# Babloo @ Ranjeet Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 659
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 3426 of 2010
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, Saral Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/babloo-ranjeet-singh-v-state-of-u-p-49725
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860
- Section 302 - Murder - A mango grove
was jointly owned by Virendra Singh
(father of accused), Doodh Nath Singh,
and the deceased Kailash - Mangoes were
sold for Rs. 1,500, with Kailash (deceased)
receiving Rs. 600, Doodh Nath Singh
receiving Rs. 500, and the accused, Bablu
Singh,
receiving
Rs.
400
-
Bablu,
dissatisfied with his share, obstructed
Kailash's house entrance with bamboo
sticks - Upon Kailash's return, Bablu
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
attacked him with a 'Sabbal', on neck and
chest, resulting in Kailash's death- Held -
ocular testimony and the injuries caused
by the accused commensurate - As per
testimony of doctor the injuries were
sufficient in ordinary course of nature to
cause death - unequal distribution of
money, which in fact caused annoyance to
the accused-appellant and served as
motive of committing the crime - act of
the appellant was pre planned and it
cannot be said that it was a case of
sudden quarrel - accused cannot get
advantage of his own misdeed, which
alone
culminated
into
death
of
the
deceased - origin of the crisis was created
by none other than the accused himself by
putting hurdle in free passage from and to
the house of deceased- by putting bamboo
barrier in front of his house - accused
caused blow with Sabbal on the head and
chest of the deceased - doctor has rightly
opined that the injury so caused was
sufficient in the natural course to cause
death (Para 28, 36, 37, 40)

Dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

2 All. Babloo @ Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P.
659
crime and conscience of the society. It also
reminded the courts of the need that they,
while modulating sentence, need to be stern
or to be tempered with mercy whenever
factual matrix of a case at hand warrants.
The nature of the crime, the manner in
which it was planned and committed, the
motive for commission of the crime, the
conduct of the accused, the nature of
weapons
used
and
other
attending
circumstances may be necessary pointers
for the court in tailoring ''proper' sentence.

27. So far as the question of sentence
is concerned, the same is a matter of
discretion of the learned trial Judge. It is
well settled law that when the discretion
has been granted to the learned trial Judge,
if the same is not arbitrarily, capriciously or
perversely but has been properly exercised
by accepted judicial norms, the appellate
court ought not to interfere to the detriment
of the accused person unless there are very
strong reasons which are not disclosed on
the face of the judgment for the lesser
punishment.

28.

Considering
the
above
propositions
of
law
and
facts
and
circumstances of the present case, I am of
the view that the appellant is in jail since
10.4.2013 and as such, about 10 years have
already elapsed. So, in the interest of
justice, the maximum sentence U/s 304-B
IPC from 14 years is reduced to 10 years
with all remissions under Section 304-B
IPC. But the sentence awarded U/s 498-A,
201 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act shall remain unaltered. All
the sentences shall run concurrently. It is
made clear that the fine clause shall remain
unaltered.

29. The Jail Authority will calculate
the period of his incarceration with
remission
and
decide
the
same
in
accordance with jail manual.

30. Thus the appeal is dismissed on
the point of conviction and partly
allowed on the point of sentence.

31. The trial court record be sent
back. A copy of this order be also sent to
the court concerned as well as District
Superintendent
of
Jail,
Sitapur
for
necessary compliance.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 659
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.
THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3426 of 2010

Babloo @ Ranjeet Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri
Apul
Misra,
Sri
P.N.
Misra,
Sri
Raghuvansh Misra, Sri C.L. Chaudhary
(A.C.), Sri Anil Kumar Singh Bishen

Counsel for the Respondent:
Government Advocate, Sri I.K. Upadhyay

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860
- Section 302 - Murder - A mango grove
was jointly owned by Virendra Singh
(father of accused), Doodh Nath Singh,
and the deceased Kailash - Mangoes were
sold for Rs. 1,500, with Kailash (deceased)
receiving Rs. 600, Doodh Nath Singh
receiving Rs. 500, and the accused, Bablu
Singh,
receiving
Rs.
400
-
Bablu,
dissatisfied with his share, obstructed
Kailash's house entrance with bamboo
sticks - Upon Kailash's return, Bablu
660 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
attacked him with a 'Sabbal', on neck and
chest, resulting in Kailash's death- Held -
ocular testimony and the injuries caused
by the accused commensurate - As per
testimony of doctor the injuries were
sufficient in ordinary course of nature to
cause death - unequal distribution of
money, which in fact caused annoyance to
the accused-appellant and served as
motive of committing the crime - act of
the appellant was pre planned and it
cannot be said that it was a case of
sudden quarrel - accused cannot get
advantage of his own misdeed, which
alone
culminated
into
death
of
the
deceased - origin of the crisis was created
by none other than the accused himself by
putting hurdle in free passage from and to
the house of deceased- by putting bamboo
barrier in front of his house - accused
caused blow with Sabbal on the head and
chest of the deceased - doctor has rightly
opined that the injury so caused was
sufficient in the natural course to cause
death (Para 28, 36, 37, 40)

Dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J.
&
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material brought on
record.

2. The instant appeal has been
preferred against the judgement and order
of conviction dated 01.05.2010 passed by
the Special/Additional Sessions Judge,
Ballia in Session Trial No.187 of 2008,
arising out of Case Crime No.93 of 2008,
under Section - 302 I.P.C., Police Station -
Nagra, District - Ballia, whereby the
appellant has been convicted and sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for life under
Section - 302 I.P.C., coupled with fine
Rs.3,000/- in default of payment of fine,
two
years
additional
rigorous
imprisonment.

3. Factual matrix of this case as
discernible from record, proceeds on facts
that Smt. Suman Singh, wife of deceased-
Kailash Singh lodged a written report
against accused- Bablu @ Ranjeet Singh,
son of Sri. Virendra Singh, resident of
Village - Deoria, Police Station - Nagra,
District - Ballia at Police Station- Nagra,
District - Ballia at 10:20 a.m. on
10.06.2008 regarding the incident, which
took place in her Village - Deoria in
District - Ballia, located about four
kilometers north-east of the police station
to the import that there is one mango grove
in partnership owned by the informant as
well as Virendra Singh and Doodh Nath
Singh. Mango of that grove was sold out
for Rs.1,500/- and Virendra Singh had
decided that out of aforesaid Rs.1,500/-,
Kailash Singh will get Rs.600/-, Doodh
Nath Singh will get Rs.500/- and Bablu
Singh (son of Virendra Singh) will get
Rs.400/- and the money was distributed
among them accordingly. Bablu alias
Ranjeet Singh was annoyed over it as he
received lesser money Rs.100/- than the
two others. To express his anguish he
created hurdle in the way in the free egress
and ingress to the house of the deceased-
Kailash Singh by fixing bamboo sticks on
the soil in front of his house. The
informant's husband, Kailash Singh in the
meanwhile returned from his field, he saw
the hurdle so created and began to remove
the bamboos, when the appellant Bablu
alias Ranjeet Singh, who appeared on the
scene possessing a ''Sabbal' in his hands
caused blow with it on the neck of Kailash,
due to which, he fell down, when Bablu
alias Ranjeet Singh assaulted Kailash Singh
with ''Sabbal' on his chest. The informant
2 All. Babloo @ Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P.
661
and the co-villagers tried to take the injured
to the Nagra hospital but the injured died
on way to the hospital. The incident was
alleged to have occurred at 09:00 a.m. (on
10.06.2008).

4. A case was registered at Police
Station - Nagra against the appellant- Bablu
alias Ranjeet Singh and concerned Check
F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-3) was prepared at Case
Crime No. 93 of 2008, under Section - 304
I.P.C. On the basis of the entry made in the
check F.I.R., relevant entry was also made
in the concerned General Diary at Serial
No.20 of the aforesaid date at 10:20 a.m. at
aforesaid police station - Nagra at aforesaid
Case Crime No.93 of 2008, under Section -
304 I.P.C. and a case was registered against
appellant-Bablu alias Ranjeet Singh.

5. Consequently, the investigation
ensued and was entrusted to P.W.6- Vijay
Bahadur Singh. Relevant to mention that
after the report had been lodged, Ramesh
Chandra Mishra P.W.7 rushed to the spot
with relevant papers at P.H.C. Nagra for
preparation of inquest report of deceased-
Kailash Singh,- son of Jai Mangal Singh
and completed the task at 12:05 hours on
10.06.2008. The same has been proved by
the aforesaid witness as Ext. Ka-7. Apart
from inquest report, he has also proved
preparation of relevant papers, say report
R.I., specimen seal, letter to C.M.O.,
photonash, police form no.13 etc. and has
proved these papers as Ext. Ka-8 to Ext.
Ka-12.

6. After the inquest report was
prepared, the dead body of Kailash Singh
was sent for postmortem examination at
Sadar Hospital, Ballia, where postmortem was conducted by Dr. P.K. Singh,
Medical Officer at 05:00 p.m. on
10.06.2008, wherein he noted two ante
mortem injuries :-

1. Lacerated wound 4 c.m. x 1
c.m. x scalp deep at occipital region of
scalp 6.2 c.m. away from right ear.

2. Puncture wound 4 c.m. (four
centimeter) x 3 c.m. at the level of right
nipple of chest, 2 c.m. medial under
neath 3rd, 4th chest rip fracture with
laceration
of
right
lung
pleura,
corresponding
to
puncture
wound
thoracic cavity full blood and blood
clotted. (2 1⁄2 litres).

7. Cause of death was stated to be
shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante
mortem chest injury. This post mortem
examination report has been proved by
the doctor PW-5 as Exhibit Ka-2.

8. Since the investigation had
commenced, the investigating officer
(P.W.-6) proceeded to the place of
occurrence and after making entry in the
case diary, inspected the place of
occurrence, prepared the site-plan at the
instance of the informant and the
witnesses, which site plan is Ext. Ka-5.
Apart from that, he also recorded
statement
of
various
prosecution
witnesses
and
after
completing
the
investigation filed the charge-sheet (Ext.
Ka-6).

9. After committal proceeding, the
trial commenced and the prosecution
opened its case by stating the charge
brought against the accused and the
evidence by which it proposes to prove the
guilt and after hearing the accused found
prima facie case against the accused under
Section - 302 I.P.C. and charged him as
herein-under :-
662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"That on 10.06.2008, at about
09:00 a.m. in Village - Deoria, P.S. Nagra,
District - Ballia, you did an act viz.
assaulted by ''SABBAL' on neck and chest
of Kailash Singh, and by that, you did
commit murder by intentionally causing the
death of Kailash Singh, and thereby
committed an offence punishable under
Section - 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
within the cognizance of this court.

in the alternative, the accused was
charged as under :-

10. That, on 10.06.2008 at about 9
A.M. in village Deoria, P.S. Nagra, district
Ballia, you did an act viz. assaulted by
''SABBAL' on neck and chest of Kailash
Singh, and by that act, you caused the death
of Kailash Singh, and thereby you
committed an offence of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder, punishable under
Section - 304 of the Indian Penal Code and
within the cognizance of this court.

11. The charge was read over and
explained to the accused in Hindi, who
abjured the charge and opted for trial."

12. Consequently, the prosecution was
required
to
adduce
his
testimony.
Resultantly, the prosecution produced in all
seven witnesses:-

13. P.W.-1, Suman Singh is the wife of
the deceased. P.W.-2, Doodh Nath is brother
of the deceased. P.W.-3, Vishwanath Singh,
he is witness of fact and claims himself to be
present at the time of occurrence. All the
three witnesses are fact witnesses. P.W.-4 Dr.
P.K.
Singh
conducted
post
mortem
examination on body of the deceased Kailash
Singh. P.W.-5 is Constable Bhagwan Ram
who has proved fact of written report being
presented by the informant- Suman Singh,
wife of deceased, Kailash Singh at the Police
Station - Nagra on 10.06.2008, and prepared
the Check F.I.R. and noted relevant entry of
the same in the concerned G.D. at Serial
No.20 and has proved the Check F.I.R. (Ext.
Ka-3) and the relevant G.D. (Ext. Ka-4).
P.W.6, S.I. Vijay Bahadur Singh is the
investigating officer, he conducted the
investigation and filed the charge sheet. P.W.-
7, S.I. Ramesh Chandra Mishra has prepared
the inquest (Exhibit Ka-7) report of deceased-
Kailash and has proved it.

14. The evidence for the prosecution
was closed and statement of accused-Bablu
was recorded under Section - 313 Cr.P.C.,
wherein he denied the charges and stated in
answer to questionaire that he has been
falsely implicated in this case, on account of
fact that the informant was having illicit
relationship with Doodh Nath and the
accused
had
objected
to
their
illicit
relationship. He further stated that the
informant was younger than 20 years with
her husband and in order to eliminate the
deceased, these two persons have committed
murder and falsely implicated him in the
case.

15. The defence has got examined
Mukur Dhan as D.W.-1. Thereafter, evidence
for the defence was closed and the case was
heard on its merit and after appraisal of the
evidence
and
analysis
of
facts
qua
circumstances returned the aforesaid finding
of conviction under Section - 302 I.P.C. and
passed sentence for imprisonment of life
coupled with fine with default clause for
suffering additional imprisonment for one
year, vide judgment and order dated
01.05.2010.

16. Consequently, this appeal.

17. Contention of learned amicus
curiae for the appellant proceeds on to
2 All. Babloo @ Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P.
663
claim that in this case the presence of the
witnesses of fact on the spot at the time of
occurrence, who claimed to have seen the
occurrence
becomes
doubtful.
If
the
testimony of the informant P.W.-1 taken to
be true on the whole, would reflect that she
is not telling the truth. In fact no one saw
the occurrence and no one was present on
the spot. It is admitted position to the
prosecution that P.W.2 Doodhnath is the
younger brother of the deceased (Kailash)
and
brother-in-law
(''Devar')
of
the
complainant P.W.1 Suman Singh, (wife of
the
deceased).
It
so
happened
that
Doodhnath and Suman had developed illicit
relationship between them. That was seen
by the appellant and he objected to it, due
to which both the witnesses were annoyed
and they planned to eliminate the deceased
from
their
life
consequently
they
clandestinely committed the offence and
involved the present appellant in the
offence, whereas, no such incident was
caused by him.

18. Apart from that, learned amicus
curiae vehemently urged that as per the
testimony of P.W.1- the wife of the
deceased- she made her signature at the
police station in the afternoon on 10.6.2008
whereas the report regarding the incident
had been lodged after the occurrence the
very same day at 10.20 a.m.

19. In so far as the testimony of the
doctor witness (P.W.-4) is concerned that
by itself is indicative of fact that concerned
injury might have been caused by the fall
of the victim and cannot be attributed
solely to the act of the appellant.

20. Apart from that learned amicus
curiae also brought to our notice the
testimony of other prosecution witnesses and
claimed the same is fraught with material
contradictions. He also claimed that these
contradictions are material and hit to the root
of the prosecution case. The testimony on
record does not inspire confidence.

21. Per contra, Sri Aswani Prakash
Tripathi, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed
the contention and replied to the ambit that in
so far as the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is
concerned, the same when taken as a whole
would establish fact that the act attributed to
the appellant was committed by him and the
evidence is forthcoming directly. There is no
supporting
material
or
circumstances
whispering about and working, even in the
least, to the hypothesis that there existed
some illicit relationship between P.W.1 and
P.W.2 and because of that they were involved
in the commission of the crime and the
appellant was falsely implicated in this case.

22. In so far as the presence of both the
witnesses of fact on the spot at the time of
occurrence is concerned, the same is most
natural and their version of the incident is
consistent with the description of occurrence
contained in the F.I.R. and so far as the antemortem injuries noted by the doctor at the
time of postmortem examination of the
deceased
is
concerned,
it
has
been
categorically stated by the doctor witness,
P.W.-4, P. K. Singh to have been/might have
been caused at 09:00 a.m. on 10.06.2008 and
that
part
of
the
statement
remained
unchallenged by the defence. Apart from that
the learned A.G.A. summed up that the
cumulative
reading
of
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case qua testimony
reasonably proved beyond doubt guilt of the
accused.

23. In the wake of aforesaid
submission, the moot point that crops up
for determination of this appeal relates to
fact whether the prosecution has been able
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to prove charge under Section - 302 I.P.C.
beyond all reasonable doubt ?

24. Now insofar as the merit of this
case is concerned, we may begin with the
origin of the incident as reported by the
informant, wife of deceased (P.W.1 Suman
Singh), when she lodged the written report
(Ext. Ka-1) at Police Station - Nagra,
District - Ballia on 10.06.2008 at 10:20
a.m., wherein she proceeds with the
description of the occurrence by claiming
that Virendra Singh, Doodhnath Singh and
the informant are partners of mango grove,
which was rented / sold out for Rs.1,500/-
and the sale proceeds was distributed
among Kailash Singh, husband of the
informant, Doodhnath Singh and Bablu @
Ranjeet Singh in the ratio of Rs.600/-,
Rs.500/- and Rs.400/-, respectively.

25. On account of above distribution,
Bablu alias Ranjeet Singh son of Virendra
Singh felt annoyed, since he was given
lesser money in comparison to others,
therefore, the accused out of anguish
blocked passage of house of deceased-
Kailash by placing bamboos and thorny
bushes (in front of the door) and thereby
tried to close the passage (of the house of
deceased). At that point of time, deceased-
Kailash Singh had gone for work on his
field. When he returned, he began to
remove the hurdle so created and began to
uproot the bamboos and thorny bushes,-
then accused Bablu alias Ranjeet Singh
possessing
''Sabbal'
(an
iron
like
instrument for digging the soil) in his hand
caused blow with it on the neck of
deceased- Kailash Singh, due to which, he
fell down, then accused dealt another blow
on his chest. The deceased was injured. He
was taken to the Nagra Hospital but he died
on way to the hospital. The report was got
scribed and lodged at Police Station -
Nagra, District - Ballia (at 10:20 a.m. on
10.06.2008).

26. In the backdrop of aforesaid fact
position, we come across the post-mortem
examination report Ext. Ka-2, which has
been proved by doctor witness P.K. Singh
(P.W.-4), whereby he has noted two ante
mortem injuries. One injury on the occipital
region of scalp 6.2 c.m. away from right ear
in the shape of lacerated wound with the
dimension 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x scalp deep and
second injury has been described to be
punctured wound 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. at the
level of right nipple of chest 2 c.m. medial
underneath IIIrd and IVth chest rib fracture
with laceration of right lungs and pleura
corresponding to punctured wound. The
post-mortem was conducted at 05:00 p.m.
on 10.06.2008, the very same day, wherein
the cause of death was shown to be ante
mortem
chest
injury,
shock
and
haemorrhage.

27. In the light of aforesaid fact
situation, we proceed further with the
scrutiny of testimony of the prosecution
witnesses of facts namely, Suman Singh,
Doodhnath Singh and Vishwanath Singh,
P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, respectively.
Insofar as the testimony of these three
witnesses of fact is concerned, a cumulative
reading of the same would reveal that they
have testified to the fact of origin of the
controversy to the ambit that the accused
Bablu @ Ranjit Singh son of Virendra
Singh felt annoyed by unequal distribution
of money after the mango grove was rented
/ sold out, wherein he received his father's
share Rs.400/- in all.

28. We may observe that it is a case of
eye account testimony of the occurrence
and the motive does not carry any
importance
and
holds
pivotal
point.
2 All. Babloo @ Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P.
665
However, considering the cause of action
on issue of distribution of money among
three persons, the same is proved to be
unequal distribution of money, which in
fact caused annoyance to the accusedappellant
and
served
as
motive
of
committing
the
crime. A
cumulative
reading of the testimony of aforesaid
witnesses
of
fact
is
overwhelmingly
supporting the case of the prosecution that
it was the accused, who put bamboos and
thorny bushes in front of house of Kailash
Singh and blocked free access to the house,
while Kailash Singh was away on his field.
When he returned in short while and tried
to remove hurdle so created, the accusedappellant appeared on the scene possessing
a ''Sabbal' in his hand and gave first blow
on the head / neck of the deceased Kailash,
due to which, he fell down then another
blow was given with ''Sabbal' on the chest
of the deceased.

29. Now, insofar as the point of
occurrence is concerned, we also gather
sufficient corroboration from the independent
testimony of Vishwanath Singh (P.W.3), who,
at that point of time, claims to have been
present on the spot and he was bathing.
Specific suggestion has been made by the
prosecution that the involvement of the
appellant has been falsely made by the
informant herself, for the reason that she had
developed illicit relationship with Doodhnath,
her brother-in-law and she was seen/found in
objectionable position by the accused and he
had threaten to divulge the secret, due to
which, both Doodhnath P.W.-1 and the P.W.-1
Suman hatched conspiracy between them and
killed Kailash Singh secretly and the accused
has been made scapegoat, but the specific
suggestion has been denied.

30. We come across testimony of the
prosecution witnesses of fact, wherein the
suggestion regarding existence of illicit
relationship between Suman Singh and
Doodhnath has been countered by them and
denied specifically.

31. We also come across testimony of
defence witness Mukur Dhan- (D.W.-1). He
has testified to the degree that he was
threatened by the prosecution witness
Doodhnath not to appear as a witness in
this case. He has also testified to the fact
that both Suman Singh and Doodhnath
were inimical towards Bablu alias Ranjeet
Singh and he (Bablu-accused) has not
killed Kailash Singh. A question put to this
witness by asking that Doodhnath and
Suman Singh were residing together as
wife and husband prior to the occurrence,
whereupon,
he
answered
in
his
examination-in-chief in the affirmative.
However, this question was objected by the
prosecution as this question being a leading
question should normally not to be asked
by the counsel of the defence to its witness
Mukur Dhan. Therefore, objection raised
by the prosecution is liable to be sustained.
It being leading question and not of
introductory nature cannot be allowed as
such. It is contentious on its face.

32. The testimony of D.W.-1 proceeds
in
the
last
two-three
lines
of
his
examination-in-chief, (as appears on page
no.48 of the paper book) that living
together of Doodhnath and Suman Singh
was objected by the accused. The accused
has been falsely implicated in this case.

33.

However,
in
his
cross
examination, he has testified to the purport
and import that he did not disclose this fact
to anyone prior to his testimony being
recorded in the Court. Therefore, the
testimony of D.W.-1 would not lead us to
reasonably infer that in fact there existed
666 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any
illicit
relationship
between
the
informant Suman Singh and her brother-inlaw Doodhnath P.W.2 and they hatched a
conspiracy and killed Kailash. Moreover,
the prevailing and attendant facts and
circumstances of this case do not whisper
about any such position as has been
claimed by the defence.

34. It is noticeable that in the
statement of the accused under Section -
313 Cr.P.C., in reply to question no.16 also
asserts the same on point of existing illicit
relationship
that
there
existed
illicit
relationship, when objected, the informant
herself killed her husband. The informant
was 20 years younger to her husband.
However,
except
verbal
claim
and
explanation
regarding
existing
illicit
relationship between the informant and
Doodhnath, nothing concrete has emerged
on the record, which may lead us to
reasonably hold that the informant was
acting in collusion with Doodhnath P.W.-2
and they jointly created the situation by
thus
eliminating
Kailash
and
falsely
implicating the accused in the offence.

35. P.W.-3 an independent witness of
occurrence saw the appellant Bablu alias
Ranjeet Singh son of Virendra Singh
putting bamboo hurdle in front of door of
house of Kailash and blocking access to it.
When Kailash returned from his field, he
began to remove the bamboo (hurdle), then
Bablu alias Ranjeet Singh possessing
Sabbal in his hand came out of his house
and dealt a blow with Sabbal on the head of
Kailash due to which, Kailash fell down
and after that, another blow was dealt with
the ''Sabbal' by the accused. He proceeds
with his testimony with assertion that wife
of Kailash and Doodhnath also saw the
occurrence. Thus, he substantiates presence
of both P.W.-1 & P.W.-2 on the spot at the
time of occurrence. He has been cross
examined at length, wherein also he has
substantiated his testimony as given in his
examination-in-chief regarding the manner
and style of occurrence. He has clarified as
to how the Sabbal blow was caused on the
deceased by the accused in detail, nothing
adverse
has
emerged
in
his
entire
testimony, which may cast aspersion that
this witness is not telling the truth or is a
interested witness from any corner. On the
contrary, his testimony being independent
inspires confidence and gives further thrust
to the testimony of the other two witnesses
of fact P.W.1-Suman Singh and P.W.-2
Doodhnath Singh.

36. Insofar as the ocular testimony
when read with the ante mortem injury
noted in the post mortem examination
report is concerned, we come across fact
that the ocular testimony of the occurrence
and the injuries caused by the accused
commensurates with the description of ante
mortem injuries and the piece of testimony
of P.W.-4 Dr. P.K. Singh also gives further
thrust to the prosecution case, when he
testifies to the ambit that these injuries
were sufficient in ordinary course of nature
to cause death and injuries could have been
caused around 09:00 a.m. on 10.06.2008.
However, this particular piece of testimony
emerging in the last paragraph of the
examination-in-chief of the doctor has not
been put to challenge even in the least by
the defence. Therefore, this testimony
regarding the time when injuries have been
caused
is
unimpeachable
testimony.
Similarly, F.I.R. has been promptly lodged
and the factum of F.I.R. being lodged by
the informant Suman Singh at the police
station has been substantiated by P.W.-5
Bhagwan Ram, who prepared the check
F.I.R. and made a consequential entry in the
concerned general diary at Serial No. 20 at
2 All. Babloo @ Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of U.P.
667
Police Station - Nagra on 10.06.2008 and
has proved the Check F.I.R. as Ext. Ka-3
and the general diary entry, whereby the
case was registered at Case Crime No. 93
of 2008, under Section - 304 I.P.C. as Ext.
Ka-4. Learned amicus curiae also argued to
the ambit that in this case the conviction of
the appellant under Section - 302 I.P.C. is
not justified.

37. In reply to the same, learned
A.G.A. has stated that insofar as the act of
the appellant is concerned, it was pre
planned and it cannot be said that it was a
case of sudden quarrel but the origin of the
crisis was created by none other than the
accused himself by putting hurdle in free
passage from and to the house of deceased-
Kailash by putting bamboo barrier in front
of his house. That being the case under
circumstances at that point of time, when
the deceased was removing the bamboos,
the offence was committed by the accused.
The accused caused blow with Sabbal on
the head and chest of the deceased. The
doctor has rightly opined that the injury so
caused was sufficient in the natural course
to cause death. The reply so given is
sustained.

38. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is
a case of sudden quarrel as such the accused
cannot get advantage of his own misdeed,
which alone culminated into death of the
deceased. Insofar as the investigation of the
case is concerned, the investigating officer
has also proved the site plan (Ext. Ka-5),
whereby place ''X' has been shown as the
place where the ''Sabbal' blow was stated to
have been dealt by the accused on the
deceased Kailash Singh. Apart from that,
other places have also been spotted by the
investigating officer and that being the case,
we find no flaw in the investigation
conducted by the investigating officer. The
investigating officer has proved the charge
sheet- Exhibit Ka-6.

39.

Insofar
as
certain
improvement/embellishments appearing in
the testimony of prosecution witnesses of
fact, particularly P.W.1- Suman Singh and
P.W.-2 Doodhnath, are concerned, the same
do not affect totality of the case but the same
touch upon peripheral aspects of this case and
the core substance stands proved by the
prosecution
beyond
reasonable
doubt,
resultantly the finding of conviction recorded
by the lower court against the appellant for
committing offence under Section - 302 I.P.C.
is liable to be sustained.

40. The above analysis of the facts and
circumstances of the case on record goes to
show that the trial court was justified in
recording the finding of conviction thus
imposing sentence of life imprisonment by
the impugned judgment and order dated
01.05.2010.

41. Accordingly, we uphold judgement
and order of conviction dated 01.05.2010
passed by the Special/Additional Sessions
Judge, Ballia in Session Trial No.187 of
2008, arising out of Case Crime No.93 of
2008, under Section - 302 I.P.C., Police
Station - Nagra, District - Ballia.

42. In the result, the instant appeal
being devoid of merit is dismissed.

43. In this case, the appellant is in jail.
He shall serve out remaining part of
sentence imposed upon him by the trial
court.

44. Let a copy of this judgment/order
be certified to the court concerned for
necessary informant and follow up action.
----------
668 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 2 ILRA 668
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1165 of 2013

Sarvajeet & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Manish Tiwary, Sri Ashwini Kumar
Awasthi, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Sri
Nirbhay Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 156(3), 161 & 319 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A
& 306 - Criminal Revision against - order
impugned by which - Court below on an
application of prosecution, summoned the
additional accused - Validity - Offences under
section 498-A and 306 IPC - FIR - version of FIR
that, being fed up with the torture of her
husband victim jumped into well with her two
minor sons to commit suicide - Name of
proposed accused is not mentioned in FIR -
Victim and informant had not implicated
proposed accused in their St.ments - Proposed
accused implicated for the first time in St.ments
before court - court finds that, the learned trial
court has materially erred in allowing the
application u/s 319 CrPC - there is inherent
contradictions in the prosecution case and trial
Court had also failed to record its satisfaction
required for summoning accused - hence, the
impugned order for summoning the additional
accused is not sustainable in the eyes of law -
revision allowed. (Para - 9, 10)

Revision Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -
1. Sunil Tyagi Vs Government of NCT of Dehi,
(2021) 0 Supreme (Del) 831,

2. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & anr. Vs Special Judicial
Magistrate & ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749,

3. Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. & ors. Vs St.
of Mah. & anr., (2009) 2 SCC 370,

4. Vishnu Agarwal Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2011)
14 SCC 813,

5. Madhu Limaye & ors. Vs Unknown, (1969) 1
SCC 292,

6. Inder Mohan Goswami & anr. Vs St. of
Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1,

7. Adalat Prasad Vs Roopal Jindal & ors., (2004)
7 SCC 338,

8. K.M. Mathew Vs St. of Ker., (1992) 1 SCC 217,

9. Mohd. Zakir Vs Shabana & ors., (2018 Vol. 15
SCC 316),

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionists, learned AGA for the State.

2. None is present on behalf of opposite
party no.2 despite service of notice.

3. This criminal revision is directed
against the order dated 27.02.2013 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge court no.24,
Allahabad in S.T. No.755 of 2011 (State vs.
Ram Babu). By the impugned order, the
learned trial court in exercise of powers U/s
319 Cr.P.C. On an application of prosecution
has summoned the revisionist-accused to face
trial for the offence U/s 498A & 306 IPC with
co-accused Ram Babu.

4. The perusal of the record,
transpires that an FIR was lodged on