# Bhoolan & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 743
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 980 of 2001
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar, Zafeer Ahmad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhoolan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-53986
- **Pages:** 19

## Text

_Characters 0–39,932 of 63,781. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39932 for what follows._

1 All. Bhoolan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
743
(2026) 1 ILRA 743
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 980 of 2001

Bhoolan & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
There was an old land dispute between the deceased and the accused persons. On 04.03.1993 accused
persons armed with lathis and dandas assaulted the deceased and two injured witnesses. Trial court convicted
accused u/s 304/34 IPC.
Headnotes
A. Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 304/34, 325/34, 323/34, 504/34, 506(2)-Assault due to
land dispute-deceased sustained multiple fractures and died due to shock and haemorrhageInjured eye witnesses corroborated by medical evidence-Minor contradictions not fatal-Nonexamination of independent villagers not fatal-Conviction sustainable when testimony of injured
witnesses is trustworthy-Conviction affirmed.(Para 36 to 73) (E-6)
Held
The court ruled that non-examination of independent witnesses not fatal when injured witnesses are reliable
and corroborated by medical evidence.Testimony of injured witnesses carries greater evidentiary value. minor
discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence do not demolish prosecution case. Injuries were sufficient
in ordinary course of nature to cause death. common intention under seciton 34 IPC proved. Conviction and
sentence passed by trial court justified. Appeal dismissed.

Case law Cited
Hem Raj Vs State of Haryana, AIR 2005 SC 2110; H.P. Vs Pardeep Kumar (2018) 13 SCC 808; & Surinder
Kumar Vs State of Panjab (2020) 2 SCC 563,Mohd. Wajid Vs State of U.P., (2023) 20 SCC 219,Fiona
Shrikhande Vs State of Maharashtra (2013) 14 SCC 44-referred to.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code,1860, Criminal Procedure Code,1973.

List of Keywords
Land dispute, assault, Lathi attack, injured witness, medical corroboration, common intention, culpable
homicide, ocular evidence, shock and haemorrhage, life imprisonment, conviction.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 980 of 2001 16.01.2026

 Bhoolan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2026 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Appellant(s):-
Shishir Pradhan, Kunwer Dhananjay Singh
Advs. for Respondent(s):-
G.A., Onkar Singh, Rajesh Srivastava, Uma Kant Gupta

(Delivered by Hon'ble Zafeer Ahmad, J.)

1. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra holding brief of Sri Kunwar Dhananjay Singh learned
counsel for the appellant no. 2 and 3, Sri Shishir Pradhan learned counsel for the appellant no. 4,
Sri Arunendra learned A.G.A for the State, and Sri Uma Kant Gupta learned counsel for
complainant and perused the record.

2. The aforesaid criminal appeal arises out of order and judgement dated 15.10.2001 by VIIth
Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli in S.T. No. 210 of 1995 (State v. Bhoolan & others) arising
out of Case Crime no. 13 of 1993, wherein the applicants have been convicted and sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment u/s 304 IPC r/w 34 Indian Penal Code (in short IPC), one year rigorous
imprisonment u/s 325 IPC r/w 34 IPC, six months rigorous imprisonment u/s 504, 323 r/w 34 IPC,
one year rigorous imprisonment u/s 506(2) along with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of
payment of fine six months rigorous imprisonment each. It has further been provided that all the
sentences shall run

3. The appellant no. 1, namely, Bhullan, passed away during the pendency of the appeal,
therefore, the appeal on behalf of the appellant no. 1 stands abated. The appeal survives only on
behalf of appellants no. 2, 3 and 4.

Prosecution Story in Nutshell:

4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Lalla Prasad, son of Jageshwar Pasi
(deceased), resident of village Asharafpur, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli, lodged a
written report (Ext. Ka-1) stating that there exists an old land dispute between him and Bhullan and
others of the village. On 04.03.1993, at around 8:00 PM, the complainant along with his father,
Jageshwar (deceased), and companions; Om Prakash (vakil) and Hari Prakash, were returning
home from Nasirabad. When they reached ahead of Asharafpur bridge, the accused persons
namely, Bhullan (hereinafter referred as A1) son of Shivnath and the son s of Ram Dulare, namely
Surajpal (hereinafter referred as A2), Brijlal (hereinafter referred as A3) and Jagatpal (hereinafter
referred as A4), who were sitting there armed with lathis and dandas, stopped them and started
hurling abuses. They then assaulted the father of the complainant, Jageshwar as well as Om
Prakash with the lathi and danda.

5. Furthermore, when Hari Prakash attempted to intervene, he too was assaulted. On hearing
the cries for help, villagers namely Vishram son of Sheetal, Gayadin son of Bechu, Udayraj son of
Nattu, etc. reached the spot, whereupon the accused persons fled towards their houses after
extending threats to kill. The father of the complainant sustained fractures on his arms and legs
alongwith multiple other injuries on his body. He was brought on a charpai (cot) to the police
1 All. Bhoolan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
745
station by the complainant for lodging the report, whereas Om Prakash and Hari Prakash were
carried home by their respective family members.

6. On the bases of the written report a FIR was registered under Section 323, Section 325,
Section 504, and Section 506 of IPC (Ext. Ka-2) and the G.D. entry of the same was made (Ext.
Ka-3). The injuries of Jageshwar, Om Prakash and Hari Prakash were examined by the doctor at
the Primary Heath Centre, Jais on 04.03.1993 (Ext. Ka-15, Ext. Ka-16, and Ext. Ka-17) and X-rays
of Hari Prakash and Om Prakash were conducted on 05.03.1993 (Ext. Ka-10, 11 & Ext. Ka-12,13
respectively). Furthermore, Jageshwar died in the District Hopsital, Raebareli, so the post-mortem
of the deceased was conducted at the District Hospital, Raebareli (Ext. Ka-14) and when the
information regarding this was received at the police station, the G.D. entry of the same was made
(Ext. Ka-18). The investigation officer prepared the site-plan (Ext. Ka-9), inquest of the dead body
(Ext. Ka-20), letter to R.I. (Ext. Ka-21), letter to C.M.O. (Ext. Ka-22), challan lash (Ext. Ka-23),
sketch of the dead body (Ext. Ka-24), and the sample of the seal (Ext. Ka-25).

7. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 323, Section 325, Section
304, Section 34, Section 504, and Section 506(2) IPC was submitted against all the appellants (Ext.
Ka-8) and the case was committed to Sessions Court, Raebareli. All the appellants pleaded not
guilty and denied participation or complicity in the incident.

8. To prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses; PW-1 Lalla Prasad
(complainant), PW-2 Om Prakash Khare, PW-3 Hari Prakash Khare, who are the witnesses of the
fact, and PW-4 H.C.P. Ram Sahai Bhargav, PW-5 Devi Prasad Yadav, PW-6 Vinod Prakash, PW-7
Dr. S.S. Trivedi, PW-8 Dr. U.C. Sharma, PW-9 Dr. K.P.S. Chauhan, and PW-10 S.I. Sadhna
Gupta, who are formal witnesses and have proved various steps in the investigation and medical
evidence.

9. Appellants did not produce any oral evidence in their defence. In their statements under
Section 313 CrPC, the appellants have offered no explanation and simply denied complicity in the
case. They further stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of an
existing enmity. Thus, the appellants pleaded innocence.

10. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the
learned Trial Court convicted all the appellants and sentence to undergo life imprisonment under
Section 304 r/w 34 IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 325 r/w 34 IPC, six months
rigorous imprisonment under Section 504 r/w 34, Section 323 r/w 34 IPC, one year rigorous
imprisonment under Section 506(2) along with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment
of fine six months rigorous imprisonment each. It has further been provided that all the sentences
shall run concurrently.

Submission made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant :-

11. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that the trial court has decided the
matter on mere presumption and the appellants have been falsely roped. It is further argued that the
occurrence took place in the night, with no source of light, and none have seen the occurrence. It is
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
further argued that there exists no motive to commit the crime, as the land in the dispute belonging
to Gram Sabha. It is further argued that there is contradiction between ocular and medical evidence.
It is further argued that no independent witnesses have been examined and there exists no
premeditation of mind to commit the crime. Thus the impugned judgment and order is not
sustainable and liable to be set aside and appeal is liable to be allowed.

Submission made by learned A.G.A : -

12. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellants. He further submitted that the impugned judgment and order have
rightly been passed by the learned trial court in accordance with law after considering the evidences
and material available on record. Thus, learned A.G.A. submitted that the accused-appellants has
rightly been convicted in accordance with law and sentenced accordingly. There is no illegality or
error in the impugned judgment and order. It is further submitted that the appeal has been filed on
misconceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed.

Oral Testimonies:

In order to appreciate the issues arising in the present appeal, it is appropriate to examine, in
brief, the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution.

13. PW-1 Lalla Prasad, son of the deceased Jageshwar and the complainant, appeared before
the trial court on 10.08.2000 and deposed that there existed an ongoing land dispute between his
family and the appellants. He further deposed that on the date of incident, while returning home
from Nasirabad along with his father Jageshwar, Om Prakash (vakil) and Hari Prakash, they were
stopped and assaulted by the appellants with lathis and dandas. Initially, the appellants targeted his
father and Om Prakash, but when Hari Prakash challenged, he was also assaulted. He further
deposed that the incident occurred near Mattan Nala, about one kilometer from village Asharafpur.
He further deposed that upon their cries for help, villagers namely, Vishram, Gayadin and Udayraj
reached the spot, whereafter the accused fled towards the village hurling abuses and issuing threats
to kill. He further deposed that his father sustained injuries on his left forearm and leg. He further
deposed that he along with the villagers, carried his father on a charpai (cot) to the police station,
while Om Prakash and Hari Prakash were taken to the village by others. A written report (Ext. Ka1) was lodged at the police station. He further deposed that after lodging the report, his father was
medically examined at Jais Hospital and, after receiving a preliminary treatment, was referred to
the District Hospital Raebareli. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the
Investigating Officer and that his father succumbed to his injuries on 05.03.1993 at the District
Hospital.

14. During cross-examination, he deposed that the appellants were carrying lathis and dandas,
and A1 was also armed with a kulhari (axe). He further deposed that the injuries suffered by his
father on the left hand and left leg were caused by the said kulhari (axe), whereas Om Prakash and
Hari Prakash did not receive kulhari (axe) blows. He further deposed that the villagers, namely
Vishram, Gayadin, Udayraj, who arrived at the spot were unarmed and came from the direction of
Asharafpur. He further deposed that the lungi of his father was torn and tied over the injuries. He
1 All. Bhoolan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
747
further deposed that Om Prakash and Hari Prakash were left lying at the place of occurrence when
he proceeded to the police station and he was unaware as to who brought them to the village later.
He further deposed that the police station was about three kilometres away and he reached there
around 9:00 PM. Around 1 2 hours thereafter, Om Prakash and Hari Prakash also arrived at the
police station. He further deposed that the FIR was recorded in his presence while he was inside the
police station. On the next date i.e. 19.08.2000, he deposed that the FIR was actually written
outside the police station, 2 4 steps away from the gate and he resiled from his earlier version by
stating that his deposition on the previous date was incorrect as he had been threatened for life. He
further deposed that Ext. Ka-1 did not contain any second page. He further deposed that his father
was the plaintiff in the land dispute, but there was no court hearing scheduled on the date of
incident. He further deposed that he was unaware of the present status of that dispute, though he
confirmed that his father used to visit Raebareli for pairvi. He further deposed that his father left for
Nasirabad on the date of incident at approximately 3-4 PM in the evening where he (PW-1)
accompanied him (father). He further deposed that due to the darkness around and his nervousness,
he could not identify people gathered apart from the villagers namely Vishram, Gayadin and
Udayraj. He further deposed that he and his father reached Nasirabad at around 5:00 PM and
waited for Hari Prakash and Om Prakash at the Nasirabad bus stand chauraha for a couple of hours,
as they were expected to return from Allahabad and Raebareli respectively. He further deposed that
upon being assaulted, his father became unconscious, though later regained consciousness at the
police station and his statement was also recorded. He further deposed that none of the appellants
attacked him even though he was shouting. He further deposed that there was a pakka road being
constructed leading to Nasirabad in the west of Mattan Nala, while the road leading to Asharafpur
was constructed of brick paved road with no stones or gravels nearby, although there are rocks to
stop the flow of water near the bridge but there was none beneath. He further deposed that his shirt
was not stained in blood while lifting and laying his father on the cot.

15. PW-2, Om Prakash Khare, advocate in the land dispute case, deposed that on 04.03.1993
at about 8:00 PM, while returning from Nasirabad to his village Asharafpur along with Hari
Prakash Khare (his brother), Jageshwar and Lalla Prasad, he was assaulted near the Mattan Nalla
by the appellants. He further deposed that the appellants were armed with lathis and dandas, and
injuries were sustained by him, his brother and Jageshwar. He further deposed that on hearing their
cries, villagers namely, Vishram Paasi, Udayraj and Gayadin came to their rescue, whereupon the
accused persons fled towards the village while hurling abuses and threats to kill. He further
deposed that after the incident he was taken to his house by the villagers, whereas Jageshwar was
taken to the police station. He further deposed that he along with Hari Prakash and other villagers
subsequently reached the police station on a tractor. He further deposed that upon lodging of the
FIR, they proceeded to the Jais P.H.C., from where they were referred to the District Hospital,
where Jageshwar passed away, due to injuries, on 05.03.1993. He further deposed that the
complainant was Lalla Prasad and that the assault by the appellants was due to the ongoing land
dispute. He further deposed that the night of occurrence was bright.

16. During cross-examination, he further deposed that he was the counsel representing
Jageshwar in his land dispute pending before the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Dalmau, which had
commenced approximately six months prior to the incident. However, he did not know the
appellants prior to the dispute, nor did he ever speak to them regarding the matter. He further
748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deposed that he used to travel daily to Raebareli and would usually return in the evening when it
was dark, as only a single bus used to operate between Raebareli and Nasirabad. He further
deposed that the date of the incident might have been a Thursday and that there was no weekly
market on that day, the market being held usually on Tuesdays and Saturdays. He further deposed
that his brother was a handwriting expert posted at Allahabad and used to reside there. He further
deposed that the deceased and Lalla Prasad had come to Nasirabad by a bicycle and that the bicycle
fell at the place of occurrence. He further deposed that Jageshwar was taken to the police station on
a cot, but he could not recall who had brought the said (charpai) cot. He further deposed that he was
first taken to Asharafpur, and after receiving preliminary aid, he was taken to the police station on a
tractor. He further deposed that Jageshwar regained consciousness at the police station and was
able to speak. He further deposed that his statement and that of his brother were recorded by the
Police Inspector at the District Hospital. He further deposed that A1 was carrying a lathi at the time
of occurrence and not an axe. He further deposed that there was no retaliatory action by them
(victims) during the occurrence. He further deposed that it would be incorrect to suggest that due to
darkness the appellants could not be identified or that someone else had caused the injuries.

17. PW-3, Hari Prakash Khare, deposed that on 04.03.1993, at about 8:00 PM, when they
(victims) were crossing the Mattan Nalla Bridge, while returning from Nasirabad to Asharafpur, the
appellants attacked them and caused injuries to Jageshwar, Om Prakash Khare (his brother) and
himself. He further deposed that the accused belonged to Asharafpur and that he knew them prior
to the incident owing to their frequent meetings. He further deposed that Jageshwar was taken to
the police station on a cot, whereas he and his brother were taken to the village on a bicycle;
thereafter, upon receiving preliminary treatment, they proceeded to the Nasirabad Police Station on
a tractor accompanied by other villagers. He further deposed that the same tractor was used to take
them to the Jais P.H.C., where treatment was administered and their X-rays were conducted. He
further deposed that he had no personal enmity with the accused and that they (victims) were
assaulted as they resisted the appellants actions.

18. During cross-examination, he further deposed that he had not sent any intimation
regarding his arrival in Asharafpur and that Jageshwar and Lalla Prasad were returning home from
Nasirabad Market. He further deposed that although he met several persons en route and exchanged
greetings, he did not meet the villagers namely Vishram, Gayadin and Udayraj between Nasirabad
and Asharafpur. He further deposed that upon his alarm for help, the said villagers arrived
unarmed, followed by others, some of whom were carrying lathis, dandas and other weapons. He
further deposed that none of the accused were carrying an axe at the time of the occurrence. He
further deposed that no preliminary aid was administered to him or to Advocate Om Prakash at the
village and after approximately 15 20 minutes they left for the Nasirabad Police Station. He further
deposed that the incident occurred approximately 200 300 steps away from the Mattan Nala Bridge
on the road to Asharafpur. He further deposed that he did not know the physical condition of
Jageshwar or the time when he reached the police station. He further deposed that it would be
incorrect to suggest that Lalla Prasad was not present at the spot or that the appellants were being
falsely implicated on account of any prior animosity.

19. PW-4 HCP Ram Sahai Bhargav, Police Station Saursa, District Hardoi, deposed that on
04.03.1993 he was posted as Head Constable and on the same day at around 09:15 PM, on the basis
1 All. Bhoolan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
749
of a written complaint filed by Lalla Prasad, a case crime no. 13 of 1993 under Section 323, 325,
504, 506 IPC was registered against A1 and others on chik no. 10 of 1993 (Ext. Ka-2), and the
corresponding entries were made in the G.D. report no. 33 (Ext. Ka-3). He further deposed that he
had prepared injury letters for Jageshwar (Ext. Ka-4) and for Om Prakash and Hari Prakash (Ext.
Ka-5 & Ext. Ka-6 respectively). He further deposed that on 07.03.1993, upon receipt of the postmortem report submitted by Constable No. 315, Jarnadan Upadhyay of Police Station Kotwali,
Raebareli, he amended the case so as to add Section 304 IPC and the corresponding entry was
made through G.D. Entry No. 29 at about 07:15 PM (Ext. Ka-7).

20. During cross-examination, he deposed that he had amended the charges without receiving
any order or report from a higher official or investigation officer and the said amendment was made
on the basis of the post-mortem report and Panchnama, as it does not require the orders of any
higher official. He further deposed that it is not necessary that the entry regarding the amendment
of any crime is to be made in G.D. only, upon an order from the investigating officer. He further
deposed that the injury letters of Om Prakash and Hari Prakash was prepared by Constable Om
Prakash Tiwari and the same has not been recorded in the G.D. He further deposed that it would be
wrong to say that the chik FIR, written report, and the FIR was falsely registered in collusion with
the Station-in-charge Vinod Prakash Srivastava. He further deposed that the appellant no. 1,
Bhullan, was posted as Chowkidar in station at that time.

21. PW-5 Devi Prasad Yadav, Station Head Kakarwai District Jhansi, deposed that on
19.03.1993, he was posted as Station Head, Police Station Deeh, District Raebareli. He further
deposed that the investigation of the present case was initially being conducted by Sri V.V.
Srivastava of Police Station Nasirabad, but the same was transferred to him on the orders of the
Superintendent of Police. He further deposed that he recorded the statements of the witnesses
mentioned in the Panchayatnama and noted the X-ray reports of the injured, namely Om Prakash
and Hari Prakash, in the case diary. He further deposed that after recording the statements of the
complainant and other witnesses, spot inspection was undertaken by him, and upon consideration
of the materials collected during investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-8).

22. During cross-examination, he deposed that he did not record the statements of the eyewitnesses, rather, he made inquiries relating to the case. He further deposed that he did not prepare
any site plan and only inspected the place of occurrence. He further deposed that he made inquiries
from the villagers but did not record their statements or names in the case diary. He further deposed
that it would be incorrect to suggest that he submitted a false charge-sheet in collusion with the
complainant or that a false colour was given to the incident by the earlier Investigating Officer by
taking advantage of the darkness of the night and implicating the appellants in place of unknown
persons.

23. PW-6, Sri Vinod Prakash, Station Outpost In-charge Head Karchhana Police Station,
District Allahabad, deposed that on the date of the incident, he was posted as Station Head at Police
Station Nasirabad. He further deposed that Case Crime No. 13 of 1993 under Sections 323, 325,
504 and 506 IPC was registered in his presence and that he took over the investigation. He further
deposed that on 04.03.1993, he prepared the nakal chik FIR and nakal rapat on the basis of the
statement of head constable Ram Sahai Bhargav. On 05.03.1993, he obtained the injury reports of
750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the injured persons and corresponding entries were made in the case diary. He further deposed that
he took Constable Mahesh Prasad Dwivedi to the Orthopedic Department of District Hospital
where the statements of injured witnesses, namely, Lalla Prasad, Advocate Om Prakash Khare,
Hari Prakash Khare, as well as of Jageshwar and witness Vishram, were recorded. He further
deposed that on their way back, he arrested accused persons, namely, Bhullan, Brij Lal and Jagat
Pal, and recorded their statements. He further deposed that on 06.03.1993, accompanied by the said
constable, he visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of witnesses Gayadin,
Udairaj and tractor driver Mohd. Jahoor. At that time, the complainant also arrived and, on his
pointing out, the site plan was prepared by him (Ext. Ka-9). He further deposed that on 07.03.1993,
he received the post-mortem report of deceased Jageshwar and, on that basis, the offence was
altered to Section 304 IPC through G.D. Entry No. 29 at about 19:15 PM and corresponding entry
was made in the case diary. He further deposed that on 09.03.1993, he sought issuance of warrant
from the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Dalmau, and on 16.03.1993, the copy of the Panchayatnama
was entered in the case diary. He further deposed that upon permission of the Court, the statement
of Suraj Pal was also recorded. He further deposed that subsequent thereto, the investigation was
transferred to another Sub-Inspector.

24. During cross-examination, he deposed that Suraj Pal had admitted his guilt, whereas the
other accused persons denied the allegations. He denied the suggestion that no report was sent to
the Court regarding recording of the the confessional statement of Suraj Pal. He denied the
allegation that he had colluded with the complainant to give a false colour to the incident or that the
appellants were being falsely implicated due to enmity. He further deposed that the statement of the
complainant and the injured could not be recorded earlier as they immediately proceeded to the
hospital from where they were referred to District Hospital. He further deposed that he had no
knowledge of any proceedings under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. against Advocate Om Prakash
Khare. He further deposed that it would be incorrect to say that the area around the place of
occurrence was full of pebbles and stones since the road there was brick paved road (khadanja
road). He also denied the suggestion that the appellants were falsely implicated under the influence
of Advocate Om Prakash Khare.

25. PW-7, Dr. S.S. Trivedi, Senior Radiologist, District Hospital Sitapur, deposed that on
10.03.1993 he was posted as Senior Radiologist at the District Hospital Raebareli. He further
deposed that the injured witness Hari Prakash, who had been admitted on 05.03.1993, was referred
for radiological examination by the Orthopedic Specialist. His X-Ray plates were prepared under
his supervision by the X-Ray Technician, and on examining the same, he found a fracture of the
shaft of the tibia bone in the left leg and fractures of the shafts of both tibia and fibula in the right
leg (X-Ray reports are marked as Ext. Ka-10 and Ext. Ka-11 respectively). He further deposed that
the X-Ray examination of injured Advocate Om Prakash was also conducted under his supervision
and upon examination of the X-ray he found a fracture of the shaft of radius bone on the right
forearm and fractures of the shaft of fibula bone and of the patella on the left leg (X-ray reports are
marked as Ext. Ka-12 and Ext. Ka-13 respectively). He further deposed that on the same day, the
X-Ray plate of the left hand of Om Prakash was also prepared, which revealed fractures in the 2nd,
3rd and 4th meta-carpal bones.
1 All. Bhoolan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
751

26. During cross-examination, he stated that such fractures could also be caused by a fall from
a height of about 20-25 feet on a rough surface containing pebbles and stones.

27. PW-8 Dr. U.C. Sharma, Senior Specialist District Hospital Raebareli, deposed that on
07.03.1993 he was posted as Senior Dermatologist at District Hospital Raebareli and on the same
day at around 3:00 PM, post-mortem examination of the deceased Jageshwar was conducted. He
further deposed that the dead body was sealed and was sent by station-in-charge, police station
Nasirabad. He further deposed that Jageshwar died on 06.03.1993 at around 5:40 AM in the
District Hospital Raebareli. The deceased s physique was normal, his head was bandaged, both the
forearms and arms were bandaged. He further deposed that the bandage extended from the left foot
to the middle of the thigh. He further deposed that the rigor mortis had passed in the upper part but
was present in the lower part, both the eyes were closed, and the clothes on the body were stained
with blood. The injuries before the death were as follows:

 Injury No. 1- Lacerated wounds measuring 6 cm X 0.5 cm , scalp deep on the left side of the
skull 7 cm above the left eyebrow. There was a bandage on the injury.

 Injury No. 2- Contusion with scratches measuring 1cm X 5cm on the right ring finger of
proximal phalanx.

 Injury No. 3- Stab wound measuring 1.5cm X 0.5 cm, deep to the flesh, 5cm behind the right
elbow, obliquely on the back of the right forearm.

Injury No. 4- Stab wound measuring 1cm X 5cm deep to the muscle on the, 3cm above the
right wrist, obliquely on the back of the right forearm.

 Injury No. 5- Stich wound with three stitches, measuring 6cm X 2cm, bone deep, on the
medial side of the left arm, 2.5cm above the right wrist. The bone below the injury were broken and
protruding from the wound.

 Injury No. 6- Lacerated wounds measuring 3cm X 2cm, bone deep, fracture below the injury
and protruding from the wound. Injury was on the left leg. 4 cm above the left heel on the front
side.

28. On the internal examination, it was found that blood clots were present below the Injury
No. 1 and above the central part of the brain. He opined that the cause of death was shock and
haemorrhage caused by injuries sustained before the death. He further deposed that the injuries
sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause death. He further deposed that except injuries no.
3 and 4, the remaining injuries could have been caused by lathis or dandas. He further deposed that
injuries no. 3 and 4 could have been caused by a sharp object opining on the possibility of the use
of a sharp danda. Upon being inquired by the court, he deposed that he is unaware about hura and if
it was sharp it could have caused such injuries.

29. During cross-examination, he deposed that injuries no. 3 and 4 cannot be caused by a
broad-edged weapon, but they can be caused by a sharp-edged weapon. He further deposed that the
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stab wounds, injury no. 3 and 4, could have been caused by a sharp pointed weapon and if the
weapon is not sharp then stab wounds could not have occurred. He further deposed that injury no. 3
and 4 could have been caused by falling on a sharp stone. He further deposed that he is unaware of
the fact whether injured Jageshwar was treated at Jais P.H.C Raibareli before his death or not and
the same has not been mentioned in post-mortem report and neither had he come across it in any
medical report. He further deposed that Jageshwar died in District Hospital Raebareli. He further
deposed that such stab wounds could have been caused during treatment, if the doctor uses a sharp
instrument to operate. He further deposed that the injury report of the deceased was prepared by a
doctor at P.H.C. Jais on 04.03.1993 and the medical report lists four injuries and no stab wounds.

30. PW-9, Dr. K.P.S. Chauhan, Leprosy Officer Palia District Lakhimpur, deposed that on
04.03.1993 he was posted as Medical Officer in P.H.C Jais and on the same day at around 10:45
PM he had treated the injuries of Jageshwar, who was brought by Constable 345 Shyam Sankar
Singh, Police Station Nasirabad. The following injuries were found:

Injury No. 1- Compound fracture measuring 6cm X 8cm X 2cm , deep in the lower part
of the right leg, 5 cm above the ankle joint, from which fresh blood was oozing. It was kept under
observation.

 Injury No. 2- Contusion measuring 8cm X 5cm on the upper part of the right palm in
which pain and swelling was present. Red in colour. It was kept under observation.

Injury No. 3- Compound fracture measuring 5cm X 3cm X 2cm, deep located, 5cm above
the left wrist joint from which fresh blood was oozing.

Injury No. 4- Lacerated wound 3cm X 1cm X 5cm deep on the left side of the head, 4 cm
hairline, on the left side of the forehead.

He further deposed that injury no. 1 could have been caused by a blunt object and X-ray of the
left leg was advised. He further deposed that injury no. 2, 3 and 4 could have been caused by a
blunt instrument and X-ray for all the four injuries was advised (injury report is marked as Ext. Ka15). He further deposed that the injuries were fresh and could have been caused around 8 o clock at
night on 04.03.1993 and the injuries could have been caused by a blunt instrument like a stick.

31. He further deposed that on the same day, the injuries of the injured Om Prakash were
medically examined at around 11:00 PM, who was brought by the same constable as mentioned
above. The following injuries were found and examined:

 Injury No. 1- Contusion measuring 8cm X 5cm mark on the right knee which was
swollen and injured complained of pain. Colour was red. Injury was kept under observation.

Injury No. 2- Lacerated wound measuring 6cm X 1cm X 2cm deep was on the right leg,
18 cm below the right knee, from which fresh blood was oozing.
1 All. Bhoolan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
753
 Injury No. 3- Torn wound measuring 3cm X 1cm X 2cm deep on right leg located 3 cm inside
from injury no. 2, from which fresh blood was oozing.

Injury No. 4- Contusion measuring 8cm X 3cm on the outside of the right palm in which
there was pain and swelling. The colour was red. It was kept under observation.

 Injury No. 5- Torn wound 1 cm X 5cm X 2cm deep on the outer side of left palm, from
which fresh blood was oozing.

 Injury No. 6- Contusion measuring 5cm X 3cm on the left hand, 5cm above the wrist, in
which pain and swelling was present. Colour was red.

He further deposed that injury no. 1 to 6 could have been caused by a blunt instrument, for
example by lathi-danda. Injury no. 2, 3, and 5 were simple. He further deposed that X-ray was
advised for injury no. 1 and 6. He further deposed all these injuries were fresh and could have been
caused around 8:00 PM on 04.03.1993 (the injury report is marked as Ext. Ka 16).

32. He further deposed that on the same he had also examined the injuries on the body of Hari
Prakash, at around 11:10 PM, and following injuries were found:

Injury No. 1- Contusion measuring 10 cm X 8 cm on the right leg, 8 cm above the right
ankle, in which pain and swelling was present. Colour was red.

 Injury No. 2- Contusion measuring 5cm X 2cm on the left leg, 12 cm above the left
ankle, in which pain and swelling was present. Colour was red in.

He further deposed that injury no. 1 and 2 were possible by a blunt object, such as a stick.
He further deposed that X-ray was advised for both the injuries and both the injuries were fresh. He
further deposed that injuries could have occurred around 8:00 PM on 04.03.1993 (injury report is
marked as Ext. Ka-17)

33. During cross-examination, he deposed that the injuries could have caused between 8:00
PM-10:00 PM. He further deposed that injuries of all the three persons could have been caused if
they had fallen after hitting the stones lying on the bank of the river and in the similar situation if
there are big stones or pieces of stones lying on a road, then such injuries could have been caused
by falling forcefully on them. He further deposed that injury no. 4, mentioned in the injury report of
deceased Jageshwar (Ext. Ka 15) was 3 cm X 1 cm X 0.5 cm deep. He further deposed that the
injury was not as deep as 0.5 cm X scalp deep. He further deposed that the injury no. 4, as he had
mentioned in the injury report, was not 7 cm above the hairline but was 4 cm above and he could
not find any contusion mark on it.

34. PW-10, S.I. Sadhna Gupta, Sub-Inspector Ghazipur Police Station, District Lucknow,
deposed that on the date of occurrence she was posted as Sub-Inspector Police Station Raebareli.
754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
She further deposed that she had received Nakal Rapat No. 11 along with the aamad memo and
memo of death of Jageshwar from the District Hospital, Raebareli at about 8:10 PM. She thereafter
prepared the panchayatnama of the deceased (Ext. Ka-19). She further deposed that she had also
prepared the requisite papers for conducting the post-mortem examination of the deceased, namely,
the letter addressed to the R.I. (Ext. Ka-21), the letter addressed to the C.M.O. (Ext. Ka-22), the
Challan Lash (Ext. Ka-23), the sketch of the dead body (Ext. Ka-24) and the copy of seal (Ext. Ka25).

35. During cross-examination, she stated that at the time of preparation of the Panchayatnama,
bandages were tied on the injuries of the injured and his entire head was bandaged. She further
stated that she had mentioned that the bandages are tied but not mentioned that entire head was
bandaged.

Court Analysis

Effect of non-examination of independent witnesses:

36. It is to be considered as to whether the prosecution case is vitiated on account of nonexamination of independent witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that since the
villagers who allegedly reached the spot namely, Vishram, Gayadin and Udayraj were not produced
in evidence, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn and the testimony of the related and
injured witnesses should not be relied upon.

37. The legal position on this aspect stands well settled. The prosecution is not required to
multiply witnesses, and mere non-examination of all persons cited in the FIR or present at the spot
does not ipso facto cast any doubt on the prosecution case. What is essential is the quality, and not
the quantity, of evidence. Where the testimony of injured eye-witnesses is consistent, natural and
inspires confidence, the absence of independent witnesses is not fatal. The Supreme Court through
Hem Raj v. State of Haryana, AIR 2005 SC 2110; H.P. v. Pardeep Kumar (2018) 13 SCC 808;
and Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2020) 2 SCC 563 has consistently held that no universal
rule can be framed that failure to examine independent witnesses necessarily leads to rejection of
the prosecution version. The Court is required to assess whether the witnesses examined are
trustworthy and whether their version is corroborated by the medical and other material evidence
on record.

38. In the present case, PW-2 Advocate Om Prakash and PW-3 Hari Prakash are injured
witnesses, who sustained injuries in the same incident. Their presence at the spot stands fully
established by their medical examination at Jais P.H.C. the same night, with fresh injuries found on
their body, which fully corresponds to the time of occurrence. The ocular version of these injured
witnesses has been found cogent, consistent and wholly natural.