# Chandan Singh v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 354
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-24
- **Case number:** Capital Cases No. 7 of 2021
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Sameer Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-46548
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Conviction based on single
eye witness - The Arms Act, 1959: Section 3/25
- Though there is no bar in basing conviction on the
testimony of a single eye-witness but, before doing so
the court must carefully scrutinize the evidence to be
intrinsically reliable probable and wholly trustworthy.
(Para 28)

The Court after analyzing the testimony of the sole
witness (PW -12) finds that the she is not trustworthy
and her testimony is not of that sterling quality which
alone
can
form
the
basis
of
conviction
or
circumstantially relate appellant Chandan Singh to
those murders. (Para 34)

Appeals Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,671 of 87,656. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39671 for what follows._

354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
powers conferred by sub-sections (4), (5) and (6)
of Section 11 of the Act, and which would
render the present application maintainable.

22. Accordingly, this application is
dismissed. However, the applicants are free to
pursue any remedy they may be entitled to in
accordance with law.
----------
(2021)12ILR A354
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Capital Cases No. 7 of 2021
With reference No .6 of 2021 and Crl. Appl. No. 1861
of 2021

Chandan Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Sri Vinay Saran (Sr. Adv. )

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Conviction based on single
eye witness - The Arms Act, 1959: Section 3/25
- Though there is no bar in basing conviction on the
testimony of a single eye-witness but, before doing so
the court must carefully scrutinize the evidence to be
intrinsically reliable probable and wholly trustworthy.
(Para 28)

The Court after analyzing the testimony of the sole
witness (PW -12) finds that the she is not trustworthy
and her testimony is not of that sterling quality which
alone
can
form
the
basis
of
conviction
or
circumstantially relate appellant Chandan Singh to
those murders. (Para 34)

Appeals Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:
1. Vijay Shankar Vs St. of Ha. (2015) 12 SCC 644

2. Sharad Birdhichand Sards Vs St. of Mah. (1984) 4
SCC 116

3. Bablu Vs St. of Raj. (2006) 13 SCC 116

4. SHivaji Sahabrao Bobade & ANr. Vs St. of Mah.
(1973) 2 SCC 793

5. Devi Lal Vs St. of Raj. (2019) 19 SCC 447

6. Anil Pukan Vs Stat of Assam (1993) 3 SCC 282

7. St. of Raj.Vs Bhola Singh AIR 1994 SC 542

8. Bhimpa Chandapa Hosamani & ors. Vs St. of Karn.
(2006) 11 SCC 323

9. Jagdish & ors. Vs St. of Har.a (2019) 7 SCC 711

10. Kali Ram Vs St. of H.P. (1973) 2 SCC 808

11. St. of U.P. Vs Ashok kumar & anr. (1979) 3 SCC 1
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.)

1. (i) As both these appeals and the
reference arise out of a common judgment and
order dated 31.03.2021 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Mathura in
connected Sessions Trial Nos. 219 of 2019 and
220 of 2019, these two appeals and the reference
are being decided/ answered by a common
judgment and order.

(ii) In Sessions Trial No. 219 of 2019,
arising out of case crime no.456 of 2018, P.S.
Raya, District Mathura, five persons, namely, (i)
Chandan Singh, (ii) Kali Charan @ Karuwa,
both sons of Chittar Singh; (iii) Anil son of Kali
Charan, (iv) Gajraj son of Gulab Singh; and (v)
Smt. Bhago Devi @ Bhagwati Devi wife of
Chandan Singh, were put on trial. Chandan
Singh, Kali Charan, Anil and Gajraj were
charged for offence punishable under Section
302 read with Section 149 I.P.C.; and Smt.
Bhago Devi was charged under Section 302 read
with Section 120-B I.P.C. In this Sessions Trial
11 All. Chandan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
355
No.219 of 2019, the accused Chandan Singh,
Kali Charan @ Karuwa; Anil and Gajraj have
been convicted under Section 302 read with
Section 34 I.P.C. and have been punished as
follows:-

(iii) Chandan Singh awarded death penalty;
whereas, Kali Charan @ Karuwa, Anil and
Gajraj were awarded life imprisonment and fine
of Rs. 50,000/-. Bhago Devi was however
acquitted.

(iv) In Sessions Trial No. 220 of 2019,
arising out of case crime no.460 of 2018, P.S.
Raya, District Mathura, Chandan Singh alone
was tried and convicted under Section 3/25
Arms Act and awarded punishment of three
years R.I. with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and a default
sentence of three months.

(v) Capital Case Appeal No. 7 of 2021 has
been filed by Chandan Singh against the
judgment and order dated 31.03.2021 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10,
Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 219 of 2019 and
Sessions Trial No. 220 of 2019 against his
conviction and sentence under Section 302/34
I.P.C. and 3/25 Arms Act. Likewise, as capital
punishment has been awarded to Chandan Singh
the court below has made a reference for
confirmation of death penalty, which is
Reference No.6 of 2021 and is connected with
the appeal.

(vi) Criminal Appeal No. 1861 of 2021 has
been filed by Kali Charan @ Karuwa, Anil and
Gajraj against the judgment and order dated
31.03.2021 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 10, Mathura in Sessions Trial
No. 219 of 2019 against conviction of these
appellants under Section 302/34 I.P.C.

INTRODUCTORY
FACTS
IN
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

2. (i) On 19.06.2018, at about 6.20 am, the
police of P.S. Raya, District Mathura received
information through Delta (code name of
surveillance unit) that three bodies have been
found in a village named Nagla Bharau under
PS. Raya, District Mathura. On receipt of this
information, the police rushes to the spot, lifts
the bodies from three separate places and brings
them to the mortuary and carries inquest
proceeding. These three bodies were of (a)
Sundar Singh son of Chittar Singh (Deceased
No. 1 for short D-1); (b) Satya Prakash Singh
son of Gudar Singh (Deceased No.2 for short D2); and (c) Bhawar Singh son of Ramji Lal
(Deceased No.3 for short D-3).

(ii) Inquest proceeding of Bhawar Singh
commences in the mortuary at about 11.40 am
and is completed by 12.50 pm on 19.06.2018
resulting in inquest report (Exb. Ka-34),
prepared by Sub-Inspector R.K. Gautam (PW14). The witnesses to this inquest are Surya Sain
(PW-5); Brij Kishore; Ram Khilari; Rajpal
Singh; and Mukesh.

(iii) Inquest proceeding of Satya Prakash
Singh is also conducted at the mortuary by SSI
Daya Narayan Singh (PW-11) and is completed
by 12 noon on 19.06.2018 resulting in inquest
report (Exb. Ka-24), prepared by Daya Narayan
Singh (PW-11) which is witnessed by Budh
Singh son of Bhudar Singh (PW-6); Narendra
son of Raghuveer Singh; Rahul son of Budh
Singh; Surya Sain son of Satya Prakash Singh
(PW-5); and Deepak Singh.

(iv) Inquest proceeding of Sundar Singh is
also conducted at the mortuary by S.I. R.K.
Gautam
(PW-14)
on
19.06.2018
and
is
completed by 13.40 pm, resulting in Inquest
report (Exb. Ka-35), prepared by R.K. Gautam
(PW-14) which is witnessed by Brij Kishore;
Rajveer Singh; Mukesh; Ram Khilari; and Surya
Sain (PW-5)
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(v) All the three bodies were sent for
autopsy, which is conducted by Dr. Devendra
Mohan (PW-10).

(vi) Autopsy report (Exb. Ka-7, dated
19.06.2018, Time: 3.45 pm) of deceased
Bhawar Singh reveals following external
ante-mortem injuries:

(a) Firearm wound of entry 0.7 cm x 0.7 cm
on left side back of chest 2 cm from midline of
back (spine) and 7 cm from left scapula,
tattooing was present around wound over area
16 cm x 18 cm;

(b) Firearm wound of exit 2 cm x 1 cm on
right side chest, 7 cm from right nipple. On
probing both one and two wounds are
corresponding with each other.

(c) Rigor mortis found present.

Internal examination revealed two liters
of free and clotted blood in chest cavity. Right
lung found lacerated. Stomach containing 100
ml of watery fluid and small intestine had liquid
and gases and large intestine had faecal matter
with gases. Estimated time of death was half a
day before.

According to the opinion of the Doctor,
death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a
result of ante-mortem injuries.

(vii) Autopsy report (Exb. Ka-12, dated
19.06.2018, Time: 2.25 pm) of deceased Satya
Prakash Singh reveals following external
ante-mortem injuries:-

(a) Firearm wound of entry 5.0 cm x 2 cm
on right side chest, 3 cm away from right nipple
and 6 cm from sternum, margin of wound
inverted and red spots present around wound
over 20 cm x 28 cm area on the right side and
front of chest;

(b) Abrasion 6 cm x 4 cm on right (sic) just
away from right elbow;

(c) Rigor mortis found present.

Internal Examination revealed third rib
fractured; both lungs lacerated and 1.5 litre free
and clotted blood in chest cavity; stomach
contained 100 ml watery fluid. Small intestine
had liquid and gases and large intestine had
faecal matter.

It be noted that a metallic bullet was
recovered from left side of back of chest just
below scapula which was sealed and handed
over for forensic examination.

According to the doctor the death was due
to shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem
injuries. The estimated time of death was half a
day before.

(viii) Autopsy report (Exb. Ka-18, dated
19.06.2018, Time: 3.05 pm) of deceased
Sunder Singh reveals following external antemortem injuries:-

(a) Firearm wound of entry 3 cm x 1 cm on
right
side
neck,
2
cm
away
from
manubriosternal notch and 12 cm away from
right nipple, tattooing present around wound
over 4 cm x 6 cm area.

Internal
Examination
reveals
right
clavicle fractured, about 1 litre of free and
clotted blood in chest cavity, right lung lacerated
and left lung pale, stomach containing 100 ml
watery fluid, small intestine had liquid and gases
and large intestine had faecal matter and gases.

According to the opinion of the doctor
death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a
result of ante-mortem injury. The estimated time
of death was half a day before.

It be noted that one metallic bullet was
recovered from the body which was sealed and
handed over for forensic examination.
11 All. Chandan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
357

(ix) At 12.30 hours on 19.06.2018, written
report (Exb. Ka-1), scribed by Tejveer Singh (PW1), is lodged by Jitendra Singh son of Raghuveer
Singh (PW-2), stating therein that in the intervening
night of 18/19.06.2018 his real uncle Satya Prakash
Singh (D-2), aged about 70 years, former Gram
Pradhan, who was sleeping in his field to protect the
standing crop from animals, was killed by some
unknown assailant by use of firearm. It was also
alleged that he, later, came to know that a retired
army man, namely, Bhawar Singh son of Ramji Lal
(D-3), aged about 55 years, a resident of his village,
who was sleeping at his 'Neohara' (a place where
cattle is tied and kept) was also killed by unknown
assailant by use of firearm; and, that, he came to
know, one Sundar Singh son of Chittar Singh (D-1),
aged about 45 years, who was sleeping on the
Chabutra in front of his house was also killed by
unknown assailant by using firearm. This written
report was registered as first information report
(FIR) (Exb. Ka-3) bearing Case Crime No. 456 of
2018 against unknown persons.

(x) On registration of the FIR, investigation of
the case was taken over by G.P. Singh (PW-13),
who visited three different spots where the three
bodies were found. He lifted plain earth and bloodstained earth from the spot where body of Satya
Prakash (D-2) was found and prepared Fard memo
(Exb. Ka-26) on 19.06.2018, which was witnessed
by Jitendra Singh (PW-2) and Dinesh Prakash
Singh (PW-8). Similarly, he lifted blood-stained and
plain earth from the spot where body of Bhawar
Singh (D-3) was found and prepared Fard memo
(Exb. ka-28) on 19.06.2018 whose witnesses are
Sunil Kumar and Jagdish Prasad. He also lifted one
bundle Bidi and a piece of blood soaked blanket
from the spot where the body of Bhawar Singh was
found and prepared Fard memo (Exb. Ka-27),
which was also witnessed by Sunil Kumar and
Jagdish Prasad.

(xi) Noticeably, no blood was found at the
spot from where the body of deceased Sundar
Singh (D-1) was lifted.

(xii) On 19.06.2018 itself, PW-13 prepared
three site plans of three separate places from
where the bodies of D-1, D-2 and D-3 were
found and lifted. Exb. Ka-29 is the site plan of
the place where the body of the deceased Satya
Prakash (D-2) was found. Noticeably, the place
where D-2's body was found is surrounded by
fields. Exb. Ka-30 is the site plan of the place
where the body of Bhawar Singh (D-3) was
found. This place is shown to be surrounded
with open fields though, towards North-west,
under construction house of Smt. Sunahari Devi
is shown. Exb Ka-31 is the site plan of the place
where the body of deceased Sundar Singh was
found. The site plan indicates that body was
lying on the Chabutara, adjoining a pakka
(metalled) road which lies towards the west, and
in front of the shop of Sundar Singh (D-1) lying
on east. Across the metalled road towards west
were houses of Satyaveer and Sanju and
adjacent to the house of Satyaveer and Sanju,
across the metalled road towards South, is the
house of Rajendra Singh. Importantly, just
behind the Chabutra, towards south east there is
house and courtyard of deceased Sundar Singh
(D-1) with a door opening towards west i.e.
metalled road. Towards North there is open field
with standing crop of Sundar Singh, Chandan
Singh
(accused)
and
Kalicharan
(another
accused). Likewise, at the back of the house,
towards east, there is vacant field of Sundar
Singh, Chandan Singh and Kali Charan.
Towards south of the Chabutra there is house
and courtyard of Sundar Singh.

(xiii) During the course of investigation,
the
police
received
an
application
on
25.06.2018 (Exb. Ka-2) from Surya Sain (PW5) in which it is stated by Surya Sain, son of
deceased Satya Prakash Singh (D-2), that in the
night of the incident his uncle Budh Singh
(PW-6) was also sleeping outside to protect his
crop and he had witnessed the incident but due
to fear he did not disclose anything but, now,
he has disclosed it to him that the crime has
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been committed by Chandan Singh son of
Chittar Singh; Anil son of Kali Charan; and
Gajraj son of Gulab Singh with the help of
persons called from outside and in the entire
crime, Kali Charan and Bhago Devi were also
involved. It was disclosed in this application
that Chandan Singh and Anil were eyeing the
share of deceased Sundar Singh (D-1) in the
house and were not willing to give Sundar
Singh his share therefore, the deceased (Sundar
Singh) had made a complaint about this to PW5's father (Satya Prakash - D-2) and Fauji
Bhawar Singh (D-3). It is because of this
enmity that Chandan Singh, Gajraj Singh and
Anil, with the help of people called from
outside, got them killed. After receipt of the
aforesaid application, PW-13 proceeded to
record statement of Surya Sain (PW-5); Budh
Singh (PW-6); Dinesh Singh (PW-8); and Raj
Kumar
(PW-7).
On
27.06.2018,
PW-13
arrested accused Chandan Singh, Anil Kumar
and Gajraj. On their arrest, they allegedly
confessed their guilt and on the pointing out of
Chandan Singh, a country made pistol .315
bore, with a stuck empty cartridge, was
recovered from a field located towards North of
the wall of the house of Chandan Singh which
had standing crop. The site plan (Exb. Ka-32)
prepared by PW-13 indicated that the distance
of the spot from where the pistol was recovered
was 35 paces North of the wall of the house of
Chandan Singh. The site plan also indicated
that the place from where the recovery was
made had access to common Kharanja road of
village Nagla Bharau.

(xiv) The seizure memo (Exb. Ka-33) of
the country made pistol with cartridge was
prepared by PW-13 and was not witnessed by
any member of the public. The seizure memo
indicates that the accused Chandan Singh was
taken to the spot and he searched out the
weapon from the middle of the crop standing in
the field and handed it over to the police. The
seizure memo does not indicate that the weapon
was buried in the ground. Prior to that, on
24.06.2018, the police had also prepared a
memorandum of taking over a photocopy of a
complaint letter dated 05.09.2017 purportedly
given by deceased Sundar Singh son of Chittar
Singh stating therein that on 05.09.2017, at
about 7 am, Sundar Singh's brother Kali
Charan, Chandan Singh and Smt. Bhago Devi
and his nephews had assaulted him and Smt.
Bhago Devi had beaten him with slippers.
Seizure memo (Exb. Ka -38) was signed by
PW-13 and witnesses Sunil Kumar and Jagdish.

(xv) On the basis of seizure memo (Exb.
Ka-33), PW-13 - G.P. Singh lodged an FIR
(Exb. Ka-5) at PS Raya, District Mathura on
27.06.2018 at 12.28 hours under Section 3/25
Arms Act against Chandan Singh, which gave
rise to Case Crime No. 460 of 2018. The
police, thereafter, continued to search for the
accused
Kali
Charan
and
Bhago
Devi.
Ultimately, Kali Charan and Bhago Devi
surrendered in Court on 21.07.2018. The
police, thereafter, submitted charge-sheet (Exb.
Ka-36), dated 30.08.2018, in Case Crime No.
456 of 2018, on which cognizance was taken
on 18.09.2018. Likewise, after investigation of
Case Crime No. 460 of 2018, the police
submitted charge-sheet (Exb. Ka-41), dated
06.08.2018, on which cognizance was taken on
25.08.2018. In the charge-sheet of Case Crime
No. 456 of 2018, 47 prosecution witnesses
were enlisted. The name of Malti (PW-12) was
conspicuous by its absence. In charge-sheet of
Case Crime No. 460 of 2018 there were 14
police witnesses only. On 27.03.2019, the case
arising out of Case Crime No.456 of 2018 was
committed to the Court of Session. The
Sessions Court framed charge of offence
punishable under Section 302/149 I.P.C.
against Chandan Singh, Kali Charan @
Karuwa, Anil and Gajraj and under Section 302
read with Section 120 B I.P.C. against Smt.
Bhago Devi @ Bhagwati Devi. In the
connected Sessions Trial No. 220 of 2018,
11 All. Chandan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
359
Chandan Singh was separately charged for
offence punishable under Section 3/25 Arms
Act. On denial of the charges, the trial
commenced.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

3. The prosecution examined as many as 15
witnesses. Their deposition, in brief, are as
follows:-

(a) PW-1- Tejveer Singh. He is the scribe
of Exb. Ka-1 i.e. the written report which was
registered as FIR (Exb. Ka-3). He proved that he
wrote the application on the dictates of Jitendra
Singh (PW-2) and others.

(b) PW-2- Jitendra. He states that he had
submitted the written report (Exb. Ka-1) by
dictating it to his nephew (Tejveer Singh - PW1). He proved the Exb. Ka-1 as being signed by
him. He, however, denied paper no. 4A/63,
stated to have been signed by him, to disclose
that PW-6 (Budh Singh) is an eye-witness of the
incident.

In his cross-examination, he stated that
three different spots from where bodies of D-1,
D-2 and D-3 were recovered were at a distance
of about 1 km from each other and that he does
not know which of the three deceased was killed
first.

(c) PW-3 - Rajendra Singh. He stated that
neither he witnessed the incident nor he has
knowledge as to who has committed the murders
and he has also not given any statement to the
police. He was declared hostile and was crossexamined by the prosecution.

In
his
cross-examination,
he
was
confronted with his statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. On being so confronted, he
stated that he has not given any such statement
to the police. He denied the suggestion that he
has joined hands with the accused and therefore,
has turned hostile. He was also cross-examined
by the defence wherein he stated that in the night
of the incident as well as the preceding day he
had not met Satyaveer.

(d) PW-4 - Satyaveer. He stated that
information regarding the death of Sundar
Singh, Bhawar Singh and Satya Prakash was
given to him by his family members on phone
that all three had been killed by unknown
assailants. He has no knowledge about the
incident and that at the time of the incident he
was working in a factory at Raipur.

This witness was declared hostile and was
confronted with his statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. He stated that since six
months before the incident he had been staying
out, as to how the investigating officer recorded
his statement he is not aware. He denied the
suggestion that he has colluded with the accused
and is therefore, lying. In his cross-examination,
at the instance of the defence, he further stated
that in the month of January 2018 he had
migrated to Raipur, State of Chattisgarh, where
he worked in a Gas Plant and stayed there
continuously for eight months and returned in
August, 2018. He also stated that in the village
there is no other person by his name. He further
stated that he has no knowledge of the incident.

(e) PW-5 - Surya Sain Singh. He stated that
his father (Satya Prakash Singh - D-2) in the
intervening night of 18/19.6.2018 was sleeping in
his field to protect the standing crop and in the
night, he was killed by unknown assailants. On
the same night, Bhawar Singh (D-3), who was
sleeping at his 'Nehoara', and Sundar Singh (D-1),
who was sleeping on his Chabutra in front of his
house, were also killed by unknown assailants of
which his cousin brother Jitendra (PW-2) made a
report at PS Raya. He stated, that in the night of
the incident, his uncle Budh Singh (PW-6) was
also sleeping in the field and had recognised the
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
assailants but, due to fear he did not make any
disclosures about them. Later, PW-6 informed
him that Chandan Singh, Anil, Gajraj and Kali
Charan had killed PW-5's father and Bhago Devi
@ Bhagwati Devi was also involved. He stated
that the accused Chandan Singh bore enmity with
PW-5's father because PW-5's father had
influenced Chandan Singh's father Chittariya (i.e.
Chittar Singh) to execute a Will in favour of
Sundar Singh (D-1) and for this reason, Gajraj
also bore enmity with PW-5's father. The accused
also wanted to evict PW-5's father from Gram
Samaj land ad-measuring 13 Bighas. He proved
Exb. Ka-2. He also stated that inquest of all the
three deceased was carried out at Mathura
mortuary and was witnessed by him.

In his cross-examination, he admitted that
he neither saw the accused killing the deceased nor
he saw them near the place of incident on or about
the time of the incident. He also admitted that he
had not seen Bhago Devi conspiring for the
murder of the deceased persons. He further stated
that he has no personal knowledge that his uncle
Budh Singh, in the night of the incident, was
sleeping near his late father Satya Prakash (D-2).
Further, during cross-examination, he stated that
his uncle Budh Singh had not told him that he had
witnessed the incident. He stated that he was
informed by few people that his uncle Budh Singh
had witnessed the incident. He stated that on the
basis of that information he had given the names of
Chandan Singh, Anil, Gajraj and Kali Charan as
perpetrators of the crime. He further stated that on
the basis of that information he had also named
Bhago Devi @ Bhagwati Devi. He reiterated that
Budh Singh had not personally informed him that
he had witnessed the incident. He also stated that
in his presence Sundar Singh (D-1) had not made
any complaint to his father (D-2), or to Bhawar
Singh (D-3) regarding the conduct of the accused
persons.

(f) PW - 6 - Budh Singh. He stated that in
the night of the incident he had slept in his own
house and that his brother Satya Prakash Singh
(D-2) was sleeping in the field to protect the
standing crop. In the morning, following the
night of the incident, he came to know that his
brother Satya Prakash (D-2) had been killed by
unknown persons. Later, he also came to know
that Bhawar Singh (D-3) and Sundar Singh (D1) were also killed in the night. He admitted his
signature on the inquest report of his brother
Satya Prakash (D-2). He stated that he has no
information as to who killed Satya Prakash (D2), Bhawar Singh (D-3) and Sundar Singh (D-1).
The witness was declared hostile and was crossexamined by the prosecution.

On being confronted with his statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the witness
stated that he had never given such statement to
the investigating officer and he denied the
suggestion that he was trying to protect the
accused because they are residents of the same
village. He also denied the suggestion that he
has resiled from truth because of pecuniary
gains. The witness told the court that none of the
accused have threatened him nor he has been
induced to make a false statement; that whatever
he has stated is out of freewill.

(g) PW-7 - Raj Kumar. He is the son of
the deceased Satya Prakash (D-2). He stated that
till date he does not know who has killed his
father. He denied that any confession was made
by the accused Chandan Singh, Gajraj, Anil,
Kali Charan before him or before his brother
Dinesh Prakash. The prosecution declared the
witness hostile.

During the course of cross-examination, he
was confronted with his statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C. He stated that he had not given any
such statement. He denied the suggestion that
because of an out of court settlement he is
resiling from the truth. He also denied the
suggestion that due to fear of the accused he is
not stating the truth.
11 All. Chandan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
361

He was also cross-examined by the
defence, in his cross-examination by the
defence, he stated that neither on 24.06.2018 nor
on 25.06.2018, the accused confessed their guilt
either before him or his brother Dinesh Prakash.
He also stated that his uncle Budh Singh was
sleeping in the house on the night of the incident
and Budh Singh never informed him of having
witnessed the incident of the murder of PW-7's
father. He, however, admitted that Surya Sain
had got his signature on the application (Exb.
Ka-2) but stated that he had not read that
application. He stated that he is not aware as to
who killed his father (D-2), Bhawar Singh (D-3)
and Sundar Singh (D-1).

(h) PW-8 - Dinesh Prakash Singh. He
stated that the murder of his uncle Satya Prakash
(D-2), Bhawar Singh (D-3) and Sundar Singh
(D-1) was committed in the night by unknown
persons. Information of the murder was received
by him in the morning on 19.06.2018 and, till
date, he does not know as to who has committed
the murders. He denied that on 24/25.06.2018, in
the evening, or thereafter, Gajraj Singh,
Chandan Singh, Kali Charan and Anil came and
confessed their guilt before him or before
anybody else. He was declared hostile by the
prosecution.

He has stated in his cross-examination at
the instance of the prosecution that he is a Civil
Engineer and no statement of his was recorded
by the police. When confronted with his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he stated
that he has not given any such statement to the
police. He denied the suggestion that on account
of out of court settlement, he is resiling from the
truth. The witness was offered to the defence for
cross-examination but the defence did not accept
that offer.

(i) PW-9 - Head Constable Kamlesh
Kumar. He proved the GD entry of the written
report giving rise to Case Crime No. 456 of
2018, which was marked Exb. Ka-2. He proved
the registration of the FIR (Exb. Ka-3) as also
FIR of Case Crime No.460 of 2018.

In his cross-examination, he stated that he
was not aware as to how many persons had
come to lodge the FIR. He denied the suggestion
that the police team picked up accused Chandan
Singh from his house on 24.06.2018 to show a
false recovery.

(j) PW-10 - Dr. Devendra Mohan Lal. He
proved the autopsy reports of the three deceased
persons, already noted above.

In his cross-examination, he admitted that
the entry wound found on the three different
bodies could be from different weapons. He
could not tell whether all three wounds on three
separate bodies could be from .315 bore firearm.

(k) PW-11- S.I. Dayanarayan. He proved
the inquest report (Exb. Ka-24) of Satya Prakash
(D-2).

(l) PW -12 - Malti Devi. Before noticing
her deposition it be noted that she was not
enlisted as a prosecution witness in the chargesheet. She moved an application 34 Kha, on
16.10.2020, through a private counsel before the
trial court stating therein that she is the wife of
deceased Sundar Singh (D-1). In that application
34 Kha it was stated that Sundar Singh (D-1)
was earlier married to one Kallo from whom he
got a divorce; that Sundar Singh (D-1) had no
issue either from Kallo Devi or from her (PW12); that at the time of incident, she was residing
there at village Nagla Barau; that, after the
incident, when the police had arrived for
investigation, she had informed the investigating
officer ( I.O.) that the accused persons had killed
her husband with a view to grab his property;
that, prior to the incident, the deceased Sundar
Singh (D-1) had given an application in her
presence on 05.09.2017 to the police expressing
362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his apprehension that he may be killed. She also
stated that in the bail application of co-accused
Gajraj Singh, Dinesh Kumar, in his affidavit,
dated 10.01.2019, in paragraph 16, had stated
that the accused would not have got the property
on killing Sundar Singh because that would go
to his wife Malti Devi. In her application, she
narrated that after the death of Sundar Singh, she
was thrown out of her in-laws house (Sasural) at
Nagla Bharau and since then she had been
residing with her father in her parental house.
She stated that being the widow of Sundar
Singh, she is a victim and she is an important
witness and therefore her statement be recorded.

On this application 34 kha, on 09.11.2020,
the trial court, exercising its power under
Section 311 Cr.P.C., directed for recording her
statement on 18.11.2020.

Deposition of Malti Devi (PW-12)

Pursuant to the order of the trial court, her
statement was recorded. On oath, she stated that
deceased Sundar Singh (D-1) was her husband.
Sundar Singh was earlier married to one Kallo
with whom he had a divorce. Thereafter, Sundar
Singh married her (PW-12). He had no issue,
either from Kallo or from PW-12. In the night of
the incident, her husband was sleeping outside
the house, in front of the shop, and she was
sleeping inside the house. From inside the room
of the house, at about midnight, she heard a gun
shot. She came out to notice that Chandan
Singh; Kali Charan; Bhago Devi; Gajraj; and
Anil were running away with weapons.
Thereafter, she kept crying near the body of her
husband. In the morning, when the police
arrived she disclosed everything to the I.O. She
stated that Sundar Singh (D-1) was killed by the
accused persons to grab his property. She stated
that at the time of the incident she had been
residing with her husband Sundar Singh (D-1) in
village Bharau. She stated that about nine
months before the incident, Sundar Singh had
given an application to SSP, Mathura disclosing
that he has threat to his life from the accused
persons. The said letter was produced as paper
no. 4A/72. She recognised the writing and
signature of Sundar Singh (D-1) on the said
letter, which was marked as Exb. Ka-25. She
stated that on the said letter, no action was taken
therefore, her husband Sundar Singh (D-1) had
told her that he would be placing his grievance
before SSP. She stated that on 05.09.2017, her
husband was assaulted by the accused persons
and she was present there, which must have been
between 6-6:30 hours. She stated that after the
incident, accused persons had thrown her out of
her Sasural. To prove her identity she produced
Adhaar card, voter ID card, voter list and
domicile certificate.

She was cross-examined on multiple
counts: (a) on her relationship with Sundar (D1); (b) in respect of her presence in the village;
(c) in respect of the topography of the house of
Sunder Singh (D-1); and (d) in respect of the
incident.

In
her
cross-examination,
on
her
relationship with Sundar Singh (D-1) she stated
that she is illiterate and she does not have a
marriage card in respect of her marriage with
Sundar Singh; that though she has photographs
of her marriage but they all lie at her Sasural;
that she does not remember the date of her
marriage as long time has passed since then; that
she does not know in which village Kallo (i.e.
previous wife of Sundar Singh) resided; that she
was not taken to the doctor even though she did
not have a child; that Seetu is her husband's
elder brother's son; that she has seen the wife of
Seetu; that Seetu's wife is shorter than herself;
that Kali Charan has four children; the youngest
is daughter Laxmi though, she does not know
her age; that Kali Charan is her Jeth; that she
does not know the name of Laxmi's eldest child;
that the eldest is Anil who is an accused; that
Anil's marriage took place 4-5 years ago; that
11 All. Chandan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
363
she was not present at the time of marriage; that
she was not present at the time Seetu's marriage;
Chandan Singh (her Jeth) has six children; the
youngest of them is named Pankaj who must be
17-18 years old; that her Jeth Kali Charan's
house is separate and at a distance from the
house of Sundar Singh; that the house of Kali
Charan is farthest; that she has seen the house of
Chandan Singh; that on the sides of Chandan
Singh's house there is open field and on one side
there is Rinku's plot and on the other side there
is a road; that Chandan Singh's house is a Pakka
built house and at the time of incident, Chandan
Singh's house was painted yellow; that Chandan
Singh and Sundar Singh including herself use to
reside in one house; that in front of their house,
there was house of Bhawar Singh; that she does
not remember whether there was 1 or 2
buffaloes in the house at the time of the incident;

In her cross-examination, in respect of the
incident, topography of the house and the village
she states that she does not remember the date of
the murder of Sundar Singh; that Sundar Singh's
murder was committed in between 1 and 1:30
am in the night; that she did not have a watch to
notice the time; that the night was dark or
moonlit she does not remember; that on
hearing the gun shot she knew that murder
has been committed; that at the time of the
incident, she was sleeping in a room upstairs;
that murder was committed outside the house in
front of the shop on the Chabutra; that Sundar
Singh wore a cream colour pyjama and kurta;
that, at the place of occurrence on one side there
was a shop and on all the remaining sides there
was high boundary wall; that the height of the
boundary wall would be 12 feet; that she was
fast asleep and woke up on hearing the gun shot;
that, on hearing the gun shot, she came
downstairs, opened the gate and reached the
spot; that the gate which she had to open was an
Iron gate having two parts and window as well;
that at the time when her husband was killed
there was nobody else; that she had hugged the
body of her husband and had also touched his
head and, thereafter, returned to her room;
that she actually rushed upstairs to her room
to save herself; that she does not know whether
there is any design on the gate; she told the
name of the Pradhan of that village as Pratap
though, she could not disclose since when he
was Pradhan; she stated that she has not voted in
the Pradhan's election; that she does not know
for how long she remained with the body of her
husband; that she did not put any effort to
ascertain whether her husband (D-1) was dead or
alive; that the distance between the gate of her
husband's house and the shop is 10-15 hands;
that one hand distance would be the distance
from elbow till the nail of the hand; that she
does not remember as to what kind of clothes
Gajraj was wearing; that Chandan Singh had a
firearm/ Katta in his hand; that Chandan Singh
does have moustache; that no weapon was seen
in the hand of Anil, Gajraj and Kali Charan; that
she also saw Bhago Devi running away though,
she did not have weapon in her hand; that her
earlier statement was false; that she saw
Chandan Singh from a distance of 10-12 paces;
that one pace is the distance which one step
forward covers; that when she would enter the
house towards left she would find toilet; that
bathroom is close to the toilet; that the walls of
the toilet are yellow in colour; that on the date of
the incident in the morning, the police had
arrived at about 5:30 am.

On 19.11.2020, she was further crossexamined. In her cross-examination, she stated that
her mother-in-law's name is Hoshiyari; that she
had not gone to police station to lodge report of her
husband's murder; that she had informed the police
but had not submitted anything in writing about
her husband's murder; that when she heard the gun
shot she understood that her husband Sundar Singh
has been killed because, the accused had been
fighting with him on a daily basis; that at the spot
there was no blood; that she does not remember
the time when the police had taken away the body
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Sundar Singh; that she does not remember
whether the police had sealed the body of Sundar
Singh or had kept the same in a cloth; that she does
not remember as to how many police personnel
had come as when the police had come she was
inside the house; that police personnel had taken
the body of Sundar Singh in an Ambulance; that
she has no knowledge whether an FIR was lodged;
that after the murder of Sundar Singh, on the next
day, her family members (Maike Wale) had come
to take her and amongst them were her brother-
Ram Kumar, Ashok, her father Ramji Lal and her
mother; that in the morning of the next day, i.e. at
about 6 am, after her husband had died, her family
members had come and she left with them; that her
family members may have stayed for 1-2 hours;
that distance of her parental house from Nagla
Bharau is not known to her; that her parental house
is at Phoolpur, Maurapur PS. Baldev; that she does
not know as to how her family members arrived in
the morning at about 6 am; that her neighbour's
name is Bhawar Singh and his wife's name is
Geeta.

She denied the suggestion that she had
married one Randheer Singh of village Gajaoli, a
resident of PS Farah, District Mathura, about 20
years ago. She also denied the suggestion of
having given birth to a daughter named Monika
from her wedlock with Randheer Singh. She stated
that till date she has not given birth to any child.
She stated that she has been brought by her brother
to give her statement; she stated that Sundar Singh
is Inter pass.

She stated that when Sundar Singh had
written the letter, he had been assaulted on that
very day in the morning, at about 6.30 or 7; she,
however, could not remember the colour of
Chappal with which he was assaulted; she stated
that she was not interrogated by the police in
respect of Exb. Ka-25.

She admitted that on the death of Sundar
Singh, all property would come to her. She stated
that she was not killed because she was inside
the house; she further admitted that she had
not given any statement to the police or any
application to the police or SSP Mathura in
respect of what she has stated in Court. She
admitted having visited Nagla Bharau, the village
where the incident took place, 15-20 days before
the incident; she stated that there is a submersible,
eight years old, in the house, in front of the
bathroom/latrine; and that from the side of the
house there is house of Rajendra and Pappu; she
also denied the suggestion that she had not seen
anyone running away; she, however, admitted that
she had not seen any person firing at Sundar
Singh; she, again, denied the suggestion that she
was married to Randheer Singh 20 years ago and
had a daughter named Monika. When confronted
with paper no. 37 Ka-3 to 37 Kha-5, she stated that
she has no knowledge of those papers and that all
those papers are fabricated; she denied the
suggestion that the identity documents which she
produced are false and fabricated.