# Iqbal Singh & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 120
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-11-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 1984
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/iqbal-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-52565
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 313 - Indian Penal
Code,186 - Sections - 147, 148, 149, 302
& 307- Appeal - against conviction & sentence
- FIR - offence of murder - investigation - PMR
- site plant - charge-sheet - plea taken that
they were falsely implicated due to enmity -
conviction & sentence - court finds that - (i)
during pendency of appeal out of 8 accused
persons 6 were died therefore against them
appeal had abated, (ii) pw-1 who was an injured
witness was not there on spot, (iii) there was an
enmity between the injured and accused
persons, (iv) pw-1 had not informed the first
informant about incident himself, (v) pw-1 was
such a witness who could not be absolutely
relied upon for the purpose of convicting the
accused, (vi) surviving both appellants were
carrying lathies were not armed in such a
manner as would make it evident that they had
gone with a premediated mind to do away with
the deceased - court inclined to hold that,
Conviction of the accused persons could not be
based on the testimony of an eye-witness who
was not believable -- hence, appeal succeeds
and is allowed - conviction and sentence is set
aside - direction issued, accordingly. (Para - 11,
13, 14, 15)

Criminal Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
specially when they were known to the first
informant's side then the case of the
prosecution becomes weak and unbelievable.
Also, we are of the view that the eye-witnesses
from the side of the prosecution were, in fact,
coming up with a cooked up story and that they
were in fact not there on the spot at all. Had
they been there then they would have at least
known that before Ramagya was killed his
hands were tied behind him. We are also of the
view that even if the eye-witnesses were there
they had definitely not recognized the dacoits
and only to implicate certain known inimical
persons, the first information report was got
lodged. We are further of the view that the first
information report was also ante-timed. In the
first information report, there was no mention
of the fact that the hands of the Ramagya were
tied before he was killed. Also, the P.W.-2 had
very categorically stated that under the
statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
he had not mentioned the names of any of the
accused but we find from the first information
report that the names were mentioned in the
first information report and if the P.W.-2 who
was so close to the P.W. -1 had known of the
names mentioned in the first information report
then he would have definitely mentioned the
names of the accused persons in the statement
made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Also, we are
concluding that the first information report was
ante-timed as the documents which were sent
for the post mortem along with the
panchayatnama did not contain the chik FIR,
meaning thereby that the first information
report was ante-dated after sometime had
passed and the informant's side had made up its
mind to implicate all the accused whom they
wanted to implicate. We are of the view that the
statements of the P.W. -1, P.W.-2, P.W. - 3 and
P.W. 4 as had been stated by them before the
Court were unrealistic. They had stated that
they had called the names of the accused
persons from the roof tops. In the case they
were aware of the fact that their enemies had
come their would have instead of calling out the
names of known enemies who were carrying
guns and firearms, would have tried to hide
themselves and would not have made them
vulnerable to the firearms which they were
carrying.

29. In the instant case, we definitely find
that all the accused persons were neighbors who
were inimical to the prosecution side and,
therefore, they were implicated in the case in
hand. We, thus conclude that, in fact, the case of
the prosecution does not inspire confidence and,
in fact, the prosecution had come up with a
cooked up story only to implicate known
persons who were inimical to him.

30. For all the reasons mentioned
above, we are of the view that the
judgement and order dated 11.3.1983
passed by Ivth Additional Sessions Judge,
Varanasi, in S.T. No. 111 of 1978 (State
vs. Jagdish Singh and others) & in S.T.
No. 357 of 1979 (State vs. Ramdhani
Tiwari @ Dhani and others) cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law and, therefore,
the same is set aside. Both the appeals are,
accordingly, allowed. The appellants are
already on bail. They need not surrender.
Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties
are discharged.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 120
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 1984

Iqbal Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
1 All. Iqbal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
121
Counsel for the Appellants:
Pt. Mohan Chandra, Om Prakash Rai

Counsel for the Respondent:
D.G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 313 - Indian Penal
Code,186 - Sections - 147, 148, 149, 302
& 307- Appeal - against conviction & sentence
- FIR - offence of murder - investigation - PMR
- site plant - charge-sheet - plea taken that
they were falsely implicated due to enmity -
conviction & sentence - court finds that - (i)
during pendency of appeal out of 8 accused
persons 6 were died therefore against them
appeal had abated, (ii) pw-1 who was an injured
witness was not there on spot, (iii) there was an
enmity between the injured and accused
persons, (iv) pw-1 had not informed the first
informant about incident himself, (v) pw-1 was
such a witness who could not be absolutely
relied upon for the purpose of convicting the
accused, (vi) surviving both appellants were
carrying lathies were not armed in such a
manner as would make it evident that they had
gone with a premediated mind to do away with
the deceased - court inclined to hold that,
Conviction of the accused persons could not be
based on the testimony of an eye-witness who
was not believable -- hence, appeal succeeds
and is allowed - conviction and sentence is set
aside - direction issued, accordingly. (Para - 11,
13, 14, 15)

Criminal Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Maniram & ors. Vs St. of UP (1994 Supp (2)
SCC 289),

2. Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai Vs St. of
Guj.(AIR 1983 SC 484),

3. Krishneogwda & ors. Vs St. of Karn. (AIR
2017 SC 1657).

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

1. The present criminal appeal has
been preferred against the judgement and
order dated 1.3.1984 passed by the Special
Judge, Ghaziabad, in Sessions Trial No. 23
of 1982.

2. Upon an incident having taken place
on 2nd December, 1981 at around 10:00
A.M., a first information report was lodged
on that very date at 1:30 P.M. The first
information report had stated that around 6
to 7 years prior in point of time, one Tejpal
Singh, father of one of the accused Iqbal
Singh was murdered wherein Jagvir Singh
and the first informant were made the
accused. It has further been stated in the
first information report that also around 3
to 4 years prior to the date when the
incident had occurred one Vikram Singh
was also murdered by Amar Singh etc. It
has further been stated in the first
information report that these accused
persons were out on bail and because of the
fact that the injured and the deceased had
given statements against accused persons
when they were being tried for the murder
of Tejpal and Vikram Singh, the accused
persons were inimical to them and,
therefore, when on the date of incident
Ram Saran, the brother of the first
informant
and
nephew
of
the
first
informant Jagvir Singh were found by the
accused persons, in a lonely place while
they were coming back from Shahibad to
their village, they were attacked by the
accused persons with an intention to kill
Ram Saran and Jagvir Singh. It has further
been stated in the first information report
that Amar Singh, Iqbal Singh were carrying
Tabals whereas Omkar Singh, Rukam
Singh were having spades/ Favada in their
hands. Madan, Sansar and Prakash Singh
sons of Khajan, Ishwar son of Harikesh,
Krishnapal son of Karan Singh were having
Lathies in their hands. They all had met at
122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the tubewell of Iqbal and on the exhortation
of Amar Singh they had chased the two i.e.
the deceased and the injured. In the first
information report it has been stated that
Amar Singh had exhorted the others to do
away with the deceased and the injured. It
has been stated that the deceased and
injured upon realizing that they were being
assaulted they had tried to save their lives
and had run to the agricultural fields on the
northern side. It has further been stated that
thereafter Amar Singh had hit Jagvir Singh
on the head, whereas the others had started
attacking Ram Saran by the spade and tabal
in their hands. Still further they had stated
that when they had raised a hue and cry
then the witnesses Nawab Singh, Pitam
Singh, Bijendra Singh, Ganeshi, Kamalvir
and Harphool Singh etc. reached on the
spot to save the deceased and the injured. It
has still further been stated that because of
the injury caused by the Spade and Tabal,
Ram Saran had died on the spot whereas
Jagvir Singh was seriously injured. It has,
thereafter, been stated that Nawab Singh
had run to the agricultural field of Shiv
Charan who had after arranging for a
Bagghi which was to be pulled by buffalos,
reached the spot and took the injured to the
police station and thereafter upon his
dictation Ompal Singh had scribed the first
information report.

3. Upon the registration of the first
information report, investigation ensued.
The police had taken into custody the
belongings of the deceased Ram Saran and
had prepared a memo of it which was
exhibited as Exhibit - Ka11. The blood
stained bedsheet and cap of the deceased
were also kept in the custody of the police
and a recovery memo was prepared which
was exhibited as Exhibit Ka9. Blood
stained soil and normal soil were also taken
from the spot when the incident had
occurred and memo of it was prepared and
exhibited as Exhibit-ka10. The injured was
examined by Dr. S.K. Das and the injury
report was exhibited as Exhibit Ka1.

4. Upon the death having taken place
of Ram Saran, Dr. K.K. Karoli conducted
the post mortem and the report of it was
exhibited as Exhibit Ka2. Prior to the
conducting of the post mortem and the
preparation of the post mortem report, a
panchayatnama was also prepared which
was exhibited as Exhibit Ka4.

5.
Upon
investigation
having
concluded, the police had submitted its
report which when was taken cognizance of
by the learned Ist Additional Sessions
Judge, Ghaziabad, the eight accused,
namely, Iqbal Singh, Onkar Singh, Rakam
Singh,
Madan
Singh,
Sansar
Singh,
Prakash Singh, Ishwar Singh and Krishna
Pal were charged under Sections 148 read
with Section 147 IPC and also under
Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
Since Jagvir Singh was injured, a charge
was also framed against the 8 accused
persons under Section 307 read with
Section 149 IPC. The trial, thereafter,
commenced and the eight prosecution
witnesses
were
examined
and
cross
examined. The accused had got their
statements recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. Thereafter, when the Special Judge,
Ghaziabad, held the eight accused persons
guilty of the charges levelled against them
the instant Criminal Appeal was filed.

6. During the pendency of the appeal,
out of 8 accused persons, 6 of them had
died and the criminal appeal, therefore, visa-vis the appellant no.1 Iqbal Singh, the
appellant no. 2 Onkar Singh@Rirku, the
appellant no. 3 Rakam Singh, the appellant
no. 4 Madan Singh, the appellant no. 6
1 All. Iqbal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
123
Prakash and the appellant no.7 Ishwar had
abated.

7. The appellant no. 5 Sansar Singh
and the appellant no. 8 Krishan Pal were
not represented by any lawyer and,
therefore, the Court had appointed Sri
Saurav Sachan as an Amicus Curiae on
their behalf.

8.
Learned
amicus
curiae
has
essentially argued that if the statements of
P.W. 1, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7
are perused then it appears that they have
very consistently stated that when the
deceased and the injured had reached the
tubewell of Iqbal then they were chased by
the 9 accused persons and they, to save
their lives, entered the agricultural fields
lying on the northern side where they were
attacked by Tabal, spades and lathies and,
thereafter,
the
deceased
Ram
Saran,
because of the injuries, had died. However,
Jagvir had survived.

9. Learned amicus curiae has, to
substantiate his arguments submitted that in
fact, the P.W.-1 who was an injured
witness was not there on the spot and had
only falsely implicated the appellants.

10. Following were the submissions
made:-

I. Learned amicus curiae has
submitted that if the post mortem report of
the deceased Ram Saran is seen then it would
be apparent that the medical evidence was
absolutely diametrically opposite to the oral
evidence which was recorded during the trial
of the case. Learned amicus curiae states that
throughout in the first information report and
thereafter in the statement of P.W.-1, the
injured witness and in the statements of P.W.-
4, P.W.-5, P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 who were the
eye witnesses, the case brought forth was that
the deceased Ram Saran was assailed by a
Tabal. He, however, states that the post
mortem report, said that there was an injury
on the neck of the deceased which was
reported in the post mortem as "Kuchla Hua
Zakhma". He stated that "Kuchla Hua
Zakhma" would mean a crushed injury. This
would not be possible if the deceased was
assailed by a sharp edged weapons. He states
that even if the sharp side of the spade/tabal
was not used and in fact the plain side was
used even then a crushed injury was not
possible. He, therefore, states that the medical
evidence which stated that injury was of a
crushed type did not match with the
testimony of the eye-witness who was an
injured witness, who had stated that, in fact,
the deceased was assailed by a spade/tabal
(sharped edged weapon).

II. Learned amicus curiae states
that the injured witness was definitely not
injured to the extent that he could not have
spoken out. He had drawn the attention of the
Court to page 20 of the paper book wherein it
had clearly stated that Nawab had narrated
the entire incident to Shiv Charan. How
Nawab came to know about what had
happened prior in point of time when he had
reached the place of incident was not clear.
According to the P.W.-1 the injured witness it
was not possible for Nawab to have the
details of the incident as he had reached the
place of incident only after a hue and cry was
raised by the injured witness. He, therefore,
states that in fact the P.W.-1 was not there on
the spot at the time of the incident. It was a
possibility that the deceased had died in an
accident and the injured had sustained the
injuries elsewhere and simply because there
was an enmity between the injured and the
accused persons, en mass, they had been
implicated in the case.

III. Learned amicus curiae for the
appellants further states that the testimony
124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of P.W.-1 further becomes unbelievable
because if the testimony is read along with
the site plan it becomes evident that the
P.W.-1 was stating all types of falsehood.
He had stated that there was some Nahar
passing by but in the site plan there was no
Nahar. He further states that the eye
witnesses who had assembled on the spot
were staying in the vicinity but pointing out
to the site plan learned counsel had argued
that all the land surrounding the place of
incident belonged to one Virendra and
Virendra was nowhere in the picture. He
submits that even though he was named in
the first information report as an eye
witness, he had not been produced in the
Court.

IV. Learned amicus curiae for the
appellants further states that if the injuries
of P.W.-1 and the statement of Dr. S.K.
Das, P.W.-2, are perused it would become
apparent that the injuries were such that the
P.W.-1 could not have narrated the incident
to the first informant Shiv Charan Singh.

V. Still further, learned amicus
curiae for the appellants has argued that
from the testimony of P.W.-1 it was
apparent that Shiv Charan Singh was an
owner of a tractor but the injured was
carried to the Police Station and thereafter
to the Hospital by a cart which was pulled
by a buffalo.

VI. The surviving appellants i.e.
Sansar Singh and Krishnapal Singh were
allegedly wielding lathies only. It has
nowhere been alleged in the first information
report or in the various testimonies of the
injured witnesses and the eye-witnesses that
all the accused persons had in a premeditated
manner decided/resolved to do away with the
deceased.
From
the
perusal
of
their
testimony, learned counsel submitted that it
becomes only evident that at the spur of the
moment Amar Singh had exhorted the others
to do away with the deceased. He submits
that if the accused Iqbal Singh and Amar
Singh could carry Tabal then in a village it
was not difficult for the other accused
persons to have also carried Tabal. If they
had any intention to actually kill the deceased
then they would not have gone to the place of
incident with only lathies in their hands. He,
therefore, submits that the appellants no. 5
and 8 who were carrying lathies had no role
whatsoever in the incident which had
occurred. He submits that there were also no
lathi injuries on the body of the deceased.

11. Learned amicus curiae, therefore,
states that the eye witness account was
absolutely
unbelievable
and
the
case,
therefore, becomes a doubtful one and
therefore the conviction of the accused
persons could not be based on the testimony
of an eye witness who was not believable. He
relied upon judgements of the Supreme Court
passed in Maniram and Others vs. State of
U.P. reported in 1994 Supp(2) SCC 289,
Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of
Gujarat reported in AIR 1983 SC 484 and
Krishneogwda and others vs. State of
Karnataka reported in AIR 2017 SC 1657.

12.
Learned
AGA
Sri
Chandra
Bhushan Dhar Dubey, however, has
vehemently argued that the eye-witness
account of an injured witness could not be
lightly done away with. He has also stated
that the eye witness account of P.W. 4,
P.W. -5, P.W. - 6 and P.W.-7 had
corroborated the eye witness account of
P.W.-1 who was an injured eye-witness
and, therefore, the testimony of P.W.-1,
P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-6 and P.W. 7 could
not be lightly ignored.

13. Having heard learned Amicus
Curiae Sri Saurabh Sachan and Sri Chandra
Bhushan Dhar Dubey, learned Additional
Government Advocate, we are of the view
1 All. Devendra Kumar @ Jhunna & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
125
that the testimony of injured witness P.W.-
1, becomes fairly doubtful on account of
the fact that he had not been able to give a
correct description of the place where the
incident had occurred. If the testimony of
P.W.-1 is seen, he had definitely not been
able to connect the place of incident with
the map as had been given in the site plan
which was exhibited as Exhibit - ka8 in the
paper book. We are also of the view that
the P.W.-1 who was an injured witness had
not informed the first informant Shiv
Charan Singh about the incident himself.
We find after having perused the injury
report and the statement of P.w.-2, Dr. S.K.
Das that the injuries were so grievous that
he could not have spoken aloud and narrate
the incident to the first informant Shiv
Charan Singh. In the instant case, we find
that, in fact, another alleged eye witness
Nawab Singh had stated that he had
narrated the entire incident to Shiv Charan
Singh and on the dictation of Shiv Charan
Singh, Om Pal Singh had scribed the first
information report and we are, thus, of the
view that the P.W.-1 was such a witness
who could not be absolutely relied upon for
the purpose of convicting the accused
persons. We further find that the appellants
no. 5 and 8 who were carrying lathies were
not armed in such a manner as would make
it evident that they had gone with a
premeditated mind to do away with the
deceased.

14. Thus for all the reasons which we
have stated, the criminal appeal is
allowed. The impugned judgement and
order dated 1.3.1984 passed by the Special
Judge, Ghaziabad, is set aside. Since the
appeal against the appellants no. 1 Iqbal
Singh, the appellant no. 2 Onkar Singh @
Rirku, the appellant no. 3 Rakam Singh,
the appellant no. 4 Madan Singh, the
appellant no. 6 Prakash and the appellant
no. 7 Ishwar has already abated, we
confine our judgment and order to the
appellant no. 5 Sansar Singh and the
appellant no. 8 Krishan Pal, who are being
acquitted of all the charges under which
they were tried.

15. The appellant no. 5 Sansar Singh
and the appellant no. 8 Krishan Pal are
acquitted of the charges levelled against
them. The appellants are already on bail
and they need not surrender. The sureties
and bail bonds are discharged.

16. For the hard work which has been
put in by the learned Amicus Curiae Mr.
Saurabh Sachan, we quantify his fee as Rs.
25,000/- which shall be payable to him by
the Legal Services Authority forthwith. The
payment be got done under the supervision
of the Registrar General of this court.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 125
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH VARMA
THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2696 of 1981
And
Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 1984

Devendra Kumar @ Jhunna & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
S.S. Tewari, Ajay Kumar Pandey, K.K.
Srivastava, Roshan Khan, Satish Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Dga, Mayank Bhushan