# Lakhi Pal & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1151
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1779 of 1984
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir, Sanjiv Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lakhi-pal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54705
- **Pages:** 22

## Text

_Characters 0–39,949 of 77,183. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39949 for what follows._

4 All. Lakhi Pal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1151
PW-1 deposed that Brijbasi has exhorted Keshav to fire at him. PW-2 and PW-3 have stated that
Brijbasi has exhorted Keshav to

fire at Shiv Kumar Singh. Further, taking of injured to District Etawah from District Mainpuri also
creates doubt that despite Police Station- Karhal is nearer to the place of occurrence why the injured was
taken to P.S.- Jaswant Nagar, Etawah. The injured is the resident of Etawah could be the reason of taking him
to Etawah. The prosecution fail to establish that the licensed gun of Subedar Singh is used in the incident.
There is discrepancies on the point of two shots fired and injury caused to two persons in one shot. Therefore,
there is no clinching evidence against the accused to convict him for the offence of attempt to murder. Hence
the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and shall be acquitted.

28. In the case of Jitendra Kumar Mishra alias Jittu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh16 Hon'ble the
Supreme Court held that an appellate court should be slow in interfering with conviction recorded by courts
below but where evidence on record indicates that prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused beyond
reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from one expressed by trial court, can be taken. The
appellate court should not shy away in giving benefit of doubt to the accused.

29. Thus, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.06.1987 passed by IIIrd Additional
Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Session Trial No. 165 of 1986 (State Vs. Brijbasi Lal and another) P.S.- Karhal,
District- Mainpuri, under Section 307 IPC, is hereby set aside.

30. The appellant no. 2 Keshav Singh @ Kallu S/o Brijbasi Lal, is acquitted for offence
under Section 307 IPC.

31. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed.

32. The material exhibits shall be disposed of as per law.

33. The accused appellant is on bail. His sureties executed bail bonds are discharged.

34. The record remitted, forthwith, as per law.
---------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1151
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1779 of 1984

Lakhi Pal & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
1152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of
the deceased and caused injuries to the injured witness, and whether the objections regarding delay in
lodging the FIR, ante-timing of the FIR, contradictions relating to inquest proceedings, place of occurrence,
recovery of weapon and appreciation of evidence render the prosecution case doubtful. (Paras 53-96)

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -S. 154 -First Information Report -Testimony regarding
reaching the hospital and thereafter the Police Station corroborated by injury report and check
FIR -FIR lodged promptly -plea of delay and ante-timing held without force. (Paras
54,55,68,69,70)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -S. 154 -First Information Report -Mere fact that the informant
initially approached a Constable and thereafter submitted a written application would not render
the oral version the first information -written application which moved the machinery of law and
upon which investigation commenced constituted the First Information Report. (Para 57)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -S. 174 -Inquest report-non-mentioning of names of
appellants in the inquest report and connected papers does not lead to an inference that the FIR
was not in existence -names of accused are not required under law to be incorporated in the
inquest report. (Paras 59,60,61,62)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -S. 174 -Inquest report-Contradictions regarding time of
holding inquest and dispatch of dead body for autopsy held not very material -delay, if any, in
preparing the inquest report and taking the dead body to the hospital for autopsy does not shake
the otherwise soul foundation of the prosecution case. (Paras 63,64,65,66)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -First Information Report -Delay, if any, in reaching the FIR to
the Court for signature by the Magistrate not material where documentary evidence establishes
existence of the FIR and related papers before commencement of post-mortem examination.
(Paras 67,68,69,70)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -Appreciation of Evidence -Place of occurrence -Consistent testimony
of prosecution witnesses and site-plan prepared by the Investigating Officer fully corroborated
the prosecution version and established the place of occurrence. (Paras 71,72,73,75)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -Injured Witness -Testimony of injured witness carries great
evidentiary value and when corroborated by other eye-witnesses and documentary evidence
forms a reliable basis for conviction. (Paras 76,77,78,79)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -Motive -In a case of direct evidence motive loses its significance -
absence of proof of any immediate motive is of no relevance where eye-witnesses have fully
supported the prosecution case. (Paras 81,82,83,84,85,86)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 -S. 452 -Parties residing in the same Gher and occurrence taking place
within the common residential enclosure -technically offence under S. 452 IPC not made out and
the case not one of house trespass. (Para 86)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -Appreciation of Evidence -Minor contradictions regarding manner of
assault or injuries which do not go to the root of the matter and do not shake the basic version
of witnesses cannot be annexed with undue importance. (Paras 87,88,89,91)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -Related Witness -Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a
witness -evidence of a natural witness cannot be discarded merely because of relationship with
the deceased. (Paras 90,91)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -S. 27 -Recovery of knife at the pointing out of an accused from the
place of concealment proved through independent witness and Investigating Officer -recovery
admissible in evidence and corroborative of the prosecution case. (Paras 92,93)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 -Ss. 302/34 and 324/34 -Ocular testimony supported by medical
evidence -prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants, in furtherance of
their common intention, attacked the deceased and caused injuries to the injured witness by
sharp-edged weapons -conviction and sentence affirmed. (Paras 93,94,95,96)
4 All. Lakhi Pal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1153
Held: The FIR was lodged promptly and was not ante-timed - the written application on the basis of which
investigation commenced constituted the First Information Report - non-mentioning of names of appellants in
the inquest report does not create any suspicion regarding the prosecution case - contradictions relating to
the time of holding the inquest and dispatch of the dead body for autopsy are not material and do not shake
the otherwise soul foundation of the prosecution case - the place of occurrence stands fully established by
oral and documentary evidence including the site-plan - the testimony of the injured witness and other eyewitnesses is natural, consistent and trustworthy - in a case of direct evidence motive loses its significance and
absence of proof of immediate motive has no relevance - minor contradictions do not go to the root of the
matter and cannot affect the basic version of the prosecution witnesses - recovery of the weapon of assault at
the pointing out of an accused is admissible and corroborative - ocular testimony is fully supported by medical
evidence - the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants, in furtherance of their
common intention, attacked and murdered the deceased and caused injuries to the injured witness by a
sharp-edged weapon - conviction and sentence under Ss. 302 read with 34 and 324 read with 34 IPC call for
no interference and deserve affirmation - appeal dismissed. (Paras 54-70,71-75,76-79,81-96) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Shakila Khader v. Nausher Gama, AIR 1975 SC 1324; Eqbal Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC
923; Thaman Kumar vs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2003) 6 SCC 380: AIR 2003 SC 3975;
State of H.P. Vs. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370: AIR 1999 SC 1293; Molu and others v. State of Haryana,
AIR 1976 SC 2499; Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420; Maqsoodan and Others v.
State of U.P., 1983 SCC (Cri.) 176; Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCR 280:
AIR 1983 SC 753; Israr vs. State of U.P., 2005 (51) ACC 113.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

List of Keywords
Murder; Common intention; Injured witness; Eye-witness; Prompt FIR; Ante-timed FIR; Inquest report;
Medical evidence; Ocular evidence; Recovery of knife; Blood-stained earth; Khukhri; Incised wound; Shock
and haemorrhage; Place of occurrence; House trespass; Motive; Related witness; Minor contradictions;
Credibility of witnesses.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Against the judgment and order dated 30.06.1984 passed by Mr. Y.S. Raizada,
the then III Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 328 of 1983 (arising out of Case Crime
No. 203 of 1993), under Ss. 324, 325, 452 and 302 IPC read with S. 34 IPC, Police Station Dadri, District
Ghaziabad, convicting the appellants and sentencing them to imprisonment for life under S. 302 read with S.
34 IPC and two and a half years rigorous imprisonment under S. 324 read with S. 34 IPC.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Mr. Sunil Vashisth;Mr. Kapil Kumar Rajor;
Mr. Sunil Kumar;
Advs. for the Respondent:
Ms. Divya Ojha, AGA-I;

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjiv Kumar, J.)

1. This instant Criminal Appeal by the appellants Lakhi Pal, Satya Pal, Rishi Pal and Shri @
Jain is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.06.1984 passed by Mr. Y.S. Raizada, the
then III Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 328 of 1983 (arising out of
1154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Crime No. 203 of 1993), under Sections 324, 325, 452 and 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC,
Police Station Dadri, District Ghaziabad.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, all the appellants were found guilty, convicted and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 IPC and two and a half years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under
Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The Trial Court acquitted all the appellants of the offence
punishable under Section 452 IPC. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant no.4, Shri @ Jain died and this appeal on
his behalf was abated vide order dated 18.08.2025. Now this appeal survives on behalf of
appellants nos.1, 2 and 3, to wit, Lakhi Pal, Satya Pal, Rishi Pal.

4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that informant, Anil Kumar, son of Shri Shyama
Singh, resident of village Senthli, Police Station Dadri, District Ghaziabad, filed a written
application (tahrir) dated 02.08.1983 (Ext. Ka-2), before the Station House Officer, Police Station
Dadri, District Ghaziabad, stating therein that he is serving in Army and currently posted in the
Technical Branch. On 08.07.1983, he had come home on 64 days leave. There was a dispute with
regard to 03-03 bigha of land between his brother and his cousins (Tau's sons). His cousins did
not want to share any part of the said land and due to the issue, yesterday i.e. 01.08.1983, a dispute
arose between his brother and Rishi Pal and Lakhi Pal, which was pacified somehow. Yesterday
evening, another cousin of his Rishi Pal, who is also in the army, came home on leave. Today i.e.
02.08.1983 at 06:30 p.m., Satya Pal, Rishi Pal, Shri @ Jain entered his house, armed with lathi,
knives and khukhri and attacked him as well as his brother with an intention to kill. Lakhi Pal and
Satya Pal stabbed his brother Gulbir with knives, Rishi Pal attacked with the Khukhri and Shri @
Jain assaulted with the lathi. Rishi Pal attacked him with the Khukhri, as a result of which his right
hand's fingers were chopped off.

5. It is further alleged in the FIR that, upon alarm raised by him and his children, Rajbir
Singh son of Tej Pal Singh and Ajab Singh son of Harvansh and others reached the place of
occurrance. Beerbala and Neeti, wife and daughter of Gulbir Singh respectively, and Bina wife of
Satendra were already present in the house, who witnessed the incident and saved them. He took
his brother to Dadri with the help of villagers. In the hospital, the doctor declared his brother Gulbir
dead and did his (the informant's) medical examination. It was said that he had come to the police
station with his brother Gulbir Singh's dead body along with the villagers to lodge an FIR. The
dead body was lying in front of the police station.

6. On the basis of the said written application, a check FIR (Ext. Ka-4), with Case Crime
No. 203 of 1983, under sections 302, 325, 452, 324 IPC was registered against Lakhi Pal, Rishi Pal,
Satya Pal and Shri @ Jain at Police Station Dadri, District Ghaziabad on 02.08.1983 at 10:00 p.m.

7. After registration of the FIR, investigation commenced. The Investigating Officer
reached the place of occurrence and collected blood-stained earth, plain earth and also bloodstained slippers of the deceased, which he sealed in two separate boxes and prepared a recovery
memo (Ext. Ka-15). The Investigating Officer arrested the appellants Satya Pal, Lakhi Pal and
4 All. Lakhi Pal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1155
Rishi Pal on 03.08.1983 at about 12:00 noon. The appellant Lakhi Pal confessed to his crime and
said that the knife, which he had employed in the assault was in his possession and which he
concealed in a fodder bag (Bhuse ki bongi).

8. Upon this information, the Investigating Officer secured public witnesses and, at the
pointing out of the accused Lakhi Pal, recovered a blood-stained knife from the fodder bag, which
he sealed in a cloth and prepared a recovery memo (Ext. Ka-3).

9. The injured Anil Kumar was medically examined at P.H.C., Dadri and the doctor drew
up an injury report (Ext. Ka-1). The inquest for the deceased Gulbir was held and an inquest report
prepared along with other related papers. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for autopsy. Five antemortem injuries of the nature of incised wound and a healed scar on the right side scalp were found
over the body and, in the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage, as a
result of ante-mortem injuries. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of informant and
other witnesses. He also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a site plan (Ext. Ka-14).
The Investigating Officer also sent blood-stained knife for chemical examination. As per chemical
analysis report, blood was found over a large part of it.

10. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet
(Ext. Ka-17), under Sections 302, 324, 325 and 452 IPC before the Magistrate. The learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and summoned the appellants. The appellants appeared
before the learned Magistrate and the Court furnished them copies of relevant prosecution papers
under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

11. The accused appeared before the Sessions Court and charges under Sections 452,
302/34 and 325/34 IPC were framed against all the appellants. The appellants abjured the said
charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

12. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses to prove their case namely, P.W.1
Dr. P.K. Sharma, P.W.2 Anil Kumar (informant), P.W.3 Smt. Beerbala (wife of deceased Gulbir),
P.W.4 Rajbir Singh, P.W.5 Constable Sukhpal Singh, P.W.6, Dr. R.L. Saraswat, P.W.7 S.I. Hari
Dutta Sharma, P.W.8 Prem Pal Singh Chauhan (Investigating Officer) and P.W.9 Constable Prem
Dutta Gautam. Their testimonies, in brief, are as under.

13. P.W.1 Dr. P.K. Sharma, Medical Officer, conducted medical examination of
informant/injured Anil Kumar. He has said that on 02.08.1983 at about 09:45 p.m., he examined
injuries of Anil Kumar, while being posted as Medical Officer at P.H.C., Dadri, Ghaziabad and
found following injuries:

 (i) Incised wound of the size of 2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep at the outer side of thumb of
the right hand. Bleeding was present.

 (ii) Incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep over nail of right finger of the right hand.
Bleeding was present.
1156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (iii) Incised wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep at the base of nail of index finger of his
right hand. X-ray was advised.

14. In the opinion of the doctor, injury nos. 1 and 3 were caused by a sharp-edged weapon,
such as a knife or a khukhri, whereas injury no.2 was caused by a blunt object. Injury no.2 was
simple in nature, however, injury nos. 1 and 3 were kept under observation and an x-ray
examination was advised. He has proved Anil Kumar's injury report as Ext. Ka-1 and said that
these injuries could have been caused on 02.08.1983 between 06:00 and 06:30 p.m.

15. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 has said that injury nos. 2 and 3 could be caused by
knives. He does not remember if somebody else had accompanied the injured Anil Kumar or not.
He could tell about it only after perusing the record.

16. P.W.2 Anil Kumar is the informant as well as an injured witness in this case. He has
supported the prosecution case and said that all the accused are his cousins (tau's sons). He deposed
that he had four brothers, including Gulbir and all of them, including the appellants, reside within
the same residential compound. There is a dispute relating to 03-03 bigha of land between him
and accused. One day prior to the incident, an altercation took place between them over the said
land. He further said that this land is situated at a short distance from village Senthli, towards the
road. The appellants were unwilling to part with the said land and wanted to retain it themselves,
which resulted in animosity between them. He further said that on 02.08.1983 at about 06:00 or
06:30 p.m., he and his brother Gulbir were sitting in house near the kitchen. He has also said that he
is employed with the Army in the Technical Branch as a mechanic and had come to his village on
leave. At the time, all the four accused arrived there. Out of them Lakhi Pal and Satya Pal were
armed with knives, Rishi Pal was armed with khukhri and Shri @ Jain was armed with a lathi. All
the four accused persons attacked them, whereupon they ran to save their lives. Lakhi Pal and Satya
Pal inflicted knife blows upon Gulbir, while Rishi Pal stabbed him with a khukhri. Gulbir got
injured and when P.W.2 Anil Kumar attempted to rescue his brother, Rishi Pal attacked him with
the khukhri, causing him injuries. At the time of incident, his sister-in-law Beerbala wife of Gulbir
and Bina wife of Satendra were also present. Upon their alarm, Rajbir, Ajab Singh and others also
reached there, whereupon the accused fled from the place of occurrence.

17. It is further testified by P.W.2 that he took his brother Gulbir to the Dadri Hospital,
where the doctor declared him dead and did a medical examination for the informant. Thereafter,
he took his brother's dead body to Police Station Dadri along with others. As his right hand was
injured, he got the application scribed by Rajbir, and then affixed his left hand's thumb impression
thereon. The witness has proved the written application (tahrir) as Ext. Ka-2. During his deposition,
a knife from a sealed bundle was taken out in Court, to which the witness said that it is the same
knife with which Lakhi Pal had employed to cause injuries. The said knife was proved as Material
Ext. 1.

18. P.W.2 Anil Kumar, in his cross-examination, has said that there are six or seven cosharers of his house namely Shyam Singh, Ajit Singh, Mathan Singh, Kubi Singh and Tejpal Singh.
The house was partitioned prior to his birth. The accused are sons of Ajit Singh, who is still alive.
He further said that their house bears the same number with no wall in between. They never
4 All. Lakhi Pal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1157
litigated regarding the partition of land. Ajab Singh did not accompany them to the police station,
but his son Onkar went there. After about 2-2 hours from the time of occurrence, they proceeded
from the village to Police Station Dadri, which is 8-9 kilometres away. He further said that first
they reached the hospital and thereafter proceeded to the police station. It took 1-2 hours to reach
the police station. They reached the hospital at about 09:00 p.m., and thereafter, reached the police
station at about 09:30-09:45 p.m. He further deposed that his application was written outside the
gate of the police station and it took 30 to 45 minutes for its preparation. He remained in the police
station the entire night and sat near his brothers dead body. In the morning, inquest was done and
prepared a report. He remained there till 08:00 a.m. and all through out this period of time, the dead
body was lying outside the police station. From there, he was sent to the hospital and returned after
one week to his house. In the meantime, he did not go to his village or the post-mortem house.
Rajbir parted company at the police station on 03.08.1983.

19. P.W.2 further said that there is a door to the north of his house and a kitchen in front of
his door and near the staircase. His brother was murdered on the staircase by the appellants. He
himself was beaten on the lower portion of staircase. Gulbir could climb only one step of the
staircase, when the appellants attacked and killed him. There was blood over the staircase and
Gulbir fell after getting injured. The appellant Rishi Pal had attacked Gulbir with a Khukhri.
Written application (Ext. Ka-2) was scribed by Rajbir himself. At the time of inquest, there was no
bandage over the body of the deceased.

20. P.W.3 Smt. Beerbala is the deceased Gulbirs wife. She has deposed that at the
relevant time, she was cooking in the kitchen. Her sister-in-law (Devrani), Bina, was present there.
Her brother-in-law (Devar) and husband, Gulbir Singh, were also present there. At that time, Lakhi
Pal, Satya Pal, Rishi Pal and Shri @ Jain arrived there. Satya Pal and Lakhi Pal were armed with
knives and Rishi Pal was armed with a khukhri whereas Shri @ Jain wielded a lathi. They battered
her husband Gulbir. Her husband ran to save his life towards the staircase and could climb only one
step, when Lakhi Pal and Satya Pal attacked him with knives. Rishi Pal hit him with the khukhri
and Shri with the lathi. There were blows from knives over Gulbirs chest and the lathi hit his
head. When her brother-in-law Anil ran to save Gulbir, then Rishi Pal attacked him with the
khukhri, in consequence whereof his right hands fingers and thumb were chopped off. Upon hue
and cry that entailed, Rajbir and Ajab Singh also reached at the spot.

21. P.W.3 has further said that prior to the above incident, all the four appellans had
quarrelled with her husband as well as Anil Kumar regarding an issue over 3-3 bigha of land. She
also said that her husband was taken to Dadri Hospital, where the doctor declared him dead.

22. In her cross-examination, P.W.3 said that from the hospital, she went to the police
station, but remained at the doorstep of the police station. She was crying and weeping. The dead
body of her husband remained at the police station till the next morning. It is further said that she
does not know whether any policeman came near the dead body. She herself did not see any
policeman near the dead body. At 08:00-09:00 a.m., she returned to her village. She has further
deposed that soon after entering inside the house, the appellants started beating her husband and
attacked him with knives, khukhri and lathi. There were 4-5 blows by knives and her husband was
beaten under the staircase and nowhere else. Her husband was not beaten in the courtyard. The
1158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Khukhri was of the size of about one and a half feet long. She had seen the injury caused by
khukhri over Gulbir's chest and injuries caused by lathi over his forehead. At the time her husband
was attacked, she ran to save him. She, however, did not fallen upon him.

23. P.W.4 Rajbir Singh has said that the families of the informant and the appellants live in
the same mansion (haveli). At about 06:00-06:30 p.m., on the date of occurrence, he was in his
courtyard with Ajab Singh. All the four appellants were quarrelling with Gulbir Singh and Anil
Singh. Lakhi Pal and Satya Pal were carrying knives, Rishi Pal had on him a khukhri and Shri was
wielding a lathi. Gulbir ran towards the staircase, but at the first step, he was killed. Lakhi Pal,
Satya Pal attacked Gulbir with knives and Jain with the lathi. When Anil attempted to save Gulbir,
Rishi Pal attacked him with the khukhri, as a result whereof his fingers were chopped off. Lakhi Pal
was arrested before him and at his pointing out, a knife was recovered from a house near the
mansion, kept in a fodder bag. The witness has proved the recovered knife as Material Ext. 1 and
said that its recovery memo was prepared at the spot, which he proved as Ext. Ka-3.

24. In his cross-examination, P.W.4 has said that Om Pal Singh was Major in Army. The
appellant Shri @ Jain is handicapped in his right leg. He has denied the suggestion that Station
Officer Chauhan came to the village prior to this incident. He has further said that the police
reached the place of occurrence and collected blood-stained earth from site. He remained at the
police station the entire night and had reached there at 10:00-11:00 p.m. No inquest was held in the
night. Till 06:00 a.m., he was at the police station and in the morning his signatures were obtained
on the inquest report. The Gulbirs cadaver was sent for autopsy at 06:00 or 07:00 a.m., and
thereafter, he left for his house. The khukhri was about one and a half feet long and its iron blade
was straight; not curved. He did not see the appellant Lakhi Pal attacking Gulbir and Rishi Pal
hitting him with a khukhri. He further said that the appellant Rishi Pal had hit with a khukhri alone.
Lakhi Pal and Satya Pal attacked the deceased with knives, when he was on the staircase. There
were three to four knife injuries on the deceased Gulbirs abdomen.

25. P.W.5 Constable Sukh Pal Singh is a formal witness, who scribed the check FIR (Ext.
Ka-4) on the basis of the written application Ext. Ka-2. He said that he entered its gist in G.D. No.
45 dated 02.08.1983 at 10:00 p.m. He has proved a copy of G.D. as Ext. Ka-5. He, in his crossexamination, has said that on 02.08.1983 at 01:15 a.m. a case under Sections 353 and 427 IPC was
registered and, later on 03.08.1983 at 10:00 a.m., another case under Sections 457 and 380 IPC was
registered at the police station. At about 10:00 p.m. on 02.08.1983, the Station Officer Rana
alongwith S.I. Sahgal, S.I. D.P. Pal and S.I. Prem Pal Singh Chauhan proceeded to village Senthli
and returned to the police station on 03.08.1983 at 11.55 a.m. S.I. Chauhan returned to police
station on 03.08.1983 at 02:00 p.m. alongwith Lakhi Pal, Satya Pal and Rishi Pal.

26. P.W.6 Dr. R.L. Saraswat, has conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased
Gulbir, son of Shyama Singh. He has said that on 03.08.1983, while posted as Medical Officer at
M.M.G. Hospital, Ghaziabad, he conducted the deceased Gulbir Singhs post-mortem at 03:00
p.m., whose dead body was brought by Constables Prem Dutta and Ranvir Singh, posted at Police
Station Dadri. He has said that the body was of average built and rigor mortis was present over the
dead body. He found following ante-mortem injuries over the body:
4 All. Lakhi Pal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1159
 (i) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep over right side of chest in lower part.

 (ii) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep a little inside to injury no.1.

 (iii) Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity deep in the stomach over left lower part of
chest.

 (iv) Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep in the stomach over lower left side.

27. On internal examination, right pleural cavity of lung was found filled with blood. The
stomach, small intestine and liver were punctured below the external injuries. In the opinion of the
doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage, as a result of ante-mortem injuries. P.W. 6
has proved post-mortem report as Ext. Ka-6 and said that all the injuries were on the vital part of
the body and, as a result of these injuries, the death could have occurred on 02.08.1983 at 06:30
p.m. He has also said that these injuries were caused by any sharp-edged weapon, such as a knife or
a similar object. He has also said that these injuries could have been caused by sharp edged
khukhri.

28. In his cross-examination, the witness has said that incised wound would be caused by
sharp cutting object. The injuries from a sharp edged weapon used for stabbing would have more
depth than length. Incised wound had smooth clean cut and well-defined edges.

29. P.W. 7 S.I. Hari Dutt Sharma is a formal witness, who prepared the inquest report at the
direction of the In-Charge, Police Station Dadri, outside the police station on 02.08.1983. He has
proved the inquest report as Ext. Ka-7 and related papers, such as, photo-nash, challan-nash, letter
to CMO and letter to R.I etc. as Ext. Ka. 8 to 13 respectively.

30. In his cross-examination, P.W.7 has said that on 02.08.1983 at 10:55 p.m., he started
with the inquest and completed it at 11:55 p.m., the same night. He handed over papers to
concerned constable at about 12:00 mid night. At the time of holding the inquest, S.O. Suresh Pal
Rana, Prem Dayal Singh Chauhan, R.K. Sahgal, Prem Dutt Gautam and Ranvir were also present.
The Station Officer and Sub-Inspector, after inspecting the dead body, started their work inside the
police station.

31. P.W.8, S.I. Prem Pal Singh Chauhan, is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has
stated about the investigation carried out by him and deposed that on 02.08.1983, he recorded
statement of informant Anil Kumar at the police station and went with him to the place of
occurrence and, at his pointing out, prepared its site-plan on 02.08.1983, which he proved as Ext.
Ka-14. He has also said that he collected sample of plain earth and blood-stained earth from the
place of occurrence in two separate sealed boxes and prepared a recovery memo, which he proved
as Ext. Ka-15. He recorded the statements of other witnesses and arrested the accused. He further
stated that at the pointing out of accused Lakhi Pal, a blood stained knife was recovered from inside
the house of the accused, which was sealed at the spot and its recovery memo prepared. He has
proved the knife as Ext. 1 and its recovery memo as Ext. Ka-3. He has also said that he prepared
the site map of the place of recovery of the knife, which he has proved as Ext. Ka-16. He has also
1160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proved the samples of blood-stained earth and plain earth as Exts. 2 and 3 and said that, after
completing the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet before the competent court, which he proved
as Ext. Ka-17. He has further said that blood-stained earth and plain earth were sent for chemical
examination.

32. In his cross-examination, P.W. 8 has said that he inspected the place of occurrence at
about 11:45 p.m. and thereafter prepared its site plan at the pointing out of Anil Kumar. He did not
find any blood at letter-A, mentioned in the site plan. He has said that at 11:15 p.m., he along with
informant Anil Kumar and other police personnel proceeded to the place of occurrence. He did not
attempt to take any finger print from the recovered knife. In his cross-examination, he has said that
the wife of deceased did not come to the police station at the time when the case was lodged. He
had raided appellants houses on 2/3.08.1983. He further stated that at the time of inspection of the
place of occurrence and collecting sample of blood-stained earth from there, except for the
informant Anil, no other eye-witness was present. At the time of arrest, appellant Lakhi Pal, had
injuries over his head and both hands whereas the appellant Satya Pal had injuries over his back,
head and shoulders. The date is blank in the column regarding sending the check FIR Ext. Ka- 4.

33. P.W. 9 Constable Prem Dutt Gautam is a formal witness, who had taken the dead body
of the deceased for autopsy to Mohan Nagar Hospital and said that in the night of 02/03.08.1983,
the sealed dead body was handed over to him, which he had convayed to Mohan Nagar Hospital.
He stated that he reached there in the morning on 03.08.1983 along with Constable Rajvir Singh.

34. In his cross-examination, P.W.9 has said that he proceeded from the police station at
about 12:00 in the night by a tempo along with the dead body. There is a distance of 24-25
kilometres from Dadri to Mohan Nagar. He reached Mohan Nagar hospital within one and a half
hours.

35. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused were recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., where they denied the prosecution case and said that the witnesses are
deposing against them due to enmity. They have further said that the accused Rishi Pal had come
on leave from Army, however, on 01.08.1983, he went to his in-laws home and was not present
in the village. They have also said that on 03.08.1983 at about 08:00-09:00 a.m., the police took
Lakhi Pal along with accused Satya Pal and Rishi Pal, but left accused Shri @ Jain, on being
handicapped. They have also stated that Rajbirs sister-in-law Bedbati and informants mother
Sukhdei are real sisters. Ajab Singhs wife and Gulbirs wife Beerbala are real sisters. Rajbir,
D.S.P. and Narendra are his cousins. Narendra Singh had influence over police and has falsely
implicated them in the case. They have also stated that Anil had illicit relationship with his sisterin-law Beerbala, which led to a quarrel between Anil and Gulbir, though this was pacified by
people. On 02.08.1983, Gulbir came in a drunken condition and started an altercation with Anil,
then Anil killed him. Thereafter, Rajbir, Narendra Singh and Ajab Singh, after consultation, have
lodged a false case against the accused. Anils brother Om Pal Singh is a Major in the Army. The
accused have not adduced any evidence in their defence.

36. After hearing both the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Trial
Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.
4 All. Lakhi Pal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1161
The learned Trial Judge observed that the FIR was lodged promptly. The witnesses of fact are
consistent in their testimony and have proved the case. The ocular testimony is supported by the
medical evidence. Accordingly, the Trial Court after having found the appellants guilty convicted
and sentenced them to the terms, as indicated above.

37. We have heard Mr. Sunil Vashisth and Mr. Kapil Kumar Rajor, learned Counsel for
appellant no.1, Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for appellant nos.2 and 3 and Ms.
Divya Ojha, learned AGA-I on behalf of the State and perused the evidence on record.

38. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that the FIR has been lodged belatedly and there
is no explanation for the delay. It is further submitted that the FIR is ante-timed. It is next
submitted that there is material contradiction with regard to the time, as to when the inquest report
of the deceased was prepared, which raises doubt over the prosecution case and reveals that the FIR
was lodged after much consultation and deliberation and, as such, it was ante-timed. It is next
submitted that the place of occurrence is also doubtful and that there are material contradictions in
the testimonies of the witnesses of fact regarding the place where the deceased and the injured were
assaulted.

39. It is next argued on behalf of the appellants that the presence of P.W. 2 at the place of
occurrence is highly doubtful. The recovery of the knife from appellant Lakhi Pal is fabricated and
concocted. There is no public witness of the alleged recovery. Thus, the Investigating Officer has
planted the knife on the appellant Lakhi Pal to give weight to the prosecution case.

40. It is further argued by learned counsel for the appellants that there are material
contradictions in ocular and medical evidence, which raise serious doubts about the prosecution
case. It is next submitted that appellant Shri @ Jain was, admittedly, handicapped, and therefore, it
was not possible for him to participate with the other appellants and assault the deceased and/or the
informant, which makes the prosecution case doubtful.

41. It is also submitted that there was illicit relationship between Beerbala, wife of the
deceased, and the informant Anil Kumar. When the deceased objected to it, an altercation took
place between them. The informant Anil Kumar himself assaulted and killed the deceased.
Therefore, the appellants have no role in the alleged incident and have been falsely implicated in
this case.

42. It is next submitted that there is delay in preparation of the inquest report and sending
the dead body for post-mortem examination. Lastly, it is submitted that it is highly improbable that
the site plan of the place of occurrence would be prepared at the instance of the informant, because
according to the informant, after lodging the FIR, he did not return to his village for a week.
Therefore, the entire evidence collected and produced in Court is fabricated, in order to implicate
the appellants in this case. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in the correct
perspective and discussed and analyzed the evidence incorrectly, thereby reaching a wrong
conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellants.
1162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
43. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the State that there is no delay in lodging
the FIR. The FIR is prompt and not ante-timed. The contradictions in the testimony of witnesses of
fact and the formal witnesses are minor, which could happen after a lengthy cross-examination of
these witnesses. On material points, the witnesses are consistent regarding the guilt of the accused
and the lodging of the FIR. It is also submitted that there are no contradictions in ocular and
medical evidence and the evidence of all witnesses of fact regarding the commission of offence is
fully corroborated by medical evidence. It is also submitted that recovery of the knife, used in the
commission of the offence, at the behest of appellant Lakhi Pal is proved.

44. It is also argued that Shri @ Jain was handicapped, however, it was not such a
disability, which could restrict his participation in the crime. With regard to preparation of the
inquest report, the contradictions in the statement of witnesses of fact and the formal witnesses are
minor, which do not raise any suspicion about the prosecution case.