# Madan Lal & Ors. (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 951
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 1986
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, Raj Beer Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/madan-lal-ors-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-44894
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law- Indian Penal Code,1860
- Section 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC - under Section 201 of IPC - conduct
of the appellant suspicious - merely on
the basis of this conduct, it cannot be
held that he committed the murder of
the deceased - suspicion howsoever
grave, cannot substitute proof - no
conclusive
evidence
-
no
such
incriminating evidence - evidence of last
seen ("Last seen theory" & Principle of
"last seen alive")- not very conclusive -
merely on the basis of said evidence, it
cannot be said that the appellants
committed the murder of the deceased -
Circumstantial evidence - not good
enough to hold the conviction of the
accused-appellants - whether the chain is
complete or not, indeed it would depend
on the facts of each case emanating from
the evidence - circumstances adduced
when considered collectively - must lead
to the only conclusion that there cannot
be a person other than the accused who
alone is the perpetrator of the crime
alleged - circumstances must establish
the conclusive nature consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused - trial court not justified in
convicting the appellants - Appellants are
entitled for benefit of doubt. (Para
21,23,24,25)

Appeal allowed.(E-7)

Chronological list of cases cited: -

## Text

3 All. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
951

19. Applying to the above principles
of law and after due appreciation of the
evidence available on record, we are of
the view that the trial Court was fully
justified in convicting the appellant, who
has been named as main person to cause
firearm injuries to the deceased. Appeal
has no substance and, the same is,
accordingly, dismissed.

20. Appellant is reported to be on
bail, he be taken into custody forthwith to
serve the remaining sentence.

21. Let a copy of this judgment be
sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
----------

(2019)11ILR A951

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 1986

Madan Lal & Ors. ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Samar Singh, Sri Babit Kumar, Sri
Brajesh
Kumar,
Sri
Prabhat
Kumar
Srivastava, Sri Pratap bhanu Umrao
(A.C.), Sri Prashant Kumar Singh.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri H.M.B. Sinha, A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law- Indian Penal Code,1860
- Section 302 read with Section 34 of
IPC - under Section 201 of IPC - conduct
of the appellant suspicious - merely on
the basis of this conduct, it cannot be
held that he committed the murder of
the deceased - suspicion howsoever
grave, cannot substitute proof - no
conclusive
evidence
-
no
such
incriminating evidence - evidence of last
seen ("Last seen theory" & Principle of
"last seen alive")- not very conclusive -
merely on the basis of said evidence, it
cannot be said that the appellants
committed the murder of the deceased -
Circumstantial evidence - not good
enough to hold the conviction of the
accused-appellants - whether the chain is
complete or not, indeed it would depend
on the facts of each case emanating from
the evidence - circumstances adduced
when considered collectively - must lead
to the only conclusion that there cannot
be a person other than the accused who
alone is the perpetrator of the crime
alleged - circumstances must establish
the conclusive nature consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused - trial court not justified in
convicting the appellants - Appellants are
entitled for benefit of doubt. (Para
21,23,24,25)

Appeal allowed.(E-7)

Chronological list of cases cited: -

1. Devi Lal Vs St. of Raj. AIR (2019) SC 688

2. Nizam & anr. Vs St. of Raj. (2016) 1 SCC 550

3. St. of Raj. Vs Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254

4. Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla Vs St.
of Mah. (2008) 3 SCC 210

5. S. Govindaraju Vs St. of Kar. (2013) 15 SCC 315

6. Sujit Biswas Vs St. of Assam (2013)12 SCC 406

7. Raja @Rajinder Vs St. of Har. 2015(11) SCC 43

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.)

1. This appeal arises out of
impugned judgment and order dated
952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
18.2.1986 passed by the VIII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in
Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1983, convicting
the appellants under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of IPC and sentencing
them to undergo imprisonment for life
and further convicting the appellants
under Section 201 of IPC and sentencing
them to undergo three years' rigorous
imprisonment, with a direction that both
the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. In the present case, name of
deceased is Jagroshni, wife of accused
appellant no.1-Madan Lal. The couple
had two sons aged three years and one
year. On 31.03.1982, accused Madan Lal
along with his children and the deceased
had gone to attend the village fair at Sikri
and on 2.4.1982, he returned from the
said fair along with his two children only.
He informed his brother-in-law Balraj
(PW-1) that in the fair, his wife went
missing and despite extensive search
when he could not get her, he returned
along with his two children. Further case
of the prosecution is that deceased
Jagroshni used to insult her husband
Madan Lal before the public at large and
her husband Madan Lal used to suspect
her character. In the fair, accused Madan
Lal hatched conspiracy with his brotherin-law, accused Ramvir (died during
pendency of the appeal) and Kallu Ram
for
eliminating
the
deceased
and,
accordingly, the same was done and after
committing the murder of the deceased,
her body was thrown near a brook. Balraj
(PW-1) brother of the deceased, after
coming to know that his sister went
missing from the village fair, lodged an
FIR vide Ex.Ka.4 on 4.4.1982 at Police
Station Civil Lines, Delhi. Based on this
report, offence under Section 364 of IPC
was registered against accused-Madan
Lal. Later, on 5.4.1982, skin of left foot
claw and skin of left hand claw were
recovered near a brook at Sikri, Police
Station Modi Nagar, District Gaziabad,
U.P. In the recovery memo, it has been
mentioned that there was no bone
attached to the said skin. Further, red nail
polish was noticed on four fingers and
thumb. That apart, one pair of slipper and
one bed sheet (chadar) were also seized.
It is further case of the prosecution that on
10.04.1982 vide Ex.Ka.10, at the instance
of accused persons, one dead body was
recovered from a sugar cane field, which
was wrapped in a bed sheet (chadar).

3. Inquest on the dead body of the
deceased was conducted on 10.4.1982
and the body was sent for postmortem
which was conducted vide Ex.Ka.11 on
11.4.1982 by Dr. Vinay Krishna Matin
(PW-10). Autopsy Surgeon has found
following injuries on the body of the
deceased:

"(i) Old lacerated wound on the
right side of the head in the area of
parietal.

(ii) Incised wound 2'' x 1-1/25''
on left frontal bone.

(iii)
Left
radial
ulna
was
fractured. "

According to autopsy surgeon,
cause of death of the deceased was head
injury, shock and haemorrhage.

4.

After
completing
the
investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against four accused persons, namely
Madan Lal, Ramvir, Kallu Ram and Dale
Ram and while framing charge, the
learned trial judge framed charge against
them under Sections 302/34 and 201 of
IPC.
3 All. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
953

5. So as to hold accused persons
guilty, prosecution has examined twelve
witnesses, whereas one defence witness
has also been examined. Statements of
accused persons were recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which, they
pleaded
their
innocence
and
false
implication.

6. By the impugned judgement, trial
judge has acquitted accused Dale Ram of
all the offences, whereas remaining three
accused
have
been
convicted
and
sentenced as mentioned in paragraph no.
1 of this judgement. Hence, this appeal.
However, during pendency of this appeal,
accused appellant no.2-Ram Vir has
expired and the present appeal is confined
to accused appellant nos. 1 and 3 only.

7.

Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants submits:

(i) that appellants have been
convicted
solely
on
the
basis
of
circumstantial evidence but the nature of
circumstantial evidence is so weak, which
cannot be made basis for their conviction.

(ii) that identification of dead
body itself is disputed and the prosecution
has utterly failed to prove that two
portions of the body recovered vide
Ex.Ka.2 and Ex.Ka.10 were of the
deceased.

(iii) that there is absolutely no
evidence to show as to in what manner,
deceased was murdered by the accused
persons.

(iv) that evidence of so called
last seen given by Gopi Chand (PW-5)
and Khan Chandra (PW-6) is not
conclusive and the mere fact that these
two witnesses saw the appellants in the
village
fair,
cannot
lead
to
only
conclusion that it is the appellants, who
committed the murder of the deceased.

8. On the other hand, supporting the
impugned judgment, it has been argued
by the State counsel that conviction of the
appellants is in accordance with law and
there is no infirmity in the same. He
submits that the conduct of the appellants,
in particular, appellant no.1-Madan Lal is
very important where he did not lodged
any report about the missing of his wife
and returned from the village fair along
with his two children.

9. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

10. Balraj (PW-1), is a brother of the
deceased, has stated that marriage of the
deceased was solemnized with accused
Madan Lal about seven-eight years prior
to the incident and that quite often they
used to quarrel. About two and half years
back, his sister along with her husband
and two children had gone to see the
village fair at Sikri, fromwhere accused
appellant no.1 returned along with his two
children and had informed that deceased
went missing from the said fair. He states
that he lodged the report Ex.Ka.4 based
on which, the case was registered against
appellant no.1. He further states that at
the instance of this appellant, claws of
one foot and one hand along with one pair
of slipper and one sheet (chadar) were
recovered near the brook, which were of
the deceased. He further states that from
another place, a dead body was recovered
which was of his sister. He states that in
the forearm of the deceased, her name
was mentioned as 'Jagroshni'. In respect
of accused Kallu Ram, he has stated that
he was informed by the villagers that
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused Kallu Ram had also gone along
with accused Madan Lal.

11. Jeeva Ram (PW-2) is a witness
of first recovery Ex.Ka.2 by which skin of
left foot claw and skin of left hand claw
along with one pair of slipper and one
sheet (chadar) were recovered near the
brook at Sikri, Modinagar, Ghaziabad.

12. Leela Ram (PW-3) is a witness
of recovery of a dead body vide Ex.Ka.3.

13. Mahak Singh (PW-4) took the
body for post-mortem and assisted during
initial investigation.

14. Gopi Chand (PW-5) is a witness
of last seen. He states that along with one
Khan Chandra and Jagdish, he too had
gone to the village fair and there he saw
appellants Madan Lal, Ram Vir along
with deceased and two children. He states
that about one and half lakhs people were
there in the village fair and he reached at
about 10:00 pm. He states that he cannot
tell how many other persons were there
along with Madan Lal and Ram Vir.

15. Khan Chandra (PW-6), is another
witness of last seen, his statement is almost
similar to that of Gopi Chand (PW-5).

16. Savran Singh (PW-7) is the first
Investigating Officer.

17. Kishan Pal Singh (PW-8) made
GD entry regarding transfer of the case
from Delhi to P.S. Modi Nagar, Uttar
Pradesh. Bhagwat Singh Motana (PW-9)
assisted during investigation.

18. Dr. Vinay Krishna Matin (PW10) conducted the postmortem on the
body of the deceased.

19. Hukum Chandra (PW-11) is the
second Investigating Officer and Dhara
Singh (PW-12) registered the first FIR at
Delhi under Section 364 of IPC.

20. Sheesh Ram (DW-1) has not
stated anything specific, which may be of
any help to the accused persons.

21. Close scrutiny of evidence
makes it clear that deceased was the wife
of accused Madan Lal and had gone to
see the village fair on 31.3.1982. From
the fair, appellant Madan Lal returned
along with his two children without his
wife. Appellant informed his brother-inlaw (PW-1) that his wife went missing
from the village fair and then at the
instance of Balraj (PW-1), FIR under
Section 364 of IPC was registered against
the accused. True it is, that conduct of the
appellant-Madan Lal becomes suspicious
as he failed to satisfactorily explain as to
where his wife had gone but merely on
the basis of this conduct, it cannot be held
that he committed the murder of the
deceased.

It is a settled position of law
that in criminal trial, suspicion howsoever
grave, cannot substitute proof. Recently
in Devi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan1, the
Apex Court, while dealing with a case,
observed as under:

"On an analysis of the overall
fact situation in the instant case, and
considering the chain of circumstantial
evidence relied upon by the prosecution
and noticed by the High Court in the
impugned judgment, to prove the charge
is visibly incomplete and incoherent to
permit conviction of the appellants on the
basis thereof without any trace of doubt.
Though the materials on record hold some
suspicion
towards
them,
but
the
3 All. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
955
prosecution has failed to elevate its case
from the realm of "may be true" to the
plane
of
"must
be
true"
as
is
indispensably
required
in
law
for
conviction on a criminal charge. It is trite
to state that in a criminal trial, suspicion,
howsoever
grave,
cannot
substitute
proof."

22. Vide Ex.Ka. 2, skin of left foot
claw and skin of left hand claw along
with one pair of slipper and one sheet
(chadar) were recovered on 5.4.1982, but
there is no conclusive evidence that the
same were of the body of the deceased.
Yet another recovery was affected on
10.4.1982 vide Ex.Ka.10 where one full
dead body of a lady was recovered
allegedly of the deceased. In the second
recovery, nowhere it has been mentioned
that any portion of the body was missing
and the only thing which has been
mentioned is that body was highly
decomposed. If some portion of the body
was recovered on 5.4.1982 then in the
second recovery, it ought to have been
mentioned that full body was not
recovered and part of the same was
missing. Furthermore, the body is said to
have identified on the basis of her name
Jagroshni, which was allegedly shown in
the forearm of the deceased but merely on
this basis, it cannot be said conclusively
that the said body was of the deceased.
Identification of the dead body is in fact
not very clear as the same was highly
decomposed. As per autopsy surgeon,
face
of
the
body
was
clear
and
identifiable, whereas the witnesses have
not identified the same on the basis of her
face.

23. Most important aspect of the
case is that there is no conclusive
evidence that it is the appellants who
committed the murder of the deceased.
No such incriminating evidence has been
adduced by the prosecution pointing out
the guilt of the appellants in commission
of the murder of the deceased. The
evidence of last seen is also not very
conclusive and merely on the basis of said
evidence, it cannot be said that it is the
appellants who committed the murder of
the deceased. The law in respect of last
seen theory is well settled.

In Nizam and another vs.
State of Rajasthan2, the Supreme Court
while dealing with "last seen theory"
observed as under:

"14. The courts below convicted
the appellants on the evidence of PWs 1
and 2 that deceased was last seen alive
with
the
appellants
on
23-1-2001.
Undoubtedly, the "last seen theory" is an
important
link
in
the
chain
of
circumstances that would point towards
the guilt of the accused with some
certainty. The "last seen theory" holds the
courts to shift the burden of proof to the
accused and the accused to offer a
reasonable explanation as to the cause of
death of the deceased. It is well-settled by
this Court that it is not prudent to base the
conviction solely on "last seen theory".
"Last seen theory" should be applied
taking into consideration the case of the
prosecution in its entirety and keeping in
mind the circumstances that precede and
follow the point of being so last seen.

15. Elaborating the principle of
"last seen alive" in State of Rajasthan v.
Kashi Ram3, this Court held as under :

"23. It is not necessary to
multiply with authorities. The principle is
well settled. The provisions of Section
106 of the Evidence Act itself are
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
unambiguous and categorical in laying down
that when any fact is especially within the
knowledge of a person, the burden of proving
that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last
seen with the deceased, he must offer an
explanation as to how and when he parted
company. He must furnish an explanation
which appears to the court to be probable and
satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to
have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer
an explanation on the basis of facts within his
special knowledge, he fails to discharge the
burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the
Evidence Act. In a case resting on
circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to
offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of
the burden placed on him, that itself provides
an
additional
link
in
the
chain
of
circumstances proved against him. Section
106 does not shift the burden to prove in a
criminal trial, which is always upon the
prosecution. It lays down the rule that when
the accused does not throw any light upon
facts
which
are
specially
within
his
knowledge and which could not support any
theory or hypothesis compatible with his
innocence, the court can consider his failure to
adduce any explanation, as an additional link
which completes the chain. The principle has
been succinctly stated in Naina Mohammad,
In Re. (AIR 1960 Mad 218)"

24.

Circumstantial
evidence
available on record is not good enough to
hold the conviction of the accusedappellants.
Law
in
respect
of
circumstantial evidence is very clear.

In Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna
Kartalla Vs. State of Maharashtra4, the
Supreme Court, while dealing with
circumstantial evidence, observed as
under:

"11.
In
Hanumant
Govind
Nargundkar v. State of M.P. [AIR 1952
SC 343], which is one of the earliest
decisions on the subject, this court
observed as under:

"10. ...... It is well to remember
that in cases where the evidence is of a
circumstantial nature, the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should be in the first instance be
fully established and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
Again, the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency and they
should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be
proved. In other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence
of the accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human probability
the act must have been done by the
accused."

12. In Padala Veera Reddy v.
State of AP [(1989) Supp (2) SCC 706],
this court held that when a case rests upon
circumstantial evidence, the following
tests must be satisfied:

"(1) the circumstances from
which an inference of guilt is sought to be
drawn, must be cogently and firmly
established;

(2) those circumstances should
be of a definite tendency unerringly
pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken
cumulatively, should form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion
that
within
all
human
probability the crime was committed by
the accused and none else."

13. In Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4
SCC 116], it was held that the onus was
on the prosecution to prove that the chain
3 All. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
957
is complete and falsity or untenability of
the defence set up by the accused cannot
be made basis for ignoring serious
infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution
case. The Court then proceeded to
indicate the conditions which must be
fully established before conviction can be
based on
 circumstantial evidence. These are:

(1) the circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established. The
circumstances concerned must or should
and not may be established;

(2) the facts so established
should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that
is to say, they should not be explainable
on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty;

(3) the circumstances should be
of a conclusive nature and tendency;

(4) they should exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved; and

(5) there must be a chain of
evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done
by the accused."

In S. Govindaraju v State of
Karnataka5, the Apex Court, while
dealing with circumstantial evidence,
observed as under:

"29. It is obligatory on the part
of the accused while being examined
under Section 313 of Cr PC to furnish
some explanation with respect to the
incriminating circumstances associated
with him, and the Court must take note of
such explanation even in a case of
circumstantial evidence in order to decide
whether or not the chain of circumstances
is complete. When the attention of the
accused is drawn to circumstances that
inculpate
him
in
relation
to
the
commission of the crime, and he fails to
offer an appropriate explanation, or gives
a false answer with respect to the same,
the said act may be counted as providing
a missing link for completing the chain of
circumstances. (Vide: Munish Mabar v.
State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 912).

31.
The
prosecution
successfully
proved
its
case
and,
therefore, provisions of Section 113 of the
Evidence Act, 1872 come into play. The
appellant/accused did not make any
attempt, whatsoever, to rebut the said
presumption contained therein. More so,
Shanthi, deceased died in the house of the
appellant. He did not disclose as where he
had been at the time of incident. In such a
fact situation, the provisions of Section
106 of the Evidence Act may also be
made applicable as the appellant/accused
had special knowledge regarding such
facts, though he failed to furnish any
explanation thus, the court could draw an
adverse inference against him."

In Devi Lal vs. State of
Rajasthan (supra), the Supreme Court,
while
dealing
with
circumstantial
evidence, observed as under:

"14. The classic enunciation of
law pertaining to circumstantial evidence,
its relevance and decisiveness, as a proof
of charge of a criminal offence, is
amongst others traceable decision of the
Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs.
State of Maharashtra 1984 (4) SCC 116.
The relevant excerpts from para 153 of
the decision is assuredly apposite:

153. A close analysis of this
decision would show that the following
conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully
established:
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(1) the circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this
Court indicated that the circumstances
concerned "must or should" and not "may
be" established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction
between "may be proved" and "must be or
should be proved" as was held by this
Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr.
Vs. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC
793 where the observations were made:

"Certainly, it is a primary
principle that the accused must be and not
merely may be guilty before a court can
convict and the mental distance between
'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions."

(2) the facts so established
should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that
is to say, they should not be explainable
on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be
of a conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of
evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done
by the accused."

It has further been considered
by this Court in Sujit Biswas Vs. State of
Assam 2013(12) SCC 406 and Raja alias
Rajinder Vs. State of Haryana 2015(11)
SCC 43 that while scrutinising the
circumstantial evidence, a Court has to
evaluate it to ensure the chain of events is
established clearly and completely to rule
out
any
reasonable
likelihood
of
innocence of the accused. The underlying
principle is whether the chain is complete
or not, indeed it would depend on the
facts of each case emanating from the
evidence and there cannot be a straight
jacket formula which can be laid down
for the purpose. But the circumstances
adduced when considered collectively, it
must lead only to the conclusion that
there cannot be a person other than the
accused who alone is the perpetrator of
the crime alleged and the circumstances
must establish the conclusive nature
consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused.

25. As already stated, the middle of
suspicion definitely goes against accused
Madan Lal but that itself would not be
sufficient to uphold his conviction. If the
overall evidence is appreciated, that
creates a doubt as to whether it is the
appellant Mandan Lal who committed the
murder of the deceased or not. If any such
doubt if there, in the prosecution case, it
is the appellants who are entitled to
receive the benefit of the same. The trial
court was not justified in convicting the
appellants. Appellants are entitled for
benefit of doubt.

26. The appeal is, accordingly,
allowed. Appellants are reported to be on
bail and, therefore, no further order is
required.

27. We appreciate the assistance
rendered by Sri Pratap Bhanu Umrao,
Amicus. He would be entitled to receive
Rs.7,000/- towards his remuneration from
the State Government.
----------
3 All. Prahlad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
959
(2019)11ILR A959

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.11.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
HON'BLE MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 605 of 1982

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

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Satish Chandra, Sri Neeraj Sahu, Sri
Sushil Pandey

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.- direct
evidence of eyewitnesses. Motive - has no
significance - the prosecution is not obliged
to prove those facts which are either
impossible for the prosecution to prove or
which are locked up in the mind of the
accused persons, as to what tempted them
to commit the crime- cases based on direct
evidence of the witnesses should be
decided on the basis of quality and
probative value of the evidence of such eye
witnesses - The evidence of all prosecution
witnesses is consistent on the point of
identification of the accused persons, role
played by all of them and firing of gun shot
-
The
medical
evidence
also
fully
corroborates the ocular evidence of the
incident - Statements of the witnesses
clearly reveal that all the accused persons
were present at the scene of occurrence
and were actively involved in accomplishing
their part of common design - prosecution
by its trustworthy, acceptable and reliable
evidence has proved its case beyond all
reasonable doubts. (Para 19,25,27,28)
B. Evidence Law-The Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 - Section134 - evidence has to
be weighed and not counted -no legal
impediment in convicting a person on
the sole testimony of a single witness- if
there are doubts and suspicion about the
testimony of such a witness the courts
will insist on corroboration-The test is
whether the evidence has a ring of truth
around
it,
is
cogent,
credible
and
trustworthy, or otherwise - serious
contradictions
and
omissions
may
materially
affect
the
case
of
the
prosecution but not every contradiction
or omission. (Para 21)

 Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

Chronological list of cases cited:-

1. Ezajhussain sabdarhussain Vs St. Of Guj.
(2019) 2 JIC 33(SC)

2. St. Of Raj. Vs ANI @ Hanif & ors. (1997)
Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 851.

3. Ramesh Singh @ Photi Vs St. Of A.P. ,
(2004) 11 SCC 305

4. Ramaswami Ayyangar & ors. Vs St. Of T.N.
(1976) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 518.

5. Vijender Singh Vs St. Of U.P. (2017) 1 JIC
328(SC).

6. Rajkishore Purohit Vs St. Of M. P. & ors.
(2017) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 483.

7. Balwant Singh & ors. Vs St. Of pun. (2008)
CRI.L.J. 1648.

8. Dalip Singh & ors. Vs The St. of Pun.
MANU/SC/0031/1953 : [1954]1SCR145

9.
Appabhai
&
ors.
Vs
St.
of
Guj.
MANU/SC/0028/1988

10. Gangabhavani Vs Rayapati Venkat Reddy
& ors. MANU/SC/0897/2013

11. St. of Raj. Vs Smt. Kalki & anr.
MANU/SC/0254/1981: AIR 1981 SC 1390