# Mata Din & Anr v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1113
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 3252 of 1984
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir, Sanjiv Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mata-din-anr-v-state-of-u-p-54101
- **Pages:** 14

## Text

_Characters 0–39,964 of 50,009. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39964 for what follows._

2 All. Mata Din & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P.
1113

19. We are of the view that the quantum of punishment should be proportionate. It should
neither be too lenient nor too excessive and harsh. While awarding sentence, the Court must take an
overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the socio-economic conditions of
both the parties, so as to meet the ends of justice and convey a clear message to society that no
person could dare to commit any heinous crime.

20. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, as revealed from the records, we
are inclined to sustain the order of conviction maintaining the finding and reasoning in this respect.
However, we are inclined to reduce the sentence from life imprisonment to the period already
undergone by the accused-appellants, without altering the finding of the trial Court.

21. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice
would be met by reducing the sentence of life imprisonment, as awarded by the trial Court, to
imprisonment for a period of ten years.

22. Since the accused-appellants have already served more than 10 years in jail, hence we
reduce the sentence of both the accused-appellants as the period already undergone by them. Thus,
the criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellants is liable to be partly allowed.

23. The criminal appeal is partly allowed. The sentence of life imprisonment under Section
304B IPC as awarded by the learned Trial Court to the accused-appellants is reduced to the period
already undergone by them.

24. Let the accused-appellants be released forthwith.

25. Let the trial Court record be returned by the office alongwith copy of this judgment for
necessary information and compliance forthwith.
---------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1113
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2026

BEFORE

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

Criminal Appeal No. 3252 of 1984

Mata Din & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to "whether the prosecution have been able to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt."
(Para 26)
1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Headnotes
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 374(2) - Appeal against conviction -Sustainability of
conviction based on ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Murder - Appellants (brothers-in-law of the deceased) shot
the deceased in the informant's courtyard over a land dispute - Presence of motive to grab
property through illegal mutation.
Criminal Trial - FIR - Promptness - "it is proved that the FIR was lodged on 09.04.1983 at 1:00
p.m. i.e. after about 2 hours of the incident there is no delay in lodging the FIR. It is prompt and
not ante-timed." (Para 27)
Place of Occurrence - Proof - "we are of opinion that the place of occurrence is established by
the prosecution." (Para 30)
Defective Investigation - Effect - "any lapse on the Investigating Officer's part, would not
adversely affect the prosecution case." (Para 30)
Eye-witnesses - Reliability - "they are consistent in their deposition and there are no major
contradictions reliable and trustworthy." (Para 31, 38)
Chance Witness - Presence Explained - "the reason for Jivaram's presence at the time of the
incident is well explained." (Para 32)
Non-reaction of Witnesses - "there cannot be any suspicion about the witnesses' presence
particularly, when the appellants were armed with pistols." (Para 37)
Ocular vs Medical Evidence - "there are no material contradictions in the ocular and medico-legal
evidence." (Para 39)
Motive - Land Dispute - "there was motive for the appellants to commit the evil deed in order to
grab Shyama Devi's property." (Para 40)
Direct Evidence -Motive not material - "in case of direct evidence, it is settled law that motive is
not very material." (Para 40)
False Implication - Defence Plea - "the defence have not produced an iota of evidence in support
of this contention." (Para 41)
Held: The FIR was lodged after about 2 hours - there is no delay prompt and not ante-timed - place of
occurrence is established by the prosecution - they are consistent reliable and trustworthy - there are no
material contradictions in the ocular and medico-legal evidence - there was motive to grab Shyama Devi's
property - the prosecution have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt - The appeal fails and is
dismissed -The conviction and sentence is hereby affirmed. (Paras 27,30,31,38,39,40,42,43) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Rana Pratap v/s State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 680, (1983) 3 SCC 327

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal Code,1860; Land Revenue Act,1901

List of Keywords
FIR; place of occurrence; eye-witness; ocular and medico-legal evidence; motive; defective investigation;
beyond reasonable doubt; false implication.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal against "judgment and order dated 31.10.1984 in Sessions Trial
No. 270 of 1983 under S. 302 IPC.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
P.N.Mishra, Rakesh kumar Rathore, Sanjeev Kumar
Advs. for the Respondents:
learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State
2 All. Mata Din & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P.
1115
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjiv Kumar, J. )

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), by the appellant/ convicts, Matadin and Ram Kishan against
the judgment and order dated 31.10.1984 passed by Mr. K.S. Srivastava, the then 1st Addl.
Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 270 of 1983, State v. Matadin and another (arising
out of Crime No.101 of 1983), under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').

2. By the impugned judgment and order, both the appellants were convicted on the charge of
murdering one Smt. Shyama Devi and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant, Ujagar Singh son of Ram
Dayal, a resident of Village Khirna, Police Station Kurawali, District Mainpuri, lodged a first
information report at Police Station Kurawali, District Mainpuri on 09.04.1983, stating therein that
Smt. Shyama Devi, widow of late Daya Ram, was living in the informant's house. A case with
regard to a land dispute was pending between her and two brothers-in-law (husband's brother), to
wit, Matadin (Devar) and Ram Kishan (Jeth). On the fateful day at around 11 o'clock in the
morning, her Devar Matadin and Jeth Ram Kishan came over brandishing pistols and both of them
shot Smt. Shyama Devi, who was sitting near the hearth (chulha). She was hit in the arm and head,
in consequence of which she died instantaneously. According to the informant, Mahender son of
Guljari, Jivaram son of Ratiram and Ramlal son of Kharge, all residents of his village, were present
at his house. All of them had congregated to go over to village Patharua to consider a groom for
Jivaram's daughter and had witnessed the incident. All women in the informant's house too had
seen the incident. Upon the informant and the witnesses raising alarm and hearing gun fire, a
multitude of men came over to the place of occurrence and saw Matadin and Ram Kishan
brandishing country-made pistols.

4. Upon this information, chik First Information Report (for short, 'FIR'), bearing Case Crime
No.101 of 1983, under Section 302 IPC, was lodged at Police Station Kurawali, District Mainpuri,
on 09.04.1983 at about 1:00 p.m. against Matadin and Ram Kishan. The investigation commenced.
The Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence and collected samples of blood stained
and plain earth. He sealed them in a container and prepared a recovery memo (fard baramadgi),
(Ext. Ka-10). The inquest was held and an inquest report along with other papers were prepared on
the spot. Thereafter, the cadaver was sent for autopsy, where the post-mortem examination was
done. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the informant and other witnesses, inspected
the place of occurrence and prepared a site-plan at the pointing out of the informant. After
completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet under Section 302
IPC before the Magistrate.

5. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. They appeared
before the Court, whereupon the learned Magistrate furnished them copies of the relevant
prosecution papers under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions for trial on 13.06.1983 by the learned Magistrate.
1116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. The appellants appeared before the Court of Sessions, where a charge under Section 302
IPC was framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution have examined as many as six witnesses in evidence to prove their case, to
wit, PW-1 Ujagar Singh; PW-2 Jivaram; PW-3 SHO Amir Chandra Singh; PW-4 Constable No.
672 Suresh Chandra; PW-5 SI Kamta Prasad and, PW-6 Dr. A.K. Srivastava.

8. PW-1, Ujagar Singh is the first informant and eye-witness of the incident. He has said on
oath that Shyama Devi was the late Dayaram's widow, and the appellants, Ram Kishan and
Matadin, are Shyama Devi's brothers-in-law, to wit, Devar and Jeth, respectively. Neksu and
Dayaram were other brothers of these appellants. Their father's name was Umrai. Shyama Devi was
issueless. After Dayaram's death, his share of the land passed on to Shyama Devi. The appellant
Matadin got Shyama Devi's name removed from records and got the land transferred to himself and
his brothers. Shyama Devi had instituted proceedings in Court against him. These proceedings were
going on in the Tehsil at the time of Shyama Devi's murder. Shyama Devi was staying with PW-1
for about three months before the murder. She was murdered at about 11:00 a.m. PW-1 was sitting
in his baithak (meeting room) in Khirna village. Jivaram, Ramlal, and Mahendra were also present
there. They were sitting on a platform (chabutara). They were set to go to village Patharua to find a
groom for Jivaram's daughter.

9. Coming down the stairs from the backyard, the appellants, Matadin and Ram Kishan,
entered PW-1's home, and Shyama Devi, who was then making chapati in the kitchen, leaning
against a wall in the courtyard, was shot by the appellants using pistols, as a result whereof she died
instantly. PW-1 has said that he had witnessed the appellants killing Shyama Devi. After killing
Shyama Devi, the appellants fled towards south from the spot. He got a report scribed by his son,
Kripal and thereafter he appended his signature to it, and on the basis of this report, lodged an FIR
at Police Station Kurawali. The witness has proved the written report (tehrir) (Ex. Ka-1).

10. PW-1 in his cross-examination has said that Dayaram was killed in a police encounter
before this incident. PW-1 did not visit Shyama Devi's house, nor did she visit his house earlier.
After Dayaram's death, she had given her land to the appellants on lease (batai). During those days,
Shyama Devi lived separately in her house. PW-1 had no concern with Shyama Devi's property. He
does not know that the appellant Matadin had deposed against Mahendra, Ram Lal and Ramdas in
a murder case, in which Mahendra was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He knew that
Mahendra spent some time in jail.

11. PW-1 has further said that about one year prior to this incident, elections for the post of
Gram Pradhan were held. Prior to this election, he himself was Village Pradhan and had contested
for another term. He lost the said election to Sovaran Singh. Some others had also contested this
election. It is incorrect to say that the appellants opposed him in this election.

12. PW-1 has also said that his house has a staircase, facing eastwards in the courtyard, with a
door on the west side and there was no toilet in his house. Dayaram's house is about 50-60 paces
away from his house and Ramlal's house is 60 paces away from his house. Shyama Devi came to
his house of her own sweet will. She lived in the room next to the hearth, northwest of the
2 All. Mata Din & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P.
1117
courtyard. He had given her a bed to sleep in, and she had told him that once the land dispute was
over, she would vacate his house. His kitchen and Shyama Devi's kitchen were separate. He had
supplied her utensils to cook meals for herself. The witness said that when he went to Shyama
Devi's kitchen after the incident, a cooked dish of pulses was there in the zinc pot (patili), wet flour
stuck to her hands, a chapati was on the pan (tawa) and she was sitting on the south side of the
hearth, with her back against the wall. When Shyama Devi was shot, blood spilled around her and
splattered on the cow-dung. Both the shots were fired from a distance of 3-4 paces by the
appellants after approaching from the east. The Investigating Officer had inspected the place of
occurrence and observed all these details.

13. PW-1 has further said in his cross-examination that the distance from the platform, where
they were sitting and the hearth was 15 paces and the staircase was about 2-3 paces away from the
hearth. The witness said that he stayed on the platform until the assailants left. The assailants had
passed by him at a distance of 2-1 paces, to wit, the place where he was sitting. The witness says
that when he and others on the platform saw the assailants, approaching armed with country-made
pistols, they got frightened, moved 2-1 paces away and the assailants went away. He does not know
the name of Jivaram's daughter, for whom they had to go to find a groom. The boy, whom they had
proposed to see, was his Samadhi's son, named Ravi Lal. Firstly, Jivaram came to his house at
about 8-10 o'clock. Thereafter, Mahendra and Ram Lal came to him. After 2-3 months, they again
went to Village Patharua to find a groom along with Mahendra and Ram Lal. He went to the police
station alone on foot. He remained at the police station for about half an hour. At about 4.00 p.m.,
the cadaver of Shyama Devi was taken from his house. He does not know, who cremated Shyama
Devi. May be the police had cremated the dead body. He has denied that he had illicit relations
with Shyama Devi and said that he treated her as his daughter. He has also denied the suggestion
that his wife, daughter-in-law and son were annoyed with him for sheltering Shyama Devi in their
house and his family members had killed Shyama Devi and the appellants have been falsely
implicated in the present case to save the real assailants. He had asked the appellants to
accommodate Shyama Devi in their house and cultivate her land. Upon his request, the appellants
kept her with them for 4-6 days and then beat her up and threw her out. She wandered here and
there, and when she came to the witness, he gave her a room to stay there.

14. PW-2 Jivaram is also said to be an eye-witness of the incident. He has said in his
examination-in-chief that on the fateful day at about 11:00 a.m., Shyama Devi was murdered.
During those days, Shyama Devi was living in PW-1, Ujagar Singh's house. At the time of her
death, he was sitting in front of the baithak along with Ujagar Singh, Mahendra and Ram Lal. He
had to go to find a groom for his daughter in village Patharua along with Ujagar and that is why he
had come to Ujagar's house. At that time, Shyama Devi was making chapati. The appellants,
Matadin and Ram Kishan, came to the courtyard from the terrace through the stairs armed with
pistols and shot Shyama Devi. As a result, she died and the appellants fled away towards thr south
direction. Subedar, Hajari and Ram Swarup saw them fleeing away from the spot. In his crossexamination, this witness has said that Shyama Devi's husband Dayaram was killed in a police
encounter before the incident. Shyama Devi was living in Ujagar's house 2-3 months prior to the
incident. Ujagar Pradhan had told him about a boy for his daughter, 2-3 days prior to the incident.
He had no friendship with Ram Lal and Mahendra. He had asked Ram Lal and Mahendra to
accompany him to village Patharua. His brothers also reside in the same village, but he did not ask
1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
them to accompany him to go to village Patharua for assistance alone. Ram Lal alone was his
worker. Mahendra was convicted in a murder case and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
Now-a-days, he is on bail. In the case, where Mahendra was convicted, the appellant Matadin had
deposed against him. Ram Lal was also tried along with Mahendra in the case.

15. PW-2 has further said that at about 10:00 a.m., he came to Ujagar's house and was sitting
on a platform outside the baithak of Ujagar's house. Ujagar was already sitting there. After 10-5
minutes, Ram Lal and Mahendra reached there. They had sticks (danda) in their hands. Shyama
Devi was making chapati at the time of incident. While they were sitting on the platform, Ujagar's
daughter-in-law (bahu) had not closed the doors, because she was sitting with her back to them. He
has denied the suggestion that the door was not locked because the inside was not visible from the
place, they were sitting. While they were sitting, their faces were towards the courtyard. Upon
hearing the sound of gun shot, they got frightened and stayed in place. The appellants, carrying
weapons, passed by them at a distance of 6-7 paces. After the shooting, all of them raised alarm and
as the assailants were armed, he did not attempt apprehending them.

16. PW-3, SHO Amir Chandra Singh, is a formal witness and the second Investigating Officer
of this case. He has filed the charge-sheet in the Court, which he proved as Ex. Ka-2.

17. PW-4 Constable 672 Suresh Chandra is also a formal witness, who had taken the deceased
Shyama Devi'a cadaver for autopsy to Mainpuri along with related papers. He has said that at about
5:00 p.m., he proceeded from Village Khirna to Mainpuri, which was 30 kilometers away from
there.

18. PW-5 SI Kamta Prasad is the first Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated about the
investigation carried out by him and said that he recorded statements of the informant and other
witnesses. He reached the place of occurrence at Village Khirna Kalan along with other police
personnel. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a site-plan, which he proved as Ex.
Ka-3. Prior to undertaking steps in investigation as aforesaid, the Investigating Officer held an
inquest and drew up a report, which he proved in Court. It was marked Ex. Ka-4. He has also
proved the other related papers, such as, challan lash, photo lash, letter to RI and letter to C.M.O. as
Ext. Ka-5 to Ka-8, respectively. He has proved the sample seal as Ex. Ka-9 and said that the corpse
was handed over to Constable Suresh Chandra and Rajendra Singh along with relevant papers for
the purpose of conveying the cadaver to the doctor concerned for autopsy. He has further said that
he collected samples of blood stained earth and plain earth from the place where the corpse was
found and sealed them in two separate containers. He has proved these containers as Material
Exhibits 1 and 2 and its recovery memo as Ex. Ka-10. He has proved the chik FIR as Ex. Ka-11
and G.D. No.16 dated 09.04.1983, registered at 13:00 hours, scribed by Head Moharrir Jawahar
Lal, as Ex. Ka-12, who, according to this witness, was posted with him. He was well acquainted
with his handwriting and signatures. In his cross-examination, this witness has said that he did not
find any wet flour stuck to the deceased's hands. When he inspected the kitchen, he did not find
baked chapati, cooked pulse and the zinc pot there. He did not find any blood stained cow dung at
the spot. He found one stove t the place, marked as 'B' in the site-plan. The informant had not told
him the place from where the assailants shot the deceased. He did not find Shyama Devi's effects or
belongings in the informant's house.
2 All. Mata Din & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P.
1119

19. PW-6 Dr. A.K. Srivastava is an expert witness, who has conducted the autopsy on
10.04.1983 at 12:45. He has said that rigour mortis was present over the body and the stomach was
swollen. The body was average built and the age was about 35 years. He found the following antemortem injuries over the body:

(1) Gun shot entry and exit wound 19cm x 17cm x brain deep extending from root of nose
to just above occipital protuberance. Blood clots were present.

(2) Gun shot entry 23cm x 6cm on inner aspect of right arm extending from just above
medial condyle of elbow joint to right axilla pit then entry extending into right chest cavity. Blood
clots present.

In the internal examination, he found that all bones of the skull were fractured, the brain
lacerated and in pieces with blood present there. Four pellets of the size of a pea were found in the
brain matter, right axilla, the first and the second ribs on the right side were fractured, the right lung
was shredded into pieces and 14 small pellets and one wad was found in it. In right chest cavity,
half a pound of clotted blood was found. The small intestine and stomach were empty, the large
intestine was half filled and the uterus empty. The cause of death was shock and hemorrhage, as a
result of laceration of brain matter and the death would have occurred about a day before. It could
have occurred on 09.04.1983 at 11:00 a.m. PW-5 has proved the autopsy report as Ex. Ka-13.

This witness has said in his cross-examination that the root of nose and occipital
protuberance are not at the same level. Occipital protuberance was at a little higher level and upon
raising the head, both would be at the same level. Injury No.1 could have been caused while the
deceased was sitting and shot by from the same level, and if she raised her head and the person
shooting was in the standing position or at a higher level, even then injury No.1 could be caused. If
the deceased was in the sitting position, having both her hands in between her knees, while making
chapati, injury No.2 could be caused or not, was a matter that could be explained by a ballistic
expert. The distance from which injury Nos.1 and 2 were caused, could also be estimated only by a
ballistic expert.

20. The prosecution have produced the following documentary evidence, to wit, chik FIR, Ext.
Ka-11; written report (tehrir), Ex. Ka-1; recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth, Ex. Ka10; post-mortem report, Ex. Ka-13; inquest report, Ex. Ka-4; charge-sheet, Ex. Ka-2; police form13, Ex. Ka-5; photo lash, Ex. Ka-6; letter to RI, Ex. Ka-7; letter to the CMO, Ex. Ka-8; sample of
seal, Ex. Ka-9; copy of G.D. No.16, Ex. Ka-12; copy of the application filed by the deceased
Shyama Devi before the Naib Tehsildar in Case No. 32 of 1982 under Section 34 LR Act, Ex. Ka14; and, a copy of the order dated 13.01.1983 in the above case, Ex. Ka-15.

21. After closure of evidence by the prosecution, statements of the appellants were recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the prosecution case and have stated that the
witnesses have deposed against them due to enmity and a false case lodged against them. It is
admitted that both the appellants are real brothers and the deceased, Shyama Devi was wife of
Dayaram, their real brother. She was the appellants' bhabhi (sister-in-law). It is also admitted that
Shyama Devi was issueless and a widow. It is also admitted that after the death of Dayaram, his
1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
share was inherited by Smt. Shyama Devi. It is also admitted that Shyama Devi had filed a case
before the Tehsildar, Mainpuri regarding the same land against the appellants. The appellant,
Matadin stated that a case under Section 302 IPC was lodged against Ramlal and Mahendra, in
which he was a witness. Ujagar Singh, Gram Pradhan, had contested elections to the office of Gram
Pradhan, where Matadin had supported the rival party. Ujagar Singh lost the election, and, as such,
had harboured animosity against them. In consequence, the appellants have been falsely implicated
in this case.

The defence have not adduced any oral evidence and in the form of documentary
evidence, a certified copy of the judgment dated 17.11.1978, (Ex. Kha-1), passed by the 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in S.T. No.155 of 1978, State v. Ramlala and others, under
Sections 302/34, 307/ 34 IPC, Police Station Kurawali, District Mainpuri was produced.

22. The learned Trial Judge, after hearing arguments of both parties and perusing the evidence
on record, found that the prosecution have been able to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
The FIR was lodged promptly and the place of occurrence was established. The witnesses of fact
have been consistent and their testimony reliable and trustworthy. There was no contradiction in
ocular and medical evidence. There was motive for the appellants to murder Smt. Shyama Devi in
order to grab her land. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge found both the appellants guilty of
committing Shyama Devi's murder and has, thus, convicted and sentenced the appellants under
Section 302 IPC as indicated above.

23. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants, the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the
State and perused the evidence on record.

24. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution have examined PW-1,
Ujagar Singh and PW-2, Jivaram, as the witnesses of fact. Both the above witnesses are interested
witnesses and also inimical to the appellants. PW-2, Jivaram, is a chance witness. No independent
witness has been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 is
highly unreliable. It is further submitted that the appellants had supported Ujagar from the rival
party in the election to the office of the Gram Pradhan, where the informant contested and lost.
Therefore, he has developed enmity against the appellants, giving him a cause to falsely implicate.
It is further submitted that the informant has had illicit relationship with the deceased, Shyama
Devi, and was keeping her in his house, which was a reason for annoyance and bickering between
the informant and his family members, who did not accept it. It is the informant's family members,
who have killed Shyama Devi and the informant has falsely implicated the appellants to save his
family. It is further submitted that the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because in view of the
testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and the Investigating Officer, the utensils, blood stained cow dung,
baked chapati etc., which the witnesses of fact have said that they were lying at the place of
occurrence, were not found by the Investigating Officer, when he inspected it. It is also submitted
that the manner in which the incident has occurred, is not supported by medical evidence and, thus,
there are contradictions in ocular and medical evidence, falsifying the prosecution story. It is also
submitted that the presence of PW-1 and PW-2 at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful
because if the incident had occurred in their presence, then their normal reaction would have been
to capture the appellants. Sitting tight while the appellants committed the crime fled from the house
2 All. Mata Din & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P.
1121
without any resistance from them is highly unnatural. It creates doubt about the prosecution case. It
is also submitted that the firearm was not recovered by the Investigating Officer, which could have
corroborated the prosecution case by forensic examination of the weapon and the pellets found
from the corpse of the deceased. Lastly, it is submitted that there was no motive for the appellants
to commit the said crime. Civil litigation was already pending there in the Court and the murder of
the deceased could have been of no benefit for the appellants to grab her property. Thus, the Trial
Court has appreciated the evidence incorrectly and reached a wrong conclusion. Therefore, the
impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.

25. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has submitted that the prosecution case is proved beyond
reasonable doubt; the FIR is prompt; the place of occurrence is established; the eye-witnesses have
supported the prosecution case and their testimony is consistent and reliable. There are no major
contradictions in ocular and medical evidence. There was motive for the appellants to commit the
murder of Shyama Devi in order to grab her property. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly convicted
and sentenced the appellants. This appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

26. In view of the evidence led in the case and the submissions of both parties, let us see
whether the prosecution have been able to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

27. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on 09.04.1983 at 11:00 a.m. The FIR
was lodged on the same day at 1:00 p.m. According to the chik FIR, the distance between the place
of occurrence and the police station is 3 kilometers. PW-1, Ujagar Singh, is the first informant of
the case. He has stated on oath that after the incident, he got the written report (tehrir) scribed by
his son, Kripal, and thereafter went to the police station and lodged the FIR. PW-1, Ujagar Singh,
has proved the written report as Ex. Ka-1 and said that he went to the police station alone on foot.
He gave the written report to the Constable at the police station. He remained at the police station
for about half an hour. PW-5, SI Kamta Prasad, the Investigating Officer of the Case, has proved
the chik FIR, Ex. Ka-11 and G.D. No.16 dated 09.04.1983 entered at 13:00 hours and Ex. Ka-12,
scribed by Head Moharrir Jawahar Lal. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that the FIR is antetimed, but in this regard the defence have not cross-examined PW-1, Ujagar Singh and PW-5, SI
Kamta Prasad. The inquest report was prepared at 3:00 p.m. on 09.04.1983 and there are particulars
of case crime number and sections etc. mentioned on the first page, and on the second, it is
mentioned that by G.D. No.16, dated 09.04.1983 registered at 13:00 hours, SI Kamta Prasad
reached the place of occurrence, drew up the relevant papers with regard to the inquest and sent the
dead body for autopsy to the hospital. In view of the above oral and documentary evidence, it is
proved that the FIR was lodged on 09.04.1983 at 1:00 p.m. i.e. after about 2 hours of the incident.
Therefore, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no delay in lodging the
FIR. It is prompt and not ante-timed.

28. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred in the courtyard of the informant,
Ujagar Singh's house in Village Khirna Kalan, P.S. Kurawali, District Mainpuri. PW-1, Ujagar
Singh, is the first informant as well as eye-witness of the case. He has deposed on oath that Shyama
Devi was murdered at about 11:00 a.m. by the appellants, coming down the stairs from the
backyard, when she was making chapati in the kitchen, leaning against a wall in the courtyard. He
has said that the appellants had shot her from a distance of 3-4 paces in his courtyard and blood
1122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
splattered around her. PW-2, Jivaram, is also one of the eye-witnesses of the case. He has also
deposed on oath that the appellants entered into the informant's courtyard, after getting down the
roof, and shot Shyama Devi while she was making chapati there.

29. According to the inquest report, it was drawn up at the place of occurrence that is the
courtyard of the informant's house, which corroborates that the incident occurred in the said
courtyard. The Investigating Officer has inspected the place of occurrence and drawn up the siteplan, where the place of occurrence is shown as the courtyard of the informant's house.

30. PW-5, SI Kamta Prasad, the Investigating Officer of the case, has said on oath that he took
samples of blood stained and plain earth from the place, where the dead body was lying, sealed
them in separate containers and drew up its recovery memo. He has proved these containers as
Material Exhibits 1 and 2 and its recovery memo as Ex. Ka-10, which also corroborates that the
incident occurred at the place alleged by the prosecution. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the
appellants that the place of occurrence is highly doubtful because according to the testimony of
PW-1, kneaded dough stuck to the deceased's hands, cooked chapati was on the pan, cooked pulse
in the zinc pot, the earthen pots and blood stained cow dung etc. were lying at the place of
occurrence, whereas the Investigating Officer has said that he did not find or notice any of these
things. This shows that the place of occurrence, as propounded by the prosecution, is highly
doubtful. We do not find force in this submission. It has come in evidence that the Investigating
Officer has found blood splattered around the body of the deceased at the place of occurrence and
collected samples of blood stained and plain earth from the said place. He also found Shyama
Devi's dead body lying at the place of occurrence. If he failed to notice the more subtle materials, it
has no bearing on the case. It may be minor lapse on his part or at the most, an instance of defective
investigation. It is settled law that if the prosecution case is proved otherwise from ocular and
medical evidence, any lapse on the Investigating Officer's part, would not adversely affect the
prosecution case. Here, it is material that the dead body was found at the place of occurrence along
with blood splattered there. Therefore, going by clear and telltale evidence, we are of opinion that
the place of occurrence is established by the prosecution.

31. The prosecution have examined PW-1, Ujagar Singh and PW-2, Jivaram, as the two eyewitnesses of the incident, who have proved the facts of the case. Looking into the testimony of both
these witnesses, it appears that they are consistent in their deposition and there are no major
contradictions to hold that they are not reliable or the prosecution case not proved. PW-1, Ujagar
Singh, has supported the prosecution case and deposed that at the time of the incident, he was
sitting in his baithaka along with Jivaram, Ramlal and Mahendra. The other men were sitting there
too, because they had to go to Village Patharua to find a groom for Jivaram's daughter. The
appellants came into the courtyard of his house from the backside of the house. Shyama Devi was
cooking in the backyard. The appellants shot her. As a result, she died instantly. Thereafter, the
appellants fled towards southern side. PW-1 has been cross-examined at great length, but nothing
material could be extracted from his cross-examination, which would cast doubt on his veracity.
Here, it is pertinent to mention that it is the admitted case of the appellants that both of them are
real brothers and the deceased, Shyama Devi was wife of Dayaram, their real brother. It is also
admitted that after Dayaram's death, Shyama Devi inherited his share. It is also admitted that
Shyama Devi had filed a case in the Tehsildar's Court against the appellants regarding the
2 All. Mata Din & Anr. Vs. State Of U.P.
1123
abovementioned property. It is also admitted that Shyama Devi was living in Ujagar's house at the
time of the incident, but it is further stated on behalf of the appellants that she was living in her own
house also. In view of the above, admittedly at the time of incident, Shyama Devi was living in the
informant's house and PW-1, Ujagar Singh has stated that Shyama Devi had asked him to stay there
till her case was decided. PW-1 has said that they were sitting in the baithaka in such a position that
the place of occurrence was clearly visible to them. It has come in the testimony of PW-1 that he
had not shown the place to the Investigating Officer, from where the appellants had stood and shot
Shyama Devi. In this regard, it is submitted on behalf of the appellants that non-disclosure of the
place, from where the fire was opened by the appellants, is a material lapse on the part of the
prosecution, which adversely affects their case. We do not find any force in this submission. It is
established from the evidence that Shyama Devi was shot in the courtyard of the informant's house,
while she was sitting near the hearth (chulha). The Investigating Officer has shown the hearth and
the place, where the dead body was lying. Therefore, not showing the place to the Investigating
Officer, from where the appellants had opened fire, is not very material so as to adversely affect the
prosecution case.

32. PW-2, Jivaram, has also supported the prosecution case and according to the prosecution,
Jivaram reached the informant's house at about 10:00 a.m. and he was sitting along with the
informant and two other men, Mahendra and Ramlal in the baithak. He has also said that he came
to the informant's house because it was agreed between them that they would go to Village
Patharua to find a groom for his daughter. Therefore, the reason for Jivaram's presence at the time
of the incident is well explained. According to PW-1, the groom whom they were going to meet
was his Samadhi's son. Though, it has come in evidence that till the statements of these witnesses
were recorded, the marriage of Jivaram's daughter was not settled, but it does not mean that the
presence of Jivaram at the informant's house was without reason. There is no material contradiction
in Jivaram's testimony, though he has been cross-examined at length.

33. In the appellants' submission, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 does not show that they
could see the incident from the baithaka and reckon what was going on in the courtyard. Looking
into the testimony of both these witnesses, it has come in their evidence that the door of the
baithaka was open and the hearth and the place, where the deceased was sitting, was visible from
the door. The Investigating Officer has drawn up a site-plan, where he has shown the place by letter
'A' where both these witnesses were sitting and the place marked by letter 'B' in the courtyard,
where the hearth was located and the dead body of Shyama Devi lay. In between letters 'A' and 'B',
there is a door shown, which is straight in line with 'A' and 'B'. This would give clear vantage to
one sitting at place 'A', what was happening at place 'B'. The platform is also shown in the baithaka
and both these witnesses say that they saw the shooting from the baithaka and it was the appellants,
who shot the deceased employing country-made pistols. The defence have given a suggestion to
PW-2, Jivaram, that the baithaka door must have been closed because the daughter-in-law (bahu) in
rural societies stay veiled. Therefore, the suggestion further goes, if Jivaram was present there with
his face towards the courtyard and women of the house inside, as a matter of normal practice, door
would not be open. Rather, it would have been closed to keep privacy. But, PW-2 has explained
this by saying that the back of the daughter-in-law (bahu) was towards them, so the door was open.
The explanation given by PW-2, Jivaram, appears to be reasonable and it is not unusual in such
condition that the door of the baithaka was open.
1124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

34.