# Khunni Lal v. State

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 998
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1188 of 1989
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Prashant Mishra-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/khunni-lal-v-state-54230
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

998 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

34. Considering the nature of the defect, this Court is of the view that the same is curable and
the ends of justice would be served by remanding the matter to the trial court for compliance of
Section 313 Cr.P.C.

35. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed to the limited extent indicated herein. The judgment
and order dated 08.09.2015 passed by the learned trial court are set aside.

36. The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court with the following directions:

i. The Trial Court shall record fresh statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
specifically putting all incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence, including those
relating to alleged poisoning and post-mortem ligature mark.

ii. The accused shall be afforded an opportunity to lead defence evidence, if they so
choose.

iii. Thereafter, the trial court shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law,
uninfluenced by the earlier judgment.

37. Considering the pendency of the appeals, we direct the concerned trial court to expedite
the proceedings and do the needful within three months from the date of communication of this
judgment. The appellants namely Anil- the present appellant, Nand Lal- appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.1388 of 2015, Govardhan- appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1384 of 2015, Gena-
appellant in Criminal Appeal No.439 of 2016 and Smt. Sheela- appellant in Criminal Appeal
No.1121 of 2015 be released on bail unless they are required to be detained in connection with any
other case and they will appear before the trial court in person and will participate in the
proceedings on the date fixed by the trial court, failing which the trial court shall be at liberty to
cancel their bail and take them into custody.
---------
(2026) 2 ILRA 998
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT MISHRA-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1188 of 1989

Khunni Lal ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to principal of Parity in case of more than one accused.
2 All. Khunni Lal Vs. State
999
Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sec. 302 and 34- Murder -Conviction of one accused and acquittal of two
others on same set of evidence -sustainability prosecution witnesses giving contrary versions- prominent eyewitnesses not examined- reason for their non-examination not explained, and F.I.R. rendered suspicious-Held,
when there is similar or identical evidence of eye-witnesses against accused persons by assigning same or
similar role-court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other- both accused will be governed by
principles of parity -suspicion cannot at all take place of proof-Judgment and order of conviction suffers from
infirmity - set aside- Appeal allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat, (2023) 9 SCC 164
2. Ram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 4 SCC 208

List of Acts
The Indian Penal Code, 1860

List of Keywords
Principles of parity; two accused; similar role; same set of evidence

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Amar Saran, Sikandar B Kochar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Mr. Sikandar B Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Amit Sinha, learned
Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the materials on record.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant, namely, Khunni Lal, against
the judgment and order dated 17.05.1989 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Kannauj, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 219 of 1987, arising out of Case Crime No. 56 of
1987, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Thathiya Sub-District Kannauj, District
Farrukhabad, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life,
under Section 302 I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution case, in brief, the accused persons, namely, Khunni Lal, Bhagwan
Din and Jagdish belong to the family of complainant Ram Singh and they are co-sharers of half of
the house and land of the complainant. Accused Khunni Lal is a Lekhpal and Bhagwan Din is an
inspector in the canal department in district Kanpur. The accused persons built their house by
encroaching the land of the complainant. On 09.05.1987, at around 6 PM, when the accused
persons were cutting the eastern platform (chabutra) of the complainant, his father objected, then
the accused persons started abusing. At the same time, the complainant's younger brother Mauji Lal
also reached there. He also objected and brought his father to his doorstep and the villagers pacified
them. After an hour, at around 7 pm, accused Khunni Lal armed with a big knife, Bhagwan Din
armed with a pistol and Jagdish armed with a spear arrived there. At that time, informant's brother,
Mauji Lal, was smoking outside the shed. Complainant ran and grabbed Jagdish's spear. At that
very moment, Bhagwan Din and Jagdish grabbed both the hands of Mauji Lal, and Khunni Lal
stabbed Mauji Lal in the left side of his neck. Mauji lal died on the spot. Complainant, his brother
Bechelal, his father Keshari Lal, Mauji Lal's wife, Chhammi Lal, and other villagers witnessed the
1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
said incident. The accused persons fled away with knife and pistol extending fire shots. Report of
the said incident got lodged on the next day.

4. The police conducted panchayatnama of the body of the deceased and seized a broken spade
and blood-soaked soil from the place of occurrence. After the investigation, a charge sheet was
submitted against the aforesaid accused persons.

5. The accused persons, namely, Khunni Lal, Bhagwan Din and Jagdish were charged with
commission of offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. They denied the charges and sought trial.

6. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Ram Singh, PW-2
Chhammi Lal, PW-3 Bhagwati, PW-4 Head Constable Dinesh Pal Singh, PW-5 Dr. V.K. Bhatiya,
PW-6 Rajendra Singh Solanki (S.I., investigating officer).

7. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they
claimed their innocence and said that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The accused
persons furnished two defence witnesses in defence.

8. In documentary evidence, written report (exhibit-Ka.1), F.I.R. (exhibit-Ka.2), chick copy
(exhibit-Ka.3), postmortem report (exhibit-Ka.4), site plan (exhibit-Ka.5), site plan (exhibit-Ka.6),
panchayatnama (exhibit-Ka.7), arakshi receipt (exhibit-Ka.8) photo nash (exhibit-Ka.9), police
station report (exhibit-Ka.10), police station report (exhibit-Ka.11), letter to CMO (exhibit-Ka.12),
recovery memo of plain soil (exhibit-Ka.13), recovery memo of blood stained soil (exhibit-Ka.14),
recovery memo of blood stained 'tehmad' (exhibit-Ka.15), recovery memo of Javelin etc. (exhibitKa.16), charge-sheet 'mool'(exhibit-Ka.17) were filed.

9. Application to Superintendent of Police (exhibit-Kha.1), Telegram (Taar) to S.S.P (exhibitKha.2), copy of Telegram (Taar) (exhibit-Kha.3) and copy of Telegram (Taar) (exhibit-Kha.4)
produced and proved by DW-1.

10. The trial court after considering the evidence on record acquitted the co-accused, namely
Bhagwan Din and Jagdish and convicted and sentenced the appellant-Khunni Lal as aforesaid.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is manipulation of date in the F.I.R., it
appears that figure '10' has been manipulated as '11' that goes to create doubt. The prominent
witnesses Bechelal and Kesari Lal, who are allegedly the eye-witnesses of the incident have not
been examined by the prosecution. One more witness-Jalil was also not examined. The testimony
of PW-1, Ram Singh is contrary to the F.I.R., which was lodged by him only. PW-1 has
specifically denied that he did not see the appellant assaulting Mauji Lal with a knife because it was
dark in the night. He has also stated that Chhammi Lal and other people came there after the
incident, whereas in the F.I.R., he states that Khunni Lal assaulted his brother with a knife on the
left side of the neck. Bhagwan Din had country made pistol (tamancha) and Jagdish was having
spear in his hand at the time of incident. He states that he rapidly caught hold of the spear which
was in the hand of Jagdish and in such act the spear broke down. So this version in the F.I.R. is
absolutely contrary to the testimony of PW-1 recorded in the learned trial court. PW-3 Bhagwati
2 All. Khunni Lal Vs. State
1001
Devi who is the wife of the deceased Mauji Lal also deposed as if she was the eye-witness of the
incident, but during the course of evidence, she has admitted that when her husband raised alarm,
she could not come out from the thatched hut. Learned trial court has committed gross mistake in
acquitting two accused persons and convicting the appellant on the same set of evidence led before
the trial court. The interpolation in the F.I.R. also shows that F.I.R. was lodged as a result of
afterthought due to some enmity. It was also argued that there was no F.I.R. in existence at 9:30
P.M. The written report, inquest etc. were prepared next morning at the police station. The inquest
shows to be conducted on 10.05.1987. This also creates doubt on the version as regards the alleged
incident. Hence the appeal deserves to be allowed.

12. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant and stated that the appellant with his brother Bhagwan Din and
nephew Jagdish were having dispute with the informant and his family members regarding
construction of Chabutra. On 09.05.1987, at about 6:00 P.M., father of the informant opposed the
appellant from constructing the Chabutra then the appellant started hurling abuse. At the same time,
the brother of informant-Mauji Lal (deceased) reached there and objected the appellant and they
brought their father to the house of Mauji Lal. After an hour at about 7 P.M., appellant-Khunni Lal
armed with knife, Bhagwan Din with a country made pistol and Jagdish with spear came there and
assaulted Mauji Lal. Bhagwan Din and Jagdish caught hold of Mauji Lal and Khunni Lal, assaulted
with his knife on the neck. Mauji Lal sustained fatal injuries which resulted in his death. The eyewitness account to the incident has clearly corroborated the incident. Postmortem report of the
deceased also shows that he sustained incised wound on the left side of the neck and contusions on
the chest and right shoulder. The learned trial court while evaluating the evidence on record found
accused-Khunni Lal guilty and convicted him. On the other hand, it was found that co-accused
Bhagwan Din and Jagdish were innocent, hence they were acquitted of charges. Therefore, no
interference is required by this Court and appeal deserves to be dismissed.

13. After hearing the rival submissions and going through the materials on record, we find that
PW-1, Ram Singh is the informant of the case who has lodged the F.I.R. against Khunni Lal,
Bhagwan Din and Jagdish, as per the prosecution case stated above. PW-1, Ram Singh, in his
testimony recorded before the trial court specifically stated that at around 6:00 P.M. in the evening
he was present in his house, all the three accused persons were constructing their house by cutting
down his Chabutra. His father Keshari objected to this. The accused persons started abusing him.
When PW-1 reached there, Mauji Lal and Beche Lal also came. All of them tried to stop the
accused persons from abusing his father Keshari Lal. All of them escorted his father to the house of
Mauji Lal. Ram Singh along with his father and two real brothers, namely, Mauji Lal and Beche
Lal were sitting at Mauji Lal's house where at about 7 P.M., Jagdish armed with spear, Khunni Lal
armed with a knife and Bhagwan Din with a country made pistol arrived there. Accused persons
tried to attack Mauji Lal when PW-1 caught hold of the spear in the hand of Jagdish which broke
down. Soon after Bhagwan Din and Jagdish caught hold of Mauji Lal, and Khunni Lal assaulted
Mauji Lal on the left side of his neck. Mauji Lal fell down and died. He has also specifically stated
that he along with Beche Lal, Ganga Ram and Jalil along with Keshari saw the whole incident. This
witness has given specific role of assault to Khunni Lal, assigned the role of firing to Bhagwan Din
in his examination-in-chief. He also stated that he dictated the written report to one Putti Lal and
1002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has proved the written report (exhibit-Ka-1). Role of catching hold has been assigned to other coaccused jagdish.

14. It is pertinent to mention here that the scribe of the F.I.R. Putti Lal has not been examined
by the prosecution or else he had deposed that whatever Ram Singh stated, he reduced it in writing
and then was read over to him.

15. Next besides PW-1 Ram Singh, his father Keshari Lal, Beche Lal, Ganga Ram and Jalil
also witnessed the incident as per testimony on oath recorded before the learned trial court, but
Beche Lal, Ganga Ram, Jalil and Keshari were not examined by the prosecution and the reason of
their non-examination has not been explained.

16. On the other hand in his cross-examination PW-1 Ram Singh on page No. 3 has stated
very clearly that he could not see assaulting with knife because it was dark of night. At one place in
his statement he clearly says that he saw the incident and in his cross-examination he denies that
because it was dark of night he could not see the assault with knife.

17. The prominent witnesses, who have been named as eye-witnesses to the incident, namely,
Beche Lal, Ganga Ram, Jalil and Keshari, have not been examined. The reason of their nonexamination is best known to the prosecution. Another most important fact relating to incident is
that on page No. 4 of the cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that he could not see Khunni Lal at
the place of occurrence as it was dark in the night. These two versions of the witness are altogether
contrary. It has also been said that he along with Beche Lal went to the police station. Beche Lal is
said to accompany him from place of occurrence to the police station, but he has not been
examined. On page No. 5 of the cross-examination this fact has been reiterated by the witness PW1 that he did not see Khunni Lal assaulting with knife or Bhagwan Din and Jagdish catching hold
of Mauji Lal. Next he also says that earlier he had a scuffle with the accused persons and therefore,
he opined that the incident might have been caused by them. Opinion of a witness is of no value as
it is not based on credible piece of evidence.

18. Another eye-witness again who had been examined by the prosecution is PW-2 Chhammi
Lal and PW-3 Bhagwati Devi. Chhammi Lal is an eye-witness to the incident as per the F.I.R.
lodged by the complainant PW-1 Ram Singh. PW-2 has also stated the same story as has been
stated by the complainant of the case, PW-1. PW-1 has also stated that Chhammi Lal is resident of
his village. PW-2 admits in his cross-examination that he borrowed Rs. 1000/- from accused
Khunni Lal for purchasing a buffalo and he has denied the fact that he had a scuffle with Khunni
Lal on account of interest payable on the debt. The informant has although named PW-2, Chhammi
Lal as witness in the F.I.R., but in his testimony at page No. 3 he has stated that at the time of
occurrence only the members of the family were present. None of resident villager was there,
whereas Chhammi Lal in his statement has tried to explain the incident as if it all happened in his
presence and view. Hence here also a big doubt comes into light which shadows the prosecution
case.

19. PW-1 and PW-2 both have given statement before the court that on the place of occurrence
Bhagwati Devi was also present. She is said to be the wife of Mauji Lal. Bhagwati Devi has been
2 All. Khunni Lal Vs. State
1003
examined as PW-3. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she was sitting in a thatched hut
and cleaning her house. She was inside the house when her husband raised alarm even then she did
not come out from her house. She also said that when she came out of the hut she saw the accused
persons running away from there after the incident. These two versions are also contrary to each
other. At one point of time she was saying that she did not come out of the hut even after the alarm
of the deceased-Mauji Lal her husband, and her father-in-law Keshari. How did she see the
assailants running, from what distance she saw because it is very obvious that when the assailants
ran away she might have seen them running from behind.

20. It is also remarkable to note that thumb impressions of exhibit Ka-1 (report),
Panchayatnama and few other prosecution papers appear to be written in the same ink. Even the
defence witness No. 2 (writing expert) examined before the learned trial court has deposed that the
thumb impression on the report, inquest and other police papers are in the same ink. It may also
indicate a situation where all these papers were prepared at one and the same time. F.I.R. is said to
have been registered on 09.05.1987 at 9:30 P.M. whereas inquest conducted bears the date
10.05.1987 at 5:30 A.M. PW-3 Bhagwati Devi has also in her testimony admitted that police came
there at 5:30 A.M. in the morning. Why this inquest was conducted on 10.05.1987, 5:30 A.M. also
remains unexplained and makes a possibility that F.I.R. was not in existence at the time shown in it
i.e. 9:30 P.M. When the witnesses depose contrary to the prosecution version and when it finds no
corroboration, it goes to affect the prosecution version negatively and renders F.I.R. suspicious.
Further as per PW-1 informant, earlier a scuffle took place with the accused persons and therefore,
he opined that the incident might have been caused by them reflects that F.I.R. was lodged on the
ground of suspicion. Suspicion cannot at all take place of proof, howsoever strong it may be.

21. In the instant case, Dr. V.K. Bhatiya-PW-5 conducted the postmortem on the body of the
deceased on 11.05.1987 at 3:30 P.M. and found the following injuries:

(i) Incised wound of size 7 cm x 1.5 cm on the lateral side of the neck and back.

(ii) Contusion 9 cm x 4 cm downward the right side of the chest.

(iii) Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm upward the right shoulder.

22. In his cross-examination, PW-5 has stated that dry soil was found at certain parts of the
body of the deceased. He has also opined that injury Nos. 2 and 3 may be caused by some hard and
blunt object and also death might have taken place somewhere in the midnight of 09.05.1987.

23. It is true that there were injuries found on the body of the deceased, but this is not
sufficient to entail conviction as prosecution owes a legal obligation to prove that those injuries
found on the body of the deceased were inflicted by the accused persons and this has to be proved
by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts, in which prosecution has not succeeded.

24. It is also noteworthy to mention here that in the instant case there were three accused
persons, namely, Khunni Lal, Bhagwan Din and Jagdish. Evidence led by the prosecution witnesses
defines the specific role of each of them. All the three accused persons were tried together under
1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Hon'ble Apex Court, in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs.
State of Gujarat, (2023) 9 SCC 164 and in Ram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 4 SCC
208, has laid down the principle that when there is similar or identical evidence of eye-witnesses
against two accused by scribing the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and
acquit the other. It was also held that in such a case both the accused will be governed by the
principles of parity, which means that the criminal court should decide like cases alike. Thus the
Hon'ble Apex Court on carefully analyzing the evidence on record gave the benefit of doubt to the
accused persons.

25. In the instant case before the learned trial court there are three accused, one is convicted
and two others are acquitted on the same set of evidence.

26. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the judgment and order of conviction
recorded by the learned trial court dated 17.05.1989 suffers from infirmity and is liable to be set
aside.

27. Hence, the judgment and order of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant
for life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is set aside for the reasons
mentioned above.

28. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby allowed.

29. The appellant shall be set free, if not wanted in any other case.

30. Office is directed to return the trial court record as expeditiously as possible and notify this
judgment to the trial court too.
---------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1004
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 1987

Jaggu Kol & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to prosecution case failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnotes