# Dayanand Yadav & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 429
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 4922 of 2018
- **Bench:** Rajiv Gupta, Harvir Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dayanand-yadav-ors-v-state-of-u-p-53696
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
The issue considered in the judgment is the
death of Ram Ratan and whether it was caused
by an intentional assault leading to culpable
homicide or an accidental motorcycle fall.
Headnotes
A. Criminal law-Indian Penal Code,1860Ss.302,147,148,323/149,
304
Part
II/149,504-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section 374(2)-Appeal against
Conviction-Conviction u/s 304 Part II
upheld against challenge asserting death
was accidental and prosecution witnesses
were
partisan-Trial
court
finding
on
culpability confirmed-Sentence of seven
years rigorous imprisonment modified and
reduced to period already undergone-Fine
enhanced to Rs. 50000/- per appellant,
payable to victim as compensation.
B.
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973Sectioon 372-Appeal by Victim-Victim's
appeal for enhancement of sentence/
challenge to acquittal dismissed.
Held
Prosecution proved common object and assault
causing
death
under
304
II
/149
IPCEyewitnesses testimonies (PW1-PW2) reliable
despite minor contradictions-medical evidence
corroborates
grievous
injuries
from
blunt
force(sticks), not mere accident-No material for
Section 302 or acquittal-dispute over tree led to
sudden altercation, not premeditation-The Court
relied
on
Devendra
Kumar
Vs.
St.
of
Chhattisgarh and Sankatha Prasad Vs.St.of UP
for converting 302 to 304 (II) in spur of
moment cases-No illegality in trial court's
quantum-The appellants released forthwith if
not required in other cases.(Para 44 to 53) (E-6)
Case law Cited
Vijendra Singh & Anr Vs St. of U.P.(2018)102
ACC 411, Jasbir Vs St. of U.P. (2018)103 ACC
489, Nandu & Ors Vs St. of U.P.(2018)103 ACC
739, Lalchand Dixit & Ors Vs St. of U.P.
(2017)99 ACC 691, Krishna Gowda & Ors Vs St.
of Kar. (2009) 64 ACC 302, St. of Haryana Vs
Krishna 2006 (56) ACC 219, V.N. Rathees Vs St.
of Ker. (1997) 35 ACC 841,Devendra Kumar &
Ors Vs St. of Chhatt.(2024) 11 S.C.R 523: 2024
INSC 841, Sankath Prasad Vs St. of U.P.(2020)
12 SCC 564, Dattatraya Vs The St. of Mah.
AIROnline (2024) SC 196,Shahid Ali Vs The St.
of U.P. AIROnline (2024) SC 129, Kariman Vs
The St. of Chhatt. AIROnline (2024) SC 422,
Devendra Singh Vs The St. of UP AIROnline
(2024)
SC
598,
Hussianbhai
Asgarali
Lokhandwala Vs The St. of Guj. AIROnline
(2024) SC 525-referred to.
List of Acts
Indian Penal Code,1860 and 7 Crl. Law
Amendment Act, Criminal Procedure Code,1973
List of Keywords
Ram Ratan Yadav, Prayag Yadav, Dayanand
Yadav,
rigorous imprisonment, Postmortem Report,
Land Dispute, Prosecution Story, Rudrapur,
interested witness, Premeditation, Prosecution
story, Chandrashekhar, gorakhpur, Conviction
upheld.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4922 of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2025
Dayanand Yadav & 4 Ors Vs. State of U.P.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Appellants:
Janardan, Pulak Ganguly, Ravikant Tiwari
Sharad Kumar
Advs.for Respondent:
G.A., Rajeev Kumar Singh

## Text

_Characters 0–39,998 of 86,800. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39998 for what follows._

8 All. Dayanand Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
429
preferred to the High Court on facts as well
as on law and must be respected.

16. It is a trite law that every clause
of a statute should be construed with
reference to the constraint and other
explanation of the act as for as possible to
make a statute meaningful and it is duty
of the court to find out the true intention
of legislature to ascertain the purpose of
statute while giving it a full meaning to
the same.

17. Having at a glance of the
provisions of Section 14-A of the Act,1989,
it is apparent that the same starts with nonobstante clause, which infact provides the
exclusive remedy of filing an appeal
notwithstanding
any
law
time
being
enforced.

18. There are two issues that could
not be intermingled; first that the offence
arising out of same transaction as a cross
case, must be tried together, but, this does
not indicate or make it imperative that if
in one set of allegations, an special act
covers the field, the further provisions
provided challenging such outcome of the
trials, would come with one of the
provision provided in the special act.
Infact,
the
procedure
for
trial
is
particularly and exhaustively provided
under Cr.P.C. including the appeals
against such Judgment and Order passed
in such trials and infact,this answers the
question that if there are two separate
trials, one with respect to charges in an
special act and another simply in I.P.C.,
both can be tried together while taking
the separate evidences in both the trials
and without being prejudice to each of
the evidences placed thereof, but, so far
as further challenge of the outcome of
those trials are concerned that can be
heard jointly, in an appeal, but, in the
separate provision prescribed as per the
law time being enforced as an special law
as well as the procedure prescribed in the
Cr.P.C.

19. In view of the foregoing reasons,
this court finds that the trial which is
concluded for the charges under an
special act, will be appellable in the given
provisions in special law, and the other
outcome of the trial, for the charges
under the I.P.C., is appellable under
Cr.P.C.

20. Ergo, the objection raised is
hereby ruled out. Resultantly, the instant
appeal is maintainable.

21. List/put up this matter on 21-082025 for hearing, on admission of appeal
and on bail application.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 429
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4922 of 2018
&
Criminal Appeal U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. 680 of
2022

Dayanand Yadav & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Janardan, Pulak Ganguly, Ravikant Tiwari,
Sharad Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Rajeev Kumar Singh
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
The issue considered in the judgment is the
death of Ram Ratan and whether it was caused
by an intentional assault leading to culpable
homicide or an accidental motorcycle fall.
Headnotes
A. Criminal law-Indian Penal Code,1860Ss.302,147,148,323/149,
304
Part
II/149,504-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section 374(2)-Appeal against
Conviction-Conviction u/s 304 Part II
upheld against challenge asserting death
was accidental and prosecution witnesses
were
partisan-Trial
court
finding
on
culpability confirmed-Sentence of seven
years rigorous imprisonment modified and
reduced to period already undergone-Fine
enhanced to Rs. 50000/- per appellant,
payable to victim as compensation.
B.
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973Sectioon 372-Appeal by Victim-Victim's
appeal for enhancement of sentence/
challenge to acquittal dismissed.
Held
Prosecution proved common object and assault
causing
death
under
304
II
/149
IPCEyewitnesses testimonies (PW1-PW2) reliable
despite minor contradictions-medical evidence
corroborates
grievous
injuries
from
blunt
force(sticks), not mere accident-No material for
Section 302 or acquittal-dispute over tree led to
sudden altercation, not premeditation-The Court
relied
on
Devendra
Kumar
Vs.
St.
of
Chhattisgarh and Sankatha Prasad Vs.St.of UP
for converting 302 to 304 (II) in spur of
moment cases-No illegality in trial court's
quantum-The appellants released forthwith if
not required in other cases.(Para 44 to 53) (E-6)
Case law Cited
Vijendra Singh & Anr Vs St. of U.P.(2018)102
ACC 411, Jasbir Vs St. of U.P. (2018)103 ACC
489, Nandu & Ors Vs St. of U.P.(2018)103 ACC
739, Lalchand Dixit & Ors Vs St. of U.P.
(2017)99 ACC 691, Krishna Gowda & Ors Vs St.
of Kar. (2009) 64 ACC 302, St. of Haryana Vs
Krishna 2006 (56) ACC 219, V.N. Rathees Vs St.
of Ker. (1997) 35 ACC 841,Devendra Kumar &
Ors Vs St. of Chhatt.(2024) 11 S.C.R 523: 2024
INSC 841, Sankath Prasad Vs St. of U.P.(2020)
12 SCC 564, Dattatraya Vs The St. of Mah.
AIROnline (2024) SC 196,Shahid Ali Vs The St.
of U.P. AIROnline (2024) SC 129, Kariman Vs
The St. of Chhatt. AIROnline (2024) SC 422,
Devendra Singh Vs The St. of UP AIROnline
(2024)
SC
598,
Hussianbhai
Asgarali
Lokhandwala Vs The St. of Guj. AIROnline
(2024) SC 525-referred to.
List of Acts
Indian Penal Code,1860 and 7 Crl. Law
Amendment Act, Criminal Procedure Code,1973
List of Keywords
Ram Ratan Yadav, Prayag Yadav, Dayanand
Yadav,
rigorous imprisonment, Postmortem Report,
Land Dispute, Prosecution Story, Rudrapur,
interested witness, Premeditation, Prosecution
story, Chandrashekhar, gorakhpur, Conviction
upheld.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4922 of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.08.2025
Dayanand Yadav & 4 Ors Vs. State of U.P.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Appellants:
Janardan, Pulak Ganguly, Ravikant Tiwari
Sharad Kumar
Advs.for Respondent:
G.A., Rajeev Kumar Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Harvir Singh, J.)

1. Both criminal appeals arises out the
same impugned judgment and order, as
such, they are being heard together and
decided by a common judgment and order
dated
18.08.2018
passed
by
learned
Additional
Session
Judge,
IV/Special
8 All. Dayanand Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
431
Judge, E.C. Act, Deoria in Sessions Trial
No. 286 of 2014 (State Vs. Dayanand and
Others), arising out of Case Crime No.
1154 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148,
323/149, 342, 304/149, 504, 506 of IPC,
Police Station Rudrapur, District Deoria,
whereby the appellant No. 2 to 6 have been
convicted and sentenced to one year
rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.
2,000/- each and in default of payment of
fine each accused to go under two months
additional simple imprisonment for offence
under section 147 I.PC., one year rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each
and in default of payment of fine each
accused to go under one month additional
simple imprisonment, for offence under
section 323/149, IPC, one year rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each
and in default of payment of fine each
accused to go under one month additional
simple imprisonment, for offence under
section
342
IPC,
7
years
rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each
and in default of payment of fine each
accsued persons to go under three months
additional
simple
imprisonment,
for
offence under section 304(ii)/149 IPC and
the accused No. 2 to 6 have been acquitted
for offence under Sections 148, 504, 506
IPC and 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act. All
the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Heard Sri Sharad Kumar, learned
counsel
for
the
surviving
accusedappellants, Sri Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal,
learned AGA for the State and Sri Rajeev
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first
informant and perused the record.

3. The prosecution story in brief is
that, on 11.07.2014 at about 1:00 P.M., the
complainant's husband late Ram Ratan was
coming to his village from Rudrapur
market alongwith complainant and her
daughter
Smt.
Suman
Devi
on
his
motorcycle and when they reached near the
house of Miya, prior to Jogiya Mod, then
the accused persons namely, Dayaram,
Vivekanand, Chandrashekhar, Sharnanand,
Prayag and some other persons had badly
beaten the complainant's husband, as a
result of which the complainant's husband
has
received
grievous
injuries
and
immediately he was medically examined in
the hospital, situated at Rudrapur, thereafter
District Hospital, Deoria and then B.R.D.
Medical College Gorakhpur, ultimately he
died in the B.R.D. Medical College,
Gorakhpur during his treatment.

4. With regard to the above noted
incident, the complainant lodged an F.I.R.
on 12.07.2014 at about 15:30 hours in
Police
Station
Rudrapur
against
the
accused-appellants No. 2 to 6, which was
registered as Case Crime No. 1554 of 2014
under Sections 147, 148, 323, 342, 504,
506, 304 IPC and 7 Criminal Amendment
Act.

5. The investigation of the case was
entrusted to S.I. Virendra Singh Yadav, the
Investigating Officer, who after completion
of investigation submitted charge-sheet
against the accused-appellants, on which
the
learned
Magistrate
has
taken
cognizance and committed the case to the
court of Sessions, the learned Session
Judge framed the charge against the
accused-appellants, under Sections 147,
148, 323/149, 342, 304/149, 504, 506
I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law
Amendment Act by order dated 8.6.2015.
The accused persons denied the charges
and claimed to be tried.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid
Written Complaint Ex. Ka-2, Chik No. Ex.
Ka-3, Injury report Ex. Ka-4, Postmortem
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Report Ex. Ka-5, Panchayatnama Ex. Ka-6,
Report regarding death of deceased to SHO
Police Station Gularia Ex. Ka-7, Nakal
G.D. Ex. Ka-8, Police Report-13 Ex. Ka-9,
Police Form-33 Ex. Ka-10, Photo Nash Ex.
Ka-11, Report to C.M.O. Ex. Ka-12, Site
Plan Ex. Ka-13 and Charge-sheet Ex. Ka14 were prepared and the dead body was
sent for postmortem to B.R.D. Medical
College, Gorakhpur. The postmortem of the
dead body of the deceased was conducted
by the Medical Officer. After recording the
statement
of
the
complainant,
the
Investigating Officer on her pointing out
inspected the place of occurrence and
prepared the site plan. After examining the
postmortem report and the panchayatnama,
Investigating Officer has arrested the
accused Prayag Yadav, Chandrashekhar,
Dayanand Yadav and Vivekanand Yadav
and recorded their statements.

7. After conclusion of prosecution
evidence, the statements of the accused were
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The
accused in their statements u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
have stated that the prosecution story is false
and have expressed ignorance regarding the
prosecution documents and have stated, that a
false charge-sheet has been filed against
them. They further stated that they are
absolutely innocent and have been falsely
implicated in the present case. In support of
their defence the appellants have led the
evidence of DW-1 Ramesh Paswan, DW-2
Rajaram Yadav and DW-3 Ramashray who
reiterated the defence version.

8. In order to prove its case, the
prosecution has examined Smt. Krishna
Devi as PW-1, Smt. Suman Yadav as PW2, Head Constable Ramashish as PW-3, Dr.
J.P. Singh as PW-4, Dr. Mahesh Kumar as
PW-5
and
S.I./Investigating
Officer
Virendra Singh Yadav as PW-6.

9.
Smt.
Krishna
Devi
PW1/Complainant, wife of late Ram Ratan in
her
statement
has
deposed
that
on
11.07.2014, she along with her daughter
Suman and her husband Ram Ratan Yadav
were returning home from Rudrapur market
on a motorcycle. Her husband was driving
the motorcycle, which was registered in his
name. At about 1:00 o'clock in the noon,
when they reached near the two-room
house, which is called 'Waye Miyan Ki
Madai', then Dayanand, Vivekanand sons
of Prayag, Chandrashekhar son of Ram
Shabd, Sarananand son of Ram Shabad,
Prayag son of Bhagwan, and some other
people were present there. As soon the
motorcycle reached near the Madai, all the
aforementioned accused surrounded us
armed with lathi-danda and dragged her
husband off the motorcycle and started
assaulting him with lathi-danda. The other
people present there caught hold the
complainant and her daughter. The aforsaid
accused kept beating her husband with
lathi-danda and when he fell on the ground,
Chandrashekhar thrust a piece of wood into
her husband's stomach and continue hitting
him, as a result of which complainant's
husband sustained injuries from lathi-danda
on his head, stomach, back, thighs, and
hand, resulting in a broken hand and a
broken leg bone that was hanging.

10. The complainant's husband was
speaking faintly in his injured state. The
accused, hurling abuses, fled away saying
that they would also kill the complainant.
Immediately
after
the
incident,
the
complainant took her husband to Rudrapur
Government Hospital on tempo, where the
doctor after giving first aid referred the
injured to Deoria. Thereafter, the injured
was rushed to the Deoria Hospital from
Rudrapur hospital on another vehicle. In
Deoria, the injured was provided medical
8 All. Dayanand Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
433
treatment, administered drips, and after
removing
his
clothes,
examined
the
injuries. Then the injured was referred to
Gorakhpur Medical College by the doctors.
Thereafter the injured was taken to the
Gorakhpur Medical College, where he
succumbed to death. Thereafter the dead
body of deceased was sent for postmortem
examination. The report of the incident was
reported to the police by the son of the aunt
of the complainant, namely Vijay Pratap on
12.07.2014. The complaint was written on
the dictation of the complainant, then he
described
the
same,
thereafter
the
complainant put her signature on the same.
The witness identified the written report
she wrote, which is document number 5
A/1 in the file, and stated that it is the same
report she gave at the police station. The
witness identified her signature on the
report, which was marked as Exhibit Ka-1.

11.
Prior
to
the
post-mortem
examination, the inquest of the dead body
of the deceased was conducted in the
Medical College. After the post-mortem,
the dead body of the deceased was buried
in the village.

12. The complainant was questioned
immediately after filing the report by the
Investigating Officer. The Investigating
Officer took the complainant to the spot
and inspected the scene. The Investigating
Officer also came to complainant's village
and recorded the statements of the
witnesses.

13.
The
PW-1
in
her
crossexamination
has
deposed
that
the
statement, which was given by her in the
Court, the same was dictated in the F.I.R.
The accused were sitting in Waye Miyan's
room and came out from there. After
assaulting her husband, when the accused
were leaving, they used abusive language
and threatened to kill. She further deposed
that she did not mention in the FIR about
the accused hitting on the head, back,
thighs, and arms, she described it in court
today. No one, except complainant's
husband had any abrasion. The accused
pushed them, and they also punched the
complainant and her daughter. However
she did mention about the accused
punching her and her daughter in the FIR,
nor did she told the Investigating Officer in
her statement, nor did she mention it in her
main examination. All three of us were
sitting on the same motorcycle. She cannot
state the distance of the scene from her
home. Dayanand hit the complainant's
husband on the head. Neither she did
mention this in her FIR, nor she told the
Investigating Officer in her statement.
There are no houses next to Miyan ki
Madai. Besides the accused, there were
seven other people with them. All those
people did not hit; only five people hit her
husband.
She
never
showed
the
Investigating Officer the motorcycle, on
which her husband was carrying us. She
don't know about Section 161. She did not
mention about the accused hitting on the
head in the FIR. She saw her husband's
injuries and saw him being beaten; She did
not tell the Investigating Officer. The skin
on her husband's back was peeled off in
several places. She saw the peeled skin,
when the doctor in Deoria had taken off his
kurta (shirt) and examined him. The skin
was peeled in three places. The accused
first
knocked
her
husband
off
the
motorcycle and then started hitting him.
Vivekanand had a stick in his hand.
Chandrashekhar had a lathi (bamboo stick)
in his hand. Sarnanand had a stick in his
hand. Prayag had a lathi in his hand.
Vivekanand first hit her husband on the
head with a stick, then he hit him on the
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
neck. She couldn't count how many times
he did hit him. She can't even guess how
many times he did hit him. In the FIR, she
didn't get it written, which accused had
which weapon in their hand. She don't
remember, if in her main questioning it was
not written, which accused had which
weapon in their hand or not. The
adjournment application on behalf of the
accused is accepted, the cross-examination
is adjourned for the next date.

14.
The
PW-1
in
her
crossexamination has further deposed that she
was present when the inquest and the
postmortem of her husband was conducted,
thereafter leaving the dead body of her
husband, she came to police station and
lodged the report. She have got it written
correctly in her FIR that "She then brought
him to the Medical College Gorakhpur." He
died during treatment in a short while. If it
is said that her husband's treatment lasted
for a while, this is wrong. She is a Hindu,
as per custom among us dead bodies are
cremated, not buried. Vivekananda and
Dayananda beat her husband and broke his
leg. She could not see, whose beating broke
her
husband's
hand.
She
does
not
remember, which hand of her husband was
broken. Chandrashekhar and Sarvananda
did beat her husband on the back. She got
Sarvananda's name written as Sharananand
alias Sarvananda in her complaint. Then
she stated that she got Sharananand written.
She could not see how many sticks were
used on her husband's leg. Her husband
was hit with a stick many times on his
stomach. Her fields and the accused's fields
are adjacent to each other. She further
deposed that, there was a dispute between
her husband and the accused over a
Sheesham tree, situated on the boundary
wall. There was no dispute over the
Sheesham tree situated on the ridge. She
does not know, whether there was any
dispute over the ridge or not. There was an
injury on the head, but no blood was oozing
out. The blood was oozing from the hand
and the leg. She could not see any blood
oozing out from the body. The skin on the
back was blown away and it had turned red,
but no blood was oozing from there. The
road on which her husband was travelling,
was a gravel road. The road on which the
incident took place was a gravel road. From
there, she cannot tell how far is the
crossing. She cannot state the distance of
Gojah Suratpur. It is a little far. She cannot
state how many sticks were hit by the
accused, she cannot even tell how many
sticks each of the accused hit. Miya's hut is
on the left side of the road. It is incorrect to
say that, her husband fell down from the
motorcycle on the gravel road and got
injured. It is incorrect to say that we
reached the spot after receiving the
information. The doctor of Rudrapur
bandaged her husband's broken hand and
leg. She also deposed that she does not
know, whether the bandage, the doctor had
tied at the time of my husband's death was
still there or not. She does not remember,
whether the bandages, were tied while
taking him from Deoria hospital to
Gorakhpur or not. She does not remember,
whether her husband was given medical
treatment in Gorakhpur or not. He was
referred for X-ray. It is incorrect to say
that, there was a dispute between her
husband
and
the
accused
over
the
Sheesham tree, situated on the boundary of
the field. Her husband fell down from the
motorcycle and sustained injuries and
because of that dispute, the accused were
implicated in a false case. This is wrong to
say that, I got the Sheesham tree cut after
the accused were sent to jail. It is wrong to
say that, I did not see any incident. It is
wrong to say that at the time, place and in
8 All. Dayanand Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
435
the manner, I have stated the incident
occurred, no incident took place at that
place. It is correct to say that, I went to the
place of incident with the Investigating
Officer.

15. Suman Yadav (PW-2) in her
statement has stated that the deceased
Ramratan was her father. She had come
from her home in Jogia Buzurg a few days
ago. The accused are the residents of
Prayag Buzurg. Viveka and Dayanand are
the sons of Prayag. Prayag and Ramshabd
are brothers. Chandrashekhar was the son
of accused Ram Shabd. Sharananand was
also the son of Ram Shabd. Accused
Chandrashekhar
and
Sharananand
are
brothers, and they are residents of Jogia
Buzurg. She further deposed, that there was
a land dispute with the accused. This
incident has taken place on the road near
Miya's hut on 11.7.14 at around 1:00
O'clock in the noon. PW-2 and her mother
Krishna Devi had gone to market on a
motorcycle with his father Ramratan. When
they were returning from the market, the
accused
Vivekanand,
Dayanand,
Sharanand, Chandra Shekhar and Prayag
were hiding in Miya's hut and when they
reached the place, where they were hiding,
then all the accused persons surrounded the
motorcycle and pushed it. PW2 and her
mother Krishna Devi fell down from the
motorcycle. Thereafter all the accused
persons started assaulting Ramratan with
sticks. PW2 and her mother started crying
and shouting, while being caught hold of.
Apart from these five, there were some
other people, who were holding us. PW2
also deposed that she does not know the
other people by name, who were with the
accused and can only recognize them by
face. They also abused them and threatened
them to kill. They assaulted her father
Ramratan and broke his hands and legs.
They have also given lathi blow in the
stomach of her father and felt that he died
and left him. Thereafter PW-2 took her
father to Rudrapur Hospital in injured
condition, where the doctor referred him to
District Hospital Deoria. Seeing the serious
condition of the injured, the doctor of the
District Hospital, Deoria referred him to the
Medical College Gorakhpur, but before
reaching the Medical College her father
succumbed to death. She also deposed that
apart from PW2 and her mother, some
other people have also seen the incident.

16. PW-2 in her cross examination has
deposed that her statement was recorded by
the I.O. While giving the statement to the
I.O., she told him that "Vivekanand and
Dayanand were the sons of Prayag. Prayag
and
Ram
Shabd
were
brothers.
Chandrashekhar is the son of the accused
Ram Shabd. Sharananand is the son of Ram
Shabd.
Accused
Chandrashekhar
and
Sharananand are brothers and residents of
Jogia Buzurg." The witness was read out
her statement under 161 CrPC and was
asked that this fact was not mentioned in
her statement, then she stated that she could
not give any reason, as to why her
statement was not recorded. Rudrapur was
located in the East of the place, where the
incident took place and the distance was
about 4 km. At this stage, counsel for the
accused Dayanand Yadav has submitted
that PW-2 refused to reply during her
cross-examination.
Hence,
the
crossexamination is adjourned to the next date.

17. PW2 in her corss-examination has
further deposed that her maternal house
would be approximately 1-1/2 km. north of
the place of incident and maternal house
will be there, if someone take a chak road
and goes north on the road a little west of
the place, where the incident took place.
436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
That chak road is a RCC road. She did not
know, whether the place of incident is in
Karauta village or her village Jogia Buzurg
and also did not know that Guna village
will be behind the road from the place of
incident. Miyan's hut, in which the accused
were hiding would be in Karauta village or
Guna Suratpura, she could not know,
whether that would be in Jogia Buzurg. She
also deposed that at the time of incident her
father's motorcycle had fallen on the
middle of the road, her mother and she
were standing close to the motorcycle. Her
father was not assaulted between the
motorcycle and the place, where they were
standing, but was beaten at some distance
on the road. Seeing the said incident they
got panicked. Her Father was being hit
towards the east of us, everything was
happening side by side, the distance was
not measured. There was blood near the
spot, it was not spilled. They were hitting
with sticks, they were hitting on the
stomach with the tip of the stick. It is not
that blood fell on the spot and due to panic
and hurry, She was unable to tell. She also
deposed that, it is incorrect to say that she
did not witnessed the incident in panic and
hurry and that day gave a wrong statement
on that point.

18. PW-2 also deposed that she saw
the accused coming out from the Miya's hut
which has a cement roof, no one lives
there, it was an old ruin, it was not that the
accused came from the west side from the
back of the hut, rather they came out from
inside the hut, She was not giving a false
statement on that point also, all the accused
came out from inside the hut, there was a
door in the hut, there is no gate, first five
people came out of the hut and then seven
people came out to catch us, it was not that
all the twelve accused came out of the hut
together, it was also not the point that she
was speaking wrong on this point also due
to panic and hurry, these seven people did
not have any weapons, apart from catching
us, these seven did not do anything to us
i.e. mother and daughter. She further
deposed that on the advice of the five
people, who had come out of the shed first,
the seven people who came out of the shed
and caught us later. All five of them stated
that this mother and daughter are screaming
a lot, catch them otherwise, we will kill
them too. The Investigating Officer had not
interrogated me about this, so she did not
tell him. That is, whatever the I.O. asked
me about the incident, she told that only to
him, she did not tell anything about the
incident from my side. PW-2 also deposed
that on the very day, we left our house at
around 11 A.M. At the time of occurrence
her younger sister Kiran was at her in-laws
house. Prior to the incident, her father had
called her, but he did not call my younger
sister, there was no special reason, he just
called me. He had called me 10 days prior
to the incident. No fight or scuffle took
place with the opposite party at any point
of time between 10 days or before the
incident. After leaving home at 11:00
A.M., they did shopping in Rudrapur for
about 2 hours, bought clothes, jewellery,
vegetables etc. She also deposed that after
the incident, they boarded a tempo and
went to Rudrapur hospital. They did not go
to our Jogia Bujurg after the incident, as
there was a police station right next to
Rudrapur hospital. They also went to the
police station. From the hospital and in the
ambulance, there was a police inspector
and a constable from the police station,
when we talked to them, they stated that
first get yourself treated, then the report
will be lodged. They stayed in the hospital
for about 1/2 hour. When people went to
the police station, my father was speaking a
little, he was breathing. After the incident,
8 All. Dayanand Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
437
while going to the medical college, her
mother was informing the relatives about
the incident through papa's mobile phone.
Upon receiving the information, some
people reached Deoria and some reached
Gorakhpur.

19. It is in correct to say that due to
nervousness and hurry, she did not tell the
Investigating Officer about the mobile.
They reached the medical college at around
8:00 P.M., till then, no policeman from
Rudrapur police station had reached there.
The hospital must have given the slip to my
mother for the medical college, but did not
give it to me. She had completed M.A. and
B.Ed. till date. She do not know about that
referral paper. It is incorrect to say that, her
father was admitted to B.R.D. Medical
College, Gorakhpur on 11/7/14 at 9:00
P.M. It is incorrect to say that after one
hour of treatment in the medical college,
her father died at 10:00 P.M. Her mother
must have spent the money for her father's
medicine and treatment from Rudrapur to
the medical college. When the doctor was
taking her father for X-Ray in the
emergency ward of the medical college, her
mother was with him. Oxygen was given
through her father's mouth. His neck had
rolled to one side. Then she came to know
that her father had died. Her mother told
her that, while she was going near the
stretcher. A dead man was recognized. It
must have been around 9:00 P.M. at that
time. Her mother was scared and was
crying and shouting. That is why, she did
not inform the police through mobile. She
was educated, but was scared and shouting
due to my father's death. That is why she
did not inform the police through mobile.
Her mother had left the medical college
after the post mortem. Her mother left
Gorakhpur on the second day of the
incident, on the 12th, at around 12:00 PM.
Her mother told her that, she had to go to
the police station to report the incident. Her
mother took the mobile with her. She don't
know, if her mother would have informed
the police station through mobile, only her
mother can explain. While going to the
police station from Gorakhpur, my mother
did not say that she had informed the police
station through mobile. she did not tell my
mother that, why are you going to the
police station, she should inform the police
station through mobile. Her mother did not
go to Medical College, Police Station
Rudrapur alone, but with relatives. No
report was filed between the journey of my
mother from medical and Rudrapur. Only
her mother will be able to say, where the
report was filed. Till date she had not asked
her mother, where she filed the report. Till
date she did not know, where and at what
place she wrote or got the report written,
that my mother had handed over in the
police station. PW-2 told the inspector that,
the incident took place to the east of
Giyapur Tiraha, her mother and she had
shown the inspector the Giya Tiraha, she
had also shown the place, where the
incident took place. The inspector only
asked, where the incident took place, so we
showed him the spot. The inspector did not
ask, where the motorcycle had fallen, so
she did not show him the place, where the
motorcycle had fallen. she showed the
inspector the place, where she and her
mother saw the incident. she also showed
him the path from where the accused came
out.
When
the
inspector
wrote
the
statement, she told him that the accused
came out from the shed. If the inspector has
not written the statement that they were
hiding in the shed and came out from there,
then she cannot state the reason. She did
not give such a statement to the I.O. that
during treatment, her father died. If this is
written in the statement, she could not tell
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the reason. It is incorrect to say that the
police inspector has not shown the crime
scene.

20. PW-2 further deposed that the road
on which the incident took place, was used
by government vehicles and four wheelers.
At the place where the accident occurred,
there was no jaam of passengers or
passenger vehicles on both sides. About
half an hour after the incident, a tempo
arrived. She deposed that the goods, which
were purchased in Rudrapur that day, were
given to the people, who had come to
Rudrapur, who delivered them to their
home. Among those goods, there was a set
of jewellery, which was also delivered to
the home. When the incident happened,
they left the motorcycle there and did not
hand it over to anyone. The villagers came
and took it away. She knew the villagers,
very well, who took the motorcycle away.
The investigating officer did not ask her
anything about the motorcycle. When they
returned home, the motorcycle was parked
at the door. Even that day, she could not
tell, who brought her father's motorcycle
from the scene of the incident, whether the
person who brought it drove it or someone
else brought it with her. PW-2 has further
deposed that, it is incorrect to say that her
father was driving his motorcycle in an
inebriated state and fell down on one side,
due to which he sustained injuries and died
during treatment in the medical college. It
is also incorrect to say that, her father was a
person of political influence and used to
harass the accused persons over petty
matters of the village assembly, but was not
successful. It is also incorrect to say that,
despite falling from the motorcycle in an
inebriated condition, he, in consultation
with friends and persons of the village,
falsely implicated innocent people, with an
intention to wreak vengeance due to
enmity. It is also incorrect to say that, she
was at her in-laws' place on the date of
incident and was not at the place of
incident in any manner, she is a witness in
this case, only to seek revenge out of
enmity. It is also incorrect to say that no
incident took place in the manner, as
described by her in the statement.

21. Ram Ashish (PW3) in his
statement has deposed that on 12.7.2014 he
was posted in Police Station Rudrapur,
District Deoria in the capacity of Head
Constable. On 12.7.14 at 3.30 pm, on the
basis of written complaint made by Krishna
Devi, he registered the FIR bearing No.
1154/14
under
sections
147,148,307,308,323,504,506
IPC
&
342,304 IPC and 7 Crl. Law Amendment
Act against Dayanand Yadav son of
Prayag,
Vivekanand
son
of
Prayag,
Chandrashekhar
son
of
Ramshabd,
Sharananand son of Ramshabd, Prayag s/o
Bhagwan residents of Jogiya Buzurg Police
Station Rudrapur. The case was got
registered on the basis of the written report
of Smt. Krishna Devi, wife of late
Ramratan, Chick FIR No. 112/14 had been
prepared, which was in his writing and
signature. After filing the complaint, he
prepared the entry of the case in report No.
25 at 15.20 P.M. on 12.7.2014 in his
handwriting and put signature on it. The
original GD was prepared on 12.7.14,
which is marked as Ext. Ka-1. He certified
that it was the same, as per the original.
Exhibit Ka-2 was put on original FIR and
Exhibit Ka-3 on GD. The investigating
officer had taken PW3's statement.

22. Dr. J.P. Singh (PW-4), who was
posted as Pathologist in District Hospital,
Gorakhpur, in his statement has stated that on
11.7.2014, he was on duty as Emergency
Medical Officer in District Hospital, Deoria.
8 All. Dayanand Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
439
At about 6.10 P.M. the injured Ram Ratan
Yadav, age 57 years, son of late Jairam Yadav,
resident of Jogia Bujurg, Police Station
Rudrapur, District Deoria, was brought by his
wife Krishna Devi in an injured condition to
the District Hospital Emergency. He further
deposed that he has examined the injured and
found following injuries on his body:-

(1) There was swelling and
redness of 6 cm x 4 cm on the left leg 5 cm
below the knee.

(2) A lacerated wound 5 cm x 3
cm on the right thigh which was red in
colour and 11 cm above the right knee.

(3) A lacerated wound 1 cm x 5 cm
on the left foot and its big toe Blood was
coming from the finger next to the first finger.

(4) A peeled wound 10 cm x 7 cm
on the left side of the abdomen from the
waist bone to above the left waist bone was
red in colour.

(5) Pain was being felt on the
back of the right hand. Due to severe pain
in the fingers, the right hand was x-rayed. It
was red in colour.

(6) A bluish mark 20 cm x 15 cm
on the right arm, which was 1 cm below the
right shoulder. X-ray was advised for this
injury. It was red in colour. There was
swelling and redness in it.

(7) A bluish mark 17 cm x 10 cm
with swelling on the left arm which was 5
cm below the shoulder. X-ray was advised
for this as well.

(8) Swelling and bluish mark 11
cm x 9 cm on the right side of the back, 2
cm below the rib cage, was red in colour.

The doctor (PW4) has deposed
that for injury Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7 the injured
was got admitted and advised for X-Ray
and
thereafter
he
was
referred
to
Orthopadic surgeon. Injury Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8
were simple in nature, which can be caused
by hard and blunt object like lathi-danda.
The duration of the injuries seems to be 5
to 6 hours. The injury was verified by
taking the left thumb impression of the
injured person. All these injuries were
written in his writing and signature. On that
day, the medico-legal register had been
prepared in his presence, by the pharmacist
of
Sadar
Hospital.
On
which,
the
examination report of the injuries of
Ramratan Yadav was prepared in his
writing
and
signature.
The
certified
photograph of the medical report of the
injuries of the Ramratan Yadav is as ExtKa10. PW-4 in his cross-examination has
deposed that he recorded the medical report
of the injured in the register, he did not
attach a carbon copy of the same. The fact
is that, after recording the medical report,
PW4 did not immediately give any copy of
the same to the injured or his companion. It
was also true that no copy of the injuries
recorded in the register had been asked
from him till date. He further deposed that,
it is incorrect to say that the photocopy was
obtained and its entry was made in the
register. He further deposed that after
examining the injured and looking at his
injuries, the report was prepared. The
injured are admitted to the hospital, only
when the injury was serious. If the injury
was not serious, then the injured were
treated and then discharged. There was no
mention in Ext.Ka-4 that the patient was
admitted to the hospital. But he was
referred to an Ortho Surgeon. After
referral, no report of the ortho surgeon was
ever presented to him by the injured or his
family members. The process of scab
440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
formation in the injury of abrasion, report
or X-ray report or X-ray plate starts after
12 hours. Writing 'Simple in Nature' means
that there could not be any danger to the
life of the injured. Injuries of blunt object
or accidental nature were almost of the
same nature. The injured did not have any
head injury.

23. Dr. Mahesh Kumar-PW5- Medical
Officer Incharge Primary Health Center
Khajni,
District
Gorakhpur
in
his
examination has stated that, on 12.07.2014,
he was posted in Khajni as Medical Officer
Incharge. On the said date, by the order of
Chief Medical Officer, Gorakhpur, he was
posted
at
B.R.D.
Medical
College,
Gorakhpur for conducting post mortem and
the post mortem of deceased Ram Ratan
Yadav son of late Jairam Yadav, Resident
of Jogia Buzurg, Police Station Rudrapur,
District Deoria, aged about 57 years started
at 4.10 P.M. and ended at 4.30 P.M. The
dead body of the said deceased-Ram Ratan
Yadav was brought by the Constable
Sikander Singh from the Police Station
Gulharia, District Gorakhpur and he got the
said body identified and the post-mortem of
the said body started on 12.07.2014 at 4.10
P.M. The physical structure of the said
dead body was of medium height. Stiffness
was present in the whole body, the eyes of
the deceased were closed and the mouth
was half opened. The following injuries
were found on the body of the deceased
before death.

(1) Scratch whose size is 15 cm.
X 8 cm. on the right shoulder joint and on
the right forearm below the shoulder
joint.

(2) Contusion swelling in right
hand index finger. Blood clot was present
under the skin and bone was broken.

(3) Swollen bluish mark on right
side of forehead measuring 6 cm x 4 cm.
On opening the skin, blood clot was present
under it.