# Guddu Pal v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 107
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2228 of 2008
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/guddu-pal-v-state-of-u-p-48404
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law
-Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34
-
Challenge
to-conviction-murderoutraging the modesty of informant's
wife-she gone to her field to weed out
the peppermint crop-accused tried to
rape her-they caused injury to her with
Banka and knife-when she made alarm
PW-1 and PW-2 reached on the spot-as
per site plan body was found one of the
accused field and the incident took place
the same place as mentioned by the
witnesses-the entire recovery process
was
done
in
the
presence
of
independent witness-recovery of banka
has been shown at the pointing out of
the one accused-crime was committed
with
the
respective
weapons
as
mentioned
in
the
FIR-Hence,
no
illegality or infirmity in the judgment
and order of the trial court.(Para 1 to
22)

B. The court has to examine whether
evidence read as a whole appears to
have
a
ring
of
truth.
Once
the
impression is formed, it is undoubtedly
necessary for the court to scrutinise the
evidence more particularly keeping in
view the deficiencies, drawbacks and
infirmities pointed out in the evidence as
a whole and evaluate them to find out
whether it is against the general tenor
of evidence given by the witnesses and
whether the earlier evaluation of the
evidence is shaken, as to render it
unworthy
of
belief.Every
such
improvement, not directly related to the
occurrence, is not a ground to doubt the
testimony of a witness. (Para 18 to 20)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Guddu Pal Vs. State of U.P.
107
2006 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. P.SAfjalgarh, District-Bijnor for conviction
and sentence of appellant no.2-Resham
Singh is hereby affirmed.

54. The appeal is found devoid of
merit and hence dismissed.

55. The appellant no.2-Resham Singh
is in jail.

56. Certify this judgment to the court
below immediately for necessary action.

57. The trial court record be sent back
immediately.
----------
(2022)05ILR A107
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2228 of 2008

Guddu Pal ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Balram Singh, Amrendra Kumar, Anand
Mohan, Anil Pratap Singh, Jayant Singh
Tomar, LK Gupta, Manjusha Kapil, O.P.
Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law
-Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34
-
Challenge
to-conviction-murderoutraging the modesty of informant's
wife-she gone to her field to weed out
the peppermint crop-accused tried to
rape her-they caused injury to her with
Banka and knife-when she made alarm
PW-1 and PW-2 reached on the spot-as
per site plan body was found one of the
accused field and the incident took place
the same place as mentioned by the
witnesses-the entire recovery process
was
done
in
the
presence
of
independent witness-recovery of banka
has been shown at the pointing out of
the one accused-crime was committed
with
the
respective
weapons
as
mentioned
in
the
FIR-Hence,
no
illegality or infirmity in the judgment
and order of the trial court.(Para 1 to
22)

B. The court has to examine whether
evidence read as a whole appears to
have
a
ring
of
truth.
Once
the
impression is formed, it is undoubtedly
necessary for the court to scrutinise the
evidence more particularly keeping in
view the deficiencies, drawbacks and
infirmities pointed out in the evidence as
a whole and evaluate them to find out
whether it is against the general tenor
of evidence given by the witnesses and
whether the earlier evaluation of the
evidence is shaken, as to render it
unworthy
of
belief.Every
such
improvement, not directly related to the
occurrence, is not a ground to doubt the
testimony of a witness. (Para 18 to 20)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Rohtash Kumar Vs St. of Har. (2013) 14 SCC
434

2. Kuriya & anr.. Vs St. of Raj. (2012) 10 SCC
433

3. Kathi Bharat Vajsur Vs St. of Guj.(2012) 5
SCC 724

4. Naryana Chetanr.am Chaudhary Vs St. of
Mah. (2000) 8 SCC 457

5. Gura Singh Vs St. of Raj. (2001) 2 SCC 205
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. Sukhchain Singh Vs St. of Har. (2002) 5 SCC
100

7. Ref. Sunil Kumar Vs St. (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) (2003) 11 SCC 367

8. Ashok Kumar Vs St. of Har. (2010 ) 12 SCC
350

9. Shivlal Vs St. of Chhatisgarh (2011) 9 SCC
561

10. Shyamlal Ghosh Vs St. of W. B.(2012) 7 SCC
646

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. The present appeal has been
preferred against the judgment and order
dated 05.09.2008 passed by the Additional
Session Judge, Court No. 5, Sitapur in
Session Trial No. 602 of 2006 (State Vs.
Guddu Pal and Another) in Case Crime No.
168 of 2006, under Section 302 read with
Section 34 I.P.C., Police Station - Ataria,
District Sitapur thereby convicting and
sentencing the appellants, under the aforesaid
sections for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.
10,000/- each and in case of default of
payment of fine additional six months
rigorous imprisonment.

2. The First Information Report was
lodged on 13.07.2006 by Pappu Pal at 12:30.
The complainant stated in the F.I.R. that his
wife Gudda had gone to her field on
13.07.2016 to weed out the peppermint crop
and he was present in his house. At about
10:30 a.m., Guddu S/o Sohanpal, Lala @
Lalji S/o Gokaran Pal of his own village and
another person came to the place of incident
and they outraged the modesty of his wife
and tried to commit rape with her. His wife
made protest and ran away from the field
while making alarm. All the three accused
caught her and thereafter Guddu armed with
Banka and Lalji with knife caused injury to
her. On alarm being raised by his wife, he and
his brother Ram Singh, Prakash Pasi S/o
Lekhai and Raju S/o Mahesh Pasi and other
witnesses came to the place of incident.
Accused Guddu and Lalji along with a third
unknown person ran away from the place of
incident towards the west side of the village.

3. On the said application Case Crime No.
168 of 2006, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police
Station Atariya, District Sitapur, was registered.
The inquest was prepared and the Investigating
Officer sent the dead body for post mortem. The
Investigating Officer investigated the case and a
charge sheet was filed under Section 302 I.P.C.
against the accused after collecting the evidences.
The case was committed on 26.08.2006 before the
Sessions Court by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sitapur and thereafter the charges were framed
under Section 302/34 I.P.C., which was denied by
the accused. The post mortem report indicates
three ante mortem injuries on the body of the
deceased which follows as under:

"(i) Incised wound 8cm X 3 cm X
abdominal cavity deep on the right side of upper
abdomen obliquely placed, underlying liver cut.

(ii) Incised wound 1.5 cm X 0.5 cm X
deep abdominal cavity depth present on the
illegible of abdomen. Right side illegible with
underlying liver cut, plenty of clotted blood on the
back of abdominal cavity, discending arte cut.

(iii) Incised wound 2 cm X 0.5 cm X
abdominal cavity deep. On the left side of upper
abdomen 12 cm below to right nipple underlying.
stomach cut."

4. The doctor has opined the cause of death
is due to shock and hemorrhage due to ante
mortem injuries sustained.

5. Prosecution had produced six
witnesses, namely, who were examined. (1)
Pappu Pal, the complainant, (2) Sri Ram
Singh, the eye witness, (3) P.W. -3 Sriram,
5 All. Guddu Pal Vs. State of U.P.
109
who proved the recovery of Banka, (4) P.W.
-4
Mukesh
Kumar
Chaturvedi,
the
constable who lodged the F.I.R., (5) P.W. -5
S.I. Harilal Kardam and P.W. -6 Dr. B.R.
Jaiswal who conducted the post mortem.

6. The accused-appellants were
afforded opportunity under Section 313
Cr.P.C. The accused Guddu Pal stated that
he was falsely implicated due to enmity of
elections of Gram Pradhan and he stated
that he was caught from his house and false
recovery has been shown against him.
Accused Lala @ Lalji in his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he too
was implicated due to election of Gram
Pradhan and stated that the witnesses have
given false statements.

7. After adducing the evidences on
record, the trial court passed judgment on
05.09.2008 and the accused have been
convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and
sentenced with life imprisonment. Hence
the present appeal.

8. We have heard Ms. Manjusha
Kapil, learned Counsel for the appellant
and Shri Pankaj Tewari, learned A.G.A. for
the State-respondents and perused the
record.

9. P.W. -1 was examined before the
court and he stated in examination in chief
that the incident took place prior to nine
months at 10:30 a.m. He was present in his
house and his wife had gone to weed out
the peppermint crop in her field. The field
was 70-80 steps away from his house.
When he heard the alarm raised by his
wife, he reached to the field and saw that
accused Lala armed with knife, Guddu
armed with Banka were assaulting and
causing injury to his wife and there was
another man assisting the accused in
commission of offence. He has further
stated in examination in chief that in the
meantime his elder brother Ram Singh,
Raju and Prakash and other witnesses of
the village came to the place of incident.
The accused ran way from the place of
incident after causing the injuries. He saw
that his wife was dead. He orally stated the
fact to Jagdev Prasad who wrote the
tehreer. Whatever, he stated before the
scriber of the written report, the same was
heard by him and then he made his
signature thereon. The said report was
submitted to Munshi of Police Station who
lodged the report.

In the cross examination, P.W. -1
stated before the court that he has no
relation with accused Guddu. Gokaran is
father of accused Lala and Lala has got
another brother, namely, Chhotanne and
prior to two years from the date of incident,
the election of Gram Pradhan took place.
In the said election Chhotanne, Vijaivir and
others were contesting candidates. He
further stated in the cross examination that
there was no occasion to falsely implicate
accused Lala out of grudge of election of
Gram Pradhan. Chhotanne was doing
business
of
dairy/milk
and
he
saw
Chhotanne at 5 p.m. in the village. He
further admitted that Chhotanne used to go
Lucknow for selling milk. The P.W. -1
further suggested in the cross examination
that there was no occasion to falsely
implicate Lala at the place of Chhotanne. In
the cross examination, it has been stated by
the P.W. -1 that boundary of Ram Sewak is
situated towards the eastern side of
peppermint field and there was no other
adjoining field towards the eastern side.
There lies a field related to Guddu son of
Sohan towards the northern side of
peppermint field. It is further admitted in
the cross examination that he and his
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
brother Ram Singh were witness of inquest
and the body of the deceased was not found
in the field of Guddu. He further suggested
in the cross examination that he was unable
to suggest as to why the dead body was
shown in the field of Guddu. He stated that
his wife had gone for weeding out the
peppermint in the field at 10 O' Clock in
the morning and after half an hour, she was
killed. She had eaten paratha and kheer. He
further denied the suggestion that he was
not present in his house at the time of
incident. He further denied that the
deceased was killed in the morning when
she had gone to ease out herself.

He further deposed before the
court that Khurpa was lying in the
peppermint field when he reached there.
After lodging the report police reached to
the spot. The spot was inspected by the
police but the Khurpa was not present at
the time of spot inspection. He further
stated that his brother Ram Singh and his
mother were present. He admitted that he
could not point out the presence of Khurpa
at the time of spot inspection. He did not
ask his brother Ram Singh and his mother
regarding Khurpa. He admitted that he had
seen the entire incidence and accused were
assaulting his wife at the eastern side of the
peppermint field. When he raised an alarm,
the accused ran away from the place of
occurrence. Ram Singh had also reached to
the place of occurrence. He further
admitted that firstly, he reached to the place
of occurrence and thereafter the villagers
reached there. The accused ran away
towards the western side of the village. He
further admitted that he told Darogaji that
accused ran away towards the southern
side. He further deposed that he saw the
knife used by the accused and he saw that
the knife had sharpness at one side. He
denied the charges of the defence side that
he was not eye witness. He went to the
police station through bicycle and reached
within twenty minutes. The hand-written
tahreer was given to the police station. The
report was handed over to Munshiji in the
police station who handed over the same to
the Darogaji. The report was read before
him by Moharrir.

10. P.W. -2 Ram Singh was also
examined and in his examination in chief
he also supported the prosecution case as
stated by his brother i.e. P.W. -1. P.W. -2
Ram Singh stated before the court that he
was real brother of complainant - P.W.- 1
and deceased was wife of the P.W. - 1. he
deposed that as soon as he started
ploughing his field, he heard the alarm
raised by wife of the complainant and
reached to the spot. He saw that accused
Guddu Pal armed with Banka and accused
Lala armed with knife, were assaulting his
brother's wife. He could not recognize the
third person who caught hold of the
deceased. He and his brother Pappu tried to
catch the accused but they fled away
towards Nayagaon. He further stated that as
soon as he reached to deceased he saw that
she was dead. He further admitted that
inquest was prepared in front of him and he
signed on the same and his statement was
recorded.

11. P.W. -3, Sriram was also examined
before the court and he stated that the
Banka was recovered in his presence which
was found in the flooded field of
Moolchand, under the water. The recovery
memo was signed by him. P.W. -3, Sriram
deposed that on the date of the occurrence
he was present in the outside of his village
at 7:30 a.m. The Inspector (Darogaji)
Ataria met him and asked him to
accompany him to recover Banka which
was pointed out by accused Guddu. He and
Ranjeet went to the place of recovery by
5 All. Guddu Pal Vs. State of U.P.
111
police jeep . The jeep was stopped at the
road side of Nayagaon. Accused Guddu
reached to the field of Moolchand which
was flooded with water. He brought out
Banka from the field of Moolchand and
confessed that he killed deceased Gudda
with that Banka. Darogaji sealed the Banka
and thumb impression of P.W. -3, Sriram
was obtained on the same. The memo was
written in torch light. The bundle was
opened before the court and Banka was
shown to P.W. -3, Sriram who admitted that
it was the same Banka which was sealed by
the police at the time of recovery.

12.

P.W.
-4
Mukesh
Kumar
Chaturvedi stated that he was posted as
Moharrir in Police Station Atariya and
chick report -66 of 2006 was prepared and
he proved the said F.I.R. whichwas entered
at G.D. Rapat No. 18 at 12:30 p.m. Mukesh
kumar stated before the court that he was
posted as Moharrir at Polie Station Ataria
on 13.07.2006. He also admitted that Pappu
Pal had come to the police station at 12:30
along with a written report. He further
admitted that on he basis of the said report,
he prepared Chik Report No. 66/2006 in his
own handwriting. He proved Exhibit :- Ka2, which was lodged at GD Rapat No. 18,
timing 12:30 hours.

13. P.W. -5, S.I. Harilal Kardam is the
Investigating Officer and he stated before
the Court in his examination in chief that
the said case was registered in his presence
at the police station. He investigated the
case and thereafter he recorded the
statement of Pappu Pal and Ram Singh
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further
admitted that he had gone to the place of
occurrence and the inquest was prepared
and thereafter the fard was prepared and the
body was sent for post mortem. He also
stated before the Court that accused Guddu
was arrested on 18.07.2006 and his
statement was recorded who confessed the
guilt. He further stated that he recovered
the Banka at the pointing out of Guddu Pal,
the accused.

14. P.W. -6, Dr B.R. Jaiswal was also
examined before the Court and he has
deposed that post mortem of the deceased
was conducted by him and three injuries
were found on the body of the deceased
and all the three injuries were cut wound
injuries. He also admitted that 100 ml.
Liquid was found in the stomach of the
deceased. The liver was torn, kidneys were
pale. The doctor has opined the cause of
death as shock and hemorrhage due to ante
mortem injuries.

15. The accused has made following
submissions in his defence.

(i) It has been argued by the
counsel for the appellant that after taking
the meal the deceased was killed just after
half an hour and thus 100 ml. Liquid could
not have been found because she had taken
food just prior to half and hour. It is further
argued by the counsel for the appellant that
the deceased was not killed at 10:30 a.m.
rather she was killed in the early hours of
morning and thus the prosecution was
doubtful.

(ii) Counsel for the accused
appellant
has
submitted
that
the
investigation is faulty and there is no
recovery of knife. It has been further
submitted that there are contradictions in
the statement of the Investigating Officer
and the witnesses.

(iii) The defence has taken plea
that there was no recovery of knife from
accused Lala @ Lalji. It has been further
submitted that the knife was quarter to two
inches wide as per the statement of the
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
witness but there was punctured wound
found on the body of the deceased. As per
the post mortem report, the injury has been
shown as incised wound but the same is
punctured wound. There is no evidence of
outraging the modesty of the victim. It is
further submitted that when P.W. -1 stated
that he and his brother reached to the place
of occurrence where as P.W. -2 has said that
he was in his field and reached to the spot
and further stated that his brother P.W. -1
came from the house; thus it has been
submitted that there are contradictions in
the statement of P.W. -1 and P.W. -2. The
argument has been advanced that the
witnesses are interested witnesses and there
is no independent witness.

(iv) The accused has further
argued that as per the inquest report the
dead body of the deceased was found at
different place whereas the dead body has
been shown at different place as per the
F.I.R. The inquest prepared by the I.O.
indicates that prosecution case is highly
doubtful.

(v) The accused has further
submitted that the recovery against Guddu
is not in accordance with law. The witness
of recovery Sriram is resident of 3 k.m.
away. Neither soil nor grass was found on
the dead body and the recovery at the
pointing out of Guddu is also not
admissible in the evidence.

(vi) Counsel for the appellant has
further submitted that the appellants are in
jail for the last fifteen years, therefore they
may be given benefit of undergone period
of
imprisonment
and
case
may
be
commuted.

16. We proceed to consider the
aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the
accused appellants as well as to discuss the
case in light of the statement made by the
counsel for the appellant one by one.

(i) Pappu Pal has specifically
mentioned that his wife Smt. Guddu had
gone for weeding out the peppermint crop
in the field and the accused outraged her
modesty on which she raised alarm. After
hearing her alarm, P.W. 1 reached to the
place of occurrence which was just 70-80
steps away from his house. He saw accused
Lala @ Lalji was armed with knife and
Guddu
with
Banka
and
they
were
assaulting his wife. Ram Singh, Raju and
Prakash reached to the spot. P.W. -2, Ram
Singh has also supported the prosecution
case mentioning that at 10:30 a.m. he was
ploughing his field and heard the alarm
raised by Gudda, thereafter he reached to
the place of occurrence and saw the
accused were making assault on her. P.W. 1
has admitted in the cross examination that
the deceased had taken meal i.e. two
paratha and 250 gms. Kheer. There was no
cross examination to the extent as to when
the deceased had taken the meal. In the
rural areas normally, it is found that people
used to take break fast in between 6-7 O'
clock in the morning because they have to
leave for their work. It is thus clear that
there is no doubt regarding the time of
incident and she was assaulted at 10:30 for
which already the examination of the
witnesses have taken place and they are
consistent that the incident took place at
10:30. The doctor was examined who has
admitted that 100 ml. liquid was found in
the intestine of the deceased and he
admitted that the digestion activities of the
body organs stops functioning after death.
The decomposition process continues after
death. Doctor further admitted that after
taking meal the food stored in the large
intestine passes through to small intestine
slowly slowly after one and half hours. It is
thus clear that no adverse inference can be
drawn sofar as the date and time of
occurrence is concerned.
5 All. Guddu Pal Vs. State of U.P.
113

(ii) The second argument placed
by the counsel for the appellant is also not
sustainable. It is pointed out that P.W. -1,
Pappu Pal and P.W. -2 Sriram have
specifically
stated
the
fact
of
the
prosecution
case
and
there
is
no
contradiction. The recovery of Banka has
also been proved by P.W. -3 who is an
independent witness. The Investigating
Officer has not committed any fault while
doing investigation. The defence side was
unable to point out any major discrepancy
in the investigation or lapses on the part of
the Investigating Officer. The accused
Guddu was arrested on 18.07.2006 and
thereafter he confessed the guilt and he
admitted
that
Banka
was
used
in
committing the murder of Smt. Gudda. On
the pointing out of Guddu, Banka was
recovered and the recovery was made in
presence of P.W. -3, Sriram. The blood
stain was found on the Banka which was
proved in the report of F.S.L. dated
01.08.2006. It is thus clear that the
investigation conducted by the I.O. is not
faulty.

(iii) It is evident that the knife
was not recovered but the opinion of the
doctor clearly indicates that the injuries
could have been caused by Banka and
knife. The injuries were not punctured
wound rather they were incised wound. It is
also evident that the modesty of the
deceased was outraged that is why she
made alarm upon which P.W. -1 and P.W. -2
reached to the place of the incident. Insofar
as the witness Raju Pal and Prakash are
concerned, though they are independent
witnesses
and
they
filed
discharge
application did not come forward before
the court for giving evidence but P.W. -1
and P..W.-2 have given a consistent
statement before the court against the
appellant and there is no reason to
disbelieve their testimony. The place of
occurrence was just 70-80 steps from the
house of the P.W. -1 and he was able to
reach to the spot on the alarm raised by the
wife within short span of time. The doctor
has also given opinion that the deceased
received three incised wound. The doctor
had not admitted that any injury out of
three was caused by any other weapon
because the injuries were incised wound
and no injury was punctured wound. The
place of occurrence has been proved as per
site plan and the same cannot be doubted.

(iv) The inquest was prepared in
the presence of witnesses by S.I. Ramlal on
13.07.2006 as Exhibit Ka - 4. It is
mentioned in the inquest report that body of
the deceased was found in the vacant field
of Guddu S/o Sohan. The I.O. has prepared
the site plan (Exhibit Ka -10) which was
prepared on 13.07.2006 itself. In the site
plan the field of Ram Avatar has been
shown and room of boring is shown in
dilapidated condition and the dot line is
shown. The field of peppermint crop of
Pappu has been shown towards south side
of the field of the Ram Avtar where place
(A) is shown. Place (D) is towards south of
the Place (A) which is field of Mulla
whereas the accused has been shown from
where they reached to the place of
deceased. Place (B) is shown where the
deceased was caught by the accused. The
deceased has been shown running from
Place (C). P.W. -1 has already stated that
the accused made assault in the field of
peppermint and the incident was seen by
the witnesses. The site plan is matching
with the statement of the witnesses. In the
inquest report, it is mentioned that the body
of the deceased was found in the field of
Guddu son of Sohan. In the site plant
Exhibit - 10, there is no field of Guddu Pal
mentioned by the I.O. It is thus clear that
the site plan proves the prosecution and
there is no fault in the investigation while
114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Investigating Officer has prepared the site
plan. The entire description as mentioned in
the site plan is corroborative to the
prosecution case and it is held that the
incident took place at the place mentioned
by the witnesses.

(v) The recovery of Banka has
been shown at the pointing out of the
accused Guddu Pal. The recovery was
made on 18.07.2006 in the presence of
independent witness Sriram. The accused
confessed that he committed the crime
along with the other co-accused with the
help of Banka and knife. The I.O. took him
into custody on 18.07.2006 and on his
pointing out he went to the field of
Moolchand which was flooded with water
and on the pointing out of the accused,
Banka was recovered. The entire recovery
process was done in the presence of
independent witness Sriram. The Banka
was recovered from the field of Moolchand
at the pointing out of the appellant himself
and he confessed that the said Banka was
used for commission of crime. The Banka
was sealed in cover and the same was
signed with thumb impression by the
accused and other witnesses including
Sriram. It is thus clear that there is no iota
of doubt that the crime was committed by
the accused-appellant with the respective
weapons as mentioned in the F.I.R. The
recovery of Banka was proved before the
trial court.

(vi) Counsel for the appellant
argued that the appellants have undergone
for about fifteen years of imprisonment in
jail and they are entitled to be released. The
prosecution case is intact and we are of the
opinion that the judgment of the trial court
needs no interference. Once the appeal is
dismissed there is no argument left for the
appellants that they may be released or
their sentence may be commuted on the
basis of fifteen years of imprisonment. The
appellants have to undergo the period of
sentence because they have been awarded
punishment for life imprisonment.

17. The Apex Court in catena of cases
categorically held that the Court is not
supposed to give undue importance to
omissions, contradictions and discrepancies
which do not go to the heart of the matter
and shake the basic version of the
prosecution witnesses.

18. The Supreme Court, in Rohtash
Kumar v. State of Haryana, [(2013) 14
SCC 434] held:-

"24. ... The court has to examine
whether evidence read as a whole appears
to have a ring of truth. Once that
impression is formed, it is undoubtedly
necessary for the court to scrutinise the
evidence more particularly keeping in view
the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities
pointed out in the evidence as a whole and
evaluate them to find out whether it is
against the general tenor of the evidence
given by the witnesses and whether the
earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken,
as to render it unworthy of belief. Thus, the
court is not supposed to give undue
importance to omissions, contradictions
and discrepancies which do not go to the
heart of the matter, and shake the basic
version of the prosecution witness..."

19. In Kuriya and Anr. v. State of
Rajasthan, [(2012) 10 SCC 433], the
Supreme Court held:

"30. This Court has repeatedly
taken the view that the discrepancies or
improvements which do not materially
affect the case of the prosecution and are
insignificant cannot be made the basis for
doubting the case of the prosecution. The
5 All. Guddu Pal Vs. State of U.P.
115
courts may not concentrate too much on
such discrepancies or improvements. The
purpose is to primarily and clearly sift the
chaff from the grain and find out the truth
from the testimony of the witnesses. Where
it does not affect the core of the prosecution
case, such discrepancy should not be
attached undue significance. The normal
course of human conduct would be that
while narrating a particular incident, there
may occur minor discrepancies. Such
discrepancies may even in law render
credential
to
the
depositions.
The
improvements
or
variations
must
essentially relate to the material particulars
of the prosecution case. The alleged
improvements and variations must be
shown with respect to material particulars
of the case and the occurrence. Every such
improvement, not directly related to the
occurrence, is not a ground to doubt the
testimony of a witness. The credibility of a
definite circumstance of the prosecution
case cannot be weakened with reference to
such minor or insignificant improvements.
Reference in this regard can be made to the
judgments of this Court in Kathi Bharat
Vajsur v. State of Gujarat, [(2012) 5 SCC
724; Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v.
State of Maharashtra, [(2000) 8 SCC
457]; Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan,
[(2001) 2 SCC 205] and Sukhchain Singh
v. State of Haryana, [(2002) 5 SCC 100].

31. What is to be seen next is
whether the version presented in the Court
was substantially similar to what was said
during the investigation. It is only when
exaggeration fundamentally changes the
nature of the case, the Court has to consider
whether the witness was stating the truth or
not. [(Ref. Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi)], [(2003) 11 SCC 367].

32. These are variations which
would
not
amount
to
any
serious
consequences. The Court has to accept the
normal conduct of a person. The witness
who is watching the murder of a person
being brutally beaten by 15 persons can
hardly be expected to a state a minute by
minute description of the event. Everybody,
and more particularly a person who is
known to or is related to the deceased,
would give all his attention to take steps to
prevent the assault on the victim and then
to make every effort to provide him with
the medical aid and inform the police. The
statements which are recorded immediately
upon the incident would have to be given a
little leeway with regard to the statements
being made and recorded with utmost
exactitude. It is a settled principle of law
that every improvement or variation cannot
be treated as an attempt to falsely implicate
the accused by the witness. The approach
of the court has to be reasonable and
practicable. Reference in this regard can be
made to Ashok Kumar v. State of
Haryana, [(2010) 12 SCC 350] and
Shivlal v. State of Chhattisgarh, [(2011) 9
SCC 561]."

20. In Shyamlal Ghosh v. State of
West Bengal, [(2012) 7 SCC 646], the
Supreme Court held:

"46. Then, it was argued that
there
are
certain
discrepancies
and
contradictions in the statement of the
prosecution witnesses inasmuch as these
witnesses have given different timing as to
when they had seen the scuffling and
strangulation of the deceased by the
accused. ............ Undoubtedly, some minor
discrepancies or variations are traceable in
the statements of these witnesses. But what
the Court has to see is whether these
variations are material and affect the case
of the prosecution substantially. Every
variation may not be enough to adversely
affect the case of the prosecution.
116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

49. It is a settled principle of law
that the court should examine the statement
of a witness in its entirety and read the said
statement along with the statement of other
witnesses in order to arrive at a rational
conclusion. No statement of a witness can
be read in part and/or in isolation. We are
unable to see any material or serious
contradiction in the statement of these
witnesses which may give any advantage to
the accused."

21. We do not find any infirmity,
illegality or perversity in the judgment and
order of the trial court and are unable to
persuade ourselves to take an opinion other
than that of the trial court.

22. Consequently, the appeal lacks
merit and is accordingly dismissed.

23. The appellant is in jail, he shall
serve out the sentence awarded by the trial
court.

24. Let a copy of this order along with
lower court record be transmitted to trial
court concerned for necessary information
and follow up action.
----------
(2022)05ILR A116
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SADHNA RANI
(THAKUR), J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3798 of 2007
&
Other connected cases

Jay Prakash @ Bhure & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri R.S. Chaudhary, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Sri
P.K. Singh, Sri P.V. Singh, Sri Prashant
Kumar, Sri R.P. Kanoujiya, Sri Rajesh
Kumar Dubey, Sri S.K. Rathore, Sri Vijay
Singh Sengar, Sri Vinod Kumar Sahu, Sri
Vishnu Shanker Gupta, Sri Vishnu Kumar
Sahu

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate

A.
Criminal
Law
-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 364-A & 377believing the statement of PW-2 Victim
the trial court convicted three accused but
there is no medical evidence as to
commission of offence u/s 377 IPCcontradiction in statement of victim and
Investigating
Officer
as
to
how
information about commission of offence
received and lodged FIR-Even doctor
examined the victim generally-no medical
of the victim as to ascertain whether the
offence u/s 377 IPC was committed with
him-On the mere oral testimony of the
victim, it is difficult to hold that the
accused
persons
had
committed
the
offence-prosecution failed to prove its
case of abduction for ransom u/s 364-A
IPC-The prosecution suppressed the
genesis and origin of the occurrence and
thus not presented the true version.(Para
1 to 73)

The appeals are allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Malleshi Vs St. of Karn. (2004) 8 SCC 95

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita
Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar Sahu,
learned counsel for the appellants Jay
Prakash @ Bhure and Virendra, Sri Vishnu