# Lakhmi & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 428
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 4607 of 2017
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh, Devendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lakhmi-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54881
- **Pages:** 20

## Text

_Characters 0–39,946 of 65,590. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39946 for what follows._

428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 3 ILRA 428
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2026

BEFORE

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

Criminal Appeal No. 4607 of 2017

Lakhmi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Ss. 302/34, 307/34, 509/34 and S. 506 IPC is sustainable in
law, in light of alleged material contradictions in the testimony of the injured child witness (PW-8);
applicability of the doctrine falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus; credibility of prosecution witnesses vis-à-vis
defence evidence; and whether alleged defects in investigation, including non-examination of material
witnesses and non-recovery of empty cartridges, create reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. (Paras 3741, 43, 50-52, 53-56, 58-60, 61-62, 72-75)

Headnotes
Criminal Trial - Appreciation of Evidence - Minor discrepancies - "In the depositions of witnesses
there may always be some normal discrepancies -Material discrepancies are those which are not
normal and go to the root of the prosecution case" - Minor contradictions do not affect
prosecution case. (Paras 43, 52)
Evidence - Child witness - Competency and reliability - Evidence admissible if capable of
understanding and giving rational answers - No rule of mandatory corroboration - Can form sole
basis of conviction. (Paras 63, 72)
Evidence - Injured witness - Presence at scene - Cannot be doubted - Greater evidentiary value.
(Para 72)
Criminal law Jurisprudence - Doctrine falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - Not applicable in India -
Principle is not a rule of evidence - Court may rely on the credible part of a testimony while
disregarding the unreliable portion (Paras 53-56)
Defence Evidence - Chance witness - Lack of credibility - Defence version inconsistent with
prosecution timeline rejected. (Paras 58-60)
Investigation - Defects such as non-recovery of empty cartridge - Not fatal where other evidence
reliable and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence. (Para 75)
Criminal Law - Murder - Gruesome act in broad daylight - Prosecution proved case beyond
reasonable doubt - Conviction upheld. (Paras 77-78)

Held: Such a minor contradiction is of no help to the appellants - very trivial in nature, which does not, in any
way, affect the foundation of the prosecution case - Principle 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' is not a rule of
evidence - court can very well rely on such a part of the testimony - PW-8, Krishna Kumar is an injured
witness and his presence at the place cannot be doubted - The story set up by the defence has no leg to
stand - It is of no help to the appellants regarding non-recovery of empty cartridge - Prosecution has
successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt - conviction upheld - Appeal dismissed; sentence
affirmed. (Paras 52,56,60,72,75,78 - 80) (E-7)
3 All. Lakhmi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
429
Case Law Cited
State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752; State represented by Inspector of Police Vs. Saravanam
(2008) 17 SCC 587; State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505; State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra
Singh (2009) 11 SCC 106; Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) 11 SCC 334;
Hangovan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2020) 10 SCC 533; Nisar Ali Vs. State of U.P. (1957 SCC OnLine SC
42); Ram Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2021) 15 SCC 241; Dattu Ramrao Sakhare Vs. State of Maharashtra
(1997) 5 SCC 341; Suryanarain Vs. State of Karnataka (2001) 9 SCC 129; Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak
Vs. State of Gujarat (2004) 1 SCC 64; Gagan Kanojia Vs. State of Punjab (2006) 13 SCC 516; State of
U.P. Vs. Krishna Master (2010) 12 SCC 324; State of M.P. Vs. Ramesh (2011) 4 SCC 786; Pradeep Vs.
Haryana (2023 SCC OnLine SC 777); State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Balveer Singh (2025 INSC 261).

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Arms Act, 1959.

List of Keywords
murder; common intention; child witness; injured witness; minor discrepancies; material contradictions; falsus
in uno falsus in omnibus; appreciation of evidence; forensic evidence; recovery of weapon; credibility of
witnesses; defence evidence; chance witness; burden of proof; beyond reasonable doubt; gruesome murder

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal against judgment and order dated 06.07.2017 passed by
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anoopshahr (Bulandshahr) in ST No. 310 of 2012 arising out of Case
Crime No. 400 of 2011.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shri B.B. Paul, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Prakash Paul
Advs. for the Respondents:
 Shri S.K. Ojha, Additional Government Advocate-Ist

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)

1. This criminal appeal has been filed against a judgement and order dated 06.07.2017 passed
by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anoopshahr (Bulandshahr) in ST No. 310 of 2012
arising out of case crime No. 400 of 2011, under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 509/34 and 506 IPC,
police station Dibai, district Bulandshahr whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the
appellants Lakhmi, Languri and Yogesh as under:

 (a) Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each under Section 302/34 IPC and in
case of default in payment of fine, six months additional simple imprisonment.

 (b) Twelve years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each under Section
307/34 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, three months additional simple
imprisonment.

 (c) Two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 509/34
IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, fifteen days additional simple imprisonment.
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 Appellant Languri and Yogesh were further convicted and sentenced to two years simple
imprisonment under Section 506 IPC.

 However, all the sentences of the appellants were directed to run concurrently.

2. By the same impugned judgement and order, the learned Judge acquitted appellant
Lakhmi of the offence under Section 506 IPC.

Facts of the case

3. The facts that formed the bedrock of the present criminal appeal, in short compass, are
that a written report was given by Devi Singh, son of Nannu Singh, resident of Danapur, police
station Dibai, district Bulandshahr with the allegations inter alia that his nephew Lakhmi Singh, son
of Karan Singh was harbouring animosity due to the land of his brother Chhiddu, because Chhiddu
has got the deed (Wasiyat ) of his land done in favour of his son Het Ram. Lakhmi Singh was
demanding share in that land. The first information report further recounts that on 30.12.2011, his
wife Chameli Devi along with her grandson-Krishna Kumar aged about 6 years was coming to her
house from her field, appellant Lakhmi and his sons Languri and Yogesh, were sitting in ambush in
front of the house of Komal. Appellant-Lakhmi was armed with Lathi and Daav (Banka),
appellant-Languri was having knife and appellant Yogesh was carrying gun and as soon as his wife
came under the tree of Jamun at 03:15 PM, all the three appellants with common intention
surrounded her wife and knocked her down and made indiscriminate firing on her and also
assaulted her with Daav and knife and all of them beheaded her wife and hung the head on the tree.
The appellants also cut the stomach of the deceased. The first information report further alleges that
his grandson (Nati) has also received fire arm injury. On hearing the noise, when he along with his
son Het Ram and Heera Lal and several persons of the village rushed to the spot and on being
challenged, the accused Languri and Yogesh fled away from the spot extending threat, whereas
appellant-Lakhmi armed with Daav, started jumping and dancing near the corpse, due to which no
one could dare to apprehend him. Chaos erupted in the village. Woman closed their doors and law
and order situation in the area got disturbed. Police reached at the spot and apprehended the
accused along with Daav.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered at case crime No. 400 of 2011,
under Section 302/34 IPC, police station Dibai, district Bulandshahr.

5. After the registration of the case, the investigation of the case was taken up by PW-6, SO
Umesh Chandra Pachauri. He inspected the spot and prepared site plan, Ext. Ka-12. He arrested the
accused-Lakhmi from the spot along with weapon of assault and recorded the statement of
witnesses Hakim Singh and Pappu Singh. He collected bloodstained and simple earth from the
place of occurrence. He also taken steps to take down the head of the deceased from the tree. He
also prepared memos of bloodstained Trishul and Daav. The clothes wore by the appellant-Lakhmi,
i.e. bloodstained Kurta, bloodstained Dhori, Safi were taken into possession, sealed and memo
whereof was prepared, which were also signed by the investigating officer as well as the appellantLakhmi, Ext. Ka-13. Since, the accused-appellants Yogesh and Languri surrendered before the
Court on 10.01.2012, he made an application before the court concerned for remand of the
3 All. Lakhmi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
431
appellants Langurai and Yogesh, which was allowed by the court concerned on 19.01.2012. On
20.01.2012, on the pointing out of accused-Languri he recovered knife and on the pointing out of
accused-Yogesh, he recovered gun. After the recovery of the aforesaid items on the pointing out of
accused-Lauguri and Yogesh, a case at case crime No. 57 of 2012, under section 4/25 of the Arms
Act and 58 of 2012 under Section 25 Arms Act were also registered against the accused Languri
and Yogesh and after preparing warrants under the Arms Act, they were sent to jail. He also
inspected the place from where weapon of assault, i.e. knife and gun were recovered and prepared
site plan, Ext Ka-14. Thereafter, this witness (PW-6, SO Umesh Chandra Pachauri) has been
transferred.

6. After the transfer of PW-6, SO Umesh Chandra Pachauri, the investigation of the case
was taken up by Station House Officer, Ajay Kumar Agrawal, who sent the materials relating to the
crime to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra on 25.03.2012 and after completing necessary
formalities, he submitted charge sheet against the appellants.

7. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where case was registered as ST No 310 of 2012 and
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopshahr vide order dated 20.04.2012 framed the charges
against the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC, 307/34 IPC, 509/34 IPC and 506 IPC. The
charges were read over and explained to them, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

8. To bring home guilt of the appellants beyond the hilt, the prosecution has examined as
many as eleven witnesses. PW-1, Devi Singh is the first informant, PW-2, Het Ram Verma is the
son of the deceased, PW-3, CP Manoj Kumar, who was the Chik writer, PW-4, Dr Kishore Kumar,
Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem on the cadaver of the deceased-Chameli Devi, PW-5,
Dr. Surendra Goel, Medical Officer, who examined injured, Kishan Kumar, son of Chandra Pal
Singh, PW-6, SO Umesh Chandra Pachauri, the first investigating officer of the case, PW-7, SI
Atar Singh, who conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, Ext. Ka-6, PW-8, Krishna Kumar
is the injured witness, PW-9 SI Jai Pal Singh is the witness of recovery of weapon of assault, PW10, Dr. Mahesh Prasad Sharma, Deputy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory and PW-11, Sudhir
Kuma Jha, Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow.

9. PW-1, Devi Singh is the husband of the deceased and the first informant of the case. In
his examination-in-chief, he deposed that deceased-Chameli Devi was his wife and injured Krishna
Kumar is his grandson. Accused-Lakhmi is real nephew (bhatija). He has four brothers, namely
Chhiddu Singh, Karan Singh, Lal Singh and the appellant. Although several persons were born to
Chhiddu Singh, but they died in the childhood. Chhiddu Singh started considering Het Ram as his
son and got the deed registered of his asset in favour of Het Ram. In the year 1996, Chhiddu Singh
died, the last rights of Chhiddu was performed by his son Het Ram. After the death of Chhiddu
Singh, son of Karan Singh, namely Komal and Lakhmi started demanding share in the property of
Chhiddu Singh and after preparing an unregistered deed, they have registered a false case against
his son Het Ram. As Chhiddu Singh has given his land to Het Ram, appellant Lakhmi started
harbouring internal animosity with him and his son Languri and Yogesh were helping him. On
30.12.2011, his wife Chameli Devi along with her grandson krishna Kumar was coming to house
from her field. Appelant Lakhmi and his sons Languri and Yogesh, who were sitting in ambush in
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
room of the house of Komal. Lakhmi was armed with Daav, Languri was having knife and Yogesh
was having gun and as soon as his wife came under the tree of Jamun at 03:15 PM, all the three
appellants with common intention surrounded her wife and knocked her down. Yogesh made
indiscriminate firing, whereas Lakhmi with Daav and Languri with knife assaulted her. All the
three appellants beheaded her wife and cut the stomach with knife and also caused several injuries.
His grandson Krishna Kumar also received firearm injury. Lakhmi uprooted the trident (Trishul)
under the tree of Jamun and inflicted below the naval of her wife. He also unclothed the dead body
and also hung head of the deceased from the tree. On hearing the noise, he along with several
person of the vicinity rushed to the spot and on being challenged Languri and Yogesh fled away by
extending threats, whereas Lakhmi armed with Daav, started jumping and dancing near the corpse,
due to which no one could dare to apprehend him. In the meantime, police personnel from
Daulatpur Chauki rushed there and apprehended the accused with weapon of assault, i.e. Daav. He
also proved his written report as Ext. Ka-1.

10. It is also mentioned by PW-1, Devi Singh that prior to the incident in question,
accused-Lakhmi has assaulted his daughter-in-law on 08.11.2011 with lathi and danda, the case
whereof is still going on in Court. His daughter-in-law to save, hid herself in the room of Tube
well. Thereupon, Lakhmi Singh fired from the window, but the fire missed.

11. PW-2, Het Ram Verma is the son of the deceased and the first informant. In his
examination-in-chief, he deposed that deceased was her mother, whereas Krishna Kumar is his
nephew. Accused-Lakhmi is his cousin. The incident in question took place at 03:15 PM on
30.12.2011. When his mother and nephew were returning home from the field, appellants Lakhmi,
Languri and Yogesh, were sitting in ambush. Lakhmi was armed with Daav, Languri with knife
and Yogesh was having gun. As soon as her mother and nephew came under the tree of Jamun, all
the accused persons surrounded them, knocked her mother down and made indiscriminate firing.
On hearing the sound of fire, he along with his brother Heera Lal and father rushed to the spot and
saw that they have beheaded her mother with Daav. Appellant-Languri cut her mother stomach
apart from knife. Lakhmi uprooted trident (Trishul) from the root of tree and inflicted on the naval
of her mother. His nephew Krishna Kumar received firearm injury on his leg. All the accusedappellants tied the head of her mother with rope and hung the same from the tree. Lakhmi had
thrown out the intestine of her mother. When Lakhmi and Languri were beheading her mother,
Yogesh was catching the leg of her mother. On arrival of several persons of the village, when they
challenged the accused persons, accused Languri and Yogesh fled away extending threat, whereas
accused Lakhmi started jumping and dancing near the dead body with bloodstained Daav. Looking
to the conduct of the appellant Lakhmi, every one was frightened. The women have closed their
door and no one could dare to apprehend the accused Lakhmi. At the same time, police personnel
from Daulatpur outpost reached there and apprehended him along with weapon of assault (Daav).

12. PW-2, Het Ram Verma further deposed that his father has four brothers, the elder one
was Chhiddu Singh. He has got him educated and married. After his death, PW-2, also performed
his last rights. During his lifetime, Chhiddu has made registered deed in his favour. After the death
of his Tau (Chhiddu Singh), accused-Lakhmi Singh started demanding share in the property of
Chhiddu Singh. On his refusal to give the share in the said property, Lakhmi and Komal made a
forged deed of the said property and filed a suit against him. However, they have been defeated
3 All. Lakhmi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
433
from all the courts and property has come in his name, due to which accused Lakhmi, Languri and
Yogesh started harbouring enmity with him and committed the murder of his mother.

13. PW-2, Het Ram Verma also deposed that the report of the incident was lodged by his
father. After lodging of the report, police also came to the spot. Police personnel made me to climb
the tree of Jamun and brought the head of my mother down and got the clothes of my mother in
right direction, who was lying half naked. The rope which was bloodstained and was about 14 feet
was taken into possession, sealed it and made memo thereof, which was signed by this witness and
Om Prakash Gauram, which he proved as Ext. Ka-2.

14. Police also collected bloodstained and simple earth and also took into possession
bloodstained trident (Trishul) and got it sealed and memo thereof. He also deposed that the police
also took into possession bloodstained Daav (weapon of assault) and after keeping in a polythene,
got it sealed in cloth.

15. PW-3, CP Manoj Kumar in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 30.12.2011 he
was posted at police station Dibai as clerk. On that date, on the written information of Devi Singh,
he prepared Chick No. 278 of 2011, case crime No. 400 of 2011, under Section 302, 307 IPC in his
writing, which he proved as Ext. Ka-7, which was entered in GD on 30.12.2011 vide report No. 35
at 16:30 hours. He has proved the original GD as Ext. Ka-8.

16. PW-4, Dr. Kishore Kumar, in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 31.12.2011 he
was posted as Medical Officer at District Hospital, Bulandshahr. On that date he conducted the
autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased which was brought by Constable 606 Ram Pal Singh and
Constable 1775 Amit Kumar of police station Dibai along with relevant documents. He conducted
the post mortem at 09:30 AM on 31.12.2011 and found the following ante-mortem injuries:

 "1. Incised wound through and through at the level of C-5 vertebrae, all structure of neck
C vessels found under the injury. Head separated from rest of the body.

 2. Stab wound (incised) 20 cm x 2 cm located below the naval, deep into the abdominal
intestines. Due to this injury, the small intestine was cut at several places and about 800 ml of
blood present in abdomen."

17. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was shock and
haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries and excessive bleeding.

18. PW-4, Dr. Kishore Kumar also deposed that after conducting the postmortem
examination, he handed over the clothes of the deceased, Kameez, Dhoti and Petticoat, four toe
rings and a piece of broken bangle to the constable who brought the dead body for postmortem in a
sealed cover. He also handed over the dead body and postmortem report the the constable. He
deposed that Injury No. 1 can be caused by sharp edged weapon, like knife and Injury No. 2 can be
caused by sharp edged weapon like trident (Trishul).
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
19. PW-5, Dr. Surendra Goyal in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 30.12.2011 he
was posted at CHC at Medical Officer. On that date he examined Kishan Kumar, son of Chandra
Pal Singh, resident of Danapur, police station Dibai, who was brought by Home Guard 770 Vani
Singh of PS Dibai, at about 04:55 PM on 30.12.2011. He found the following injuries on his
person:

 "Lacerated wound of size 2 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep on the lower and outer aspect of
right thigh Blackening present around the wound. Fresh bleeding present."

 X-ray was advised and injury was kept under observation. Duration of the injury was
fresh.

20. In the opinion of the doctor, the above injury was caused by firearm.

21. PW-6, Umesh Chandra Pachauri was the first investigating officer of the case, whose
evidence has already been discussed above.

22. PW-7, SI Atar Singh in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 30.12.2011 he was
posted at Daulatpur out-post of police statin Dibai as Sub-Inspector. On that date at 17:30 hours, he
prepared inquest on the body of the deceased Chamai Devi, wife of Shri Devi Singh, which he
proved as Ext. Ka-6. He also prepared letter to RI, Photo Lash, letter to CMO and specimen seal,
which he proved as Ext. Ka 16 to 19.

23. PW-8, Krishna Kumar is the injured witness. At the time of recording of his
examination-in-chief, he was aged about 11 years and six months. At the time of incident, i.e.
30.12.2011, he was aged about seven years and six months. Court has examined the child whether
he is capable to answer the question correctly and on being satisfied, his evidence was recorded. In
his examination-in-chief, he deposed that deceased-Chameli Devi was his grand-mother. Among
the persons, who had killed his grand-mother, Lakhmi was armed with Daav, Languri was carrying
knife and Yogesh was having gun. On the date of incident, i.e. 30.12.2011 at about 03:15 PM when
he along with his grand-mother was returning from field and as soon as they reached near the tree
of Jamun, Yogesh fired at his grand-mother, which hit this witness on the thigh of his right leg. All
the three accused knocked down her grand-mother. On his alarm, his grand-father Devi Singh,
uncle (Kaka) Heera Lal and (Tau), Het Ram Verma rushed to the spot. Accused were assaulting his
grand-mother. They beheaded his grand-mother from the weapons which they were carrying and
hung her head from the tree. He further deposed that when his grand-father, Kaka and Tau
challenged them, accused-Yogesh and Languri fled towards Jungle.

24. PW-9, SI Jaipal Singh was the witness of recovery of weapon of assault. He deposed
that weapon of assault, i.e. knife and gun was recovered in his presence.

25. PW-10, Dr. Mahesh Prasad Sharma, Deputy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory in
his examination-in-chief, has deposed that on 10.01.2014, he was posted at Forensic Science
Laboratory, Dibai, district Bulandshahr. Materials pertaining to Case Crime No. 400 of 2011, under
Sections 302,307, 506 and 509 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act, containing six bundles dated 10.04.2012
3 All. Lakhmi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
435
were received in his office. Bundle No. 1 contain Trident (Trishul), Bundle No.2 Banka, Bundle
No. 3, knife, Bundle No. 4, Kurta Dhoti, Bundle No. 5, bloodstained earth and Bundle No. 6 simple
earth. Aforesaid articles were examined. Articles kept in bundle Nos 1 to 6 were bloodstained.
Articles kept in bundle Nos. 4 and 5 were having large bloodstained of 5 cm. Bundle Nos. 4 to 6
contained human blood. Blood on articles kept on bundle Nos. 1-3 was disintegrated.

26. PW-11, Sudhir Kumar Jha in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 10.09.2014 he
was posted as Senior Scientific Assistant. On that date he received bloodstained and simple earth
pertaining to Case Crime No. 400 of 2011, under Sections 302, 307, 506, 509 IPC. On examination,
both bloodstained and simple earth were found the same, the report whereof was prepared by him
under his signature, Ext. Ka-21.

27. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused-appellants
were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which, they denied the charges levelled against them.
Accused-Lakhmi has stated that he was not present at the spot and he had been arrested by the
police after calling him from home. Accused-Yogesh and Languri have stated that on the date and
time of incident, they were not present in the village.

28. Five witnesses have also been produced in defence.

29. DW-1, Ramesh, in his evidence deposed that on 30.12.2011 he along with appellantLanguri, Kaushal, Manoj, Ram Prasad and Pankaj were on the brick kiln of Badaur. They left for
brick kiln at about 08:00 AM and worked there till 05:00 PM. Appellant-Languri was with him
throughout the day.

30. DW-2, Kaushal in his evidence deposed that appellant-Languri was with him on
30.12.2011 from 08:00 AM to 06:00 PM at the brick kiln.

31. DW-3, Constable 139 Vinod Kumar, presently posted at police station Dibai, district
Bulandshahr, in his evidence deposed that pursuant to the order of the Court passed on the
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., he is present along with register of Maalkhana of the year
2011-2012. However, he deposed that he is only Pairokar and not competent to depose.

32. DW-4 HCP Amar Singh has been produced to enquire about Malkhana Register.

33. DW-5, Raj Kumar in his evidence has stated that he knows Devi Singh, who is the
resident of Danpur and retired as Head Master. He deposed that on the date of incident when he
was returning home after marketing, he saw that a beheaded body was lying. No person was
present there. He was the first person to reach near the dead body. It was about 4:00 oclock.
However, he does not know the month and year. On his alarm, several persons of the locality
assembled there. Family members of the deceased also reached. Police also reached at the place.

34. Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anoopshahr (Bulandshahr) after hearing
the learned counsel for the parties and assessing, evaluating and scrutinizing the evidence on
record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated herein above.
436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
35. Hence, this appeal.

36. Heard Shri B.B. Paul, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Prakash Paul,
learned counsel for the appellants and Shri S.K. Ojha, learned Additional Government AdvocateIst, representing the State and have gone through the record of the case.

Submissions on behalf of the appellats

37. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that there is material contradictions in
the statement of star witness PW-8, Krishna Kumar, which makes the entire prosecution story
doubtful. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that PW-8, Krishna Kumar in
his evidence at page No. 78 of the paper book has stated that when the accused were assaulting his
grandmother, no person of the village was present there. Yogesh fired at his grand-mother, which
hit this witness on the thigh of his right leg. All the three accused knocked down her grand-mother.
Whereas at other place of his evidence at page No. 81 of the paper book this witness has stated that
after being hit by the fire, he fled weeping and that he did not tell about the incident to his father,
uncle and Tau (fathers elder brother) and they reached the spot on hearing the noise. No person of
the village rushed to the spot. Shri Paul also submitted that doctrine of Falsus in uno, falsus in
omnibus be applied in this case.

38. Learned counsel for the appellants heavily relied upon the statement of DW-5 Raj
Kumar and submitted that the trial court has completely overlooked the facts narrated by DW-5 Raj
Kumar in his statement.

39. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that PW-8, Krishna Kumar is a
child witness and his statement should be considered following the dictum of Honble Supreme
Court as per settled principle of law on the subject.

40. Learned counsel for the appellants has also contended that the prosecution has not
examined Komal in front of whose house, the occurrence took place and that the investigating
officer has not examined the length of Jamun tree under which the occurrence took place, which is
fatal for the prosecution.

41. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that non-recovery of
empty cartridge from the place of occurrence, makes the prosecution story doubtful.

Submission on behalf of the State

42. On the other hand, Shri S.K. Ojha, learned Additional Government Advocate supported
the findings of the learned trial court by stating that the learned trial court has correctly martialled
the evidence and considered each and every aspect of the case while convicting the appellants.

Analysis and conclusion
3 All. Lakhmi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
437
43. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is there are material
contradiction in the evidence of PW-8, krishna kumar. In the depositions of witnesses there may
always be some normal discrepancies. These discrepancies are due to lapse of time and mental
disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence. Material discrepancies are those
which are not normal and go to the root of the prosecution case and not expected of a normal
person.

44. For the better appreciation of argument of learned counsel for the appellants on the
point, it shall be useful to refer to certain pronouncement of Honble Supreme Court on the point.

45. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki (1981)2 SCC 752, Honble Supreme Court held as
under:

 "6. The second ground on which the High Court refused to place reliance on the
evidence of P.W. 1 was that there were "material discrepancies". As indicated above we have
perused the evidence of P.W. 1. We have not found any "material discrepancies" in her evidence.
The discrepancies referred to by the High Court are, in our opinion, minor, insignificant, natural
and not 'material'. The discrepancies are with regard to as to which accused "pressed the deceased
and at which part of the body to the ground and sat on which part of the body; with regard to
whether the respondent Kalki gave the axe blow to the deceased while the latter was standing or
lying on the ground, and whether the blow was given from the side of the head or from the side of
the legs. In the depositions of witnesses there are always some normal discrepancies however
honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation,
normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror
at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal,
and not expected of a normal person. As indicated above we have not found any material
discrepancies in the evidence of the P. W. 1."

46. In State represented by Inspector of Police Vs. Saravanam and another, (2008) 17
SCC 587, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take
into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may
materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements
on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to
reject the evidence in its entirety. The Trial Court, after going through the entire evidence, must
form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate Court in normal course
would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons.

47. In State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony, (1985)1 SCC 505, Honble Supreme Court held
as under:

 "While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the
evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is
formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly
keeping in view the deficiencies, draw-backs and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole
and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of
belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical
approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching
importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the : root of
the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court before
whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of
evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due
weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and
formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or
infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some
details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction
differ with individuals. Cross examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer.
Having examined the evidence of this witness, a friend and well-wisher of the family carefully
giving due weight to the comments made by the learned Counsel for the respondent and the reasons
assigned to by the High Court for rejecting his evidence simultaneously keeping in view the
appreciation of the evidence of this witness by the trial court, we have no hesitation in holding that
the High Court was in error in rejecting the testimony of witness Nair whose evidence appears to
us trustworthy and credible."

48. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Singh, (2009) 11 SCC 106 held as under:

 "Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the
truthfulness of a witness and other witness also make material improvements before the court in
order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence."

49. In Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Predesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334) held as
under:

 "The discrepancies in the evidence of eye-witnesses, if found to be not minor in nature,
may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses
may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with
other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that
prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."

50. In the light of the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we will now
consider whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may have
materially affected the trial. The contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants
that at one place PW-8, Krishna Kumar stated that when the accused were assaulting his
grandmother, no person of the village rushed there. Yogesh fired at his grandmother, which hit
PW-8 on his right thigh and all the three accused knocked her grandmother down (page No. 78 of
the paper book). Whereas at the other place (page 81 of the paper book) PW-8, Krishna Kumar
stated that after being hit by the fire, he fled weeping and did not tell about the occurrence to his
father, uncle and Tau and they rushed to the spot on hearing noise and that no person of the village
came at the place of occurrence. What, learned counsel for the appellants wants to submits that
3 All. Lakhmi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
439
when PW-8, Krishna Kumar after being hit by the fire, fled from the place of occurrence, he did not
have any occasion to see the occurrence.

51. This contention of the learned counsel is totally misconceived inasmuch at the place of
occurrence, PW-8, Krishna Kumar was present along with his grandmother. As per his evidence,
Yogesh fired at his grandmother, but the fired missed and hit PW-8 on the thigh of his right leg.
PW-8, Krishna Kumar, to a specific question, during his cross examination, which was done on
04.06.2016 has specifically stated that fire was made from a very close range. PW-5, Dr. Surendra
Goyal, who examined the injuries of PW-8, Krishna kumar also opined that blackening was present
around the wound and fresh bleeding was present. From the evidence of PW-8 coupled with the
opinion of PW-5, Dr. Surendra Goyal, it is clear that the fire was made from a very close range,
which goes to suggest that all the accused persons as well as deceased and the injured PW-8 were
present nearby and PW-8 after being hit by the bullet, fled towards his home, there was no
difficulty for him to see the other part of the incident, wherein his grandmother was hacked to death
by the accused. So far not giving information by PW-8, Krishna Kumar to his father, uncle and Tau
about the occurrence is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that on hearing the noise, father,
uncle and Tau of the injured themselves rushed to the spot and, therefore, no question arises for
giving them information about the occurrence.

52. In view of the above, such a minor contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel for
the appellant is of no help to the appellants. Further the discrepancies pointed out by the learned
counsel for the appellant is very trivial in nature, which does not, in any way, affect the foundation
of the prosecution case.

53. Further, so far as application of doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus it is
settled position of law that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in every thing)
that the above principle is foreign to our criminal law jurisprudence. This aspect of the matter has
been considered by Honble Supreme Court in catena of judgements.

54. In Hangovan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2020)10 SCC 533, held as under:

 "The counsel for the appellant lastly argued that once the witnesses had been disbelieved
with respect to the co-accused, their testimonies with respect to the present accused must also be
discarded. The counsel is, in effect, relying on the legal maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,
which Indian Courts have always been reluctant to apply. A three-Judge Bench of this Court, as far
back as in 1957, in Nisar Ali Vs. State of U.P., 1957 SCC OnLine SC 42 held on he point as
follows:

 "9....This maxim has not received general acceptance in different jurisdictions in India
nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of cation. All that
is amounts to is that in such cases the testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be
disregarded".
440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 10. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a court may
apply in a given set of circumstances but it is not what may be called a mandatory rule of
evidence..."

55. In Ram Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 15 SCC 241, a three Judge Bench of
Supreme Court held as under:

 "We do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant. A part statement of a witness can be believed even though some part of the statement
may not be relied upon by the court.