# Ajai Pal v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 230
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1618 of 2008
- **Bench:** Siddharth, Jai Krishna Upadhyay
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajai-pal-v-state-of-u-p-54499
- **Pages:** 17

## Text

_Characters 0–39,654 of 60,595. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39654 for what follows._

230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
collected in breach of the safeguards provided by Section 50 at the trial would render the trial
unfair."

44. The principles laid down in the aforementioned case laws are guiding principles that the
trial courts must adhere to while scrutinizing recovery evidence, be it in an Arms Act case or a case
involving narcotics, and so on and so forth.

45. In the light of the above discussion, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the
trial court is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside.

46. Hence, criminal appeal filed by appellant, Azad Singh is allowed.

47. The judgment and order dated 27.05.1988 of the trial court convicting the appellant under
Section 25 of the Arms Act, is hereby set-aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the said charge.

48. The appellant, Azad Singh, is already on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are
cancelled and sureties are discharged.

49. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court along with the trial court
record for information and necessary compliance.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 230
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1618 of 2008

Ajai Pal ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the conviction of the appellant under Ss. 364A, 302 and 201 IPC and S. 25 of the
Arms Act could be sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence, namely recovery of the deceased's kurta,
alleged recovery of ransom money, recovery of weapon, and test identification parade, when the appellant
was not named in the FIR, no disclosure statement was recorded prior to recovery, the FSL report did not
conclusively connect the weapon with the crime, and the identification proceedings were alleged to be
vitiated. (Paras 12-21)

Headnotes
Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Conviction based on recoveries and identification -
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 27 - Requirement of disclosure statement leading to discovery -
Recovery of deceased's kurta allegedly at instance of accused - No disclosure statement of
4 All. Ajai Pal Vs. State of U.P.
231
appellant recorded before recovery - Without recorded statement proving information supplied
by accused, discovery becomes a simple recovery - Recovery rendered doubtful and prosecution
failed to establish discovery in accordance with law. (Paras 14-15)
Criminal Law - Murder and Kidnapping for Ransom - Recovery of weapon - Forensic evidence -
FSL report not conclusively linking recovered pistol with pellets recovered from body - Expert
only stating that it was "possible" that pellets were from recovered pistol - Legally insufficient to
connect weapon with murder - Benefit of doubt available to accused. (Para 16)
Criminal Law - Recovery of articles - Ransom money - Requirement of proving nexus between
recovered currency and crime - Currency notes being unidentifiable articles of common use - No
identification marks, serial numbers, stains or other distinguishing features proved - Prosecution
failed to establish recovered amount as exact ransom money - Recovery could not legally be
treated as ransom money. (Para 17)
Criminal Law - Evidence - Recovery proceedings - non-examination of independent witnesses -
Independent witnesses to recovery available but not produced before trial court - Creates doubt
regarding authenticity of recovery and prosecution version. (Para 16)
Criminal Law - Test Identification Parade - Evidentiary value - Identification parade intended
only as corroborative evidence - Duty of prosecution to establish accused was kept baparda and
not shown to witnesses before TIP - Investigating Officer failed to state that appellant was kept
veiled while in custody or on remand - Contention that witnesses had seen appellant before TIP
gained substantial weight - Evidentiary value of TIP diminished. (Paras 18-20)
Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Complete chain of circumstances - Conviction - Entire
prosecution case resting on circumstantial evidence - Omission to record disclosure statement,
failure to link ransom money, insufficient proof regarding pellets and weapon, and vitiated
identification process - Chain of circumstances not complete - Findings of trial court not in
conformity with evidence on record - Conviction unsustainable and liable to be set aside. (Paras
21-22)
Held: The prosecution failed to prove the recovery of the deceased's kurta in accordance with S. 27 of the
Evidence Act, as no disclosure statement of the appellant was recorded prior to the alleged recovery. (Paras
14-15)
The FSL report did not conclusively connect the recovered pistol with the pellets found in the deceased's
body, and non-examination of independent recovery witnesses created further doubt. (Para 16)
The prosecution failed to establish any nexus between the recovered ₹40,000 and the alleged ransom
amount, as the currency notes were not identifiable. (Para 17)
The prosecution also failed to prove that the appellant was kept baparda before the test identification parade,
thereby diminishing the evidentiary value of the identification proceedings. (Paras 18-20)
Since the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances was
incomplete, the conviction was held unsustainable. The impugned judgment was set aside and the appellant
was acquitted of all charges. Appeal allowed. (Paras 21-23) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 11 SCC 255; Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, (1976)
1 SCC 828: 1976 SCC (Cri) 199; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, (1983) 2 SCC 330: 1983 SCC
(Cri) 447; Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47: (1946-47) 74 IA 65: AIR 1947
PC 67; Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 166: 1981 SCC (Cri) 379; Bodhraj v. State of
J&K, (2002) 8 SCC 45 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 201; State of Maharashtra v. Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269: 2000
SCC (Cri) 1088; Mahmood v. State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 542; Mulla v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 508;
Matru v. State of U.P. [(1971) 2 SCC 75 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 391]; Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain [(1973)
2 SCC 406 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 828]; Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180; C. Muniappan v.
State of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC 567: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1402; State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj, (2000) 1 SCC
247: 2000 SCC (Cri) 147; Lal Singh v. State of U.P., (2003) 12 SCC 554 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 489;
Suryamoorthi v. Govindaswamy, (1989) 3 SCC 24 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 472; Sk. Umar Ahmed Shaikh v. State
of Maharashtra, (1998) 5 SCC 103 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1276; Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020)
10 SCC 733 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 9; Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay, (1955) 1 SCR 903
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
: AIR 1955 SC 104; Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 8 SCC 428 : 1999 SCC (Cri)
1452.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Arms Act, 1959

List of Keywords
Circumstantial evidence; disclosure statement; discovery; S. 27; recovery; kurta; ransom money; countrymade pistol; FSL report; pellets; test identification parade; TIP; baparda; identification proceedings; recovery
memo; independent witnesses; benefit of doubt; chain of circumstances; acquittal; conviction; kidnapping for
ransom; murder

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal arising from the judgment and order dated 28.02.2008 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Pilibhit in S.T. No. 28 of 2003 (Case Crime No. 86/02)
under Ss. 364A/302/201 IPC, S.T. No. 28-B of 2003 under Ss. 364A/302/201 IPC and S.T. No. 31 of 2003
(Case Crime No. 125/02) under S. 25 of the Arms Act, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced
under Ss. 364A, 302 and 201 IPC and S. 25 of the Arms Act.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Sri Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate (appointed by High Court Legal Services Committee)
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sri Pawan Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jai Krishna Upadhyay, J.)

1. The trial of the accused persons-Ajaypal, Ahlakar, and Awdhesh was conducted jointly
under Sessions Trial Nos. 28 of 2003 and 28-B of 2003 and the trial of the accused Pawan was
conducted under Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2003, in connection with Case Crime No. 86 of 2002
under Sections 364-A, 302, and 201 IPC. Additionally, separate trials were conducted for the
accused Awdhesh under Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2003 (Case Crime No. 109/02, under Section 25
Arms Act), and for the accused Ajaypal under Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2003, Case Crime No. 125
of 2002, under Section 25 Arms. Act); these proceedings were based on the charge sheets
submitted to the court by the police of Police Station Deoria Kalan, District Pilibhit. Since all the
above cases are related to the same prosecution and the entire prosecution evidence has been
presented by the prosecution in the case file pertaining to Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2003, (State vs
Jugendra Singh & Ors).

2. Vide judgment and order dated 28.02.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track
Court No. 2, Pilibhit, the charges levelled against accused persons Ahalkar, Awadhjesh Gujar and
Pawan Kumar U/s 364A, 302 and 201 IPC and separate charge sheet submitted against accused
Awadhesh U/s 25 of the Arms Act were not substantiated by the evidence available on record and
in absence of solid and credible evidence, the accused persons Ahaklar, Pawan Kumar, Awadhesh
Gujar were acquitted of the charges levelled against them having been given benefit of doubt. The
accused Ajaypal was found guilty U/s 364A, 302 and 201 IPC as well as charge U/s 25 of the Arms
Act. Hence the instant appeal is preferred by accused/appellant Ajaypal only.
4 All. Ajai Pal Vs. State of U.P.
233

3. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate appointed by High Court Legal Services
Committee, Sri Pawan Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the trial court
record and also judgment of the trial court.

4. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated
28.02.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Pilibhit in S.T. No. 28 of
2003 (Case Crime No. 86/02) under Sections 364A/302/201 IPC. ST No. 28B of 2003 (Case Crime
No. 86/02) U/s 364A/302/201 & ST No. 31/03 (Case Crime No. 125/02), U/s 25 Arms Act, P.S.
Deoria Kalan, District - Pilibhit (State Vs. Ajay Pal) convicting the appellant for an offence, U/s
364A IPC for imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment 3 years additional
imprisonment, U/s 302 IPC for imprisonment of life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment
3 years additional R.I., U/s 201 IPC for imprisonment of 5 years and a fine of Rs., 2000/- in default
of payment one-year additional R.I. and U/s 25 of Arms Act for imprisonment of 3 years R.I. and a
fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment 6 months additional R.I. All the sentences will run
concurrently.

5. Prosecution case in nutshell is as follows: -

(i) The complainant Ramesh Chandra Gupta has given a written complaint (Ex-ka-1) to
the SHO, PS- Deoria Kalan, to the effect that on 21.03.02, at 4.30 pm, his brother, Suresh Chand
Gupta was returning home from Bhatta (brick kiln) on his Hero Honda motorcycle. On the way, at
the canal bridge of Bada gaon, a white coloured Maruti van bearing number UP 14/9119 was
parked there, three men and a woman with short hair cut came out of the Van and they stopped his
brother and took him away in that Maruti van which was seen by many people. They would
identify them, if appear before them.

(ii) According to the complainant, his brother Suresh Chand was kidnapped at 5 o'clock.
On the basis the written complaint, submitted by the complainant, an First Information Report was
lodged on the very same day on 21.03.2002 at 18:20 pm bearing Case No. 86/02 at Deoria Kalan
Police Station under Section 364A IPC. The FIR is marked as Ex-ka-2./. Investigation was
subsequently initiated. During the investigation, on 30.04.2002, the Investigating Officer ensured to
arrest three accused persons namely Awdhesh Gujar, Harish Shankar and Kamini Kasyap and
recovered a Maruti van bearing No. UP 26A/8125 and an illegal country made pistol of 315 bore.
At the same time, other accused involved in the incident came to light. Thereafter, during the
further investigation on 06.05.2002, a kurta (belonging to the deceased), an illegal country-made
pistol, and a ransom amount of '49,500 were recovered from the possession of the accused,
Jugendra Gujar. From the accused, Ajaypal, a ransom amount of '40,000 and the weapon used in
the murder were recovered. Furthermore, a ransom amount of '18,000 was recovered from the
possession of the accused, Omveer. Thus, the Investigating Officer prepared the site plansdelineating the location from where the deceased was abducted, the scene where the body of the
deceased, Suresh Chand Gupta, was recovered, the place of the accused's arrests and the recovery
of the murder weapons (pistols), and the location where the Maruti van was recovered-and prepared
the Panchayatnama (inquest report) and post-mortem report of the deceased.

(iii) The Investigating Officer identified a total of 10 accused persons involved in the
case; consequently, a charge sheet was submitted to the court for trial against accused Nos. 1 to 9
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(including Jugendra) following their arrest, and against the accused Guddu Yadav, who remained
absconding.

(iv) Thereafter, the Magistrate took cognizance of the case after receiving the chargesheet against the accused Jugendra and ors. on 29.07.2002, and providing the copies to the accused
persons U/s 207 CrPC and finding the case to be exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the
case of the accused Pawan was committed to the Court for trial on 03.01.2003, and the cases of the
remaining accused-Jugendra, Awdhesh, Ajaypal, Ahlakar, and Omveer-were committed on
14.01.2003.

(v) Pursuant to the order dated 14.01.2003, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Pilibhit, directions were issued to separate the case files of three accused persons namely Kamini
Kashyap, Veerpal @ Chhote, and Harishankar, from the original case record and to forward them
to the Principal Judge, Juvenile Court, Bareilly, for trial, as a result of their being juvenile
delinquents. Furthermore, a charge sheet was submitted against another accused, Guddu Yadav,
while he was absconding and neither he appeared before the court nor has he been arrested and
produced before the court.

(vi) During the course of the trial, the proceedings against the accused persons Jugendra
and Omveer have stood abated due to their demise. And currently, the case remains pending for
adjudication against only four accused persons-Ajaypal, Awdhesh, and Ahlakar and Pawan.

(vii) The Court framed charges on 09.05.2003, against the accused-Ajaypal, Awdhesh,
and Pawan-as well as against Jugendra (deceased) and Omveer (deceased), under Sections 364A,
302/34, and 201 of IPC. Additionally, separate charges were framed against the accused Ajaypal
and Awdhesh under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The accused denied the charges levelled against
them and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution has examined a total of 16 witnesses from among those proposed in the
charge sheet. The details of their evidence are as follows: -

6.1. PW-1, Head Moharrir, Ramdas, has stated that on 21.3.2002, he was posted as Head
Moharrir at PS Deoria kalan. On that day at 18:20 pm, on the basis of the written complaint filed by
the complainant Ramesh Chand Gupta, he had prepared the copy of the report which is Ex-ka-2
(entered in GD) and chik FIR which is Ex-ka-1 A) related to the case crime no. 86/02 u/s 364A IPC
in his hand-writing and signature.

6.2. PW-1 A, Ramesh Chand Gupta, the complainant and informant, stated that he lodged
the FIR (Ex-ka-A) regarding the kidnapping of his real brother, Suresh Chand Gupta. He stated that
on March 21, 2002, at 4:30 p.m., while returning home from his brick kiln on a motorcycle, he
observed a white Maruti van bearing number UP 14/9119, parked at the Bada village canal culvert.
Inside the van were three men and a woman with short hair. At approximately 5:00 p.m., these
individuals kidnapped his brother and fled in the vehicle. The witness was informed of the incident
by witnesses Ramu, Ajay, Babu Ram, Om, and Prakash, after which he lodged the FIR (Paper
ka4/2) at the Deoria Kalan Police Station. He also stated that on March 25, 2002, Satyapal, the
clerk of his brick kiln, showed him a ransom letter (Paper 9/1 and 9/2) instructing the witness to
wear a white kurta-pyjama and a red scarf and meet at the bridge ahead of Mala station. Upon
arriving there with Satyapal, a short, dark-complexioned man led them into the forest where they
met three other armed men. Two men surrounded him from behind while two stood in front,
4 All. Ajai Pal Vs. State of U.P.
235
demanding '15 lakh. After pleading, the ransom was settled at '8 lakh, to be paid on the Friday of
Holi. The witness noted that two of the four men appeared to be neighbors and identified them in
court. On the agreed Friday, he returned to the location with Satyapal on a motorcycle, carrying
'5,37,000 in a black bag, but no one arrived to collect the money. Following this, a towel, spectacle
case, documents, and another letter were found at the Bhagwatipur canal bridge. The letter claimed
the miscreants did not appear because the witness had brought the police and directed him to
Shamshipur village for the payment. On April 1st, the witness and seven or eight other villagers
arrived at Budhana Bridge in a Tata Sumo with the '5,37,000. The miscreants met Babu Ram and
Om Prakash at Shamshipur, took the money, and promised to release Suresh at the Bhadariya turn.
When his brother failed to return after five days of waiting, the witness informed the Sub-Inspector.
On May 6, 2002, the dead body of Suresh Chand Gupta was found. Subsequently, on June 19,
2002, the witness attended a jail identification parade where he correctly identified the accused:
Jugendra, Ajaypal, Omveer, and Kamini Kashyap.

6.3. PW-2, Ramu Gupta, stated that he knew the deceased, Suresh Chand Gupta. On
March 21, 2002, while traveling to Bareilly in a Gypsy with Satish Gupta and Mahip Singh, they
stopped at Madhavapur around 1:00 p.m. to fill air in the tires. There, he observed a white Maruti
van near the distillery; two men were outside eating eggs, while a man and a girl with short hair
were sitting inside. All appeared to be outsiders. Upon returning from Bareilly at approximately
5:30 p.m., he learned in Deoria Kalan that miscreants in a Maruti van had kidnapped Suresh Chand
Gupta about half an hour earlier at the Bada village canal culvert. At 5:45 p.m. that same day, he
informed Ramesh Chandra Gupta about the van and the individuals he had seen in Madhavapur.
The witness later attended identification proceedings at the District Jail, Pilibhit, where he
identified the accused Jugendra Gujar, Kamini Kashyap, and Ajaypal. Subsequently in another
identification proceedings, he identified Veerpal and Harishankar. Pointing to the accused present
in court, he identified Jugendra and Ajaypal by name.

6.4. PW-3, Om Prakash, stated that he worked at the brick kiln of Mahipal Singh, who
was in partnership with the kidnapped victim, Suresh Chand Gupta. Following the receipt of a
ransom letter, the witness traveled to Budhanapul, District Shahjahanpur, on April 1, 2002, in a
Marshall vehicle and a motorcycle. Leaving the vehicle at Budhanapul, he and Babu Ram carried
'5,37,000 in a black bag to Shamshirpur Ghat as instructed. After crossing the river around 4:00
p.m., they encountered three miscreants, while two others remained hidden behind trees. The
miscreants directed them to a specific location with a Paakad tree and a high-plinth well on Gadhia
Road to deliver the money. He and Babu Ram handed over the black bag containing the '5,37,000
to the three miscreants. Upon receiving the ransom, the men claimed Suresh Gupta would be
released at Gadaria Mod, Bisalpur, at 1:00 a.m. that night. However, when the witness and his
companion reached the location, Suresh was not there. The witness later identified two of the
miscreants during an identification parade at District Jail, Pilibhit. Identifying the accused present
in court, the witness confirmed that the individual, who identified himself as Ajaypal, was among
the miscreants present when the money was taken.

6.5. PW-4, Rajnish Sharma, the Sub-District Magistrate who conducted the identification
proceedings, stated that on June 19, 2002, he presided over the identification of the accused,
Jugendra Gujar, Awadhesh Gujar, Ajaypal, Omveer, and Kamini Kashyapn at the District Jail,
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pilibhit. He stated that witness Ajay Singh correctly identified Ajaypal and Kamini Kashyap;
witness Ramu Gupta identified Jugendra Gujar, Ajaypal, Omveer, and Kamini Kashyap; and
witness Satish Gupta identified Awadhesh Gujar and Kamini Kashyap. Witness Babu Ram
correctly identified only Omveer, while witness Om Prakash identified Jugendra and Ajaypal.
Witness Rakesh Kumar failed to identify any of the accused. The witness proved the identification
memo (Ex-Ka-3), confirming it was prepared in his own handwriting and bears his signature.

6.6. PW-5, Satish Gupta, stated that the deceased, Suresh Chand Gupta, was his cousin.
On March 21, 2002, at approximately 1:00 p.m., while traveling toward Bareilly with Ramu Gupta,
they stopped at Madhwapur to inflate their tires. Near a distillery, he observed a white Maruti van
(UP 14/9119) containing two men eating eggs and a dusky-complexioned girl with short hair sitting
inside; he noted they all looked like outsiders. Upon returning that evening, he learned that Suresh
had been kidnapped at the Bada village canal culvert just half an hour prior. Approximately three
months later, he attended identification proceedings at the Pilibhit jail, where he identified three of
the five accused: Awadhesh, Omveer, and Kamini Kashyap. He confirmed he had seen them only
twice'once before the kidnapping and once during the jail identification. In court, the witness
identified the accused Awadhesh, noting that the other accused, including the female, were not
present.

6.7. PW-6, Dr. Saubhagya Prakash, the Medical Officer at District Hospital, Pilibhit,
stated that he conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of Suresh Chand Gupta on May
7, 2002, at 12:30 p.m.

General Examination: The body was approximately one month old, of average build,
with rigor mortis completely subsided. Advanced decomposition was evident: soft parts were
missing, eyeballs were absent, and the face was reduced to a skull. The skin had decayed and
whitened in places, four teeth were missing from the upper right jaw, hair had fallen out, and
maggots were present.

Ante-Mortem Injuries:

1. A circular wound mark measuring 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm, extending deep to the cavity,
located on the right side of the abdomen approximately 5 cm above the navel, with surrounding
blackening present.

2. A circular wound measuring 3 cm x 3 cm, deep to the cavity, and was situated on the
right side of the abdomen, towards the midline, 16 cm above the navel.

3. An incised wound, measuring 9 cm x 3 cm deep to the cavity, was present on the right
side of the chest, 11 cm below the right nipple.

Upon internal examination of the wounds, the organs (brain, lungs, heart, intestines,
kidneys, spleen, and liver) were found to have undergone liquefaction. Fractures were detected in
the 9th, 10th, and 11th ribs on the right side. Eight pellets and wads were recovered from the
abdomen. The witness concluded that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage resulting from
firearm injuries. The post-mortem report (Ex-Kh-3A) was prepared in his own handwriting.

6.8. PW-7, Senior Sub-Inspector, stated that on 24.03.2003, he was posted as SHO at
Deoria Kalan, succeeding SI Yashpal Singh. After initial searches in March 2002, he interrogated
witnesses Satish and Shriram Gupta on 04.04.2002. On 06.04.2002, the complainant submitted
4 All. Ajai Pal Vs. State of U.P.
237
ransom letters marked as Exhibits Kha/9/1 to Kha/9/4. Acting on the information of the informer,
police intercepted a Maruti Van bearing number UP 26A/8125 at 2:25 AM on 30.04.2002, arresting
Avdhesh Gujar, Harishankar Verma, and Kamini. From Avdhesh, a 315-bore rifle (Material Ex-1)
and cartridges (Material Ex-2 and 3) were seized. From Harishankar, a 315-bore pistol (Material
Ex-4) and cartridges (Material Ex-5 and 6) were recovered. Arrest and recovery memos were
marked Ex-ka-3B. He stated that when the aforementioned three accused persons were interrogated
separately, they led the police to the specific spot marked as 'A' in Gadha Range, where a bloodstained leaf was recovered (Ex-Ka-4 and site map Ex-Ka-5). Following the arrest of accused
Ahlakar on 01.05.2002, the witness raided the residences of Jugendra Gujar, Ajaypal, and Pawan.
On 06.05.2002, Jugendra Gujar was apprehended with an unlicensed 315 bore pistol and a '50 note,
leading to charges under Sections 364A, 302, 201 IPC and under Section 25 Arms Act (Ex-Ka-6).
A 315 bore rifle and 12 bore pistols were proved as Material Ex-7 and 8. At Jugendra's instance,
Suresh Chand Gupta's body was recovered in Gadha Forest (Ex-Ka-7 and site map Ex-Ka-8). They
also facilitated the recovery of '49,500/- in ransom money (Ex-Ka-9) site map (Ex-Ka-11) and
photocopies (Ex-Ka-10). After recording statements from Veerpal and Ajaypal, the witness led the
recovery of the deceased's kurta on 18.05.2002 (Ex-Ka-12) and site map (Ex-Ka-13). Ajaypal
further led police to his house, unearthing a 12 bore pistol (Ex-Ka-14) and '40,000/- in ransom
money (Ex-Ka-15) and site map (Ex-Ka-16). On 20.05.2002, accused Omveer was arrested with
'18,000/- ransom money (Ex-Ka-17). In court, the witness identified '40,000/- in photocopies from
Ajaypal (Material Ex-11 and 12), '18,000/- from Omveer (Material Ex-13 and 14), Ajaypal's 12
bore pistol Material (Ex-15), and the deceased's green kurta Material (Ex-16). The witness was
transferred on 29.05.2002.

6.9. PW-8, Ramji Lal, final investigating officer stated that in June 2002, he took over the
investigation of the case from the previous Investigating Officer, P.K. Sharma, while serving as the
SHO at Deoria Kalan. He conducted identification proceedings for the accused persons, Jugendra,
Awadhesh, Ajay Pal, Omveer, Kamini Kashyap, Harishankar, Veerpal alias Chhota, and Pawan
Kumar, and dispatched seized articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Agra. Following
the investigation, he submitted a charge sheet (C.S. No. 71/02), proved as Ex-K-18, and a separate
charge sheet against Pawan Kumar, proved as Ex-Ka-19. He identified the handwriting and
signatures of P.K. Sharma on the site maps for the victim's "kurta" (Ex-Ka-20) and the recovery of
the murder weapon and ransom money (Ex-Ka-21). He also confirmed that the identification of the
accused Pawan was conducted on July 29, 2002. Furthermore, he proved the scientific reports from
the FSL regarding the soil and blood-stained leaves (Ex-Ka-22) and the firearms and pellets (ExKa-23).

6.10. PW-9, Constable Jitendra Pal Singh, stated that on May 7, 2002, he was serving as a
Constable Clerk at the Deoria Kalan Police Station. On that day, based on a memo from SHO P.K.
Sharma, he prepared the Chik FIR for Crime No. 117/02 under Section 25 of the Arms Act and
recorded the General Diary (G.D.) entry, both in his own handwriting; these were proved as Ex-Ka24 and Ex-Ka-25, respectively. On May 18, 2002, he similarly prepared the Chik FIR and G.D.
entry for Crime No. 125/02, proved as Ex-Ka-26 and Ex-Ka-27. Additionally, testifying as a
secondary witness, he identified the handwriting and signatures of the Constable Clerk Mahendra
Singh. He affirmed that the Chik FIRs and G.D. entries for Crime Nos. 109/02 to 111/02, involving
238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the accused Awadhesh Gujar and Harishankar Verma, were written by Mahendra Singh and proved
them as Ex-Ka-31 and Ex-Ka-32.

6.11. PW-10, H.C.P. Israr Ali, stated that on May 18, 2002, he was posted at the Deoria
Kalan Police Station and was assigned the investigation of Case No. 125/02 against Ajaypal under
Section 25 of the Arms Act. After recording statement of witnesses and preparing a site plan of the
incident spot, he submitted a charge sheet against the accused. The witness proved the charge sheet
as Ex-Ka-28, the site plan as Ex-Ka-29, and the formal prosecution sanction issued by the District
Magistrate as Ex-Ka-30.

6.12. PW-11, Sub-Inspector Puland Singh, stated that on May 6, 2002, while conducting
vehicle checks at the Manpur T-junction, he intercepted a Maruti Van approaching from Bilsanda
aroun 12:40 PM. The driver, identified as Veerpal alias Chhote, son of Tularam confessed that he
and his accomplices had used that specific van to abduct Suresh Gupta eight days before Holi. The
witness took the accused and the vehicle (Registration No. UP 14/9119), which was linked to Case
Crime No. 86/02 under Section 364-A IPC, into police custody. He prepared and signed the seizure
memo at the spot, which he identified and proved as Exhibit Ka-33.

6.13. PW-12, Sub-Inspector Vishanram Arya, stated that on 7.05.2002 he was posted as
sub-inspector at Police Station Deoria Kalan entrusted with the investigations of Crime Nos.
109/02, 110/02, and 117/02 under Section 25 of the Arms Act against accused Avdhesh,
Harishankar, and Jugendra Gujar, respectively. During the investigation, he recorded witness
statements and prepared a site map of recovery for Avdhesh and Harishankar in his own
handwriting (Ex-Ka-34). He proved the prosecution sanction order for Avdhesh Gujar (Ex-Ka-35)
and the corresponding charge sheet (Ex-Ka-36). Regarding the country-made pistol recovered from
Jugendra, he proved the site map prepared at the complainant's indication (Ex-Ka-37), the
prosecution sanction order (Ex-Ka-38), and the charge sheet submitted against Jugendra (Ex-Ka39).

6.14. PW-13, Sub-Inspector Yashpal Singh, stated that on 21.03.2002 he was posted as
Sub- Inspector at the Police Station Deoria kalan and the case was registered in his presence. He
initiated the investigation by communicating the information to all district police stations via
wireless setup. On March 22, 2002, he recorded the complainant's statement and interrogated
witnesses at the place of occurence in Bargaon. He proved the site map of the occurrence, prepared
in his own handwriting, as Ex-Ka-26. He noted that the further investigation was subsequently
taken over by Station In-charge P.K. Mishra.

6.15. PW-14, Sub-Inspector Yashveer Singh, stated that on May 6, 2002; while serving as
Station In-charge at Gajraula, he received a written complaint regarding the body of Suresh Kumar
Gupta, which was located in the Gadha Range forest. He proceeded to the spot and conducted the
inquest proceedings in the presence of witnesses (Panchan). The inquest report, dictated to H.C.P.
Ranveer Singh, was proved as Ex-Ka-40. He also proved the related police documents, including
the challan of the dead body (Ex-Ka-41), letter to R.I. (Ex-Ka-42), photograph of the body (Ex-Ka43), letter to C.M.O. (Ex-Ka-44), Form No. 33 (Ex-Ka-45), and the sample seal (Ex-Ka-46).
Following the inquest, the body was dispatched for post-mortem examination.
4 All. Ajai Pal Vs. State of U.P.
239

6.16. PW-15, Constable Badshah Singh, stated that on April 30, 2002, he was posted at
Police Station Deoria Kalan, along with Station In-charge P.K. Sharma. On the same day at
approximately 2:25 a.m., they arrested accused persons Awadhesh Gujar and Harishankar, who
were found in possession of a 315-bore country-made rifle, a 315-bore country-made pistol, and
several cartridges. Additionally, they apprehended Kamini Kashyap, a wanted accused in the
kidnapping of Suresh Chand Gupta. The recovery and arrest memo (Ex-Ka-3-Ba) was prepared on
the spot by P.K. Sharma. The witness identified and proved this document as evidence against the
three accused.

6.17. PW-16, Awadhesh Kumar Tiwari, the then S.D.M. stated that on July 29, 2002;
while serving as the Sub-District Magistrate in Pilibhit, he conducted a test identification parade for
the accused Pawan Kumar son of Jhankar Singh, in connection with case no. 86\02 under section
364 IPC at the Government Observation Home. Witnesses Ajay Singh and Ramu Gupta correctly
identified Pawan Kumar during the parade. The witness proved the identification memo (Ex-Ka48), confirming it was prepared in his own handwriting.

7. Thereafter the statements of the accused persons, Awadhesh Gujar, Ahlakar, Ajaypal, and
Pawan were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused denied all allegations, labeling
the entire prosecution story as false. They specifically challenged the integrity of the identification
proceedings, claiming the process was flawed because the witnesses had already seen and
identified them prior to the official parade.

8. The accused persons were provided an opportunity to present evidence in their defence. In
defence only Ajay Pal and his father, Ganga Ram (DW-1), were examined. Ganga Ram testified
that his son, Ajaypal, is innocent and was falsely implicated. Regarding the '40,000 recovered from
Ajaypal, Ganga Ram claimed the money was intended for his daughter's marriage. He explained
that '20,000 had been raised by mortgaging land to Ram Vilas, while the remaining '20,000 was
borrowed from his brother-in-law, Omkar. He asserted that the police staged a fake recovery of the
cash to provide merit to a false case.

9. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant,
hence this appeal is preferred by appellant Ajay Pal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions: -

(a) The appellant is neither named in the FIR nor he had abducted the deceased - Suresh
Chandra Gupta, brother of the complainant and there was no evidence against the appellant while
lodging the FIR by the complainant.

(b) No disclosure statement of appellant has been recorded before recovery of 'kurta' of
the deceased.

(c) The recovery of alleged 'ransom money' as well as weapon are fabricated and have
been falsely shown from the possession of the appellant.

(d) The witnesses were shown the appellant prior to the identification, and the
Investigating Officer failed to confirm that the appellant's face was veiled (baparda) while in police
custody or at the station.
240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(e) The witnesses of alleged recovery namely Anil Kumar Gupta and Jitendra Kumar
Gupta were not produced before the trial Court.

(f) The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report does not give definite opinion that the
pellets recovered from body of the deceased were from the alleged country made pistol.

11. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State supporting the impugned judgment, has
submitted as follows:

(a) The recovery memo regarding weapon used in the murder (Ex. Ka-14) was related to
appellant Ajay Pal has been proved by Investigating Officer, P.K. Sharma (PW-7) and it was also
proved by him that ransom money of Rs. 40,000/-was recovered from the 'kothari' on the
indication of the appellant.

(b) The 'kurta' of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the appellant.

(c) The FSL report indicates that it is possible that the pellets recovered from the body of
the deceased were from the recovered country made pistol.

(d) There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and order. The trial court
has rightly convicted the accused-appellant.

(e) The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; therefore, this appeal
lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

12. We have considered rival contentions and have perused the trial court record in the light of
raised contentions. Admittedly entire foundation of the prosecution's case against the appellant
rests upon circumstantial evidence, specifically subsequent recoveries and identification during the
trial.

13. It is evident from the record that the appellant, Ajaypal, was not named in the First
Information Report (FIR). The complainant, Ramesh Chandra Gupta, lodged the FIR against
unknown persons who were seen in a white Maruti van. At the time of the report, there was no
specific evidence or information linking the appellant to the abduction of the deceased. His name
and alleged involvement only surfaced much later during the police investigation.

14. The prosecution relies on the recovery of the deceased's 'kurta' at the instance of appellant
as a key link in the case. We find that no disclosure statement of appellant was recorded before the
recovery of such 'kurta'. Keeping in mind the aforesaid evidence, we proceed to consider whether
the prosecution has been able to prove and establish the discovery in accordance with the law.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 11 SCC 255 held
that:

'76. Section 27 of the Evidence Act reads thus:

'27. How much of information received from accused may be proved. 'Provided that,
when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person
accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it
amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.'

81. The conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 of the Act are broadly as
under:
4 All. Ajai Pal Vs. State of U.P.
241

(1) Discovery of fact in consequence of an information received from accused;

(2) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to;

(3) The accused must be in police custody when he gave information; and

(4) So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is
admissible ' Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra [Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of
Maharashtra, (1976) 1 SCC 828: 1976 SCC (Cri) 199]. Two conditions for application:

(1) information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact; and

(2) information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered ' Earabhadrappa v. State of
Karnataka [Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, (1983) 2 SCC 330: 1983 SCC (Cri) 447] .

83. The scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act were illuminatingly stated in
Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor [Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47:
(1946-47) 74 IA 65: AIR 1947 PC 67], which have become locus classicus, in the following words:
(SCC OnLine PC: AIR p. 70, para 10).

'10.