvind Kumar Baranwal (complainant) and
Sunil Kumar Baranwal. From the perusal of
the site plan, it transpires that the place of
occurrence is in the front of the house of
Ramadhar Yadav. It is the case of
prosecution and defence both that the
incident occurred between the parties as
they were invited by Ramadhar Yadav, who
attend Jagganath Ji Ka Bhaat. I.O.
collected bood-stained earth from the place
of occurrence shown in map by letter A, B,
and C and sent it to F.S.L. and in the report
of F.S.L., human blood was found in the
blood-stained
earth,
which
further
corroborates that the place of occurrence
was in front of the house of Ramadhar.

30. One of the appellant, Ram Karan
moved an application against complainant,
which was submitted in P.S. as N.C.R.
No.77 of 1999 dated 18.05.1999 at about
13:50 p.m. In this application, the place of
occurrence was shown in front of house of
Ram Karan. It transpires from the record
that Station Officer moved an application
before the A.C.J.M. concerned to the intent
that cross F.I.R. was registered in police
station as Case Crime No.177 of 1999,
therefore,
permission
be
granted
to
investigate this N.C.R. also but the same
was rejected by A.C.J.M. concerned.
Learned counsel for the appellants raised
objection that this N.C.R. was not written
by Ram Karan as it was not signed by him
but the appellant cannot blow hot and cold
at the same time. On the one hand, the
N.C.R. was registered and on the other
hand, it was denied by Ram Karan on the
ground that the same was not signed by
him. This N.C.R. has been destroyed, as the
N.C.R. was kept in the police record only
for two years. The N.C.R. Ext. Kha-3 is
admissible as per confessional statement of
Ram Karan that the place of occurrence
was in front of his house, which was also
corroborated by P.W.-9 by the deposition in
Court and further proved by the site plan.

31. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that one Jagesar S/o Vipath, R/o
Village Parsoiya, P.S. Peeparpur, District
Sultanpur lodged an F.I.R. bearing Case
Crime No.165 of 1999, under Sections 323,
504, 506 I.P.C. & Sections 3(1)(10)
S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Peeprpur,
District Sultanpur, which was investigated
by Sub-Inspector Paras Nath Dwivedi who
appears in Court and deposed that he
investigated the Case Crime No.165 of
1999 and after investigation, he submitted
final report in that case. This file was
summoned from Court No.18 of A.C.J.M.
Court during the course of trial by Sessions
Judge. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that they were doing pairavi of
complainant Jagesar against accused of the
case Ram Nayak, Ramashankar and
Surendra Sharma, therefore, they are
falsely implicated in the present case.

32. Learned A.G.A. argued that
Investigating Officer, Paras Nath Dwivedi
had already submitted final report in that
case, therefore, there is no reason for
animosity between the parties on account
of the Case Crime No.165 of 1999, under
Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Sections
3(1)(10) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station
Peeprpur, District Sultanpur and falsely
implicated the appellants.

33. It is also submitted by learned
counsel for the appellants that P.W.-2
Arvind Kumar Baranwal admitted in his
cross-examination that all the accused-
12 All. Ajab Narain Baranwal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
133
appellants Ajab Narain Baranwal, Suresh
Chandra
Baranwal,
Umesh
Chandra
Baranwal and Girish Chandra Baranwal
(Juvenile) are his pattidar and the case was
pending in Consolidation Court and on
account of this case accused-appellants
have
inimical
relationship
with
the
complainant side. It transpires from the oral
evidence that witness stated on oath that
accused-appellant Ajab Narain wanted to
grab grove of Junglee Babool and forest
land through other Yadav accused persons,
therefore, they lodged F.I.R. against the
complainant's father Ramashankar through
Jagesar under S.C./S.T. Act. All these
incidents shows that there was inimical
relationship exists between both the parties.
However, N.C.R. resulted in final report
but animosity was proved by the statements
of the witnesses. The witness produced on
behalf of the accused-appellants in defence
themselves admitted that the incident arose
when the persons of both the parties went
in Jagganath Ji Ka Bhaat regarding the
management of generator, therefore, place
of occurrence, date, time and the manner of
incident were not doubtful.

34. Learned counsel for the appellants
stated that the injuries of Umesh Chandra
and Ram Karan Yadav were not explained.
If we go through the defence evidence
produced by accused-appellants in the trial
court, the defence witnesses themselves
deposed that the dispute arose regarding the
regulation of generator set and accusedappellants started abusing and complainant
side started beating Umesh Chandra and
Ram Karan Yadav. The injury report of
Umesh Chandra and Ram Karan Yadav
were proved in trial court, therefore,
presence
of
accused-appellants
was
established.
Moreover
the
accusedappellants stated in their bail application
that these injuries were caused to them by
Police Officers at the time of their arrest,
therefore, when the injuries were admitted
by
accused-appellants
in
their
bail
applications being caused by the Police,
then there is no need that these injuries
should be explained by the prosecution.

35. It is also stated by learned counsel
for the appellants that the incident occurred
in public place but no independent witness
was produced by the prosecution. P.W.-2
and P.W.-3 are interested witness. The
veracity of these witnesses cannot be relied
upon for proving prosecution case.

36. We have to go through the
veracity of witness and further to the facts
whether their evidence is liable to be
thrown away at the very outset. There are
various guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme
Court on this point.

37. In Kartik Malhar Vs. State of
Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 614, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held as under:-

"We may also observe that the
ground that the witness being a close
relative and consequently, being a partisan
witnesses, should not be relied upon, has
no substance. This theory was repelled by
this Court as early as in Dilip Singh's case
(supra) in which this Court expressed its
surprise
over
the
impression
which
prevailed in the minds of the members of
the Bar that relative were not independent
witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose,
J., the Court observed :

We are unable to agree with the
learned Judges of High Court that the
testimony of the two eye-witnesses requires
corroboration. If the foundation for such an
observation is based on the fact that the
witnesses are women and that the fate of
seven men hangs on their testimony, we
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
know of no such rules. If it is grounded on
the reason that they are closely related to
the deceased we are unable to concur.