# Gabadoo @ Laljit Singh v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1307
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-20
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Arvind Kumar Mishra-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gabadoo-laljit-singh-v-state-of-u-p-44191
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Murder - Conviction based on sole eyewitness - Reliability -
Prosecution case rested primarily on testimony of injured eyewitness - Other eyewitness turned hostile and
informant not a direct witness - Held, conviction can be sustained on sole testimony of a single witness if
found wholly reliable and trustworthy - Evidence of injured witness carries great evidentiary value and his
presence at scene natural - Testimony corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence.

Evidence - Single witness - Appreciation - Law does not require plurality of witnesses - Evidence has
to be weighed, not counted - Where testimony of solitary witness is consistent, credible and inspires
confidence, conviction can be based thereon without corroboration.

Evidence - Ocular and medical evidence - Corroboration - Eyewitness account of bomb explosion
and firearm injury corroborated by post-mortem findings showing blast and gunshot injuries - Minor
variations in timing of injuries not fatal - Ocular evidence prevails when broadly consistent with medical
evidence.

Criminal Trial - FIR - Allegation of ante-timing - Rejection - FIR lodged on same day within
reasonable time - Mere fact that police made preliminary inquiry before registration does not render FIR
ante-timed or fabricated.

Criminal Trial - Defective investigation - Effect - Lapses in investigation not sufficient to discard
otherwise reliable prosecution evidence - Court required to assess credibility of evidence independently.
In Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction under S. 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment affirmed.

Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Gabadoo @ Laljit Singh Vs State Of U.P.
1307
(2016) 8 ILRA 1307
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 7117 Of 2006

Gabadoo @ Laljit Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
J.N. Singh, Ambrish Kumar, K.Kumar Tripathi, N.K.Mishra, R.B. Verma

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Murder - Conviction based on sole eyewitness - Reliability -
Prosecution case rested primarily on testimony of injured eyewitness - Other eyewitness turned hostile and
informant not a direct witness - Held, conviction can be sustained on sole testimony of a single witness if
found wholly reliable and trustworthy - Evidence of injured witness carries great evidentiary value and his
presence at scene natural - Testimony corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence.

Evidence - Single witness - Appreciation - Law does not require plurality of witnesses - Evidence has
to be weighed, not counted - Where testimony of solitary witness is consistent, credible and inspires
confidence, conviction can be based thereon without corroboration.

Evidence - Ocular and medical evidence - Corroboration - Eyewitness account of bomb explosion
and firearm injury corroborated by post-mortem findings showing blast and gunshot injuries - Minor
variations in timing of injuries not fatal - Ocular evidence prevails when broadly consistent with medical
evidence.

Criminal Trial - FIR - Allegation of ante-timing - Rejection - FIR lodged on same day within
reasonable time - Mere fact that police made preliminary inquiry before registration does not render FIR
ante-timed or fabricated.

Criminal Trial - Defective investigation - Effect - Lapses in investigation not sufficient to discard
otherwise reliable prosecution evidence - Court required to assess credibility of evidence independently.
In Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction under S. 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment affirmed.

Cases cited:

1. Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of MadrasAIR 1957 SC 614
1308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Kusti Mallaiah Vs. State of A.P.2013 Cri.LJ 3098

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sagir Ahmad, Sri J.K.
Upadhyay and Ms. Manju Thathur, learned AGAs for the State and perused the record.

2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant Gabadoo @ Laljit Singh
against the judgment and order dated 06.11.2006 passed by I-Additional Sessions Judge, Kannauj,
in Sessions Trial No.205 of 2005 (State Vs. Gabadoo @ Laljit) arising out of Case Crime No.315 of
2005 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj whereby he has been
convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.

3. Facts of this appeal as unfolded in the first information report appear to be; that first
informant Suresh Singh resident of Village Rudauli, Police Station Kannauj, lodged the first
information report at Police Station Gursahaiganj, on 30.04.2005 at 20:05 hours to the effect that
his son Samar Singh had gone to purchase some articles on bicycle from market of village
Bhawanipur on 30.04.2005. When he was returning from market around 5:00 p.m. on bicycle, he
was being followed at some distance by Amar Singh son of Vijay Bahadur Singh and Brij Bhan
Singh son of Ram Autar. Certain cemented pipes were lying on the road at some place 1 kilometer
away to the southern side of village Bhawanipur where the appellant was lying in ambush. He came
out of the aforesaid pipe and hurled bomb upon Samar Singh as a result of which Samar Singh fell
down from his bicycle and the appellant came close to him and fired from close range on the back
of his neck due to which Samar Singh died on the spot. Because of explosion of bomb, Amar
Singh, and the another co-villager who was also following the deceased sustained injuries. The
motive for committing crime has been suggested to be old enmity between families of the deceased
and the appellant. The appellant after committing the murder fled away towards village
Badlepurwa. The incident was witnessed by Amar Singh and Brij Bhan Singh. They could not
catch the appellant because of fear of weapon which the appellant was possessing. The dead body
was lying on the spot. Report be lodged and action be taken.

4. On the basis of the first information report, relevant entries were made in Check FIR at
Crime No.315 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj on
30.04.2005 at 20:05 p.m. Check FIR is Ext. Ka-5. On the basis of the entry made in the Check FIR,
a case was registered against the appellant under Section 302 IPC in the relevant General Diary,
rapat no.47 on 30.04.2005 at Crime No.315 of 2005 at the same Police Station, copy whereof
Exhibit Ka-6.

5. Thereafter investigation of the case commenced. PW-9 Maan Singh Yadav was entrusted
with investigation of the case. In the process, he got inquest report of the deceased Samar Singh
prepared by S.S.I. R.V. Singh under his supervision. Inquest report was completed at 11:30 p.m.
'Panchas' opined that for ascertaining real cause of death, dead body of the deceased Samar Singh
should be sent for post mortem examination. This inquest report is Ext. Ka-11.
8 All. Gabadoo @ Laljit Singh Vs State Of U.P.
1309
6. As a sequel to the same, relevant papers were also prepared for sending the dead body
for post mortem examination which are letter to CMO Ext. Ka-12, Photonash Ext. Ka-13 and Police
Challan Form No.13 Ext. Ka-14. The Investigating Officer also prepared memo of cycle of the
deceased Samar Singh which memo is Ext. Ka-2. In due course, the Investigating Officer also
recorded recovery of weapon used in the alleged crime on 18.05.2005 and prepared memo of the
same which is Ext. Ka-10 on record. Besides, the Investigating Officer also collected sample of
simple and blood stained soil from the spot and prepared memo of the same which is Ext. Ka-16 on
record.

7. Record reflects that post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Samar
Singh was conducted by Dr. Anoop Singh Gautam, PW-4 at mortuary district hospital Fatehgarh on
01.05.2005 at 2:10 p.m. wherein he noted the following anti mortem injuries:

(1) Firearm wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1 cm x through and through back of
neck upper part margins inverted lacerated ecchymosed. Blackening and tattooing present
around wound communicating wound of exit 2 cm x 1.5 cm over right side of chin,
mandible lacerated. Teeth loose broken, tongue lacerated. Margins of wound everted.

(2) Blast injury 12 cm x 11 cm on back of right side of chest scapular region,
blackening, tattooing present. Scorching hair back of neck.

(3) Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm on back of right leg.

8. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante
mortem firearm injuries. This post mortem examination report is Ext. Ka-3.

9. Record further reflects that medical examination of the injured Amar Singh was
conducted by PW-5 Dr. Suresh Patariya at PHC Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj on 01.05.2005 at
8:30 a.m. wherein following injury was found:

(1) One lacerated wound of size 3.0 cm x 1.0 cm x muscle deep present in left
parieto-occipital part of scalp. Margins are lacerated. Clotted blood seen in wound.

10. In the opinion of the doctor, injury was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt
object. This injury report is Ext. Ka-3.

11. The Investigating Officer PW-9 Maan Singh Yadav also prepared site plan of the
incident besides recording the statement of various witnesses. The site plan is Ext. Ka-15. After
completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed in this case against the appellant under Section
302 IPC at Crime No.315 of 2005 at Police Station Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj, which is Ext.
Ka-17 on record. Thereafter the case of the appellant was committed to the court of Sessions from
1310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

where it was made over for trial to the concerned trial court of I-Additional Sessions Judge,
Kannauj.

12. The trial court heard the appellant on the point of charge and charged him under Section
302 IPC. Charge was read over and explained to the appellant who denied the charge and claimed
to be tried. Thereafter the prosecution was asked to adduce its testimony in order to prove its case
whereupon the prosecution produced in all 10 witnesses. A brief reference of the same is hereunder.

13. PW-1 Suresh Singh is first informant. He has claimed himself to be an
eyewitness of the incident and has proved the written report Ext. Ka-1. PW-2 Brij Bhan
Singh has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution version. PW-3 Amar Singh
claims himself to be injured eyewitness. PW-4 is Dr. Anoop Singh Gautam who has
conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Samar Singh on
01.05.2005 and has proved the same as Ext. Ka-3. PW-5 is Dr. Suresh Patariya who has
examined injury on the person of the injured Amar Singh on 01.05.2005 at PHC
Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj and has proved injury report as Ext. Ka-3. PW-6 Dhawal
Singh has proved entry made in Check FIR and entry made in the concerned General Diary
as Ext. Ka-5 and Ka-6, respectively. He has also proved 'Majrubi Chitthi' of Amar Singh as
Ext. Ka-7. PW-8 Constable Dinesh Shanker Chaubey is formal witness and has witnessed
recovery of countrymade pistol 315 bore from possession of the appellant and he has also
proved recovery memo as Ext. Ka-10. PW-9 Maan Singh Yadav is Investigating Officer.
He has detailed various steps whereby he completed investigation and in the process, he
has proved several prosecution papers. Except as above, the rest of the witnesses were
concerned with Case Crime No.378 of 2005 (in Sessions Trial No.204 of 2005), therefore,
their reference is not being made in this judgment which is confined to Crime No.315 of
2005 under Section 302 IPC.

14. Thereafter evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the
appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has termed his implication
false on account of enmity and it has been stated that appellant's mother was assaulted with
gunshot by the deceased and Ajay Pal in which case some compromise was entered into
between the parties due to which the first informant was inimical towards the appellant. No
evidence whatsoever has been led by the defence.

15. Learned trial court after hearing both the sides on merit passed the aforesaid
judgment and order of conviction dated 06.11.2006 sentencing the appellant to life
imprisonment. Consequently this appeal.

16. It has been vehemently claimed on behalf of the appellant that this case is
absolutely false and there is no clinching evidence appearing against the appellant. Even
circumstances do not support the case of the prosecution. The first information report is
ante timed. The place of the incident is deserted jungle and no one in fact saw the incident.
After the incident, the police did a lot of manipulation and found it convenient to rope in
8 All. Gabadoo @ Laljit Singh Vs State Of U.P.
1311
the appellant in this case. It can be conveniently seen that there are cuttings in the inquest
report. The fact is that the dead body was sealed and thereafter cuttings were made in the
inquest report in order to adjust the same to the fictitious circumstances of the case.

17. It has been further added by learned counsel for the appellant that the statement
of the prosecution witnesses is contradictory in material particulars. The blood stained
clothes from the first informant were taken at inordinate delay on 31.08.2005. In fact, the
place of occurrence is doubtful and not certain. In this case, it appears from circumstances
that the dead body was recovered somewhere and the proceedings undertaken and then the
prosecution deliberately made false implication of the appellant in this case. The
prosecution has failed to establish charge against the appellant. Finding of conviction is
based more on conjecture and surmises than on evidence on record.

18. Per contra, Sri J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGA has replied that the case in hand is
consistent
and
genuine
one.
Evidence
on
record
proves
prosecution
version
overwhelmingly. It cannot be said to be either shallow or shaky. The incident has been
witnessed by the first informant and Amar Singh. Moreover, Amar Singh is an injured
witness and his injury has been medically examined at PHC Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj
on 05.01.2005 and the doctor has proved his injury report which will be read against the
appellant. His presence on the spot is most natural. He is an independent prosecution
witness.

19. Learned AGA further added that besides distance from the place of the
occurrence to Police Station Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj is 13 kilometers. The incident
took place on 30.04.2005 around 05:00 p.m., whereas, the first information report was
lodged the very same day at 20:05 hours at Police Station Gursahaiganj, District Kannauj
which, under circumstances, is justified and it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay
in lodging of the first information report. There is no point in sparing real culprit and
implicating an innocent person in this case. The appellant was sighted by many prosecution
witnesses at the time of the occurrence which is supported by direct testimony of the
prosecution witnesses. The testimony of the prosecution witness of fact does inspire
confidence and there is no element of doubt in their testimony. Accordingly, the instant
appeal has no force.

20. Also considered above submissions.

21. The moot point involved in this case relates to the fact whether the prosecution
has been able to establish its charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and
whether the incident was not seen by anyone and it is a case of blind murder?

22. Before we enter into merit of this case it would be convenient to have glimpse
of the contents of the first information report wherein allegations have been made by the
first informant, PW-1 Suresh Singh that on 30.04.2005, his son Samar Singh had gone to
1312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

village Bhawanipur for marketing on bicycle and he was returning home around 5:00 p.m.
when he was being followed at some distance on bicycle by Amar Singh and Brij Bhan
Singh of the same village. Some cemented pipes were lying by the side of the road at some
place away to one kilometer south of village Bhawanipur, where the appellant was lying in
ambush. All of a sudden he came out of these pipes and hurled bomb on Samar Singh who
fell down from his bicycle and in the meantime the appellant fired from behind the neck of
the deceased with countrymade pistol due to which he died. Because of explosion of bomb,
some splinter injury was also caused to the injured Amar Singh.

23. It is stated that there was old enmity between family members of the first
informant and the appellant. The appellant after committing the offence fled away towards
Badlepurwa. In this case, another witness named in the first information report Brij Bhan
Singh has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution version. Therefore, his
testimony is discarded to that extent. However, testimony of first informant, PW-1 Suresh
Singh and the injured witness PW-3 Amar Singh are quite relevant, for assessing merit of
the case.

24. PW-1 Suresh Singh has stated that the incident occurred on 30.04.2005 when
his son Samar Singh had gone to village Bhawanipur for marketing and he was returning
home on bicycle at 5:00 p.m. He was also being followed by co-villagers Amar Singh and
Brij Bhan Singh on bicycle. At some place one kilometer away on southern side of village
Bhawanipur, some cemented pipes were lying by the side of the road in which the appellant
had hidden himself and all of a sudden he came out of cemented pipes and hurled bomb
from behind upon Samar Singh, due to which Samar Singh fell down from his bicycle then
the appellant shot fire on the neck of Samar Singh as a result of which Samar Singh died on
the spot. Amar Singh who was following the deceased at some distance also sustained
bomb injury.

25. PW-1 Suresh Singh has further stated that the incident was witnessed by Amar
Singh and Brij Bhan Singh and he also arrived on the spot and he too witnessed the
incident. Thereafter he went to the Police Station and then he lodged the first information
report. However, this witness has not clarified in his examination-in-chief as to how he
arrived on the spot and how he witnessed the incident. It appears that this witness arrived
on the spot after a short while after the incident had taken place, but under facts and
circumstances, it is apparent that he did not witness the incident as such. Therefore, on
point of being eyewitness to the occurrence, testimony of this witness cannot be said to be
relevant and credible, therefore, eyewitness account testimony, as such, is not to be
believed as given by PW-1 Suresh Singh.

26. At this juncture we may record that another so called eyewitness PW-2 Brij
Bhan Singh has turned hostile and he has not supported the prosecution version. He has
been cross examined by the prosecution wherein he has reiterated his claim that he did not
witness the incident and he was not present on the spot. Therefore, testimony of PW-2 also
8 All. Gabadoo @ Laljit Singh Vs State Of U.P.
1313
becomes inadmissible on the point of being eyewitness to the occurrence. Now we are left
with testimony of solitary eyewitness Amar Singh. We may appraise the same in its
entirety as available on record.

27. PW-3 Amar Singh has stated in his testimony that on 30.04.2005, he was going
along with Brij Bhan Singh on bicycle and Samar Singh who belonged to his village, was
also riding on bicycle ahead of him. One kilometer south away to village Bhawanipur,
some cemented pipes were lying. It was around 5:00 p.m., the appellant came out of these
cemented pipes and hurled bomb on Samar Singh due to which Samar Singh sustained
injury and fell on the ground. He claimed that he also sustained splinter injury. Thereafter
the appellant fired on Samar Singh. A number of people arrived on the spot when the
appellant made his escape good. Samar Singh died on the spot after sustaining gun shot
injury.

28. PW-3 Amar Singh has stated that he too was medically examined. He has stated
that at the time of the incident, no other person was there except Brij Bhan Singh and
himself. A number of people arrived on the spot after some time of the incident. He has
stated in his cross examination that he informed about the incident to the father of the
deceased. The first informant-father of the deceased-met him around 5:15 p.m. He has
stated at page 22 of the paper book in his cross examination that Daroga Ji enquired of him
at the police station thereafter the first information report was lodged. However, he has
stated that the first information report was lodged only after inquiry was made from him.

29. At this stage, contention has been raised on behalf of the appellant that this
piece of testimony specifically establishes that the first information report was lodged at
the interference of 'Daroga Ji' and the same is outcome of well thought out deliberation.
The appellant's name was mentioned in the first information report merely because the first
informant was abhorrent towards the appellant.

30. This specific, contention is not sustainable in view of the fact that it is very
common experience that as and when one goes to some police station for lodging of the
first information report, primarily inquiry is made regarding the incident/occurrence. After
inquiry is made, if the incident appears to be genuine and element of truth is found to be
existing in the description inquiry/description of incident then naturally the first
information report is lodged at the police station. This witness has nowhere stated that the
first information report was deliberated by Daroga Ji. This piece of testimony that after
inquiry was made by Darogaji then the first information report was lodged, cannot be
interpreted to mean that Daroga Ji himself entered into shoes of first informant and dictated
the first information report.

31. It is due to viles and guiles of clever cross examination by the defence wherein
such type of aberrations have surfaced and these aberrations cannot paint different picture
than the one which this witness (PW-3) claims to testify; because there is no positive
1314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

assertion on the part of this witness that the first information report is outcome of the
dictation of Daroga Ji, therefore, it cannot be contemplated that the first information report
is ante timed. Merely an isolated piece of evidence will not render the FIR ante time, if the
testimony on the whole reveals that it was act of the first informant alone, as is the case in
hand.

32. A careful analysis of the post mortem report at this stage becomes relevant
wherein we discover ante mortem injuries (1) firearm wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1 cm x
through and through back of neck upper part margins inverted lacerated ecchymosed.
Blackening and tattooing present around wound communicating wound of exit 2 cm x 1.5
cm over right side of chin, mandible lacerated. Teeth loose broken, tongue lacerated.
Margins of wound everted. (2) Blast injury 12 cm x 11 cm on back of right side of chest
scapular region, blackening, tattooing present. Scorching hair back of neck. (3) Abrasion 3
cm x 1 cm on back of right leg. Therefore, it is obvious that fact of explosion of bomb on
the spot and causing of firearm injury both are corroborated by post mortem examination
report Ext. Ka-3.

33. In this regard, we may also discuss testimony of Dr. Anoop Singh Gautam PW-4
who conducted the post mortem examination and proved the same as Ext. Ka-3. In the post
mortem examination report, duration of death has been stated to be about one day and the
same fact has been testified by this witness before the trial court. However, he has
suggested in his cross examination that injuries found on the body of the deceased could
have been caused between 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on 30.04.2005. This fact merely suggests
to only the admissible variation in time of injury that there is possibility of injuries being
caused between 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on 30.04.2005. But fact of this admissible variation
in time will not be presumed to the extent that it was not caused around 5:00 p.m. It has not
been testified that these injuries could not have been caused around 5:00 p.m. on
30.04.2005. Some marginal difference in time gap is always there in such cases like the
present one where death of a person is under scrutiny. Normally in death cases, there is
variation of six hours on either side based on medical jurisprudence. No specific challenge
has been made to the doctor that these injuries could not have been caused by bomb
explosion or firearm at 5:00 pm. on 30.04.2005. Therefore, ocular testimony is
corroborated by medical testimony and presence of eyewitness Amar Singh PW-3 on the
spot cannot be doubted and cannot be said to be unnatural and his presence on the spot
becomes natural and probable. His testimony carries element of truth and the same is
supported by attendant circumstances.

34. PW-5 Dr. Suresh Patariya has proved injury report Ext. Ka-3 relating to the
injury caused to Amar Singh in the shape of lacerated wound of size 3.0 cm x 1.0 cm x
muscle deep present in left parieto-occipital part of scalp. Margins are lacerated. Clotted
blood seen in wound. This injury has been said to be of duration 12 to 24 hours. This
medical examination was conducted at 8:30 a.m. on 01.05.2005 and the duration described
very well covers the time and date of occurrence. However, the doctor has opined that
8 All. Gabadoo @ Laljit Singh Vs State Of U.P.
1315
injury was simple and caused by hard and blunt object. The doctor witness in his cross
examination has stated that this injury cannot be said to be blast injury. Assuming it to be;
that this injury is superficial and cannot be blast injury even then that alone will not nullify
presence of PW-3 Amar Singh on the spot.

35. It has been held in catena of decisions of the Apex Court that there is no legal
hurdle in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness if his version is
found to be consistent clear and reliable, for the principle is that the evidence has to be
weighed and not to be counted. In Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras; AIR 1957 SC
614, it has been held that if the testimony of a singular witness is found by the court to be
entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment in recording the conviction of the accused on
such proof. In the said pronouncement it has been further ruled that the law of evidence
does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given
fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral
testimony into three categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii)
neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no
difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty
arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for
corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before
acting upon the testimony of a single witness as has been held in the case of Kusti Mallaiah
Vs. State of A.P.: 2013 Cri.LJ 3098.

36. Moreover, PW-9 Maan Singh Yadav, the Investigating Officer has proved
investigation and also proved fact that he took simple soil, blood stained soil from the spot
and memo of the same which he prepared is Ext. Ka-16. Therefore, the place of the
occurrence cannot be said to be uncertain or doubtful. In so far as statement of eyewitness
PW-3 Amar Singh is concerned, the same is clinching, consistent and inspiring confidence
and it gives innocuous description of the incident. There is no such material contradiction
as may render his testimony dubious or unreliable.

37. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any such material
contradiction in his testimony and in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by
the Investigating Officer. May be that some laches have been committed by the
Investigating Officer but that alone will not throw away the prosecution case and that
factor alone will not generate doubt in the testimony of eyewitness PW-3 Amar Singh.

38. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has stated
that he has been falsely implicated in this case on account of the fact that one Ajay Pal and
the deceased had fired on his mother five years ago for which the first information report
was lodged but compromise was entered into between the parties due to which the first
informant was inimical towards the appellant, but this fact by itself cannot be any reason
for PW-3 Amar Singh to depose falsely against the appellant. We may conveniently
observe that in such a case of murder, it is hard thinking that any independent witness shall
1316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

be interested in falsely implicating an innocent person as the murderer while sparing real
culprit. Moreover, no such material exists on record nor has come in the testimony of PW-3
in his cross examination that he is prejudicial towards the appellant and is interested in
achieving his conviction.

39. In this view of the matter, we find that testimony on record qua circumstances
are sufficient to establish and prove charge under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable
doubt. Learned trial court has taken correct view of the fact, circumstances and evidence on
record and has recorded just finding and has rightly sentenced the appellant to life
imprisonment which order of conviction and sentence need no interference by this Court.
Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.11.2006 passed by trial court in Sessions
Trial No.205 of 2005 against the appellant is upheld by us.

40. In view of above, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. The appellant is in
jail. He shall serve out his sentence.

41. Let a copy of this judgment be certified to the trial court for necessary
information and follow up action.
-----------
8 All. Seema Devi Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
1317
(2016) 8 ILRA 1317
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/s 482 No.- 22437 Of 2016

Seema Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vijay Singh Sengar, Pankaj Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 482 - Exercise of inherent powers - Expeditious trial -
Directions to trial court - Application filed seeking appropriate directions in pending complaint case under Ss.
498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and S. 4 Dowry Prohibition Act - Record revealed repeated adjournments on dates
when Presiding Officer was not available - Held, such practice of fixing dates when likelihood of Presiding
Officer's absence exists is improper and must be avoided - Trial courts expected to regulate listing appropriately
- Direction issued to trial court to frame charges expeditiously and thereafter conclude trial proceedings with
due promptitude.
Practice and Procedure - Adjournments - Administrative discipline in listing of cases - Fixing dates
despite foreseeable absence of Presiding Officer leads to delay and prejudice to litigants - Courts must ensure
effective case management and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
In Result: Application disposed of with direction to the trial court to frame charges expeditiously and proceed to
conclude the trial without undue delay.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the records.

2. From perusal of order sheet, it appears that many dates of the case were fixed when
Presiding Officer of the court was not available. When there is probability of Presiding Officer being
absent, dates for that period should not be fixed. Presiding Officers are expected to take note of it.

3. This application is disposed of with observation that trial court will make attempt to frame
charge expeditiously in complaint case no. 997/2014 (Seema Devi Vs. Manish Kumar & others)
under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and section 4 D.P. Act, P.S. Meerganj, District Jaunpur and
thereafter try to conclude hearing of the case expeditiously.
---------