# Karan Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 845
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1403 of 1982
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/karan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-52471
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 148, 307/149 & 302/149 -
Appeal against conviction - Imprisonment
for life - A FIR was lodged by Sub
Inspector Balbir Singh (PW-1), St.d that
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on an application given by Ram Bali (PW3), the Sub Inspector alongwith Dharam
Singh visited the village, accompanied by
constables - They reached the village, it
transpired that Amar Singh and Shamsher
Singh, named in complaint, were hiding in
house of Bihari, carrying fire arms - When
police personnel reached, accused persons
started firing, and in exchange of firing
Sub Inspector Dharam Singh had died -
Five accused ran away alongwith Bhairo
Singh - Balwant Singh, while running
away, got injured, ultimately died -
St.ments of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 were
same as PW-1 - From the St.ments of eyewitnesses it's not clear how Bhairo Singh,
an outsider was recognized by police
before FIR was lodged, his identification
becomes doubtful - Prosecution story
raises doubt, how police party knew the
names of all accused persons, how they
were related to each other and what was
their parentage - Neither application
produced in court nor recovered from
clothes of deceased Sub-inspector - No
evidence, how Bhairo Singh known to PW1, other prosecution witnesses. (Para 3,
5, 8, 9, 13)

Appeal is allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
845
preparation of the inquest further gets
established upon the perusal of the
statement of PW-4 - the chik writer
who had stated that D.C. Sharma in fact
had come to the police station only on
the next day i.e. on 7.7.1982 at 11.00
AM.

16. The contradiction in the
statements
of
the
prosecutions
witnesses were also very glaring. The
PW-1 had stated that the dead body
was taken to the police station from
the place of occurrence but the PW-4
had stated that the dead body was not
there at the police station ever. What
is more, the Court is of the view that
when PW-2 was the sole eye-witness
and his statements had not been
corroborated by the other witnesses
present then the evidence of the sole
eye-witness had to be examined
properly
and
with
caution.
The
argument of the learned counsel for
the first informant that the site plan
showed that the deceased was being
followed by the accused and that the
PW-2 was following them was evident
from the site plan that the argument
was fallacious. If the statement of
PW-2 is looked into, it becomes
evident that the deceased was coming
from the side of the village and the
accused was coming from outside the
village and that they were face to face
when the incident had occurred and,
therefore, there is no substance in the
argument made by learned counsel for
the first informant. Also, we find that
when the statement of PW-2 became
unbelievable, it cannot be said that the
Court had to rely compulsorily on the
evidence of the PW-2.

17. Under such circumstances,
the
appeal
stands
allowed.
The
judgment and order dated 3.5.1983 is
quashed and set-aside. The appellant is
acquitted of the charges under section
302 IPC. Since the appellant is on bail,
he need not surrender. His bail bonds
and sureties are, therefore, discharge.
The appellant is, however, directed to
comply with the provisions of section
437(1) Cr.P.C. within a period of ten
days from the date when the judgment
is uploaded on the website of the High
Court.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 845
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2024

BEFORE

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

Criminal Appeal No. 1403 of 1982

Karan Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri P.K. Tiwari. Sri Naresh Chandra Tripathi, Sri
Raj Vardhan Dubey A.C., Sri Rajul Bhargava

Counsel for the Respondent:
D.G.A., Sri R.B. Sahai

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 148, 307/149 & 302/149 -
Appeal against conviction - Imprisonment
for life - A FIR was lodged by Sub
Inspector Balbir Singh (PW-1), St.d that
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on an application given by Ram Bali (PW3), the Sub Inspector alongwith Dharam
Singh visited the village, accompanied by
constables - They reached the village, it
transpired that Amar Singh and Shamsher
Singh, named in complaint, were hiding in
house of Bihari, carrying fire arms - When
police personnel reached, accused persons
started firing, and in exchange of firing
Sub Inspector Dharam Singh had died -
Five accused ran away alongwith Bhairo
Singh - Balwant Singh, while running
away, got injured, ultimately died -
St.ments of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 were
same as PW-1 - From the St.ments of eyewitnesses it's not clear how Bhairo Singh,
an outsider was recognized by police
before FIR was lodged, his identification
becomes doubtful - Prosecution story
raises doubt, how police party knew the
names of all accused persons, how they
were related to each other and what was
their parentage - Neither application
produced in court nor recovered from
clothes of deceased Sub-inspector - No
evidence, how Bhairo Singh known to PW1, other prosecution witnesses. (Para 3,
5, 8, 9, 13)

Appeal is allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Amrik Singh Vs St. of Pun., (2022) 9 SCC 402

2. Kanan and others Vs St. of Kerala, (1979) 3
SCC 319

3. Rameshwar Singh vs. St. of J.& K., (1971) 2
SCC 715

4. Malkhan Singh & ors. Vs St. of M.P., (2003) 5
SCC 746

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma
&
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Instant Criminal Appeal has
been preferred under Section 374
Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order
dated 26.05.1982 passed by Special
Judge,
Additional
Session
Judge,
"Dakaiti Prabhawit Chhetra Banda, in
Sessions
Trial
No.318
of
1981,
convicting
the
appellants
under
Sections 148, 307 read with 149 and
under Section 302 read with section 149
I.P.C., whereby the accused appellants
were convicted. For the charge under
Section Section 148 IPC, they were
sentenced to three years rigorous
imprisonment. For the charge under
Section
307/149
IPC
they
were
sentenced
to
7
years
rigorous
imprisonment and for the charge under
Section 302/149 the appellants were
sentenced to life imprisonment. In the
impugned order dated 26.05.1982 all
the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri Amit Sinha learned
A.G.A. for the State-respondents and
perused the material available on
record.

3. Upon an incident having
taken place on 30.05.1981, a First
Information Report was lodged by the
Sub Inspector Balbir Singh stating that
on an application given by one Ram
Bali, the Sub Inspector Balbir Singh
alongwith Dharam Singh had visited
the village. These two Sub Inspectors
were accompanied by Om Prakash
Singh and Ram Narayan constables.
When they started from their police
station they passed through a village
called Bhabhuwa where the police party
was joined by constables Jagdev Singh,
8 All. Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
847
Indu Khan and Jeevan Lal, and
thereafter they reached the village
Imiliha Purwa at around 10:30 am. The
Sub Inspector Balbir Singh in an effort
to investigate into the complaint made
by Rambali questioned the villagers,
and it so transpired that two of the
persons who were named in the
complaint namely Amar Singh and
Shamsher Singh were hiding in a house
of one Bihari Chamar. It also came to
his knowledge that the two persons
against whom the complaint was made
by Rambli were carrying fire arms.
When the police personnel reached the
house of Bihari Chamar, the two
accused persons namely Amar Singh
and Ramesh Singh went out of the
house and also hurled abuses on the
police party and said that the members
of the police party would be done away
with. The police party as has been
stated in the FIR hid behind a wall and
started facing the bullets as were being
fired by Amar Singh and Shamsher
Singh
and
thereafter
to
protect
themselves in their defence they also
started firing. The Sub Inspector
Dharam Singh very valiantly went into
the enclosure where Amar Singh and
Shamsher Singh were hiding and as he
crossed the house where they were
hiding, they were assailed by constant
firing and S.I. Dharam Singh in the
process got injured. It has been stated in
the FIR that the bullet which was fired
by Amar Singh, had actually hit the Sub
Inspector Dharam Singh. The police
party thereafter intensified its firing and
entered the house and took out Dharam
Singh from the house which he had
entered,
and
Om
Prakash
Singh
constable was instructed to arrange for
a vehicle to take him to a hospital and
thereafter the five accused namely
Amar Singh, Karan Singh, Shamsher
Singh and Vijay Singh who were
residents of the village Rudauli, Police
Bhaberi ran away alongwith Bhairo
Singh who was a resident of village
Turra,
Police
Station
Bhadausa.
However, Balwant Singh the sixth
accused, while running away, got
injured by the firing of the police and
he hid himself in the house of Bihari. In
an effort to oust him from the house,
the Sub Inspector Balbir Singh put the
house on fire, and thereafter Balwant
came out of the house and was injured
to such an extent that he also died.

4. Learned counsel for the
appellant further submitted that the FIR
was thereafter lodged by Sub Inspector
Balbir Singh on 31.05.1981 and that
was made an exhibit in the case. The
police while investigating, prepared
certain recovery memos with regard to
the bullets etc. which were found on the
spot and that recovery memo was
exhibited as Ext. Ka-3. The revolver of
Dharam Singh which had got damaged
was also recovered and the recovery
memo was exhibited as Ext. Ka-4. The
plain soil and the soil with blood was
also taken by the police and a recovery
memo was also got prepared, which
was exhibited as Ext. Ka-5. Ext. Ka-6
was with regard to the guns and bullets
of the accused which were recovered
from the spot. Since the house of Bihari
was burnt, the ash was also kept as
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evidence and the recovery memo which
was prepared was exhibited as Ext. Ka7. The dead body of the deceased
Dharam Singh and Balwant were sent
for postmortem and their report were
also prepared.

5. Upon the completion of the
investigation on 05.12.1981 charges
were framed against Karan Singh,
Shamsher Singh, Vijay Singh and
Bhairo Singh under Sections 148,
307/149, and Section 302/149 IPC. The
first informant Balbir Singh Rathore
was produced as prosecution witness
No.1 and similarly Om Prakash the
other companion constable who was
also an eyewitness was produced as
PW2. Ram Bali on whose complaint the
police party had gone to the house of
the Bihari where allegedly Amar Singh
and Shamsher Singh hid, was produced
as PW3. Dr. Vikas Chandra who had
done the postmortem on the dead body
of the Dharam Singh was produced as
PW-4.
Another
eyewitness
Bhagwandeen from the public was
produced as a prosecution witness 5.
Dr. R.N. Mathur was the doctor who
had done the postmortem on the dead
body of Balwant as he was produced as
PW6. Sri S.L. Pandey, who was the Sub
Divisional
Magistrate
in
whose
presence
the
panchayatnama
was
prepared, was produced as prosecution
witness 7. R.S. Singh was the Sub
Inspector who had got the dead body of
Dharampal for postmortem and he was
produced as PW-8. Jawahar Lal the
second
Investigating
Officer
was
produced as PW9. Since charges were
framed against Karan Singh, Shamsher
Singh, Vijay Singh and Bhairo Singh,
on 05.12.1981 their trial was proceeded
as Sessions Trial No.314 of 1981.
However the trial of the accused Amar
Singh was conducted in Sessions Trial
No.354 of 1982. He was charged by the
order dated 18.01.1983. The four
accused Karan Singh, Shamsher Singh,
Vijay Singh and Bhairo Singh upon
their conviction on 26.05.1982 filed an
Appeal No.1403 of 1982. The appellant
Amar Singh was convicted by the
judgment and order dated 09th of July
1984 and he filed Appeal No. 2022 of
1984 in this Court.

6. The appeal No. 2022 of 1984
abated on 12.01.2024, as the appellant
Amar Singh had died. In Criminal
Appeal No.1403 of 1982, since the
appellant Nos. 1,2 and 3 namely Karan
Singh, Shamsher Singh and Vijay Singh
had died, the appeals had abated on two
different dates namely 05.10.2007 and
12.01.2024. The appeal vis-a-vis Bhairo
Singh alone was argued by Sri Naresh
Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for
the appellant.

7. While arguing the appeal of
Bhairo Singh being Criminal Appeal
No.1403 of 1982, learned counsel for
the appellant took the court through the
statements of the prosecution witnesses.
When the learned counsel for the
appellant took us through the statement
in chief of the PW1 namely Balbir
Singh, the court found that PW1 had
elaborately described the incident and
had also stated in his statement in chief
8 All. Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
849
the reasons as to why he had implicated
the six accused persons. Through the
statement in chief of PW1 the court was
made aware again as to how on the
application of Rambali, the police party
comprising
Balvir
Singh,
Dharam
Singh, Om Prakash and Ram Narayan
had started from the police station and
while crossing village Bhabhuwa had
also taken with them the constables
Jagdev Singh, Indu Khan and Jeevan
Lal. The incident ultimately occurred at
the village Imiliha Purwa at 10:30 am.
In the examination in chief PW1 has
vividly described as to how the police
party was given the information by an
informer that the accused persons were
hiding in the house of Bihari and that
the accused were thereafter surrounded
and in the exchange of firing the Sub
Inspector Dharam Singh had died. In
the cross-examination the PW1 has
narrated as to how he had known the
two accused persons chiefly Amar
Singh and Shamsher Singh. He had
stated that they were members of a
notorious
gang
and
that
their
registration number was D-72, and they
were also involved in other similar
cases. The PW1 had specifically stated
that after he was posted in the relevant
police station he had also visited the
village around 14-15 days before the
incident had occurred. With regard to
the cross-examination done vis-a-vis
Karan Singh, Shamsher Singh, Vijay
Singh the PW1 was consistent with
what he had stated in the statement in
chief and he stood firm by all the
statements made therein. However
when the cross examination vis-a-vis
Bhairo Singh was being done the PW1
had only stated that despite the fact that
Bhairo Singh was of a different village
namely village Turra of police station
Bhadausa he had started living in the
village were Amar Singh and Shamsher
Singh were living and that he was a
constant visitor there, and therefore he
had correctly recognized him.

8. Since the learned counsel for
the appellant had taken us to the
statements of Om Prakash PW2,
Rambali PW3 and Bhagwan Deen
PW5, the court went through them and
commonly found that they had also
stated somewhat similar facts as were
stated by PW1. However, from the
statements of the eye-witnesses which
were read out it is no-where clear that
how exactly Bhairo Singh who was an
outsider was recognized by the police
party from before i.e. before the first
information report was lodged.

9. Learned counsel for the
appellant Sri N.C. Tripathi, has chiefly
argued as follows:-

 (i) Learned counsel for the
appellant has stated that if the FIR was
perused, then it becomes clear that the
Sub Inspector Balbir Singh was as per
the averments made in the FIR meeting
the six accused persons namely Amar
Singh, Karan Singh, Shamsher Singh,
Vijay Singh and Bhairo Singh for the
first time. However while getting the
FIR lodged he had not only mentioned
the names of all the accused persons,
but had also mentioned the names of
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
their fathers. He also knew as to how
Amar Singh and Karan Singh were real
brothers and that they were the sons of
Shripal. He also knew that Shamsher
Singh and Vijay Singh were also real
brothers and they were the sons of Shiv
Mangal Singh. Learned counsel for the
appellants also argued that it was
difinitely not possible on the date when
the FIR was being lodged to know the
names of the appellants and also the
names of their fathers, specially when
Bhairo Singh was a resident of village
Turra Police Station Bhadausa and was
only occasionally visiting Amar Singh
and Shamsher Singh, whose details
were also vividly known to the police.
Learned counsel for the appellants
therefore states that a doubt would
therefore arise, as to how the police
party on the very first day knew the
names of all the accused persons and
also how they were related to each other
and as to what was their parentage.

 (ii) Learned counsel for the
appellants thereafter has submitted that
even if it was taken for granted that
Amar Singh and Shamsher Singh were
members of notorious gangs and that
they were also having a registration
number being D-72, it was not possible
for the police party to have known the
name of Bhairo Singh or to have
recognized Bhairo Singh on the spot,
specially when Bhairo Singh was not
assigned any role.

 (iii) Leaned counsel for the
appellant further states that if the
statement of eyewitness Bhagwan Deen
is perused, it definitely becomes clear
that he was an interested witness. Also
the account of Om Prakash was only a
reproduction of what the PW1 had
stated.

 (iv) Learned counsel for the
appellant states that if the entire record
is seen and also if the statements in
chief and also the cross-examinations
are seen, then one thing definitely
comes out in the open and that is that
the application of the Rambali was
nowhere to be seen. The application of
Rambali was the basis on which the
police
party
had
gone and
that
application was never produced in the
court. Learned counsel for the appellant
states that to cover this up PW1 and the
PW2 had stated that the application was
with Dharam Singh the Sub Inspector
who had died. However learned counsel
states that neither from his clothes nor
from his belongings the application was
ever recovered. Learned counsel for the
appellant therefore states that the entire
incident becomes a doubtful one and
simply because the police party was
knowing the names of the accused they
were made accused in the case.

 (v) Learned counsel for the
appellant further states that for a
moment it could have been said that
Amar Singh and Shamsher Singh who
were members of a notorious gang
could have been recognized by the
police, but definitely vis-a-vis Bhairo
Singh an identification parade ought to
have been undergone. In this regard,
learned counsel for the appellant relied
8 All. Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
851
upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court reported in (2022) 9 SCC 402 :
Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab and
submitted that it would be unsafe to
convict an accused solely on the basis
of his identification for the first time in
the Court. Learned counsel for the
appellant further to bolster his case with
regard to the fact that the identification
of the accused for the first time in Court
was a weak piece of evidence, relied
upon (1979) 3 SCC 319 : Kanan and
others vs. State of Kerala and
submitted that identification of the
accused by a particular witness in Court
raises a serious doubt and his testimony
must be excluded. Still further he relied
upon (1971) 2 SCC 715 : Rameshwar
Singh vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
and submitted that if the accused was not
previously known to the witness then an
identification parade ought to have
preceded the dock identification. Learned
counsel for the appellant stated that
though as per the decision of the Supreme
Court in (2003) 5 SCC 746 : Malkhan
Singh and Ors. vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh evidence in Court was a
substantive evidence but he submits,
relying on the very same case law that if
the recognition in the Court by the
witness of the accused was not preceded
by a test identification then the evidence
would be categorized as a weak evidence.
No or little weight should be attached to
the evidence of identification in Court,
which is not preceded by a test
identification.

 Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant therefore states that when
the identification of Bhairo Singh
itself becomes doubtful, then the
appellant Bhairo Singh definitely
could not have been implicated.

 (vi) Learned counsel for the
appellant
states
that
the
police,
specially the PW1 had throughout
stated that he used to occasionally
visit the village of the accused persons
and that he used to also see Amar
Singh and Shamsher Singh and also
he used to see that Bhairo Singh was
visiting Amar Singh and Shamsher
Singh, but learned counsel for the
appellant states that no-where in the
GD entry of the police station it was
entered that PW1 was in fact visiting
the village and that for what purpose
he was visiting the village. Also
nowhere was it stated as to what did
he actually find out there.

 (vii) Learned counsel for the
appellant further states that if the
panchayatnama of the Sub Inspector
Dharam Singh is seen, then it
becomes clear that the FIR was an
ante dated FIR and he submits that
when
the
panchayatnama
was
conducted at 01:35 pm, and the FIR
itself was lodged on very same day at
03:00 pm, how the panchayatnama
contained a Case Crime Number.
Learned counsel for the appellant
therefore states that everything further
became doubtful.

 (viii) Learned counsel for the
appellant also submits that the entire
investigation was a defective one, as
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
neither the ballistic expert report was
called for nor the specimen of soil was
at all sent to any forensic laboratory.

10. Learned counsel for the State
Sri Amit Sinha assisted by Ms. Mayuri
Mehrotra however has supported the
judgment of the trial court dated
26.05.1982. He has submitted that the
police was always knowing the criminals
of the village, and therefore they always
knew the names of the villagers. He has
also stated that the incident could not be
denied as Dharam Singh the Sub
Inspector had died and also Balwant had
died as had been stated in the FIR. He
states that Balwant was the last person
fleeing from the spot and he had therefore
faced the bullets and therefore had died
on the spot.

11. Learned counsel for the State
further states that there was absolutely no
reason for falsely implicating the accused
persons. He further states that Bhairo
Singh was on bail and he had been
implicated in various criminal cases, the
details of which were given and are
reproduced here as under:-

 1. Case Crime No.200 of 1994
under Sections 323/504/506 IPC and
Section 3(1)10 of SC/SC Act.

 2. Case Crime No.380 of 1994
under Section 376/506 of IPC and
Section 3(1)12 of SC/ST Act.

 3. Case Crime No.426 of 1994,
under Sections 302 IPC and Section
3(1)12 of SC/ST Act.
 4. Case Crime No.334 of 1999,
under Sections 323/324 IPC.

 5. Case Crime No.40 of 2000,
under Sections 110 Cr.P.C.

12. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties, the Court finds
that the appeal being Criminal Appeal
No.1404 of 1982 vis-a-vis Karan Singh,
Shamsher Singh, Vijay Singh has
abated. The appeal was argued only visa-vis the appellant No.4 Bhairo Singh.

13. From the entire perusal of
the record and the arguments advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties,
this Court is of the view that PW1, even
if he was in the know of the names of
Amar Singh and Shamsher Singh, it
was definitely not possible for the PW1
to have known that Amar Singh and
Karan Singh were the sons of Shripal
and that Shamsher Singh and Vijay
Singh were the sons of Shiv Mangal
Singh. Also the Court is of the view
that when Bhairo Singh was a resident
of another village namely Turra and
was of a different police station being
Police Station Bhadausa, then how the
PW1 came to know the name of Bhairo
Singh and how he came to know that he
was now living in village Bhudhauli
under police station Baberi. The Court
is definitely of the view that the
incident did take place, as Dharam
Singh the Sub Inspector had died from
the side of the police and that Balawant
while running away in the last had got
injured by the firing of the police and
had also died. However, the Court
8 All. Suraj Din & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
853
definitely finds it doubtful that how
Bhairo Singh was recognized in the
absence of any identification parade and
also when there was definitely no
evidence on the record to have shown
that Bhairo Singh was ever known to
PW1 or to the other prosecution
witnesses. So far as the criminal history
was concerned it had no bearing on the
decision of the instant appeal.

14. Under such circumstances,
we are of the view that the implication
of Bhairo Singh becomes doubtful, and
therefore we are of the view that
appellant Bhairo Singh be acquitted of
the charges levelled against him. The
appeal vis-a-vis appellant No.4 Bhairo
Singh, therefore is allowed.

15. The impugned judgment and
order dated 26.05.1982 passed by
Special
Judge,
Additional
Session
Judge, "Dakaiti Prabhawit Chhetra
Banda, in Sessions Trial No.318 of
1981, under Sections 148, 307 read
with 149 and 302 read with 149 I.P.C.
is set-aside, vis-a-vis the surviving
appellant No.4 Bhairo Singh. He is
acquitted from aforesaid charges. He
need not surrender. The bail bonds are
cancelled and the sureties are hereby
discharged. The appeal vis-a-vis the
appellant No.4 Bhairo Singh stands
allowed.

16. Lower court record be sent
back to court concerned for necessary
compliance.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 853
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1736 of 1992

Suraj Din & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri S.D. Misra, Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Sri
Shashibind Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 364 & 365 - Kidnapping or
abducting
with
intent
secretly
and
wrongfully to confine person - Appeal
against
conviction
-
Rigorous
imprisonment
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Five
named accused persons, were son-in-laws
and close relatives of informant (PW-1),
came to her house on 2.12.1988 at 6.00
a.m - Assaulted upon informant's husband
(PW-2), abducted him in order to kill him -
F.I.R.
was
lodged
by
informant
on
4.12.1988
-
During
investigation,
on
pointing-out
of
Surajdin
(accused)
abductee was recovered from his house -
Charges framed - Despite being PW-3,
PW-4, as witness of incidence turned
hostile,
they
affirmed
incident
of
abduction - Admissible as evidence - PW5, recovery witness of abductee turned
hostile - Ocular evidence - Informant, as
eye witness, in her St.ment named all the
accused persons - Delay in lodging FIR
explained - No inconsistency in entire
testimony of PW-6 - Motive - Transfer of
property of abductee in favour of two sonin-laws - Intention of accused persons
was not to commit murder, but to confine
abductee in the room of Surajdin, no
injury to victim, no ransom was demanded