# Babu Singh v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1109
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-03
- **Bench:** Mrs. Vijay Laxmi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/babu-singh-v-state-of-u-p-44145
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated December 22, 1981, passed by the XII
Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, convicting the accused under Sections 148 and 307 read with 149 of the
Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).
The appeal was originally filed by three convicts, but two of them (Babu Singh and Narain Singh) died during
its pendency, causing the appeal to abate against them in 2012 and 2016 respectively.
Vijay Singh is the sole surviving appellant. The trial court sentenced him to three years of rigorous
imprisonment under Section 307/149 I.P.C. and eighteen months of rigorous imprisonment under Section 148
I.P.C., to run concurrently.

The Prosecution Narrative
The First Information Report (FIR) was registered by Deshraj Kapoor (PW2), stating that on February 17,
1974, accused Babu Singh threatened his servant, Ramdas, over a dispute regarding cutting grass from a field
boundary (medh).
On October 19, 1974, eyewitnesses informed PW2 that Ramdas had been mercilessly beaten near a canal
culvert; PW2 rushed to the spot, found Ramdas severely injured, and moved him to the hospital.
The victim, Ramdas, stated that he was surrounded by Babu Singh (armed with a gun), Narain Singh and
Vijay Singh (both armed with spears), two other unnamed sons of Babu Singh, and 6 to 7 unidentified persons
who assaulted him on Babu Singh's exhortation.

Medical Evidence and Trial Proceedings
The medical examination conducted by Dr. R.K. Mehrotra (PW1) revealed six major injuries on Ramdas,
including three deep stab wounds with clean-cut margins on his chest, alongside lacerations and contused
abrasions.
The Investigating Officer (I.O.) completed the investigation and submitted a charge sheet; the Sessions Court
subsequently framed charges under Sections 148 and 307/149 I.P.C., to which the appellant pleaded not
guilty.
1110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The prosecution examined six witnesses: the doctor (PW1), the informant (PW2), the injured victim (PW3),
and three police personnel (PW4 to PW6).
In his defense statement, the appellant claimed innocence, arguing that the land boundaries were adjacent
and that PW2 falsely implicated his family under police pressure to grab their land.
The trial court found the prosecution's evidence reliable and convicted the accused.

Grounds of Appeal by the Appellant
The defense argued that conviction relied solely on interested witnesses (PW2 and PW3) while independent
locality witnesses and crucial eyewitnesses named in the FIR were withheld.
The defense contended that the alleged motive was weak and dated eight months prior to the incident, and
that PW2's statement was mere hearsay since he was not present during the assault.
The defense pointed out contradictions in the victim's statements regarding his state of consciousness and
questioned the crime scene because the I.O. failed to collect blood-stained

## Text

8 All. Babu Singh Vs State Of U.P.
1109
(2016) 8 ILRA 1109
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAXMI, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 121 Of 1982

Babu Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsels for the Appellant:
Shri Kameshwar Prasad, Shri A.K. Awasthi, Shri Manish Tiwari, Shri V.C. Tewari

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Held -

Introduction and Status of the Appeal
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated December 22, 1981, passed by the XII
Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, convicting the accused under Sections 148 and 307 read with 149 of the
Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.).
The appeal was originally filed by three convicts, but two of them (Babu Singh and Narain Singh) died during
its pendency, causing the appeal to abate against them in 2012 and 2016 respectively.
Vijay Singh is the sole surviving appellant. The trial court sentenced him to three years of rigorous
imprisonment under Section 307/149 I.P.C. and eighteen months of rigorous imprisonment under Section 148
I.P.C., to run concurrently.

The Prosecution Narrative
The First Information Report (FIR) was registered by Deshraj Kapoor (PW2), stating that on February 17,
1974, accused Babu Singh threatened his servant, Ramdas, over a dispute regarding cutting grass from a field
boundary (medh).
On October 19, 1974, eyewitnesses informed PW2 that Ramdas had been mercilessly beaten near a canal
culvert; PW2 rushed to the spot, found Ramdas severely injured, and moved him to the hospital.
The victim, Ramdas, stated that he was surrounded by Babu Singh (armed with a gun), Narain Singh and
Vijay Singh (both armed with spears), two other unnamed sons of Babu Singh, and 6 to 7 unidentified persons
who assaulted him on Babu Singh's exhortation.

Medical Evidence and Trial Proceedings
The medical examination conducted by Dr. R.K. Mehrotra (PW1) revealed six major injuries on Ramdas,
including three deep stab wounds with clean-cut margins on his chest, alongside lacerations and contused
abrasions.
The Investigating Officer (I.O.) completed the investigation and submitted a charge sheet; the Sessions Court
subsequently framed charges under Sections 148 and 307/149 I.P.C., to which the appellant pleaded not
guilty.
1110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The prosecution examined six witnesses: the doctor (PW1), the informant (PW2), the injured victim (PW3),
and three police personnel (PW4 to PW6).
In his defense statement, the appellant claimed innocence, arguing that the land boundaries were adjacent
and that PW2 falsely implicated his family under police pressure to grab their land.
The trial court found the prosecution's evidence reliable and convicted the accused.

Grounds of Appeal by the Appellant
The defense argued that conviction relied solely on interested witnesses (PW2 and PW3) while independent
locality witnesses and crucial eyewitnesses named in the FIR were withheld.
The defense contended that the alleged motive was weak and dated eight months prior to the incident, and
that PW2's statement was mere hearsay since he was not present during the assault.
The defense pointed out contradictions in the victim's statements regarding his state of consciousness and
questioned the crime scene because the I.O. failed to collect blood-stained earth or produce stained clothes.
The defense raised doubts regarding the doctor's failure to register the case in the Medico-Legal Register and
portrayed the victim as a notorious character with multiple enemies.

The Hon'ble High Court's Evaluation of Evidence
The High Court limited its examination to the role of the surviving appellant, Vijay Singh, noting that medical
records confirmed stab wounds consistent with an assault involving a sharp weapon like a spear.
The court observed that the injured victim (PW3) explicitly placed the appellant at the scene armed with a
spear, and that his testimony remained consistent and credible despite grueling cross-examination.
Invoking settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court reiterated that the evidence of an injured victim
occupies a higher pedestal of credibility, as an injured person is unlikely to shield real culprits to falsely frame
an innocent party.
The court dismissed systemic lapses by the I.O. (failure to collect blood-stained earth or clothes), ruling that
investigative negligence cannot defeat a credible prosecution case.

Application of Vicarious Liability (Section 149 I.P.C.)
Addressing the defense plea that the victim could not identify exactly who stabbed his back, the court
highlighted that the appellant was charged under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C.
Section 149 establishes vicarious liability, making every member of an unlawful assembly accountable for acts
committed in furtherance of their common object.
Because the prosecution established the appellant's armed presence at the scene, specific mapping of
individual strikes was unnecessary, particularly since victims cannot realistically memorize specific blows
during a multi-person assault.
Conclusion and Modification of Sentence

The High Court upheld the conviction of Vijay Singh under Sections 148 and 307/149 I.P.C., finding no
illegality in the trial court's determination of guilt.
However, noting that the incident occurred in 1974 (over 42 years prior), the appeal remained pending since
1982, and the appellant had aged beyond 60 years without any subsequent criminal record, the court deemed
a return to prison overly harsh.
The appeal was partly allowed: the conviction was confirmed, but the sentences were reduced to the period of
imprisonment already undergone by the appellant. The bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged.
List of Citations

Kunjumon Vs. State of Kerala, (2012) 13 SCC 750
Mohd. Ishaque Vs. State of W.B., (2013) 14 SCC 581
Mano Dutt Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC 79
State of Rajasthan Vs. Major Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1073 (Note: typed as "AIR 199" in the text
8 All. Babu Singh Vs State Of U.P.
1111
error)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.)

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.12.1981 passed by the
XII Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, in S.T. No. 43/M of 1978, State Vs. Babu Singh and others,
arising out of Case Crime No. 717 of 1974, under sections 148, 147, 307 read with 149 I.P.C. P.S.
Juhi, District Kanpur Nagar.

2. At the very outset it may be mentioned that this appeal had been filed by three convicts/
appellants. Out of the three, two appellants namely Babu Singh and Narain Singh died during
pendency of the appeal and the appeal against the appellant Babu Singh was abated vide order
dated 3.9.2012 of this court and it abated against appellant Narain Singh vide order dated 21.4.2016
of this court. Now the only surviving appellant is Vijay Singh, who has been convicted and
sentenced for rigorous imprisonments for a term of three years under section 307 read with Section
149 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months under section 148 I.P.C. Both the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Heard learned counsel for the surviving appellant Vijay Singh and learned AGA for the
State. Perused the record.

4. The prosecution story in brief is that an FIR was lodged by one Deshraj Kapoor (PW2)
against five persons to the effect that on 17.2.1974 the accused Babu Singh was cutting grass from
the medh of his (complainant's) field. When his servant Ramdas prohibited him from doing so, a
fight ensued between them and accused Babu Singh left the field threatening the informant's servant
to see him in future. On 19.10.1974 at 9.00 A.M. his servant Ramdas had left for his farm along
with his cows as per his daily routine, when the witnesses Tekchand and Murli came running to his
house and informed that six or seven persons had injured Ramdas by assaulting him mercilessly
and his condition is serious. The informant immediately rushed to the spot and saw Ramdas lying
on the ground facing downward in a badly injured condition. The informant took him to the
hospital and got him admitted there. When enquired, Ramdas told him that when he was about to
reach the culvert of canal, suddenly Babu Singh armed with gun, Narain Singh and Vijay Singh
(appellant), both sons of Babu Singh, armed with spears and two other sons of Babu Singh, whose
names he did not know, one of whom was armed with spear and the other was armed with lathi
along 6 or 7 more persons, reached there and surrounded him from all sides. Babu Singh exhorted
with the words "bl jkenkl dks tku ls [kRe dj nks tkus u ik;s" and thereafter all of them attacked on
him from all sides causing grievous injuries to him. Ramdas was medically examined and the
doctor found the following injuries on his body:

1. Stab wound measurement 11⁄4" x 1/3" X depth under observation, on the back of
right chest.
1112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Two stab wounds with clean cut margins on the back of left chest ranging 11⁄4" x
1/3" X depth under observation and 11⁄2" x 1/3" X depth under observation.

3. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/10" x scalp deep 31⁄2" above the left ear root.

4. Contused abrasion in an area 61⁄2" x 3/4" on the right side scapular region
extending up to right shoulder.

5. Contused abrasion in an area of 2" x 11⁄4" on the left upper part of scapular
region.

6. Contused abrasion in an area of 11⁄2" x 3/4" on the left shoulder region.

5. The I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses including the injured and the doctor,
inspected the spot, prepared the site plan and after concluding the investigation, submitted charge
sheet against all the three appellants. The case being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, it
was committed to the Sessions Court where the charges under sections 148 and 307 read with 149
I.P.C. were framed against the appellant from which he denied and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced six witnesses in all, out of which two
are witnesses of fact and the remaining are of formal nature. The first informant Deshraj Kapoor
has been produced as PW2, the injured Ramdas is PW3 and the doctor, who has examined the
injured Ramdas has been examined as PW1. PW4 to PW6 are police personnel. After conclusion of
prosecution evidence the statement of the appellant was recorded in which he stated that his fields
are adjacent to the fields of Deshraj Kapoor. Deshraj Kapoor intended to grab their fields, hence he
lodged a false FIR against them. The appellant has also stated that Deshraj Kapoor beig an
influential person, the police has filed charge-sheet under his pressure.

7. The learned trial court after considering the evidence, found the prosecution story
reliable and trustworthy and convicted the appellant as aforesaid.

8. The legality and correctness of the impugned judgment has been questioned and assailed
by the learned counsel for the appellant mainly on the following grounds:

1. The appellants have been convicted on the sole testimony of two highly
interested witnesses PW2 and PW3 and there is no independent witness of the locality.

2. The FIR, which is the foundation stone of any criminal case, is based in this case
on the information given to the first informant by four eyewitnesses but none of them was
examined by the prosecution. Though, out of these four eyewitnesses, one Tekchand had died, but
the remaining three eyewitnesses namely Murli, Ram Chandra and Maiku Lal were available.
However, they were not examined. Hence on the ground that the prosecution has withheld the
material witnesses, adverse inference should have been drawn by the learned trial court against the
8 All. Babu Singh Vs State Of U.P.
1113
prosecution but the court below without considering this aspect, wrongly relied upon the
prosecution story.

2. The learned trial court has not considered that there was no motive with the
appellants to commit the crime. The motive shown by the prosecution is very weak. Moreover, the
alleged occurrence shown as motive behind the occurrence had taken place eight months ago,
which cannot be said to be the motive of such heinous assault.

3. The statement of Deshraj Kapoor, PW2, is only a hearsay statement as
admittedly he was not present on the spot.

4. The statement of the injured Ramdas also suffers from material contradictions.
Ramdas, in his very first statement given to police has disclosed that he became unconscious
immediately after the assault and then he regained his consciousness in the hospital but in the
witness box, he improved his earlier statement in wake of the statement of PW2 Deshraj, who has
stated that Ramdas had told him about the occurrence while being taken to the hospital.

5. The place of occurrence is doubtful as the I.O. has not collected any blood
stained earth from the place of occurrence.

6. The statement of Dr. R. K. Mehrotra (PW1) also raises serious doubts in the
prosecution story since he could not explain as to why the injuries were entered in the Accident
Register and not in the Medico Legal Register or in Private Medico Legal cases. The doctor could
not explain as to why in the injury report prepared by him (Ext Ka1) he did not mention the nature
of certain injuries about which he has deposed in the court as of grave nature.

7. Blood stained clothes were not produced in the court.

8. It was a case where truth and falsehood appeared to be inextricably mixed, as
such the prosecution case must have been discarded by the trial court.

9. The learned trial court has ignored to consider an important fact that the
complainant Deshraj Kapoor was a very influential person of the locality and the police officers
were on visiting term with him. Deshraj Kapoor was interested in grabbing the land of others. He
also had a greedy eye on the land of the appellants and therefore, he has falsely entangled the
appellant in the present case.

10. Learned trial court has also ignored to consider an important fact which is
apparent on the face of record that the victim Ramdas was a man of notorious character and had
several enemies in the locality and he was admittedly warned by his employer not to indulge in
marpeet with others.
1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial court, without considering the
aforesaid facts has convicted the appellants by the impugned judgment, hence the impugned judgment be set
aside and the appeal be allowed.

10. Per contra learned AGA has contended that learned trial court has rightly relied on the evidence
produced by the prosecution in this case; there was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the injured
witness; the injuries mentioned in the injury report fully corroborated the statement of the injured witness
PW3, whose testimony alone is sufficient to convict the appellants. On the aforesaid grounds learned AGA
has submitted that the appeal being devoid of merit, be dismissed.

11. Considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the original
record.

12. As out of the three appellants, two have expired and the appeal has abated against those two
appellants, the appreciation of evidence in this appeal is to be kept limited only to the role of the sole
surviving appellant, Vijay Singh.

13. According the FIR Babu Singh along with his four sons, (two named and two unnamed in the
FIR) and 6 or 7 persons, made attack on the injured Ramdas with deadly weapons. The present appellant is
said to be armed with spear at the time of the occurrence. The injury report shows that the doctor has found
three stab wounds with clean cut margins, one on the back of right chest and two on the back of his left chest
apart from some other lacerated wounds and abraded contusions.

14. According to the statement of the injured (PW3) he had seen the appellant at the time of incident,
who was armed with a spear. Although he has stated that he could not see who inflicted injury from spear on
his back, but he has categorically stated that Vijay (appellant) had spear in his hand. The injured (PW3) has
also disclosed about the motive behind the occurrence by stating that as he was serving for Deshraj Kapoor
(PW2) since last 25 years and had resisted the encroachment by the appellants family on the fields of his
master, they assaulted him. He has corroborated the FIR version by stating that when he fell down after
sustaining spear injury in semi conscious state, his master PW2 Deshraj Kapoor took him to the hospital.
PW3 has faced grueling cross-examination by the defence counsel but he is throughout cogent and consistent
during his testimony. There appears no reason as to why such a badly injured person would falsely implicate
an innocent, exonerating the real culprit? The injury report shows that the injured has sustained three stab
wounds on his back, which are not possible unless some sharp edged weapon like spear is inflicted on the
back of a person with force. The doctor has stated that those stab wounds must be deep because stitches on
those wounds were found in layers. Thus the statement of PW3 as a whole inspire confidence.

15. The Apex Court in the case of Kunjumon Vs. State of Kerela, (2012) 13 SCC 750 has held that

"Evidence of a victim of a crime must be placed on a somewhat higher pedestal in terms of
credibility attached to it, than evidence of any other witness."

16. In Mohd. Ishaque Vs. State of W.B., (2013) 14 SCC 581 the Apex Court observed that
8 All. Babu Singh Vs State Of U.P.
1115
"It is unlikely that an injured witness would spare the real culprit and implicate an innocent
person .... whether witnesses are interested persons and whether they had deposed out of some motive cannot
be sole criterion for judging credibility of a witness. Main criteria would be whether their physical presence
at the place of occurrence was possible and probable."

17. In Mano Dutt Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC 79 the Apex Court has held as under:

"Ordinarily an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility because he is the sufferer
himself and thus there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence or
to involve anybody falsely and in bargain protect real culprit.
................
Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness"

18. The place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence as stated by PW3 finds full corroboration
with the site plan. Only due to the reason that the I.O. failed to collect blood stained earth from spot and failed
to produce the blood stained clothes in the court, the whole prosecution case cannot be discarded in view of
the well settled legal position that the latches and lacunae on the part of the I.O. will not give any benefit to
the accused.

19. Now the question is whether the appellant, who was armed with spear, was the author of any of
the injuries sustained by the injured on his back as admittedly the injured could no see the assailants causing
injury on his back.

20. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that when several accused
persons were present on the spot, it cannot be said as to who was the author of the stab injuries. He has
contended that as per FIR version one more person was also armed with spear at the time of occurrence.
Learned counsel has pointed out towards the statement of PW2, Deshraj Kapoor, who has stated that Vijay
Singh, Narain Singh and one more person had spear with them. It has also been submitted that the injured
himself had not seen as to who had inflicted spear (Ballam) on his back. On the aforesaid grounds learned
counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, it cannot be
said that the appellant was the person, who was the author of the stab wounds, inflicted on the back of chest
of the injured.

21. I do not find any substance in any of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant in
view of the fact that the appellant has been charged under section 307 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C. and
section 149 I.P.C. provides for vicarious liability of a person for the acts committed by other persons in
prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly. Section 149 I.P.C. is reproduced here as under:-

"149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution
of common object.--If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of
the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a
member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence."
1116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. The prosecution in this case has successfully proved the presence of the appellant on the spot
with several other accused persons. This fact has also been found proved that the appellant was armed with a
spear at the time of occurence. Three stab injuries have been found on the back of chest of injured. Hence it
does not made any difference as to who had caused those injuries. Moreover, it cannot be expected from such
a badly injured witness like PW3 in this case, to exactly notice, who was causing injury on his back.

23. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Major Singh, AIR 199 SC 1073 the Apex Court has held as under:-

"It would be practically impossible for any injured witness to exactly notice and memorise,
which accused was assaulting by the blunt side of the weapon and which was causing injuries by a sharp
edged weapon. Even if such a statement is made, it may amount to an exaggeration because when a number
of assailants are there, injuries are not inflicted in a manner, which could exactly be noted by the witness,
specially when the witness herself was receiving injuries."

24. In view of the aforesaid discussions, there does not appear any good ground to interfere in the
impugned judgment, in so far as conviction of the appellant under section 148 I.P.C. and Section 307 read
with section 149 I.P.C. is concerned.

25. However, so far as the sentence awarded by the trial court to the appellant is concerned,
considering the fact that this appeal is pending in this court since the year 1982, the occurrence is said to have
taken place in the year 1974, thus more than 42 years have elapsed since the date of occurrence, two
appellants have already expired during the pendency of this appeal and the present appellant has also become
an old person of more than 60 years of age, against whom there is no allegation to have ever repeated any
such incident during this period, it would be harsh to send him back to jail for three years as awarded by the
learned trial court.

26. The incident in the instant appeal has taken place on 17.2.1974. The appellant has already spent
prime years of his life in facing trial and thereafter in prosecuting this appeal continuously for such a long
period.

27. Considering all these facts and taking a lenient view in the matter due to the reasons mentioned
in the preceding paragraphs, it appears that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of three years R.I.
as awarded by the trial court for conviction of appellant under section 307 read with 149 I.P.C. and eighteen
months' R.I. for his conviction under section 148 I.P.C. be reduced for the period already undergone.

28. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed by confirming the conviction of the appellant under
section 148 and section 307/149 I.P.C. but reducing the sentence to the period already under gone by the
appellant. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and his sureties are discharged.

29. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court's record be sent back to the court concerned.
------------
8 All. Shiv Lal & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.
1117
(2016) 8 ILRA 1117
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE MUKHTAR AHMAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 151 Of 1983

Shiv Lal & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsels for the Appellants:
Shri S.C. Dwivedi, Shri Apul Mishra, Shri J.S. Sengar, Shri Yagvalkya Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Held -
Para 1: This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence dated January 22, 1983, passed by the IV
Additional Session Judge, Allahabad, against Shiv Lal and others under Section 302/34 IPC.

Para 2: The appeal was admitted by the High Court, and the appellants' bail prayer was granted on January
24, 1983.

Para 3: Advocate Rahul Mishra represented the appellants, while AGA Mahendra Singh Yadav represented the
State of Uttar Pradesh.

Para 4: The trial court convicted and sentenced appellants Shiv Lal and Sukh Lal to life imprisonment, while
co-accused Shankar Dayal was acquitted.

Para 5: Both counsels informed the Court that they had no information regarding any Government appeal
challenging the acquittal of Shankar Dayal.

Para 6: The FIR was lodged on February 16, 1981, by Smt. Dasiya, stating that on the evening of February
15, 1981, the appellants took her son Annu to watch a dance show. He never returned, and his dead body
was found the next day in a field. Sub-Inspector Jata Shanker Pandey took over the investigation and
prepared the inquest report on February 17, 1981.

Para 7: Dr. S.K. Sinha conducted the post-mortem on February 18, 1981, finding four lacerated skull wounds
caused by a blunt object and abrasions. The stomach and small intestine were empty; the time since death
was estimated to be over 48 hours.

Para 8: Co-accused Shankar Dayal was arrested on March 18, 1981, and identified by one witness, though the
informant failed to identify him. The police submitted a charge-sheet on July 5, 1981, and the accused