# Anil Yadav (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 490
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-06-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.998 of 2008
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Mrs. Saroj Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-yadav-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-48804
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Criminal Law- Indian Evidence Act 1872-
Section 3 - Corroboration of Oral evidence
by Medical Evidence- Perusal of the
evidence of this medical witness shows
that the injuries found on the body of the
deceased are in consonance with the
ocular account given by the complainant
P.W.1

Where the medical evidence corroborates the
oral testimony of the eye witnesses then the
said oral testimony cannot be doubted.

Indian Evidence Act 1872- Section 3-
Related Witnesses- Well settled law that
the evidence of a witness cannot be
doubted only for the reason that he is a
related witness.

The testimony of natural witnesses , which is
also corroborated by other evidence, cannot be
discarded or doubted merely on the ground that
the said witnesses are related to the deceased.

Indian Evidence Act 1872- Section 3- The
Investigating Officer has stated that he
did not find any blood on the spot, but for
this reason only the direct ocular evidence
cannot be doubted.

Where the oral testimony is corroborated by the
medical evidence, then the defence cannot gain
any advantage from the mere fact that the
investigating officer did not find blood stains at
the place of the occurrence as the same is only
6 All. Anil Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
491
a lapse of the investigating officer. (Para 9, 12,
15)

Criminal Appeal rejected. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

## Text

490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order of sentence dated 24.01.2006 passed
by the trial court.

OPERATIVE

53.
 On
the discussions
made
hereinabove, we do not find any force in
the appeal of "Sanjay Kumar" filed against
the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 24.01.2006 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court
no. 6, Basti in Sessions Trial No. 276 of
2000, under Sections 498-A, 304-B of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section
3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The appeal
accordingly, deserves to be dismissed and
is hereby dismissed.

54. The appellant Sanjay Kumar is in
jail. Certified copy of the judgment be sent
to the court below for necessary action and
forwarding
to
the
concerned
Jail
Superintendent
where
the
accused
appellant, Sanjay Kumar is detained.

55. Lower court record be sent back
to
the
District
Judgeship,
Basti,
immediately.

56. Before parting with the matter
we would like to appreciate the sincerity,
commitment and enthusiasm of Sri
Pramod Kumar Pandey, learned Amicus
Curiae for the accused-appellant who
with all reasonable promptness has
prepared the case and argued vehemently
on all the relevant issues. In our
judgment,
we
recommend
to
pay
Rs.12,000/- as remuneration to him. The
payment be made by the registry at the
earliest.
----------
(2022)06ILR A490
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.06.2022
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Criminal Appeal No.998 of 2008

Anil Yadav ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Maneesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law- Indian Evidence Act 1872-
Section 3 - Corroboration of Oral evidence
by Medical Evidence- Perusal of the
evidence of this medical witness shows
that the injuries found on the body of the
deceased are in consonance with the
ocular account given by the complainant
P.W.1

Where the medical evidence corroborates the
oral testimony of the eye witnesses then the
said oral testimony cannot be doubted.

Indian Evidence Act 1872- Section 3-
Related Witnesses- Well settled law that
the evidence of a witness cannot be
doubted only for the reason that he is a
related witness.

The testimony of natural witnesses , which is
also corroborated by other evidence, cannot be
discarded or doubted merely on the ground that
the said witnesses are related to the deceased.

Indian Evidence Act 1872- Section 3- The
Investigating Officer has stated that he
did not find any blood on the spot, but for
this reason only the direct ocular evidence
cannot be doubted.

Where the oral testimony is corroborated by the
medical evidence, then the defence cannot gain
any advantage from the mere fact that the
investigating officer did not find blood stains at
the place of the occurrence as the same is only
6 All. Anil Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
491
a lapse of the investigating officer. (Para 9, 12,
15)

Criminal Appeal rejected. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

1. Kartik Malhar Vs St. of Bih.: (1996) 1 SCC 614

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

3. St. of Raj. Vs Satya Narain (1998) 8 SCC 404

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been
filed by the convict/appellant Anil Yadav,
against the judgment and order dated
23.12.2007 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge/FTC IV, (Room No.13), Sultanpur in
Sessions Trial No.284 of 2005, whereby
the convict/appellant was held guilty for
the offence punishable under Section
302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short I.P.C.) and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for life coupled with a fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine
to further imprisonment of six months. The
convict/appellant was also held guilty and
sentenced under Section 25 of the Arms
Act in Sessions Trial No. 285 of 2005
whereby he was sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment of two years coupled with
fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment
of fine to further imprisonment of three
months.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of
this appeal shorn of unnecessary details are
as under:

(i) A First Information Report (in
short FIR) was registered at Case Crime
No. 308 of 2005, under Section 302 of
I.P.C. at Police Station Jaisingh pur,
District Sultanpur, on the basis of written
report presented by the complainant Vinod
Yadav. It was described in the written
report that on 13.06.2005 his father Asha
Ram was coming back after leaving Ram
Jagpal at his house and he (complainant)
was coming to his home after visiting his
sugarcane field. Anil and Sanjay, resident
of the same village were sitting on culvert
with sticks in their hands. At about 7-7:15
PM when his father reached near the
culvert Anil assaulted his father on his
hand, due to which his father fell down,
then Anil and Sanjay both fired upon his
father
with
country
made
pistols
(tamanchas). He raised a loud cry then
many persons of village came there then
Anil and Sanjay ran away from the spot.
His father sustained fire arm injury in his
chest. He was carried to hospital where
doctors declared him brought dead. The
dead body was kept in the hospital.

(ii) On the FIR lodged, the police
of concerned police station came into
action and investigation started. Inquest
report of the dead body was prepared, and
the dead body was sent for postmortem
along with necessary police papers. During
investigation both the accused persons
surrendered in the Court on 24.06.2005.
The Investigating Officer recorded the
statements of the accused persons in jail
after taking permission of the Court,
wherein the accused persons stated that
they might get the weapons recovered, used
for committing the crime. The Investigating
Officer applied for the police custody
remand which was allowed. The accused
persons were remanded in police custody
on 30.06.2005 for 24 hours. During police
custody remand the weapons of offence
were recovered at the pointing out of the
accused persons alongwith live and empty
cartridges. The case was registered against
the accused persons under Section 25 of the
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Arms Act, at Case Crime No.339 of 2005
against accused Anil Yadav and at Case
Crime No.340 of 2005 against Sanjay
Yadav, under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

(iii)
After
investigation
chargesheet No.47 of 2005 in Case Crime
No.308 of 2005 of I.P.C. (Exhibit Ka-27)
was
submitted
in
the
Court.
The
Chargesheet No.48 of 2005 in Case Crime
No.339 of 2005 under Section 25 of the
Arms Act against accused Anil Yadav
(Exhibit Ka-31) was also submitted before
the Magistrate concerned. After taking
cognizance on the chargesheets submitted
the Magistrate concerned committed the
case to the Court of Sessions for trial. The
Sessions Court framed charge under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
The accused persons denied the crime and
claimed to be tried. The charge under
Section 25 of the Arms Act was also
framed against both the accused persons.
Both the accused denied the charge framed
under Section 25 of the Arms Act also and
claimed to be tried.

(iv) The prosecution in order to
prove its case examined nine witnesses in
toto, which are as under:-

1. P.W. 1 Vinod Kumar Yadav,
the complainant.

2. P.W. 2 Om Prakash, the
witness of Panchayatnama.

3. P.W.3 Ram Jagpal, the witness
of the recovery of weapon of offence at the
pointing out of the accused persons.

Hospital,
Sultanpur,
who
conducted autopsy of the dead body of
Asha Ram.

5. P.W. 5 Syed Alamdar Hussain
Rizvi, Police Inspector, who prepared
Panchayatnama of the dead body of Asha
Ram and sent the same for postmortem
alongwith necessary papers.

6. P.W.6 Head Constable Police,
Durga Prasad, who wrote the chick FIR and
prepared the concerned G.D.

7. P.W. 7 Mr. S.K. Ram,
Investigating
Officer
of
Case
Crime
No.308 of 2005.

8. P.W. 8 Sub Inspector Hari
Shankar Prajapati, who accompanied with
Station Officer S.K. Ram when the weapon
of offence were recovered at the pointing
out of the accused persons.

9. P.W 9 Sub Inspector Shambu
Sharavan Singh, Investigating Officer of
Case Crime No.399 of 2005 and Case
Crime No.340 of 2005 both under Section
25 of the Arms Act.

(v) Apart from above witnesses
the prosecution also proved the necessary
documents which are as under:-

1. Exhibit Ka-1 written report.

2. Exhibit Ka-2 Panchayatnama.

3. Exhibit Ka-3 recovery memo
of recovery of weapons of offence.

4.
Exhibit
Ka-4
postmortem
report.

5. Exhibit Ka-5 information sent
to
police
station
from hospital about the dead body.

6. Exhibit Ka-6 specimen seal.
6 All. Anil Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
493

7. Exhibit Ka-7 letter to Reserve
Inspector.

8. Exhibit Ka-8 letter to C.M.O.

9.
Exhibit
Ka-9
Photonash
(Police Form No.379)

10.Exhibit
Ka-10
details
of
sending the dead body for postmortem.

11.Exhibit Ka-11 carbon copy of
concerned G.D. dated 13.06.2005.

12. Exhibit Ka-12 Chick FIR.

13. Exhibit Ka-13 carbon copy of
Kayami GD.

14. Exhibit Ka-14 Chick FIR of
Case Crime No.339 of 2005 and Case
Crime No.340 of 2005.

15. Exhibit Ka-15 Site plan of the
place of occurrence.

16. Exhibit Ka-16 carbon copy of
recovery memo.

17.
Exhibit
Ka-17
to
24
photographs
relating
to
recovery
of
weapons of offence.

18. Exhibit Ka-25 'Nakal Rapat'
No.24 at 15:10 hours dated 30.06.2005.

19. Exhibit Ka-26 Site plan of the
place of recovery of weapon of offence
prepared at the time of recovery.

20. Exhibit Ka-27 chargesheet of
Case Crime No.308 of 2005.

21. Exhibit Ka-28 letter to
Forensic Science Laboratory.

22. Exhibit Ka-29 Site plan of the
place of recovery of weapon of offence
prepared by the Investigating Officer.

23. Exhibit Ka-30 prosecution
sanction for prosecution of the accused
persons under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

24. Exhibit Ka-31 chargesheet of
Case Crime No.339 of 2005, under Section
25 of the Arms Act.

25. Exhibit Ka-32 report of
Forensic Science Laboratory.

26. Exhibit Ka-33 report of
Forensic Science Laboratory.

(vi) After recording of evidence
learned trial Court declared accused Sanjay
Juvenile and sent his case before the
Juvenile Justice Board for trial. Thereafter
the statement of concivt/appellant Anil was
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.),
wherein he denied the crime and also the
recovery of weapon of offence. He further
stated that witnesses have deposed falsely
and the case has been registered against
him due to enmity. He has further stated
that the deceased was killed somewhere
else by someone else in the dark of the
night and he has been implicated due to
enmity of parcenery (pattidari). One
witness Suresh was also examined by the
convict/appellant in his defence.

(vii)
After
completion
of
evidence, hearing the arguments of both the
sides and analysing the evidence available
on record the learned trial court found the
evidence of eye witness P.W.1 trustworthy
and the ocular evidence consistent with the
medical evidence. Learned trial court also
found proved that weapon of offence was
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recovered at the pointing out of the
convict/appellant and all the necessary facts
and circumstances were proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and
found the convict/appellant guilty for the
offence punishable under Section 302/34 of
I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment
coupled with fine noted herein above. (para
2(iii))

(viii) Learned trial court also
found proved the offence under Section 25
of the Arms Act and sentenced the
convict/appellant for the offence.

(ix) Being aggrieved of this
conviction and sentence the present appeal
has been preferred by the convict/appellant.

(3) Heard Shri Manish Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.
Smiti Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the
respondent State.

(4)

Learned
counsel
for
the
convict/appellant argued that the learned
trial court has committed grave error in
holding
guilty
and
sentencing
the
convict/appellant because the FIR is anti
time and fabricated. The alleged eye
witness was not present at the place of
occurrence. He has deposed falsely. No
blood was found at the place of occurrence.
The memo of motorcycle of the deceased
was not prepared. The medical evidence
does not support the ocular testimony. No
independent witness has been examined by
the prosecution. P.W.1 is the son of the
deceased, he has deposed falsely and has
tried to improve his version during
recording of his statement in trial court in
order to make it consistent with the medical
testimony.
The
Forensic
Science
Laboratory report cannot be read in
evidence. The recovery of alleged weapon
of offence is highly doubtful and no
independent witness of the incident has
been produced by the prosecution. The
crime number has not been mentioned in
the
inquest
report.
The
prosecution
remained unable to prove the guilt of the
convict/appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order should be set-aside.

5. Contrary to it, learned A.G.A.
argued that the evidence of P.W.1, the
complainant and the son of deceased is true
as no major contradiction could be brought
by
the
defence
during
the
crossexamination. The weapon of offence was
recovered at the pointing out of the
convict/appellant. The medical evidence as
well as ocular evidence is consistent with
each other. According to Forensic Science
Laboratory report the empty cartridges
recovered at the spot were found fired by
the weapon recovered at the pointing out of
the convict/appellant Anil. In the opinion of
autopsy surgeon the cause of death was
shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem
injuries. FIR was lodged promptly without
any
unreasonable
delay.
For
non
mentioning of the crime number in the
inquest report, the registration of the FIR
cannot be doubted. The motive of the crime
has been alleged and proved. As far as the
place of occurrence is concerned, it is very
well proved and even the defence witness
has supported the place of occurrence
mentioned in the FIR. Thus there is no
error or discrepancy in the impugned
judgment. Therefore, the appeal should be
dismissed.

6. Considered the rival submissions
and perused the original record of trial
court as well as of appeal. The perusal of
the record as well as the impugned
judgment and order shows that the
6 All. Anil Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
495
conviction rests mainly on the evidence of
P.W. 1 Vinod Kumar, complainant of the
case. This witness has stated before the trial
court that accused Anil Yadav and Sanjay
Yadav are the residents of his village.
Where the incident took place, a metalled
road goes from Sameri to Mahorua
Ambedkar Nagar and from that metalled
road one paved road (kharanja) on the north
side goes to Madhavpur and at the place
where paved road emerges one culvert is
there. Prior to this incident Anil Yadav
used to drive his tractor. He stopped to
drive tractor, prior to one and a half or two
years of the incident. Some altercations
took place on it, and for this reason the
accused persons became inimical. He
further stated that both the accused are
present in the Court. After leaving the job
of driving the tractor of the complainant the
accused persons went to Indore. The
incident occurred on 13.06.2005 at about
7:15 PM. On that day his father asked him
to visit the sugarcane field, for that reason
he went to Gram Itkohiya on motorcycle
and his father went to Gram Itkohiya by his
own motorcycle. When he (witness) was
coming back after visiting sugarcane field
and reached at the road, at the same time
his father was also coming on his
motorcycle and he saw that Anil Yadav and
Sanjay were sitting on the culvert with
sticks in their hands. When his father came
near the culvert the accused Anil Yadav
assaulted his father with stick on his hand
and accused Sanjay caught his motorcycle
from behind and made him fell down.
Thereafter both the accused persons fired
upon his father with an intention to kill
him. He shouted loudly, hearing his shout
villagers came there then both the accused
ran away. Due to firing made by accused
persons, his father sustained injuries in his
chest. After that, with the help of the
people of village he carried his father to the
hospital where doctors declared him dead.
Thereafter he dictated and got written an
application by Bechu Verma and after
hearing that put his signature on that
application. The application was presented
by him at the police station Jaisinghpur and
an FIR was registered. He proved his
written report as Exhibit Ka-1 and
recognized his signature on that.

7. He has further stated that the
Investigating Officer recorded his statement
and he showed the spot to the Investigating
Officer, this examination-in-chief of the
witness was recorded on 24.04.2006, but on
that day, the counsel for the accused persons
did not cross examine the witness and sought
adjournment, the adjournment was allowed
and 25.4.2006 was fixed to continue with the
evidence. On 25.04.2006 also the witness
P.W.1 remained present, but the counsel for
the accused persons moved adjournment and
that was rejected and an opportunity to cross
examine the P.W. 1 was closed and date
04.05.2006 was fixed. Thereafter the counsel
for the accused moved application to recall
P.W.1 and that was allowed and the witness
was recalled for cross-examination and his
cross-examination
was
recorded
on
11.01.2007 and again on 17.01.2007. A
lengthy cross-examination has been made on
behalf of the convict/appellant, but no major
contradiction could be brought in crossexamination. The ocular account presented
by this witness has been supported by the
medical evidence. P.W. 4 who conducted the
postmortem, prepared the report, has proved
the postmortem report as Exhibit Ka-4 and
also the injuries noted therein. In the
postmortem following injuries were found on
the cadaver of the deceased.

" 1. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1
cm x bone-deep present on the left side of
skull.
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm
muscle-deep present on occipital region of
skull.

3. Fire arm wound of entry 1 cm
x 1 cm x Chest cavity deep present on the
center of chest, margins were inverted and
lacerated and blackening and tattooing
were present around the wound area of 4
cm x 3 cm. "

8. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon
the death occurred due to shock and
hemorrhage, as a result of fire arms
injuries.

9. In the chest cavity 1.5 liter clotted
blood was found. One bullet was found in
the heart of the deceased and the autopsy
surgeon after extracting the same from the
cadaver put in an envelope and sealed it
and handed over to the police personnel. In
the opinion of the autopsy surgeon the
injury No.1 & 2 can be caused by a stick
(danda), injury No.3 can be caused by fire
arm (tamancha). According to this medical
witness injury No.3 was on vital part of the
deceased and was sufficient enough to
cause death. In his opinion injuries found
on the body of the deceased would be
possible
in
the
incident
occurred
on13.06.2005 at about 7:15 PM. Thus the
perusal of the evidence of this medical
witness shows that the injuries found on the
body of the deceased are in consonance
with the ocular account given by the
complainant P.W.1.

11.

Learned
counsel
for
the
convict/appellant
argued
that
the
complainant in his written report has
mentioned that accused hit his father by
stick on his hand, but in the statement made
before the court he improved his version
and stated that the accused hit his father on
his head and this creates serious doubt. No
doubt the complainant in his written report
has mentioned that accused hit his father on
hand and in the statement made in the
Court he stated that his father was hit on
the head, but the main injury which was
found on the chest and caused death was
correctly mentioned by the complainant in
the FIR and also in his evidence before the
trial court. Hence this argument raised by
defence counsel is of no importance.

12.

The
counsel
for
the
convict/appellant also submitted that no
independent witness has been examined.
The only witness P.W.1 is a related witness
as he is son of the deceased, hence his
testimony should not be relied upon. This
argument also of the defence is of no
importance because it is well settled law
that the evidence of a witness cannot be
doubted only for the reason that he is a
related witness.

13. 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
witness, 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 relatives were not independent
witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose,
J., the Court observed :

"We are unable to agree with the
learned Judges of the 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
6 All. Anil Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
497
witnesses are women and that the fate of
seven men hangs on their testimony, we
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. This
is a fallacy common to many criminal cases
and one which another Bench of this Court
endeavoured to dispel in Rameshwar v. The
State of Rajasthan, [1952] SCR 377 = AIR
1952 SC 54. We find, however, that it
unfortunately still persists, if not in the
judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the
arguments of counsel."

In this case, this Court further
observed as under :

"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 as 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 he laid
for such a criticism and the mere fact of
relationship far from being a foundation is
often a sure guarantee of truth."

14. In another case of Mohd. Rojali
Versus State of Assam: (2019) 19 SCC
567, the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard
has held as under:-

"As regards the contention that all
the eyewitnesses are close relatives of the
deceased, it is by now well settled that a
related witness cannot be said to be an
''interested' witness merely by virtue of being
a relative of the victim. This Court has
elucidated the difference between ''interested'
and ''related' witnesses in a plethora of cases,
stating that a witness may be called
interested only when he or she derives some
benefit from the result of a litigation, which in
the context of a criminal case would mean
that the witness has a direct or indirect
interest in seeing the accused punished due to
prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a
motive to falsely implicate the accused (for
instance, see State of Rajasthan v. Kalki,
(1981) 2 SCC 752; Amit v. State of Uttar
Pradesh,
(2012)
4
SCC
107;
and
Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy,
(2013) 15 SCC 298). Recently, this difference
was reiterated in Ganapathi v. State of Tamil
Nadu, (2018) 5 SCC 549, in the following
terms, by referring to the three Judge bench
decision in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki
(supra): "14. "Related" is not equivalent to
"interested". A witness may be called
"interested" only when he or she derives
some benefit from the result of a litigation; in
the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an
accused person punished. A witness who is a
natural one and is the only possible eye
witness in the circumstances of a case cannot
be said to be "interested"..."

11. In criminal cases, it is often
the case that the offence is witnessed by a
close relative of the victim, whose presence
on the scene of the offence would be
natural. The evidence of such a witness
cannot automatically be discarded by
labelling the witness as interested. Indeed,
one of the earliest statements with respect
to interested witnesses in criminal cases
was made by this Court in Dalip Singh v.
State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145, wherein
this Court observed:

"26. A witness is normally to be
considered independent unless he or she
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
springs from sources which are likely to be
tainted and that usually means unless the
witness has cause, such as 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..."

12. In case of a related witness,
the Court may not treat his or her
testimony as inherently tainted, and needs
to ensure only that the evidence is
inherently reliable, probable, cogent and
consistent.
We
may
refer
to
the
observations of this Court in Jayabalan v.
Union Territory of Pondicherry, (2010) 1
SCC 199:

"23. We are of the considered
view that in cases where the Court is called
upon to deal with the evidence of the
interested witnesses, the approach of the
Court while appreciating the evidence of
such witnesses must not be pedantic. The
Court must be cautious in appreciating and
accepting the evidence given by the
interested witnesses but the Court must not
be suspicious of such evidence. The
primary endeavour of the Court must be to
look for consistency. The evidence of a
witness cannot be ignored or thrown out
solely because it comes from the mouth of a
person who is closely related to the victim."

15. Learned counsel for the defence
vehemently argued that the place of
occurrence is doubtful, as no blood was
found by the Investigating Officer at the
place of occurrence. It is true that the
Investigating Officer has stated that he did
not find any blood on the spot, but for this
reason only the direct ocular evidence
cannot be doubted. It is quite possible that
due to the gathering of the people of the
village at the place blood might have
disappeared or it is also possible that most
of the blood remained inside the body of
the deceased, as per postmortem report 1.5
lt. blood was found in the chest cavity of
the deceased.

16. In the case of State of Rajasthan
Vs. Satya Narain (1998) 8 SCc 404 the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that merely
because of absence of blood at the place of
occurrence, the occurrence of the incident
itself cannot be doubted.

17.

Learned
counel
for
the
convict/appellant has also argued that the
recovery of weapon is doubtful. This
argument also, of the defence counsel is
very feeble, because the recovery has very
well been proved by the prosecution by
producing the independent witness P.W.3
Ram Jagpal and also by the evidence of
P.W.8
Sub
Inspector
Hari
Shankar
Prajapati.

18. Thus to sum up, the prosecution
has proved the commission of crime by the
convict/appellant. P.W. 1 the eye witness
has proved the incident and his testimony
was supported by the medical evidence.
The motive of the crime has also been
proved i.e. convict/appellant used to drive
the tractor of the deceased and some
altercations
took
place
between
the
deceased and the convict over the issue, for
that convict/appellant was inimical to the
deceased. The fact of dispute regarding
driving of tractor has also been suggested
by the defence counsel to P.W. 1 in crossexamination.

19. Thus the prosecution has proved
the
charges
levelled
against
the
convict/appellant beyond reasonable doubt
and the learned trial court has rightly held
him guilty and sentenced accordingly.
6 All. Jangaliya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
499
There appears no ground for interference in
the conviction and sentence recorded by the
trial court.

20. The convict/appellant is already in
jail, he shall serve out the sentence awarded
by the learned trial court.

21.

The
appeal
is
dismissed,
accordingly.

22. Office is directed to send a copy
of this order along with lower Court record
to the trial Court concerned for necessary
information and compliance forthwith.
----------
(2022)06ILR A499
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1212 of 1983

Jangaliya & Anr. ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri P.S. Raghav, Sri Dharmendra Singhal, Sri S.I.
Jafri, Sri S.P.S. Raghav, Sri Shivendra Raj
Snghal

Counsel for the Respondent:
D.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 114 - Appeal against
conviction - Abettor present when offence
is committed, Section 302 - murder , The
Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - Section
313 .

Appeal of appellant no.2 - abated - consequent
to his death - appeal of appellant no.1 survives -
accused were dismantling the water channel of
deceased - deceased intervened - On his
intervention , non surviving appellant no.2 -
elder brother of deceased - exhorted his son
(surviving appellant) to beat the deceased by
uttering "Maar Saale Ko" - FIR lodged by son
(P.W. 1) of deceased - surviving appellant no.1
administered multiple Fawra (spade) blows on
vital part of the body of the deceased - property
dispute. (Para - 17,34)

(B) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 299 - Culpable homicide -Whoever
causes death by doing an act with the
intention of causing death - or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death - or with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to
cause death - commits the offence of
culpable homicide - held - at the time of
causing injury, the inflictor of that wound had
inflicted that injury with the knowledge that he is
likely by such act would cause death - No case of
the defence that the injury no.1 was inflicted
accidentally - appellant no.1 is liable for the
offence of culpable homicide. (Para -24,25 )

(C) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 300 - murder - when
culpable homicide is murder - clause
''Secondly' - If it is done with the intention
of causing such bodily injury as the
offender knows to be likely to cause the
death of the person to whom the harm is
caused - clause ''Thirdly' - If it is done
with the intention of causing bodily injury
to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death -
multiple blows on head of deceased - three
incised wounds found on head region - injuries
no.2 and 3 not fatal - accused targeted a vital
part - accused had the intention of causing such
bodily injury which he knew that it is likely to
cause death of the person to whom the harm is
caused - injury no.1 reflects that the underlying
tissues, vertebrae etc were all cut through and
through - deceased had died on the spot -
appellant's act traveled from the genus of
culpable homicide to the species of murder.
(Para -26,31 )

HELD:-Prosecution successfully proved that
injuries were caused by accused appellant.