# Murari v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 836
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1093 of 1983
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/murari-v-state-of-u-p-52470
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302 - Punishment for murder-
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Sections 161, 313 & 437(1) - Appeal
against conviction - Imprisonment for life
- As per FIR - On 06.07.1982, accused,
serving in military had killed Phool Singh
with his licensed gun - On the basis of
information given by Ram Autar Singh
(PW-2) and Dhanpal Singh, FIR was
lodged by deceased brother (PW-1) -
Charges
framed
-
Held,
PW-2,
an
eyewitness St.d he was accompanied by
Dhanpal but Dhanpal was never produced
in witness box - PW-2 assistance ought to
have been taken while preparing site plan
but that was not done - The site plan
didn't show recovery of empty cartridges -
PW-2 was present on that date, his
St.ment was not recorded on same day -
PW-5, St.d that PW-2 was never on the
spot - Thus, PW-2 was a planted witness,
never on the spot - Gun was not matched
with empty cartridges, lying in military
malkhana, no effort was made to get it,
empty cartridges was not forensically
examined - Prosecution's case doubtful
regarding
panchayatnama
that
SubInspector was present during preparation
of panchayatnama, but he had never
signed, signed by PW-6 - He had signed on
certain blank spaces, which shows he had
signed subsequently - Absence of SubInspector on date of preparation of
inquest, established by St.ment of PW-4 -
PW-1 St.d that dead body was taken to
police
station
from
the
place
of
occurrence, but PW-4 St.d that dead body
was not at the police station - Deceased
was coming village side, accused was
coming from outside the village and
during incident they were face to face.
(Para 2, 13, 14, 15, 16)

Appeal is allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

836 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore, the bank is entitle to take its
possession, as provided in Section 17 of the
Gangster Act.

28. In view of the above, the
petitioners
argument
has
no
force.
Accordingly present petition is dismissed.
However,
liberty
is
granted
to
the
petitioners to file their objection or claim
before the Special Court (Gangster Act),
Ghaziabad, regarding House No.78 Sector
Delta-3, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh
Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and the court below
will consider the same, in accordance with
law, on its own merits.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 836
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1093 of 1983

Murari ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, Sri Krishna Kapoor

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A., Sri Chandra Bhan Kushwaha

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302 - Punishment for murder-
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Sections 161, 313 & 437(1) - Appeal
against conviction - Imprisonment for life
- As per FIR - On 06.07.1982, accused,
serving in military had killed Phool Singh
with his licensed gun - On the basis of
information given by Ram Autar Singh
(PW-2) and Dhanpal Singh, FIR was
lodged by deceased brother (PW-1) -
Charges
framed
-
Held,
PW-2,
an
eyewitness St.d he was accompanied by
Dhanpal but Dhanpal was never produced
in witness box - PW-2 assistance ought to
have been taken while preparing site plan
but that was not done - The site plan
didn't show recovery of empty cartridges -
PW-2 was present on that date, his
St.ment was not recorded on same day -
PW-5, St.d that PW-2 was never on the
spot - Thus, PW-2 was a planted witness,
never on the spot - Gun was not matched
with empty cartridges, lying in military
malkhana, no effort was made to get it,
empty cartridges was not forensically
examined - Prosecution's case doubtful
regarding
panchayatnama
that
SubInspector was present during preparation
of panchayatnama, but he had never
signed, signed by PW-6 - He had signed on
certain blank spaces, which shows he had
signed subsequently - Absence of SubInspector on date of preparation of
inquest, established by St.ment of PW-4 -
PW-1 St.d that dead body was taken to
police
station
from
the
place
of
occurrence, but PW-4 St.d that dead body
was not at the police station - Deceased
was coming village side, accused was
coming from outside the village and
during incident they were face to face.
(Para 2, 13, 14, 15, 16)

Appeal is allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Jagdish & Anr. Vs St. of Har. reported in
(2019) 7 SCC 711

2. Anand Ramachandra Chougule Vs Sidarai
Laxman Chougala & ors.reported in (2019) 8
SCC 50

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma
&
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. This appeal has been filed
against the judgment and order dated
3.5.1983 passed by the Sessions Judge,
8 All. Murari Vs. State of U.P.
837
Budaun by which the appellant-Murari
was convicted under section 302 I.P.C.
and
was
sentenced
to
undergo
imprisonment for life.

2. The brief facts of the case are
that on 06.07.1982 when Phool Singh
was
allegedly
murdered,
a
first
information report was lodged on the
same day by his brother Sheodan Singh
alleging that Murari Lal, accused, son
of Shankar who was serving in the
Military and who was inimical to the
deceased and the first informant and
who had on earlier occasions also
attempted to pick up fights with them,
had killed Phool Singh when the latter
was
going
from
his
village
to
Wazeerganj. Sheodan Singh has further
stated in the first information report that
he had got the first information report
lodged when information was given to
him by Ram Autar Singh and Dhanpal
Singh at around 04:30 PM that Murari
Lal with his licensed gun had fired
upon the brother of Sheodan Singh
namely the deceased Phool Singh and
that the dead-body of Phool Singh was
lying in the field of Dheemar. Upon
hearing
this,
the
first
informant
Sheodan Singh had gone to the spot and
thereafter had gone to get the first
information report lodged. Upon the
first information report being lodged,
investigation
commenced
and
the
Investigating Officer had prepared a
recovery memo of the bloodstained soil
and the plain soil and had marked it as
Exhibit Ka-6. Thereafter, the five empty
cartridges of 12 bore were also
recovered from the spot and the memo
was numbered as Exhibit Ka-7. Exhibit
Ka-14 was a list of the articles which
were recovered when the accusedMurari was being searched for. A
Panchayatnama was prepared which
was exhibited as Exhibit Ka-8 and the
other documents were exhibited as
Exhibits Ka-9; Ka-10 and Ka-11 and
they accompanied the dead-body to the
postmortem
house.
Upon
the
conclusion of the investigation, the
police report was sent and the charges
were framed against the accused-Murari
under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code
and thereafter when he had denied the
charges, the trial had commenced and
when the trial Court by its judgment
and order dated 03.05.1983 had found
the accused-Murari guilty for the
offence under Section 302 I.P.C., the
instant Criminal Appeal was filed.

3. The prosecution from its side
had
produced
as
many
as
six
prosecution witnesses.

4. Sheodan Singh, brother of
the deceased and the first informant,
was produced as PW-1. He had stated
in his statement before the Court that
because of certain enmity with regard to
keeping of pigs, the accused-Murari on
06.07.1982 at 04:00 PM had killed
Phool Singh and this information was
given to the PW-1 by Dhanpal Singh
and Ram Autar Singh. He had proved
the first information report. In his crossexamination, he had stated that he had
not stated in his statement under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that at 04:00 PM
the deceased had started for Wazeerganj
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from his village. He had stated that
when he had reached the spot, he had
found the five empty cartridges lying on
the spot and that the place of incident
was around one kilometer from the
place of his residence. He had thereafter
stated that after getting the first
information report lodged, he had gone
back to the place of incident. The
Investigating Officer had come on his
jeep. The dead-body thereafter was
sealed and taken to the police station
and the dead-body was thereafter lying
on a dunlop outside the police station
during the night. In the morning, the
dead-body was taken to Budaun. Upon
a question being asked that the report
was ante timed, he denied. He had also
denied the fact that the names of Ram
Autar and Dhanpal were mentioned
subsequently as an afterthought and he
had specifically stated that Dhanpal and
Ram Autar alone had come to give the
information to him.

5. PW-2 Ram Autar Singh is
the person who, it has been stated, had
seen the incident and in his statementin-chief he had stated that on the fateful
day at 04:30 PM, he alongwith Dhanpal
was coming from Wazeerganj to their
village and Murari, the accused, was
going ahead of them and was carrying a
gun. At that point of time, Phool Singh
was coming from the side of the village
and as soon as Phool Singh reached
near Murari-the accused, Murari fired
from his gun 3-4 times and thereafter
the accused, Murari ran away from the
Eastern side. Upon a hue and cry being
raised by the PW-2 and Dhanpal, a lot
many villagers came on the spot.
However, Dhanpal and Ram Autar went
to the house of Sheodan to inform him
about the incident. He has also stated
that on that date, Gram Panchayat
Elections were going on in Wazeerganj
and counting was also going on and
they had gone to Wazeerganj in
connection with the counting of votes
of
their
village.
He
has
very
categorically stated that Dhanpal had
refused to come in the witness box. In
his cross-examination, he has stated that
Murari was not seen before a particular
bhatta (brick kiln) and he was visible
only after they had crossed that bhatta
(brick kiln). When he saw the accused,
Murari and the deceased, Phool Singh
for the first time, they were just 3-4
steps away from each other and when
Murari had attacked Phool Singh, the
latter had fallen down and thereafter
Murari had fired 3-4 shots and these
fire shots were made from a very close
distance. He has also stated that Murari
had fired standing on the left side. He
has stated that the village was around
250 meter from the place of incident
and he has stated that when he reached
near Phool Singh then he was lying on
his left side in the West-East direction.
When they had gone to inform Sheodan
Singh, he was there in the village and
after having given the information, the
PW-2 has categorically stated that he
came back to the spot. The Police had
come on the spot at around 07:00 PM.
The Police had not taken the evidence
of PW-2 on that date i.e. on 06.07.1982.
Sheodan Singh had reached the spot
and thereafter the Investigating Officer
8 All. Murari Vs. State of U.P.
839
had also reached the spot. He had,
however, left for his house from the
place of incident. He, therefore, states
that he did not know how the deadbody was removed from the spot. The
next day, the Investigating Officer had
recorded his evidence. He has stated
that on the date of incident at around
09:00 to 10:00 AM, he had reached the
spot where the counting of the ballot
paper was going on and that after the
counting of their village which had
started at around 11:00 AM, he had
returned and upon a question being
asked as to whether the news of the
incident had reached the place when the
counting was going on, he had denied
the same. He has very categorically
stated that when he reached the spot he
had found the five empty cartridges
lying on the spot.

6. PW-3 is the doctor who had
conducted the postmortem and has
proved the postmortem report. He has
spoken about the ante mortem injuries
as were there on the dead-body.

7. PW-4 Head Constable
Ramanand was the chick writer. He had
stated that after the case was registered,
the investigation was handed over to the
Sub-Inspector Virendra Singh. In his
cross-examination he has stated that on
06.07.1982 the dead-body was not lying
on the police station and that D.C.
Sharma, who allegedly as per the PW-5
was the Investigating Officer, was not
present
at
the
time
when
the
panchayatnama was being prepared. He
had come on the spot on 07.07.1982 at
around 11:00 AM. He has also stated
that the special report was sent at 12.05
hours on the same day when the first
information report was lodged.

8. PW-5 is the Investigating
Officer Virendra Singh. He has stated
that when he had reached the spot, he
had taken the statements of Sheodan
Singh and had also prepared the site
map on reaching the spot. He has stated
that he had taken from the place of
incident the bloodstained soil and the
plain soil. He had also taken and kept in
his custody the five empty cartridges of
12 bore from the spot in question. He
has stated that Sub-Inspector D.C.
Sharma
had
prepared
the
Panchayatnama on his instructions and
in the presence of the Investigating
Officer, the Panchayatnama which was
exhibited as Exhibit Ka-8, the photo of
the dead-body and the Challan with
regard to the dead-body was prepared
and exhibited as Exhibit Ka-9. The
letter of Chief Medical Officer was
exhibited as Exhibit Ka-11 and the
document by which the dead-body was
to be taken for post mortem was
exhibited as Ka-12. The seal was
exhibited as Exhibit Ka-13 and he had
very categorically stated that all the
exhibits Ka-8 to Ka-13 were signed by
the Sub-Inspector D.C. Sharma in his
presence. After having given the
instructions for the preparation of the
Panchayatnama, he had gone out for
search of the accused. In his crossexamination, PW-5 has stated that
where the dead-body was lying, there
was also blood present. He has stated
840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that in the site plan, he had given out as
to where the dead-body was lying.
However, he has not stated as to where
the blood was found in the site plan. He
has very categorically stated that the
site plan was prepared at the pointing of
PW-1. He has also stated that he had
not shown the place where the firing
had taken place. He has thereafter stated
that in the night of 06.07.1982 he had
not recorded the statements of PW-2,
Ram Autar and in fact he has very
categorically stated that when he had
reached the spot, Ram Autar was not
present there.

9. PW-6 is the Sub-Inspector
Roshan Lal who has stated that he had
arrested the accused and he has also
very categorically stated that apart from
arresting the accused, he had not done
any investigation. He has also stated
that the firearm which was used in the
incident was never sent for expert
opinion. No report was called for and
also no application was given before the
Court for the examination of the
firearm.

10. Heard Sri Daya Shankar
Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Sri Chandrakesh Mishra and Sri
Abhishek
Mishra,
learned
counsel
appearing for the appellant; Sri Arvind
Kumar, learned AGA and Sri Chandra
Bhan
Kushwaha,
learned
counsel
appearing for the first informant.

11. Sri Daya Shankar Mishra,
learned Senior Counsel has submitted
that the entire evidence if is taken in its
totality, it would go to prove that a false
case had been lodged against the
accused and without looking to the
evidence, the order of conviction had
been passed. In effect, learned counsel
for
the
appellant
has
made
the
following arguments :-

 (i) Learned counsel for the
appellant has stated that the PW-2, the
alleged eye-witness, in fact was never
there on the spot. He has submitted that
if the statement of PW-2 is seen, then it
becomes clear that he was accompanied
by one Dhanpal but Dhanpal never
appeared in the witness box. He has
further submitted that PW-2 since had
never arrived, his assistance was not
taken while the site plan was being
prepared. In the site plan neither the
place from where the firing had taken
place nor the place from where the
blood-stained soil had been taken into
custody was shown. Also, he has stated
that nowhere had it been shown in the
site plan where exactly the empty
cartridges
were
recovered
from.
Learned counsel for the appellant states
that the PW-2 had stated that he was
there on the spot but his statement was
never
recorded.
Further,
learned
counsel has invited the attention of the
Court to the statement of PW-5 who has
stated that in fact the PW-2 was never
there on the spot. Further, learned
counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the PW-2 had stated that the
deceased and the accused were face to
face when the incident had occurred
and, therefore, he has submitted that the
Injury No.1 as was described in the
8 All. Murari Vs. State of U.P.
841
post-mortem report i.e. the entry wound
of the gun-shot which was from behind
the right arm, was never explained.
Learned counsel for the appellant states
that when the PW-2 had not seen the
incident, he could not also graphically
tell as to how the incident had occurred
and, therefore, he could not explain the
injury no.1 as was given in the postmortem report which was that the entry
wounds were from behind the right
arm. Learned counsel submits that
when the accused and the deceased
were face to face and when the direct
firing was done, then under no
circumstances could the firearm injuries
as have been shown as Injury No.1
could have occurred. Learned counsel
for the appellant further states that
probably the incident had occurred
somewhere else and the injuries had
taken place in some other manner but
the dead body was brought to the place
of incident and thereafter the story had
been weaved around it. He states that if
the deceased and the accused were 3-4
steps away then all the injuries would
have had blackening and tattooing and
in the instant case, he states that only
Injury
No.3
had
blackening
and
tattooing and, therefore, the entire
evidence of PW-2 becomes falsified.
Learned
Senior
Counsel
for
the
appellant further states that the presence
of PW-2 is further falsified inasmuch as
he has stated that the dead-body was
lying on its side and that it was lying in
the east-west direction whereas, it has
been pointed out, that the PW-5 had
stated that in fact the dead-body was
lying on its back.
 (ii) Learned Senior Counsel
for the appellant further stated that
when now the presence of PW-2 had
been dislodged, he has submitted that
even the motive was not so strong as to
make the accused commit an offence as
heinous as murder. He submits that
motive is a double edged weapon and
that there was a possibility that because
there was some kind of enmity, the
accused had also been implicated in the
case.

 (iii) Learned counsel for the
appellant further laid stress upon the
tardy investigation and has submitted
that neither the Investigating Officer
nor the prosecution and also even the
Court did not make any attempt to
connect the empty cartridges with the
gun by which, it was alleged, the fireshots were made. The gun was lying in
the malkhana of the military as the
appellant-accused
was
a
military
personnel and no effort was made to get
the gun examined so that the empty
cartridges would be matched with the
gun. Learned counsel has invited the
attention of the Court to the evidence as
was led by PW-5 and PW-6 wherein it
was stated that no effort was made to
produce the gun before the Court or
before any expert.

 (iv) Learned counsel for the
appellant has further stated that even
the empty cartridges were not examined
in any forensic laboratory.

 (v) Learned counsel for the
appellant
has
further
invited
the
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
attention of the Court to the statement
of the PW-5 wherein he had stated that
Exhibits Ka-8 to Ka-13 i.e. the
panchayatnama and all the other
documents which were required to
accompany the panchayatnama when
the body of the deceased was to proceed
for the post-mortem were got prepared
by one Sub-Inspector D.C. Sharma.
However, he has invited the Court's
attention to the Exhibit Ka-8 wherein he
has shown that even though in the body
of the panchayatnama it was mentioned
that the Sub-Inspector D.C. Sharma was
present at the time of the preparation of
the panchayatnama but the signature of
the Sub-Inspector D.C. Sharma was not
present on the Exhibit Ka-8. Learned
counsel has submitted that it was signed
by PW-6 Roshan Lal who is a witness
named in the charge-sheet. Learned
counsel for the appellant, therefore, has
stated that the entire case of the
prosecution was a sham case. While the
PW-2 definitely was not present, he has
stated that the other investigation was
also done in a manner which did not
inspire
any
confidence.
He
has
submitted that when the blank spaces
were being filled up, the Sub-Inspector
D.C. Sharma had put in his signature on
Exhibit Ka-8. Learned counsel has,
after having invited the attention of the
Court to the fact that D.C. Sharma was
not present on the spot, drew the
attention of the Court to the statement
of PW-4 at page 20 of the paper-book
wherein PW-4, who was the chik
writer, had stated that in fact D.C.
Sharma came back to the police station
only on 7.7.1982 at 11.00 AM. He,
therefore, submitted that the SubInspector D.C. Sharma was in fact
never present at the spot and was
elsewhere while the inquest was being
carried out.

 (vi) Learned counsel for the
appellant has also invited the attention
of the Court to the contradictions in the
statements of prosecution witnesses
wherein the PW-1 had stated that the
dead body was taken to the police
station from the place of occurrence but
the PW-4 at page 20 of the paper-book
had stated that on 6.7.1982 the dead
body of the deceased was not there at
the police station.

 (vii) Learned counsel for the
appellant
has
submitted
that
the
incident is of the year 1982 and the
appeal was filed in the year 1983. More
than 41 years have elapsed and if the
Court confirms the judgment of the trial
Court then it may consider the
imposition of the penalty, leniently.
 (viii) Learned counsel for the
appellant has further submitted that the
PW-2 was the sole eye-witness and his
evidence when was not corroborated by
any other evidence and in fact was a
shaky evidence then it was absolutely
necessary that the Court should proceed
with caution. In this regard, he has
relied upon a judgment of the Supreme
Court in Jagdish & Anr. vs. State of
Haryana reported in (2019) 7 SCC
711. Since, learned counsel for the
appellant has relied upon praragraph 8
of the judgment, the same is being
reproduced here as under :-
8 All. Murari Vs. State of U.P.
843
 "8. The question that arises to
our mind is that in the mob assault by
13 persons who had surrounded the
deceased at night, PW-1 was the sole
eye-witness. Even if a light was burning
some of them undoubtedly must have
had their back to PW-1 making
identification
improbable
if
not
impossible. The witness has been
severely doubted both by the trail court
and the High Court to grant acquittal to
the other accused. Can the evidence of a
solitary
doubtful
eye
witness
be
sufficient for conviction? We may have
a word of caution here. Conviction on
basis of a solitary eye witness is
undoubtedly sustainable if there is
reliable evidence cogent and convincing
in nature along with surrounding
circumstances. The evidence of a
solitary witness will therefore call for
heightened scrutiny. But in the nature
of materials available against the
appellants on the sole testimony of PW1 which is common to all the accused in
so far as assault is concerned, we do not
consider it safe to accept her statement
as a gospel truth in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. If
PW-1 could have gone to the police
station alone with her sister-in-law at an
unearthly hour, there had to be an
explanation why it was delayed by six
hours. Given the harsh realities of our
times we find it virtually impossible
that two women folk went to a police
station at that hour of the night
unaccompanied by any male. These
become crucial in the background of the
pre-existing enmity between the parties
leading to earlier police cases between
them also. The possibility of false
implication therefore cannot be ruled
out completely in the facts of the case."

 Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant has also relied upon a
judgment of the Supreme Court in
Anand Ramachandra Chougule vs.
Sidarai Laxman Chougala & Ors.
reported in (2019) 8 SCC 50, wherein
it has been held that even if a certain
case had not been taken up by the
accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. then
also the prosecution had to prove its
case beyond all reasonable doubts.
Learned counsel, therefore, submits that
even if the appellant in his statement
under section 313 Cr.P.C. had at one
place stated that there was no enmity
between the parties and at other place
he had stated that he was implicated
because of enmity then also the
prosecution in fact had to prove its case
on its own strength.

12.

Sri
Chandra
Bhan
Kushwaha, learned counsel for the first
informant and learned AGA Sri Arvind
Kumar have on the other hand tried to
support the judgment and order dated
3.5.1983 which was assailed in the
instant appeal. Learned counsel for the
first informant has tried to explain the
injuries on the back side of the right
arm and he has drawn the attention of
the Court to the site plan and has stated
that in fact the deceased as also the PW2 were coming from side of Wazeerganj
and that in fact the accused had
followed the deceased. Learned AGA
as also learned counsel for the first
844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
informant has further submitted that the
PW-2 had given the eye-witness
account and this eye-witness account
could not have been lightly done away
with and disbelieved.

13. Having heard learned
counsel for the parties, we are definitely
of the view that the investigation was
done in the most shoddy manner
possible. The PW-2 who allegedly was
an eye-witness had, in his statement,
stated that he was accompanied by one
Dhanpal
but
Dhanpal
was
never
produced in the witness box. Also, the
Court finds that the PW-2 when was an
eye-witness then his assistance ought to
have been taken while preparing the site
plan and that when that was not done, a
doubt arises in the mind of the Court
that PW-2 in fact had not seen the
incident. Even the site plan which was
prepared did not show as to where
exactly from, the empty cartridges were
recovered. Another aspect of the matter
troubles the Court is that when PW-2
was throughout present on that very
date then why his statement was not
recorded by the police on that very day
but was recorded on the next day. In
fact, PW-5-the Investigating Officer
Virendra Singh in his statement had
stated that the PW-2 was never there on
the spot. Also, we find that when the
PW-2 describes the incident, he had
stated that the deceased and the accused
were face to face but upon looking at
injury no.1, it cannot be said that the
accused had fired the deceased while
they were face to face. The gun shot
injury was from behind the right arm.
Also, when the PW-2 was stating that
the firing was done from 3-4 steps
distance then definitely all the injuries
ought to have had blackening and
tattooing. In the instant case, only
Injury
No.3
had
blackening
and
tattooing. We are, thus, definitely of the
view that the PW-2 was a planted
witness and in fact was never there on
the spot.

14. Also, we find that the
motive as was alleged by the PW-1 was
being misused for the purposes of
implicating the accused as the motive
which the PW-1 gives was a weak one
and on the basis of that the conviction
could not take place. The Court also
finds that no effort was made to get the
gun matched with the empty cartridges.
The gun of the accused was lying in the
military malkhana but no effort was
made to get it and the empty cartridges
forensically examined.

15. We also find that a very
doubtful case had been taken by the
prosecution by mentioning in the
panchayatnama that the Sub-Inspector
D.C. Sharma was throughout there in
the preparation of the panchayatnama.
The Court went through the original of
the panachayatnama and found that
D.C. Sharma had never signed on the
panchayatnama.
In
fact
the
panchayatnama was always signed by
Roshal Lal. D.C. Sharma only had
signed on certain blank spaces which
definitely shows that he had signed the
panchayatnama
subsequently.
The
absence of D.C. Sharma on the date of
8 All. Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
845
preparation of the inquest further gets
established upon the perusal of the
statement of PW-4 - the chik writer
who had stated that D.C. Sharma in fact
had come to the police station only on
the next day i.e. on 7.7.1982 at 11.00
AM.

16. The contradiction in the
statements
of
the
prosecutions
witnesses were also very glaring. The
PW-1 had stated that the dead body
was taken to the police station from
the place of occurrence but the PW-4
had stated that the dead body was not
there at the police station ever. What
is more, the Court is of the view that
when PW-2 was the sole eye-witness
and his statements had not been
corroborated by the other witnesses
present then the evidence of the sole
eye-witness had to be examined
properly
and
with
caution.
The
argument of the learned counsel for
the first informant that the site plan
showed that the deceased was being
followed by the accused and that the
PW-2 was following them was evident
from the site plan that the argument
was fallacious. If the statement of
PW-2 is looked into, it becomes
evident that the deceased was coming
from the side of the village and the
accused was coming from outside the
village and that they were face to face
when the incident had occurred and,
therefore, there is no substance in the
argument made by learned counsel for
the first informant. Also, we find that
when the statement of PW-2 became
unbelievable, it cannot be said that the
Court had to rely compulsorily on the
evidence of the PW-2.

17. Under such circumstances,
the
appeal
stands
allowed.
The
judgment and order dated 3.5.1983 is
quashed and set-aside. The appellant is
acquitted of the charges under section
302 IPC. Since the appellant is on bail,
he need not surrender. His bail bonds
and sureties are, therefore, discharge.
The appellant is, however, directed to
comply with the provisions of section
437(1) Cr.P.C. within a period of ten
days from the date when the judgment
is uploaded on the website of the High
Court.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 845
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1403 of 1982

Karan Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri P.K. Tiwari. Sri Naresh Chandra Tripathi, Sri
Raj Vardhan Dubey A.C., Sri Rajul Bhargava

Counsel for the Respondent:
D.G.A., Sri R.B. Sahai

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 148, 307/149 & 302/149 -
Appeal against conviction - Imprisonment
for life - A FIR was lodged by Sub
Inspector Balbir Singh (PW-1), St.d that