# Narendra & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 454
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2634 of 1987
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir, Sanjiv Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narendra-anr-v-state-of-u-p-52934
- **Pages:** 17

## Text

_Characters 0–39,858 of 58,117. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39858 for what follows._

454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(corresponding to Section 437-A of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) for his
appearance, in the event of an appeal being
preferred against his acquittal.

59. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the
learned
Trial
Court
concerned
alongwith the Trial Court record for
information and necessary compliance.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 454
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2025

BEFORE

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

Criminal Appeal No. 2634 of 1987

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

Issue for consideration
Proof of motive in cases based on direct
evidence.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-Sec 302- based on direct
evidence -proof of motive is not very material in
this case- litigation regarding an agriculture land
was pending- names of appellants were
recorded in the revenue records- possession of
disputed land remained with the deceased-
witnesses of fact have proved the case that the
appellants did caused death of Hotilal by
battering him with Mungari- seven ante-mortem
injuries found over the dead body- prosecution
has been able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
Appeal dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh, A.I.R. 2003
S.C.976
2. Dalip Singh and others vs. State of Punjab
(AIR 1953 SC 364)
3. Israr vs. State of U.P. (2005 (51) ACC 113)
4. Seeman @ Veeranam Vs. State, Inspector of
Police, 2005 SCC (Cri) 1893
5. Baliraj Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
2017 AIR (SCW) 2114
6. State of Punjab vs. Hakam Singh, (2005) 7
SCC 408
7. Ambika Prasad & Another v/s State (Delhi
Administration) with others, (2000) 2 SCC 646
8. Dhanaj Singh @ Shera and Others v/s State
of Punjab 2004 All JIC 399 SC
9. State of H.P. Vs. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC
370 : (AIR 1999 SC 1293)
10. Thaman Kumar vs. State of Union Territory
of Chandigarh, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 380:
(AIR 2003 SC 3975)
11. Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan reported
in 2005 SCC (Crl.) 654
12. Masalti and others V. State of U.P., AIR 1965
SC 202
13. Nathuni Yadav and others v. State of Bihar
and another, 1997 (34) ACC 576
14. Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR
1994 SC 2420
15. Molu and others v. State of Haryana, AIR
1976 SC 2499
16. Gopal v/s State of U.P. ACC 1999(39) page
98

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860

List of Keywords
Direct evidence, eye-witness account-sec 302
IPC

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dharmendra Singhal
(Senior Advocate), Shivendra Raj Singhal
Counsel for Respondent : A.G.A.

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

1. The instant Criminal Appeal, under
Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., has been preferred
by
appellants/convicts
Narendra
and
Surendra, both sons of Jagram Singh,
residents of Village- Hazipur, Police
Station-
Siana,
District-
Bulandshahr,
against the judgment and order dated
03.11.1987 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Bulandshahr in Session Trial No. 87
12 All. Narendra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
455
of 1987, State Vs. Narendra and another,
under Section 302/34 IPC, Police Station-
Siana, District- Bulandshahr.

2. By the impugned judgment and
order, the Trial Court has convicted and
sentenced
the
appellants
to
undergo
imprisonment for life for the offence
punishable under Section 302 read with 34
Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').

3. The present Criminal Appeal in
regard to appellant no. 2/convict Surendra
has abated, by order dated 12th September,
2025. Therefore, the present Criminal
Appeal now proceeds vis-a-vis appellant
No. 1/convict, Narendra only.

4. Brief facts of the prosecution case
are that the informant Atar Singh son of
Girwar Singh, a resident of Village-
Buklana, Police Out-Post Bugrasi under
Police
Station-
Narsaina,
District-
Bulandshahr,
submitted
a
written
information (tehrir) (Ext. Ka-1) before the
officer- in-charge of Police Out Post-
Bugrasi, Police Station- Narsaina, District-
Bulandshahr, alleging that today, i.e., on
18.7.1985,
at
about
2:30
p.m.,
the
informant was moving from his tubewell
towards his fields, when he heard someone
shrieking. Thereupon, he ran towards that
direction and saw Kamlesh wife of Hotilal,
also moving fast from her grove. Both of
them saw Narendra and Surendra, both
sons of Jagram Singh, residents of Village-
Hazipur, Police Station- Siana, alongwith
two other companions, catching hold of
Hotilal and beating him. They raised alarm,
as a result, whereof the accused ran away
through their arhar field. When they
reached Hotilal, they found him dead.

5. It has also been alleged that the
informant had identified the other two
persons also, and it is further said that there
was litigation pending regarding land
between Hotilal, Surendra and Narendra.
Condition of Kamlesh was not good in
health on account whereof he had come to
lodge the report. The dead body was lying
on the spot. Upon this information, a chik
FIR giving rise to Case Crime No. 39 of
1985, under Section 302 IPC (Ext. Ka-2),
was registered at Police Outpost- Bugrasi,
Police
Station-
Narsaina,
District
Bulandshahr, on 18.7.1985 at 16:30 hours
under
Section
302
IPC.
Thereafter,
investigation
commenced.
The
investigating officer collected samples of
plain earth and blood-stained earth and a
blood-stained dhoti from the place of
occurrence and prepared its fard baramadgi
(Ext. Ka-14).

6. The inquest was done and a report
prepared alongwith other related papers on
18.7.1985. Thereafter, the dead body was
sent for autopsy. In the post-mortem
examination seven ante-mortem injuries
were found on various parts of the dead
body. There was abraded contusions,
lacerated
wounds,
abrasions,
and
contusions on the left side of the forehead
with bleeding from the nose present. In the
opinion of the doctor, the cause of death
was coma as a result of ante-mortem head
injuries. The Investigating Officer recorded
the statements of informant and other
witnesses and inspected the place of
occurrence. He prepared a site-plan of the
place of occurrence, which he proved as
(Ext. Ka-13). The blood-stained earth, plain
earth, blood-stained dhoti, bushshirt, and
underwear
were
sent
for
chemical
examination. According to the chemical
examination report, human blood was
found, with blood group A. On the bloodstained earth, the result could not be
ascertained as the blood was disintegrated.
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
After collecting evidence, the Investigating
Officer filed a charge sheet against the
appellants Narendra and Surendra under
Section 302 IPC before the competent
court.

7.
The
Magistrate's
Court
took
cognizance of the offence and summoned
the accused. The appellants appeared
before
the
Court,
and
the
learned
Magistrate
furnished
them
relevant
prosecution papers under Section 207
CrPC. Thereafter, the case was committed
to the Court of Sessions for trial. The
appellants appeared before the Court of
Sessions, where a charge under Section 302
read with 34 IPC was framed against both
of them, to which they pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.

8. The prosecution examined seven
witnesses, to wit, PW-1 Atar Singh, PW-2
Smt. Kamlesh, PW-3 Constable Narottam
Singh, PW-4 SI Satya Prakash Sharma,
PW-5 Dr. A.K. Bansal, PW-6 SI K.V.
Singh, and PW-7 Constable Ram Saran
Singh.

9. PW-1, Atar Singh, the informant of
the case, has said on oath that the
appellants Narendra and Surendra were real
brothers and nephews (bhanja) of the
deceased Hotilal. At about 2:30 p.m.,
Hotilal was murdered about two years ago.
The witness was returning from his
tubewell when he heard shrieks from
Hotilal who was in his grove. He ran in that
direction, and Kamlesh wife of the
deceased, also ran in the same direction.
Both of them saw that two men had caught
hold of Hotilal in his field near his grove,
and the appellants Narendra and Surendra
were beating him with mallets (mungris).
Upon seeing this, they raised alarm,
whereupon all the four men ran away.
Hotilal had died, with blood oozing out of
his mouth. He has also said that there was a
case pending between Hotilal on one hand
and Narendra and Surendra on the other
regarding 56 bighas of the deceased's land,
and that the possession of this land was
with Hotilal. It was on this that the
appellants Narendra and Surendra had
murdered him. The witness has proved the
written report (tehrir) as (Ext. Ka-1) and
said that Smt. Kamlesh had covered
Hotilal's dead body by her dhoti.

10. In his cross-examination, P.W. 1
Atar Singh said that his tubewell is about
10-15 meters away from the field when the
deceased was murdered. The deceased was
the appellants' maternal uncle (mama) and
the disputed land was recorded in the name
of Hotilal's father. Later on the appellants'
name were entered in the records. There
was litigation pending with regard to
possession of the said land between the
appellants and the deceased Hotilal and his
brother Ram Chandra since 1957. The
deceased was aged about 50 years at the
time of the incident. He was an ex-army
man and had retired about 7-8 years ago.
Hotilal's first wife was Pushpa of who had
borne him three children. She had left him.
Kamlesh is aged about 30-35 years. Hotilal
looked after his crops and at the time of the
incident, a crop of maize and urd was sown
over this land. The witness heard screams
when proceeding to his field from the
tubewell, and after hearing the screams
Kamlesh was seen proceeding from the
west. The appellants were beating Hotilal
under a tree. About 3-5 yards away from
the place of occurrence there was a crop of
maize. One miscreant was holding the
deceased's hands and the other his lower
hands.
The
appellants
Surendra
and
Narendra were battering Hotilal. The
witness himself was about 20-25 yards
12 All. Narendra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
457
away from the place of occurrence. When
he reached there he saw blood spilt over
there. The appellants ran away making
there way through the Arhar crop and he
did not see whether the crop was damaged
or not. He left Kamlesh near the dead body
and proceeded to the village within 10-15
minutes. He proceeded to the police station
at about 03:00 - 03:30 p.m. on foot. He
reached Police Outpost Bukrasi and lodged
the report there. The I.O. met him at the
Police Outpost and recorded his statement
at 04:00- 04:30 p.m. He told the I.O. that
the appellants had assaulted employing
mungris.

11. PW-2 Smt. Kamlesh is the wife of
the deceased. According to her, on the
fateful day, at about 2:30 pm., she was in
her grove and her husband was in the field
near the grove. She saw two men catch
hold of Hotilal, and appellants Narendra
and Surendra beating him with mallets
(mungris). Atar Singh also witnessed the
incident. When they raised alarm, the
appellants and their two companions fled
away. As a result of injuries, Hotilal died.
She has also said that there is about 55-56
bighas of land belonging to her, and a case
is pending against appellants Narendra and
Surendra regarding this land. Due to the
above reason, Hotilal was murdered. The
names of the appellants are entered in the
record, but the physical possession is with
hers.

12. In her cross-examination P.W. 2,
Smt. Kamlesh has said that she belongs to
Culcutta. Hotilal had married her and
brought her here from Culcutta, about 10
years ago. Her husband had a first wife
Pushpa of whom he had two sons and a
daughter. At the time of marriage she was
30 years old whereas Hotilal was about 50
years old. The appellants' names were
entered over the land but she is in
possession. The field where the deceased
was murdered was given on Batai to Atar
Singh. Since Hotilal was ill he had given
the field on Batai to Atar Singh a year ago.
She and Hotilal had taken lunch after
weeding the crop. There was no one around
at that time. Thereafter, both of them took
rest and after a while she left towards, the
south of the field for harvesting Jowar crop.
Thereafter, she heard screams. Her husband
was taking rest under a tree about 2-3 feet
away from maize crop. She heard her
husband's scream from a distance of about
20-25 yards and ran towards the place of
occurrence. She saw that Narendra and
Surendra were assaulting her husband
whereas the two other miscreants were
catching
hold
of
Hotilal.
Both
the
appellants had assaulted her husband
alongwith miscreants and about 3-4 blows
were deliver in her presence. She had
denied the suggestion that she and Atar
Singh had illicit relationship and it was
they who had killed the deceased and
falsely implicated the appellants in this
case.

13. PW-3, Head Constable Narottam
Singh is a formal witness who has scribed
the chick FIR (Ext. Ka-2) on the basis of
the written information (tehrir) by the
informant. He has also stated that he
entered the gist of the FIR in GD No. 18,
the copy whereof he has proved as (Ext.
Ka-3). He has also said that on 19.7.1985,
Constable Vishwanath Singh, deposited
two sealed boxes at the Police Out-Post,
which he kept in the Malkhana, and entered
its gist in G.D. No. 11, which he proved as
(Ext. Ka-4). He has also said that Constable
Rameshwar Dayal and Ram Saran had
brought receipts of clothes in a sealed
packet to the Police Out-Post, which he
deposited in Malkhana vide G.D. No. 19,
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which he has proved as (Ext. Ka-5). He has
also proved G.D. No. 12 as (Ext. Ka-6).

14. In cross-examination P.W. 3, Head
Constable Narottam Singh has said that the
special report of this crime was sent to
Sadar Hospital by Constable Rakesh
Kumar, the same day at about 05:00 p.m.
and there are Rakesh Kumar's signature on
the margin of G.D. No. 21. Constable
Rakesh Kumar returned to the Police
Outpost at 10:00 a.m. on 19.07.1985 . It is
true that date 24.07 is endorsed under Chief
Judicial Magistrate's signature.

15. PW-4, SI Satya Prakash Sharma, is
the investigating officer of the case, and he
has spoken about the investigation he
conducted. He has said that he reached at
the place of occurrence where the dead
body was lying. Thereafter, he appointed
panchas and then the panchayatnama
(inquest) was prepared which he has
proved as (Ext. Ka-7). He has also proved
the related papers, such as the challan nash,
letter to CMO, letter to R.I., photo nash,
and photo lash, as (Exts. Ka-8 to Ka-12).
He has also said that he inspected the place
of occurrence at the pointing out of the
informant and prepared its site-plan, which
he has proved as (Ext. Ka-13). He collected
plain earth and blood-stained earth from the
place of occurrence, as well as the ladies
dhoti spread over the dead body, and sealed
them in separate boxes. Thereafter, he
prepared its fardbaramadgi, which he has
proved as (Ext. Ka-14). He recorded the
statements of informant and other witnesses
and searched for the accused. Further
investigation was done by K.P. Verma. He
has also proved the proceedings regarding
attachment of the appellants' property under
Sections 82/83 CrPC, which he proved as
(Ext. Ka-15). He has also said that the
samples of blood-stained dhoti, bushshirt, and
underwear
were
sent
for
chemical
examination.

16. In his cross-examination P.W. 4, SI
Satya Prakash Sharma has said that the
starting time of preparation of inquest, in
column no. 1, is missing in the inquest report,
Exhibit Ka-7. In column no. 2, the cause of
death and the nature of FIR is not written. In
column no. 3, the distance from the place of
occurrence to the Police Station is not
written. He has not mentioned in the inquest
the nature of weapon by which the injuries
were caused. During investigation the
appellants did not move any application. He
has denied the suggestion that he had taken
down the statement of Atar Singh after
perusing
the
post-mortem
report.
The
tubewell of Atar Singh was about 50 steps
away to the West-South of the grove. Many
fields of Wheat, Maize and Urd crops were
sown on both sides of chak road. In his
opinion the weapon of assault was not clear,
and, therefore, he had not mentioned it in the
inquest report. He has recorded the statement
of Atar Singh before the inquest report was
prepared.

17. PW-5, Dr. A.K. Bansal is a formal
witness, who conducted the post-mortem
examination of the deceased Hotilal on
19.7.1985 at 4 p.m., while posted as a
Medical Officer at the District Hospital,
Bulandshahr. He has said that the deceased
was about 52 years old and had died one day
ago. The rigor mortis had started passing
through the hands and was present in his legs.
He found the following ante-mortem injuries
on the body:

(I) Abraded contusion 10 cm x 6
cm on left side forehead with left black eye
and haemorrhage in the left eye. Blood on
the nose was present. Skull shape was
deformed.
12 All. Narendra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
459

(ii) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1cm
x bone deep on left side of head.

(iii) Abraded contusion 5 cm x 8
cm on left side lower jaw.

(iv) Abraded contusion 8 cm x 4
cm right side neck. Blood from right ear
present.

(v) Contusion 10 cm x 3 cm right
side chest.

(vi) Contusion 8 cm x 2.5 cm on
right side chest below injury No. 5.

(vii) Contusion 6 cm x 2 cm right
buttock.

On internal examination the doctor
found that there was blood under the skin
below injury no. 1 and 2. There were
multiple fractures on the head; the frontal
bone, parietol temporal bone and occipital
bone were fractured. Brain tissues were
lacerated with blood; the left part of the
brain was lacerated. Below injury no. 3,
there was fracture in the jaw bone. Below
injury nos. 5 and 6, ribs no. 4 and 5 were
fractured and underneath the lungs were
also lacerated.

18. In the opinion of the doctor, the
cause of death was coma as a result of antemortem injuries. The doctor has proved the
post-mortem report as (Ext. Ka-16) and
said that the injuries could have been
caused on 18.07.1985 at about 2:30 pm. He
has also said that injuries no. 5 and 6 could
have been caused by mungris and by
dandas.

19. In his cross-examination P.W.5,
Dr. A.K. Bansal has said that the time of
death could not be the intervening night
of 18/19.07.1987. All the injuries could
have been caused by Mungri meaning a
flat small cane with a thin handle which
is generally used in the washing of
clothes.

20. PW-6, SI K.V. Singh is the second
I.O. of the case and he has said that during
investigation, he proceeded to initiate
proceedings under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C.
against the accused and, after completion of
investigation, filed a charge sheet before
the competent court, which he proved as
(Ext. Ka-17). The defence had not crossexamine him.

21. PW-7, Constable Ram Saran
Singh, is also a formal witness, who carried
the dead body of the deceased for postmortem
to
the
Post-mortem
House,
Bulandshahr. He too has not been crossexamined by the defence.

22. The prosecution has produced the
following documentary evidence in support
of their case: Exhibit Ka-1 written report
(tehrir); Exhibit Ka-2 chik FIR; Exhibit Ka3 G.D. No. 18; Exhibit Ka-4 G.D. No. 11;
Exhibit Ka-5 G.D. No. 19; Exhibit Ka-6
G.D. No. 12; Exhibit Ka-7 panchayatnama
(inquest report); Exhibit Ka-8 Challan
nash; Exhibit Ka-9 Letter to C.M.O.;
Exhibit Ka-10 Letter to R.I.; Exhibit Ka-11
Photo nash; Exhibit Ka-12 Photo of the
dead body; Exhibit Ka-13 site plan; Exhibit
Ka-14 Recovery memo of blood stained
and plain soil; Exhibit Ka-15 Proceedings
regarding attachment of the accused's
property under Sections 82/83 CrPC;
Exhibit Ka-16, the Post-mortem report;
Exhibit Ka-17 Charge-sheet; and Exhibit
Ka-18 the report of the chemical examiner.

23. Statements of the appellants were
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
wherein both of them admitted that they are
real brothers. Smt. Kamlesh is the widow
of the deceased, and both of them are
nephews (bhanja) of the deceased HotiLal.
They also admitted that there was litigation
pending regarding 55-56 bighas of land
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
between them and deceased Hotilal and
said that they are in actual possession of the
said land. They have also said that Atar
Singh wanted to grab the land in
connivance with Kamlesh and thus has
falsely implicated them in this case.

24. The appellants have filed certified
copy of the Atar Singh's testimony dated
08.05.1985 in Case No. 50 of 1984, a copy
of Khasra for Fasli Year 1381-1392, a copy
of the S.D.M's order dated 02.08.1982 in
Case No. 133 of 1980, a copy of the
Khatauni for the Fasli year 1391 and a copy
of the Khasra for the Fasli Year 1393. The
defence did not adduce any oral evidence.

25. After hearing both parties and
perusing the evidence on record, the Trial
Court came to the conclusion that the
prosecution had proved their case beyond
reasonable doubt and thus convicted
appellants Narendra and Surendra for the
offence punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to
undergo imprisonment for life. The Trial
Court observed that appellants had motive
to commit the murder of Hotilal and there
was no evidence that the informant Atar
Singh
and Kamlesh
had
any
illicit
relationship or any motive to commit his
murder. The FIR was lodged promptly and
it was not ante-timed. The place of
occurrence
is
well
established.
The
presence of P.W. 1, Atar Singh and P.W. 2
Smt. Kamlesh at the spot cannot be
disputed and their presence at the place of
occurrence is quite natural. There is no
material contradiction between the ocular
and medical evidence. Accordingly, the
Trial Court convicted appellants and
sentenced them as indicated above.

26.
Feeling
aggrieved
by
the
impugned judgment and order dated
03.11.1987, this criminal appeal has been
filed on behalf of both the convicts, but, as
already said, abated on behalf of Surendra.

27.
We
have
heard
the
rival
submissions of learned Counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

28. It is submitted on behalf of the
learned counsel for the appellant that the
FIR has been lodged belatedly and there is
no plausible explanation of delay, raising
suspicion about the prosecution case. It is
also submitted that the FIR is ante-timed
and in the inquest report there is no time
mentioned
with
regard
to
the
commencement of inquest. The special
report of the crime sent to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate was also received late
in the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Office
which raises suspicion that the FIR was
lodged late with an earlier date and time
mentioned in it. It is further submitted that
there was no motive for the appellants to
commit the murder of the deceased. With
regard to the land dispute litigation was
pending in Court and admittedly the
appellant's name including that of the
deceased were entered in the revenue
record. Therefore, there was no reason for
the appellants to commit this crime.

29. It is further submitted that there
was
illicit
relationship
between
the
informant Atar Singh and Kamlesh, wife of
the deceased. The deceased after knowing
about it objected to it which led both of
them to kill the deceased and get rid of
him.

30. Per contra, it is submitted on
behalf of the State that this is a case of
direct evidence and P.W. 1, Atar Singh and
P.W. 2, Kamlesh have witnessed the
incident. There was no illicit relationship
12 All. Narendra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
461
between Atar Singh and Kamlesh and the
defence had not produced any evidence in
this regard. There was motive for the
appellants to commit murder of the
deceased as there was a land dispute
between both of them and possession was
with the deceased. Therefore, in order to
grab
the
land,
the
appellants
have
committed murder of the deceased. It is
further submitted that the FIR was lodged
promptly and there was no delay in lodging
the FIR. Even if it is assumed that there
was delay in sending the special Report of
crime to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and
the I.O. failed to mention the time of
commencement of investigation in the
inquest report it is no more than a mere
lapse on the part of the I.O. which will have
no bearing on the prosecution case, proved
as it is by direct evidence. In view of the
above, the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt and thus, this
appeal has no force and is liable to be
dismissed.

31. The first submission of the
appellant is that the FIR was lodged
belatedly and the prosecution has failed to
give sufficient reason for the delay,
rendering the prosecution case not reliable.
In this regard, a perusal of record shows
that the incident occurred on 18.07.1985 at
02.30 p.m. The place of occurrence is
Village-
Buklana
falling
under
the
reporting Police Out-Post Bugrasi, Police
Station- Narsaina, District- Bulandshahar.
In the chik FIR (Ext. Ka-2), the distance
from the place of occurrence to the Police
Out-Post is 4 km. The FIR was lodged on
18.07.1985 at 04.30 p.m.. Therefore, within
2 hours of the incident the FIR was lodged
by informant Atar Singh. In this regard,
P.W. 1, Atar Singh has said that he himself
wrote down the application at his house,
and, thereafter, he proceeded to the police
station on foot at about 03-3.30 p.m.
alongwith Sukhvir and Trilok Chand. He
has also said that he reached the Police
Out-Post Bukrashi and lodged the FIR.

32. In this regard, P.W. 3 Constable,
599, Narottam Singh, has said that he was
posted as a Constable Clerk at the Police
Out-Post- Bugrasi and on 18.07.1985 at
04.30 p.m. the informant Atar Singh
brought a written information (tehrir) (Ext.
Ka-1) with him and on the basis thereof, he
scribed the chik FIR in his own hand
writing, which he proved as (Ext. Ka-2).
He has also said that he entered the gist of
the case in G.D. No. 18, the same day
which he proved as (Ext. Ka-3). The above
witness has not been cross-examined on the
aspect of delay in lodging the FIR. In view
of the statement of Atar Singh and P.W. 3
Constable Narottam Singh, it is established
that the FIR was lodged promptly and there
is no delay in lodging the FIR.

33. It is further submitted on behalf of
the appellants that the FIR was lodged antetimed and in this regard they have
submitted that in the inquest report, the
time of commencement of investigation has
not been mentioned. Besides this the
special report of the crime was also sent
late to the Chief Judicial Magistrate's
Office. It shows that the FIR was lodged
ante-timed. We do not agree with this
submission of the appellants. P.W. 3
Constable Narottam Singh, the scribe of the
chik FIR, has said that the Special Report
of the case was sent the same day at 05.00
p.m., through Constable Rakesh Kumar and
a reference to that effect was made in the
General Diary of the day bearing No. 21.
He has further said that Constable Rakesh
Kumar
returned
at
10.00
a.m.
on
19.07.1985 and a reference in this regard
was also made in the General Diary. He has
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also said that the signature of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate on the chik FIR bears
the date 24.07, below his signature. So,
according to the date under signatures of
the CJM it was put up before him late. But,
it does not mean that the FIR was also sent
late from the Police Out-Post. No question
regarding delay in sending the FIR was
asked of the IO so that he could get an
opportunity to explain it.

34. The Supreme Court in Sunil
Kumar v. State of Rajasthan reported in
2005 SCC (Crl.) 654 has observed:

"Additionally, no question was
asked of the Investigating officer as to the
reason for the alleged delayed dispatch of
the F.I.R. Had this been done, the
investigating officer could have explained
the circumstances. That having not been
done, no adverse inference can be drawn."

35. In view of the above, the
submission of the appellants in this regard
has no force. Beside this, the entries in
general diary of a police station are made in
chronological
order
and
there
is
presumption that the official work is
performed as per practice and rules. There
is no evidence to the contrary adduced by
the defence to rebut the presumption. It is
proved that the special report of the said
crime was sent the same day at 5 p.m..
Therefore, it rules out any possibility of
lodging the FIR on an ante-timed basis.

36. It is true that the inquest report
does
not
carry
the
time
of
its
commencement of its but at the bottom on
the first page of the inquest report, time
'19.05' hours is mentioned regarding the
conclusion of inquest proceedings. It means
that
the
inquest
proceedings
were
completed at 19.05 hours, and these must
have commenced prior to that time. This
means that the time of commencement of
the inquest was omitted a mention of in the
inquest report, inadvertently, by the officer
conducting it. The above inquest report
mentions the FIR, case crime number and
other details of the case which shows that
non-mentioning of the commencement of
investigation is just an inadvertent lapse
and would in no way adversely affect the
prosecution case.

37. Beside this, the post-mortem report
of
the
deceased
was
conducted
on
19.07.1985 at 04.00 p.m. where, in the
report the doctor has mentioned the papers
sent alongwith the dead body for autopsy.
It shows that the inquest and related papers
were already prepared before the body was
sent for autopsy. There is no such evidence
which would show that the FIR was lodged
ante-timed. Therefore, the submission of
the appellants in this regard has no force.

38. So far as death of the deceased
Hotilal at the place of occurrence is
concerned that, for a fact is not disputed.
According to the prosecution, the deceased
Hotilal was murdered on 18.07.1985 at
02.30 p.m. in his agricultural field situate in
Village- Buklana, Police Station- Narsaina,
District- Bulandshahr. P.W. 1, Atar Singh
and P.W. 2, Smt. Kamlesh have said that
the deceased was murdered at the above
date, time and place. P.W. 5, Doctor A.K.
Bansal who has conducted the autopsy on
the deceased is cadaver has also opined that
death could have occurred at 02.30 p.m. on
18.07.1985. He has denied the suggestion
of the defence that death could have
occurred in the midnight of 18/19.07.1985.
The Investigating Officer has prepared a
site-plan of the place of occurrence. In the
above site-plan the place of occurrence is
near a mango tree in the agricultural field
12 All. Narendra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
463
of the deceased, Hotilal. The Investigation
Officer had also collected plain earth and
blood-stained earth and a dhoti from the
place of occurrence which were sent for
chemical
examination.
In
chemical
examination report (Ext. Ka-18) human
blood was found in the blood-stained earth
and on the dhoti. The inquest was also done
at the place of occurrence. In view of the
above, time of death of the deceased and
the
place
of
occurrence
are
fully
established.

39. The prosecution has produced two
witnesses of fact to prove its case. Of them
P.W. 1 Atar Singh, is the informant of this
case and P.W. 2 Smt. Kamlesh, is the wife
of the deceased. Both of them have
categorically testified that it was the
appellants alongwith two unknown men,
who
murdered
the
deceased.
Their
testimony with regard to the incident is
consistent
and
there
are
no
major
contradictions there to raise doubts about
its veracity. According to P.W. 1, Atar
Singh, at the time of incident, he was
moving from his tubewell to the field,
which he had taken on Batai from Hotilal,
when he saw the murder take place. He has
said that he heard the deceased scream and
ran towards that side. He also saw Smt.
Kamlesh running in the same direction as
she too heard the scream. It has come in his
cross-examination that at about 11.00 a.m.,
on the said date he had gone to his tubewell
to take some rest after doing work in his
own field. It has also come in evidence that
his own field is near the tubewell. The
location of the tubewell and the field of this
witness near the place of occurrence has
not been challenged by the defence in the
cross-examination of P.W. 1 Atar Singh.
Therefore, P.W. 1 Atar Singh is a natural
witness and his presence at that the time,
near the place of occurrence cannot be
doubted. He has said that deceased Hotilal
was in his field of maize and urd was
resting under the mango tree, when the
murder took place. He has also said that
Smt. Kamlesh was working in the grove
from where she rushed to the place of
occurrence. It has come in evidence that
beside these two persons, there was nobody
near the vicinity. He has said that he left
Smt. Kamlesh near the dead body and went
to the village where he wrote down the
report. He has clearly said that two persons
had caught hold of Hotilal while both the
appellants battered him with Mungri. He
has admitted that he did not mention the
weapon (Mungri) in his report and has
attributed the omission to the fact that he
was perplexed while scribing the first
information. But, in his statement to the
Investigating Officer, under Section 161
Cr.P.C., he has disclosed the weapon
(mungari)
which
was
used
in
the
commission of the offence. He has said that
his statement was recorded at the Police
Out-Post the same day at about 4.00-4.30
p.m. So the informant has promptly
disclosed the weapon of assault to the I.O.,
ruling out any improvement.

40. In view of the above, if the
weapon of assault is not mentioned in the
FIR it would have no adverse effect on the
prosecution case, as it is well settled law
that the FIR is not an encyclopedia wherein
every minute detail of the incident must be
scripted. Therefore, P.W. 1 Atar Singh has
fully supported the prosecution case, that it
was the appellants who committed the
murder of Hotilal.

41. P.W. 2, Smt. Kamlesh is the
deceased is wife, and, therefore, a relativewitness;
and,
also
interested
one.
Relationship is not a factor in itself to
affect the credibility of a witness as held by
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Supreme Court in Rizan v. State of
Chhattisgarh, A.I.R. 2003 S.C.976.

42. Further, in the case of Dalip Singh
and others vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1953
SC 364), it has been laid down by the
Supreme Court:-

"A witness is normally to be
considered independent unless he or she
springs from sources which are likely to be
tainted and that usually means unless the
witness has cause, such as enmity against
the accused, to wish to implicate him
falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be
the last to screen the real culprit and falsely
implicate an innocent person. It is true,
when feelings run high and there is
personal cause for enmity, that there is
tendency to drag in an innocent person
against whom a witness has a grudge along
with the guilty, but foundation must be laid
for such a criticism and the mere fact of
relationship far from being a foundation is
often a sure guarantee of truth. However,
we are not attempting any sweeping
generalization. Each case must be judged
on its own facts."

43. In Masalti and others V. State of
U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202, the Supreme
Court observed:-

"But it would, we think, be
unreasonable to contend that evidence
given by witnesses should be discarded
only on the ground that it is evidence of
partisan or interested witnesses.............
The mechanical rejection of such evidence
on the sole ground that it is partisan would
invariably lead to failure of justice. No
hard and fast rule can be laid down as to
how much evidence should be appreciated.
Judicial approach has to be cautious in
dealing with such evidence; but the plea
that such evidence should be rejected
because it is partisan cannot be accepted
as correct."

44. The observations of Supreme
Court in Israr vs. State of U.P. (2005 (51)
ACC 113) in para 12 of the judgment are
also worth mentioning:-

".........Relationship is not a factor
to affect credibility of a witness. It is more
often than not that a relation would not
conceal the actual culprit and make
allegations against an innocent person.
Foundation has to be laid if plea of false
implication is made. In such cases, the
Court has to adopt a careful approach and
analyse evidence to find out whether it is
cogent and credible."

45. Lastly, in Seeman @ Veeranam
Vs. State, Inspector of Police, 2005 SCC
(Cri) 1893, and in Baliraj Singh Vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh, 2017 AIR (SCW)
2114, the Supreme Court has held that the
witness could be a relative but that does not
mean that his testimony is to be totally
rejected. In such a case, it is the paramount
duty of the Court to be more careful in the
matter of scrutiny of evidence of an
interested witness, and if, on such scrutiny
it is found that the evidence the interested
sole witness is worth credence, the same
would not be discarded merely on the
ground that the witness is an interested one.
It is also held that, it is well settled that it is
the quality of the evidence and not the
quantity which is required to be judged by
the Court to place reliance on it.

46. In view of the above, the testimony
of P.W.2 Kamlesh cannot be rejected solely
on the ground that she is related to the
deceased. What is required is that her
testimony be examined carefully in the
12 All. Narendra & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
465
foreshadow of other evidence on record. It
has come in evidence that Smt. Kamlesh,
P.W. 2, is the second wife of the deceased.
It has also come in evidence that Pushpa,
the first wife of the deceased had left the
deceased. Thereafter, he married P.W. 2,
Smt. Kamlesh. It has also come in evidence
that the deceased was an ex-armyman.
P.W.2 has supported the prosecution case
and has said that she had gone over to the
field in the morning, carrying a meal for
her husband. She has given full details of
the occurrence and has corroborated the
prosecution case. She has said that the
appellants Narendra and Surendra were
beating her husband with Mungri whereas
the other two assailants had caught hold of
him from both sides. She has also said that
the tiffin-carrier was left under the mango
tree. She did not know if the I.O. had taken
it in his possession or not. She has also said
that a bangle of her's was broken and its lay
at the place of occurrence. In this regard, it
is submitted on behalf of the appellants that
the I.O. has not collected or shown the
broken bangles at the place of occurrence
which raises doubt about Smt. Kamlesh's
presence there. It is also submitted that
according to the prosecution the appellants
fled the spot through a field with an Arhar
crop of the height of about 5 feet. It would
have been damaged but the I.O. has not
collected any evidence in this regard
raising suspicion about the prosecution
case. We do not agree with these
submissions on behalf of the appellants. If
the I.O. committed a lapse by not collecting
the broken bangles from the place of
occurrence or taken note of any damage
to the Arhar crop, this mistake/lapse on
the I.O's part would not in itself raise
any suspicion about the prosecution
case. It is settled law that if the
prosecution case is otherwise proved by
oral and medical evidence, then a
defective investigation would not be a
ground to disbelieve it.

47.
In
regard
to
a
defective
investigation the Supreme Court in State
of Punjab vs. Hakam Singh, (2005) 7
SCC 408 and Dhanaj Singh vs. State of
Punjab, (2004) 3 SCC 654 has observed
that any irregularity or deficiency in
investigation by the I.O. need not
necessarily lead to rejection of the
prosecution case when it is otherwise
proved. The only requirement is use of
extra caution in evaluation of evidence.
A defective investigation cannot be fatal
to
the
prosecution
where
ocular
testimony is found credible and cogent.

48.