# Narvedeshwar v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 1005
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-29
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Ravindra Nath Kakkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/narvedeshwar-v-state-of-u-p-44024
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Criminal Appeal - Conviction and sentence order dated 29.10.2003 - Sections 302, 307, 326 and 120B IPC
- Sections 3/25 and 4/25 Arms Act - Countrymade pistol - Knife - Firearm injuries - Multiple stab wounds -
Graveyard - 7.00 p.m.-7.30 p.m. - Twilight glow - Previously known - Independent and non partisan witness
- Injured witnesses - Presence of appellant - Firing with firearm - Stabbing the deceased - Post mortem
report - Injury reports - X-ray reports - Haemorrhagic shock - Ante mortem injuries - Minor inconsistencies -
Contradictions - Improvements - No source of light - Pitch dark - Delay in commencing investigation - Ante
time FIR - Blood stained and plain soil - Inquest report - Mere irregularities - Beyond reasonable doubt -
Appeal dismissed.

Challenge in this appeal by the appellant Narvedeshwar is to his conviction and sentence order dated
29.10.2003 recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Court No.2, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial
No. 166 of 2001( State Vs. Narvedeshwar and another) under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 120B IPC arising
out of case crime no. 128 of 2001, Sessions Trial No. 167 of 2001 ( State Vs. Narvedeshwar) under Section
3/25 Arms Act arising out of case crime no. 150 of 2001 and Sessions Trial No. 165 of 2001 (State Vs.
Narvedeshwar) under Section 4/25 Arms Act arising out of case crime no. 151 of 2001. By the impugned
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

judgment learned trial judge has convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of
Rs. 5000/-, in case of default in the payment of fine three years additional rigorous imprisonment under
Section 302 IPC, seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine three
years additional rigorous imprisonemnt under Section 307 IPC, seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine
of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment of two years under Section
326 IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of default of payment of fine
six months additional rigorous imprisonment under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and one year rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment of
three months under Section 3/25 Arms Act. Learned additional Sessions Judge has further directed that all the
sentences shall run concurrently.
 (Para 2)

Prosecution story was unfolded through written complaint Ex. Ka-1 scribed by Ram Dular at informant's
dictation and lodged at P.S. Suhwal, District Ghazipur. From the perusal of the aforesaid it emerges that
Mohan Ram (deceased) son of the informant Ram Adhar son of Banarasi, resident of Rewatipur Patti
Bheekhamdev Rai (Domderwa), P.S. Suhwal, District Ghazipur, Jagjeevan, son of Doodhnath Ram and Shiv
Kumar son of Ram Gahan Ram had gone towards the graveyard at about 7.30 p.m. on 11.04.2001 for easing
themselves. As soon as they reached there, Narvedeshwar Ram, Chaturi Ram, Babban Ram and Bagedu Ram
son of Shiv Nath Ram all residents of the same village also reached the graveyard and Narvedeshwar ordered
Jagjeevan to clear out of his way as he intended to finish Mohan Ram. The other culprits exhorted to
eliminate Mohan on which Narvedeshwar who was armed with a countrymade pistol (Katta) fired with his
firearm with the intention of causing death which hit Jagjeevan Ram and Shiv Kumar causing firearm injuries
to them. Thereafter Narvedeshwar took out a knife and stabbed both Mohan and Shiv Kumar with it. Mohan
was very seriously injured. On hearing the hue and cry raised by the victims, the informant, Doodhnath son of
Deepchand and Sri Niwas son of Shyamlal rushed to the place of occurrence and interceded but the assailants
made good their escape. The informant took his injured son to Sadar Hospital, Ghazipur for treatment where
the doctor declared him dead. Old enmity was cited as the motive for commi

## Text

_Characters 0–39,747 of 47,190. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39747 for what follows._

7 All. Narvedeshwar Vs State Of U.P.
1005
34. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view
the well discussed findings recorded by the court below, to which no perversity can be attributed,
this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment and order dated 22.08.2006 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Fatehpur in Session Trial Nos. 569 of 2003 and
570 of 2003 arising out of case crime nos. 137 of 2003 and 139 of 2003 and accordingly, the same
is affirmed. Both the two appeals are dismissed. Consequences to follow. No order as to costs.

35. Let a copy of the order be placed on record in connected Criminal Appeal No. 5089 of
2006.

 36. A copy of the order be communicated to the CJM concerned for onward compliance.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA NATH KAKKAR, J.

Jail Appeal No.- 5202 Of 2005

Narvedeshwar ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Danish Faridi, amicus curie

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Criminal Appeal - Conviction and sentence order dated 29.10.2003 - Sections 302, 307, 326 and 120B IPC
- Sections 3/25 and 4/25 Arms Act - Countrymade pistol - Knife - Firearm injuries - Multiple stab wounds -
Graveyard - 7.00 p.m.-7.30 p.m. - Twilight glow - Previously known - Independent and non partisan witness
- Injured witnesses - Presence of appellant - Firing with firearm - Stabbing the deceased - Post mortem
report - Injury reports - X-ray reports - Haemorrhagic shock - Ante mortem injuries - Minor inconsistencies -
Contradictions - Improvements - No source of light - Pitch dark - Delay in commencing investigation - Ante
time FIR - Blood stained and plain soil - Inquest report - Mere irregularities - Beyond reasonable doubt -
Appeal dismissed.

Challenge in this appeal by the appellant Narvedeshwar is to his conviction and sentence order dated
29.10.2003 recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Court No.2, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial
No. 166 of 2001( State Vs. Narvedeshwar and another) under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 120B IPC arising
out of case crime no. 128 of 2001, Sessions Trial No. 167 of 2001 ( State Vs. Narvedeshwar) under Section
3/25 Arms Act arising out of case crime no. 150 of 2001 and Sessions Trial No. 165 of 2001 (State Vs.
Narvedeshwar) under Section 4/25 Arms Act arising out of case crime no. 151 of 2001. By the impugned
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

judgment learned trial judge has convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of
Rs. 5000/-, in case of default in the payment of fine three years additional rigorous imprisonment under
Section 302 IPC, seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine three
years additional rigorous imprisonemnt under Section 307 IPC, seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine
of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment of two years under Section
326 IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of default of payment of fine
six months additional rigorous imprisonment under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and one year rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment of
three months under Section 3/25 Arms Act. Learned additional Sessions Judge has further directed that all the
sentences shall run concurrently.
 (Para 2)

Prosecution story was unfolded through written complaint Ex. Ka-1 scribed by Ram Dular at informant's
dictation and lodged at P.S. Suhwal, District Ghazipur. From the perusal of the aforesaid it emerges that
Mohan Ram (deceased) son of the informant Ram Adhar son of Banarasi, resident of Rewatipur Patti
Bheekhamdev Rai (Domderwa), P.S. Suhwal, District Ghazipur, Jagjeevan, son of Doodhnath Ram and Shiv
Kumar son of Ram Gahan Ram had gone towards the graveyard at about 7.30 p.m. on 11.04.2001 for easing
themselves. As soon as they reached there, Narvedeshwar Ram, Chaturi Ram, Babban Ram and Bagedu Ram
son of Shiv Nath Ram all residents of the same village also reached the graveyard and Narvedeshwar ordered
Jagjeevan to clear out of his way as he intended to finish Mohan Ram. The other culprits exhorted to
eliminate Mohan on which Narvedeshwar who was armed with a countrymade pistol (Katta) fired with his
firearm with the intention of causing death which hit Jagjeevan Ram and Shiv Kumar causing firearm injuries
to them. Thereafter Narvedeshwar took out a knife and stabbed both Mohan and Shiv Kumar with it. Mohan
was very seriously injured. On hearing the hue and cry raised by the victims, the informant, Doodhnath son of
Deepchand and Sri Niwas son of Shyamlal rushed to the place of occurrence and interceded but the assailants
made good their escape. The informant took his injured son to Sadar Hospital, Ghazipur for treatment where
the doctor declared him dead. Old enmity was cited as the motive for committing the crime in question and
hand of one Dablu Ram son of Bagedu Ram in the commission for the crime was also alleged. On the basis of
the aforesaid written complaint case crime no. 6444301-128 of 2001 under Sections 302, 307 and 120B IPC
was registered against the appellant, Chaturi Ram, Babban Ram, Bagedu Ram and Dablu Ram.
(Paras 3-4)

Held:-(Paras 43-45)

1. As far as the challenge to the appellant's conviction by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground
that the delay of more than 12 hours in commencing the investigation is a strong indication of the fact that
the FIR is ante time is concerned, we find that the same has no legs to stand, as it has come on page 10 of
the evidence of PW-10 Balram Mishra that he had gone to the place of occurrence and collected plain and
blood stained soil from the place of occurrence and after packing and sealing the same in two separate boxes,
he had got the recovery memo Ex. Ka-26 prepared on the spot. Ex. Ka-26 contains a clear recital that the
same was prepared on 11.04.2001 after recovery of plain and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence
and it contains the signature of PW10. Thus we do not find that the FIR is ante time as pleaded by learned
counsel for the appellant.

2. The failure of the police officer who had conducted the inquest report to record the name of the deceased
in the inquest report and mentioning of wrong name of the person who had brought the dead body in the
inquest report by him and proseuction's failure to lead any link evidence for proving that the ante mortem
injuires which caused the deceased's death were inflicted on him from the knife recovered on the alleged
pointing out of the appellant, in our opinion and under the facts and circumstances of the present case, where
7 All. Narvedeshwar Vs State Of U.P.
1007
the prosecution case stands fully proved by the evidence of eye witnesses, are mere irregularities which do
not effect the core of the prosecution case.

3. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any force in the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant. The prosecution, in our opinion has succeeded in proving its case against the
appellnat beyond all reasonable doubts and the impugned judgement and order warrants, no interference by
this Court. Thus this appeal which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

Case Law discussed:

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krisnha Narayana, J.)

1. Heard Sri Danish Faridi, amicus curie for the appellant and Sri J.K.Upadhyay, learned
AGA for the State.

2. Challenge in this appeal by the appellant Narvedeshwar is to his conviction and sentence
order dated 29.10.2003 recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Court No.2,
Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 166 of 2001( State Vs. Narvedeshwar and another) under Sections
302, 307, 326 and 120B IPC arising out of case crime no. 128 of 2001, Sessions Trial No. 167 of
2001 ( State Vs. Narvedeshwar) under Section 3/25 Arms Act arising out of case crime no. 150 of
2001 and Sessions Trial No. 165 of 2001 (State Vs. Narvedeshwar) under Section 4/25 Arms Act
arising out of case crime no. 151 of 2001. By the impugned judgment learned trial judge has
convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in case of
default in the payment of fine three years additional rigorous imprisonment under Section 302 IPC,
seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine three years
additional rigorous imprisonemnt under Section 307 IPC, seven years rigorous imprisonment and a
fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment of two years
under Section 326 IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of
default of payment of fine six months additional rigorous imprisonment under Section 3/25 of the
Arms Act and one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of
fine additional rigorous imprisonment of three months under Section 3/25 Arms Act. Learned
additional Sessions Judge has further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. Prosecution story was unfolded through written complaint Ex. Ka-1 scribed by Ram
Dular at informant's dictation and lodged at P.S. Suhwal, District Ghazipur.

4. From the perusal of the aforesaid it emerges that Mohan Ram (deceased) son of the
informant Ram Adhar son of Banarasi, resident of Rewatipur Patti Bheekhamdev Rai (Domderwa),
P.S. Suhwal, District Ghazipur, Jagjeevan, son of Doodhnath Ram and Shiv Kumar son of Ram
Gahan Ram had gone towards the graveyard at about 7.30 p.m. on 11.04.2001 for easing
themselves. As soon as they reached there, Narvedeshwar Ram, Chaturi Ram, Babban Ram and
Bagedu Ram son of Shiv Nath Ram all residents of the same village also reached the graveyard and
Narvedeshwar ordered Jagjeevan to clear out of his way as he intended to finish Mohan Ram. The
other culprits exhorted to eliminate Mohan on which Narvedeshwar who was armed with a
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

countrymade pistol (Katta) fired with his firearm with the intention of causing death which hit
Jagjeevan Ram and Shiv Kumar causing firearm injuries to them. Thereafter Narvedeshwar took
out a knife and stabbed both Mohan and Shiv Kumar with it. Mohan was very seriously injured. On
hearing the hue and cry raised by the victims, the informant, Doodhnath son of Deepchand and Sri
Niwas son of Shyamlal rushed to the place of occurrence and interceded but the assailants made
good their escape. The informant took his injured son to Sadar Hospital, Ghazipur for treatment
where the doctor declared him dead. Old enmity was cited as the motive for committing the crime
in question and hand of one Dablu Ram son of Bagedu Ram in the commission for the crime was
also alleged. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint case crime no. 6444301-128 of 2001
under Sections 302, 307 and 120B IPC was registered against the appellant, Chaturi Ram, Babban
Ram, Bagedu Ram and Dablu Ram.

5. Constable No. 424 Nagendra Singh PW-13 prepared the Chek FIR Ex. Ka-19 and G.D.
Entry Ex. Ka-20 on the same date at 21.35 hours in the presence of the Investigating Officer,
Balram Mishra, SHO, Suhwal (PW-10) who commenced the investigation on 12.04.2001 with the
interrogation of the complainant Ram Aadhar Ram, Doodhnath (eye witness), Sri Niwas scribe of
the FIR and Harikesh Ram and after recording their statements reached the place of occurrence and
at the instance of the complainant and other witnesses inspected the same and prepared the site plan
of the place of incident (Ex. Ka-6). After recording the statements of the other witnesses present on
the spot he proceeded to arrest the accused on 12.04.2001. He also recorded the statements of
Jagjeevan, Shiv Kumar, Ram Gahan Ram and Smt. Sugia Devi, wife of the complainant in the
police station. On the same day he also recorded the statements of Survan, Ram Dular Ram,
Constable Mohrrir Nageshwar Singh PW-13, the scribe of the chik FIR. The post mortem of the
dead body of the deceased Mohan Ram was conducted on 12.04.2001 at 5.15 p.m. and the post
mortem report is on the record of the case as Ex. Ka-3. The injuries of injured Shiv Kumar and
Jagjeevan were examined by the Dr. D.S.Chauhan, PW-14 who prepared their injuries reports
which are on record as Ex. Ka-22 and Ex. Ka-24. The X-ray report of injured Shiv Kumar is on
record as Ex. Ka-23 and Ka 4a while the X-ray report of the injured Jagjeevan has been brought on
record as Ex. Ka-5a.

6. Statements of Bal Kunwar and Ram Ajor witnesses of recovery of blood stained and
plain soil from the place of occurrence, on 23.04.2001, S.I. V.V. Singh who had prepared the
inquest report, Constable Vijay Shanker Yadav and Dr. P.K. Srivastava Medical Officer were also
recorded. After obtaining 24 hours remand of appellant Narvedeshwar from C.J.M., Ghazipur on
28.04.2001, countrymade pistol, knife and fired empty cartridge were recovered on the same date
by the Investigating Officer from shrubs of Sarpat in the northern corner of the graveyard on the
alleged pointing out of appellant Narvedeshwar in the presence of Constable Nabi Ahmad, Radhey
Shyam Kushwaha, Bhajan Ram, Ram Gahan and Dev Nath. Recovery memo and site plan of the
place of recovery were prepared on the spot and which are on the record of the case as Ex. Ka-7
and Ex. Ka-8. On the basis of the aforesaid recovery memo case crime no. 150 of 2001, under
Sections 25 Arms Act and case crime no. 151 of 2001, under Section 4/25 Arms Act were
registered against the appellant at P.S. Suhwal, District Ghazipur. The blood stained and plain soil
7 All. Narvedeshwar Vs State Of U.P.
1009
recovered from the place of incident and which were packed and sealed in separate packet were
sent to the Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, Lucknow.

7. After completion of investigation charge sheet Ex. Ka-9 was submitted by the
Investigating Officer against the appellant Narvedeshwar and co-accused Chaturi Ram under
Sections 302, 307, 326 and 120B IPC in case crime no. 128 of 2001. Similarly after completing the
investigation charge sheets were submitted against the appellant Narvedeshwar in case crime no.
150 of 2001 and 151 of 2001 also Ex. Ka-16 and Ex. Ka-18 respectively.

8. Since the offences enumerated in case crime no. 128 of 2001 were triable by the Court of
Sessions, the same was committed for trial of the accused to the Sessions Court by C.J.M.,
Ghazipur by his commital order dated 02.08.2001 and registered as S.T. No. 166 of 2001.

9. The two other cases registered against the appellant, namely, case crime no. 150 of 2001,
under Sections 3/25 Arms Act and case crime no. 151 of 2001 under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act
which also arose from the same incident were also committed for trial of the accused to the Court
of Sessions by order dated 02.08.2001 passed by the C.J.M., Ghazipur. Since all the three cases
were related to the same crime, the learned Sessions Judge, passed an order on 15.09.2001 in S.T.
No. 166 of 2001 for deciding all the aforaesaid three sessions trials together and S.T. No. 166 of
2001 was directed to be treated as leading case. After framing of charge, accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.

10. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 15 witnesses,
complainant Ram Aadhar, PW-1, Sugia Devi, wife of complainant PW- 2, Shiv Kumar, (injured)
PW- 3, Jagjeevan Ram, (injured), PW- 4, Sri Niwas, PW- 5, Harikesh PW- 6, Dr. V.K.Singh, PW-
7, Nabi Ahmad PW-8, Dr. Anil Kumar PW-9, Balram Mishra PW-10, Nanku Prasad PW-11, SubConstable Subash Prasad Sonkar PW-12, Nagendra Prasad, PW-13, Dr. D.S. Chauhan, PW-14 and
Virendra Pratap Srivastava PW-15.

11. Both the accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the
prosecution case and alleged that they were falsely implicated in the present case because of their
enmity with the witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in defense.

12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution having
miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the trial judge
having acquitted co-accused Chaturi Ram although the evidence against both the accused is same,
the appellant's conviction cannot be sustained.

13. Advancing his submissions further learned counsel for the appellant argued that
according to the prosecution case itself as spelt out in the FIR and in the depositions witnesses of
facts examined during the trial it emerges that the occurrence had allegedly taken place between
7.00 p.m.-7.30 p.m. on 11.04.2001 in a graveyard existing in the north of village Rewatipur of
which the deceased was a resident, when he along with his cousin brothers Shiv Kumar and
1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Jagjeevan had gone there to ease himself and before the deceased and his companions could ease
themselves, the appellant Narvedeshwar alongwith other co-accused arrived at the place of
occurrence and appellant Narvedeshwar who was armed with a countrymade pistol ordered
Jagjeevan and Shiv Kumar to clear out of his way as he intended to commit the murder of Mohan
Ram and on the exhortation of other co-accused he fired with his firearm with the intention of
causing death but his shot hit both Jagjeevan and Shiv Kumar causing firearm injuries in their right
palms but before he took out a knife and stabbed Mohan Ram repeatedly inflicting multiple stab
wounds on him, as a result of which he fell on the ground both PW-3 and PW-4 had run away from
the place of occurrence to their village and on hearing the shrieks of the victims, the informant Ram
Adhar, Doodhnath, father of the injured, Shiv Kumar and Sri Niwas reached the place of
occurrence who claim to have seen the appellant stabbing the deceased with knife tried to intervene
whereupon the appellant and the other assailants left the place of occurrence. Although under the
circumstnces of the case and considering the time taken by them in reaching the place of incident
from their village it was not possible for them to have witnessed the stabbing of the deceased by the
appellant. Since neither PW-3 nor PW-4 have deposed that they had seen the appellant stabbing the
deceased, it can safely be inferred that no one had seen the occurrence and all the eye witnesses are
lying. The prosecution has further failed to furnish any explanation for the inordinate and explained
delay of more than 15 hours in commencing the investigation, and holding inquest specially in
view of the claim of the prosecution that the FIR of the occurrence was registered on 11.04.2001 at
P.S. Suhwal at 21.35 hours in the presence of the Investigating Officer, Balram Mishra, PW-10
who has stated on page 1 of his statement recorded before the trial court that FIR was registered in
his presence on 11.04.2001 and after obtaining the copy of chek FIR, he commenced investigation
on 12.04.2001, which is a strong indication of the fact that the FIR is ante time and It appears that
some unknown persons had committed the murder of Mohan Ram in the night of 11/12.04.2001
and after his dead body was recovered in the morning either by the informant or by the police, the
informant sprung into action and taking it as an opportunity to settle his score with the appellant
and his other family members for the appellant having eloped with Shiv Kumari daughter of his
brother in law (Saddhu) and solemnized marriage with her agianst the wishes of the informant and
the girl's parents, falsely implicated the appellant and his brothers in the present case in
consultation with the police. He also invited our attention to several irregularities committed by the
Investigating Officer during investigation and omissions in the inquest report.

14. He further submitted that out of the six witnesses of fact examined on behalf of the
prosecution, PW-1 Ram Adhar informant, PW-2 Smt. Sugia Devi, wife of Ram Adhar, PW-3 Shiv
Kumar and PW-4 Jagjeevan are all interested and partisan witnesses being closely related to each
other and the deceased and their testimonies are wholly unreliable and the evidence of PW-3 and 4
further appears to be tutored and their injuries fabricated for the reason that both of them could not
have received injuries on the palms of their right hands by a single shot allegedly fired by the
appellant and also on account of delay of about 20 hours in examination of their injuries. The date
of their medical examination mentioned in their injury report has been altered from 14 to 12
without being initialled by any doctor. The presence of PW-5 Sri Niwas and PW-6 Harikesh the
two other eye witnesses on the crime seen at the time of occurrence is also highly doubtful. He also
submitted that it was not possible for the so called eye witnesses to have seen and identified the
7 All. Narvedeshwar Vs State Of U.P.
1011
assailants as it has come in the evidence of PW-3 Shiv Kumar on record that at the time of incident
it was so dark that it was not possible for him as well as the deceased and Jagjeevan who were
sitting at a distance of two or three hands to see each other, in the absence of their being any proof
of any source of light on the spot.

15. He next submitted that as far as the recovery of crime weapons and the used empty
cartridge from a bush near the place of occurrence on the alleged pointing out of the appellant is
concerned the same has been fabricated by the police and further the prosecution has totally failed
to connect the aforesaid weapons with the commission of the crime in question by leading any link
evidence. He lastly submitted that in view of the above, the appellant's conviction and the sentences
awarded to him cannot be sustained and the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.

16. Per contra Sri J.K.Upadhyay, learned AGA very streneously submitted that the charges
framed against the appellant stand fully proved from the evidence on record and the appellant's
conviction is not liable to be set aside only on account of there being some delay in commencing
the investigation. The prosecution has examined as many as six eye witnesses including injured
witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 who have fully supported the prosecution case as narrated in the FIR
which stands further corroborated from the post mortem report of the deceased and the injury
reports of the injured witnesses PW-3 and PW-4. He further submitted that the appellant had a very
strong motive to commit the murder of Mohan Ram as is evident from the evidence on record and
the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned judgement and order which are based upon
cogent evidence and supported by relevant consideration are not liable to be set aside.

17. We have considered the arguments raised by both the sides and have analysed and
examined the entire trial court record including the oral and documentary evidence.

18. The only question which arises for consideraion is whether the prosecution has been
able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Before we undertake and
analyze the rival submissions, glimpses of the testimonies of the fact witnesses indicate that all the
six of them, informant Ram Adhar PW-1, Sugia Devi, wife of the informant, PW-2, Shiv Kumar
and Jagjeevan PW-3 and PW-4 both the injured witnesses, Sri Niwas PW-5 and Harikesh PW-6
have corroborated the prosecution case as spelt out in the FIR Ex. Ka-1 in extenso with
inconsistencies, contradictions and improvements in their evidence which have been pointed out by
and to which, learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention. Besides PW-5 Sri Niwas
has stated in his examination-in-chief that he had identified the accused in the light of the torch
which he always carries with him. We now proceed to examine and evaluate the testimonies of the
fact witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution during the trial in the light of the
inconsistencie, contradictions and improvements in their evidence highlighted by the learned
counsel for the appellant for ascertaining whether the inconsistencies, contradictions and
improvements in the evidence of the fact witnesses are so material that they go to the core of the
prosecution case and render it unbelievable, unworthy and unreliable.
1012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. PW-1 informant in his statement made before the trial court has apart from reiterating
the facts spelt out by him in the FIR has stated that the name of his wife is Sugia Devi and name of
his brother is Ram Gahan. Shiv Kumar is the son of Ram Gahan. The name of his wife's sister is
Chandrawati. Shiv Kumari is the daughter of Chandrawati. The name of his brother in law is
Sarwan. He had been living separately from his brothers since before the incident. On the date of
the incident his son Mohan along with Jagjeevan son of Doodhnath and Shiv Kumar son of Ram
Gahan had gone to ease himself in the graveyard at about 6.00 - 7.00 p.m. on 11.04.2001. After
some time he heard sound of gun shot coming from the side of the graveyard as well as the shrieks
of his nephew on which he, Sri Niwas and Doodhnath rushed to the place of occurrence and saw
Narvedeshwar and other co-accused beating his son. Narvdeshwar was armed with a countrymade
pistol and a knife and he was stabbing his son Mohan Ram with his knife with the intention of
causing his death. He also saw that his nephew Shiv Kumar had lost one of his fingers of his right
hand. On seeing the first informant and the other witnesses the culprits ran away from the place of
incident. Upon noticing the serious condition of his son he took him to Govt. Hospital, Ghazipur on
the same night where the doctor declared him dead. The written complaint of the incident Ex. Ka-1
was scribed by a resident of village Tthathani on his dictation and lodged at P.S. Suhwal on the
same night. He identified and proved his signatures on the written report which was marked as Ex
Ka-1. He further stated that in his evidence that after the incident he had gone to the hospital from
the police station and the Investigating Officer had arrived at the place of incident on the next date.
He also stated that he did not remember the name of the person who has scribed the FIR.

20. PW-2 Sugia Devi who is the wife of first informant and a blind lady has stated those
facts in her evidence which she had heard from the others and her evidence is not of much
significance.

21. PW-3 Shiv Kumar, injured witness has supported the prosecution case in his
examination in chief. Similarly PW-4 has also supported the prosecution case in his examination in
chief.

22. PW-5 Sri Niwas has more or less reiterated the same facts in his examination in chief
which were stated by PW-3.

23. Similarly PW-6 Harikesh also reiterated the facts stated in the FIR. He further stated
that the deceased was taken from the place of incident to the bus stop of Rewatipur on a cot from
where he was taken in a Jeep to the Sadar hospital, Ghazipur, accompanied by Sri Niwas,
Doodhnath and Ram Adhar. They had reached the hospital at about 9 p.m., Ram Adhar had gone to
the hospital while others had returned back to their village. Ram Adhar alone had gone to the police
station.

24. PW-7, Dr. V.K. Srivastava, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Ghazipur, who had
conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Mohan was examined as PW-7. The
post mortem report of the deceased indicates following injuries:-
7 All. Narvedeshwar Vs State Of U.P.
1013
ckg~; ijh{k.k& e`rd nqcyk iryk dn dkWBh dk Fkk] 'kjhj ls vdMu lekIr gks pqdh Fkh] vkW[k o eaqg
vk/kk [kqyk gqvk FkkA

e`R;q iwoZ pksVas&1⁄411⁄2 iapMZ bUlkbTM ?kko ftldh yEckbZ 4 lseh x 2 lseh x Nkrh dh xgjkbZ vUnj rd
tks nkfgus Nkrh ij LVuZe gM~Mh ds 3 lseh ckgj dh vksj o nkfgus Dysfody gM~Mh ls 7 lseh uhpsA

1⁄421⁄2 bulkbZTM ?kko 4 lseh x 2 lseh x gM~Mh ds xgjkbZ rd nkfgus da/ks ds vxz Hkkx ijA

1⁄431⁄2 bulkbZTM ?kko Ms<+ lseh x ,d lseh x ekal dh xgjkbZ rd nkfgus Nkrh ij nkfgus fuiqy ls 10
lseh ckgj dh vksjA

1⁄441⁄2 bUlkbZTM ?kko Ms<+ lseh x ,d lseh x ekal is'kh dh xgjkbZ rd ihB ds nkfgus Hkkx ij 6 lseh
pksV ua0 3 ds ckgj dh vksjA

1⁄451⁄2 bUlkbZTM ?kko nks lseh x ,d lseh x ekal is'kh dh xgjkbZ rd isV ij ukHkh ls 6 lseh Åij o
ckgj dh rjQ A

1⁄461⁄2 bUlkbZTM ?kko 2 lseh x 1 lseh x gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd ihB ds nkfgus Hkkx ds LdSiyj jhtu
ijA

1⁄471⁄2 bUlkbZTM ?kko 2 lseh x 1 lseh x gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd ihB ds nkfgus Hkkx ijA LdSIkyj jhtu
ij pksV ua 6 ls 2 lseh uhpsA

1⁄481⁄2 bUlkbZTM ?kko 2 lseh x 1 lseh x gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd ihB ds nkfgus Hkkx ijA LdSIkyj jhtu
ij pksV ua 6 ls 2 lseh vUnj dh rjQA

vkUrfjd ijh{k.k& flj] xnZu o czsu esa dksbZ pksV ugha ik;h x;hA nkfguk Iywjk QVk gqvk o ckW;k
lkekU;A nkfguk QsQM+k QVk FkkA nkfgus Nkrh ds dSfofV esa yxHkx 7-50 ,e0 ,y0 [kwu ekStwn FkkA ckW;k QsQM+k lkekU;
FkkA g`n; nkfguk Hkjk gqvk] cka;k [kkyh FkkA nkar 14@13 Fkk] vkek'k; Hkjk gqvk Fkk ftlesa v/kipk Hkkstu ekStwn FkkA NksVh
vkar esa xSl o rjy inkFkZ ekStwn FkkA cM+h vkar eas ey inkFkZ o xSl ekStwn FkkA ;d`r lkekU; ] otu 800 xzke] fiRrk'k;
[kkyh FkkA eq=k'k; [kkyh FkkA nksuksa xqnsZ dk otu 160 xzke FkkA

25. The cause of death opined by the doctor was haemorrhagic shock as a result of
antemortem injuries. The time of the death was estimated to be about one day before the date of
post mortem.Thus the time and cause of death stands fully corroborated from the medical evidence.

26. PW-7 deposed that the deceased had died due to ante mortem injuries as a result of
injury no.1. His injuries could have been sustained on 11.04.2001 at about 2.30 p.m. and could
have been caused by knife. He proved the post mortem report as Ex. Ka 3. No suggestion was put
by the defense to him that the ante mortem injureis found on the cadevar could not have been
caused by one person or a single weapon considering the large number of ante mortem injures
found on the dead body of the deceased and their varying dimensions.

27. PW-8 Nabi Ahmad proved the recovery memos of recovery of countrymade pistol and
blood stained knife, blood stained and plain soil Ex. Ka-26 and Ex. Ka-27. He also proved material
Ex. Ka-4 and Ex. Ka-5, weapons allegedly used in committing the murder.
1014 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

28. PW-9 Anil Kumar, radiologist proved the X-ray reports of the injured witnesses PW-3
and PW-4, Ex. Ka-4a and Ex Ka-5.

29. PW-10 Balram Mishra, SHO, Suhwal, the Investigating Officer of the case proved the
site plann of the place of occurrence as Ex. Ka-7.

30. PW-11, Constable 641 Nanku Prasad proved the FIRs of case crime no. 150 and 151 of
2001 under Sections 3/25 and 4/25 Arms Act, Ex.Ka-13 and Ex.Ka-14.

31. PW-12 Subhash Prasad Sonkar, Officer in charge police out post Rewatipur, P.S.
Suhwal, District Ghazipur proved the charge sheets filed by the Investigating Officer of this case in
case crime nos. 150 and 151 of 2001, Ex.Ka-16 and Ex.Ka-18 and the letter dated 22.06.2001
issued by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, Ex. Ka-7 granting sanction for prosecution of the
appellant for the offences under the Arms Act.

32. PW-13 Nagendra Singh proved the chek FIR Ex. Ka- 19 and the G.D. Entry made by
him at sl. no. 49 at 21.35 hours on 11.04.2001.

33. PW-14 Dr.D.S.Chauhan proved the injury report dated 12.04.2001 of PW-3 Shiv
Kumar and reference letter by which he had advised X-ray of the injuries of PW-3 Shiv Kumar, Ex.
Ka-24, the injury report of PW-4 Jagjeevan dated 12.04.2001 and reference letter advising X-ray of
the injuries of PW-4 Jagjeewan Ex. Ka-25. In his opinion, the injuries received by PW-3 and PW-4
could have been caused by a firearm including katta and the duration of injuries was estimated to
be around 36 hours, he also stated that the injuries may have been caused on 11.04.2001 at about
7.30 p.m.

34. Strangely the defense counsel did not put any suggestion to PW-14 with regard to the
uninitialled alterations made in the injury reports of PW-3 and PW-4 Ex. Ka-22 and Ex. Ka-24 with
regard to the date on which PW- 3 and PW-4 were examined and the date on which the injury
reports were prepared, from 14 to 12 and the injury reports Ex. Ka-22 and Ex. Ka-4 cannot be
discarded on the ground urged by the appellant's counsel in view of the oral evidence of injured
witness PW-3 and PW-4.

35. PW-15 S.I. Virendra Prasad Singh proved the inquest report Ex.Ka-2, photograph of
the cadaver, Ex.Ka-26, police form 13 Ex.Ka-27, specimen of seal Ex.Ka-28, letter addressed to
R.I., Ex.Ka-29 and letter addressed to C.M.O. Ex. Ka-30.

36. After having very carefully scanned the testimony of the eye witnesses examined by the
prosecution during the trial, we have found that as far as the evidence of PW-3 Shiv Kumjar and
PW-4 Jagjeevan is concerned, the same is material only for proving the presence of the appellant
armed with katta and knife at the place of incident and his firing with his firearm which caused
injuries to PW-3 and PW-4. Neither PW-3 Shiv Kumar nor PW-4 Jagjeevan have stated in their
evidence that they had seen the appellant stabbing the deceased as after being injured from the gun
7 All. Narvedeshwar Vs State Of U.P.
1015
shot fired by the appellant they had run away from the crime scene as stated by PW-3 and PW-4 in
their cross examination.

37. Now we are left with the evidence of PW-1 Ram Adhar, complainant, PW-5 Sri Niwas
and PW-6 Harikesh who claim to have reached the place of incident from their village on hearing
the sound of gun shot and the shrieks of the victims and seen the appellant stabbing the deceased.
In order to ascertain whether PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6 are speaking the truth. We have to examine
whether considering the distance between the village and the graveyard from the place of incident,
it was possible for them to have arrived at the crime scene under time to enable them to witness the
incident and identify the accused considering also the fact that the incident had taken place in pitch
dark and there is no cogent evidence proving that there was any source of light on the crime scene
under which the accused could have been identified by the witnesses.

38. On page 31 of the paper book, PW-1 Ram Adhar in his cross examination has stated
that 10 or 12 houses separate the graveyard from his house. When he had heard the sound of gun
shot, he was kneading the dough in the kitchen and he thought that some other people may be
fighting, however, when he heard the shrieks of Shiv Kumar PW-3 and Jagjeevan PW-4, he washed
his hands and ran towards the graveyard and saw that Shiv Kumar had lost his one fingure. He
further stated that he alongwith Sri Niwas PW-5 and Doodhnath were the first to reach the place of
occurrence and all the accused had escaped taking benefit of darkness. He had first gone towards
the north of the graveyard then to the western portion of the graveyard and in the meantime the
accused had escaped. He has not disclosed in his evidence the time taken by him in reaching the
place of occurrence but it does transpire from his evidence that even he had reached the place of
incident after the accused had run away.

39. PW-3 in his cross examination has stated that it was pitch dark at the place of
occurrence and although the deceased and Jagjeevan were sitting at a distance of about 2-3 hands
but they were unable to see each other. He denied the presence of Bavvan, Babedu and Daglu at the
place of incident. In his cross examination PW-3 further stated that after he had been hit by the
pellet fired from the countrymade pistol of Narvedeshwar, he ran to his village along with
Jagjeevan and when they reached their village, people including the first informant Doodhnath and
Sri Niwas, inquired from them about what had happened and upon being told about the incident by
them they rushed towards the graveyard but neither he nor Jagjeevan had accompannied them back
to the graveyard. Similarly PW-4 in his cross examination on page 3 of his evidence has stated that
Narvedeshwar who was armed with pistol and a knife had come from behind and had picked up
Mohan by his collar whereupon, he and Shiv Kumar had got frightened had retreated about three
hands behind Mohan and after Narvedeshwar had fired at him and Shiv Kumar, both he and Shiv
Kumar had run away from the place of incident and hid themselves behind a Vamar tree planted in
the eastern portion of the graveyard. He also admitted in his cross examination that they had not
returned back to the place of occurrence when the other villagers had gone there after knowing
about the incident. Thus neither PW-3 Shiv Kumar nor PW-4 Jagjeevan had seen the appellant
stabbing the deceased.
1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

40. The evidence of PW-5 Sri Niwas (page 3 of his cross examination) further shows that
he has stated that the distance between the graveyard and his house is about 15-16 latthas and when
he heard sound of gun shot, he was standing infornt of the door of his house and then he said that
he was resting in his courtyard. In his cross examination he further stated that PW-1 Ram Adhar on
meeting him while they were going towards the graveyard had told him that his son has been
murdered by Narvedeshwar which fully corroborates the evidence of PW-3 Shiv Kumar who had
categorically stated in his cross examination that after being shot by the appellant he had rushed
back to his village and on reaching there he had met several villagers including PW-1 and had told
them about the incident. He further stated that it took them about 10 minutes to reach the place of
occurrence. PW-5 in his cross examination also stated that he had seen and identified the culprits in
the light of torch but the same was neither produced by him before the Investigating Officer nor
before the Court. Thus the evidence of PW-5 not only renders his own testimony but also that of
the PW-1 that had seen the appellant stabbing the deceased untrustworthy. If the evidence of PW-5
is to be believed then we have to accept PW-1 Ram Adhar was already aware of the fact that his
son had been murdered when he had met PW-5 and it had taken him and other witnesses about ten
minutes to reach the place of occurrence giving sufficient time to the assailant to commit the
offence and escape from the place of incident.

41. PW-6 in his examination in chief as well as in his cross examination consistently stated
that on hearing the sound of gun shot, he had reached the place of occurrence and seen the
appellant stabbing the deceased. He has also stated in his evidence that he was the first person to
reach the place of incident and thereafter PW-1 Ram Adhar, Sri Niwas PW-5 and Doodhnath had
arrived and it had taken him about five minutes to reach the place of occurrence and on reaching
the crime scene he saw Narvdeshwar stabbing the deceased Mohan Ram. The prosecution has cross
examined PW-6 at great length but he has stuck to the version of the incident as described by him
in his examination in chief.