# Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu (In Jail) v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 598 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2022-06-29 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.2262 of 2009 - **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Mrs. Saroj Yadav - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhagwati-singh-pappu-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-48825 - **Pages:** 25 ## Headnote Law - Appeal against conviction - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 ,120-B & 212 - The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 227, Arms Act, 1959 - Section 5,25/27 - conviction can be made on the basis of testimony of a single witness, if the Court finds the testimony reliable - if direct evidence is there then motive loses its importance because nobody can peep into the mind of a miscreant to know for what purpose he/she has committed the offence.(Para - 22,25) Miscreants silenced life of an eight time National Badminton Champion (deceased) - FIR lodged against unknown persons by complainant - who was Regional Sports Officer in the Stadium - deceased used to come to play badminton - complainant was informed about the incident by P.W.9 (eyewitness) - Most of witnesses of facts turned hostile - P.W.1 (complainant) is not an eye witness - lodged FIR of incident upon information given by PW9 - carried injured deceased along with two police personnel to medical college - declared brought dead - recovery memo pistol proved by independent witness - PW9 identified convict/appellant in jail during test identification parade - finally identified convict/appellant before trial court.(Para - 2,7,20,32) (B) Evidence Law - The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 134 - No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact - quality of the evidence that matters and not the quantity - If the evidence of a single witness is cogent with ring of truth and the Court considers that reliable and trustworthy then conviction can be made on the basis of testimony of that witness alone.(Para - 24) (C) Evidence Law - The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section118 - all persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body, of mind or any other cause of the same kind.(Para - 27) (D) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - section 313 - power to examine the accused - convict/appellant accepted that P.W.9 (most important witness & conviction rests on his evidence) had identified him correctly - witness answered - not at the spot - did not dispute the place of occurrence - trial court committed no error in relying upon the testimony of P.W. 9 supported with medical testimony and the testimony of formal witnesses for holding the convict guilty of killing the deceased. (Para - 31) HELD:- Evidence available on record establishes that deceased was killed by firing made by convict/appellant alongwith one 6 All. Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of U.P. 599 another accused by using fire arm in contravention of Section 5 of the Arms Act, which is punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Conviction and sentence of the convict/appellant awarded by the trial court punishable under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act confirmed and upheld.(Para -33 ) Criminal Appeal dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited:- ## Text _Characters 0–39,927 of 81,742. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39927 for what follows._ 598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 65. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. The sureties shall stand discharged. They need not to surrender. 66. Certify this judgment to the court below for necessary intimation and compliance. The compliance report be submitted to this Court through the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad. ---------- (2022)06ILR A598 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.2262 of 2009 Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu ...Appellant (In Jail) Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Piyush Asthana Counsel for the Respondent: G.A., Sri Shreesh Chandra Counsel for the C.B.I. (A) Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 ,120-B & 212 - The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 227, Arms Act, 1959 - Section 5,25/27 - conviction can be made on the basis of testimony of a single witness, if the Court finds the testimony reliable - if direct evidence is there then motive loses its importance because nobody can peep into the mind of a miscreant to know for what purpose he/she has committed the offence.(Para - 22,25) Miscreants silenced life of an eight time National Badminton Champion (deceased) - FIR lodged against unknown persons by complainant - who was Regional Sports Officer in the Stadium - deceased used to come to play badminton - complainant was informed about the incident by P.W.9 (eyewitness) - Most of witnesses of facts turned hostile - P.W.1 (complainant) is not an eye witness - lodged FIR of incident upon information given by PW9 - carried injured deceased along with two police personnel to medical college - declared brought dead - recovery memo pistol proved by independent witness - PW9 identified convict/appellant in jail during test identification parade - finally identified convict/appellant before trial court.(Para - 2,7,20,32) (B) Evidence Law - The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 134 - No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact - quality of the evidence that matters and not the quantity - If the evidence of a single witness is cogent with ring of truth and the Court considers that reliable and trustworthy then conviction can be made on the basis of testimony of that witness alone.(Para - 24) (C) Evidence Law - The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section118 - all persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body, of mind or any other cause of the same kind.(Para - 27) (D) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 - section 313 - power to examine the accused - convict/appellant accepted that P.W.9 (most important witness & conviction rests on his evidence) had identified him correctly - witness answered - not at the spot - did not dispute the place of occurrence - trial court committed no error in relying upon the testimony of P.W. 9 supported with medical testimony and the testimony of formal witnesses for holding the convict guilty of killing the deceased. (Para - 31) HELD:- Evidence available on record establishes that deceased was killed by firing made by convict/appellant alongwith one 6 All. Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of U.P. 599 another accused by using fire arm in contravention of Section 5 of the Arms Act, which is punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Conviction and sentence of the convict/appellant awarded by the trial court punishable under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act confirmed and upheld.(Para -33 ) Criminal Appeal dismissed. (E-7) List of Cases cited:- 1. Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani Vs St. of Mah., 1982 SCC (Cri.) 334 2. Wakil Singh & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, 1981 SCC (Cri.) 634 3. Dana Yadav @ Dahur & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, 2002 SCC Online SC 867 4. Sanjeev Kumar etc. Vs St. of H.P., 1999 SCC Online SC 65 5. Hasib Vs St. of Bihar, 1972 (4) SCC 773 6. Shaikh Umar Ahmad Shaikh & anr. Vs St. of Mah., 1998 SCC (Cri.) 1276. 7. Chaman Vs St. of U.P., 1993 SCC (Cri.) 212 8. Manzoor Vs St. of U.P, 1982 SCC (Cri.) 356 9. Suleman Vs St. of U.P. 10. Nathwa & ors. Vs St., AIR 1951 Alld. 452 11. Mohd. Anwar Vs St. of Delhi, 2000 SCC (Cri.) 279 12. Tasleem Vs St. of NCT Delhi 13. St. (Delhi Admn.) Vs V.C. Shukla & anr.. 1980 (2) SCC 665 14. Chander Pal Vs St. of Har., 2002 SCC Online SC 196 15. Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2009 SCC Online SC 426 16. Prakash Kumar Vs St. of Guj., 2005 (2) SCC 409 17. Puran Singh Vs St. of Uttaranchal, 2008 SCC Online SC 94 18. Dilip & ors. Vs St. of M.P., 2007 (1) SCC (Cri.) 377 19. Ganga Tiwari & anr. Vs St. of U.P., 2008 SCC Online All. 1889 20. St. of M.P. Vs Ramji Lal Sharma & anr., 2022 SCC Online SC 282 21. Subed Ali & ors. Vs St. of Assam, 2020 SCC Online SC 794 22. Gulam Sarwar Vs St. of Bihar, 2014 (2) SCC (Cri.) 195 23. St. of U.P. Vs Krishna Master, 2010 SCC Online SC 832 24. Raja Vs St. by Inspector Police, (2020) 4 SCC (Cri.) 115 25. Mulla & anr. Vs St. of U.P., 2010 SCC Online SC 264 26. St. of U.P. Vs Kishanpal & ors., (2008) 16 Supreme Court Cases 73 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.) 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the convict/appellant Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No.1, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.293 of 1989 State Vs. Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu and another, arising out of Case Crime No.302/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short I.P.C.) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow whereby the trial court convicted and sentenced the convict/appellant under Section 302/34 of I.P.C., with life imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default of payment of fine further rigorous 600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES imprisonment of three months. The trial court further convicted and sentenced the convict/appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act with five years rigorous imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of one month. 2. This appeal relates to a very unfortunate and despicable crime, wherein the miscreants silenced the life of an eight time National Badminton Champion Syed Modi, who represented India in various international championships. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal in short are as under:- (i) A First Information Report (in short FIR) was lodged by the complainant- Nirmal Singh Saini, Regional Sports Officer, K.D. Singh Babu, Stadium Lucknow on 28.07.1988 presenting a written report Exhibit Ka-1, wherein it was stated that on 28.07.1988 Mr. Syed Modi came to play badminton in the badminton hall at about 4:30 P.M. He (complainant) was also present in the stadium. After playing, at about 7:45 P.M. he was going back on his scooter, somebody fired upon him with an intention to kill him, at the north gate of stadium. One Prem Chand Yadav who was working in the canteen on the gate, came to him raising alarm and told that two persons were running in a white colour Maruti Car after firing upon Syed Modi. The complainant, his colleague Mr. K.H. Jackey, many other players of the stadium and two police personnel who were on duty at the time, came out, but by that time the miscreants had fled away by white Maruti Car. The miscreants were seen while firing upon Syed Modi by Prem Chandra Yadav, Smt. Quaiser (Panwali), Rickshaw Puller and many other persons sitting in the canteen, in the electric light who were present on the spot. He (complainant), Ravi Verma and two police personnel carried Syed Modi in injured condition to Medical College where doctor declared him dead. (ii) The FIR was registered on 28.07.1988 at about 20:50 hours against two unknown assailants. The investigation of the case started and initially Sri Rajveer Singh Tyagi incharge of Police Station Hazratganj started investigation, conducted the inquest of the dead body of Syed Modi and prepared the necessary papers including the 'Panchayatnama' and sent the dead body to the mortuary of Medical College, Lucknow alongwith a letter to the C.M.O. for conducting the postmortem examination of the corpse. (iii) The postmortem was conducted on 29.07.1988 at 10:15 AM by a panel of three doctors and they prepared the postmortem report. While the investigation of the case was going on, the State Government recommended that investigation be made by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI). The Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India vide notification No.228/23/88-AVD. II dated 02.8.88 handed over the investigation of the case to the CBI. The CBI registered it as Crime No.RC-2(S)/88 SIV.V/SIC. II/SIU.V. After investigation CBI came to the conclusion that Sanjay Singh, Ameeta Kulkarni Modi, Akhilesh Singh, Amar Bahadur Singh, Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu, Jitendra Singh alias Tinku and Balai Singh were the miscreants who were behind the commission of murder of Syed Modi. The CBI submitted chargesheet against all these persons under Section 120-B I.P.C. and Section 120-B read with Section 302 of I.P.C., against Sanjay Singh, Ameeta 6 All. Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of U.P. 601 Kulkarni Modi, Akhilesh Singh, Amar Bahadur Singh, Jitendra Singh alias Tinku and Balai Singh for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., against the accused Amar Bahadur Singh, Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu, Jintendra Singh alias Tinku and Balai Singh and for the offences punishable under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act against the accused Amar Bahadur Singh and for offences punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act against Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu and for offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act against accused Balai Singh. The required sanction for prosecution under Arms Act of accused persons Amar Bahadur Singh and Balai Singh was taken by the Investigating Officer from District Magistrate, Lucknow. (iv) The CBI after collecting the oral and documentary evidence submitted the Chargesheet No.2 of 1988, Exhibit Ka5, wherein the Investigating Officer Mr. D.P. Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police SIC-II CBI/SP New Delhi noted as under:- "A case Crime No.722/88 was registered at Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow on 28.07.1988 regarding the murder of Syed Modi near the gate of K.D. Singh Babu, Stadium Lucknow. The investigation of this case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (DSPE) by the Central Government vide Notification No.228/23/AVD. II dated 2.8.1988 of the Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India New Delhi on the the request of the Government of U.P. It was entrusted to the undersigned. The following facts and circumstances have emerged during the course of investigation:- Shri Syed Modi, the deceased belonged the lower middle class family of Sardar Nagar, Gorakhpur, (U.P).. His father expired when he was a child. He was brought up by his elder brothers his family did not own any landed property. He joined N.E. Railways as a Welfare Inspector in the year 1979. His appointment was out of the sports quota. He was National Badminton Champion for eight years and represented India in various International Championships. He was promoted as Sports Superintendent in 1984 at Lucknow and was subsequently promoted as Senior Welfare Superintendent in NE, Railways, Lucknow, the post which he was holding at the time of his murder on 28.07.1988. Sanjay Singh is the adopted son of late Shri Rananjay Singh, former Raja of Amethi, District Sultanpur (U.P.). He was elected to U.P. Assembly from the Amethi constituency in the elections held in 1980 and 1985. He was Minister in U.P. Government from 22.07.1982 to 22.08.1987 for Forests, Diary, Fisheries, Yuva Kalyan, Transport etc. The portfolio of sports was also allotted to him, from 09.02.1984 to 12.03.1985. He was the Chairman of Pradeshik Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd. (PCDF), Lucknow during the period July 1984 to August, 1987, except for a brief period of five days in July, 1985. Ameeta Kulkarni Modi, is the daughter of Shri M.V.Kulkarni, General Manager (Technical), Maharashtra State Textiles Corporation, Bombay. Her mother Smt. Pushplata Kulkarni was a Lecturer in Junior College level in Wilson College, Bombay. Ameeta Kulkarni was brought up and educated in Bombay upto B.A. Part-I and then she did her B.A. Final privately as a teacher candidate from Lucknow University in the year 1983-84, although she was already in Government Service in 602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Clerical Grade in the Railways at Bombay during that period. She joined the Central Railways, Bombay as Sr. Clerk and later on worked as Head Clerk in the Pay-Scale of Rs.425-700 from Sept. 1981 till 31.03.1985. She came to Lucknow in Feb. 1984 for appearing in B.A. Examination of Lucknow University and since then continues to stay at Lucknow. She gave one month's notice vide her letter dated 16.03.1985 to the Central Railway, Bombay. Her resignation was accepted with effect from 01.04.1985. She was earlier interviewed on 09.03.1985 for the post of Manager Grade-III in PCDF Lucknow. She was subsequently appointed as Marketing Manager, Grade-III in PCDF, Lucknow w.e.f. 9.4.1985 in the Pay Scale of Rs.1250-2050 against a post in the sports quota created for the first time in PCDF at the behest of Sanjay Singh. Akhilesh Singh is the son of Late Ravindra Nath Singh @ Dhunni Singh R/o village Lalupur Chauhan, District Rae Bareli. Ravindra Nath Singh had been a big landlord and contractor. Akhilesh Singh has a criminal record and is presently involved in a number of crimes along with other members of his gang, some of whom are co-accused in this crime. Previously, he too had business interest in various constructions firms owned/controlled by members of his family. His interest has been transferred in the name of his wife of late. A number of vehicles have remained at his disposal from time to time. Amar Bahadur Singh, S/o Chand Ram R/o Pindari Khurd, District Rae Bareli, Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu S/O Sukhpal Singh, R/O Paharpur Kason, District Rae Bareli, Jitender Singh @ Tinku S/o Bajrang Bahadur Singh, R/o Kodras Buzrag, District Rae Bareli and Balai Singh, S/o Nankau Singh, R/o House No.566/28, Jai Prakash Nagar, Alambagh Area, PS Krishna Nagar, Lucknow, permanent address: Village Jhaua Sarkhi, P.S. Harchandpur, District Rae Bareli, all come from average agriculturist families. All the four have criminal history. They all are associated with Akhilesh Singh, accused. Syed Modi, the deceased, came into contact with Ameeta Kulkarni when both had gone to Beijing (China) for participating in the 3rd Interntional Asian Invitation Chairmanship in the year 1978. Ameeta Kulkarni was engaged to Syed Modi in the year 1982. Sanjay Singh came into contact with Ameeta Kukkarni in the year 1983, when she had come to Lucknow. During investigation, it has transpired that Ameeta Kulkarni started having positive leanings toward accused Sanjay Singh from the beginning of 1984 inspite of her engagement with Syed Modi The friendship of Ameeta Kulkarni with Sanjay Singh developed into infatuation with each other and it caused so much alarm to Syed Modi that he was continuously perturbed. Smt. Pushplata Kulkarni, mother of accused Ameeta advised her and Sanjay Singh, accused to gain the confidence of Modi to such an extent that is should make him trust Ameeta even to the extent that her relationship with Sanjay Singh be acceptable to him. She further advised Sanjay Singh and Ameeta Modi to learn and use a certain amount of restraint, and check on their emotions. She pointed out that Sanjay Singh wants to be the Chief Minister and he may have many women in his life but he must not allow his image to be tarnished. He should not shun womankind but should be careful, was her advice to Ameeta and Sanjay Singh. She 6 All. Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of U.P. 603 advised Ameeta Kulkarni to teach Modi to accept her as she was. Marriage of Syed Modi and Ameeta Kulkarni took place on 14.05.1984 at the residence of Sanjay Singh. Sanjay Singh and his PRO Mohd Alam appended their signatures on the concerned application dated 14.5.1984 as witnesses to the effect that marriage has been solemnized in their presence. During investigation, it transpired that Sanjay Singh and Ameeta Kulkarni Modi soon after developed and continued extra-marital relations. He got various properties and amenities made available to Modi. Infatuation of Sanjay Singh for Ameeta increased as time passed. Within Lucknow he would ring her up some time ten times a day; coming to Ameeta often twice at night to seek sexual gratification with her consent. He would ring her up when she was at Patiala, Delhi, Bombay etc. from Lucknow and also ring her from outside Lucknow times out of number when she would be in Lucknow. Sanjay Singh spent thousands of rupees to phone Ameeta from all over India. Syed Modi, the deceased resented this relationship. he suspected the infatuation of Sanjay Singh for his wife Ameeta and her most willing participation. They had frequent quarrels over this issue. Ameeta Modi wrote passionate love letters to Sanjay Singh. She wrote that " I am only yours as far as I am concerned mentally though physically I may be someone elses'.....life is going to be tough for me, its gonna to be some test. I only hope and pray that God gives me strength, to remain yours come what way." In another letter, she wrote, "I love you but there are many many restrictions in this blind love of mine. I can never forget the fact, however, hard I try, that we are both married to two different individuals and our first duties are towards them. It is all easy to say but I know, we can't leave them, however, we might want to be one. I guess we will have to find a via-media to this." Then again, "please tell me can you wait even if it means a year or more?. Let me also prepare myself because if I have to be shattered the sooner the better." Ameeta Kulkarni Modi gave birth to a daughter on 4.02.1988 at Command Hospital, Lucknow. She was got admitted to the Command Hospital, Lucknow through the influence of Sanjay Singh. She had conceived two times earlier but both times she aborted. Syed Modi had suspected that the conception of Ameeta Modi in 1986 was by Sanjay Singh. The facts and circumstances in the case that Syed Modi had repeatedly asked Ameeta to give up Sanjay Singh. He himself was so much in love with Ameeta that inspite of her infidelity and Sanjay's infatuation for her, he never desired separation though he anticipated his own death, if Ameeta continued to carry on her affairs with Sanjay Singh. When Sanjay Singh found that Syed Modi was finally becoming a stumbling block to continuance of his sexual relations with Ameeta, he disclosed his intentions to silence Syed Modi in his own way. Sanjay Singh, Smt. Ameet Kulkarni Modi, Akhilesh Singh, Amar Bahadur Singh, Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu, Jitendra Singh @ Tinku and Balai Singh, some time between June, 1988 and 28th July, 1988 were party to a criminal conspiracy, the object of which was to commit the murder of Syed Modi. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, the following acts of commissions and 604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES omissions were committed by the accused persons:- Sanjay Singh and Akhilesh Singh were together in Yatrik Hotel Allahabad in mid June 1988 where Sanjay Singh asked Akhilesh to arrange for the murder of Syed Modi. Thereafter on 20.07.1988 Sanjay Singh met Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu in this regard. This meeting was arranged by Akhilesh Singh at Sanjay Singh's residence. Here Sanjay Singh entrusted the task of killing Syed Modi to Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu. Sanjay Singh then left Lucknow in the night of 20.07.1988 by train and reached Delhi in the morning of 21.07.1988. Sanjay Singh left Delhi in the night of 23.07.1988 and reached Lucknow by train in the morning of 24.07.1988. Sanjay Singh again left Lucknow by train in the night of 25.07.1988 and reached Dehli in the morning of 26.07.1988. He left Delhi by train in night of 28.07.1988 and reached Lucknow in the morning of 29.07.1988. He again left for Delhi on 31.07.1988 and reached Delhi on 01.08.1988 and returned to Lucknow on 03.08.1988. Akhilesh Singh introduced Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu to Sanjay Singh at the latter's residence on 20.07.1988. He obtained Maruti Van No. HYG 1959 from Abdul Khalik, brother of Sri Abdul Malik on 20.07.1988 at Lucknow stating that he required it for some important work. He thereafter used it to facilitate the movement of Amar Bahadur Singh, Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu, Jitendra Singh @ Tinku and balai Singh and himself before and after the crime. Efforts were made from telephone number 33745 & 48134 of Sanjay Singh to contact telephone number 2378 at the residence of Akhilesh Singh at village Lalupur Chauhan, district Rae Bareli and also at telephone number 2694 installed at residence of his uncle, Devendra Nath Singh on 25.07.1988. Akhilesh Singh brought his aforesaid men in Maruti Van no. HYG 1959 to Lucknow on 26.07.1988 and arranged for their lodging at 13, Royal Hotel, Lucknow where he used to stay frequently. Akhilesh Singh also provided Enfield .38 revolver no. J 8050 to Amar Bahadur Singh. Akhilesh Singh left Lucknow on 27.07.1988 morning by train to Delhi and reached Delhi the same day. He contacted accused Sanjay Singh on 27.07.1988 at Karnataka Bhavan. He left Delhi on 28.07.1988 and reached Haridwar the same day in the evening. Ashwani Kumar and others had accompanied him. Akhilesh Singh stayed at the house of Ashwani Kumar in Haridwar. Akhilesh Singh tried to contact from phone no. 125 of Ashwani Kumar to telephone number 33745 of Sanjay Singh at Lucknow on 29th, 30th and 31st July, 1988. Akhilesh Singh had a dip in the holy Ganga at Haridwar on hearing of the murder of Syed Modi. He left Haridwar on 31.07.1988 and reached Meerut on the same day. He reached Delhi on 01.08.1988 and reached Lucknow in the night of 02.08.1988 by air. He stayed in Hotel Clark Awadh, Lucknow till 03.08.1988 morning under a false address. On 28.07.1988 Amar Bahadur Singh accompanied by Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu and Balai Singh went in Maruti Van No.HYG 1959 driven by Jitendra Singh alias Tinku to K.D.Singh Babu, Stadium Lucknow Amar Bahadur Singh @ Pappu took position outside the Northern Gate (near mini swiming pool) of K.D. Singh Babu, Stadium Lucknow with the intention to kill Syed Modi. At about 7:45 PM when Syed Modi came out of the stadium on his scooter, he was fired at by them, as a result of which Syed Modi fell down. Amar 6 All. Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of U.P. 605 Bahadur Singh and Bhagwati Singh ran away from the scene of crime and escaped after getting into the aforesaid Maruti Van which was parked nearby and waiting for them to facilitate their escape. Jitendra Singh alias Tinku facilitated the movements of accused Bhagwati Singh, Amar Bahadur Singh and Balai Singh by driving Maruti Van No.HYG 1959, as a result of which they were taken to the scene of crime and promptly fled away from the commission of crime. Balai Singh remained associated before, during and after the commission of crime with the aforesaid associates. Balai Singh in the company of accused Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu, Amar Bahadur Singh and Jitendra Singh @ Tinku was seen alongwith the said Maruti Van, just after murder at Paschim Gaon, District Rae Bareli at about 9:00 PM. Ameeta Kulkarni Modi exhibited unnatural and abnormal conduct before and after the commission of crime, in as much as that she faked illness and on 28.07.1988 did not accompany Syed Modi to the Stadium for practice. On receiving the message about the "accident" of Modi, instead of inquiring about his condition and rushing to hospital, she tried to inform Sanjay Singh over phone. He was then at Delhi. Thereafter, she visited the residence of Sanjay Singh and only thereafter went to the hospital. On the day of burial of Syed Modi, she did not stay with her inlaws but instead stayed in Hotel Marina, Gorakhpur where Sanjay Singh also stayed. She did not attend the "Majlis" Ceremony held on 31.07.1988 at Sardar Nagar, Gorakhpur, at the house of Sri Pyare Bhai Modi's brother. On 02.08.1988 she returned from Gorakhpur to Lucknow and cautioned Abid Hyder, brother of Modi not to divulge anything about her relations with Sanjay Singh to the Investigating Agency. During the mourning period she went about withdrawing very heavy amounts from Banks held in the joint names of Modi and herself, submitting claim papers to LIC, getting LDA plot, measuring about 800 Sq./mts. allotted to Syed Modi, transferred in her name, obtaining compensation and other dues due to Shri Modi amounting to more than Rs.70,000/-. Syed Modi after falling down as a result of injury sustained by bullets fired at him was rushed to hospital in a passing Car by Ravi Verma, a Judo Player, Jamal Khan, a handball player, Nirmal Singh Saini, Regional Sports Officer, K.D. Singh Babu Statium and H.C. Mohd. Yjnis and constable Shiv Charan Mishra. Dr. G.B.S. Kalra, Casualty Officer of the K.G.M.C. Hospital, Lucknow declared Modi dead on examining him in the hospital. Postmortem was conducted on his body which confirmed his death to be due to shock and hemorrhage caused by fire arms injury. The postmortem conducted reveal that five bullets entered into the body of Syed Modi, out of which 3 bullets passed through and 2 remained embedded which were extracted during the postmortem conducted on the dead body of Syed Modi in K.G.M.C. Hospital, Lucknow on 29.07.1988. Earlier two lead bullets had been recovered by police on 28.07.1988 from the scene of crime. Akhilesh Singh, Amar Bahadur Singh, Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu and Jitendra Singh alias Tinku were arrested on 16.08.1988, Ameeta Kulkarni Modi was arrested on 21.08.1988, Balai Singh was 606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES arrested on 22.08.1988 and Sanjay Singh was arrested on 03.09.1988. After the arrest, Amar Bahadur Singh, on 16.08.1988 made disclosure statement to the effect that the .38 revolver used in the commission of the crime was hidden by him in a room at 566/28, Jai Prakash Nagar, Lucknow which was used by Balai Singh. As as result of his disclosure recovery of .38 bore revolver No.J8050 was made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. On 23.08.1988, Balai Singh while in police custody made a disclosure statement to the effect that one 9 MM Pistol, which was carried by Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu at the time of commission of crime was hidden by him and at his instane the smae bearing No.110872 was recovered on 23.08.1988 from a Mango Grove of Ravindra Nath Singh @ Dhunni Singh, father of accused Akhilesh Singh at village Lalupur Chauhan, District Rae Bareli. This pistol has been found to have been used in the commission of crime registered as Case Crime No.318 of 1987, P.S. Mohanlalganj, Lucknow under Seciton 147, 148, 149, 302, 201 I.P.C. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the aforesaid .38 revolver was traced to be of defence origin and 9 MM pistol was stolen one from the then Havaldar Babu Ram of ST HQ COY.56 APO on 27.10.1982 at Dehradun for which FIR No.74/82 dated 27.10.1982 was lodged with GRP Dehradun. During the course of investigation, Akhilesh Singh and Jitendera Singh alias Tinku were put to polygraphic test at CFSL, New Delhi and they admitted their acts of commission and omission and also disclosed about the facts of commission and omission of Amar Bahadur Singh, Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu, Balai Singh and Sanjay Singh. During the course of investigation the bullets recovered as above i.e. two form the scene of crime and two extracted from the body of Syed Modi during postmortem were sent to ballistic expert alongwith the recovered .38 revolver No.J8050 for expert opinion. The ballistic expert opined that the bullets in question have been fired from the said .38 revolver. The ballistic expert has also opined that the holes in the t-shrit worn by Modi at the time of murder are corresponding to the wounds described in the postmortem report of deceased Syed Modi and could have been caused by the passage of .38 bullets. It is also opined that the blackening and tattooing observed in the postmortem examination on the five injury wounds indicate close range of firing. 9 MM pistol, which was recovered at the instance of Balai, too were send to the Ballistic expert who on examination found the same in serviceable condition. After the arrest of accused Amar Bahadur Singh and Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu, they were produced "Baparda" before the Competent Court having jurisdiction in Lucknow and were remanded "Baparda' to the judicial custody where they were put to the test of identification parade before a Magistrate and were identified by Sri Prem Chand, an eye witness to be the assailants who fired at Syed Modi on 28.07.1988. Akhilesh Singh, Amar Bahadur Singh, Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu, Jitendra Singh @ Tinku and Balai Singh all have past criminal history. Akhilesh Singh and Balai Singh had been/are involved 6 All. Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of U.P. 607 jointly/singly in nearly 20 cases of murder, attempt to murder, extortion, criminal trespass, kidnapping/ abduction, criminal intimidation, Arms Act, U.P. Gangster Act, Exercise Act, U.P. Goonda Control Act etc. Accused Amar Bahadur Singh is involved in a case of attempt to murder and Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu is facing prosecution under Section 25 of Arms Act. Jitendra Singh @ Tinku is involved in a case of criminal intimidation. During the course of investigation, the searches were conducted at the residence of Ameeta Kulkarni Modi at A-8, Park Road Colony, Lucknow, her parental house at Bombay and at residence of Sanjay Singh at 19 Vikramaditya Marg, Lucknow. As as result of these searches, a diary of 1986, letters written from Patiyala and Lucknow by Ameeta Kulkarni Modi to Sanjay Singh, photographs of Sanjay Singh, Ameeta and her daughter, letters of Syed Modi and letters of Smt. Pushplata Kulkarni were, inter alia, recovered from the residence of Ameeta and her parents. These documents have been referred to the Government Examiner of questioned documents and his opinion is awaited. A letter of Mrs. Garima Singh, telephone diaries, trunk call register etc., were recovered from the residence of Sanjay Singh at Lucknow. During the course of investigation, besides the above documents, more documents were collected and statement of witnesses were recorded which prove the complicity of the aforesaid accused. The above facts and circumstances disclose the commission of offences punishable under Section 120 (B) of I.P.C. and under Section 120(B) r/w Section 302 of I.P.C. by Sanjay Singh, Ameeta Kulkarni Modi, Akhilesh Singh, Amar Bahadur Singh, Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu, Jitendra Singh alias Tinku and Balai Singh, offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. by accused Amar Bahadur Singh, Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu, Jitendra Singh @ Tinku and Balai Singh and offences punishable under Section 25/27 of Arms Act by accused Amar Bahadur Singh, offences punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act by accused Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu and offences punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act against accused Balai Singh. Orders of sanction issued by District Magistrates, Lucknow and Rae Bareli for prosecution of accused Amar Bahadur Singh and that of Balai Singh under Section 25 of Arms Act respectively are enclosed. Sanjay Singh, Ameeta Kuklarni Modi and Akhilesh Singh are on bail and the remaining accused Amar Bahadur Singh, Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu, Jitendra Singh @ Tinku and Balai Singh are in judicial custody. It the requested that the aforesaid accused person may be tried according to the provisions of law. " (v) On the above chargesheet submitted by CBI, the Special Judicial Magistrate,(CBI) Lucknow took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial on 13.07.1989. The Court of Sessions discharged the accused Sanjay Singh and Ameeta Kulkarni Modi on the application moved under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) vide a detailed order dated 17.09.1990 and that order of discharge of Sanjay Singh and Ameeta Kulkarni Modi was upheld first by 608 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the High Court and thereafter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The accused Akhilesh Singh filed a writ petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing Criminal Misc. Case No.37 of 1995 (Akhilesh Singh Vs. State of U.P.) to quash the order of framing charge against him, before the High Court and the High Court vide its order dated 19.08.1986 allowed the petition and the order of framing charge against him by the Sessions Judge, was quashed and the accused Akhilesh Singh was discharged. The order passed in this Misc. Writ Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Akhilesh Singh was not disturbed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (vi) Accused Balai Singh was murdered during the pendency of trial and the trial stood abated against him vide order dated 10.06.1996. The accused Amar Bahadur Singh was also murdered on 28.07.1994 and the case against him also stood abated. Thus only two accused persons were left to be tried before the trial court namely Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu and Jitendra Singh alias Tinku. (vii) The Sessions Court framed charges against Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu under Section 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 302 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C.. The charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 was also framed against Bhagwati and against accused Jitendra Singh alias Tinku charge under Section 120-B, 302 of I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 212 of I.P.C. were framed. Both the accused persons denied the crime and claimed to be tried. (viii) The prosecution in order to prove the charges framed against the convict/appellant examined the following witnesses:- 1. P.W. 1 Nirmal Singh Saini, informant. 2. P.W. 2 Dr. B.K. Srivastava, the medical officer conducting the postmortem of the body of deceased Syed Modi. 3. P.W.3 Roop Singh, Retired Principal & Scientific Officer & Head of Ballistics Division, CFSL/CBI, New Delhi. 4. P.W. 4 Kishore Chaturvedi, Head Clerk, NER, DRM Office, Lucknow. 5. P.W. 5 Kishan Bahadur, eye witness. 6. P.W. 6 Amol Kumar Saxena, The other doctor who joined P.W.2 in conducting the postmortem. 7. P.W.7 Rajendra Kumar Girdhar, Sr. Manager, Central Bank of India, Defence Colony, New Delhi. 8. P.W.8 Rakesh Kumar Rawat, Deputy General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Divisional Office, Calcutta. 9. P.W.9 Prem Chand Yadav, eye witness. 10. P.W. 10 Mahendra Singh. 11. P.W. 11 Bhagwan Bux Singh. 12. P.W. 12 Mohd. Tahseen Khan, Trust Assistant posted in the office of District Magistrate, Lucknow. 13. P.W. 13 Babu Ram, Retired Army Official. 6 All. Bhagwati Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of U.P. 609 14. P.W. 14 P.N. Shekar, Inspector in the office of I.G., Zone, Lucknow. 15. P.W. 15 M. K. Bhatt. S.P. CBI, New Delhi. 16. P.W. 16 Smt. Sanjana Gupta, Accountant, NER, Lucknow. 17. P.W. 17 Ashok Singh. 18. P.W. 18 Abdul Khaliq, Owner of Maruti Van No.HYG/1959, said to have been used by the assailants. 19. P.W. 19 Raj Kumar. 20. P.W. 20 Abid Hyder, Elder brother of deceased Syed Modi. 21. P.W. 21 Chetan Ram, Office Superintendent, Personnel Deputy. Head quarter, Central Railway, Bombay. 22. P.W. 22 Ajay Singh 23. P.W. Ram Kesh Yadav. 24. P.W. 24 Surendra Pratap Tiwari, P.A.C. personnel posted in 35th Battalion, Mahanagar, Lucknow. 25. P.W. 25 Jitendra Mohan Srivastava. 26. P.W. 26 B.L.P. Azad, Retired S.P., CBI, New Delhi. 27. P.W. 27 R.S. Dhankar, S.P. CBI, S.C. III, New Delhi. 28. P.W. 28 Vishram Singh Yadav, Retired Inspector, Civil Police. 29. P.W. 29 Dharm Pal Singh Yadav, Retired Superintendent of Police. (ix) Apart from above oral evidence necessary relevant documents were also proved and exhibited by the prosecution. (x) Thereafter the statements of the convict/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the convict/appellant denied all the evidence against him and stated that he was not on the spot. He has also stated that he was identified by witness Prem Chand Yadav during identification parade, at the indication made by Deputy Jailer, Sanjay Sharma. He has admitted the fact that he was rightly recognized by Prem Chand Yadav P.W.9 in the court. He showed unawareness about many facts and stated that witnesses have deposed due to the fact that they were in the custody of CBI, he has also stated that he has been implicated falsely. (xi) Additional statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded on 22 July, 2009 after recording of evidence again of P.W.9. wherein the convict stated that the witness has deposed falsely. (xii) Convict/appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence though the opportunity was given. (xiii) The learned trial court after hearing the evidence of both the sides on the basis of evidence available on record came to the conclusion that P.W.9 Prem Chand Yadav an eyewitness has identified the convict/appellant and the Court found the testimony of P.W.9 Prem Chand Yadav, reliable who had seen the convict/appellant firing upon the deceased Syed Modi and he 610 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES has no reason to implicate the convict/appellant falsely, in the crime. Since the facts regarding the conspiracy i.e. offence under Section 120-B of I.P.C. was not found proved because two accused persons namely Sanjay Singh and Ameeta Kulkarni Modi were discharged and the order of framing the charge against Akhilesh Singh was also quashed by the High Court in a writ petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and two other accused persons Amar Bahadur Singh and Balai Singh died/murdered during the pendency of trial. The convict/appellant was identified by the eyewitness P.W.9 Prem Chand Yadav and in the opinion of the trial court i.e. P.W.9 was found trustworthy as regards the commission of murder of deceased Syed Modi by firing upon him alongwith one another person. (xiv) The learned trial court also concluded that the charge under section 27 of the Arms Act against convict/appellant has also been proved by the prosecution as the disclosure statement of co-accused Balai Singh coupled with the statement of P.W.9 is sufficient to establish that the pistol recovered at the pointing out of Balai Singh was used by the convict Bhagwati Singh alias Pappu in the commission of crime. (xv) The trial court has observed that even presuming that the bullets fired by this pistol were not recovered, the case of the prosecution that accused Bhagwati Singh fired at Syed Modi who sustained injuries by such shots cannot be rejected merely on this ground, hence the trial court found and held the convict/appellant guilty under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and punished in the manner as noted herein above in para No.1.