# Laddan alias Ishaq v. State 286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 285
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-02-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 1983
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/laddan-alias-ishaq-v-state-286-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-42777
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 134conviction under section 302 IPC-based
upon solitary witness-fully reliable, can not
be
interfered-because
no
identification
pared conducted-in absence of no other
corroboration-held-for substantial justice
no requirement of quantity but quality of
witness
is
material-however
same
observation in evidence-does not get wiped
out-clear cogent and trustworthy oral
evidence-nor the finding shall vitiate the
prosecution case merely on account of non
holding identification parade.

Held: Para-14
There is no legal impediment in convicting a
person on the sole testimony of a single
witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the
'Evidence Act'). But, if there are doubts
about the testimony the courts will insist
for corroboration. It is for the Court to act
upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not
the number, the quantity, but the quality
that
is material. The
time honoured
principle is that evidence has to be
weighted and not counted. On this principle
stands the edifice of Section 134 of the
Evidence Act. The test is whether the
evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent,
credible and trustworthy, or otherwise."

## Text

1 All] Laddan alias Ishaq Vs. State
285

7. Apart from this, it is also apparent
that the revisionist is not a stranger to the
case, she is not any tom dick and harry
unconnected with the criminal transaction
which took place, nor can be said to be any
one sponsored on behalf of the accused to
prop up his defence. The judicial policy
which discouraged the recording of the
statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate
unless
the
request
came
from
the
investigating officer was with the view to
discourage
strangers
to
meddle
with
investigation. It was also with the view to
discourage and avoid the situation where the
accused himself may send up his own man to
the Magistrate and create defence evidence
in his favour. Such a judicial policy was also
with a view to avoid the court of the
Magistrates being crowed by such requests
and create an anarchic situation which could
have become unmanageable. In the present
matter the victim herself has the grievance
that her statement was not recorded by the
investigating officer. Her statement is the
most relevant statement in the facts and
circumstances of the case and if the
Magistrate records her statement u/s 164
Cr.P.C. it shall not be recording the statement
of any irrelevant person or a person
sponsored at the behest of some motivated
vested interest.

8. In view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and also the
amended position of law in criminal
procedure code this court finds it fit to set
aside the impugned order. It is further
directed that the matter is remanded back
with the direction that the application moved
by the revisionist with the prayer to record
her statement u/s 164 Cr.p.C. shall be
decided in accordance with law and in the
light of the observations made by this Court.
It is clarified that none of the observations
made by this court in this order shall be
construed to have any reflection on the merit
of the case nor shall be interpreted to the
prejudice of the accused side or any other
person concerned.

9.

Ordinarily
before
finally
adjudicating upon the revision this court
issues notice to the opp. party. But in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
this court has not adopted the same course
because in that situation it could have
defeated the ends of justice. There is hardly
any chance for this revision to be heard on
merits in a measurable distance of time due
to staggering pendency of cases in this court.
Apart from this the prayer of the revisionist
is confined simply to get her statement
recorded. Such a prayer is not likely to
prejudice any one. It is the right of the victim
to bring her version on record.

10. It is further directed that Magistrate
concerned on presentation of this order shall
after duly intimating the police procure from
the same an application of request in this
regard and shall thereafter proceed to record
the statement of the alleged victim girl.

11. The revision is allowed and the
impugned order dated 23.1.2014 passed by
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura is set
aside.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN SINHA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 1983

Laddan alias Ishaq..... Appellant
Versus
State...... Respondent
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.N. Misra, Sri Rahul Misra

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A., Sri Anand Tiwari

Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 134conviction under section 302 IPC-based
upon solitary witness-fully reliable, can not
be
interfered-because
no
identification
pared conducted-in absence of no other
corroboration-held-for substantial justice
no requirement of quantity but quality of
witness
is
material-however
same
observation in evidence-does not get wiped
out-clear cogent and trustworthy oral
evidence-nor the finding shall vitiate the
prosecution case merely on account of non
holding identification parade.

Held: Para-14
There is no legal impediment in convicting a
person on the sole testimony of a single
witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the
'Evidence Act'). But, if there are doubts
about the testimony the courts will insist
for corroboration. It is for the Court to act
upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not
the number, the quantity, but the quality
that
is material. The
time honoured
principle is that evidence has to be
weighted and not counted. On this principle
stands the edifice of Section 134 of the
Evidence Act. The test is whether the
evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent,
credible and trustworthy, or otherwise."

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vipin Sinha, J.)

1. The present appeal is against the
order of Sri B.B.L. Hajelay, Sessions Judge,
Rampur dated 21st March 1983 in Sessions
Trial No. 169 of 1982; State of U.P. Vs.
Laddan @ Ishaq convicting the accused
u/section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him with
imprisonment for life.

2. Heard the learned counsels for the
parties. Sri Rahul Misra, holding brief of
Sri P.N. Misra, learned Sernior counsel
for the appellant and Sri Anand Tiwari,
learned counsel appearing for the state.

3. A perusal of the record shows that
the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. is
to the effect that Santram, Jhajhan (deceased)
and Karan Singh were the real brother who
were doing the business of selling of Poolas of
Maize (as fodder). As per the prosecution, a
day before the incident i.e. 7th July 1982 an
altercation took place with regard to the sale
and purchase of fodder between Laddan @
Ishaq, the present accused appellant and the
deceased. It has further come up that
regarding the said altercation which occurred
a day before the incident, Prashadi Lal, PW-2
and Jhau Ram, PW-2 were the eye witnesses
and it is said that on the said date i.e. 7th July
1982 the accused applicant after altercation
had left the place saying that he would be
seeking his revenge; that the very next day at
about 05.15 p.m. in the evening Laddan
reached the place of occurrence and while the
deceased Jhajhan was sitting on the Thela,
Laddan in the presence of the first informant
i.e. Sant Ram told his brother Jhajhan ^^vkt
rqegsa fBdkus yxk nsaxs^^ and saying this, he took out
his tamancha from his Penth and fired upon
his brother Jhajhan who as a result of injury
fell down and died, with regard to which
occurrence the FIR had been lodged.

4. In the report it was also given that
Jhau Ram, PW-5 and Hari Om PW-6
were the witnesses and in whose presence
the occurrence had taken place. The F.I.R.
was lodged at Police Station Civil Lines,
Rampur on 18th July 1982 at 05.45 p.m.
describing the place of occurrence to be
Rahe Murtuza, opposite Shanker Press, at
a distance of 4 furlong from Police
Station Civil Lines, Rampur and the time
of occurrence was mentioned as 05.15
p.m.
1 All] Laddan alias Ishaq Vs. State
287

5. The accused appellant was
charged as "that you on 08.07.1982 at
about 5.15 p.m. at Rahe Murtuza, near
Shanker Printing Press, near Police
Station Civil Lines, Rampur committed
murder of Jhajhan by causing him pistol
shot injury which resulted in his death,
soon after while being taking to him the
District Hospital and you, therefore,
committed
an
offence
punishable
u/section 302 I.P.C. and thus cognizance
within the Court of Sessions."

6. The first informant Sant Ram was
examined as PW-1, however, subsequently
he was declared hostile in view of the fact
that there were several contradictions in his
testimony inasmuch as at one place he says
that he was not present at the spot of
occurrence where the incident took place
whereas at another place he says that he had
reached the place of occurrence and was
present when Laddan had arrived and had
seen Laddan causing the fatal injury. In his
statement Sant Ram, the first informant
submitted that he reached with fodder at the
spot 15 minutes before the shooting and had
seen the entire incident. It may be
emphasized that even when being crossed
examined by the state counsel, Sant Ram has
intimated that he was not present when the
shooting took place but he subsequently
confirmed the written report Exb. Ka-1 and
then further stated that the true position was
that he was present at the place of occurrence
at the time of shooting and his explanation
for earlier denying his presence at the place
of occurrence was on account of his
apprehension of danger to his life but
subsequently on cross examination by the
defence counsel, he again gave the same
statement which are in conflict with his
written report and it was in these
circumstances that he was treated as hostile.
The other eye witness is Hari Om, PW-6,
who also was treated hostile by the
prosecution but the fact remains that both the
aforesaid witnesses i.e. Sant Ram and Hari
Om, who were treated as hostile have
supported the case of the prosecution to the
extent that the occurrence took place on 8th
July 1982 at about 05.15 p.m. and also as to
the place of occurrence. Hari Om in his
statement, recorded u/section 161 Cr.P.C.
had clearly stated ^^jkgs eqrZtk ij Collectorate
ls vkus okyh lM+d ds frjkgs ij igqWpk rks frjkgs
mRrj if'pe vksj [kM+s lra jke us 'kksj epk;k fd
cpkvks cpkvks rks eSus ml vksj ns[kk rks ik;k fd
frjkgs ds dksus ij gFkBsyk ij cSBs >k>u yky dks
vQtqyiqj ds yM~Mu mQZ gLgkd us reaps ls tks
og fy;s Fkk xksyh ekj nh xksyh cgqr utnhd ls
cka;s xnZu ij ekjh xbZ ftlls >k>u yky dks pksV
vkbZA >km yky Hkh 'kkV ij vk x;s Fks vkSj vkn'kZ
dkyksuh ds eafnj ds iqtkjh th izHkk dkUr ogkW vk
x;s Fks ftUgksus iwjk okD;k ns[kk FkkA^^ However the
said Hari Om later on resiled from his
aforesaid statement and was treated hostile.
But the law remains that such part of the
evidence as corroborates the occurrence of
the incidence can be read in the evidence.

7. It is further to be seen that Prasadi
Lal, who is the real cousin of Sant Ram and
who was examined as PW-2 has clearly
stated in his statement that Jhajhan, the
deceased was engaged in the business of
selling of "pulaas" of Maize as fodder.
Prasadi Lal, needless to say, is an eye
witness to the occurrence with regard to the
motive, which took place on 7th July 1982
i.e. a day prior to the incidence. In his cross
examination Prasadi Lal has clearly stated
that he knew Laddan since a very long time
as Laddan used to purchase fodder for cattle
with regard to which purchase, he visited
every day and that he used to purchase
fodder from different persons. Prasadi Lal
who is the first cousin of Sant Ram has also
stated that Laddan is also known as Ishaq.
There are no contradictions in the statement
of Prasadi Lal.
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. The most important witness is Jhau
Ram who was examined as PW-5, who is also
in the business of selling of fodder (Maize
Pulaas), who in his statement has clearly
mentioned that the appellant accused is
known as Laddan (Ishaq), Jhau Ram in his
evidence has clearly reiterated that the
occurrence which took place on 7th July 1982
with regard to sale and purchase of pulaas as
well as the incident of 8th July 1982. Jhau
Ram has also stated that on the date of
occurrence at about 05.15 p.m. He was
present at the place of occurrence and busy
with his own work of selling of "Pulaas" of
maize and that he saw Jhajhan sitting on the
Thela after selling off his "pulaas"; that he
heard Sant Ram shouting and then he saw that
Laddan, the accused, after pulling a
Tamancha from his "Penth" had shot Jhajhan
in the neck on the left side, as a result of which
Jhajhan fell down and then Laddan sped away
on a cycle. In his cross examination Jhau Ram
has clearly insisted that he was present at the
time when the quarrel of "Pulas" took place
and was also present on the date of
occurrence. Jhau Ram has further stated that
he knew the accused Laddan since much
before as he used to come to purchase fodder
frequently, almost every day. He being a
frequent visitor, was well known to Jhau Ram.

9. Dr. Harish Chand Narula, PW-8
was examined and as per the report the
following anti mortem injury was found
on the person of the deceased:

"fire wound entry oval shaped of 4 cm
x 3 cm inside chest cavity deep at the left
side of neck, laterally 10 cm below the left
ear lobule. Margin were lacerated. Scorching
and tattooing present. No external mark of
injury present all over the body."

10.

Sri
R.K.
Sharma,
the
Investigating Officer, was also examined
and in his statement he submitted that in
the site plan, he has not shown Shanker
Printing Press as it was at a big distance.
He stated that it is wrong to say that when
Jhajhan was brought to the police station,
he was already dead, that he does not
remember that on what conveyance
Jhajhan was brought to the Police Station.
The Thela on which he found blood stains
was found by him at the place of
occurrence and not at the police station.
He asserted that it is wrong to say that the
Thela was at the police station not at the
place of occurrence.

11. The trial court looking to the
evidence on record and looking to the
contradiction made by Sant Ram in his
evidence had declared him hostile along with
Hari Om PW-6. However, the trial court has
consistently and rightly relied upon the two
other witnesses i.e. Prasadi Lal and Jhau Ram.
Prasadi Lal is the real cousin of Sant Ram and
thus there was no question of his being falsely
dragged in the occurrence. He being witness
of the incident to the motive of crime, which
took place on 7th July, 1982 i.e. a day prior to
the alleged incident is undisputed and
unimpeachable. While Jhau Ram, PW-5 is a
witness of both the incidents i.e. the incident
which took place on 7th July, 1982 and also
on 8th July, 1982 and has fully supported the
case of the prosecution. The counsel for the
accused-appellant has vehemently contended
that there has been an improper investigation
in the present case; that in fact there are no eye
witness and that as no identification was
made, hence the involvement of the accusedappellant is doubtful.

12. However, the fact remains that
even if we ignore the evidence of Sant
Ram and Hari Om but Jhau Ram and
Prasadi Lal have categorically supported
the case of the prosecution, neither their
1 All] Laddan alias Ishaq Vs. State
289
presence has been doubted nor any
suggestion have been made to them in the
Examination-in-Chief or cross examination.
There is not even a whisper from the defence
side that there is any enmity between the
accused appellant and the witnesses on
account of which the appellant may have
been falsely implicated. Even the presence of
Jhau Ram at the place of occurrence has not
been doubted. On the other hand the
evidence of Jhau Ram is unimpeachable.
Even if he is to be treated as a solitary
witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court in his
judgement of Sunil Kumar Vs. The State
Government of NCT of Delhi; (2003) 11
SCC 367 while relying upon the case of
Vadivelu Thevar V. The State of Madras;
1957 CriLJ 1000- this Court had gone into
this controversy and divided the nature of
witnesses in three categories, namely, wholly
reliable, wholly unreliable and lastly neither
wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the
case of first two categories this Court said
that they post little difficulty but in the case
of third category of witness corroboration
would be required.

13. The relevant portion is quoted as
under:-

"........Hence, in our opinion, it is a
sound and well- established rule of law
that the court is concerned with the
quality and not with the quantity of the
evidence
necessary
for,
proving
or
disproving a fact. Generally speaking,
oral testimony in this context may be
classified into three categories, namely:

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3)Neither wholly reliable nor wholly
unreliable.

In the first category of proof, the
court should have no difficulty in coming
to its conclusion either way-it may
convict or may acquit on the testimony of
a single witness, if it is found to be above
reproach or suspicion of interestedness,
incompetence or subornation. In the
second category, the court, equally has no
difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is
in the third category of cases, that the
court has to be circumspect and has to
look
for
corroboration
in
material
particulars by reliable testimony, direct or
circumstantial. There is another danger in
insisting
on
plurality
of
witnesses.
Irrespective of the quality of the oral
evidence of a single witness, if courts
were to insist on plurality of witnesses in
proof of any fact, they will be indirectly
encouraging subornation of witnesses......

14. Vaiduvelu Thevar's case (supra)
was referred to with approval in the case
of Jagdish Prasad and Ors. Vs. State of
M.P. 1994 CriLJ 1106. This Court held
that as a general rule the court can and
may act on the testimony of a single
witness provided he is wholly reliable.
There
is
no
legal
impediment
in
convicting a person on the sole testimony
of a single witness. That is the logic of
Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'). But, if
there are doubts about the testimony the
courts will insist for corroboration. It is
for the Court to act upon the testimony of
witnesses. It is not the number, the
quantity, but the quality that is material.
The time honoured principle is that
evidence has to be weighted and not
counted. On this principle stands the
edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence
Act. The test is whether the evidence has
a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and
trustworthy, or otherwise."
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. The Apex Court has held that
even assuming there is a contradiction and
if the evidence appears to be clear, cogent
and trustworthy and if nothing substantial
have been brought on the record to
disregard the testimony of other witnesses
then merely because there are some
aberration the evidence does not gets
wiped out. In the present case the
evidence of PW-5 alone was substantial to
fix the guilt on the accused appellant.

16. Needless to say that there cannot
be an exact and precise reproduction of
evidence in any mathematical manner and
what is to be seen is whether the version
presented in the court was substantial and
similar to what was stated during the
investigation.

17. As far as the question of
identification is concerned, almost all the
witnesses have categorically stated that the
accused was known to them from much prior
to the date of occurrence. The Trial court has
rightly concluded that "if at the stage of trial
PW's testimony does not convince the court
about the witnesses knowing the accused
from before the occurrence and if the PW's
evidence convinces that they knew the
accused from before the occurrence, then the
mere failure to hold the identification parade
at the instance of the accused will not be fatal
to the prosecution case. All the eye witnesses
including the hostile witnesses said that they
knew
the
accused
from
before
the
occurrence. Thus in view of the aforesaid
material fact merely on account of non
holding of the identification parade, will not
vitiate the case of the prosecution.

18. The Apex Court in the case of Hari
Nath And Ors. Vs. State of U.P.; AIR 1988
SC 345 has held that the evidence of
identification
merely
corroborates
and
strengthen the oral testimony in Court which
alone is the primary and substantial evidence
as to identity. The Court has further held "it
is no doubt true that offence of corroboration
by test identification may not assume any
materiality if either the witnesses had know
the accused earlier." Thus the objection with
regard to the identification as raised by the
counsel for the appellant is misconceived.

19. It may further be appreciated that
the place of occurrence has not been disputed
in any serious manner by the appellant. No
plea or defence has been taken with regard to
any enmity with the witnesses, nothing exist
on record which may say that the accused
appellant has been falsely implicated either
because of some previous enmity or inimical
witness. It was a day light incident which
took place in the presence of the eye witness
who has supported the case of the
prosecution persistently and thus this Court
finds no good ground to interfere with the
finding and conviction as recorded by the
Trial Court.

20. In support of their contention that
Jhau Ram is not a reliable witness, a plea has
been taken inasmuch as to the effect that
Jhau Ram has stated that the body was taken
to the police station on the Thela, which
Thela was found at the place of occurrence.
However,
the
fact
remains
that
the
investigating officer in his statement has
clearly stated that the Thela was found at the
place of occurrence. The evidence of Jhau
Ram is apparently unimpeachable and fully
corroborates the case of the prosecution. The
Apex Court has repeatedly taken the view
that minor discrepancies or improvements
which do not affect the case of the
prosecution and are insignificant cannot be
made the basis for doubting the case of the
prosecution. The courts may not concentrate
too
much on such discrepancies or
1 All] Ram Sajeevan Patal Vs. State of U.P.
291
improvements. The purpose is to primarily
and clearly to sift the chaff from the grain
and find out the truth from the testimony of
the witnesses. Where it does not affect the
core
of
the
prosecution
case
such
discrepancies should not be attached undue
significance. (Kuriya and Ors. Vs. State of
Raj.) (2012) 10 SCC 433.

21. Thus in view of the aforesaid
factual position and evidence on record
and circumstances this Court finds no
good ground to interfere with the findings
as recorded by the Sessions Judge,
Rampur and accordingly the judgement
dated 21st March, 1983 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial
No. 169 of 1982 convicting the accused
appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and
imposing sentence of life imprisonment is
affirmed and the present appeal is
accordingly dismissed.

22. A copy of this judgement be
communicated to the court below.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.02.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.

Service Single No. 1147 of 2014

Ram Sajeevan Patel..... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P....... Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.M. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Appointment-claim
based
upon
landacquired for construction of Hospital-based
upon government order-held-in view of Full
Bench decision-provisions of G.O. providing
preference
in
job-or
preferential
appointment-being contrary to provisions
of land acquisition Act neither appointment
nor preference can be given.

Held: Para-14
The Full Bench has given reasons for
coming to the conclusion that any such
Government Order, which provides benefit
of employment is contrary to the scheme as
provided under the Land Acquisition Act
and hence, would be invalid. Even in case,
any Government Order which provides that
preference in employment shall be given to
a person whose land has been acquired,
would be inconsistant with the intention of
the Parliament as contained in the Land
Acquisition Act. As such, I am of the
considered view that in view of the law laid
down by the Full Bench of this Court in the
case
of
Ravindra
Kumar
vs.
Distirct
Magistrate, Agra and others (supra) the
petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit
in government employment on the ground
that his land has been acquired, even on the
basis
of
Government
Order
dated
15.06.1985.

Case Law discussed:
2005(1) UPLBEC 118

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.)

1. Notice on behalf of opposite
parties has been accepted by the learned
Chief Standing Counsel.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the opposite parties.

3. This writ petition has been filed
seeking following reliefs:-

(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in
the
nature
of
mandamus
thereby
commanding/ directing the opposite parties