# Ram Charan & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2000
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-04-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2000
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-charan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-46421
- **Pages:** 57

## Headnote

A. Criminal law-Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Section 149, Section 302, Section 304 Part
1 - Indian Evidence Act- Section 3, Section
27 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
154, 155 - A detailed description and
sequence of incident constituting the
offence is not at all required to be
mentioned in the FIR- Section 174- For
the purpose of holding the inquest it is
neither necessary nor obligatory on the
part
of
the
Investigating
Officer
to
investigate into or ascertain who were the
persons responsible for the death - Any
omission on the part of the investigating
officer cannot go against the prosecution -
Non recording of disclosure statement and
non-examination of public witness as
regards to the recovery would be of no
consequence - Statement of Police Officer
can be relied upon and even form basis of
conviction when it is reliable, trustworthy
and preferably corroborated by other
evidence on record - Affidavits have got
no evidentiary value as the affidavits are
not
included
in
the
definition
of
"evidence" in S. 3 of the Evidence Act -
Seizure memo need not be attested in all
cases by any independent witness and the
evidence
of
police
officer
regarding
recovery at the instance of the accused
should ordinarily be believed -The reason
for a chance witness being present on the
spot and his testimony requires close
scrutiny-Minor
contradictions,
inconsistencies,
embellishments
or
improvements on trivial matters which do
not affect the core of the prosecution
case, should not be made a ground on
which the evidence can be rejected in its
entirety-The
evidence
of
the
injured
witness is put at a very higher footing and
without
any
substantial
reason
the
statement
of
such
injured
witnesses
cannot be disbelieved- Statements of the
interested witnesses can be safely relied
upon by the court when their statements
find corroboration by other evidence - The
Court
can
convict
an
accused
on
statement of sole witness even if he is
relative
of
the
deceased
and
non
examination
of
independent
witness
would not be fatal to the case of
prosecution - It is not the quantity, rather
quality of the evidence which is decisive in
arriving
at
the
right
conclusion-The
allegation of exhortation attributed to all
the seven accused persons in a form of
chorus
is
highly
improbable
in
the
ordinary course - Not possible for all the
seven accused persons to utter the same
words simultaneously - Exhortation is
considered to be a very weak evidence,
unless coupled with some overt act, to
show involvement in commission of crimeBoth the accused gave only one blow and
did not repeat the assault further- Nor
they
chased
any
other
person
of
3-5 All. Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
381
complainant side nor caused injury to
them. Their act attracts the offence of
culpable
homicide
not
amounting
to
murder punishable under section 304 Part
I instead of the offence of murder
punishable under section 302 IPC.

Held- Cr.Pc, 1973- S

## Text

_Characters 0–39,778 of 196,536. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39778 for what follows._

380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
IPC. Appellants are on bail. Their bail
bonds are discharged. Each appellant shall
file personal bond and two sureties in
accordance with Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. to
the satisfaction of the court concerned.

22. Office is directed to communicate
this order to the court concerned forthwith
and send back the record
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A380
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1164 of 2000
Connected with
Criminal Appeal No. 1503 of 2000

Ram Charan & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Dileep Kumar, Sri Ramesh Sinha, Sri
Akhilesh Singh, Sri Shishir Tandon, Sri
Shivam Yadav.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri G.S. Chauhan

A. Criminal law-Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Section 149, Section 302, Section 304 Part
1 - Indian Evidence Act- Section 3, Section
27 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
154, 155 - A detailed description and
sequence of incident constituting the
offence is not at all required to be
mentioned in the FIR- Section 174- For
the purpose of holding the inquest it is
neither necessary nor obligatory on the
part
of
the
Investigating
Officer
to
investigate into or ascertain who were the
persons responsible for the death - Any
omission on the part of the investigating
officer cannot go against the prosecution -
Non recording of disclosure statement and
non-examination of public witness as
regards to the recovery would be of no
consequence - Statement of Police Officer
can be relied upon and even form basis of
conviction when it is reliable, trustworthy
and preferably corroborated by other
evidence on record - Affidavits have got
no evidentiary value as the affidavits are
not
included
in
the
definition
of
"evidence" in S. 3 of the Evidence Act -
Seizure memo need not be attested in all
cases by any independent witness and the
evidence
of
police
officer
regarding
recovery at the instance of the accused
should ordinarily be believed -The reason
for a chance witness being present on the
spot and his testimony requires close
scrutiny-Minor
contradictions,
inconsistencies,
embellishments
or
improvements on trivial matters which do
not affect the core of the prosecution
case, should not be made a ground on
which the evidence can be rejected in its
entirety-The
evidence
of
the
injured
witness is put at a very higher footing and
without
any
substantial
reason
the
statement
of
such
injured
witnesses
cannot be disbelieved- Statements of the
interested witnesses can be safely relied
upon by the court when their statements
find corroboration by other evidence - The
Court
can
convict
an
accused
on
statement of sole witness even if he is
relative
of
the
deceased
and
non
examination
of
independent
witness
would not be fatal to the case of
prosecution - It is not the quantity, rather
quality of the evidence which is decisive in
arriving
at
the
right
conclusion-The
allegation of exhortation attributed to all
the seven accused persons in a form of
chorus
is
highly
improbable
in
the
ordinary course - Not possible for all the
seven accused persons to utter the same
words simultaneously - Exhortation is
considered to be a very weak evidence,
unless coupled with some overt act, to
show involvement in commission of crimeBoth the accused gave only one blow and
did not repeat the assault further- Nor
they
chased
any
other
person
of
3-5 All. Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
381
complainant side nor caused injury to
them. Their act attracts the offence of
culpable
homicide
not
amounting
to
murder punishable under section 304 Part
I instead of the offence of murder
punishable under section 302 IPC.

Held- Cr.Pc, 1973- Section 154- FIR is not
an encyclopedia- The purpose of FIR is to
give information about commission of offence
and it is not necessary to give every minute
detail.

Criminal law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 174- Inquest Report is not
substantive evidence- It is neither necessary
nor obligatory on the part of the Investigating
Officer to investigate into or ascertain as to who
were the persons responsible for the death in
the inquest report.

Criminal law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 155- Any omission on the
part of the investigating officer cannot go
against the prosecution. If the investigating
officer has made omissions in the interest of
justice,
such
acts
or
omission
of
the
investigating officer should not be taken in
favour of the accused.

Evidence Law-Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 27- Recovery- When the police
personnel are the witness of the recovery
made upon the disclosure of the accused
then the testimony of police personnel
should be treated in the same manner as
testimony of any other witness. Statement
of Police Officer can be relied upon and may
even form the basis of conviction when it is
reliable,
trustworthy
and
preferably
corroborated by other evidence on record and
non- recording of statements of independent
witnesses would be of no consequence.

Evidence law-Indian Evidence Act, Section
134- It is the quality of evidence and not
the quantity that is important. The Court
can convict an accused on statement of sole
witness even if he is relative of the deceased
and non examination of independent witness
would not be fatal to the case of prosecution.

Criminal law-Indian Penal Code- Section
141- Section 149- Unlawful AssemblyProof of common object is required for
conviction with the help of Section 149
IPC. and mere presence will not imply that
the accused shared common object and
formed unlawful assembly- Three appellants
alleged to have exhorted in chorus without
doing any covert act, hence it cannot be
established that they all constituted an unlawful
assembly and shared the common object to
commit the offence - Exhortation is considered
to be a very week (sic) evidence, unless coupled
with some overt act, to show involvement in
commission of crime.

Criminal Law- Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section 304 Part II- For the application of
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it is not
sufficient to show that there was a sudden
quarrel and there was no premeditation.
It must further be shown that the
offender has not taken undue advantage
or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The
expression "undue advantage" as used in
the provision means "unfair advantage".
No evidence that the accused persons came
prepared with any planning of committing
offence -The offence has been committed by
axe and spade which are normal agricultural
tools and no unfair advantage was taken by the
accused during the incident.No repetition of
assault after giving one blow, nor they chased
any other person of complainant side nor
caused injury to them.

Criminal Appeal no. 1164 of 2000 is
allowed. The conviction and sentence of
accused-appellants for the offence under section
302/149, 147, 323/149 IPC is set aside and they
are acquitted.

Criminal Appeal no. 1503 of 2000 is partly
allowed. The conviction and sentence of
accused-appellants for the offence under section
302/149 IPC is converted into that of section
304 Part I IPC and consequently, their sentence
of life imprisonment is reduced to 12 years
rigorous
imprisonment
and
fifty
thousand
rupees fine each and in default, two years
additional imprisonment.(Para 20, 24, 27, 32,39,
382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
41, 46, 47, 48,52, 59, 72, 73, 77,79, 84, 113,
114, 115, 137) (E-3)

List of case cited:-

1. Geejaganda Somaiah, T.N. Vs. St. of Kar.,
AIR 2007 SC 1355

2. Bodh Raj Vs. St. of J & K, AIR 2002 SC 3164

3. Suresh Chandra Bahri Vs. St. of Bih., AIR
1994 SC 2420

4. Jaskaran Vs. St. of Punj., AIR 1995 SC 2345

5. V.K. Mishra Vs. St. of U.K, (2015) 9 SCC 588

6. Rahul Mishra Vs. St. of U.K, AIR 2015 SC
3043

7. St. of UP Vs. Lakhan Singh, 2014 (86) ACC 82
(All) (DB).

8. Jagdish Vs. St. of UP, 1996 (33) ACC 495

9. Brahma Swaroop Vs. St. of UP, AIR 2011 SC
280

10. Radha Mohan Singh alias Lal Saheb Vs. St.
of UP, 2006 (54) ACC 862 (SC)

11. Podda Narayana Vs. St. of AP, AIR 1975 SC
1252

12. George Vs. St. of Ker., AIR 1998 SC
1376 2007

13. Golla Pullanna Vs. St. of AP, AIR 1996
SC 2727

14. Ramji Singh Vs. St. of UP, 2019 (4)
Crimes 585 (SC),

15. Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. St. of
Maha., (2016) 10 SCC 537

16. Jarnail Singh Vs. St. of Punj., 2009 (6)
Supreme 526

17. Govindaraju alias Govinda Vs. St. of Shri
Ramapuram P.S., AIR 2012 SC 1292

18. Pramod Kumar Vs. St. (GNCT) of Delhi,
AIR 2013 SC 3344

19. Nathu Singh Vs. St. of MP, 1974 Cri. L J 11

20. Navneethakrishnan Vs. St., AIR 2018 SC
2027

21. Sandeep Vs. St. of UP, (2012) 6 SCC 107

22. Darya Singh Vs. St. of Punj., AIR 1965 SC
328

23. Dalip Singh Vs. St. of Punj. (1954) SCR
145

24. St. of Har. Vs. Krishan, AIR 2017 SC 3125

25. Mukesh Vs. St. for NCT of Delhi, AIR 2017
SC 2161

26. Mahavir Singh Vs. St. of Har., (2014) 6
SCC 716

27. Ramchandaran Vs. St. of Ker. AIR 2011 SC
3581

28. Shivappa Vs. St. of Kar.; AIR 2682

29. Parsu Ram Pandey Vs. St. of Bih. AIR 2004
SC 5068

30. Gosu Jayarami Reddy Vs. St. of A.P;
(2011) 3 SCC(Cri) 630

31. State of UP Vs. Naresh; 2011 (75) ACC
215) (SC)

32. State of UP Vs. Chhoteylal, AIR 2011 SC
697

33. Dimple Gupta (minor) Vs. Rajiv Gupta, AIR
2008 SC 239

34. State of UP Vs. Krishna Master, AIR 2010
SC 3071

35. Ramesh Vs. St. of U.P., 2010 (68) ACC 219
(SC)

36. Kallu Vs. St. of Har., AIR 2012 SC 3212
3-5 All. Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
383
37. Sucha Singh Vs. St. of Punj., (2003) 7 SCC
643

38. St. of Maha. Vs. Tulshiram Bhanudas
Kamble, AIR 2007 SC 3042

39. Janardan Singh Vs. St. of Bih., (2009) 16
SCC 269

40. Ramesh Harijan Vs. St. of UP, (2012) 5
SCC 777

41. Babu Vs. St. of TN, (2013) 8 SCC 60

42. St. of Kar. Vs. Suvarnamma, (2015) 1 SCC
323

43. Ayaaubkhan Vs. St. of Maha., AIR
2013 SC 58

44. Shio Shanker Dubey Vs. St. of Bih. AIR
2019 SC 2275

45. Dhari & Ors Vs. St. of UP, AIR 2013 SC
308

46. Shyam Babu Vs.St. of UP, AIR 2012 SC
3311 (2011) 7 SCC 421

47. Bhajan Singh Vs. St. of Har., (2011) 7
SCC 421

48. Jayabalan Vs. U.T. of Pondicherry,
2010(68) ACC 308 (SC)

49. Dharnidhar Vs. St. of UP, (2010) 7 SCC
759

50. Ram Bharosey Vs. St. of UP AIR 2010
SC 917

51. Balraje @ Trimbak Vs. St. of Maha.,
(2010) 6 SCC 673

52. Jalpat Rai Vs. St. of Har. AIR 2011 SC
2719

53. Waman Vs. St. of Maha. AIR 2011 SC
3327

54. Himanshu Vs. St. (NCT of Delhis,
(2011) 2 SCC 36

55. M.C. Ali Vs. St. of Ker. AIR 2010 SC
1639

56. Satbir Singh Vs. St. of UP, (2009) 13 SCC
790

57. Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy Vs.
St. of AP (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 500

58. Masalti Vs. St. of UP, AIR 1965 SC 202

59. Chittarmal Vs. St. of Raj., AIR 2003 SC 796

60. Rupinder Singh Sandhu Vs. St. of Punj.,
(2018) 16 SCC 475,

61. Leela Ram Vs. St. of Har., (1999) 9 SCC
52510,

62. Hema Vs. St., 2013 (81) ACC 1 (SC)

63. St. of Kar. Vs. Suvarnamma, (2015) 1 SCC
323

64. Khem Ram Vs. St. of H.P, (2018) 1
SCC 202

65. Saddik Vs. St. of Guj., (2016) 10 SCC
663

66. Varun Chaudhry Vs. St. of Raj. AIR
2011 SC 72

67. St. of Raj. Vs. Arjun Singh AIR 2011
SC 3380

68. R.R. Reddy Vs. St. of AP, AIR 2006 SC
1656

69. Gopi Ram Vs. St. Of UP, 2006 (55)
ACC 673 SC

70. Abu Thakir Vs. St. AIR 2010 SC 2119

71. St. of UP Vs. Nawab Singh AIR 2010
SC 3638

72. Bipin Kumar Mondal Vs. St. of W.B
2005 SCC (Criminal) 33

73. Shivraj Bapuray Jadhav Vs. St. of Kar.
(2003) 6 SCC 392
384 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
74. Thaman Kumar Vs. St. of U.T of
Chandigarh (2003) 6 SCC 380

75. St. of HP Vs. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370

76. Kuldip Yadav Vs. State of Bih., AIR 2011
SC 1736

77. Mohammed Ankoos Vs. Pub. Pros., High
Court of A.P, Hyderabad, 2010 (1) SCC 94

78. Bhupendra Singh Vs. St. of UP, AIR 2009
SC 3265

79. Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre Vs. St. of
Maha., 2009 (10) SCC 773

80. Maranadu Vs. St. 2008 (16) SCC 529

81. Nagarjit Ahir Vs. St. of Bih. 2005 (10 SCC
369

82. Bharosi Vs. St. of MP, AIR 2002 SC 3299

83. Bhagwan Singh Vs. St. of MP, AIR 2002 SC
1836

84. Dani Singh Vs. St. of Bih. 2005 SCC (Cri.)
127

85. Rajendra Shantaram Todankar Vs. St. of
Maha. (2003) 2 SCC 257

86. Chikkarange Gowda Vs. St. of Mysore, AIR
1956 SC 731

87. State of Maha. Vs. Kashirao, AIR 2003 SC
3901

88. Gangadhar Behara Vs. St. of Orissa, 2002
(8) SCC 381

89. State of UP Vs. Dan Singh, 1997 (3) SCC
747

90. Ranbir Yadav Vs. St. of Bih., 1995 (4) SCC
392

91. Sherey Vs. St. of UP,1991 Supp (2) SCC
437

92. Allauddin Mian Vs. St. of Bih., 1989 (3)
SCC 5
93. Lalji Vs. St. of UP, 1989 (1) SCC 437

94. Musa Khan Vs. St. of Maha. 1977 (1) SCC
733

95. Tarlok Singh Vs. St. of Punj., AIR 1974 SC
1797

96. Raj Nath Vs. St. of UP, AIR 2009 SC 1422

97. Shaji Vs. St. of Ker., 2011 (5) SCC 423

98. Ramachandran & ors. Vs. St. of Ker., 2011
(9) SCC 257

99. St. of Maha. Vs. Ramlal Devappa Rathod,
(2015) 15 SCC 77

100. Vijay Pandurang Thakre Vs. St. of Maha.,
AIR 2017 SC 897,

101.
Vinubhai
Ranchhodbhai
Patel
Vs.
Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel, AIR 2018 SC 2472

102. St. of MP Vs. Killu @ Kailash, 2020 (1)
Crimes 47 (SC)

103. St. of UP Vs. Ravindra @ Babloo, 2020
(1) Crimes 57 (SC),

104. Nagarjit Ahir Vs. St. of Bih., (2005) 10
SCC 369

105. Bunnilal Vs. St. of Bih., AIR 2006 SC 2531

106. Vishnu Vs. St. of Raj. (2009) 10 SCC 773

107. Debashish Vs. St. of WB (2010) 9 SCC
111

108. Maqsoodan Vs. St. of UP, (1983) 1 SCC
218

109. Crl. Appeal No. 5887 of 2010 (Haider Ali
& ors Vs. St. of UP), dec. on 6.5.2019

110. St. of AP Vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya, AIR
1977 SC 45

111. Pappu Vs. St. of MP, (2006) 7 SCC 391

112. Jagriti Devi Vs. St. of HP, (2009) 14 SCC
771
3-5 All. Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
385
113. Chenda @ Chanda Ram Vs. St. of
Chhatis., (2013) 12 SCC 10

114. Lavghanbha Devjibhai Vasava Vs. St. of
Guj., (2018) 4 SCC 329

115. Kirpal Singh Vs. St., AIR 1951 Punj. &
Har. 137

116. Mahesh Vs. St. of MP, (1996) 6 SCC 668

117. Surain Singh Vs. St. of Punj. (2017) 5
SCC 796

118. Govind Singh Vs. St. of Chhattis., AIR
2019 SC 2120

119. Rambir Vs. St. of NCT, Delhi, AIR 2019
SC 2264
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Dileep Kumar, learned
Senior Advocate for the accused-appellant,
Sri Ajit Ray, learned AGA for the State and
Shri G.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the
complainant.

2. These two criminal appeals have
been filed by the appellants namely Ram
Charan, Ram Singh, Amar Singh, Siyaram,
Achchhey Lal and Mahendra against the
impugned judgment and order dated
17.5.2000 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhansi
in Sessions Trial No.287 of 1996, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 504 IPC,
Police Station Todi Fatehpur, District
Jhansi, by which the accused appellants
have been convicted and sentenced for life
imprisonment for the offence under Section
302/149 IPC, for two years RI for the
offence under Section 148 IPC to accusedappellants namely Ram Charan, Achchhey
Lal, Mahendra and Siyaram, for one year
imprisonment to accused-appellants namely
Ram Singh and Amar Singh for the offence
under Section 147 IPC and six months RI
under Section 323/149 IPC to all the
accused-appellants. The learned trial court
has directed that all the sentences shall run
concurrently.

3. Brief facts of this case is that on
31.3.1996, at about 11:00 AM, a criminal
incident took place in village Semri, Police
Station Todi Fatehpur about which the first
information report was lodged on same day
at 13:05 PM by Vijay Singh by giving
written report to the police. Accordingly, at
the time of incident, the informant Vijay
Singh, his father Bhairav Yadav, his wife
Smt. Sudama Devi, his brother Sripat Smt.
Sumitra (wife of Sripat) and Badam Singh
of the village had gone to load the log of
wheat on their field. His mother was
grazing the buffaloes on the mend (divider)
of wheat field of the informant. On the
adjoining field of accused Achhey Lal of
his village, accused Achchhey Lal, Ram
Charan, Ram Singh, Amar Singh, Siyaram,
Sahab Singh and accused Mahendra Singh
were cutting crops. Seeing the mother of
the informant grazing the buffaloes, the
accused persons with lathi (bamboo stick),
farsa (spade) and axe in their hands came
together on the mend of the field and
started abusing saying that how dare she
had left the animals to graze in their field,
whereupon the parents of the informant
said that half of the mend belonged to them
and, therefore, their buffaloes would
continue grazing. Because of this, all the
accused cried out to kill them and not to let
them
alive
and
thereupon
accused
Achchhey Lal hit his father by his axe on
his head who cried and fell down. The
brother of the informant namely Sripat
reached near the mend and he tried to stop
them, whereupon accused Ramcharan and
Mahendra Singh hit him by their farsa on
his head and he also fell down and died.
The accused Sahab Singh assaulted his
386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wife by lathi and she sustained injuries on
her back. The complainant side challenged
them and persons present in adjoining filed
including Bhagwan Das, who was also
grazing his animals, came and saw the
incident. The father of the informant was
seriously injured and when he was being
taken to police station on a bullock-cart, on
the bank of Patrai river, he also died. The
bullock-cart and dead body of the father
was left there with Badam Singh. The dead
body of his brother was lying in the field.
On this written report the offence was
registered against the accused persons
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323,
504 IPC and chik FIR was prepared.

4. The incident was seen by the
witnesses Badam Singh and Bhagwan Das.
Injured Smt. Sudama Devi was sent for
medical
examination.
The
case
was
investigated by police, statements of the
witnesses were recorded, inquest report of
both the dead bodies was prepared and,
along with relevant papers, the dead body
was sent for post-mortem. From the place
of occurrence, blood stained earth and plain
earth was picked up and memo was
prepared from the place where deceased
Bhairo was assaulted and also from the
place where deceased Sripat was assaulted.
A search was conducted of the house of the
accused persons in order to recover the
weapon used in the commission of the
offence. Subsequently, accused Achchey
Lal,
Mahendra
and
Ram
Charan
surrendered and they were taken on police
remand and in their statements they
confessed their guilt and also stated that the
axe and farsa by which the crime was
committed, they have concealed in the
hedges of Simari forest. On the pointing of
the accused persons, the axe and farsa were
recovered and three recovery memo were
prepared separately for each farsa and axe.
The axe and farsa were stained by blood
and all the recovered items including the
clothes of the deceased persons were sent
for forensic examination.

5. The Investigating Officer prepared
the site map of the place of occurrence and
also prepared site map of the place from
where the weapon of assault, axe and farsa,
were recovered, After completing the
investigation, charge sheet was submitted
by the Investigating Officer against seven
accused persons. The case of accused
Saheb Singh was separated, who was sent
to Juvenile Justice Board as he was found
to be juvenile.

6. The accused persons pleaded not
guilty to the charges framed against them
under
section
147,148,302/149
and
323/149 IPC by the Court and claimed trial.

7. Six witnesses were examined in
support of the prosecution case. PW-1 Dr.
J.K. Gupta has proved the post-mortem
reports as Ext. Ka-1 and Ext. Ka-2. PW-2
Head Constable Sobaran Singh has proved
chik FIR Ext. Ka-3, GD report no.14 Ext.
Ka-4, GD no.15, Ext. Ka-5, injury letter of
Smt. Sudama Devi Ext. Ka-6, GD Report
no.26 Ext. Ka-7, GD No.10 Ext. Ka-8, GD
report Ext. K-9 and G.D. No. 9 Ext. Ka-10.
PW-3
Vijay
Singh
(eye-witness
and
informant) has proved written report Ext.
Ka-11 and the cloths of both the deceased
persons as Material Ext.-1 to Ext.-6. PW-4
Badam Singh is eye-witness and has also
proved inquest Ext. Ka-12. PW-5 Sudama
Devi is eye-witness. PW-6 Premlal, SO has
investigated the case and has proved injury
letter of Sudama Devi Ext. Ka-13, Ext. Ka14 inquest report Ext. Ka-12, Form No.13,
photo of dead body, letter to CMO was also
prepared by him Ext. Ka-15 to Ext. Ka-17,
inquest report of Sripat Ext. Ka-18 and
3-5 All. Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
387
Form No.13, photo dead body, letter to
CMO Ext. Ka-19 to Ext. Ka-21, site map of
place of occurrence Ext. Ka-22, memo of
blood stained and plain earth Ext. Ka-23
and Ext. Ka-24 blood stained earth and
plain earth Material Ext.-7 to Ext.-10,
search memo Ext. Ka-25, memo of blood
stained axe Ext. Ka-26, recovered axe
Material Ext. 11, memo of blood stained
farsa Ext. Ka-27, recovered farsa Material
Ext.-12, memo of another blood stained
farsa Ext. Ka-28, recovered farsa Material
Ex.-13, site plan from where the weapons
were recovered Ext. Ka-29 to Ext. Ka-3i,
GD report Ext. Ka-9 and charge sheet Ext.
Ka-32. The statements of the accused
persons were recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. who did not give any evidence in
defence. After hearing the prosecution and
defence, learned trial court has passed
impugned judgement and has sentenced the
accused persons.

8. Aggrieved by the impugned
judgement, these two appeals have been
filed challenging the same to be illegal on
the ground that the conviction and sentence
is against the weight of evidence on record,
is contrary to law and the sentence awarded
is too severe.

9. The learned Senior Advocate Shri
Dilip Kumar for the accused-appellant has
submitted that the accused persons were
falsely implicated. The two deceased
persons have been found to have sustained
one injury each and seven accused persons
have been implicated and all the six
persons tried by the learned trial court have
been convicted for the offence of murder.
Prosecution has examined only related and
highly interested witnesses on whom no
reliance should have been placed. Not only
that the presence of eyewitnesses is
doubtful,
there
is
contradiction,
improvement and discrepancy in their
statement.

10. On the other hand, the learned
AGA and the learned counsel of the
complainant have submitted that on the
basis of evidence on record and finding that
the offence of murder was committed by
the unlawful assembly constituted by the
accused persons, the learned trial court has
rightly convicted and sentenced the accused
persons.

11. PW-1 Dr. J.K. Gupta conducted
post-mortem of both the dead bodies. He
has stated that on 1.4.1996 he was posted in
CHC, Mau Ranipur as medical officer. The
dead body of deceased Bhairo, aged about
65 years, was brought by constable
Mahadev Prasad and home-guard Ram
Prasad of Police Station Todi Fatehpur in
sealed condition along with relevant papers
at 11:45 AM and he conducted postmortem at about 12:00 PM. The deceased
was of average height. Rigor mortis was
present in the body, eyes were closed and it
was greenish on the right side of stomach.
Following
anti-mortem
injuries
were
found-

(i) Incised wound 10 x 1-1/2 x
brain deep over right parietal region of
scalp situated antro posteriorly, 8 cm
above from right eye brow and 10 cm
above from right ear pinna. Margin clean
cut. underlying bones found cut. Brain was
coming out from head.

Internal Examination

Right parietal bone was found
broken from front and back. Frontal and
occipital bones were fractured. The brain
membrane below the wound was torn. The
brain was torn on the right side. The heart
was vacant and 100 ml semi digested food
388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was found in the stomach. In the large and
small intestine, faecal matters found. The
liver, spleen and kidney were found
congested. According to the doctor, the
deceased must have died due to coma
because of anti-mortem head injuries and
must have died one day before. The injury
was possible by axe and it was possible that
injury must have been caused on 31.3.1996
at about 11:00 AM. The injury was
sufficient to caused death.

12. PW-1 has stated that on the same
day, at about 1:30 PM, the dead body of
deceased Sripat was also brought by
constable Ganga Prasad Shukla in sealed
condition and post-mortem was conducted
by him. In the external examination, it was
found that the deceased was of average
height, mouth closed, right eye opened
whereas left eye was closed. The rigormortis was present in the whole body. In
the lower side of stomach, it was greenish;
semen was coming out. Following antemortem injury was found-

(I) One incised wound 18cm x
2cm x brain deep on the left side of scalp
starting from the left side of nose root from
front to back and 1 cm outside from the
middle line, 13 cm above from left ear,
brain was coming out from the head,
clotted blood around the injury present; the
left eye had gone black.

Internal Examination

The parietal left bone and left
side of frontal bone cut.; the brain
membrane cut; left brain membrane was
torn; in both large and small intestine,
faecal matters found; the heart was empty;
stomach was empty. Doctor has stated that
the deceased must have died due to shock
because of ante-mortem injury and he must
have died one day before. He has also
stated that the injury was possible to have
been caused on 31.3.1996 at about 11:00
AM. The instant death after sustaining
injury was possible.

13. PW-2 Head Constable Sobaran
Singh has stated that on 31.3.1996 he was
posted as head Muharir in Police Station
Todi Fatehpur. The informant Vijay Singh
came in the afternoon at 1:05 PM with his
injured wife and gave the written report
about the incident on the basis of which the
offence was registered and chik FIR was
prepared, an entry thereof was made in GD
of the same day, a carbon copy thereof is
on record. He has further stated that injured
Smt. Sudama Devi was sent for medical
with injury letter written by constable
Ravindra Singh before him. A special
report was sent at 2:15 PM and entry was
made in GD. The witness has stated that on
1.4.1996,
constable
Ganga
Prasad,
constable Mahadev and home guard Ram
Prasad and Sultan Singh returned with two
bundles of clothes with papers and two
envelops containing post-mortem report of
Bhairo and Sripat and entry in GD to that
effect was made on the same day. The
witness has also stated that SO Ram Lal, on
2.4.1996, when returned to police station,
gave four containers of blood stained and
plain earth relating to this offence about
which an entry in the GD was made. On
12.4.1996, at 12:20 PM, SO Premlal came
to the police station along with three
accused persons Achchey Lal, Ram Charan
and Mahendra Singh with one axe and two
farsa which were sealed and entry thereof
was made in GD on the same day. The
witness has stated that the recovered
articles and clothes of deceased persons
were sent to forensic laboratory on
25.4.1996 for chemical examination and
entry to that effect was made in GD.
3-5 All. Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
389

14. PW-3 Vijay Singh (informant) has
stated that his ancestral was Natthu and had
two sons namely Paragi and Vrishbhan.
Paragi had three sons, Bhairo, Pyarelal and
Gulab. Deceased Sripat was his real
brother. Accused Achchey Lal, Ram
Charan and Ram Singh are sons of
Vrishbhan. Accused Mahendra is son of
Ram Singh and accused Amar Singh,
Sahab Singh and Siya Ram are sons of
Ram Charan. The witness has stated that it
was two years eight months before when he
had gone to his field situated in Semri
Ahiran for loading the wheat with his wife
Smt. Sudama Devi, his brother Sripat, his
Bhabhi Saumitra Devi, his mother Hirabai
and his father Bhairo. His father was
already there. Badam Singh of the village
also went with them. They were collecting
and loading the wheat on bullock-cart. His
mother Hirabai was grazing buffaloes. The
accused persons Acchey Lal, Ram Charan,
Ram Singh, Mahendra Singh, Amar Singh,
Siyaram and Sahab Singh were cutting
their wheat crops in their field in their
adjoining field. The field of informant and
accused was divided by a mend where his
mother was grazing buffaloes. The accused
Achchey Lal used abusive language against
his mother and said why she has left the
buffaloes at their mend, his father and
mother said that half of the mend belonged
to them and, therefore, buffaloes would
graze there. It was 11:00 AM at that time
and accused Achchey Lal, Ram Singh,
Siyaram came with axe and accused Ram
Charan and Mahendra came with farsa and
accused Amar Singh and Sahab Singh
came with lathi and said kill them and not
let
them
alive,
whereupon
accused
Achchey Lal hit on the head of his father
by axe who fell on the ground and when his
brother Sripat ran towards his father,
accused Ram Charan hit him by farsa,
which
missed.
Accused
Mahendra,
thereafter, hit by farsa on the head of Sripat
who fell on the ground and died. The
witness has stated that he sent his wife
Sudama to save them. She was hit by
accused Sahab Singh by lathi. Badam
Singh was present there and Bhagwan Das
of the village was also present who was
grazing his animals. They ran towards them
whereupon the accused persons fled away
towards forest. The witness has further
stated that the blood of Sripat fell on the
ground and on his clothes, Similarly blood
also poured on the clothes of his father. The
clothes of both the deceased persons have
been proved by the witness as material
Ext.-1 to Ext.-6. He, his wife and Badam
Singh when going to police station on
bullock-cart carrying his injured father, his
father died on the way on the bank of
Pathrai river. He got a written report
scribed by Badam Singh and after being
read over to him, he put his thumb
impression on the report and he and his
wife leaving the dead body of father there,
went to police station and gave the written
report to the police. On being asked by the
Police Inspector, he told him that the dead
body of his father was lying on the bank of
Pathrai river. The Police Inspector went
with him there.

15. PW-4 Badam Singh is the eye
witness and scriber of the written report.
He has stated that he was on the field of
Bhairo and Sripat three years before when
the incident took place. At that time, the
crop was being loaded on the bullock-cart.
He was taken to the field by Sripat. It was
10-11 AM Vijay Singh, Smt. Sudama, Smt.
Sumitra, mother of Sripat, Sripat and his
father Bhairo were loading the wheat and
mother of Sripat was grazing the buffaloes
on the mend of the field of Bhairo and
accused Achchey Lal. He knew accused
Achchey Lal, Ram Charan, Ram Singh,
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mahendra Singh and Amar Singh (present
in Court). The witness has stated that at the
time of incident, the accused persons were
cutting
wheat
crops.
Using
abusive
language, they came to the mother of Vijay
Singh and said to take away the buffaloes.
Accused Achchey Lal and Siyaram were
carrying axe whereas accused Mahendra
and Ram Charan were carrying farsa and
accused Sahab Singh and Amar were
carrying lathi in their hand. When this was
going on, Bhairo also reached on the mend.
Accused Achchey Lal hit Bhairo by his axe
on his head who got injured and Ram
Charan hit Sripat by pharsa, which missed.
Thereafter, accused Mahendra Singh hit
Sripat by his farsa on the head of Sripat
who died on spot. Accused Sahab Singh hit
Sudama by his lathi. Thereafter, accused
persons ran away from there. Bhairo was
alive and when he was being taken by
Vijay Singh and Sudama on bullock-cart to
police station Todi Fatehpur, on the bank of
Pathrai river, he also died. The witness has
stated that Vijay Singh dictated the written
report to him and when the report was
written he put his thumb impression on it.
He stayed there and Vijay Singh and his
wife Sudama went to police station and
Vijay Singh and Police Inspector came
there and the police inspector prepared
inquest report on which he also signed,
which is Ext. K-12.

16. PW-5 Sudama Devi has stated
that the incident took place about three
years and three months before at about
11:00 AM when she was collecting the
wheat in her field and the same was being
loaded on bullock-cart by her, Sripat, Vijay
Singh, Sumitra, Bhairo and Badam Singh.
Her mother-in-law Hirabai was grazing
buffaloes. Accused persons Achchey Lal,
Ram Charan, Ram Singh, Sahab Singh,
Mahendra Singh and Amar Singh were
cutting the crops in their adjoining field.
Accused Achchey Lal and Ram Singh
came with axe and accused Ram Charan
and Mahendra came with pharsa whereas
accused Sahab Singh and Amar Singh
came with lathi and accused Achchey Lal
said to her mother-in-law why she was
grazing buffaloes on their mend and why
she had left their animals in their field. Her
mother-in-law,
father-in-law
and
her
husband said that half of the mend
belonged to them and her buffaloes would
graze there. All the accused persons cried
to kill them and not to spare them alive.
Accused Achchey Lal hit her father-in-law
Bhairao by his axe on the head and he fell
on the ground and his elder brother-in-law
Sripat when checked him, accused Ram
Charan hit by farsa on him but Sripat
escaped. Thereafter, accused Mahendra
Singh hit by his farsa and caused injury on
his head who fell down and died on spot.
She has stated that when she reached there,
accused Sahab Singh also hit her by lathi
and she sustained injury on her back for
which she was medically examined.

17. PW-6 SO Premlal has stated that
on 31.3.1996 he was posted at police
station Todi Fatehpur and in his presence
Crime No. 45 of 1996 was registered. He
obtained a copy of Chik FIR and GD and
copied the same in case diary. He took the
statement of head constable Sobaran Singh
and informant Vijay Singh. Smt. Sudama
Devi was sent with a constable for medical
treatment to hospital with injury letter. He
went to the bank of Pathrai river with force
where the dead body of Bhairo was lying.
The inquest witnesses were appointed and
inquest report was prepared. The other
papers such as Form No.13, photo of dead
body, letter to CMO were also prepared by
him. The dead body was sealed on spot and
was delivered to constable Mahadev and
3-5 All. Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
391
home guard Ram Prasad for post-mortem.
Thereafter, he came to village Semri on the
field of informant where the dead body of
Sripat was lying on the ground. The inquest
report and other papers were prepared. The
witness has further stated that he inspected
the
place
of
occurrence
on
the
identification
of
the
informant
and
witnesses and prepared site map. He picked
up the blood stained and plain earth from
the place of occurrence and prepared the
memo thereof in the presence of the
witnesses. He has also stated that in respect
of deceased Bhairo, the blood stained and
plain earth was separately sealed in
presence of witnesses and memo was
prepared. He recorded the statement of the
witnesses of inquest report, the witness of
memo and eye witness Badam Singh and
Bhagwan Das and indulged in search of
accused
persons
in
their
house.
Subsequently, with the permission of the
Court, on 6.4.1996, he recorded the
statement of the accused persons. Accused
Achchey Lal, Ram Charan and Mahendra
confessed and stated that they could get
recovered the weapons used for murder.
Therefore, they were taken on police
custody remand and before the witnesses
on 12.4.1996 at 8:00 AM in the morning,
on their pointing, from the hedges of Semri
forest, the blood stained axe was recovered
and was sealed and memo was prepared.
On the same day, at 9:00 AM, on the
pointing of accused Ram Charan, in the
presence of witnesses, the blood stained
farsa used for causing death was recovered
and memo was prepared. On the same day
at 11:00 AM, on the pointing of accused
Mahendra, before the witnesses, another
blood stained farsa was recovered from the
hedges about which the memo was
prepared. He has further stated that he
prepared the site map from where the
weapons were recovered. Thereafter, on
19.6.1999, he recorded the statement of
Smt. Sudama. He deposited the weapons
used in murder and the accused persons in
the police station and entry in the GD was
made. The weapons were duly sealed. He
has further stated that the recovered articles
were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory
for medical examination on 26.4.1996. He
filed charge sheet on 20.4.1996.

18. The learned Senior Advocate for
the accused-appellant has submitted that
the FIR has been ante time and it was
lodged after legal advice and consultation
with the police as in the facts and
circumstances of the case, it was not
possible to lodge FIR at the time it has been
shown to be lodged. In fact, the deceased
persons were sleeping on their field in the
night and were killed by some unknown
persons about which the informant side
could know only on the next day. The
discharge of semen by Sripat at the time of
post-mortem also indicates this fact. In
order to falsely implicate the accused
persons, a false story was created and FIR
was lodged.

19. We find that the incident took
place on 31.3.1996 at about 11 AM and
FIR has been lodged on the same day at
about 13.05 PM. The distance of police
station from the place of occurrence is
about 7 km. In his cross-examination, the
informant has stated that at about 12 in the
noon, he, his wife and witness Badam
Singh with injured Bhairo started for police
station and by the time, they reached to
Pathrai river, Bhairo died. Then, PW-4
Badam Singh wrote the written report on
the dictation of informant on a plain paper
which was brought by the informant from a
nearby shop situated at the bus stand and
thereafter, he brought pad and put thumb
impression. Leaving Badam Singh there
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with the dead body, the informant and his
wife Sudama went to the police to lodge
FIR, which was just 1 km ahead from that
place. As such, it cannot be said that it was
not possible to reach the Police Station and
lodge the report. It has been submitted that
after chick FIR being prepared, it was
necessary for the police to get the thumb
impression of the informant which was not
taken. Since the FIR has been registered on
the basis of written report and the same has
been copied by the chick writer, this
omission is insignificant and meaningless.
PW-2 HCP Sobaran Singh has stated that
the informant with his wife had come to
lodge FIR on 31.3.1996 at 1.05 PM and
gave a written report on the basis of which
he registered offence and prepared chick in
his handwriting and signature and made an
entry thereof in the GD. He has also stated
that a special report was sent on the same
day at about 2.15 PM through CP Manfool
Singh and the entry thereof was made in
the GD. As such, we do not find any delay
in lodging FIR nor there is any reason to
accept the argument of defence that the FIR
was ante time.

20. It has been pointed out that certain
facts which have been stated by informant
in his statement such as, the assault of
accused got missed; deceased Bhairo met
on the way etc are not mentioned in the
FIR. we do not find it at all necessary that
all the facts are required to be mentioned in
the FIR. The purpose of FIR is to give
information about commission of offence
and it is not necessary to give every minute
detail.