# Lala & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 414
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1071 of 1987
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir, Sanjiv Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lala-anr-v-state-of-u-p-52931
- **Pages:** 13

## Text

_Characters 0–39,920 of 44,677. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39920 for what follows._

414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
perversity in the impugned judgment so as
to interfere with the findings returned by
Court below. The conclusion drawn by
Court below is the outcome of artificial
appreciation of the evidence on record. No
misreading or omission could be pointed
out by the learned counsel for appellant.
Being the last Court of fact, we have
ourselves evaluated the evidence on record
to find out whether there is any perversity
in the impugned judgment i.e. Court below
has either ignored any vital evidence or
misconstrued
any
material
evidence.
However, we could not gather any new fact
from the record nor could we find that
Court
below
has
misconstrued
any
evidence on record so as to conclude that
the conclusion drawn by Court below is
against the weight of evidence on record. It
thus, cannot be said that only the view
consistent with the guilt of accused is
possible as per the evidence on record. We,
therefore, do not find any good ground to
entertain the present appeal filed under
Section 413 BNSS, which consequently
fails and is, accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 414
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2025

BEFORE

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

Criminal Appeal No. 1071 of 1987

Lala & Anr. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
Validity of judgment of conviction and sentence
under Sections 147, 302/149 Indian Penal Code,
1860.

Headnotes
Alleged incident occurred in the dark hours of
night-away from abadi of the village and its
populated area-no source of light, except for the
moonlight-deceased sustained ten ante-mortem
injuries -in the opinion of the doctor, the cause
of death was coma as a result of head injury.-
highly unnatural and improbable that it would
take about an hour or so for the eleven
assailants to beat the deceased and cause only
ten injuries-prosecution has utterly failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-Trial
Judge has not appreciated the evidence on
record in the right perspective and reached a
wrong conclusion.
Appeal allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Podda Narayana v. State of A.P., AIR 1975 SC
1252
2. Hem Raj v. State of Haryana 2005 (10) SCC
614

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code

List of Keywords
Blind murder, prosecution has utterly failed,
unexplained
omission
to
examine
the
independent witness.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : G.S. Tiwari Counsel
for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.

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

1. Both these criminal appeals have
arisen from a common judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the
Court of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge,
Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 540 of
1985 (State Vs. Udai Narain and others),
under Sections 147, 302/149 Indian Penal
Code, 1860 ('IPC', for short), Police Station
Soraon, District Allahabad. As both these
appeals have been filed against a common
judgment and order, the same are being
decided by a common judgment.
12 All. Lala & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
415

2. Criminal Appeal No. 1071 of 1987
has been filed by appellants Lala s/o Jhurai
and Amrit Lal s/o Shyam Lal, both
residents of Village Bhadri, P.S. Soraon,
Allahabad, whereas Criminal Appeal No.
1069 of 1987 has been preferred by
appellants Uadi Narain s/o Mahadev,
Dayaram s/o Jagannath, Jai Ram s/o
Mahadev, Ram Awadh s/o Baij Nath,
Maharani Deen s/o Lala, Harish Chandra
and Kallu both s/o Ram Sewak, Hari s/o
Gurai, Ram Sunder @ Bhola Pradhan s/o
Punni, all residents of Village Bhadri, P.S.
Soraon Allahabad. By the judgment and
order impugned passed by the learned Trial
Court, all the appellants have been
convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo
one year's rigorous imprisonment and
imprisonment
for
life
for
offence
punishable under Section 302 read with
149 IPC. It was further directed by the Trial
Court that all the sentences shall run
concurrently.

3. During the pendency of both these
appeals, appellant no.1 Lala in Criminal
Appeal No. 1071 of 1987 has died and the
appeal against him, therefore, abated. The
abatement was recorded vide order dated
03.11.2025. In Criminal Appeal No. 1069 of
1987, appellant no.1 Udai Narain, appellant
no. 2, Dayaram, appellant no.3, Jai Ram,
appellant no.4, Ram Awadh, appellant no.5,
Maharani Deen, appellant no.8 Hari and
appellant no.9, Ram Sunder @ Bhola Pradhan
have died and the above appeal against them
has been abated vide order dated 03.11.2025.

4. Now Criminal Appeal No. 1071 of
1987 survives to be heard on behalf of
appellant no.2 Amrit Lal alone and
Criminal Appeal No. 1069 of 1987 on
behalf of appellant no. 6 Harish Chandra
and appellant no.7 Kallu.

5. Brief facts of the prosecution case
are that informant Ram Kishor s/o
Bhagirathi, resident of Bhadri, Police
Station Soraon, District Allahabad, filed a
written information (Tehrir) (Ext. Ka-1)
before the In-charge, Police Station Soraon
on 08.07.1982, saying that he was a
labourer. His brother Ram Dulare used to
guard the crop of bhata (brinjal) sown near
the south-west bank of the canal located in
village Bhadri. Today also, he went there to
guard the crop. At about 01:00 a.m. in the
wee hours, the informant's uncle Pancham
came over to him and told him that near the
(railway) station, some people were beating
Ram Dulare and threatening him to work
for them, instead of working for the
assailants' opponents. Thereupon, he along
with, his uncle Pancham and Nanku
(cousin) reached the vicinity of the railway
station and heard some noise that was
coming from the west of the railway line.
They reached there and saw that Udai
Narain s/o Mahadev, Dayaram s/o Jaggu,
Jai Ram s/o Mahadev, Ram Awadh s/o Baij
Nath, Lala Ram s/o Jhurai, Maharani Deen
s/o Lala, Harish Chandra s/o Ram Awadh,
Kallu s/o Ram Sewak, Hari s/o Gurai,
Amrit Lal s/o Shyam Lal and Ram Sunder
Pradhan @ Bhola s/o Punni were battering
Ram Dulare, kicking and punching him,
besides thrashing him with sticks (danda)
in Ram Awadh's agricultural field. The
informant and his uncle touched the
assailants' feet and imploringly asked them
why they were beating the poor man so
much. Jairam said that since he works as a
labourer for their opponents but not for
them, they would insert lathi in his rectum.
Then Amrit Lal pulled him down and Udal
@ Udai Narain inserted a lathi in his
rectum. The informant's brother died in
agony at the spot. During the occurrence, a
number of persons from the village reached
there, who also requested the appellants not
416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to beat Ram Dulare. The appellants left the
scene of crime upon seeing the informant's
brother dead and threatening him that if he
lodged a first information with the Police,
he too would be killed.

6. On the basis of the said written
information, an FIR, giving rise to Case
Crime No. 109 of 1982, under Section 302
IPC, was registered at Police Station
Soraon on 08.07.1982 at 06:05 a.m. against
all the eleven accused and investigation
commenced. The Investigating Officer
reached the place of occurrence and
collected blood stained dhoti from the
deceased's body and prepared a recovery
memo (Ext. Ka-11). The inquest report
(Ext. Ka-2) relating to the deceased was
prepared along with connected papers.
Thereafter, the dead body was sent for
autopsy. In the post-mortem report, ten
ante-mortem injuries were found over the
body of the deceased and in the doctor's
opinion, the cause of death was coma, as a
result of head injury.

7. The Investigating Officer recorded
the statements of the informant and other
witnesses,
inspected
the
place
of
occurrence and prepared its site plan (Ext.
Ka-12),
and
after
concluding
the
investigation, filed charge-sheet (Ext. Ka13) against all the eleven accused under
Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC before the
Magistrate.

8.
The
learned
Magistrate
took
cognizance of the offence and summoned
all the accused. All the accused appeared
before the learned Magistrate and were
furnished copies of the relevant prosecution
papers under Section 207 of the Criminal
Procedure
Code
(for
short
'Cr.P.C.')
Thereafter, the case was committed for trial
to the Court of Sessions by the learned
Magistrate. In the Court of Sessions, all the
accused appeared. The court framed
charges under Sections 147, 302 read with
Section 149 IPC against the accused, who
denied the said charge, pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.

9. The prosecution has examined four
witnesses to prove its case. They are P.W.1,
Ram Kishor (the informant and eyewitness), P.W.2 Pancham (eye-witness),
P.W.3 Dr. A.K. Nigam (Medical Officer,
who
conducted
the
post-mortem
examiniation) and P.W.4 S.I. Arjun Singh
(Investigating Officer). Their testimony, in
brief, is enumerated hereunder.

10.
P.W.1
Ram
Kishor
is
the
informant and an eye-witness of the
incident. He, in his examination-in-chief,
has stated that about four and a half years
ago, he was at his home. At about 01:30 in
the night, his uncle Pancham came to him
and said that some men from the village are
beating Ram Dulare on the western side of
the station. Ram Dulare was his real
brother, so he, along with Pancham and
Nanku, went to the station and heard some
noise coming from the west. When they
reached the spot, they saw that Ram Dulare
was being beaten in Ram Awadh's field of
bottle gourd by accused Udai Narain, Jai
Ram, Daya Ram, Ram Sundar @ Bhola,
Harish Chandra, Ram Awadh, Kallu Ram,
Lala, Maharani Deen, Hari and Amrit Lal.
All the accused were residents of his
village. Therefore, he knows them from
before. Udai Narain, Jai Ram, Bhola @
Ram Sunder and Daya Ram were beating
Ram Dulare with lathi, whereas the rest of
the accused were subjecting him to
fisticuffs and kicks. It was moonlight. The
accused Jai Ram said that Ram Dulare was
working for his opponent (Bhayia Lal) and
not for him and pushed him, abusing. Ram
12 All. Lala & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
417
Dulare was pushed in a drain situate in the
western direction. The informant and others
beseeched
Jai
Ram
to
spare
him,
whereupon Jai Ram asked his associates to
force a lathi into his anus and kill him.
Thereupon, the assailants forced a stick
(danda) into his rectum. He died there.
Some residents of the village Kripa
Shankar, Devki Nandan, Ram Dhan, Ram
Sukh and others also arrived and asked the
accused to desist, but they did not pay
heed. After Ram Dulare died, they fled the
spot, leaving the dead body and held out
threats that if the informant went to the
police station, he too would be killed.
Thereafter, the informant carried Ram
Dulare to the Police Station on a cot,
purchased a piece of paper on the way and
wrote out a report. He reached the police
station with the dead body and lodged the
report. He received a copy of the report and
proved the written information (tahrir) as
Ext. Ka-1. He has also said that the
deceased was farming a crop sharing basis
(batai) for Bhaiyalal @ Bhaiya Ram using
his field, where brinjal (bhanta) crop was
sown.

11. In his cross-examination, P.W.1
has
said
that
about
20-25
persons
accompanied him up to the road with the
dead body. About 6-7 persons saw the
incident. He received the information about
the maar-peet at 01:00 a.m and reached the
place of occurrence with others at 01:30
a.m. He reached there from the road along
with Nanku, Pancham and Chinau. The
above route is long and there is another
route up to the place of occurrence, which
is short in distance and passes through
Chamrauti. The other villagers went from
the shortest route and reached there before
him. P.W.1 reached there empty handed,
though he knew that his brother was being
beaten. The villagers themselves reached
there and he did not ask them to
accompany him. From the railway line, he
saw four persons beating Ram Dulare with
lathis and rest punching and kicking him.
He reached there and requested them not to
assault Ram Dulare, but they still continued
beating him for about half an hour. Amrit
Lal did not put the deceased down. About
three inches lathi was thrust in his rectum.
As a result, blood oozed out and dropped in
the field. Blood was oozing out of Ram
Dulare's nose. He put his thumb impression
upon Ext. Ka-1 at the police station and at
the same time the above application was
written. He purchased the paper at the
Soraon roundabout. He has also said that
the application (tahrir) was written prior to
reaching at the Police Station, as he was
taking the dead body there. Therefore, he
had written in the report that 'he has
brought the dead body to the police station'.
Chinau son of Ram Nath was not present at
the place of occurrence. He did not tell the
Investigating Officer that he runs a private
canteen in IFFCO.

12. P.W.2 Pancham is said to be an
eye-witness, who has stated that he is
illiterate and on the date of incident, he was
returning home after blocking the flow of
water while irrigating his paddy crop. A
person met him near the station and told
him that Ram Dulare was being beaten by
some people. He ran to the informant's
home and told him that Ram Dulare was
being beaten near the station. Then, Nanku
and Chhinau were woken up and all of
them reached Ram Awadh's field. They
saw that all the eleven accused were
beating Ram Dulare. Jai Ram, Udal @
Udai, Daya Ram and Bhola were armed
with lathi, which they were employing to
batter, Ram Dulare whereas rest of the
accused were treating him to fisticuffs and
kicks. They beseeched the assailants not to
418 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
do so, but Jai Ram said that he (the victim)
works for the opponents and exhorted
others to beat him and drive a stick (lathi)
up his anus. Ram Dulare fainted. Then
accused Udal @ Udai drove a lathi up his
anus. As a result he died. The above
incident occurred at about 01:00 or 01:30 in
the night. The appellants fled the spot,
threatening
the
witnesses
with
dire
consequences, if they reported the incident
to the police station etc. It was a moonlit
night. They identified appellants, who
belonged to their own village. Thereafter,
they carried the cadaver to the police
station on a cot and on way, near the
Soraon intersection, purchased a piece of
paper and wrote out the first information
(tahrir) and gave it to the Police at the
station where the FIR was lodged. He has
also stated that the inquest report was
prepared by the Sub-Inspector, which he
has proved as Ext. Ka-2.

13. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 has
stated that he does not know the person who
gave him information that Ram Dulare was
being beaten. The inquest report was read
over to him by the Investigating Officer and
then, he appended his signature to it. He did
not tell the Investigating Officer that the
deceased was brought to the station, where
the application was written in the light and
then came to the police station to lodge the
FIR. There were 8 to 10 persons, who
gathered at the spot. There were injuries over
the entire body caused by the lathi blows and
blood was oozing out from the rectum. About
8-10 fingers deep, the lathi was inserted in the
deceased's rectum, in consequence whereof
fecal matter came out and blood was already
oozing out, which fell on the ground.

14. P.W.3, Dr. A.K. Nigam, has
conducted autopsy on the deceased Ram
Dulare on 09.07.1982. He has stated that on
09.07.1982, while posted as Medical
Officer at the Moti Lal Nehru Hospital,
Allahabad, the dead body of Ram Dulare
was brought to him for post-mortem
examination at 03:30 p.m. by Constables
Raj Mangal and Buddhan Khan, both
posted at Police Station Soraon. He has
stated that the deceased had died about one
and a half day ago. The deceased was of
strongly built. Rigor mortis had passed
through the upper limb of the body but
present in lower limbs. He found following
ante-mortem injuries on the corpse:

(i) Contusion of the size of 2 cm x
0.5 cm on the forehead at the left side 1 cm
x 0.5 cm above the left eyebrow.

(ii) Traumatic swelling of the size
of 4 cm x 3 cm on the left parieto occipital
region, posterior part 3.50 cm from the top
of the left ear with contusion 1 cm x 3/4 cm
in the central of swelling.

(iii) Contusion 5 cm x 2.5 cm on
the left side of chest 2 cm lateral to the
nipple.

(iv) Contusion 10 cm x3/4 of the
abdomen of the left side lower part
extending from pubic region 1 cm above
the anterior superior iliac spine.

(v) Contusion 6 cm x 1.5 cm on
the right upper arm middle part back.

(vi) Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x
0.5 cm x muscle deep on the left leg middle
pat inner side.

(vii) Multiple contusion on the
back in an area of 15 cm x 12 cm.

(viii) Contusion on the back of the
hip and posterior part of the right thigh.

(ix) Contusion on the back of the
left thigh and hip.

(x) Contusion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on
the inner part of the right hip.

15. It was found that the parietal bone
was fractured and there was hematoma
12 All. Lala & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
419
under the occipital bone. The brain was
congested. The stomach had partially
digested food material and was full. Small
intestine was empty and large intestine was
half full. The cause of death was coma due
to head injury. He has proved the postmortem report as Ext. Ka-3 and stated that
the above injuries could have been caused
by lathi and danda. The death could have
occurred on 08.07.1982 at 01:00 in the
night. Injury nos. 8, 9 and 10 could be or
could not be caused due to something being
inserted in the rectum. He handed over
deceased's dhoti and underwear to the
constable after post-mortem, which he
proved as Exts. 1 and 2. He has stated that
there may be a variation of six hours
regarding the time of death on either side.
Injury nos. 8, 9 and 10 are not on the
rectum. Rectum was normal and there was
no internal injury to the stomach. There
were no sign of escape of blood from the
nose and rectum.

16. P.W.4 S.O. Arjun Singh, is the
Investigating Officer of the case, who has
stated that the FIR was lodged in his
presence. The informant had brought the
dead body along with him to the police
station. Upon a written application of the
informant, the Head Constable Ram Charan
Singh scribed the check FIR. He further
stated that he is familiar with his
handwriting and signature and the witness
has proved the check FIR as Ext. Ka-4. He
has further stated that his signatures are on
Ext. Ka-4. He has also stated that the Head
Moharrir Ram Charan Singh entered gist of
the FIR in G.D. No. 5 at 06.05 a.m., a copy
whereof has been proved as Ext. Ka-5. The
Investigating Officer has stated that on the
basis
of
FIR,
he
commenced
the
investigation. The inquest report of the
deceased
was
prepared
along
with
connected papers. He has proved the
inquest report as Ext. Ka-2. He has also
stated that he collected blood stained dhoti
of the deceased and prepared its recovery
memo, which is proved as Ext. Ka-11. He
has proved the dhoti as material Ext.-1. He
inspected the place of occurrence and
prepared its site-plan, which he has proved
as Ext. Ka-12. Thereafter, he recorded the
statements of the informant and other
witnesses.
After
concluding
the
investigation, he filed a charge-sheet in the
competent court, which is proved as Ext.
Ka-15. He has also stated that it is written
in the inquest report that villagers were
committing maar-peet and shouting chorchor, whereby the death had occurred.

17. The prosecution have produced the
following documentary evidence in support
of their case namely, Written application
(Ext. Ka-1), Inquest Report (Ext. Ka-2),
Post-mortem Report (Ext. Ka-3), First
Information Report (Ext. Ka- 4), G.D. (Ext.
Ka-5), Photo-nash (Ext. Ka-6), Challannash (Ext. Ka-7), Sample Seal (Ext. Ka.-8),
Letter to C.M.O. (Ext. Ka-9), Letter to R.I.
(Ext. Ka-10), Recovery Memo of blood
stained Dhoti (Ext. Ka-11), Site Plan Index
(Ext. Ka-12) and Charge-sheet (Ext. Ka13).

18.
After
conclusion
of
the
prosecution evidence, the statement of
accused 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in
which they denied the prosecution case and
said that the witnesses have deposed
against them due to enmity. Accused Amrit
Lal, Kallu and Harish Chandra have stated
that the deceased was killed by someone
else while committing theft somewhere, but
under the pressure of Ranjeet and Vijay
Bahadur and in connivance with the Police,
they have been falsely implicated in this
case. The appellants have not produced
evidence in their defence.
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. After hearing both the parties and
examining the evidence on record, the
learned
trial
court
found
that
the
prosecution has been able to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants
were held guilty, convicted and sentenced.
The learned Trial Judge observed that the
entries in the inquest report regarding
information that the informant's brother
Ram Dulare was killed by the villagers
upon suspicion of being a thief is hearsay
and inadmissible in evidence. The learned
Trial Court also observed that the doctor,
who carried out the autopsy and wrote the
post-mortem
examination
report,
has
concealed injuries over the rectum and this
negligence of the doctor would not give any
benefit to the defence. It was also observed
that if direct evidence is cogent and reliable,
then hyper-technical medical evidence would
have no bearing on the prosecution case. It
was also observed that enmity is a doubleedged weapon, which could cause an offence
to be committed, and on the other hand, a
person could be falsely implicated in a case.
After so observing, the learned Trial Court
convicted and sentenced the appellants.

20. Aggrieved by the judgment of the
learned Trial Court, the appellants have
preferred this appeal.

21. We have heard Mr. P.K. Singh
along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Patel and Mr.
Divyanshu
Nandan
Tripathi,
learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant
no.2 in Criminal Appeal No. 1071 of 1987
and on behalf of appellant nos. 6 and 7 in
Criminal Appeal No. 1069 of 1987. Mr.
Ghan Shayam Kumar, learned AGA-I has
been heard on behalf of the State in both
the appeals.

22. It is submitted on behalf of the
appellants
that
the
alleged
incident
occurred at odd hours. It was a blind
murder
and
nobody
had
seen
the
occurrence. It is also submitted that the
presence of alleged eye-witnesses on the
spot is highly doubtful. The witnesses
examined in Court are relatives of the
deceased and interested witnesses. Their
testimony, therefore, is not trustworthy and
reliable.

23. It is next submitted by learned
counsel for the appellants that the FIR has
been lodged belatedly after about six hours
and there is no explanation for all the delay
in lodging the FIR. It is further submitted
that allegedly, the surviving appellants
were present on the spot and there are
general allegations against them. According
to the prosecution, they were not carrying
any weapons and thus, were not part of
unlawful assembly. They had no common
object to murder the deceased. The incident
occurred far away from the outskirts of the
village. There was no source of light.

24. It is also submitted that in rural
areas, generally, people gather at a place
where some dispute occurs, just to watch it,
and merely by standing at the place of
occurrence, they cannot be considered as
member of the unlawful assembly.

25. Learned AGA appearing on behalf
of the State has submitted that the
appellants are named in the FIR. The FIR
was prompt and there was no delay in
lodging it. All the appellants formed an
unlawful assembly. Some of the appellants
were armed with lathi and all of them, in
furtherance
of
their
common object,
battered the deceased, as a result whereof,
he died on the spot.

26. It is also submitted that ocular
testimony is supported by the medical
12 All. Lala & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
421
evidence. Merely because witnesses are
relatives does not ipso facto becomes a
ground to reject their testimony. There are
no major inconsistencies in evidence and
other connected circumstances to raise
doubt about the worth of their testimony.
The prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt and the Court has rightly
convicted the appellants. Therefore, both
these appeals have no force and are liable
to be dismissed.

27. In a criminal trial, the burden of
proof always lies upon the prosecution to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As
per the prosecution story, the alleged
incident occurred in the dark hours of
night, away from abadi of the village and
its populated area. There was no source of
light, except for the moonlight. According
to the post-mortem report, the deceased
sustained ten ante-mortem injuries of the
nature of contusions and lacerated wounds
over different parts of the body, and there
were fractures over the parietal and
occipital bone; hematoma was present
under the occipital bone. In the opinion of
the doctor, the cause of death was coma as
a result of head injury. The autopsy was
done on 09.07.1982 at 3:30 p.m. In the
opinion of the doctor, death had occurred
about one and a half day ago. The above
period shows that the death might have
occurred some time in the night of
08.07.1982. Looking into the injuries of the
deceased, it is clear that this is not a case of
natural death, but murder. Now, we have to
see whether it was the appellants, who
committed the murder of the deceased as
alleged by the prosecution.

28. The prosecution has examined two
witnesses of fact to prove the incident.
They are P.W.1 Ram Kishor and P.W.2
Pancham. P.W.1 Ram Kishor is the real
brother of the deceased and P.W.2
Pancham, his uncle. Therefore, both these
witnesses are relatives of the deceased and
thus, they are interested witnesses. But,
merely being relative witnesses does not
render their testimony unreliable and what
is required is that evidence of such
witnesses be examined very carefully in the
light of other evidence on record.

29. Upon a perusal of the testimony of
both these witnesses as well as the manner
in which they say the incident had
happened, their presence at the spot, is
highly
doubtful.
According
to
the
prosecution, P.W.2 Pancham was in his
field, irrigating the paddy crop and he was
there till after midnight, when a person met
him near railway station and told him that
the deceased Ram Dulare was being beaten
by some men. The prosecution has not
disclosed the identity of the person who
gave this information to Pancham. P.W. 2
Pancham has also stated that he does not
know the person, who gave him the
information. It is very unlikely that some
unknown person would pass on such
information to a stranger like Pancham,
expecting that it would reach the relevant
person. If that unknown person knew that
the informant was the deceased's brother
then he would have passed on this
information to the informant himself. Thus,
the very first source of such information is
highly doubtful.

30. Moreover, according to P.W.2
Pancham, after receiving the information,
he came running to Kishor's house and
passed on to him the information that Ram
Dulare was being beaten on the west side
of the railway station. Thereafter, Nanku
and Chhinau were awakened. All of them
reached Ram Awadh's field and saw all the
appellants present there. P.W.1 Ram
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kishore has stated that his uncle Pancham
told him that Ram Dulare was being beaten
by some men from the village towards the
western side of the railway station, in the
field of Ram Awadh, where a crop of
bottlegourd was sown. Therefore, he along
with Pancham, Chhinau, and Nanku went
there and saw the appellants battering the
deceased.

31. It has come in evidence of P.W. 1
that on that particular night at about 01:00,
he received information that his brother
was being beaten and at about 1:30 a.m.,
i.e. after half an hour he proceeded to the
place of occurrence. He has stated that
from railway line, he saw that four persons
were beating him with sticks (lathi) and the
rest were resorting to fisticuffs and kicks.
He then reached the place of occurrence
and saw the appellants still beating the
deceased. He has also stated that he
requested the appellants not to beat the
deceased, but they kept on the violence for
half an hour. Some villagers too were also
present there. They also requested the
appellants not to beat Ram Dulare.
Therefore, as per P.W.1 Ram Kishor, the
above episode of assault by the appellants
continued for about an hour. In view of the
testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it is made
out that the deceased was being battered,
which
led
a
stranger
to
give
this
information
to
Pancham,
who
was
returning from his paddy field, and he, in
turn, apprised the informant about it. Upon
receipt of this information, the informant
and Pancham collected some persons from
the village and, thereafter, reached the
place of occurrence, which was away from
the populated area of the village, in a field
of Ram Awadh near the railway line. All
this must have taken a considerable time.

32. In view of the above evidence, it is
highly unnatural and improbable that it
would take about an hour or so for the
eleven assailants to beat the deceased Ram
Dulare and cause only ten injuries. If the
accused appellants had a common object to
kill the deceased, they would not have
taken about an hour to accomplish the evil
deed. As per the post-mortem report, the
deceased had received ten injuries, and
according to prosecution, out of the eleven
assailants, three were carrying sticks (lathi).
Normally, it would not have taken more
than five to ten mintues for the 11
assailants to commit this crime. It is highly
unnatural that the appellants would keep on
beating the deceased up to a considerable
time so that people may reach the spot and
identify them. Thus, the manner and
duration, up to which the alleged incident is
stated to have happened, is highly unlikely.

33. There is one more aspect which
raises serious doubt about the presence of
informant and Pancham, the two witnesses
of fact, examined by the prosecution, at the
place of occurrence. It has come in
evidence of P.W.1 Ram Kishor and P.W.2
Pancham
that
after
receiving
the
information, they left home for the place of
occurrence empty handed. This conduct of
the witnesses is very unnatural. After receipt
of information that Ram Dulare was being
beaten by a group of men, the normal
conduct of the informant and his uncle
Pancham would have been to pick up a danda
or lathi, or any other kind of weapon in hand
before leaving for the scene of crime to save
the deceased. This conduct of both these
witnesses going empty handed to the place of
occurrence raises serious doubt whether they,
in fact, reached there, and latter part of the
incident happened before their eyes.
12 All. Lala & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
423

34. It is also noteworthy to mention
that according to the prosecution, the three
appellants were carrying lathi and there
was no other weapon with them. In such a
situation, the conduct of P.W.1 and P.W.2
in not trying to save the deceased and let
him be done to death before their eyes is
also not reasonable and natural conduct. If
the appellants had any dangerous weapon
on them like firearms, it could have been
understandable for them not to come
forward to save the deceased but, lathi were
not such a weapon as to deter a person from
saving his close relative, like a real brother
or nephew.

35. Further, P.W.1 stated that it was
after receiving the news that the informant
and his uncle Pancham along with Nanku
and Chhinau left their house for the spot
taking a longer route by road, whereas the
other villagers reached there prior to them
via the Chamrauti which is shortest route to
the place of occurrence. This conduct of the
informant is also unnatural. After receiving
such startling news, a man of ordinary
prudence (P.W.1) should have proceeded
via the shortest route to save his brother,
rather than take a longer route, and, also, go
there empty handed. Therefore, going
empty handed via a longer route, without
any
reasonable
explanation,
raises
suspicion about the presence of the
informant and his uncle Pancham at the
spot, at the time of occurrence.

36. Besides this, there are major
contradictions in ocular and medical
evidence. According to P.W.1 Ram Kishor
and P.W.2 Pancham, the deceased was
beaten up by all the appellants, who treated
him to fisticuss, lathi blows and kicks at the
instigation of the appellants Jai Ram. The
appellant Amrit Lal pulled the deceased
down, whereas Udal @ Udai Narain
thrusted his lathi in the deceased's anus, on
account of which, he died on the spot.
P.W.1 Ram Kishor has said that the
appellant Jai Ram exhorted on to drive a
lathi in the deceased's anus, and, thereafter,
a lathi was drove into his rectum. P.W.2
Pancham has stated that it was Udal, who
drove the lathi into the deceased's rectum.
P.W.1 has stated that lathi was drove about
three inches into the anus orifice, due to
which blood oozed out and dropped onto
the ground (the field). P.W.2 Pancham has
stated that about 8 to 10 angul lathi was
inserted, as a result whereof, fecal matter
came out; he started bleeding and the blood
dropped on to the ground.

37. Therefore, both the witnesses have
stated that serious injuries were caused to
the deceased by thrusting a lathi in
deceased's anus and due to injuries
sustained by the deceased, there was
bleeding from his nose and rectum. But,
according to P.W.3, Dr. A.K. Nigam,
Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased, there
were no sign of bleeding from nose or
rectum. He has also stated that the rectum
was normal and there was no internal injury
in the stomach also.

38. The above observation and the
injuries found on the body of the deceased
are contrary to the verbal account of P.W.1
and
P.W.2.
In
the
post-mortem
examination, there were injury nos. 8, 9
and 10 of the nature of contusion on the
back of hip and posterior part of right thigh,
left thigh and hip and inner part of right
hip. The doctor has stated that these
injuries were not found on the rectum.
There is no evidence that the doctor was
partisan or negligent in conducting the
post-mortem examination. The nature and
number of injuries found on the person of
424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deceased are material. These are not
opinions of the doctor, which could be
considered in the light of oral evidence, but
material part of medical evidence, which
show the nature of injuries and the part of
body over where the injuries were found. In
case of conflict between direct evidence of
eye-witnesses and evidence of medical
expert, the eye-witness version is to be
accepted, unless the medical evidence
completely belies the ocular version. In the
present
case,
the
medical
evidence
completely rules out the direct evidence of
eye-witnesses. The injuries found on the
dead body do not support the dock
evidence, and thus, there are material
contradictions in the ocular and medical
evidence, which raise serious doubts about
the prosecution case.

39. The burden was on the prosecution
to prove that it were the appellants, who
caused injuries and murdered Ram Dulare
in the manner, alleged by the prosecution.
The prosecution has utterly failed to prove
it from the oral and medical evidence, read
together.

40. It is argued on behalf of the
appellants that it was a blind murder and
the deceased was killed by someone else.
There was a rumour that the deceased was
beaten by the villagers over suspicion that
Ram Dulare was a thief, and, in this regard,
the appellants have drawn the attention of
this Court to an entry in the inquest report
where it is mentioned that the deceased
was beaten by the villagers, after being
suspected as a thief and died as a result
thereof. P.W.2 Pancham is one of the
pancha of the inquest report and has
stated in Court that after reading out of
the above inquest report to him, he put
his thumb impression upon it. In this
regard it may be noted that the purpose
and nature of the inquest report is only to
know the apparent cause of the death and
other entries in the inquest report are not
very material. The defence has not asked
any question in this regard from the
witness P.W. 4 , who prepared the inquest
report, to clarify this point, so any
argument in this regard can not be
accepted.

41. In Podda Narayana v. State of
A.P., AIR 1975 SC 1252, it was held by
the Supreme Court that the proceedings
under Section 174 Cr.P.C. have a very
limited
scope.
The
object
of
the
proceedings
is
merely
to
ascertain
whether
a
person
has
died
under
suspicious circumstances or an unnatural
death, and if so, what is the apparent
cause
of
the
death.
The
question
regarding the details as to how the
deceased was assaulted or who assaulted
him or under what circumstances he was
assaulted, is foreign to the ambit and
scope of the proceedings under Section
174. Neither in practice nor in law was it
necessary for the Police to mention those
details in the inquest report. It is,
therefore, not necessary to enter all the
details of the overt acts in the inquest
report.

42. It is clear from the above
discussion that it was a blind murder and
the deceased was murdered by someone
else, in the dark hours of night, away
from the abadi of the village.

43. In view of above discussion, we
find that P.W.1 Ram Kishor and P.W.2
Pancham had not seen the incident and
their
testimony
is
not
reliable
and
trustworthy. There are major contradictions
in ocular and medical evidence. The
prosecution has not produced any other
12 All. Lala & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
425
independent witness, who were allegedly
present at the place of occurrence.

44. In Hem Raj v. State of Haryana
2005 (10) SCC 614, the Supreme Court has
held that non-examination of independent
witness, by itself, may not give rise to an
adverse inference against the prosecution.
However, when the evidence of eyewitnesses raises serious doubts about their
presence at the time of occurrence, the
unexplained omission to examine the
independent
witness
would
assume
significance. The above authority applies to
the
present
case.
According
to
the
prosecution,
there
were
many
eyewitnesses and villagers at the spot when the
incident occurred. The presence of eyewitnesses, at the place of occurrence, is
highly doubtful. The prosecution has not
explained why other eye-witnesses were
not examined. This aspect of the matter
assumes significance and gives rise to an
adverse inference against the prosecution.

45. In view of the above discussion,
the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the spot
is highly doubtful and it appears that they had
not seen the incident. They reached the spot
when the deceased had already died and after
other villagers had already reached there. It is
alleged on behalf of the appellants that there
is party politics in the village and they are
falsely implicated due to this partybandi. In
this regard, P.W.1 Ram Kishor has admitted
in his statement that there are two parties in
the village, one belonging to Bhayia Lal
(whom the informant supports) and the other
party is of the appellants. Therefore, the
argument of appellants' in this regard has
force and a false implication of theirs cannot
be ruled out.

46. It is submitted on behalf of
appellants that the FIR is ante-timed and
dictated by the Police, after consultation
and thus loses its significance. In this
regard, it may be noted that it has come in
evidence of P.W.1 that he had affixed his
thumb impression upon Ext. Ka-1 at the
police station.