# Dev Saran & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 966
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 4548 of 2015
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dev-saran-ors-v-state-of-u-p-50060
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 149 & 302 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 313 - Trail
Court convicted - Imprisonment for life -
Appeal against conviction - As per FIR -
Deceased was married to the son of
appellant, there was family dispute - On
the date of incident, deceased had gone to
police station to report a complaint - On
her returned back, father-in-law, motherin-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law
caught hold her, she was set ablaze by
brother-in-law - Deceased was married
about 10 years ago - Husband of deceased
was not present at the time of incident -
There was quarrel between the family
regarding partition, she was physically
beaten - After ten days of incident, a dying
declaration was recorded on 20.5.2012 -
On 20.6.2012 FIR was lodged - Charges
framed - Held, the death caused by
accused was not premeditated, accused
had no intention to cause death of
4 All. Dev Saran & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
967
deceased - Injuries were sufficient in
ordinary course of nature to have caused
death
-
Hence,
death
was
due
to
septicemia - The offence is not u/s
302/149, I.P.C. but is culpable homicide
not amounting to murder u/s 304(I) I.P.C.
- Sentence, fine is reduced - Directions
accordingly (Para 2, 3, 4, 20, 24)

Appeal is partly allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to direct the accused to undergo sentence of
imprisonment. In our opinion, it is a fit case
in which the accused should be released on
probation by directing them to execute a
bond of one year for good behaviour."

34. Similarly, in Jagat Pal Singh &
others Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2000
SC 3622, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given
the benefit of probation while upholding
the conviction of accused persons under
Sections 323, 452, 506 IPC and has
released the accused persons on executing a
bond before the Magistrate for maintaining
good behaviour and peace for the period of
six months.

35. In the light of above discussion, I
find
no
illegality,
irregularity
or
impropriety nor any jurisdictional error in
the impugned judgment and order of the
court below. The conviction recorded by
the trial court under Section 411 I.P.C. is
upheld and is not required to be disturbed.

36.
Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the present case as well as
keeping in view the position of law as
mentioned above and considering that the
incident had taken place about 35 years back
and considering the provisions of Section 4 &
5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 it
appears justified that the appellants accused
Phool Chandra be released under Section 4
(1) of the Act on probation for a period of one
year on furnishing a personal bond of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) and
two sureties each of the like amount. During
this period, he shall maintain good conduct
and keep peace and on breach of this
condition, he shall appear before the Court to
receive punishment.

37. The criminal appeal is partly
allowed as mentioned above.

38. Let a certified copy of this order
along with record be sent to the court
concerned for compliance.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 966
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4548 of 2015

Dev Saran & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 149 & 302 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 313 - Trail
Court convicted - Imprisonment for life -
Appeal against conviction - As per FIR -
Deceased was married to the son of
appellant, there was family dispute - On
the date of incident, deceased had gone to
police station to report a complaint - On
her returned back, father-in-law, motherin-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law
caught hold her, she was set ablaze by
brother-in-law - Deceased was married
about 10 years ago - Husband of deceased
was not present at the time of incident -
There was quarrel between the family
regarding partition, she was physically
beaten - After ten days of incident, a dying
declaration was recorded on 20.5.2012 -
On 20.6.2012 FIR was lodged - Charges
framed - Held, the death caused by
accused was not premeditated, accused
had no intention to cause death of
4 All. Dev Saran & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
967
deceased - Injuries were sufficient in
ordinary course of nature to have caused
death
-
Hence,
death
was
due
to
septicemia - The offence is not u/s
302/149, I.P.C. but is culpable homicide
not amounting to murder u/s 304(I) I.P.C.
- Sentence, fine is reduced - Directions
accordingly (Para 2, 3, 4, 20, 24)

Appeal is partly allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Khokan@ Khokhan Vishwas Vs St. of
Chattisgarh, 2021 LawSuit (SC) 80

2. Banarsi Dass & ors. Vs St. of Har.

3. Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi Vs Public Prosecutor
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, (2013) 0
Supreme (SC) 511

4. Surinder Kumar Vs St. of Har., 2011 LawSuit
(SC) 1149

5. Arvind Singh Vs St. of Bihar, 2001 (3)
Supreme 570

6. Kashmira Devi Vs St. of Uttarakhand & ors.,
(2020) 11 SCC 343

7. Smt. Rama Devi Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 102
ACrC 105

8. Misri Lal Vs St. of U. P., (2017) 7 ADJ 14

9. Sanjay & ors. Vs St. of U. P., (2016) 3 SCC 62

10. Manoj Kumar Vs St. of U.P., (2019) 1 ADJ
221

11. Tukaram and Ors Vs St. of Mah., reported in
(2011) 4 SCC 250

12. B.N. Kavatakar & anr. Vs St. of Karn.,
reported in 1994 SUPP (1) SCC 304

13. Veeran & ors. Vs St. of M.P. Decided, (2011)
5 SCR 300

14. Gautam Manubhai Makwana Vs St. of Guj.
(Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2008)

15. Anversinh Vs St. of Guj., (2021) 3 SCC 12

16. Pravat Chandra Mohanty Vs St. of Odisha,
(2021) 3 SCC 529

17. Pardeshiram Vs St. of M.P., (2021) 3 SCC
238

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

1. This appeal challenges the judgment
and order dated 3.9.2015 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.24,
Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 13 of
2013 convicting accused-appellants under
Sections 302/149 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for
life with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of
default of payment of fine, further to
undergo six months imprisonment.

2. Factual scenario as culled out from
the record and the judgment of the Court
below is that Neelu/ deceased was married
to the son of Dev Saran and there was
family dispute going on and on the date of
incident, the deceased had gone to police
station to report a complaint as soon as she
returned back, the father-in-law, mother-inlaw, sister-in-law and brother-in-law caught
hold her and she was set ablez by Gautam
(brother-in-law). The deceased was married
about 10 years before the incident and
according to the F.I.R. husband of the
deceased was not present at the home.
There was also quarrel between the family
regarding
partition
and
Gautam
and
Subhash used to physically beat her. Dev
Saran, father-in-law took her to the
hospital, where she was treated from
19.5.2012 and she breath her last on
28.5.2012. After ten days of the incident, a
dying
declaration
was
recorded
on
20.5.2012 and after one month i.e. on
968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
20.6.2012 a First Information Report was
lodged.

3. Investigation was moved into
motion. After recording statements of
various persons, the investigating officer
submitted the charge-sheet against accusedappellants. The learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate before whom charge sheet was
laid put the same before the learned
Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions
Judge, on hearing the learned Government
Advocate and learned counsel for the
accused, framed charges.

4. On being summoned, the accused
pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried,
hence, the trial started and the prosecution
examined 6 witnesses who are as follows:

1
Hari Om Mishra
PW1
2
Smt. Suman
PW2
3
Rohit
PW3
4
Dr. Naipal Singh
PW4
5
Sudhir Kumar Soni
PW5
6
Dhirendra Kumar Singh
PW6

5. In support of ocular version
following documents were filed:

1
F.I.R.

Ex.Ka.10
2
Written
Report

Ex.Ka.1
3
Dying
Declaration

Ex. Ka.7
4
Postmortem
Report

Ex.Ka.2
5
Panchayatnama
Ex.Ka.3
6
Charge-sheet
Ex.Ka.9
7
Site plan with index
Ex.Ka.8

6. At the end of the trial and after
recording the statement of the accused
under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing
arguments on behalf of prosecution and the
defence,
the
learned
Sessions
Judge
convicted the appellants.

7. Heard learned counsel for accusedappellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel
for accused-appellants that the accused is in
jail since long time. The incident occurred
on 19.5.2012 at about 8:30 PM (night) and
deceased died on 28.5.2012 i.e. after 12
days of the incident. The dying declaration
was recorded on 20.5.2012 and it was
stated that father-in-law namely, Dev Saran
who had admitted the deceased to the
hospital.
The
dying
declaration
was
recorded by Tehsildar and no such dying
declaration was given to doctor. Even if we
go by the dying declaration, the husband
was not present at home and brother-in-law,
who is in jail had tried to abuse her. While
going
through
the
evidence
of
the
witnesses, evidence of P.W.-1, who is father
of the deceased has deposed on oath that
when he reached at 8:30 PM his daughter
conveyed brief fact to him and he has
withstood the cross-examination of P.W.-2.

9. It is very clear that father-in-law did
not give anything to the son-in-law of P.W.-
1 i.e. husband of the deceased and there
was always a dispute regarding room,
which was being given to the deceased and
her husband.

10. It is next submitted that F.I.R. is
delayed and proper reasons were given as
4 All. Dev Saran & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
969
that he was looking after his daughter, who
had been set her ablezed, therefore he could
not lodge F.I.R. The mother of the deceased
also deposed that marriage of the deceased
was taken place about 10 years before the
incident and out of this wedlock there are
two children aged about 3 years and four
years. The medical evidence and the
evidence of witnesses would go to show
that it was a homicidal death.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants
has vehemently submitted that dying
declaration is not worth believing and it is
an admitted position of fact that she died
out of septicemia.

12. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the appellants that most of the
witnesses have turned hostile despite that,
learned Sessions Judge has convicted them
under Section 302/149 of I.P.C. As far as
conviction under Section 147 of IPC is
concerned, he has completed the period of
incarceration.

13. In support of the his submission,
learned counsel for the appellant has relied
on Khokan@ Khokhan Vishwas v. State
of Chattisgarh, 2021 LawSuit (SC) 80,
Banarsi Dass and Others v. State of
Haryana, Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi v.
Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad, (2013) 0 Supreme (SC) 511,
Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana,
2011 LawSuit (SC) 1149, Arvind Singh v.
State of Bihar, 2001 (3) Supreme 570,
Kashmira Devi v. State of Uttarakhand
and others, (2020) 11 SCC 343, Smt.
Rama Devi v. State of U.P., (2018) 102
ACrC 105, Misri Lal v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2017) 7 ADJ 14, Sanjay and
others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 3
SCC 62, Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P.,
(2019) 1 ADJ 221. In alternative, it is
submitted that at the most punishment can
be under Section 304 II or Section 304 I of
I.P.C. If the Court feels, as the accused
have been in jail since long time, they may
be granted fixed term punishment of
incarceration.

14. Learned A.G.A. for the state has
vehemently submitted that facts of this case
will not permit the Court to convert the
sentence to that under Section 304 Part I of
I.P.C. as none of the judgments relied by
the accused-appellant will apply to the facts
of this case.

15. Learned Judge has categorically
relied on the testimony of Dr. Nepal Singh
and has opined that she died out of
septicemia. There was dying declaration of
the
deceased
where
also
she
had
categorically mentioned that the accused
had tried to set her ablaze. As the period of
incarceration Section 147 of I.P.C. is over,
we are not delving into the same. As far as
Section 302/149 of IPC is concerned, as per
the finding of the learned Sessions Judge,
incident happened out of quarrel and death
has happened due to septicemia on which
heavy reliance has been placed by learned
Sessions Judge.

16. Considering the evidence of the
witnesses and also considering the medical
evidence including post mortem report,
there is no doubt left in our mind about the
guilt of the present appellant.

17. However, the question which falls
for our consideration is whether, on
reappraisal of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the conviction of
the appellant under Section 302/149 of
I.P.C. should be upheld or the conviction
deserves to be converted under Section 304
Part-I or Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. It
970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would be relevant to refer Section 299 of
the Indian Penal Code, which read as
under:

"299.
Culpable
homicide:
Whoever causes death by doing an act with
the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, or with the knowledge
that he is likely by such act to cause death,
commits the offence of culpable homicide."

18. The academic distinction between
''murder' and ''culpable homicide not
amounting to murder' has always vexed the
Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts
losing sight of the true scope and meaning
of the terms used by the legislature in these
sections, allow themselves to be drawn into
minute abstractions. The safest way of
approach
to
the
interpretation
and
application of these provisions seems to be
to keep in focus the keywords used in the
various clauses of Section 299 and 300 of
I.P.Code. The following comparative table
will be helpful in appreciating the points of
distinction between the two offences.

Section 299
Section 300
A
person
commits
culpable homicide if
the act by which the
death is caused is
done-
Subject to certain
exceptions
culpable homicide
is murder is the act
by which the death
is caused is done.
INTENTION
(a) with the intention
of causing death; or
(1)
with
the
intention
of
causing death; or
(b) with the intention
of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to
cause death; or
(2)
with
the
intention
of
causing
such
bodily injury as the
offender knows to
be likely to
cause the death of
the
person
to
whom the harm is
caused;
KNOWLEDGE
KNOWLEDGE
(c)
with
the
knowledge that the act
is
likely
to
cause
death.

(4)
with
the
knowledge that the
act
is
so
immediately
dangerous that it
must
in
all
probability
cause
death
or
such
bodily injury as is
likely
to
cause
death, and without
any
excuse
for
incurring the risk
of causing death or
such injury as is
mentioned above.

19. On overall scrutiny of the facts and
circumstances of the present case coupled
with the opinion of the Medical Officer and
considering the principle laid down by the
Apex Court in the Case of Tukaram and
Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported
in (2011) 4 SCC 250 and in the case of
B.N. Kavatakar and Another Vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in 1994 SUPP (1)
SCC 304, we are of the considered opinion
that the offence would be one punishable
under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC.

20. From the upshot of the aforesaid
discussions, it appears that the death caused
by the accused was not premeditated,
accused had no intention to cause death of
deceased,
the
injuries
were
though
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to have caused death, accused had no
4 All. Dev Saran & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
971
intention to do away with deceased, hence
the instant case falls under the Exceptions 1
and 4 to Section 300 of IPC. While
considering Section 299 as reproduced
herein above offence committed will fall
under Section 304 Part-I as per the
observations of the Apex Court in Veeran
and others Vs. State of M.P. Decided,
(2011) 5 SCR 300 which have to be also
kept in mind.

21. We can safely rely upon the
decision of the Gujarat High court in
Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2008 (Gautam
Manubhai
Makwana
Vs.
State
of
Gujarat) decided on 11.9.2013 wherein the
Court held as under:

"12. In fact, in the case of
Krishan vs. State of Haryana reported in
(2013) 3 SCC 280, the Apex Court has held
that it is not an absolute principle of law
that a dying declaration cannot form the
sole basis of conviction of an accused.
Where the dying declaration is true and
correct, the attendant circumstances show
it to be reliable and it has been recorded in
accordance with law, the deceased made
the dying declaration of her own accord
and upon due certification by the doctor
with regard to the state of mind and body,
then it may not be necessary for the court
to look for corroboration. In such cases,
the dying declaration alone can form the
basis for the conviction of the accused. But
where the dying declaration itself is
attended by suspicious circumstances, has
not been recorded in accordance with law
and settled procedures and practices, then,
it may be necessary for the court to look for
corroboration of the same.

13. However, the complaint given
by the deceased and the dying declaration
recorded by the Executive Magistrate and
the history before the doctor is consistent
and seems to be trustworthy. The same is
also duly corroborated with the evidence of
witnesses and the medical reports as well
as panchnama and it is clear that the
deceased died a homicidal death due to the
act of the appellants in pouring kerosene
and setting him ablaze. We do find that the
dying declaration is trust worthy.

14. However, we have also not
lost sight of the fact that the deceased had
died after a month of treatment. From the
medical reports, it is clear that the
deceased suffered from Septicemia which
happened due to extensive burns.

15. In the case of the B.N.
Kavatakar and another (supra), the Apex
Court in a similar case of septicemia where
the deceased therein had died in the
hospital after five days of the occurrence of
the incident in question, converted the
conviction under section 302 to under
section 326 and modified the sentence
accordingly.

15.1 Similarly, in the case of
Maniben (supra), the Apex Court has
observed as under:

"18. The deceased was admitted
in the hospital with about 60% burn
injuries and during the course of treatment
developed septicemia, which was the main
cause of death of the deceased. It is,
therefore, established that during the
aforesaid period of 8 days the injuries
aggravated and worsened to the extent that
it led to ripening of the injuries and the
deceased died due to poisonous effect of the
injuries.

19. It is established from the
dying declaration of the deceased that she
was living separately from her mother-inlaw, the appellant herein, for many years
and that on the day in question she had a
quarrel with the appellant at her house. It
is also clear from the evidence on record
that immediately after the quarrel she
972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
along with her daughter came to fetch
water and when she was returning, the
appellant came and threw a burning tonsil
on the clothes of the deceased. Since the
deceased was wearing a terylene cloth at
that relevant point of time, it aggravated
the fire which caused the burn injuries.

20. There is also evidence on
record to prove and establish that the
action of the appellant to throw the burning
tonsil was preceded by a quarrel between
the deceased and the appellant. From the
aforesaid evidence on record it cannot be
said that the appellant had the intention
that such action on her part would cause
the death or such bodily injury to the
deceased, which was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause the
death of the deceased. Therefore, in our
considered opinion, the case cannot be said
to be covered under clause (4) of Section
300 of IPC. We are, however, of the
considered opinion that the case of the
appellant is covered under Section 304
Part II of IPC."

16. In the present case, we have
come to the irresistible conclusion that the
role of the appellants is clear from the
dying declaration and other records.
However, the point which has also weighed
with this court are that the deceased had
survived for around 30 days in the hospital
and that his condition worsened after
around 5 days and ultimately died of
septicemia. In fact he had sustained about
35% burns. In that view of the matter, we
are of the opinion that the conviction of the
appellants under section 302 of Indian
Penal Code is required to be converted to
that under section 304(I) of Indian Penal
Code and in view of the same appeal is
partly allowed.

17.
The
conviction
of
the
appellants - original accused under Section
302 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment
and order dated 19.12.2007 arising from
Sessions Case No. 149 of 2007 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court No. 6, Ahmedabad is converted to
conviction under Section 304 (Part I) of
Indian
Penal
Code.
However,
the
conviction of the appellants - original
accused under section 452 of Indian Penal
Code is upheld. The appellants - original
accused are ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of ten years and
fine of Rs. 5000/- each in default rigorous
imprisonment for six months under section
304 (Part I) of Indian Penal Code instead
of life imprisonment and sentence in default
of fine as awarded by the trial court under
section 302 IPC. The sentence imposed in
default of fine under section 452 IPC is
also reduced to two months. Accordingly,
the appellants are ordered to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten
years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default,
rigorous imprisonment for six months for
offence punishable under section 304(I) of
Indian
Penal
Code
and
rigorous
imprisonment for a period of five years and
fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, rigorous
imprisonment for two months for offence
punishable under section 452 of Indian
Penal Code. Both sentences shall run
concurrently. The judgement and order
dated 19.12.2007 is modified accordingly.
The period of sentence already undergone
shall be considered for remission of
sentence qua appellants - original accused.
R & P to be sent back to the trial court
forthwith."

22. The decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Anversinh v. State of Gujarat,
(2021) 3 SCC 12 which was related to
kidnapping from legal guardian, wherein it
was established that the Court while
respecting the concerns of both society and
victim, propounded that the twin principle
4 All. Firoz Vs. State of U.P.
973
of deterrence and correction would be
served
by
reducing
the
period
of
incarceration already undergone by the
accused. In our case, this is not that
gruesome matter where the accused cannot
be dealt with in light of all these judgments.
Judgments in Pravat Chandra Mohanty
v. State of Odisha, (2021) 3 SCC 529 &
Pardeshiram v. State of M.P., (2021) 3
SCC 238 will also enure for the benefit of
the accused.

23. All others judgments which were
pressed into service by the learned counsel
for the appellants are not discussed as that
would be repetition of what we have
decided.

24. We come to the definite conclusion
that the death was due to septicemia. The
judgments cited by the learned counsel for
the appellants would permit us to uphold our
finding which we conclusively hold that the
offence is not under Section 302/149 of I.P.C.
but is culpable homicide not amounting to
murder falling under Section 304(I) I.P.C.,
sentence of all the accused appellants is
reduced to the period they have already
undergone. The fine is reduced to Rs.2,000/-
each to be paid to the original complainant as
compensation within eight weeks from today,
failing which further incarceration of three
months is ordered. The Jail authority would
release
the
accused-appellants
namely,
Subhas and Gautam if not wanted in any
other offence. The accused-appellants already
on bail need not surrender but would deposit
the fine within eight weeks from today.

25. Appeal is partly allowed. Record and
proceedings be sent back to the Court below
forthwith.

26. This Court is thankful to learned
Advocates for ably assisting the Court.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 973
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Jail Appeal No. 147 of 2021

Firoz ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
From Jail, Sri Deepesh Kumar Ojha (A.C.),
Mrs. Seema Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 161 - Trial
court convicted - Rigorous imprisonment -
Appeal against conviction - As per FIR -
On
03.10.2017
at
about
3:00
p.m.
complainant's wife (deceased) and his
son (appellant) were in the house -
Appellant was asking money from his
mother, she said that she had no money
for his 'Awaragardi' - On refusal, appellant
started 'Maar-peet' with her due to which
she died - Trial court framed charge -
Held, PW-1 as only eye witness of the
occurrence, in his examination-in-chief he
supported prosecution version - Cross
examination of PW-1 was recorded after
17 days, turned hostile - PW2, PW-3 and
PW-4 are witnesses of inquest report, rest
are formal witnesses - Testimony of
hostile witness can't be rejected in toto
only on basis of hostility but it may be
accepted as far as it supports the case of
prosecution - Although PW-1 has denied
his presence at the place of occurrence in
his cross examination and St.d that he did
not see the occurrence, appellant is son
of PW-1 and love and affection with the