# Lorik Kohar & Sunil Pandey v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 1048
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-04-12
- **Bench:** Mrs. Ranjana Pandya
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lorik-kohar-sunil-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-43625
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Govt. Advocate

Proceedings

The appeals arose from convictions passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Basti in
Sessions Trial No. 111 of 2006 (State vs Sunil Pandey and others), arising out of Crime No. 25 of 2007 under
sections 342, 328, 376, 323, and 506 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellants Sunil Pandey and Lorik
Kohar to rigorous imprisonment ranging from six months to ten years for various offences, while acquitting
the co-accused Raj Kapoor. Both appeals were filed challenging the judgment and sentence of the trial court,
primarily on grounds of delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions in the victim's testimony, and inadequacy of
medical evidence. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing trial records,
evaluated the prosecution's evidence, the statements of the witnesses, the medical reports, and the site
inspection report. The Court examined the credibility of the star witness, the victim, and considered the delay
in lodging the complaint and potential motives of enmity. After detailed scrutiny, the Court concluded that the
prosecution case suffered from improbabilities, contradictions, and insufficient corroboration, leading to the
decision to set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants. Directions were given for their release
under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. and to communicate the order to the trial court.

Procedure

The investigation was conducted by S.I. Raj Bali, who recorded statements of the victim, informant, and
witnesses, conducted spot inspection, prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-4), and filed the charge sheet (Ext. Ka-5).
The trial commenced under the relevant IPC provisions with prosecution witnesses examined, including the
victim (PW-1), her mother (PW-2), and medical experts (PW-3, PW-6). The accused were examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., denying all allegations. During the appeal, the High Court followed standard appellate
procedure by reviewing trial evidence, cross-verifying the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., analyzing
medical records, and applying judicial precedents regarding the delay in lodging FIR and evaluation of
prosecutrix testimony. Reliance was placed on legal principles from Md. Ali @ Guddu vs State of U.P.
(2015 7 SCC 272) and Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566.
Following the assessment of credibility, contradictions, and procedural adherence, the Court delivered its
judgment, setting aside the convictions and directing release under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Penal Sections

Section 376 IPC - Punishment for rape
Section 328/34 IPC - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous substances in furtherance of common intention
Section 342/34 IPC - Wrongful confinement in furtherance of common intention
Section 323/34 IPC - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt in furtherance of common intention
Section 506 IPC - Criminal intimidation

Case Law

Md. Ali @ Guddu vs State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 272 - Delay in lodging FIR may

## Text

1048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
worked continuously or there are breaks in service, would be contrary to the Rules and would
amount to adding and reading certain words in Rule 4(1) which have not been inserted by the
legislature. As the rules are applicable only to daily wage employees, the Rules framing authority
was well aware that such employee could not have worked continuously throughout and therefore,
has clearly provided that the engagement must be before 29.6.1991 and he is continuing as such on
the date of commencement of the Rule.

13. Needless to observe here that recently the State Government has issued a Government
Order dated 13.8.2015 whereby it has been provided that persons working on daily wage/work
charge/contractual basis in the department of the State Government, its autonomous bodies, public
undertakings/local bodies, development authorities and Zila Pancahyat, who were engaged upto
31.3.1996 shall be regularized. By the subsequent government order dated 24.2.2016, the cut of
date was altered to 31.12.2001. In these circumstances, there is no justification in not regularizing
the service of the petitioner when it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was engaged as daily
wager before 29.6.1991 and he was continuing on the post on 21.12.2001 and even thereafter.There
is no rebuttal by the respondents that no persons junior to the petitioner has been regularized. In
these circumstances, petitioner is entitled for regularization at least from the date when persons
junior to him were regularized in service.

14. In view of above, a writ of Mandamus is issued to the respondents to examine the claim of
the petitioner for regularization under the U. P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments on
Group 'D' Rules, 2001 read with Government Orders dated 13.8.2015 and 24.2.2016 and pass
appropriate orders in this regard within a maximum period of three months from the date of
presentation of a certified copy of this order. The order so passed, shall also be communicated to
the petitioner.

15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 4317 Of 2008
&
Criminal Appeal No.- 4324 Of 2008

Lorik Kohar & Sunil Pandey ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Revisionist/Appellant:
4 All. Lorik Kohar & Sunil Pandey Vs State of U.P.

1049
Sanjay Kumar Shukla, Indra Bhan Singh (Lorik Kohar); Ravindra Prakash Srivastav (Sunil Pandey)

Counsel for the Opposite Party/Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Proceedings

The appeals arose from convictions passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Basti in
Sessions Trial No. 111 of 2006 (State vs Sunil Pandey and others), arising out of Crime No. 25 of 2007 under
sections 342, 328, 376, 323, and 506 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellants Sunil Pandey and Lorik
Kohar to rigorous imprisonment ranging from six months to ten years for various offences, while acquitting
the co-accused Raj Kapoor. Both appeals were filed challenging the judgment and sentence of the trial court,
primarily on grounds of delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions in the victim's testimony, and inadequacy of
medical evidence. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing trial records,
evaluated the prosecution's evidence, the statements of the witnesses, the medical reports, and the site
inspection report. The Court examined the credibility of the star witness, the victim, and considered the delay
in lodging the complaint and potential motives of enmity. After detailed scrutiny, the Court concluded that the
prosecution case suffered from improbabilities, contradictions, and insufficient corroboration, leading to the
decision to set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants. Directions were given for their release
under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. and to communicate the order to the trial court.

Procedure

The investigation was conducted by S.I. Raj Bali, who recorded statements of the victim, informant, and
witnesses, conducted spot inspection, prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-4), and filed the charge sheet (Ext. Ka-5).
The trial commenced under the relevant IPC provisions with prosecution witnesses examined, including the
victim (PW-1), her mother (PW-2), and medical experts (PW-3, PW-6). The accused were examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., denying all allegations. During the appeal, the High Court followed standard appellate
procedure by reviewing trial evidence, cross-verifying the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., analyzing
medical records, and applying judicial precedents regarding the delay in lodging FIR and evaluation of
prosecutrix testimony. Reliance was placed on legal principles from Md. Ali @ Guddu vs State of U.P.
(2015 7 SCC 272) and Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566.
Following the assessment of credibility, contradictions, and procedural adherence, the Court delivered its
judgment, setting aside the convictions and directing release under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Penal Sections

Section 376 IPC - Punishment for rape
Section 328/34 IPC - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous substances in furtherance of common intention
Section 342/34 IPC - Wrongful confinement in furtherance of common intention
Section 323/34 IPC - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt in furtherance of common intention
Section 506 IPC - Criminal intimidation

Case Law

Md. Ali @ Guddu vs State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 272 - Delay in lodging FIR may be fatal if unexplained
Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566 - Credibility and evaluation of
prosecutrix testimony

Head Notes
1050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
This judgment examines the appellate review of convictions in a gang rape case, highlighting the importance
of timely FIR, credibility of victim testimony, and corroboration through medical and documentary evidence.
The Court emphasized that delays in reporting, contradictions in statements, and improbabilities in the
prosecution narrative could render evidence unworthy of credence. The case demonstrates the principle that
even in serious crimes like rape, conviction cannot be based solely on improbable testimony lacking
corroboration. The judgment reaffirms the role of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. in securing interim or post-conviction
release where convictions are set aside on appeal.

Facts

Victim went to a sugarcane field on 07.01.2007.
Allegedly abducted and made unconscious by the accused.
Victim allegedly confined and raped for several days.
Escaped to Kanpur, assisted by an old woman, returned home on 14.01.2007.
FIR lodged on 18.01.2007.
Investigation conducted, medical examination done.
Accused Sunil Pandey and Lorik Kohar convicted; Raj Kapoor acquitted.

Contentions

Delay of 11 days in lodging FIR fatal to prosecution case.
Victim's testimony contained contradictions and improbable events.
Medical evidence did not support allegations of prolonged rape.
Enmity between victim's family and accused (NCR filed prior) suggested motive to falsely implicate.
Conviction based on unreliable evidence.

Analysis

Delay in FIR: Eleven-day delay unexplained, raising doubts about reliability.
Victim's Testimony: Contradictions between trial evidence and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement reduced
credibility.
Medical Evidence: Internal and external examination indicated only minor injuries; did not corroborate
continuous assault allegation.
Motive and Enmity: NCR lodged by victim's father prior to FIR suggested potential enmity.
Legal Principles Applied: Reliance on Supreme Court precedents on delay in FIR and evaluation of
prosecutrix testimony.
Trial Court Evaluation: Court's acceptance of improbable evidence without corroboration considered
erroneous.
Judicial Implication: Emphasized necessity for corroboration and logical consistency in serious criminal
cases.

Conclusion

The High Court found the prosecution case riddled with improbabilities, contradictions, and lack of credible
corroboration. The testimony of the victim was unreliable, and medical evidence did not support the claims of
continuous assault. Consequently, the trial court's conviction and sentences of Sunil Pandey and Lorik Kohar
were set aside. The appellants were ordered to be released forthwith under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. This
judgment reinforces that convictions, even in grave offences, require credible evidence and logical
consistency, highlighting the role of appellate courts in preventing miscarriage of justice.
4 All. Lorik Kohar & Sunil Pandey Vs State of U.P.

1051
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.)

1. Since both the afore-captioned criminal appeals have been filed in the same case crime
number, hence they are being decided by this common order.

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment and order dated 30.05.2008 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Basti in Sessions Trial No. 111 of 2006
(State vs Sunil Pandey and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 25 of 2007, under sections 342,
328, 376, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Munderwa, District Basti, whereby the accused Sunil
Pandey and Lorik Kohar have been convicted and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment
and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each under section 376 IPC; five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine
of Rs. 500/- each under section 328/34 IPC; six month's rigorous imprisonment each under section
342/34 IPC; six months' rigorous imprisonment each under section 323/34 IPC and two years'
rigorous imprisonment each under section 506 IPC with default stipulation. However, the accused
Raj Kapoor was acquitted of all the charges.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that an application was given by the informant-victim to the
SSP stating that on 07.01.2007 at 6.00 p.m., she had gone behind her house in the sugarcane field
to attend the call of nature. In the field, accused Sunil Pandey, Lorik Kohar and Raj Kapoor came.
Accused Sunil Pandey pressed her mouth. They kept a handkerchief on her nose, which was having
some medicine due to which, she became unconscious and when she gained consciousness, she was
lying naked in the bed-room and all three were raping her one by one. They were not permitting her
to come out from room and threatened that if she would raise alarm, she would be killed. She was
forcibly detained in that room for six days and she was constantly raped during that period. On
13.01.2007, she somehow escaped from that place, but all the three caught her and assaulted her. At
2, O' clock in the night, she again fled away and came out. She was detained in Soni Hotel,
opposite Kanpur railway station. An unknown old lady saw her in pitiable condition, gave her fare
and she came home. The accused persons were consulting with each other that if they get a
purchaser, they would sell her. She came back her house on 14.01.2007 from where, she went to
the police station with her father. The police got her medically examined. Hence, she submitted an
application before the SSP, Basti on 18.01.2007.

4. Investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-4, S.I., Raj Bali, who recorded the statement
of Constable Clerk. He recorded the statement of informant. He interrogated Sheela Devi. At the
pointing out of the informant, he inspected the spot and prepared the site plan, which was proved
by this witness as Ext. Ka-4. He further recorded the statement of the accused persons. The
investigation ended into a charge sheet, which was proved by this witness as Ext. Ka-5.

5. Dr. Ram Prakash, PW-3 examined the injuries on the body of the victim and found the
following injuries on her body:

1. Traumatic swelling 5 c.m. X 4 c.m. on outer back of skull oxipit.
1052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Contused swelling 8 c.m. X 3 c.m. over altrolateral aspect of left arm, 4 cm above the
left elbow joint.

3. Contused swelling 10 c.m. X 8 c.m. above back of left hand with wrist kept under
observation, advised X-ray left hand with wrist.

4. Contusion 3 c.m. X 2 c.m. on the left side leg, 6 c.m. below the left knee joint kept
under observation. Advised X-ray left leg.

5. Abraded contusion 5 c.m. X 4 c.m. with swelling on the back of left heel.

6. Contusion 4 c.m. X 3 c.m. on the dorsal of left, 4 c.m. below the left ankle joint.

7. Contused swelling 3 c.m X 2 c.m. on the dorsal of right foot, 4 c.m. below the right
ankle joint.

8. Abrasion 6 c.m. X 4 c.m. right side back over lateral aspect of abdomen, 3 c.m. above
the right iliac crest.

9. Contusion 6 c.m. X 4 c.m. on the left side back, 10 c.m. below left inferior angle of
scapula.

The doctor has proved the medical report as Ext. Ka-2.

6. PW-5 is Constable 308, Shiv Poojan, who proved the chik report as Ext. Ka-6, copy of the
G.D. as Ext. Ka-7.

7. PW-6, Dr. Alka Shukla, who internally examined the victim and proved the medical report
as Ext. ka-9, pathological report as Ext. Ka-10 and the supplementary report as Ext. Ka -11.

8. Besides these witnesses, the prosecution has examined PW-1, the victim of the case, who
proved the written report as Ext. Ka-1. PW-2 is Sheela, mother of the victim.

9. After close of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons were recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the occurrence and claimed to be tried.

8. The learned lower court, after perusing the record and hearing the counsel for the parties,
convicted the appellants as stated in para 2 of the Judgment.

10. Feeling aggrieved the accused have come up in appeal.
4 All. Lorik Kohar & Sunil Pandey Vs State of U.P.

1053

11. I have heard Shri Indra Bhan Singh and Shri Ganesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for
the appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent and perused the
trial court record.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging
the FIR because the victim being a young girl was missing from her house since 07.01.2007, but no
report was lodged by anybody till 18.01.2007, when the victim herself lodged the report. Thus,
there is delay of about 11 days in lodging the report. The distance of the police station being 2 kms
from the place of occurrence. This delay is fatal for the prosecution case. In this regard, learned
counsel for the appellants have placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Md. Ali @ Guddu
vs State of U.P. reported in 2015 (7) SCC 272, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that
if the victim was missing from the house since many days, but the mother lodged report only after
about 11 days, it would be fatal because the mother, who is expected to have necessitous concern,
could have gone to the police station to lodge a missing report, which could have prompted the
Investigating Officer to act. It baffles the common sense that the mother after searching in the
neighbourhood for some unfathomable reason that defeats the basic human prudence approached
the police station quite belatedly. In the instant case, the mother did not approach, but the victim
herself went to the police station to lodge the FIR. It is apt to mention here that in rapes cases the
delay in filing the FIR by the prosecutrix or by the parents in all circumstance is not of significance.
Regard has to be had to the trauma suffered, the agony and anguish that creates the turbulence in
the mind of the victim, to muster the courage to expose oneself in a conservative social milieu.
Sometimes the fear of social stigma and on occasions the availability of medical treatment to gain
normalcy and above all the psychological inner strength to undertake such a legal battle may give
rise to appeal, but in the present case, since even a missing report was not lodged, the delay is
treated to be fatal because the informant herself has stated that she had come back on 14.01.2007.
The endorsement of the complaint itself indicates that the application is dated 17.01.2007, but it
was presented on 18.01.2007. What prevented the informant from lodging the report for four days
is a question, which remained unanswered during the trial. Thus, the aforesaid inordinate delay has
caused a dent in the prosecution case.

13. As far as the evidence of the victim is concerned, 'It is true that in a case of rape, the
evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration, but to hold that this evidence
has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the
very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter as has been held in
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tameezuddin @ Tammu v. State (NCT of Delhi),
reported in (2009) 15 SCC 566.

14. Coming to the statement of the victim, who is the star witness of the prosecution. In her
examination-in-chief, while supporting the prosecution version, she has stated that when she went
to attend the call of nature in the sugarcane field, Sunil Pandey pressed her mouth. The accused put
a handkerchief on her nose, due to which, she became unconscious. When she regained
consciousness, she was lying in 'good' room and she was naked in the room. All the three accused
raped against her wishes. When she used to resist, she was beaten. She was raped continuously for
1054 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
six days. On one occasion, she tried to flee away, but she was caught by the accused and she
assaulted. On the seventh day, all the three accused drunk liquor and slept and the victim got an
opportunity, she came out of the room and saw that she was in a hotel opposite the railway station.
Suddenly, she met an old woman there, She gave the fare to the victim and the victim came back
home by bus. She told the occurrence to the police when she came back. Her statement was also
recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. This witness has stated that prior to the occurrence, she did not
know Sunil Pandey and also the other accused, but mentioning of the names, parentage and
complete address of the accused in the FIR makes the statement of this witness doubt. She has
stated that when she was picked up, all the three accused were hidden in the field, hence, she did
not raise any alarm. If the accused would have knowledge that the victim would come in the field,
only then there was occasion for them to hide in the field, otherwise there was no reason why they
would hide in the field, when they had no knowledge that the victim would come in the field.
Further, the victim has stated that since she was unconscious, she did not eat or take water. I cannot
understand how an unconscious girl was brought from her home residing at district Basti to Kanpur
in an unconscious state. She further stated that when she came out of Soni Hotel, she met the
police, but she did not tell the police personnel anything. She has contradicted herself by saying
that when she was picked up by the accused, she was unconscious and does not know what
transpired with her while she was unconscious. She has tried to improve her statement by stating
that the accused had tied her mouth. I do not understand the necessity of tying the mouth of an
unconscious girl, besides the victim has further stated that when she went to attend the call of
nature, Raj Kappor did not lift her. Three accused, who lifted the victim, Raj Kappor was not
amongst the three. She did not know and recognise Raj Kapoor since before, neither Raj Kapoor
lifted her nor he raped her, nor he made her unconscious. She has further stated that Raj Kapoor did
not rape her at Soni Hotel. The accused Raj Kapoor was present in court was wholly innocent. She
has further gone to the extent by saying that "eS S.P. lkgc dks nj[kkLr nh rks mlesa jktdqekj gkftj
vnkyr ds dqN nq'euksa ds dgus ij fy[kk nh FkhA" She has stated the name of Raj Kapoor in her
statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. due to some misunderstanding and due the the pressure of the
police. She has stated that the statement given by her before the Magistrate was correct. If the
statement of this witness recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. is perused, it reveals that before the
Magistrate, she has stated that Raj Kapoor was also involved in the incident. She had implicated
Raj Kapoor incorrectly in the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. There was
no reason to rely on her explanation that she had named Raj Kapoor on the instigation of his
enemies. Thus, it is difficult to accept the testimony of the victim on its face value.

15. Although, the medical report of the victim is on record, but I am not convinced that these
injuries are result of assault by the accused because the victim can be termed to be a lair. Besides
the victim was medically examined on 15.01.2007, all the injuries were simple, except injury Nos.
3 and 4, for which X-ray was advised, but nothing abnormal was detected in the X-ray report. Thus,
all the injuries can be termed to be simple, superficial and self-inflicted.

16. PW-2 is Sheela, the mother of the victim, who has stated that due to reputation, she did not
lodge missing report and her daughter came back home after a week. She has stated that all the
three accused made her daughter unconscious, took her away and raped her. This is against the
4 All. Lorik Kohar & Sunil Pandey Vs State of U.P.

1055
evidence of the victim. Although, in cross-examination, this witness has stated that the accused Raj
Kapoor, in the present case, was not involved in the incident, which makes it clear that both the
daughter and the mother were trying to save Raj Kapoor and had left no stone unturned to speak
lies before the court. If the gang rape would have been committed on the victim for six days by
three people and she had already been medically examined on 15.1.2007, there was no reason why
she could not lodge the written report on 15.01.2007. The doctor, who internally examined the
victim, namely, PW-6 Dr. Alka Shukla, did not find any internal injury on the body of the victim. If
she would have been forcibly raped by three people continuously by six days, swelling and redness
on the vagina should have been found by the doctor. Thus, the internal medical report does not
corroborate the prosecution version.

17. Although, the learned lower court has failed to discuss this aspect of the matter, but two
documents were filed by the appellants, which were numbered as Ext. Ka-2 and this paper was not
taken into consideration by the court below because this is an NCR lodged by Ram Samujh Yadav,
father of the victim against the appellant Sunil Pandey on 12.01.2007. Hence, possibility of enmity
with the accused cannot be ruled out, inasmuch as the present occurrence is said to have been taken
place on 07.01.2007, but the report was lodged after the lodging of the NCR by father of the victim.
The statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. has also not supported to the
statement of the victim before the trial court, inasmuch as in the statement under section 164
Cr.P.C., she has named all the three accused, whereas before the court initially she named all the
accused, but subsequently, she stated that accused Raj Kapoor was not involved in the incident, but
she was raped only by Sunil Pandey and Lorik Kohar.

18. Thus, complete testimony of the prosecutrix being unworthy of credence and unreliable
and bundle of lies could not form the basis for conviction of the accused on the basis of illegal,
inadmissible evidence and also without framing of charges against some of the accused.

19. Thus, what has been stated and discussed above, I conclude that the prosecution case is
bundle of false allegations and improbable facts, due to which the learned trial court misled itself
and has incorrectly convicted the accused, such conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law,
as such the accused are entitled to be acquitted and the appeals are liable to be allowed.

20. Hence, the impugned conviction and sentence dated 30.05.2008 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Basti in Sessions Trial No. 111 of 2006 (State vs
Sunil Pandey and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 25 of 2007, under sections 376, 328/34,
342/34, 323/34 and 506 IPC, Police Station Munderwa, district Basti against appellants Sunil
Pandey and Lorik Kohar, is hereby set-aside.

21. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.

22. The appellants-Sunil Pandey and Lorik Kohar are in jail. They shall be released forthwith
unless wanted in any other case. The appellants are directed to comply with the provision of
Section 437-A Cr.P.C. forthwith.
1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Trial court concerned.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 4383 Of 2014
&
Connected With Other Cases

Mahendra & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for Appellants:
As recorded in the judgment

Counsel for Respondent:
Learned A.G.A.

HEADNOTE

The present case relates to the tragic death of the deceased, which allegedly occurred as a result of an
assault carried out by the appellants with a common object. The prosecution case is built primarily on
eyewitness testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, recovery of weapons, and the motive arising from
prior enmity. The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation and application of Sections 147, 148, 302
read with 149, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as the evaluation of evidence under the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. Eyewitness testimony, while sometimes subject to challenge, is regarded as credible if
consistent, direct, and unshaken under cross-examination. In this matter, the sole eyewitness's testimony
stands corroborated by medical findings indicating lacerations, fractures, and firearm injury consistent with
the alleged assault. The minor contradictions observed in statements, such as slight variations in time or
position, do not detract from the substantive evidence of the assault and death. The principle of "common
object" under Section 149 IPC requires that the act be done in furtherance of a pre-arranged plan by all
accused members of an unlawful assembly. Here, the evidence demonstrates joint participation, showing all
accused were present, armed, and actively engaged in the attack, which resulted in the death of the
deceased. The case also illustrates the procedural adherence in lodging the FIR promptly, the conduct of
investigation including the preparation of inquest reports, recovery memos, and post-mortem examinations.
Courts have repeatedly held that minor variations in eyewitness accounts are natural and do not undermine
the overall credibility. In addition, motive, though not an essential element, strengthens the case when
supported by consistent narrative and circumstantial proof. Recovery of weapons from accused persons at
their instance further substantiates their involvement. Judicial precedents, such as State of U.P. v. Krishna
Gopal, Masalti v. State of U.P., State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, and Surendra Paswan v. State of Bihar, reinforce
the principle that conviction can be based on sole reliable eyewitness testimony when corroborated by medical
and circumstantial evidence. The courts must carefully differentiate between material contradictions, which