# Lal Ram & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1586
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2004
- **Bench:** Rajiv Gupta, Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lal-ram-ors-v-state-of-u-p-51554
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 -
Direct evidence and motive - Interested
witness - evidence of interested witnesses
should be scrutinized carefully but can be
relied upon if found credible - significance
of prompt FIR - Unless serious prejudice
was demonstrated to have been suffered
as against the accused, mere delay in
sending the FIR to the Magistrate by itself
will not have any deteriorating effect on
the case of the prosecution - Motive in a
case of direct evidence does not adversely
affect the prosecution case - If the
evidence
of
the
eye-witness
is
trustworthy, there is no need to establish
any motive.
(Para - 48 to 61)

Appellants and his sons were accused of murder
- enmity over a property dispute - attacked with
firearms and a sharp weapon (Gandasa) -
resulting in death - Incident occurred in broad
daylight - in presence of parents and neighbours
of deceased - FIR was promptly lodged - postmortem report confirmed nature of injuries -
which were consistent with use of a firearm and
a sharp-edged weapon. (Para - 2 to 24 ,38,39)

HELD: - Offence of murder committed by
appellants. No infirmity, illegality or perversity in
the
impugned
judgement.
Court
upheld
conviction
and
sentence
against
the
appellants.(Para - 62,63)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,852 of 50,731. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39852 for what follows._

1586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
earlier murder case. Nothing could be
pointed out by the appellant whereby the
reliability of P.W.1 and P.W.2 could be
shaken.

23. Learned counsel for the appellant
has further raised the question with regard
to the aiming of the firearm to the deceased
as the accused persons are stated to be
surrounding at the left side of the cot. He
further submitted that whether the gunshot
was fired upon the deceased in the standing
position or while the deceased was lying on
the cot, has not been explained by the
prosecution. Relying upon the statement of
Dr. M.K. Srivastava who conducted the
postmortem, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that the doctor has not
opined in any definite term that the said
firearm injury could be caused only by a
rifle and in the position in which the
deceased was lying on the cot.

24. From a perusal of the deposition
of Dr. M.K. Srivastava, it can be seen that it
has been very categorically stated by the
doctor that the injuries on the deceased
were possible to have been caused by alone
bullet and the Doctor has categorically
stated that this injury could have been
caused as per the direction of the barrel.
The P.W.1 has also stated that the one leg of
the deceased was on the cot and the other
was on the ground. Therefore, it appears
that the deceased had tried to rise from the
bed after he had woken up and at that time
the Firearm injury was caused from the left
side of the deceased on his neck from a
close
distance
and
the
injuries
are
corroborating the statements made by P.W.1
and P.W. 2. Therefore, the injury had been
caused as per the manner described by the
P.W.1 and it was a single firearm injury as
has been stated by the doctor.

25. Thus from the evidence brought
on record by the prosecution we find that
the prosecution has succeeded in proving
the case against the appellant and there is
no reason to disbelieve the prosecution
witnesses and therefore, we do not find any
illegality in the findings recorded by the
trial court, which has rightly convicted and
sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.

26. For the reasons aforesaid, we do
not find any illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgment of the trial court. The
conviction and sentence of the appellant
awarded by the trial court is upheld. The
criminal
appeal
lacks
merit
and
is
accordingly dismissed.

27. The appellant Kheemi is on bail.
C.J.M. Mathura is directed to take him into
custody in the aforesaid case and send him
to jail to serve out the sentence as was
awarded by the trial court and is being
affirmed by us.

28. Office is directed to send a copy
of this order to the court concerned within a
week for compliance. The compliance
report shall be sent by the court concerned
to this court within a further period of
fifteen days.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1586
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2004

Lal Ram & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
3 All. Lal Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1587
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Brij Raj Singh, Sri Akhilesh Singh, Sri Amit
Tripathi, Sri Pankaj Upadhyay, Sri S.P. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri P.K. Singh

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 -
Direct evidence and motive - Interested
witness - evidence of interested witnesses
should be scrutinized carefully but can be
relied upon if found credible - significance
of prompt FIR - Unless serious prejudice
was demonstrated to have been suffered
as against the accused, mere delay in
sending the FIR to the Magistrate by itself
will not have any deteriorating effect on
the case of the prosecution - Motive in a
case of direct evidence does not adversely
affect the prosecution case - If the
evidence
of
the
eye-witness
is
trustworthy, there is no need to establish
any motive.
(Para - 48 to 61)

Appellants and his sons were accused of murder
- enmity over a property dispute - attacked with
firearms and a sharp weapon (Gandasa) -
resulting in death - Incident occurred in broad
daylight - in presence of parents and neighbours
of deceased - FIR was promptly lodged - postmortem report confirmed nature of injuries -
which were consistent with use of a firearm and
a sharp-edged weapon. (Para - 2 to 24 ,38,39)

HELD: - Offence of murder committed by
appellants. No infirmity, illegality or perversity in
the
impugned
judgement.
Court
upheld
conviction
and
sentence
against
the
appellants.(Para - 62,63)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED: -

1. Manish Kumar Etc. Vs St. of U.P, (2004) 49
ACC 755

2. Mahadeo Kundalik Vaidya & ors. Vs St. of
Maha., (2001) Cri L. J. 4306

3. Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) Vs St. of U.P., (1994) 5
SCC 188
4. St. of U.P. Vs Bhagwan & ors., AIR (1997) SC
3292

5. Manohar Vs St., (1982) 0 Supreme (All) 568

6. Leela Ram (Dead) Through Duli Chand Vs St.
of Haryana & anr., (1999) 9 SCC 525

7. Dalip Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj., AIR 1953
SC 364

8. Piara Singh Vs St. of Punj., (1977) 4 SCC 452

9. Hari Obula Reddy Vs St. of A.P., (1981) 3 SCC
675

10. S. Sudershan Reddy & ors. Vs St. of A.P,
(2006) 10 SCC 163

11. Kamta Yadav Vs St. of Bihar, (2016) 16 SCC
164

12. Nand Kumar Vs St. of Chhatisgarh, (2015) 1
SCC 776

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Shri Brij Raj Singh, learned
counsel for the appellants, Shri Jitendra
Kumar Jaiswal, learned AGA for the State
and perused the record.

2. The instant criminal appeal has
been filed against the judgment and order
dated 16.01.2004 passed by Additional
District Sessions Judge, Court No.3,
Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial
No. 626 of 2000 (State Vs. Lala Ram and
Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 41
of 2000, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302
IPC, Police Station Kayam Ganj, District
Farrukhabad, by which the accusedappellants have been convicted for the
offence under Section 147 IPC and
awarded the sentence of two years'
rigorous imprisonment, under Section 148
IPC and awarded the sentence of three
years'
rigorous
imprisonment,
under
1588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and
awarded the sentence of life imprisonment
with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each with default
stipulations.

3.

Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Farrukhabad
vide
his
letter
dated
22.03.2021 has informed this Court that
appellant no.1 Lala Ram has passed away
about seven months back, as such, the
instant criminal appeal on behalf of
appellant no.1 Lala Ram, is dismissed as
having been abated.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details,
prosecution story as unfurled in the FIR, is
that one Satya Prakash was bearing enmity
with his step uncle Lala Ram owing to
dispute over a piece of land, in respect of
which, civil case has been decided by the
trial court in favour of Satya Prakash. Thus,
on account of dispute over possession of
the said piece of land, there were inimical
terms between Lala Ram and his sons, on
one hand and Satya Prakash on the other.

5. It is further stated that on
03.03.2000 at about 4:30 PM, while Satya
Prakash was returning back to his house
after purchasing some articles from the
shop of Girish Chand Tailor, when he
reached near the house of Durjan Lal, he
was encircled on the way by Lala Ram and
his sons, namely, Ram Naresh, Narottam,
Mahima @ Mahipal and Karamveer. Lala
Ram instigated them to kill Satya Prakash.
Satya Prakash raised alarm to rescue him.
Hearing his alarm, first informant Ram
Chand alongwith his wife Bhagyawati,
Shyam Singh, Mahaveer Singh and several
other villagers rushed to save him,
however, Mahima and Narottam, armed
with country-made pistol, fired upon him
and Ram Naresh and Karamveer, who were
having Gandasa in their hands, assaulted
Satya Prakash on his head, consequent to
which, he fell down. Lala Ram and his
sons, however, made their escape good
towards their house.

6. It is further stated that while taking
Satya Prakash for medical treatment and
had reached near the plot of Vishram, Satya
Prakash breathed his last. Leaving the dead
body on the plot of Vishram, first
informant visited the Police Station to
lodge the report, on the basis of a written
report scribed by one Rama Nand. On the
basis of written report, marked as Exhibit
Ka-1, a First Information Report has been
registered vide Case Crime No. 41 of 2000,
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC,
carbon copy whereof has been drawn vide
G.D. Report No.32 at 5:40 PM, which has
been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-12.

7. The first information report was
registered in presence of the Station House
Officer, Kayam Ganj, who was entrusted
the investigation of the instant case. He
recorded the statement of Head Moharrir
Netra Pal Singh (PW-6) and the first
informant
Ram
Chand
(PW-1)
and
thereafter, proceeded to the place of
incident alongwith ASI Mahaveer Singh
and other police personnels. On reaching
there, the Investigating Officer found the
dead body of the deceased lying in the plot
of Vishram and thereafter, he instructed
ASI Mahaveer Singh to conduct the inquest
proceedings and the inquest memo was
drawn. The other relevant documents,
namely, Form-13, Photo Nash, Challan
Nash, Letter to C.M.O., Letter to R.I. and
sample seals were prepared and thereafter,
the dead body of the deceased was sent to
the Mortuary for post-mortem.

8. An autopsy was conducted on the
person of the deceased Satya Prakash on
3 All. Lal Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1589
04.03.2000 at 2:30 PM at Ram Manohar
Lohiya Hospital, Farrukhabad. The Doctor
has noted three anti-mortem injuries on his
person, which are as under :-

(i). Internal examination shows
that left occipital and parietal have cut
under injury no.3.

(ii). 3rd, 4th, 8th and 9th ribs
were fractured. Right lungs were fractured
at several places.

(iii) Two wad pieces, 4 Tikuli and
4 large pellets, 29 (twenty nine) small
pellets recovered from left arm and right
lungs and plural cavity.

9. The Investigating Officer thereafter
reached the place, where Satya Prakash was
done to death by firing shot and assaulted
by Gandasa and on the pointing out of the
first informant, prepared the site plan,
which has been proved and marked as
Exhibit Ka-8. The Investigating Officer has
also collected the bloodstained earth and
plain earth from the said place and kept in a
separate
container
and
prepared
its
recovery memo, which has been marked as
Exhibit Ka-9. Thereafter, statement of other
witnesses were recorded and effort was
also made to apprehend the accused
persons but to no avail.

10. Thereafter, on the transfer of
Investigating Officer, investigation was
handed over to Virendra Singh, who
concluded the investigation and submitted
the charge-sheet against the accused
persons, which has been proved as Exhibit
Ka-10. On the basis of the said chargesheet,
learned
Magistrate
has
taken
cognizance, however, since the case was
exclusively triable by the court of Sessions,
made over the case to the court of Sessions
for trial. The Sessions Court vide its order
dated 03.08.2000 framed the charges
against
the
accused-appellants
under
Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC. The
accused-appellants abjured the said charges
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

11. During the course of trial, the
prosecution has examined as many as three
witnesses of fact and four other formal
witnesses. Their testimony, in brief, is
enumerated hereunder :-

12. PW-1 Ram Chand, is the step
father of the deceased and the first
informant of the case, in his testimony, has
stated that civil case was pending between
Lala Ram and the deceased Satya Prakash
before the trial court, which was decided in
favour of deceased Satya Prakash, as such,
Lala Ram along with his family members
started bearing enmity with Satya Prakash.
On 03.03.2000 at about 4:00 PM, while
Satya Prakash was returning back to his
house after purchasing some articles from
tailoring shop of Girish Chand Tailor and
when, he reached near the house of Durjan
Lal, he was encircled by Lala Ram and his
sons, namely, Ram Naresh, Narottam,
Mahima and Karamveer. Satya Prakash in
order to rescue him, raised alarm. Hearing
the
alarm,
he
alongwith
his
wife
Bhagyawati,
Shyam
Singh,
Mahaveer
Singh reached at the place of the incident.
On instigation of Lala Ram, his sons
Narottam and Mahima fired at Satya
Prakash from their respective country-made
pistol and Ram Naresh and Karamveer
assaulted him on his head by Gandasa,
consequent to which, he fell down and
thereafter, Lala Ram and his sons ran away
towards their house. Satya Prakash, while
being taken to the hospital for medical
treatment, breathed his last in the plot of
Vishram. Leaving the dead body there, he
got written report scribed by one Rama
Nand on his dictation and after putting his
1590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
signatures on it, the first information report
has been lodged in the Police Station. The
written report has been marked as Exhibit
Ka-1.

13. During cross-examination, he
stated that he is the only person in the
village by the name of Ram Chand. Some
criminal cases were registered against the
deceased Satya Prakash, however, he can
not state if cases under Sections 302, 304 or
307 IPC and under Section 25 of Arms Act
were registered against him. He further
stated that civil case was decided in favour
of Satya Prakash and against the said
decision, Lala Ram had filed an appeal,
however, before the appeal could be
decided, Satya Prakash was done to death.
He further stated that incident had taken
place near the house of Shyam Singh,
which on its western side is connected to
his house, while Satya Prakash was
returning back to his house from the shop
of Girish Tailor, he was encircled on the
way and only on being encircled, Satya
Prakash raised alarm. Hearing the alarm, he
alongwith his wife, Shyam Singh and
Mahaveer Singh rushed to rescue him. He
further stated that on the instigation made
by Lala Ram, the assailants killed Satya
Prakash by firing shot and assaulting by
Gandasa. He further stated that at the time
of incident, he has reached the place of
incident and Satya Prakash, while being
taken to the hospital, had reached near the
plot of Vishram, Satya Prakash breathed his
last. He further stated that assailants had
assaulted Satya Prakash, where they have
encircled him, however, Satya Prakash
breathed his last at the plot of Vishram,
while being taken to the hospital and his
dead body was lying there.

14. PW-1 further stated that the plot
of Vishram, where the deceased breathed
his last, is at a distance of 100 feet from his
house towards East. The distance between
his house and the assailants is 200 yards
towards the West. At the time, when Satya
Prakash had gone at the shop of Girish
Tailor, he alongwith his wife were present
in their house. It is wrong to state that he
had not witnessed any incident and falsely
deposing in the court. It is further wrong to
state that in the village, gambling was
going-on and there, the deceased was
killed. It is further wrong to state that
Shyam Singh and Mahaveer Singh has
falsely been nominated as witnesses. The
police reached the place of the incident at
5:30 PM and conducted the inquest and
completed the other necessary formalities.
He further denied the suggestion that he
had not witnessed the incident and on
account of inimical terms, he is falsely
deposing.

15. PW-2 Bhagyawati is the wife of
PW-1 and mother of the deceased Satya
Prakash. She stated that civil case was
going-on between the deceased Satya
Prakash and Lala Ram, which was decided
in favour of Satya Prakash and due to this
reason, Lala Ram and his sons used to bear
animosity with Satya Prakash. On the day
of the incident, while the deceased Satya
Prakash was returning back from the shop
of Girish Tailor after purchasing some
articles and reached near the house of
Durjan Lal, he was encircled by Lala Ram
and his sons, namely, Ram Naresh,
Narottam, Mahima and Karamveer and on
exhortation by Lala Ram to kill, Satya
Prakash raised alarm to rescue him. On
hearing his alarm, she alongwith her
husband Ram Chand and villagers Shyam
Singh and Mahaveer Singh reached the
place of the incident. Lala Ram instigated
his sons to kill Satya Prakash, consequent
to which, Mahima and Narottam opened
3 All. Lal Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1591
fire, which hit the deceased Satya Prakash
and Ram Naresh and Karamveer assaulted
him on his head by Gandasa, due to which,
he fell down. Lala Ram alongwith his sons
made their escape good to their house.
While Satya Prakash was being taken to the
hospital and reached at the plot of Vishram,
he breathed his last. Leaving the dead body
there, her husband rushed to the Police
Station to lodge the first information report.

16. During cross-examination, she has
stated that the place, where the assailants
had encircled and killed the deceased Satya
Prakash, was a pakka way and lot of blood
had spread there. She further categorically
stated that before the fire was made, she
had reached the place of incident, she
alongwith her husband Ram Chand, Shyam
Singh and Mahaveer Singh took him at the
plot of Vishram, where Satya Prakash
succumbed to his injuries. The police had
reached within an hour at the plot of
Vishram, where dead body of the deceased
Satya Prakash was kept. At the time of
incident, Satya Prakash had gone to buy
some articles from the shop of Girish
Tailor. The house of Shyam Singh is situate
near the place, where the deceased Satya
Prakash was killed. Hearing the alarm, she
alongwith her husband Ram Chand, her
daughter-in-law,
Shyam
Singh
and
Mahaveer Singh reached the place of the
incident. She further stated that she was
standing at a distance of 3-4 paces, from
where, Satya Prakash was killed and at the
said place, her husband Ram Chand,
Shyam Singh and Mahaveer Singh were
also present and she had seen the incident
from the distance of 3-4 paces. Ram Naresh
and
Karamveer
had
assaulted
Satya
Prakash by Gandasa on his head, due to
which, he fell down, then other sons of
Lala Ram shot him and thereafter, they
escaped towards their house. The police
had reached the place, where dead body of
the deceased was kept and prepared inquest
and sealed the dead body, which was
handed over to the police for carrying it to
the Mortuary. She further stated that at the
time, when the alarm was raised by Satya
Prakash, she alongwith her husband Ram
Chand were present at their house, from
where, they reached the place of incident.
On the alarm, Shyam Singh and Mahaveer
Singh also reached the place of incident.
The place where, she alongwith her
husband Ram Chand, Shyam Singh,
Mahaveer
Singh
had
witnessed
the
incident, has been specifically pointed out
to the Investigating Officer, however, she
could not state the reason as to why
Investigating Officer has not shown the
said place in the site plan.

17. PW-2 denied the suggestion that
the factum of witnessing the murder has not
been mentioned in the FIR. She further
denied the suggestion that she alongwith
her husband Ram Chand, daughter-in-law,
Shyam Singh and Mahaveer Singh had not
witnessed the incident and only after the
incident was over, they had reached at the
place of incident. She denied that number
of criminal cases were reported against the
deceased Satya Prakash. She further denied
the suggestion that when she reached at the
Police Station, then with due deliberations
and consultations with the police, the
assailants were nominated.

18. PW-3 Shyam Singh is the resident
of place of the incident. He stated that on
03.03.2000 at 4:30 PM, on hearing an
alarm to rescue from near the house of
Durjan Lal, he alongwith Mahaveer, Ram
Chand, Bhagyawati reached the place of
incident, where Lala Ram and his sons had
encircled Satya Prakash. The assailants
Mahima and Narottam were armed with
1592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
country-made pistol, whereas Karamveer
and Ram Naresh were armed with Gandasa.
Seeing the witnesses, Lala Ram instigated
his sons to kill Satya Prakash, then
Mahaveer and Narottam fired shot with
their
country-made
pistol,
whereas
Karamveer
and
Ram
Naresh
started
assaulting him with Gandasa on his head,
due to which, he fell down. The assailants
then escaped towards their house. While
taking Satya Prakash to the hospital, near
the plot of Vishram, he breathed his last.
He further stated that on account of
animosity over civil dispute between Satya
Prakash and Lala Ram, he was done to
death. He further stated that house of the
first informant Ram Chand is situate at a
distance of 150-200 yards from his house.
He further stated that at the time of the
incident, bricks were kept at the plot of
Bhajan Lal and on the North, where the
bricks are kept, is an open field of Kishan
Lal, where eucalyptus tree is planted. He
further stated that the deceased Satya
Prakash was returning back to his house
from the shop of Girish Tailor and Satya
Prakash lives in the house of Ram Chand.
He further stated that the victim was killed
in the plot of Bhajan Lal and not on the
way. He further stated that when he heard
the alarm to save, he was at his house and
eucalyptus tree is planted at a distance of
150-200 paces from his house.

19. PW-3 denied the suggestion that
at the time of incident, he alongwith
Mahaveer was present at the house of Ram
Chand and reached the place of incident.
He further stated that when he reached the
place of incident, Ram Chand, Pramod
Kumar and Bhagyawati Devi and others
were already present there. He further
stated that from the place of incident, he
was at a distance of 4-5 feet on the North
side, where Bhagyawati and Ram Chand
were at a distance of 60 feet. From the
place of incident, Satya Prakash was
brought in the plot of Vishram, where he
breathed his last. Satya Prakash was being
taken to the hospital by him, Ram Chand,
Bhagyawati and others. He denied the
suggestion that he had not witnessed the
incident and gambling was being played in
the village and Satya Prakash was also
involved in the act of gambling, where he
was done to death. He further denied the
suggestion that any case under Section 307,
302 IPC or under Section 25 of Arms Act
was registered against the deceased.

20. PW-4 is the Medical Officer at
Ram
Manohar
Lohiya
Hospital,
Farrukhabad, who had conducted an
autopsy on the person of the deceased and
proved the autopsy report and contents
thereof, which has been marked as Exhibit
Ka-2. He, during cross-examination, stated
that blackening and tattooing could be
caused by fire being made within one meter
and injury no.4 could be caused from a
distance of one meter or 10 feet. He further
stated that deceased could have died
between 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM with the
margin of six hours. He further stated that
instantaneous death could be caused from
ante-mortem injuries sustained by the
deceased within few minutes.

21. PW-5 is the Station House
Officer, in whose presence, the instant case
was registered and who was entrusted with
the investigation. He, after registrations of
the first information report, recorded the
statement of Head Moharrir Netrapal Singh
and the first informant Ram Chand and
thereafter, he left for place of incident
alongwith other police personnel. He
further stated that dead body of the
deceased was kept in the plot of Vishram
and on his instructions, ASI Mahaveer
3 All. Lal Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1593
Singh conducted the inquest and prepared
the inquest memo alongwith other relevant
documents, namely, Photo Nash, Challan
Nash, Letter to R.I., Letter to C.M.O. and
sealed samples were prepared after keeping
the dead body in a cotton cloth, it was sent
for autopsy. Inquest report and other
relevant papers were proved as Exhibit Ka3 to Exhibit Ka-7. The relevant site plan
was prepared at the pointing out of the first
informant Ram Chand, which has been
proved as Exhibit Ka-8. The plain earth and
bloodstained earth were also taken from the
place of incident and were kept in a separte
container, which has been proved as
Exhibit Ka-9. Thereafter, on his transfer,
the investigation was entrusted to Virendra
Singh, who concluded the investigation and
submitted the charge-sheet, which has been
proved as Exhibit Ka-10.

22. During cross-examination, he
stated that investigation of the instant case
was entrusted to him and he has recorded
the statement of the witnesses and the
check report had reached the Office of
Circle Officer on 06.03.2000. When, he
reached the place of incident, the dead
body was kept in the plot of Vishram and
blood was noted there. He further stated
that he had noticed the house of Durjan Lal
and shown it in the site plan and on the east
of the house of Durjan Lal, vacant plot of
Bhajan Lal is situate. At Point "A", the
deceased was done to death and the
witnesses are said to have seen the incident
from Point "B" and the distance between
Point "A" and Point "B" is 60 paces. He
further
denied
the
suggestion
that
information about the incident was orally
given
in
the
Police
Station
and
subsequently, after due deliberations and
consultations, the FIR was registered. He
further expressed his ignorance of the
criminal cases, which are said to be
pending against the deceased. He further
denied the suggestion that earlier, a
complaint was lodged against SHO, Kayam
Ganj, District Farrukhabad in the court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad, as
such, the police has animosity against the
assailants. He further denied to have found
any tailoring articles like buttons and
buckram at the place of incident.

23. PW-6 is the Head Moharrir
Netrapal Singh, who was handed over the
written report by the first informant, on the
basis of which, he has drawn the check FIR
and carbon copy thereof was prepared vide
G.D. Report No.32 at 5:40 PM and the case
was registered vide Case Crime No. 41 of
2000, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302
IPC and contents thereof, has been proved
and marked as Exhibit Ka-11. G.D. Report
whereof has been proved as Exhibit Ka-12.
The said witness has not been crossexamined at all and his cross-examination
has been noted to be nil.

24. Thereafter, the statement of
accused-appellants
under
Section
313
Cr.P.C. has been recorded by putting all the
incriminating circumstance to the accusedappellants. The accused-appellants have
stated
that
they
have
been
falsely
implicated, however, defence has not led
any
evidence.
The
trial
court,
on
appreciating the evidence on record, has
held that prosecution has successfully
established its case against the accusedappellants by relying upon the testimony of
all the three prosecution witnesses of fact,
who were present at the place and the time
of incident, being the natural witnesses like
parents and neighbours of the deceased
residing in the vicinity closed to the place
of incident, where the deceased has been
done to death.
1594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. The explanation tendered by
learned counsel for the appellants is false
and inadequate.

26. Learned counsel for the appellants
has further submitted that at the time of the
incident, the deceased was returning back
to his house from the shop of Girish tailor
master after purchasing some articles and
has been killed near the house of Durjan
Lal and thereafter, while being taken for
medical treatment, he succumbed to his
injuries at the plot of Vishram, where his
dead body was kept, however, no trail of
blood has been found between the two
points, which makes the prosecution story
doubtful.

27. Learned counsel for the appellants
has next submitted that prosecution story
regarding reaching of the witnesses at the
place of incident after hearing the alarm of
the deceased is too far-fetched and cannot
be relied upon and therefore, presence of
the witnesses at the time of the incident is
wholly doubtful and no reliance can be
placed on their testimony, which is liable to
be discarded. The conviction of the
appellants is, therefore, wholly illegal and
is liable to be set aside.

28. Learned counsel for the appellants
has further submitted that on reaching at
the place of incident and witnessing the
killing of their son, PW-1 and PW-2 have
not raised any alarm, which also falsifies
the presence of the witnesses at the place of
incident. Furthermore, except the deceased,
no other person has received any injury nor
the assailants had made any attempt to
assault the parents of the deceased and no
injury has been found on their person,
which further falsifies their presence at the
time and place of incident.

29. Learned counsel for the appellants
has further submitted that incident had
taken place at 4:30 PM and within one hour
and ten minutes, the FIR has been shown to
be lodged, which practically is impossible.
In fact, FIR has been lodged subsequently
by making it ante-time.

30. Learned counsel for the appellants
has further submitted that no independent
witness has been examined, except P.W.-3
Shyam Singh, even Mahavir Singh, who is
also said to be reached the place of
incident, has not been examined, which
further
creates
serious
dent
in
the
prosecution story.

31. Learned counsel for the appellants
has next submitted that motive has not been
cogently established by the prosecution, yet
the trial court has recorded the finding of
conviction against the appellants is wholly
illegal and is liable to be set aside.

32. Learned counsel for the appellants
has further submitted that there has been
complete non-compliance of Section 157
Cr.P.C. and therefore, prosecution story
becomes doubtful. He has further submitted
that in the FIR, the distance has been
mentioned as 10 Kms. South-East, whereas
in the Inquest Report, distance has been
mentioned as 11 Kms. towards South,
which further makes prosecution story
doubtful.

33. Learned counsel for the appellants
has next submitted that prosecution has not
been able to establish its case beyond all
reasonable doubts, yet the trial court has
recorded the finding of conviction against
the appellants, which is wholly illegal and
is liable to be set aside.
3 All. Lal Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1595

34. In order to buttress his arguments,
learned counsel for the appellants has relied
upon the decision reported in (1). (2004) 49
ACC 755 Manish Kumar Etc. Vs. State of
U.P., (2). (2001) Cri L. J. 4306, Mahadeo
Kundalik Vaidya and Others Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (3). (1994) 5 SCC 188,
Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) Vs. State of U.P.,
(4). AIR (1997) SC 3292, State of U.P. Vs.
Bhagwan and Others, (5). (1982) 0
Supreme (All) 568, Manohar Vs. State.

35. Per contra, learned AGA has
submitted that in the instant case, prompt
FIR has been lodged by father of the
deceased and it is broad day light murder in
the presence of the witnesses, who are the
parents of the deceased, being the natural
witnesses. Even P.W.-3 is an eye-witness
of the incident, who has also supported the
prosecution story in all material particulars,
except minor contradictions, which do not
go to the root of the case and from their
testimony, the prosecution case has been
cogently and clearly established against the
appellants.

36. Learned AGA has further
submitted that the FIR in the instant case,
by no stretch of imagination, can not be
said to be ante-time and no suggestion in
this regard has been given to the witnesses,
as such, no doubt can be raised about
lodging of the FIR at the time specified, the
contrary argument made by learned counsel
for the appellants is wholly not worth
consideration and is liable to be discarded.

37. Learned AGA has further
submitted that eye-witness of the incident
has cogently and unerringly established the
prosecution case against the appellants and
the defence has not been able to elicit any
doubt about the credibility of the said
witnesses.

38. Having considered the rival
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and having gone through the
material on record and the evidence
adduced, it is evident that the incident is
said to have taken place in the broad day
light in presence of the parents and
neighbours of the deceased, who are
residing in the same vicinity. The FIR,
admittedly, has been promptly lodged in
the Police Station and the manner and place
of the incident has been cogently and
unerringly established by the prosecution.

39. The nature of the injury as pointed
out by the Doctor in the post-mortem
report, clearly indicates that injury could be
caused by fire-arm and sharp edged
weapon as stated by the witnesses and no
doubt can be raised in respect of the
injuries sustained by the deceased.

40. It is further germane to point out
here that as per the prosecution case, the
incident, in question, has taken place in
front of house of Durjan Lal and thereafter,
victim was lifted by his father alongwith
other persons of the vicinity and was being
taken to the hospital for providing him the
medical treatment, however, on the way,
victim succumbed to his injuries and as
such, his dead body was kept in the plot of
Vishram. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellants that though the victim
was having bleeding injuries but no trail of
blood has been found in between the two
places, where he has been assaulted and the
place, where he died, which creates a
serious doubt in the prosecution story,
however, the trial court has not appreciated
the evidence in right perspective and
illegally recorded the finding of conviction
against the appellants. It would be noted
that the time of incident is day time, when
large number of persons were moving on
1596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the way, where the incident is said to have
taken place and as such, merely on the
ground that no trail of blood was found, the
entire prosecution story, which otherwise
inspires confidence, can not be thrown over
board. In the facts of the case, the said
argument of learned counsel for the
appellants is liable to be repelled.

41. It has further been submitted by
learned counsel for the appellants that the
place, from where, the incident is alleged to
have taken place and the house of parents
of the deceased is 120-130 paces and as
such, after hearing the alarm of the victim,
there is no possibility for the said witnesses
to reach the place of the incident.

42. This argument of learned counsel
for the appellants also does not hold much
water in view of the fact that at the time,
when the victim was attacked, he, in order
to rescue himself, raised alarm under fear
of death, which were heard by the
witnesses, who reached the place of
incident and witnessed the entire incident,
which has unerringly deposed by them in
their testimony, which inspires confidence.
The defence has not been able to elicit any
doubt about the credibility and reliability of
their evidence, which has been cogently
and truthfully established.

43. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the appellants that parents of
the deceased, while witnessing the incident
of killing of their son, had not raised any
alarm nor made any attempt to save him, as
such, their presence is completely ruled out
from the place of incident.

44. The said argument of learned
counsel
for
the
appellants,
in
our
considered opinion, is unacceptable as held
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Leela Ram (Dead) Through Duli Chand
Vs. State of Haryana and Another
reported in (1999) 9 SCC 525, Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that different
witnesses react differently under different
situations:
whereas
some
become
speechless, some started wailing while
some others run away from the scene and
yet there are some who may come forward
with courage, conviction and belief that the
wrong should be remedied. As a matter of
fact, it depends upon individuals and
individuals. There can not be any set
pattern or uniform rule of human reaction
and to discard the piece of evidence on the
ground of his reaction not falling within a
set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic
exercise.

45. Moreover, the assailants, in the
instant case, were armed with deadly
weapon including fire-arm and Gandasa
and therefore, witnesses did not dare to
reach near the victim in order to rescue
him.

46. It is further germane to point out
here that on account of personal enmity
with regard to dispute over a plot of land,
in respect of which, civil proceedings were
going-on between the parties, as such, he
alone was the target of the assailants and
after achieving the target of killing of the
deceased, they immediately ran away.
Therefore, non-receiving of the injury on
the witnesses would not, in any way, effect
the credibility of the prosecution case.

47. The said argument of learned
counsel for the appellants is also liable to
be repelled.

48. Furthermore, it is germane to
point out here that the instant case is a case
of direct evidence and therefore, as per the
3 All. Lal Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1597
settled proposition of law, motive in a case
of direct evidence pales into insignificance,
however, the instant case is an outcome of
property dispute between the parties, which
has resulted in causing the death of the
deceased. Motive in a case of direct
evidence does not adversely affect the
prosecution
case.
Motive
not
being
apparent or not being proved only requires
deeper scrutiny by the court while coming
to the conclusion. Where there are different
evidence, proving an incident and eyewitness account proved the role of the
accused, absence in proving of the motive
does not affect the prosecution case.

49. Further, it is also feebly contended
on behalf of the appellants that special
report was not forwarded to the Magistrate
as stipulated under Section 157 CrPC
instantaneously
and
as
such,
the
prosecution story becomes doubtful.

50. In respect of the said submissions,
it is relevant to point out here that Hon'ble
Apex Court as well as this Court in several
of its decisions, particularly, in Pala Singh
Vs. State of Punjab (1972) 2 SCC 640 has
clearly held that where the FIR was
actually registered without delay and the
investigation started on the basis of that
FIR and there is no other infirmity brought
to notice, then, however improper or
objectionable the delayed receipt of the
report by the Magistrate concerned, it can
not by itself justify the conclusion that the
investigation
was
tainted
and
the
prosecution insupportable.

51. As far as commencement of the
investigation, in the instant case, is
concerned, our earlier discussions discloses
that there was no infirmity in the case of
prosecution on that score. Time and again,
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that unless
serious prejudice was demonstrated to have
been suffered as against the accused, mere
delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate
by itself will not have any deteriorating
effect on the case of the prosecution.

52. In the instant case, no prejudice
whatsoever has been pointed out at all,
therefore, the said submission on behalf of
learned counsel for the appellants can not
be sustained and the judgments cited by
learned counsel for the appellants is clearly
distinguishable on the facts.

53. Furthermore, it is argued that in
the chik FIR, the distance between the
place of incident to the Police Station has
been mentioned 10 Kms, whereas in the
inquest report, it has been noted to be 11
Kms.