# Raja Singh & Anr. (In Jail) v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 1101
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-31
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raja-singh-anr-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-44634
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

A. Evidence Law-Indian Evidence Act,
1872 - Murder trial - Minor contradictions
overlooked - some contradictions are
bound to occur when ocular evidence is
recorded after a long gap, as memory of
the witnesses is bound to fade due to
passage of time - P.W.1 and P.W.9 are the
eye-witnesses of the occurrence - support
has been found of the prosecution case
which is fully corroborated by the medical
evidence - trial court has given a cogent
finding regarding the discrepancies in the
police papers prepared during the inquest
proceeding - the trial court was perfectly
right in believing their evidence and
coming to the conclusion that it was the
accused-appellant who had shot dead the
deceased who died on account of fire-arm
injury - prosecution proved it's case
beyond reasonable doubt against the
accused-appellant.- the participation of
the accused-appellant is well established
by the prosecution evidence -the trial
court has rightly convicted the appellant
for the offences - no infirmity or illegality
in it's judgment - conviction and sentence
of the appellant by the trial court - upheld.
(Para 29,30)

Appeal dismissed (E-7)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,972 of 58,663. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39972 for what follows._

3 All. Raja Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1101
judgment to the learned court below for
information and necessary compliance.
----------

(2019)11ILR A1101

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.07.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 1832 of 1979

Raja Singh & Anr. ...Appellants(In Jail)
Versus
State Of U.P ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri A.K. Srivastava, Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sri
C.B. Singh, Sri S.N. Tewari, Sri Mahipal
Singh, Sri P.N. Saxena, Sri Prashant
Kumar Singh, Sri Vikrant Rana, Sri Guru
Prasad Mishra.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
D.G.A.

A. Evidence Law-Indian Evidence Act,
1872 - Murder trial - Minor contradictions
overlooked - some contradictions are
bound to occur when ocular evidence is
recorded after a long gap, as memory of
the witnesses is bound to fade due to
passage of time - P.W.1 and P.W.9 are the
eye-witnesses of the occurrence - support
has been found of the prosecution case
which is fully corroborated by the medical
evidence - trial court has given a cogent
finding regarding the discrepancies in the
police papers prepared during the inquest
proceeding - the trial court was perfectly
right in believing their evidence and
coming to the conclusion that it was the
accused-appellant who had shot dead the
deceased who died on account of fire-arm
injury - prosecution proved it's case
beyond reasonable doubt against the
accused-appellant.- the participation of
the accused-appellant is well established
by the prosecution evidence -the trial
court has rightly convicted the appellant
for the offences - no infirmity or illegality
in it's judgment - conviction and sentence
of the appellant by the trial court - upheld.
(Para 29,30)

Appeal dismissed (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

1. The present criminal appeal has been
preferred by the appellants against the
judgment and order dated 31.5.1979 passed
by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur in S.T.
No.206 of 1977 convicting the appellant
Raghubhushan Singh u/s 302 IPC and
sentencing him to life imprisonment and to
pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of
payment whereof to undergo six months R.I
and further convicting the appellant Raja
Singh u/s 302 read with Section 109 IPC and
sentencing him to life imprisonment and to
pay fine of Rs.1000 and in default of payment
of fine, he shall undergo 6 months R.I.

2. The appellant Raja Singh has
died during the pendency of the present
appeal and the appeal on his behalf has
been ordered to be abated by coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated
28.1.2019. Hence, the present appeal now
survives
with
respect
to
appellant
Raghubhushan Singh for consideration by
this Court and we proceed to hear the
appeal on behalf of the said appellant.

3. The prosecution case as set-up in
the FIR by the informant Chandra Pal
stating that there was old enmity going on
between him and Raja Singh Thakur of
his village. On 25.2.1977, there was a
marriage ceremony of niece of one
Chotey Lal Baniya of his village where he
along with his father were invited. He
1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
along with his father Raghunath had gone
in the said marriage and Dwarchar was
going on. At about 10 p.m. in the night
Raja
Singh
along
with
his
sons
Raghubhushan Singh, Shiv Bhushan
Singh,
Shashi
Bhushan
Singh
and
younger son of Raja Singh along with
Krishna Gopal Brahman and Sabal Singh
came
with
a
common
object.
Raghubhushan @ Bade was armed with
gun and as soon as they came there, Raja
Singh exhorted and stated that luckily
Chandrapal and Raghunath have met and
uttered "Maar Do Saalon Ko Hamesha
Ka Kanta Door Ho Jaaye" on which Shiv
Bhushan Singh, Shashi Bhushan Singh
and younger son of Raja Singh caught
hold of the informant Chandrapal and
Krishna Gopal and Sabal Singh caught
hold of his father Raghunath Singh and
Raghubhushan Singh @ Bade fired by his
double barrel gun which hit in Abdomen
of the father of the informant who had
fallen down and at that moment Raja
Ram, S/o Ram Dayal, Subhash, S/o Ram
Gopal Pandey, Babu Lal, S/o Badalu R/o
Sakinan Tilsahari Buzurg and Babadeen,
S/o Pattar Ram Ratan, S/o Surajdeen,
village Subhauli who were present in the
marriage and had witnessed the said
incident, had challenged the accused who
had fled away. He had carried his father
with the assistance of the witnesses and
proceeded to the hospital and at the
outskirts of the village his father had died.
He had brought the dead-body of his
father at the doors of his house and kept
the same in the night and did not go to
lodge an FIR of the incident because it
was night. He requested for lodging
report for taking necessary action.

4. On the basis of the written report
submitted by the informant Chandrapal, an
FIR was registered at Police Station
Maharajpur as Case Crime No.49 of 1977
under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 IPC
P.S. Maharajpur, district Kanpur which is
Ext.Ka-4 which is at a distance of 3 miles
from the place of occurrence at 6.20 a.m.,
the next morning. The Chik FIR Ext.Ka-11
was
prepared
in
the
presence
of
Banshdhari Singh, Sub-Inspector of the
concerned police station. The case was
registered at general diary no.7 as Ext.Ka12 on the same day. The investigation of
the case was taken over by the Station
Officer S.I. Banshdhari Singh, P.W.10 who
recorded the statement of Chandrapal,
informant and thereafter proceeded to the
place of occurrence. He was accompanied
by Girja Singh Yadav, S.I. (P.W.11) and
some constables. The said Girja Singh
Yadav, S.I. prepared the inquest report on
the instructions of P.W.10 on the deadbody of the deceased as Ext.Ka-5 and he
also prepared Challan Nash as Ext.Ka-13,
letter to R.I Ext.Ka-14, letter to C.M.O
Ext.Ka-15. He also prepared Photo Nash
as Ext.Ka-16, sample of seal as Ext.Ka-17.
After sealing the dead-body, he handed
over the same to constable Chhote Lal and
constable Ram Raj Singh for being carried
to mortuary. The dead body was taken to
the headquarter at 4.10 p.m. the same day
and from there to mortuary. The I.O
Banshdhari Singh, P.W.10 prepared the
site-plan of the place of occurrence. It took
into possession the blood-stained cloth
(gamcha) which was tied to the wound of
Raghunath and sealed it and prepared
memo Ext.Ka-8. He prepared the site-plan
of the place of occurrence as Ext.Ka-6 and
also recorded the statement of the
witnesses
present
at
the
place
of
occurrence. He took into possession
Petromax lanterns produced by Chhote Lal
and examined them and also returned them
to Chhote Lal and prepared memo
Ext.Ka-1.
3 All. Raja Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1103

5.

After
completing
the
investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted charge sheet Ext.Ka-10 against
the accused. The charges were framed by
the trial court against the accused persons
who denied the charges and claimed their
trial.

6. The prosecution in support of it's
case has examined Babu Lal P.W.1,
Babadin
P.W.2,
Ram
Ratan
P.W.3,
Subhash Chand Pandey P.W.4, Raja Ram
P.W.5, Chhote Lal P.W.6, Dr. R.C. Yadav
P.W.7, Dr. H.O.P. Jha P.W.8, Chandra Pal
P.W.9, Banshdhari Singh S.I. P.W.10 and
Girja Singh Yadav, S.I. P.W.11.

7. The accused in their statement u/s
313 Cr.P.C have denied the charges
levelled against them and have stated that
there was a dispute with Babu Lal with
respect to a tree on account of which there
was some animosity between the parties
and the accused side has also supported
the rival candidate Sushila Rohatgi
against Chandrapal, both Babu Lal and
Chandrapal were deposing against them
on account of the said animosity.

8. P.W.1 Babu Lal had deposed
before the trial court that he participated
in the marriage of the niece of Chotey Lal
Baniya. Raghunath was murdered at the
doors of the house of Chotey Lal Baniya
at 8.5 p.m. where the Barat of his niece
had come. Raghunath was also invited in
the said marriage along with his son
Chandrapal and he was also present at the
time of 'Dwarchar'. At that time Subhash
Chand Pandey was also present along
with Raja Ram, Ram Ratan who had gone
in the night and he remained there till
Raghunath was carried by his son on a
bullock-cart and he was taking the
bullock-cart to the police station but at the
outskirts of the village, Raghunath had
died due to fire shot which was fired in
his presence. Raghunath was shot in the
corridors of Chotey Lal Baniya which
was at the Southern side adjacent to
courtyard (angan) of Chotey Lal Baniya.
In the courtyard, there was patromax
light.
Rajaram,
Subhash
Pandey,
Babadeen and Ram Ratan were present
when
Raghunath
sustained
gun-shot
injuries. He was at the distance of 2-3
paces North when Raghunath sustained
gun-shot injuries. The person who shot at
Raghunath was on the Eastern side. Prior
to receiving of gun-shot injuries by
Raghunath, there was scuffle between the
parties. The person who has shot-dead the
deceased, he was accompanied by six
persons and they were also indulging in
marpeet with Chandrapal and were also
scuffling with Raghunath. The shot was
fired by Raghubhushan. The person who
had fired shot at the deceased and his
companions were not in the Barat but
they had come separately and all of them
have come together. They had come ten
minutes prior when the deceased received
gun-shot injuries. Raghubhushan had
come with gun and along with him Raja
Singh, Shashi Bhushan Singh, Shiv
Bhushan Singh, Santosh Singh, Sabal
Singh, Ram Gopal had come and all of
them belongs to his village and they were
known to him from before. Raja Singh
was carrying a wooden stick (Baint) and
Raghunath was having a lathi. Chandrapal
was empty handed. Raghunath could not
use his lathi as he did not had a chance to
use the same. When all the seven accused
persons had come, then he was present.
There was scuffle going on. The accused
Shiv Bhushan, Shashi Bhushan, Santosh
were having scuffle with Chandrapal and
deceased Raghunath was caught-hold by
accused Sabal and Ram Gopal and Raja
1104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Singh exhorted and uttered "Mauka Mil
Gaya Hai Maar Do Saalon Ko" on which
Raghunath Singh was shot dead and after
receiving injuries, the accused fled away.
When the shot was fired then all the
witnesses raised alarm and stated what
has happened, has happened and nothing
further should be done. The shot was fired
on the right side on the abdomen of the
deceased. He stated that immediately
cloth (angocha) was tied on the wound.
The blood had not fallen there. He further
stated that he does not remember the
parentage of Ram Gopal and he named
the said accused to be Krishna Gopal and
stated that he has wrongly stated his name
to be Ram Gopal. When the police had
arrived, the dead-body of the deceased
was at the doors of his house and the
police had come in the next morning after
the sunrise and both the Sub-Inspector
along with 2-3 constables and the C.O
had arrived together. The inquest report
was prepared at the doors of the deceased
and he was also one of the Panches and
he
proved
the
Panchnama
dated
26.2.1977 identifying his signatures on
the same. He did not visit the place of
occurrence
along
with
Investigating
Officer. The deceased was wearing
Baniyan which was stitched and also
dhoti/lungi and was not wearing any kurta
or shirt.

9. In the cross-examination, the
witness has stated that he knows Vikram
Singh of his village but is not aware of
the fact that Vikram Singh is a relative of
accused-appellant Raja Singh as he
happens to be 'Sardhu' of Raja Singh.
There is a civil litigation going on against
the
said
witness
with
respect
to
agricultural field. He further showed his
unawareness that Vikram Singh had
lodged any report against him in the year
1963 for any criminal intimidation or the
cutting of the crops of the agricultural
field. In the cross-examination of the said
witness many instances have been shown
regarding the inimical relationship of the
said witness with the accused persons
showing that he is falsely deposing
against the accused persons. Though he
has
denied
that
due
to
inimical
relationship he is deposing against the
accused. It has further been stated that the
incident has taken place in the village
Tilsahri Khurd and the place where the
incident has taken place, his house is 1
and 1⁄2 furlong. He further stated that he
could not tell whose sons marriage was
being solemnized and from where Barat
had come. He knows Chotey Lal Baniya
and his family members who has four
brothers and one has died. His three
brothers are Shiv Narain, Panna Lal and
Chotey Lal. He does not know name of
the sons of Chotey Lal Panna or Shiv
Narain. He has only formal acquaintance
with Chotey Lal and there is no close
relationship with him. Chotey Lal has not
given any invitation to him and he had
gone to the marriage just to see and the
crackers which were being burnt in the
marriage and because of this reason, he
has gone there. He further stated that
about 2000 persons had arrived at the
doors of Chotey Lal Baniya of village
Tilsahri Buzurg and Tilsahri Khurd and he
could not tell how many Barati had come
in the said marriage and he was standing
15-20 paces towards the South of the door
of Chotey Lal Baniya. The deceased
Raghunath had received gun-shot injury
at the Southern side of the house of
Chotey Lal Baniya where he was present
and the said way goes towards the village
Tilsahri Buzurg. The patrolling police
party was not at the doors of the house of
Chotey Lal Baniya and when he reached
3 All. Raja Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1105
there, he did not saw any police
personnel. The dead-body of the deceased
Raghunath was lying at the doors of his
house throughout the night on the
Chabutra under the Chappar and after
keeping the dead-body there, he went
back to his house. No police person had
arrived till the time he had kept the deadbody and left the place. The police had
arrived on the next day in the morning
and like other villagers, he had also
reached
at
the
doors
of
deceased
Raghunath and had not gone at the place
of occurrence and when he reached there,
he saw the police persons present and
there was no Jeep standing there. He
remained there for about an hour and
thereafter went back to his house. He did
not know that what time the dead-body of
the deceased was sent for post-mortem.
He again stated that the dead-body was
sent on bullock-cart. When he was present
at
the
place
of
occurrence,
the
Investigating Officer did not interrogate
him and thereafter till date he did not
interrogate him or made any query from
him. He did not go outside the village on
the same day and remained at his house o
the agricultural field. When he had gone
to see the Police then the son of
Raghunath namely Chandrapal had met
him.

10. In his further cross-examination
he has stated that Raghunath was having
licensee gun but he was not carrying the
same at the time of the incident. When he
reached the Barat was not welcomed in
his presence and he had left the place
before the Barat was welcomed. He had
not disclosed the fact before today to any
one that he had taken the dead-body of
the deceased on a bullock-cart to the
police station. He had further not
disclosed before today to any one that
Subhash Pandey, Babadeen and Ram
Ratan were near to him at the time of
shooting and Raja Ram, Raghunath were
facing towards East and he was facing
towards South and the witness was facing
towards South. Today for the first time he
stated the fact that at the time of shooting
at Raghunath he was 2-3 paces towards
North. Today for the first time he has
stated that the person who has shot at the
deceased Raghunath was on the Eastern
side. He further deposed that he had not
stated to anyone prior today that the
persons were indulging in maarpit and
were scuffling with him and the fact that
Raja Singh was carrying wooden stick
(Baint) with him, the said fact he has
stated today for the first time. He has also
stated the fact for the first time that
Raghunath was carrying lathi. He has also
stated the fact for the first time that when
the deceased sustained gun-shot injury
then everyone screamed and tried that
whatever has happened, has happened and
further nothing should be done. He denied
the suggestion that all the above fact
which he has narrated has been stated by
him in the Court on account of tutoring.
Raghubhushan Singh was at a distance of
1.5 yard at the time of firing and
Chandrapal was on the North side of
deceased Raghunath and Raghubhushan
was on the North-Western side at about 22.5 yards distance. The scuffle and
maarpit took place for about half an hour
and the persons who were present there
were trying to pacify the parties and
during that period, shot was fired. The
persons who have murdered the deceased
had left towards East and no one had
assaulted them. The accused Sabal Singh
and Krishna Gopal had left the witness
prior to few minutes when the deceased
Raghunath was shot. When Raja Singh
had exhorted by uttering "Maar Do
1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Saalon Ko" at that time Sabal Singh and
Krishna Gopal had caught-hold of the
deceased Raghunath and accused Raja Singh
was at a distance of 2-2.5 yards to the North
side and the persons who have gathered
there, the accused were surrounded by them
and scuffle was going on and the people
were trying to separate the accused party and
the deceased and the informant and other
side. He further deposed that he cannot give
reason as to how the Investigating Officer
recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in the
case diary and further could not tell that how
in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., it has been
written by the Investigating Officer that
Krishna Gopal and Sabal Singh had caughthold of Raghunath and Raghubhushan Singh
fired at Raghunath by his licensee gun. He
deposed that he did not frequently visit at the
police station and with respect to the present
case he did not ever visit to the police station.
He denied that he had gone to the Police
Station for lodging the FIR with Chandrapal.
He did not accompany the Station Officer
from the Police Station. He further could not
tell the reason as to how the Investigating
Officer has written in his statement that he
had gone along with Chandrapal for giving
an information about the incident to the
Police Station and thereafter he came with
the police. He further deposed that at the
time while coming of the Barat/Dwarchar,
the persons who have licensee weapon, they
celebrate by firing in air. He did not see any
person carrying gun but subsequently he
stated that he saw many persons with the gun
and they had fired in the air. He denied that
he has not seen the incident and further
denied that because of enmity and partybandi he is falsely deposing against the
accused.

11. P.W-2 Babadin in his deposition
before the trial court has stated that
though Raghunath had been murdered but
he came to know about it after about 1012 days and does not know where
Raghunath had been murdered. He denied
that he participated in the Barat of at the
house of Chotey Lal and he turned
hostile.

12. P.W-3 Ram Ratan in his
deposition before the trial court has also
stated that he had heard that Raghunath
has been murdered near the house of
Chotey Lal but denied his presence at the
place of occurrence.

13. P.W-4 Subhash Chand Pandey
has also tried to conceal the fact about the
murder but on persistent questioning, he
stated that he was hearing for the last
about one and half year that Raghunath
has been murdered. He denied that he has
participated in the marriage and he came
to know about the murder in the morning.

14. P.W.5 Raja Ram has also
deposed that he has only heard about the
murder of Raghunath and denied his
participation in the marriage party. He
admitted that his son Braj Kishore is an
accused in a murder case but he was not
aware of the fact that against his son, the
Thakurs of Gangaganj are witnesses and
further he was ignorant about the fact that
the Thakurs of Gangaganj are having
some relationship with the accused Raja
Singh.

15. P.W.6 Chhote Lal whose niece's
marriage was being solemnized on the
day of the incident has stated that it was
at about 9 p.m. and his guest were
gathered at his door and preparation of
reception of Barat was being made. He
did not see Raghunath and Chandrapal as
he was busy in 'Dwarchar' on the way
towards West of his house. He came to
3 All. Raja Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1107
know in the morning next day that
Raghunath has been shot dead. He further
admitted that Patromax were burning at
his door. He produced the said patromax
in the court which are Ext.1 to V. He
stated that he had not invited Raghunath
and Chandrapal as he has no relation with
them. He further deposed that 8-9 persons
were having guns in their hand and
participated in the Barat. The shot were
fired at the time of reception of
'Dwarchar'. He further stated that five
police constables had come in the evening
and stayed throughout night as he had
made an application for police guard
because of some dacoity had take place in
nearby area of the village.

16. P.W.7 Dr. R.C. Yadav has
deposed before the trial court that he was
posted as Medical Officer in K.P.M.
Hospital, Kanpur on 27.2.1977. On that
day at about 1.30 p.m. in the afternoon, he
had conducted the post-mortem of the
deceased Raghunath whose dead-body
was brought by the constable Chotey Lal
and Ram Raj Singh who had identified
and found following ante-mortem injuries
on his person:-

One gun shot wound of cavity 3
cm. x 2 cm. on abdominal cavity deep at
the right side of abdomen 7 cm. above
and lateral from umbilicus through which
part of loop intestine coming out.
Blackening and scorching is present.
Margins are inverted.

According to him, it was gun
shot wound. He had found 1500 cc blood
in the cavity and 200 grams semi digested
food in the stomach and liver lacerated at
many places. He had stated that he
recovered two pieces wadding and 37
metallic pallets embaded I the liver.
According to him the death had taken
place near about 10 p.m. on 25.2.1977
due to gun shot wound producing shock
and haemorrhage being cause of death.
He corroborated by his report Ext.Ka-2.

He has proved post-mortem as
Ext.Ka-2. The cause of death in the
opinion of doctor was due to shock and
hemorrhage as a result of gun-shot injury.

17. P.W.8 Dr. H.O.P Jha has also
deposed before the trial court that he was
posted as E.M.T Surgeon at H.M.
Hospital, Kanpur on 26.2.1977. On the
said day at 4.15 p.m. in the evening he
was on emergency duty and he has
performed medical examination of the
injuries of the injured Chandrapal Singh,
S/o Raghunath Singh and found following
injuries on his person and proved the
injuries as Ext.Ka-3:-

1. Abrasion linear 1⁄4 cm. over
gum margin of upper right central incisor
tooth.

2. Abrasion linear over chick
outer of gum left side 1 cm.

3. Abrasion two linear over
neck left side upper and outer part 1⁄2 cm.
deep with gap of 2.5 cm.

4. Abrasion two linear over
neck left side lower front part 1⁄2 cm. deep
with gap of 3 cm.

5. Laceration on neck on front
part 8 cm. x 1.5 cm. below prominence of
larynx vertical.

6. Abrasion linear on left ear
middle 1⁄4 cm. x 1⁄4 cm.

7. Abrasion on left thigh on
upper and outer part 1.5 cm. x 1⁄4 cm.

Injuries simple caused by blunt
object. All injuries were fresh and
duration was about one day.

18. In his opinion the injuries could
be self inflicted.
1108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. P.W.9 Chandrapal who is the
informant of the case has deposed before
the
trial
court
that
the
deceased
Raghunath was his father and there was
often quarrel between him and accused
Raja Singh with respect to water drainage
as their agricultural field were adjacent to
each
other.
Raghubhushan,
Shashi
Bhushan
and
Shiv
Bhushan,
Braj
Bhushan @ Santosh are the sons of Raja
Singh. Sabal Singh and Krishna Gopal are
known to Raja Singh. On the day of the
incident, at 9-10 p.m. in the night, there
was marriage at the house of Chotey Lal
Baniya. He and his father were the
frequent visitors at his house and both of
them had gone there on the day of the
incident. There was sufficient source of
light and Barat was coming from the
Western side towards the house of Chotey
Lal Baniya. He was standing on the
Southern side of the house of Chotey Lal
Baniya and his father was just near him
and were watching the Barat coming and
Barat was at a distance of 10-15 paces
and Dwarchar was going on. From the
Eastern side all the accused came and
Raja Singh was carrying a wooden stick
whereas Raghubhushan was armed with
double barrel gun and rest of the accused
were empty handed. As soon as Raja
Singh seen them, he exhorted and stated
that he (Chandrapal) and Raghunath have
been found incidently and said that they
should be killed on which Shashi
Bhushan,
Shiv
Bhushan
and
Braj
Bhushan @ Santosh had caught-hold him
and started assaulting him with fists
whereas Sabal Singh and Krishna Gopal
had caught-hold of his father and entered
into scuffling with him. Raja Singh again
exhorted on which Raghubhushan Singh
the accused-appellant had fired shot at his
father which hit him in his abdomen and
his father had fallen there. The shot was
fired at a distance of 2-1/2 paces and the
persons
who
had
caught-hold
the
deceased have left him and then the fire
was shot at the deceased. The said
incident was witnessed by Raja Ram,
Subhash, Babu Lal, Ram Ratan, Babadin
and many other persons. The persons who
have
witnessed
the
incident
had
challenged the accused and stated not to
quarrel and uttered "Yah Kya Kar Rahe
Ho Jo Kiya Ho Gaya Aur Kuch Nahi
Karna". Thereafter the accused had fled
away. Thereafter he lifted his father from
there and put him on the bullock-cart and
proceeded to the police station and when
he reached the outskirts of the village, his
father died and thereafter he returned and
kept his dead-body at the doors of his
house on Chabutra and before lifting his
father from the place of occurrence, he
had taken one Gamcha (cloth) and tied on
his wound. On the next day at about 6.30
a.m., he reached the police station for
lodging the report and he did not go to the
police station in the night because of fear.
He wrote the report at the police station
himself and thereafter submitted the same
on the basis of which the FIR was
registered against the accused persons.
Thereafter
the
Station
Officer
has
recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. at
the police station and then Station Officer
along with Circle Officer and police
constables went to his house along with
him and he has proved the written report
as Ext.Ka-4 which he has written in his
own handwriting and signatures. He has
also received injuries in the incident and
his medical examination report was
conducted on the next day in the
afternoon at Ursala Hospital. He has
further stated that Gamcha (cloth) was
taken into custody by the Investigating
Officer and was sealed and a memo was
also prepared. The inquest on the dead-
3 All. Raja Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1109
body of the deceased was also conducted.
The place where his father had fallen, it
was cleaned and water was found. No
empty
cartridge,
pellet
etc.
were
recovered from the place of occurrence by
the Investigating Officer.

20. In his cross-examination this
witness has deposed that the invitation
was in the name of his father on which his
name was also there. He has two brothers
and the name of his brother Ram Pal was
not mentioned in the card. The said card
was shown to the Investigating Officer
and the same was not taken in his custody
but he again stated that he did not
remember. He stated that he had written
the FIR in short and has not mentioned
about the fact of tighting the Gamcha
(cloth) on the wound and has not stated
about the said fact to anyone prior today.
He denied that the said fact has been
stated by him on account of tutoring. His
father was wearing lungi and baniyan
which was of cotton. Gamcha was not
blood-stained fully. He did not remember
the colour of the Gamcha. The said
Gamcha was not produced in the Court.
The dead-body of the deceased was lifted
from the place of occurrence and put on
the bullock-cart by Babu Lal, Raja Ram
and him. He did not remember whether
the persons who had lifted the dead-body,
the blood was found on their cloth or not.
He did not remember that who had gone
with him to police station but definitely
someone had accompanied him. Babu Lal
had not gone to the police station. Badlu
Pasi had gone or not he does not
remember. The son of Badlu Babu Lal is
the witness. He had gone to police station
at about 5.15 hours to lodge an FIR early
in the morning. The distance of the police
station from the place of occurrence is
five miles. He went on bicycle. The time
took about half an hour or twenty minutes
in writing the report and he did not
remember for how long he remained at
the police station. He denied that the
present
FIR
was
lodged
in
due
consultation and deliberation with the
police. The Circle Officer has seen his
injuries
which
were
abrasion
and
contusion. He has suffered some injuries
on the neck and hip and behind the ear.
He did not remember that on which hip he
had suffered injuries and when he was
cross-examined and asked as to why he
had not written in his report about the fact
that he was also assaulted then he stated
that he did not remember as he was under
fear and has not lodged any report earlier
and whatever he remember, he had
written the same and he had also
informed the police that he was also
assaulted and slapped and assaulted with
fists and if the Investigating Officer has
not written the said fact, then he could not
tell reason about the same. He was
assaulted for about 20-25 minutes and
there were large number of people present
in thousands at the place of occurrence.
He was working in the Army for about
four years and was working prior to the
incident and he was doing the work of
nursing. The persons who had caughthold his father had also assaulted him. At
the time of assault his father, his father
had not fallen. He was ignorant of the fact
as to what is meant by Agwani or
Dwarchar (reception of Barat). When the
Barat comes then the people welcome it
by moving ahead from the house at about
15-20 paces and welcome them and by
Dwarchar, he means that some rituals are
performed at the doors. At the time when
his father was caught-hold, the rituals
were not started. He further stated that in
his FIR he has not mentioned about the
light of patromax and thereafter stated
1110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that it might have been written. As soon
as the shot was fired, people started
screaming, hue and cry was made and
there was chaos in the marriage party and
people started running here and there. His
father had fallen on the ground and the
persons who have caught-hold the witness
have left him and no one made attempt to
catch the accused persons and they were
only raising alarm. His father was not
profusely bleeding and he did not
remember that blood was fallen on the
ground or not and he had immediately
took his father in his lap and did not
remember from whom he has taken the
Angocha (cloth). He was wearing pant,
shirt and coat. He did not see any police
guard at the house of Chotey Lal. The
witness along with his father was there
before 8-10 minutes. Earlier the dacoity
took place at the house of Chotey Lal. His
father had a gun license and he did not
carry the same. In both the villages,
people have licensee weapon. Both the
villages are big and it's population is in
thousands. He did not see any other
person carrying gun. He got his father's
dead-body kept on the Plinth (Chabutra)
of his house and covered with the bedsheet. No policeman had arrived at his
house before he left for police station.
None of the witness remained at his doors
throughout the night. After submitting his
report to the police station, he was taken
by the police to the office of Circle
Officer who was in his room and he
returned to his village on bicycle and the
police persons have also come by bicycle
and not on Jeep. They reached the village
at about 9 a.m. The Investigating Officer
had firstly gone to the place where the
dead-body
was
kept
and
the
Panchayatnama of the dead-body of the
deceased was conducted. Babu Lal Pasi
had come at his house at the time of
Panchnama after the Circle Officer had
arrived and he remained present there
with the witnesses named in the FIR. The
witness has not signed the Panchnama.
The dead-body of the deceased was sent
from the village by the police at about 11
a.m. The Investigating Officer and the
Circle Officer had visited the place of
occurrence and no blood was found as
place of occurrence was clear and water
was found there. The Investigating
Officer interrogated the witnesses. From
the place of occurrence he along with
Circle Officer went to the police station at
about 12 noon. He did not remember how
long he remained at the police station but
he was sent for medical examination after
preparing police papers and from the
police station, he came to the hospital
along with two constables. He denied the
fact that narration of the incident has been
wrongly stated by him and further denied
that no one had caught-hold him nor
assaulted him. He denied the suggestion
that because of the election rivalry he is
falsely deposing against the accused
persons.

21. P.W.10 Banshdhari Singh has
stated that on 25.2.1977 he was posted as
Sub-Inspector
at
police
station
Maharajpur and he started with the
investigation and recorded the statement
of the informant at the police station. He
visited the place of occurrence along with
Sub-Inspector G.S. Yadav. And Dy. S.P
and the dead-body of the deceased was
found by him at the doors of the house of
the informant. Panchayatnama proceeding
were conducted by S.I. G.S. Yadav and
proved the same as Ext.Ka-5 which was
in his handwriting and signatures. He
recorded the statement of witnesses u/s
161 Cr.P.C at the house of Chotey Lal and
made spot inspection of the place of
3 All. Raja Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1111
occurrence and prepared the site-plan as
Ext.Ka-6.
He
also
prepared
Supurdaginama of the five gase light
which were found at the house of Chotey
Lal and took the same in his custody and
prepared a recovery memo Ext.Ka-1 of
the same then recorded the statement of
the witnesses of Panch. He did not found
any blood or empty cartridge at the place
of occurrence as the place of occurrence
was busy place and the incident has taken
place a day earlier in the night, hence the
same being cleaned. He prepared the siteplan of the place where the dead-body of
the deceased was kept and proved the
same as Ext.Ka-7. He has prepared the
recovery memo of Gamcha which was
blood-stained which he took into custody
at the time of Panchnama as the same was
found on the dead-body of the deceased
and proved the same as Ext.Ka-8. The
accused were searched but could not be
traced
out.
After
completing
the
investigation, submitted charge-sheet as
Ext.Ka-10. He has also prepared search
memo Ext.Ka-9. He has further stated that
Chik FIR was prepared by Head Moharrir
Laxmi Narayan and proved the same as
Ext.Ka-11 and the General Diary of the
FIR is Ext.Ka-12. He has denied the
suggestion that the FIR was lodged in due
consultation with the police at the police
station and the FIR was lodged after
Panchnama. The special report was sent at
7.10 a.m. by constable Ram Bahadur who
did not return on the same day. He had
gone to the place of occurrence by
motorcycle and he did not remember
regarding others but D.S.P had also gone
with him. He had proceeded from the
police station to the place of occurrence at
7.15 a.m. and reached within twenty
minutes and Chandrapal had reached few
minutes after him along with police force.
On the chalan nash, the time for sending
the dead-body has not been mentioned. In
the Panchayatnama, the time in column
no.3 has not been mentioned. He further
stated in his cross-examination that after
completing the investigation on 26.2.1977
at 19 hours, he did not remember whether
he had remained in the village or not.
Chandrapal had not accompanied him to
the
police
station
and
after
Panchayatnama he had been sent for
medical examination. The witness Babu
Lal had given him statement u/s 161
Cr.P.C stating that Krishna Gopal and
Sabal
Singh
had
caught-hold
to
Raghunath Singh and Raghubhushan
Singh had fired with his licensee gun on
the deceased Raghunath. He denied the
suggestion
that
at
the
behest
of
Chaudhary Ram Gopal Yadav, M.P, he
has submitted charge sheet in the present
case.

22. P.W.11 Girja Singh Yadav has
stated before the trial court that he had
conducted the Panchayatnama of the
deceased Raghunath and has proved the
Panchayatnama as Ext.Ka-5 and he has
conducted the Panchayatnama under the
direction of the Station Officer. He has
proved the Chalan Nash as Ext.Ka-13,
report to R.I. Ext.Ka-14, report to C.M.O
Ext.Ka-15, Photonash Ext.Ka-16, sample
of seal Ext.Ka-17 under his writing and
signatures. In cross-examination he has
stated that the cloth which was tight-off
from the dead-body of the deceased was
handkerchief. The time for sending the
dead-body in the Panchayatnama and
Chalan Nash inadvertently was left by
him and he denied the suggestion that no
case was registered till the inquest report.

23. The trial court after considering
the prosecution evidence and the defense
version came to the conclusion and held
1112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the accused-appellant guilty for the
offence in question and aggrieved by the
same,
the
accused-appellant
Raghubhushan Singh has preferred the
instant appeal.

24. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Vikrant Rana, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned
AGA for the State and perused the record.

25. It has been argued by learned
counsel for the appellant that there is
material
contradictions
between
the
evidence of P.W.1 Babu Lal and P.W.9
Chandrapal on one hand and P.W.10
Banshdhari Singh on the other hand
which goes to show that the presence of
the said eye-witnesses at the place of
occurrence is doubtful and they have not
seen the incident and the appellant has
been falsely implicated in the present case
on account of previous animosity between
the parties. In this regard he has pointed
out from the statement of P.W.1 Babu Lal
that in the marriage of niece of Chotey
Lal Baniya (P.W.6), P.W.9 Chandrapal
and the deceased Raghunath were invited
in the marriage and they had gone in the
said marriage ceremony whereas P.W.6 in
his statement before the trial court has
denied the fact that neither the deceased
Raghunath nor his son Chandrapal were
invited by him in the marriage. From the
evidence of P.W.1 it is evident that he
reached the house of Chotey Lal Baniya
when the Barat was being received but in
his cross-examination, he has stated that
he left the place of occurrence i.e. house
of Chotey Lal Baniya before the Barat
was received. It was further pointed out
that P.W.1 had deposed that soon after the
incident, the deceased was taken by him
on a bullock-cart after he was lifted and
his dead-body was kept on the bullockcart and the said bullock-cart was carried
to the police station but he died on the
outskirts of the village and thereafter he
brought the dead-body of the deceased to
his house and he argued that P.W.1 has
stated that he did not go to the police
station along with P.W.9 to lodge the FIR
nor gave any statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.