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

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 218
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 7008 of 2011
- **Bench:** Rajeev Misra, Ajay Kumar-Ii
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jaini-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54860
- **Pages:** 58

## Headnote

D.S. Bohra, Veer Singh

Issue for consideration
Whether the accused have exercised the right of
private defence to life and property but have
exceeded in the exercise of said right or not?

Headnotes
Culpable Homicide-Appellants convicted u/s
302 read with Section 149 IPC therefore
sentenced to life imprisonment along with fineproved fact that the first informant PW-1
Prakashwati could not establish the fact that she
was the recorded tenure holder of the land in
dispute and also in possession over the land
where the occurrence took place- burden was
upon her in terms of Section 103 and 110 of the
Evidence Act to prove the same-presence of
deceased in the dead of night over land- which
has not been proved to be belonging to them
would actually amount to mischief -which has
led to grave and sudden provocation-the cause
of occurrence resulting in the death of
deceased-act of accused in causing the death of
deceased will not be murder punishable u/s 302
IPC but culpable homicide not amounting to
murder u/s 304 IPC-conviction modified to one
under
Section
304
(Part-I)
IPC.
Appeal
allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited

## Text

_Characters 0–39,869 of 192,675. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39869 for what follows._

218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
thus depend on the peculiar facts obtaining
in each case."

38. Taking into account of the said
facts, we are of the view that a sentence of
10 years under Section 304-B I.P.C. would
meet out the ends of justice and would be
appropriate in the present matter. The
sentence thus awarded by the trial court
under
Section
304-B
I.P.C.
of
life
imprisonment is reduced to the period of 10
years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence
of fine is maintained along with the
sentence as awarded on other counts. The
sentence shall run concurrently. The appeal
in
so
far
as
the
accused/appellant-
Chandra Pal @ Rachit is concerned,
stands partly allowed to the extent as
indicated above. He be released from jail
forthwith if served out the sentence and not
needed in any other case.

39. In so far as the appeal with regards
to appellant Smt. Atarkali is concerned,
the same is allowed. Conviction and
sentence in her regard is set aside. She is on
bail. Her bail bonds and sureties stand
discharged.

40. The trial court records be sent back
along with the communication of this
judgment. Office to communicate this
judgment to the District and Sessions Judge
concerned forthwith for compliance and
necessary action.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 218
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 7008 of 2011
Connected with Criminal Appeal Nos. 7333 of
2011 & 374 of 2012

Jaini Singh & Ors. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Govind Saran Hajela, Neeja Srivastava,
Omvir Babu, Rajeev Nayan Singh,
Siddhartha Srivastava, Veer Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
D.S. Bohra, Veer Singh

Issue for consideration
Whether the accused have exercised the right of
private defence to life and property but have
exceeded in the exercise of said right or not?

Headnotes
Culpable Homicide-Appellants convicted u/s
302 read with Section 149 IPC therefore
sentenced to life imprisonment along with fineproved fact that the first informant PW-1
Prakashwati could not establish the fact that she
was the recorded tenure holder of the land in
dispute and also in possession over the land
where the occurrence took place- burden was
upon her in terms of Section 103 and 110 of the
Evidence Act to prove the same-presence of
deceased in the dead of night over land- which
has not been proved to be belonging to them
would actually amount to mischief -which has
led to grave and sudden provocation-the cause
of occurrence resulting in the death of
deceased-act of accused in causing the death of
deceased will not be murder punishable u/s 302
IPC but culpable homicide not amounting to
murder u/s 304 IPC-conviction modified to one
under
Section
304
(Part-I)
IPC.
Appeal
allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. State of Haryana Vs. Bhagrath and Others,
(1999) 5 SCC 96
2. Ghulam Hassan Beigh Vs. Mohammad
Maqbool and Others, (2022) 12 SCC 657
3. Ram Pat and Others Vs. State of Haryana,
(2009) 7 SCC 614
4. Jayantibhai Bhenkar Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat,
(2002) 8 SCC 165
11 All. Jaini Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
219
5. Shahaja Alias Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh
Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 12 SCC 558
6. Virsa Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC
465
7. Kesar Singh and Another Vs. State of
Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 753
8. Anbazhagan Vs. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
857
9. Kashi Ram Vs. State of UP, (2002) 1 SCC 71
10. Vijai Singh Vs. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC
190
11. Ram Pat and Others Vs. State of Haryana,
(2009) 7 SCC 614

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code,1860

List of Keywords
Grave and sudden provocation, resulting in
death, culpable homicide not amounting to
murder.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey,
Siddhartha Srivastava, Veer Singh Counsel for
Respondent(s) : Dheeraj Singh Bohra, Govt.
Advocate

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.)

1. Challenge in these criminal appeals
is to the judgment and order dated
29.11.2011/02.12.2011 passed by Sessions
Judge, Bulandshahar in Sessions Trial No.
983 of 2011 (State Vs. Ratan Singh and 5
Others) and Sessions Trial No. 661 of 1996
(State Vs. Vijay Pal Singh), under Sections
147, 148, 302 IPC read with Section 149
IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 196 of
1993, under Sections 147, 148 and 302
IPC,
Police
Station-Debai,
DistrictBulandshahar.

2. Under the impugned judgment and
order, appellants-Jaini Singh, Girraj Singh,
Brajmohan, Jagmohan @ Munna, Jamuni
and Vijay Pal Singh have been convicted
under Section 302 read with Section 149
IPC and therefore, sentenced to life
imprisonment along with fine of Rs.
10,000/- each and in case of default,
appellants are to undergo three months
additional
simple
imprisonment,
accused/appellants-Jaini Singh, Brajmohan,
Jamuni and Vijay Pal Singh have further
been convicted under Section 147 IPC and
therefore, sentenced to additional one year
rigorous imprisonment, whereas accusedJagmohan and Girraj Singh have been
additionally convicted under Section 148
IPC and therefore, sentenced to one year
and 6 months rigorous imprisonment. The
impugned judgment and order further
records that all the sentences shall run
concurrently.

3. There are six accused/appellants in
above-noted appeals. Out of the six
accused/appellants,
three
of
the
accused/appellants
died
during
the
pendency of present appeals. Consequently,
the
appeals
in
respect
of
such
accused/appellants were abated. For ready
reference, the same is tabulated herein
below;-

(i). Vijay Pal Singh died on
03.07.2012

(ii).
Braj
Mohan
died
on
02.06.2015

(iii).
Girraj
Singh
died
on
14.06.2016

4. Record reveals that in the night of
1/2.07.1993, an incident occurred at 12:00
'O' Clock at Jungle Khairpur, Police
Station-Debai,
Tehsil-Anoop
Shahar,
District-Bulandshahar, resulting in the
death of 3 persons namely (1) Ram Singh,
(2) Veerpal Singh and (3) Virendra Singh.

5. In respect of aforesaid occurrence,
Smt.
Prakashwati
(mother/sister
of
deceased and widow of Karan Singh)
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitted a written report dated 02.07.1993
(Ext-Ka-1) at Police Station-Debai, scribed
by one Roop Kishore Sharma.

6. After receipt of aforementioned
written report, PW-3 Head Moharrir
Rakesh Kumar at Police Station-Debai
entered the same in the General Diary of
aforementioned Police Station as G.D.
Report No.2 (Ext. Ka.-3) and on basis
thereof, he prepared the Check FIR dated
02.07.1993
(Ext-Ka-2),
which
was
registered as Case Crime No. 196 of 1993,
under Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC,
Police
Station-Debai,
DistrictBulandshahar. In the aforesaid FIR, 7
persons namely (1) Ratan Singh, (2) Girraj
Singh, (3) Jaini Singh, (4) Braj Mohan, (5)
Jagmohan, (6) Jamuni and (7) Vijay Pal
Singh were nominated as named accused.

7. The prosecution case can be
gathered from the perusal of FIR itself.
Accordingly,
above-mentioned
FIR
is
extracted herein under;-

"निवेदि है कि मेरे भाई राम स िंह व
वीर पाल स िंह पुत्र गण ज वन्त स िंह निवा ी
स र ा थािा बरला जजला अलीगढ़ और मेरा
लड़िा वीरेन्र स िंह पुत्र िरि स िंह निवा ी
खैरपुर थािा डिबाई जजला बुलन्द शहर जो मेरे
भाईयों िे पा स र ा रहता था और इििे ाथ
में निहाल स िंह पुत्र दयााव स िंह तथा रुप किशोर
शमाा पुत्र भगवन्त प्र ाद निवा ी स र ा थािा
बरला जजला अलीगढ़ भी थे उपरोक्त भी
ददिािंि 1-7-93 िो रात्रत्र 8 बजे मेरे घर पर
(खैरपुर) आये यहािं आिर गमी िी वजह े
िपड़े उतार िर बैठे ही थे कि रति स िंह पुत्र
प्रहलाद स िंह व जैिी स िंह गगरााज स िंह व
ब्रजमोहि स िंह व मुन्िा स िंह व जमुिी पुत्रगण
रति स िंह और ववजय पाल स िंह पुत्र जासलम
उपरोक्त भी मेरे घर पर आये और खेत िे
फै ले िे बारे में िहा कि प्रधाि िे यहा बैठिर
फै ला िरेगें तो मैिे प्रधाि िे यहा जािे े
मिा किया क्योंकि ऐ े फै ले तो िई बार हो
चुिा है मेरे खेत िे बारे में लगभग 15 वर्ा े
मुिदमा चल रहा है लेकिि उपरोक्त भी िे
िाफी आ वा ि ददया कि आज अवश्य ही
फै ला होगा तो उपरोक्त पािंचों व्यजक्त जो
स र ा े आये थे चलिे िो तैयार हुए तो प्रधाि
िे िहा कि पा घर िे व्यजक्तयों मे ही फै ला
होगा इ सलए निहाल स िंह घर व रूप किशोर
शमाा मेरे पा ही रह गये और राम स िंह व
वीरपाल स िंह व ववरेन्र स िंह िो प्रधाि ववजय
पाल स िंह िे यहािं ले गये। इ िे बाद िरीब 12
बजे शोर गुल हुआ तो गािंव िे मोिे पर हीरा
स िंह व फतह स िंह पुत्र गण शोभा राम व जीत
स िंह पुत्र कििोरी स िंह निवा ी (िाम) थािा
गोंिा जजला अलीगढ़ व वीदी स िंह पुत्र सशव लाल
निवा ी खैरपुर मटरु स िंह पुत्र हरज्ञाि स िंह तथा
गािंव िे अन्य व्यजक्तयों िे ाथ मै भी अपिी
मक्िा िे खेत पर जहािं घटिा स्थल है पहुिंची
तथा मेरे ाथ में स र ा े आये हुए दोिों
व्यजक्त भी थे रात्रत्र उजजयाली थी तथा मेरे व
अन्य व्यजक्तयों िे हाथ में टोचा भी थी हमिे
मौिे पर रति स िंह गगरााज स िंह व जैिी स िंह व
ब्रजमोहि स िंह व मुन्िा व जमुिी व ववजय पाल
स िंह िो राम स िंह व वीर पाल स िंह व वीरेन्र
स िंह पर लाठी बल्लम और फ ी े प्रहार िरते
देखा तो हमिे गािंव वालों िो बचािे िे सलए
11 All. Jaini Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
221
आवाज लगाई इ पर भी िानतलों िे िहा कि
इििो भी घेर िर मार िालों इ ी मय मेरे
दोिों भाईयो व मेरे लड़िे िो मोिे पर ही जाि
 े मार ददया। उपरोक्त वािा भी गवाहों िे
आिंखो े देखा है ररपोटा सलखिर दजा िी जाय
तथा भी मुलजजमािो िे ाथ िािूिी
िायावाही िी जाय। प्रागथािी नि० अ० प्रिाशवती
बेवा िरि स िंह श्रीमती प्रिाशवती बेवा िरि
स िंह
नि०
खैरपुर
थािा
डिवाई,
जजला
बुलन्दशहर लेखि रुप किशोर शमाा पुत्र श्री
भगवन्त प्र ाद गािंव स र ा।

िोट- मैं एच०एम० प्रमाणणत िरता हूिं
कि गचि हाजा पर ििल तहरीर दहन्दी वादी
शब्द व शव्द अिंकित िी गई है। िावाि िापी
 ाफ है।"

8. After the FIR referred to above was
lodged, Incharge Inspector of Police
Station-Debai
(PW-5),
Shiv
Prakash
Mishra took the investigation of concerned
case
crime
number
upon
himself.
Accordingly, he proceeded with statutory
investigation of concerned case crime
number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. He
visited the place of occurrence and
recovered plain earth as well as earth mixed
with blood from the place of occurrence,
where dead bodies of deceased were lying
and other places. He also recovered a pair
of leather slippers (chappal) from the spot.
A memo regarding same was prepared,
which is (Ext-Ka-27). Aforesaid recoveries
were witnessed by two witnesses namely
Kshatrapal Singh and Khachedu.

9.
Investigating
Officer
further
recovered the dead bodies of deceased,
which were lying in the field. Upon
examination of the bodies of deceased, cash
Rs. 120/- was found from the person of
deceased Ram Singh, Rs. 7/- was found
from the person of deceased Veer Pal and
Rs. 17/- was wound from the person of
deceased Virendra Singh. The said amount
was given in the Supurdagi of first
informant PW-1 Prakashwati but after
preparing a Supurdaginama of the same,
which is (Ext-Ka-28). Investigating Officer
also prepared the site plan regarding the
place,
from
where,
aforementioned
recoveries were made, which is (Ext-Ka31).

10.
After
completing
aforesaid
exercise, Investigating Officer initiated
proceedings
for
conducting
inquest
(Panchnama) of the bodies of deceased.
He, therefore, appointed the Panch
Witnesses. After completion of inquest
proceedings, which were conducted one
after the other, Investigating Officer
(PW-5) prepared the inquest report
(Panchnama); of deceased Ram Singh,
which is (Ext-Ka-9); of Virendra Singh,
which is (Ext-Ka-15) and of accused
Veer Pal Singh, which is (Ext-Ka-21).
All
the
inquest
reports
are
dated
02.07.1993.

11. In the opinion of witnesses of
inquest (Panch Witnesses), the death of
deceased were categorized as homicidal as
the cause of death was opined to be the
injuries sustained by them.

12. After the inquest reports of
deceased had been prepared, Investigating
Officer (PW-5) Shiv Prakash Mishra,
prepared
the
detailed
police
scroll
regarding each of the dead bodies for
sending the bodies of deceased for post
mortem. The same is as follows;-
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i). Regarding deceased Ram
Singh - Ext-Ka-10 Challan Lash, Ext-Ka11 Photo Nash, Ext-Ka-12 Letter to CMO,
Ext-Ka-13 Letter to CMO and Ext-Ka-14
Letter to RI.

(ii).
Regarding
deceased
Virendra Singh - Ext-Ka-16 Challan
Lash, Ext-Ka-17 Photo Nash, Ext-Ka-18
Letter to CMO, Ext-Ka-19 Letter to CMO
and Ext-Ka-20 Letter to RI.

(iii).
Regarding
deceased
Veerpal - Ext-Ka-22 Challan Lash, ExtKa-23 Photo Nash, Ext-Ka-24 Letter to
CMO, Ext-Ka-25 Letter to CMO and ExtKa-26 Letter to RI.

The dead bodies of deceased
were, thereafter, dispatched for post
mortem.

13. PW-4 Dr. S. Kant Sharma, the
Autopsy Surgeon conducted post mortem
of the bodies of deceased on the next day
i.e. 03.07.1993. The Autopsy Surgeon
found following ante-mortem injuries on
the body of deceased Ram Singh;-

"1. Abraded contusion 5 cms x 4
cms on left side face.

2. Incised wound 10 cms x 3 cms
x bone deep on right side of mouth. Bone
underneath was found cut.

3. Incised wound 3 cms x 0.5
cms in the middle portion of the ear.

4. Contusion 4 cms. X 3 cms
over upper part of left eye brow.

5 Two incised wounds 3 cms
x0.5 cms x scalp deep and 2.5 cms x 0.5
cms on back of left side forehead 7 cms
lateral to out side.

6. Incised wound 13 cms x 2 cms
x bone deep on left side head and left ear.
Bone under neath was found cut.

7.Abraded contusion 5 cms x 4
cms on upper side of left shoulder.

8. Incised wound 5 cms x 3 cms
x bone deep on upper part of the neck.

9. Contusion 3 cms x 4 cms on
upper portion of right shoulder.

10. Abraded contusion 2 cm x 1
cm in front of left leg. In the internal
examination
nothing
abnormal
was
detected by the doctor."

14. After completion of post mortem
of the body of deceased Ram Singh, the
Autopsy Surgeon prepared the post mortem
report dated 03.07.1993 (Ext-Ka-5) in
respect of aforementioned deceased. In the
opinion of Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of
death of deceased could not be ascertained,
therefore, the viscera of deceased was
preserved for being sent to FSL Laboratory
for
chemical
analysis.
The
Autopsy
Surgeon, further remarked in the post
mortem report that the cause of death shall
be ascertained after the receipt of viscera
report.

15. The autopsy on the body of
deceased Veer Pal was also conducted on
03.07.1993 but at 12:30 p.m.. The Autopsy
Surgeon found following ante-mortem
injuries on the body of aforesaid deceased
Veer Pal;-

"1. Incised wound 6cms x 2 cms
x bone deep in the middle of nose. Bones
underneath were found fractured.

2. Lacerated wound 5.3. cms x
1.4 cms x bone deep in front

3. Lacerated wound 5 cms x 2
cms x bone deep over lower lip,
underneath two teeth loose.

4. Lacerated wound 3 cms x 0.5
cms x scalp deep over upper eye lid.

5. Contusion 4 cms x 3 cms on
upper part of left side face and below left
eye.
11 All. Jaini Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
223

6. Lacerated wound 6 cms x 2
cms x bone deep on right side of head and
on lateral part also.

7. Lacerated wound 4 cms x 1
cm x bone deep on front side of face.

8. Contusion 5 cms x 4 cms in
front of middle of chest.

In the internal examination
nothing abnormal was detected."

16.
Upon
completion
of
post
mortem of the body of aforementioned
deceased, the Autopsy Surgeon prepared
the post mortem report dated 03.07.1993
(Ext-Ka-5). Again in the opinion of the
Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death of
aforementioned deceased could not be
ascertained, therefore, the viscera of
deceased was preserved for chemical
analysis by the FSL Laboratory. In the
case of this deceased also, the Autopsy
Surgeon, observed that the cause of
death of deceased Veer Pal shall be
ascertained after the receipt of FSL
report.

17. Post mortem of the body of
deceased Virendra Singh commenced at
01:00 p.m. on 03.07.1993. The Autopsy
Surgeon found following ante-mortem
injuries on the body of aforementioned
deceased;-

"1. Lacerated wound 6 cms x 5
cms in front of neck. Trachea was
lacerated.

2. Incised wound 6 cms x 1 cm x
bone deep in the middle of nose.
Underneath
bones
were
found
fractured.

3. Incised wound 4 cms x 0.5 cm
in lower part of Pinna. Pinna was cut

4. Lacerated wound 7 cms. X 1
cms x bone deep on upper part of left eye
brow.

5. Incised wound 1.5 cms. X 0.5
cms x skin deep on upper part of left ear.

6. Lacerated wound 4 cms. X 0.8
cms x scalp deep on right side scalp.

7. Lacerated wound 3 cms x1 cm
x bone deep on right side face."

18. The Autopsy Surgeon could not
conclude regarding the cause of death of
this deceased also. He, therefore, remarked
that as the cause of death can not be
ascertained, the viscera has been preserved.
However, he also remarked in the post
mortem report that the cause of death of
this deceased shall be ascertained after the
receipt of FSL report.

19.
After
completion
of
aforementioned formalities, Investigating
Officer (PW-5) Shiv Prakash Mishra
resumed investigation of concerned case
crime
number.
He,
therefore,
first
examined
the
first
informant
Smt.
Prakashwati
(PW-1),
Roop
Kishore
Sharma, the scribe of FIR and eye witness
Nehal Singh and recorded their statements
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the pointing
of first informant and witnesses of
occurrence, Investigating Officer prepared
site plan of the place of occurrence (ExtKa-8) on 02.07.1993. Investigating Officer
further examined other witnesses under
Section 161 Cr.P.C.

20. Since offence complained of is a
cognizable and non bailable offence,
therefore, Investigating Officer took steps
to secure the custody of accused. As such,
most of the accused were arrested but on
different dates. The details of the same are
reproduced in a chronological manner
herein below;-

Date of arrest

Name of arrested accused

03.07.1993
Braj Mohan, Vijendra Singh @
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Jamuni and Vijay Pal Singh
20.08.1993
Ratan Singh
22.08.1993
Girraj
and
Jag
Mohan
surrendered before Court
16.10.1993

Jaini Singh

21. After arrest of accused, on the
pointing of accused Braj Mohan and
Vijendra Singh, Investigating Officer (PW5) recovered a 'Farsa' (a sharp edged heavy
weapon), which was not having blood
stains, another 'Farsa', which was having
blood stains and one 'Ballam' (spear),
which was also not having blood stains,
from a 'Chhappar' kept on the 'Bhitaura' (a
place to store cow dung cakes) near the
tubewell of Ratan Singh. Investigating
Officer, accordingly, prepared the recovery
memo of same on 03.07.1993, which is
(Ext-Ka-30).
Aforesaid
recovery
was
witnessed
by
Constable
Dasi
Ram,
Constable Kalyan Das and two independent
witnesses namely Deepak and Jagdish.

22. After completion of investigation
of aforementioned case crime number,
Investigating Officer ultimately submitted
the charge sheet/police report in terms of
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on 13.08.1993 (ExtKa-33), whereby and whereunder all the
named accused were charge sheeted under
Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC.

23.
Upon
submission
of
aforementioned charge sheet/police report,
cognizance was taken upon same by the
jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of
jurisdiction
under
Section
190(1)(b)
Cr.P.C. However, as offence complained of
is triable exclusively by the Court of
Sessions,
therefore,
the
jurisdictional
Magistrate, as per mandate of Section 227
Cr.P.C. first supplied the documents relied
upon by the prosecution to the accused and
thereafter, committed the case to the Court
of Sessions as required under Section 209
Cr.P.C.

24. As a consequence of above,
Sessions Trial No. 983 of 2011 (State Vs.
Ratan Singh and 6 Others) came to be
registered. Subsequently, the trial of
accused Vijay Pal Singh was segregated by
Court below purported to be in exercise of
jurisdiciton under Section 317(2) Cr.P.C.
and registered as Sessions Trial No. 661 of
1996 (State Vs. Vijay Pal Singh).

25.
Concerned
Sessions
Judge
proceeded with the trial. Therefore, he in
accordance with the mandate of Section
228 Cr.P.C., framed separate and distinct
charges under Sections 147, 148, 149 and
302 IPC against charge sheeted accused
vide framing of charge order dated
07.07.2020.

26. Aforementioned framing of charge
order dated 07.07.2020 passed by Sessions
Judge, Bulandshahar was challenged by
accused Jagmohan Singh by filing Criminal
Revision No. 374 of 2000 (Jagmohan Singh
Vs. State of U.P. and Others) before this
Court. The same came to be allowed by this
Court, vide order dated 24.10.2000. The
order dated 24.10.2000 reads as under;-

This revision has been filed
against framing of charge by the learned
Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar.

It is contended by the learned
counsel for the revisionist that in the post
mortem report, the cause of death could
not be ascertained and the viscera report
was preserved.

It is further stated that viscera
report has yet not been received and
therefore, there was no primafacie case
before the lower court to frame charge
under Section 302 IPC. There is sufficient
11 All. Jaini Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
225
force in this contention because unless
viscera report is received, it cannot be
deemed that accused committed murder.

The
impugned
order
dated
07.07.2000 is, therefore, set aside and the
learned lower court is directed to receive
the viscera report and thereafter hearing
the accused may frame charge.

The revision is accordingly,
disposed of."

27. This Court, vide above order dated
24.10.2000, directed that since the cause of
death of deceased has not been ascertained
by the Autopsy Surgeon and the FSL report
has not yet been received, therefore,
charges be framed against charge sheeted
accused only after the receipt of FSL
report.

28. The Forensic Expert at FSL
Laboratory, Agra prepared the chemical
analysis report dated 28.02.2003 (Ext-ka37) in respect of the body parts of deceased
Ram Singh, Veer Pal and Virendra Singh,
which
had
been
sent
for
chemical
examination. As per the said FSL report, no
foreign chemical compound was found in
the body parts of deceased sent for
chemical examination.

29. After receipt of abovementioned FSL report dated 28.02.2003
(Ext-Ka-37), Court below as per the
mandate of order dated 24.10.2000 passed
by this Court again framed charges against
accused, vide framing of charge order dated
20.10.2004. Separate and distinct charges
were framed against different sets of
accused. For ready reference, the same is
tabulated herein below;-

Date
of
framing of
charge
order
Accused
Under Sections

20.10.2004
Jaini
Singh,
Braj Mohan,
Vijendra Singh

147 IPC
302/149 IPC

20.10.2004

Jag Mohan,
Girraj Singh

148 IPC
302/149 IPC

20.11.2004
Vijay Pal
147 IPC
302/149 IPC

30. It is apposite to mention here that
accused Ratan Singh died during the
pendency of trial. Accordingly, the trial
against aforesaid accused was abated by
Court below. As such, no charge was
framed against him by Court below.

31. All the accused denied the charges
so framed. They pleaded innocence and not
guilty
and
further
demanded
trial.
Resultantly,
the
trial
procedure
commenced.

32. Prosecution in discharge of it's
burden to bring home the charges so
framed against charge sheeted accused,
adduced the following witnesses:-

32.1. PW-1 Smt. Prakashwati is the
first informant. She is also the mother of
deceased Virendra Singh (her son) and
sister of deceased Ram Singh and Veerpal
(her brothers). After the incident, which
occurred in the night of 1/2.07.1993, she
had submitted a written report regarding
the same at Police Station-Debai scribed by
Roop Kishore Sharma. She, proved the
same. Accordingly, same was marked as
(Ext-Ka-1).

32.2. This witness has assigned rivalry
and enmity between the parties because of
land dispute. The same is also the motive
with the accused to commit the crime in
question. According to this witness, her
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
father-in-law Prahlad Singh had two sons
i.e. Ratan Singh and Karan Singh. She was
married to Karan Singh. From the said
wedlock, 3 daughters and one son namely
Virendra Singh (deceased) were born. Her
husband Karan Singh pre-deceased his
father namely Prahlad Singh (father-in-law
of PW-1) . After the death of her husband,
her
father-in-law
Prahlad
Singh
had
executed a registered sale deed regarding
31 Bighas of agricultural land in her
favour. After execution of sale deed,
accused
Ratan
Singh
and
his
sons
maintained
rivalry/enmity
with
her.
Accused Ratan Singh and others had
contested a case regarding the sale deed for
11 years.

32.3. She further goes on to depose
that on the fateful day, Veerpal, Virendra,
Nehal Singh, Roop Kishore and Ram
Singh, who are residents of Village-Sirsa,
where her parental home (i.e. of first
informant) is situate came to VillageKhairpur,
District-Bulandshahar,
the
marital home of PW-1. They arrived before
dark. Veerpal and Ram Singh are her
brothers. Virendra is her son. Nehal Singh
is her cousin brother (Mamera Bhai i.e. son
of mother's brother) and Roop Kishore is
Pandit at her parental Village-Sirsa.

32.4. At this juncture, Ratan Singh,
Girraj, Jaini, Braj Mohan, Jag Mohan,
Vijendra and Vijay Pal Pradhan came to
her place i.e. the house of first informant.

32.5. Vijay Pal Pradhan is said to have
requested the brothers of first informant i.e.
Ram Singh and Veer Pal and also her son
Virendra Singh to come to his house to
settle the dispute. The first informant
Prakashwati initially resented the said
offer. As this Jaini exclaimed by saying
that they had nothing to fear in going to the
place of Pradhan as the matter shall be
resolved today. Except for Roop Kishore,
Panditji and Nehal, the rest happily and
affectionally accompanied the aforesaid
persons for the place of Pradhan.

32.6. At around 12:00 'O' clock in the
night, she heard shouts coming from the
field. Hearing the shouts, she, Roop
Kishore and Nehal proceeded for the place
from where, the shouts were coming
carrying torches in their hands. When they
reached the field, they heard the accused,
(who are same persons, who had come to
her house around 08:00 p.m.) shouting that
miscreants have come to destroy the crops
"बदमाश फ ल िष्ट िरिे आ गये हैं" and
they were assaulting Ram Singh, Veerpal
and Virendra. Accused Ratan Singh was
armed with 'Farsa', Jag Mohan was also
armed with 'Farsa', Girraj was holding a
'Ballam' and Jaini, Braj Mohan, Vijendra
@ Jamani were having 'Lathi' and Pradhan
Vijay Pal was also having a 'Lathi'. All the
accused
were
assaulting
the
aforementioned three persons with the
weapons in their hands simultaneously.

32.7. On the screams and shouts,
various villagers including Jeetu @ Jitendra
and Fateh Singh also came on the spot. The
first informant is said to have raised her
voice
that
they
are
not
miscreants
(Badmash) but her brothers and son. The
same statement was uttered by the villagers
present. However, the accused are alleged
to have rebuked that they are miscreants,
kill them, even if they be hanged.
Ultimately, they killed the son and brothers
of deceased. After committing the crime,
the accused ran away.

32.8. She has further stated that her
father-in-law had not executed any sale
11 All. Jaini Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
227
deed in favour of the son of Ratan Singh.
The land which was sold to her by her
father-in-law was cultivated by herself or
by sub-letting it to Fateh Singh and Hira
Singh but not to anyone else. Sometimes
the accused forcibly cultivated the same.
The field in which, the occurrence took
place was being cultivated by herself and
corn crop was sown in the same.

32.9.
Towards
the
end
of
her
deposition
i.e.
statement-in-chief,
this
witness has stated that even when upto to
12:00 'O' clock, when her brothers and son
did not return, then they (not she) went to
the house of Pradhan to enquire about their
whereabouts, then they were informed that
no one had come, therefore, they went to
the field.

32.10.
This
witness
was
cross
examined on behalf of accused. A specific
suggestion appears to have been put to her
regarding her conduct from 08:00 p.m. to
12:00 mid night. This witness in her
examination-in-chief has stated that just as
she questioned about the whereabouts of
her brothers and son at the house of
Pradhan, she heard the shouts from the
fields and accordingly, proceeded to the
field. However, in spite of lengthy cross
examination, this witness could not be
dislodged
regarding
the
cause
of
occurrence, place of occurrence, manner of
occurrence and presence of accused at the
time and place of occurrence. As such, the
deposition of this witness remains intact.

33. PW-2 Nehal Singh is also an eye
witness of the occurrence. His deposition is
similar to that of PW-1 Prakashwati, except
for the fact that it is a little more descriptive
and specific. This witness has also supported
the prosecution by mentioning, how he
reached the village of PW-1, the arrival of
accused persons at the place of Prakashwati,
she allowing the deceased in going to the
house of Pradhan and how abruptly, the
screams and shouts were heard at 12:00 'O'
clock in the night, thereafter, going to the place
of occurrence and witnessing the crime in
question. He has then described how the police
arrived on the spot and how and where the
dead bodies of deceased were lying.

33.1.
In
spite
of
lengthy
cross
examination, this witness has remained
consistent regarding the deposition made in his
statement-in-chief. As such, this witness could
not be dislodged by the defence.

34. PW-3 HCP 227 Rakesh Kumar. At
the relevant point of time, this witness was
posted as Head Clerk at Police Station-Debai.
According to this witness, Nehal Singh and
Roop Kishore Sharma R/o Sirsa, Police
Station-Barla, District-Aligarh came at Police
Station-Debai on 02.07.1993 at 02:30 p.m.
along with a written report (Tehrir), which was
having the thumb mark of Prakashwati (PW-1
first informant). The same was entered in the
G.D. of Police Station as G.D. Report No.-2
by Assistant Scriber Rajpal Singh. He
recognized the signatures of Rajpal Singh and
proved the same. Accordingly, it was marked
as (Ext-Ka-3). On the basis of aforesaid, this
witness prepared the Check FIR, which was
registered as Case Crime No. 196 of 1993,
under Sections 147, 148, 302, IPC, Police
Station-Debai, District-Bulandshahar, which
was marked as (Ext-Ka-2).

34.1. This witness was cross examined
regarding
Ext-Ka-2
and
Ext-Ka-3.
However, nothing adverse could be culled
out from him. As such, this witness could
not be dislodged.

35. PW-4 Dr. S. Kant Sharma, retired
SIS, District Hospital, Agra is the Autopsy
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Surgeon. He was posted as Child Specialist
(Senior) at District Hospital, Bulandshahar
at the relevant time. This witness had
conducted post mortem of the bodies of
deceased on 03.07.1993. According to this
witness, he conducted autopsy on the body
of deceased Ram Singh on 03.07.1993 at
12:00 p.m. 10 ante-mortem injuries were
found on the body of deceased Ram Singh.
Regarding the timing of death of deceased
Ram Singh, this witness opined that the
death would have taken place one and a
half day before. The death of this deceased,
which occurred on 1/2.07.1993 at 12:00
mid night could have been caused due to
ante-mortem injuries. As per this witness,
injuries 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 on the body of
deceased could have been caused by a
sharp edged weapon, whereas injuries 1, 4,
7, 9 and 10 could have been caused by a
blunt weapon like Lathi. He further opined
that the sharp edged weapon could be
Farsa/Ballam. However, all the internal
organs were found intact. He thus proved
the aforesaid post mortem report, which
was marked as (Ext-Ka-4).

35.1.
Aforesaid
witness
also
conducted autopsy on the body of deceased
Veerpal at 12:30 p.m. on 03.07.1993. In his
opinion, the death of deceased Veerpal
would have occurred one and a half day
before. The death of this deceased, which
occurred on 1/2.07.1993 at 12:00 mid
night. could have been caused due to antemortem injuries. He found 8 ante-mortem
injuries on the body of this deceased.
However, no internal injury was found in
the body of deceased. According to the
Autopsy Surgeon, injuries 1 and 2 could
have been caused by a sharp edged weapon
like Farsa and Ballam (spear). Injuries 3 to
8 could have been caused by a blunt
weapon
like
Lathi.
Upon
internal
examination, all the body organs were
found intact. He thus proved the post
mortem report pertaining to deceased
Veerpal, which was marked as (Ext-Ka-5).

35.2. On the same day i.e. 03.07.1993
at 01:00 p.m., the Autopsy Surgeon PW-4
namely Dr. S. Kant Sharma conducted post
mortem of the body of deceased Virendra
Singh. He found 9 ante-mortem injuries on
his body. However, no internal injury was
found in the body of this deceased. The
index finger of the right hand and the bone
of nose were found broken. In the opinion
of Autopsy Surgeon, injuries 2, 3 and 5
could have been caused by a sharp edged
weapon like Farsa and Ballam (spear),
whereas injuries 1, 4, 6, 7 and 10 could
have been caused by a blunt weapon like
Lathi. Regarding the timing of death, the
same would have taken place one and a
half day before. The death of deceased on
1/2.07.1993 at 12:00 'O' clock could have
been caused due to ante-mortem injuries.
However, none of the internal organs had
sustained any injury. They were all intact.
He thus proved the aforesaid post mortem
report, which was marked as (Ext-Ka-6).

35.3. At the end, the Autopsy Surgeon
opined that the cause of death of all the
deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a
result of ante-mortem injuries.

35.4. Aforesaid opinion given by the
Autopsy Surgeon is over and above, the
post mortem report wherein the cause of
death of deceased has not been mentioned.
We shall deal with the true import of the
said deposition of Autopsy Surgeon in the
later part of this judgment.

35.5. This witness was first cross
examined on behalf of accused regarding
the injuries sustained by the deceased etc.
However, the defence failed to dislodge
11 All. Jaini Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
229
him qua the injuries found on the body of
deceased or the timing of death as well as
the post mortem. This witness has further
deposed that he had received a letter dated
08.07.1993 from Station House Officer,
Police Station-Debai, addressed to CMS
regarding the medico legal report of
deceased so as to ascertain the cause of
death of deceased. It is in response to above
that the said document i.e. letter dated
12.07.1993 (Ext-Ka-7) was prepared.

35.6. In spite of detailed cross
examination, the defence failed to cull out
any such fact from him so as to dislodge his
deposition. Thus the deposition of this
witness is worthy of acceptance and
reliance.

36. PW-5 Shiv Prakash Mishra, Dy.
SP (Human Rights Commission) was
posted as Incharge Inspector at Police
Station-Debai at the relevant point of time.
This witness has deposed that the F.I.R. of
present case was registered in his presence
and he took the investigation of same upon
himself. He, then first completed the
formalities of copying the F.I.R. and
written report (Tehrir) in the Case Diary,
and then recorded the statement of Head
Moharir Rakesh Kumar. Thereafter, he
proceeded to the place of occurrence
alongwith police force. Upon reaching the
place of occurrence, he first recorded the
statement of first informant Prakashwati
(P.W.-1), followed by the scribe of the
written report and eye witnesss Nehal
Singh and Roop Kishore. On the pointing
of first informant and witnesses regarding
place of occurrence, he prepared site plan
of the place of occurrence. Same was
proved by him and marked as (Ext-Ka-8).

36.1. He then goes to state that he
dictated the inquest report (Panchnama) of
deceased (Ram Singh) to SI Om Prakash
Pandey. The inquest report (Panchnama) of
deceased Ram Singh was prepared first. He
then proved the same, which was marked
as (Ext. Ka.-9). Thereafter the detailed
police scroll for post-mortem of the body of
aforesaid deceased was prepared. The same
were also proved and marked as Challan
Lash (Ext. Ka.-10), Photo Nash (Ext. Ka.-
11), Letters to C.M.O. (Ext. Ka.-12) &
(Ext. Ka.-13) and Letter to R. I. (Ext. Ka.-
14.)

36.2. After completing the inquest
proceedings (Panchnama) of deceased Ram
Singh, this witness dictated the inquest
report (Panchnama) of deceased, Virendra
Singh to S.I. Om Prakash Pandey. He
proved the inquest report (Panchnama) of
aforesaid deceased, which was marked as
(Ext. Ka.-15). He also prepared the police
papers necessary for getting post-mortem
of the body of deceased Virendra Singh
conducted. The same were proved by him
and accordingly marked as Ext. Ka.-16,
Chalan Lash (Ext. Ka.-17), Photo Nash,
Letters to C.M.O. (Ext. Ka.-18) & (Ext.
Ka.-19) and Letter to R.I. (Ext. Ka. -20).

36.3. Thereafter this witness dictated
the inquest report of deceased Veerpal to S.
I. Om Prakash Pandey. The inquest report
pertaining to aforesaid deceased was
proved by him and thus marked as (Ext.
Ka.-21). He also prepared the police papers
for getting the post-mortem of deceased
conducted, which were also proved by him
and marked as Ext. Ka-22, Chalan Lash
(Ext. Ka.-23), Photo Nash (Ext. Ka.-24),
Letter to C.M.O. (Ext. Ka.-24) and (Ext.
Ka.-25) and Letter to R.I. (Ext. Ka. -26).

36.4. He has then stated that after
completing aforementioned exercise, all the
three dead bodies were dispatched for post-
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mortem through Constable 716 Jaswant
Singh and Constable 1039 Raj Singh
alongwith relevant papers and specimen of
seal.

36.5. This witness, thereafter, recovered
earth mixed with blood and plain earth from
place of occurrence and other places. Same
were sealed separately. He has also recovered
a pair of leather slippers (chappal) from the
place of occurrence. Accordingly, a memo of
same was prepared. The memo is signed by
himself and two witnesses namely (1)
Chatrapal Singh and (2) Khachedu Singh. He
proved the said memo, which was marked as
(Ext-Ka-27).

36.6. Upon examination of the body of
deceased, this witness had recovered cash
from their person, which is Rs. 120/- from
the person of deceased Ram Singh, Rs. 7/-
from the person of deceased Veer Pal and
Rs. 17/- from the person of deceased
Virendra Singh. He, thereafter, handed over
the
same
in
Supurdagi
of
PW-1
Prakashwati, and accordingly, prepared a
supurdaginama of same. The same was
proved by him and accordingly, marked as
(Ext-Ka-28).

36.7. He then goes to detail the steps
taken by him regarding arrest of accused.
He arrested accused; (i). Brij Mohan Singh
(ii). Vijendra Singh @ Jamuni and (iii).
Vijay Pal Singh on 03.07.1993. On their
pointing out, he recovered some of the
weapons used in the commission of crime
in question and prepared a memo of the
same. The same bears the signature of
himself, accused and witnesses. He then
proved the same, which was marked as
(Ext-Ka-31).

36.8. It was lastly deposed by him that
as per the order of Senior Superintendent of
Police, Bulandshahar, the investigation of
concerned
case
crime
number
was
transferred to Incharge Inspector, Anoop
Shahar namely S. K. Singh.

36.9. This witness was cross-examined
on behalf of accused but the papers proved
by him could not be proved as false nor the
said witness himself could be dislodged as
nothing adverse could be culled out from
him. As such, his testimony remains intact.

37. PW-6 Inspector Santosh Kumar
Singh, presently posted in Vigilance Unit
Hydel, Mathura deposed before Court
below as PW-6. This witness was posted as
Station House Officer at Police StationDebai on 08.07.1993. He was subsequently
entrusted the investigation of concerned
case crime number. On 08.07.1993 itself,
he entered the inquest reports (Panchnama)
of deceased Ram Singh, Veerpal and
Virendra in the case diary.