# Ram Charan Singh & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 739
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2493 of 1983
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Sameer Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-charan-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-48938
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 302 & 34 - The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 157 &
161 - no statutory requirement to send
copy of the chik FIR and GD entry of the
written report to the autopsy surgeon -
case based on ocular evidence - if the
court finds the ocular account truthful and
reliable, the existence or non existence of
motive for the crime has little relevance -
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
defective or illegal investigation, if it does
not create reasonable doubt on the guilt
of accused, cannot be taken as a ground
to discard the prosecution case .(Para -
20,32,34 )

Committing
murder
-
incriminating
circumstances - deceased killed in wee hours of
morning - dragged with the aid of trouser
knotted around the neck - ocular account
corroborated by medical evidence on two counts
- appears abrasion on chest/abdomen region
and the knees suggesting that deceased was
dragged in a prone position - abraded contusion
on the front of the neck - reliance on ocular
account - corroborated by medical evidence and
material collected during course of investigation
- trial court convicted appellants - hence
appeal. (Para -10,17,43 )

HELD:-Ocular account is trustworthy and
reliable. Trial court committed no mistake
.Charge against accused appellants proved.
Conviction of appellants for charge of
murder with the aid of section 34 IPC not
sustainable. Injuries appeared grievous and
reflected an intention to cause death. No
justification to alter the conviction from
Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC. (Para -
51,52,53 )

Criminal Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,916 of 78,903. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39916 for what follows._

8 All. Ram Charan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
739
appears that the appellant tried to douse the
fire by throwing a quilt. In these
circumstances, the charge framed against
the appellant is of an offence punishable
under Section 304 IPC and not under
Section 302 IPC. It is argued that it is not
mandatory that on conviction for an
offence punishable under Section 304 IPC,
life imprisonment be awarded. In these
circumstances, since the appellant has
already served incarceration of over 14
years since the date of his conviction i.e.
22.02.2008 he be let out by reducing the
sentence of imprisonment for life to the
sentence already undergone.

29. Sri J.K. Upadhyay, who appears
for the State, does not dispute that no
premeditated plan to kill the deceased has
been proved by the prosecution evidence.
He accepts that as per the dying declaration
the incident occurred during a fight in
between husband and wife on consumption
of liquor by the husband. He thus leaves it
to the discretion of the court to alter the
sentence.

30.

Having
considered
the
submissions on the question of sentence,
and having noticed that the conviction of
the appellant is under Section 304 IPC, we
are of the view that as the appellant has
already served over 14 years of sentence,
though we affirm the conviction of the
appellant under Section 304 IPC but,
looking to the facts of the case and the
mitigating circumstance of an effort to
douse the fire, we are of the considered
view that ends of justice would be served if
the sentence of imprisonment for life
awarded by the trial court is reduced to the
period of sentence already under gone.
Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed
to the extent above. The sentence of
imprisonment for life awarded to the
appellant by the trial court is modified and
reduced to the period of sentence already
undergone. However, the fine and the
default sentence awarded by the trial court
is maintained. Subject to above, the
accused-appellant
shall
be
released
forthwith, unless wanted in any other case,
on compliance of the provisions of Section
437-A CrPC to the satisfaction of the trial
court.

31. Let a copy of this order be
forwarded to the court below along with the
record for information and compliance.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 739
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2493 of 1983

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

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri T. Rathore, Sri Gaurav Tripathi Ami Cu,
Sri Rajrshi Gupta, Sri Dileep Kumar (Senior
Adv.). Sri Rizwan Ahmad

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

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 302 & 34 - The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 157 &
161 - no statutory requirement to send
copy of the chik FIR and GD entry of the
written report to the autopsy surgeon -
case based on ocular evidence - if the
court finds the ocular account truthful and
reliable, the existence or non existence of
motive for the crime has little relevance -
740 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
defective or illegal investigation, if it does
not create reasonable doubt on the guilt
of accused, cannot be taken as a ground
to discard the prosecution case .(Para -
20,32,34 )

Committing
murder
-
incriminating
circumstances - deceased killed in wee hours of
morning - dragged with the aid of trouser
knotted around the neck - ocular account
corroborated by medical evidence on two counts
- appears abrasion on chest/abdomen region
and the knees suggesting that deceased was
dragged in a prone position - abraded contusion
on the front of the neck - reliance on ocular
account - corroborated by medical evidence and
material collected during course of investigation
- trial court convicted appellants - hence
appeal. (Para -10,17,43 )

HELD:-Ocular account is trustworthy and
reliable. Trial court committed no mistake
.Charge against accused appellants proved.
Conviction of appellants for charge of
murder with the aid of section 34 IPC not
sustainable. Injuries appeared grievous and
reflected an intention to cause death. No
justification to alter the conviction from
Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC. (Para -
51,52,53 )

Criminal Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Meharaj Singh Vs St. of U.P. ,(1994) 5 SCC
188

2. Ram Sanjiwan Singh Vs St. of Bihar, (1996) 8
SCC 552

3. Rajesh Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2011) 11 SCC
444

4. Anjanappa Vs St. of Karn., (2014) 2 SCC
776

5. Babu and Anr. Vs St., (2013) 4 SCC 448

6. Thaman Kumar Vs St. of U.T.C., (2003) 6
SCC 380

7. Anil Rai Vs St. of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318
8. Abdul Sayeed Vs St. of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC
259

9. C.B.I. & anr. Vs Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayyum
& ors., (2019) 12 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.)

1. This appeal is against the judgment
and order dated October 19, 1983 passed
by
third
Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Bulandshahr in S.T. No.780 of 1982
convicting and sentencing the appellants
under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34
IPC to imprisonment for life.

INTRODUCTORY FACTS

2. The prosecution story, in a nutshell,
as per the written report (Ex. Ka-1), lodged
by Dharamveer (PW-1), is that in the
morning of 10.09.1982, at about 6 am,
while the informant was easing himself in
the open field, he heard screams of his
nephew Chiranji (the deceased) coming
from the field of Ajab Singh, which had
standing maize crop. Reacting to the
screams, the informant, Kundan (PW-2)
and Chiranji's mother (not examined)
reached the spot. There, they witnessed
Ram Charan (appellant no.1) and Rajpal
(appellant no.2) pinning down Chiranji and
putting pressure on him after having tied a
knot around his neck by using his trouser.
When the informant and others came to
rescue him, Rajpal threatened them by
saying that if anybody comes forward, he
would be shot dead, as a result whereof, the
informant party stayed away. Both the
accused, thereafter, dragged the deceased
into the Jwar (millet) field by pulling him
with the aid of that trouser tied around
Chiranji's neck. On raising alarm, when
several persons arrived and tracking the
drag marks they reached the neighbouring
sugar cane field of Udayeer, they found
8 All. Ram Charan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
741
Chiranji dead with 3 to 4 knots of that
trouser tied on his neck. It was alleged that
body of Chiranji was lifted from the spot
and brought to his house whereafter, they
have come to lodge the report. With regard
to the motive for the crime, it was disclosed
that about 8-9 months ago, the deceased
was caught with the sister of the accused;
the accused had then beaten Chiranji as
well as their sister. Since then the accused
were inimical towards Chiranji. The written
report, which was scribed by Jodha Singh
(not examined), was lodged at 9.20 am on
10.09.1982 at P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District
Bulandshahr, which is at a distance of 14
km from the spot, giving rise to case crime
no.299 of 1982. The G.D. Entry in respect
of lodgement of the written report was
made vide report no.18 (Ex. Ka-10) by
PW-5 who also prepared Chik Report (Ex.
Ka-9).

3. Inquest was conducted by PW-4
while the body of the deceased was lying
on a cot at the Baithak of the house of the
deceased at village Shahpur. The inquest
report (Ex. Ka-3) recites, inter alia, (a) that
information was received from Dharamveer
(PW-1) at 9.20 hours on 10.09.1982; (b)
that the police left the police station to go
to the spot at 11.45 hours on 10.09.1982;
(c) that the distance of the spot from the
police station was 16 km; (d) that the body
of the deceased was carrying an open shirt
and an underwear; and (e) that next to the
body was a nylon trouser of the deceased,
which was seized by the police. The
inquest report was witnessed by Harish
Chandra (village Pradhan), Charan Singh,
Kundan Singh, Ajab Singh and Prahlad
Singh. None of them has been examined. It
be mentioned that in the second page of the
inquest report there is recital of the case
details i.e. Case Crime No.299 under
Section 302 IPC. The inquest report also
notices that PW-4 conducted the inquest
under the direction of Inspector Sri
Harinandan Singh.

4. The autopsy of the cadaver was
conducted by Chandra Prakash (PW-3) on
11.09.1982 at about 3 pm. According to the
autopsy report, the deceased was aged
about 19 years. The autopsy report (Ex. Ka2) records:-

External Examination:

Thin built body. Rigor mortis
passing off. No sign of decomposition seen.
Bleeding
from both nostrils
present.
Tongue congested. Lips swollen.

Ante-mortem injuries:

(i) Abraded contusion 7" x 1" on
anterior aspect of neck horizontally placed
across wind pipe extending from below left
angle of mandible to right neck.

(ii) Abraded contusion 10" x 7"
on anterior lower chest and upper abdomen
both sides, 2" above umbilicus.

(iii) Abraded contusion 11⁄2" x 3⁄4"
on anterior aspect right knee joint.

(iv) Abraded contusion 11⁄4" x 1⁄2"
on left knee joint anterior aspect.

Internal examination:

Right greater cornua of hyoid
bone fractured; Pleura congested; first and
second
tracheal
cartilages
fractured;
internal lining deeply congested; and (sic)
muscles of neck and soft tissue around the
wind wipes were lacerated and deeply
congested; right carotid sheath ruptured
along with its contents.
742 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Opinion:- Death due to asphyxia
as a result of injury no.1.

Duration since death:- About 11⁄2
days back.

5. During the course of investigation,
the police seized the trouser of the deceased
of which a seizure memo (Ex. Ka-8) was
prepared on 10.09.1982.

6. After recording the statement of
witnesses and completing the investigation,
the investigating officer submitted charge
sheet (Ex. Ka-12) on 09.11.1982. After
taking cognizance on the charge sheet, the
case was committed to the court of session
giving rise to S.T. No.780 of 1982 in the
court of third Additional Sessions Judge,
Bulandshahr.

7. On January 14, 1983, both the
appellants were charged under section 302
read with 34 IPC for committing murder of
Chiranji on 10.09.1982 at about 6 am. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.

8. During the course of trial, the
prosecution
examined
six
witnesses,
namely, Dharamveer (PW-1) (informant
and an eye witness of the incident); Kundan
(PW-2) (another eye witness of the
incident); Dr. Chandra Prakash (PW-3) (the
autopsy
surgeon
who
conducted
the
autopsy of the body of Chiranji); Yashvir
Singh (PW-4) (the Sub-Inspector who
prepared the inquest report); Sewati Lal
(PW-5) (the constable who made GD entry
of the written report and prepared Chik
FIR); and Ramphal Singh Tyagi (PW-6)
(the investigating officer).

9. The incriminating circumstances
appearing in the prosecution evidence were
separately put to the two appellants. The
appellant
Ram
Charan
denied
the
incriminating
circumstances
and,
in
response to a question as to why he has
been falsely implicated, stated that the
witnesses are related to each other and are
supporters of village Pradhan Harish
Chandra. Harish Chandra on account of a
chak road dispute was inimical; hence,
because of village party bandi, he had been
falsely implicated. Similar is the statement
of the other appellant, namely, Rajpal. The
accused, however, led no defence evidence.

10. The trial court by placing reliance
on the ocular account, finding the same
corroborated by medical evidence and
material collected during the course of
investigation, convicted the appellants, as
above.

11. We have heard Sri Dileep Kumar,
learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri
Rizwan Ahmad and Sri Gaurav Tripathi,
Amicus Curiae, for the appellants; Sri
H.M.B. Sinha, learned AGA, for the State;
and have perused the record.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANTS

12. The learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that the prosecution
has not been able to establish a cogent
motive for the crime. Although, it is the
case of the prosecution that the deceased
had some relations with the sister of the
accused but that relationship, and any
specific incident arising therefrom, has not
been proved to demonstrate that there
existed a cogent motive for the crime. In
the testimony of PW-1 the name of that
sister of the accused is disclosed as
Dharmo. According to PW-1, Chiranji (the
deceased) had teased Dharmo 8-9 months
8 All. Ram Charan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
743
before the incident. There is no clear cut
evidence with respect to the age of Dharmo
though, at one place it is disclosed as
between 9 and 10 years. In paragraph 10 of
PW-1's
deposition
Chiranji's
age
is
disclosed as between 10 and 13 years. If the
two were that young, the motive for the
crime
is
absurd
and
therefore,
the
prosecution
story
appears
highly
improbable.

13. It was next submitted that the ocular
account does not inspire confidence because
if the accused had carried a pistol, as is
alleged by the witnesses in their deposition
during trial, what was the occasion not to use
the weapon and, instead, use the trouser of
the deceased to strangulate him. Further, if
the alarm raised by the witnesses had
attracted the villagers, why no attempt was
made to save the deceased. Further, the
ocular account is in respect of strangulation
by tying a trouser knot around the neck of the
deceased but there is no ligature mark found.
When the autopsy surgeon (PW-3) was
questioned in that regard, he submitted that
there is a high possibility that injury no.1,
which was considered fatal, was a result of
pressing the neck with the aid of lathi
whereas in the ocular account there is no
indication that the neck was pressed by a lathi
or a blunt object therefore, the ocular account
appears in conflict with the medical evidence.

14. Even the presence of prosecution
witnesses at the spot appears doubtful
because if they had been there, they would
have made an attempt to save the deceased.

15. It was submitted that the FIR
appears ante-timed for the following reasons:

(i) All papers entered in the
inquest report and alleged to have been
forwarded to the autopsy surgeon, did not
reach the autopsy surgeon. The record
reflects that documents such as the Chik
FIR and the GD entry of the FIR were to
accompany the inquest report as they find
mention at the back of the inquest report
but those were not received by the autopsy
surgeon, which means that when the body
was dispatched for autopsy, the FIR and the
GD entry of the FIR was not in existence
therefore, those papers were not forwarded
to the autopsy surgeon.

(ii) The report that is to be
forwarded forthwith to the Magistrate
under Section 157 CrPC was forwarded by
C.O. on 13.09.1982 as is clear from the
statement of PW-5. This delay also
suggests that the FIR had not come into
existence by then and it came into existence
after the autopsy was conducted on
11.09.1982.

(iii) That if the Chik report had
been in existence at the time of inquest, the
distance of the police station from the spot
entered in the inquest report would have
been same as in the Chik report. In the
instant case, in the Chik report the distance
entered is 14 km, whereas in the inquest
report the distance entered is 16 km.

(iv) During cross examination of
PW-1 (the informant), his attention was
invited to the omission in the written report
with regard to the parentage of the accused.
In response thereto, PW-1 stated that he
had told the scribe, after the written report
was read out to him, that he has not
mentioned the name of father of the
accused but the scribe told him that it is not
required as the accused have already been
taken to the police station. It has been
submitted that this statement of PW-1 is a
clear indication of the fact that the accused
were
arrested
even before
the
first
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
information report came into existence.
Whereas, the statement of I.O. would
suggest that the arrest was made after
registration of the FIR therefore, it is a
clear case where the FIR came into
existence later than what is reflected in the
records.

16. In addition to above, it has been
submitted that there is contradiction in the
testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. According
to PW-1, the trouser, used as a weapon of
assault, was left in the field and was
brought by constable of police station
Chandpur, whereas, according to PW-2, the
trouser was brought by the informant party
and handed over to the I.O.

17. It was next submitted that this is a
case where the deceased was killed in the
wee hours of the morning, when there was
no light. It is customary for people to attend
to nature's call before sun rise and, by the
very nature of the activity, people tend to
squat at a distance from each other so that
they are not visible to each other. Thus, it
appears to be a case where in the darkness
of wee hours of the morning someone
dragged the deceased and killed him, when
no one was present. But as the drag marks
appeared in the field, following the drag
marks, body was found. Later, by guesswork, on the basis of enmity, first
information report was lodged with the
help of village Pradhan who visited the
police station along with one Tota to lodge
the report against the accused.

18. In a nutshell, the submission of
the learned counsel for the appellants is that
it is an incident not witnessed by any
person; that the witnesses belong to the
same
family
and
can
therefore
be
considered as partisan witnesses; that there
was village party bandi in connection with
Pradhan elections and there existed a chak
road dispute, therefore, the witnesses fall in
the category of interested witnesses; that no
independent witness has been examined;
that the medical evidence does not support
the ocular account; and that the first
information report appears ante-timed. All
of this would suggest that the prosecution
case is contrived and the appellants have
been falsely implicated either on strong
suspicion or on the basis of enmity. It was
thus prayed that the appeal be allowed and
the judgment and order of conviction be set
aside.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
STATE

19. Per contra, learned AGA
submitted that considering the distance of
the police station from the spot, the first
information
report
has
been
lodged
promptly. The presence of PW-1 and PW-2
has not been questioned and no suggestion
has been put to the eye witnesses that they
had not visited the spot to defecate at the
time when the incident occurred. It was
submitted that there is no specific reason
disclosed for false implication other than
village party bandi, which is general and
vague. It has not come in the statement of
any of the accused that there was any past
case, regarding any incident between the
parties, which may indicate that there was
strong enmity between the accused and the
informant/eye witnesses therefore, there
was no good reason to falsely implicate the
accused. Learned AGA submitted that the
medical evidence does not rule out the
ocular account. The autopsy surgeon in his
deposition has not rule out the possibility of
the deceased being strangulated with the
aid of a trouser tied around his neck. Not
only that, drag marks were noticed by the
I.O. on the spot which correlate with the
8 All. Ram Charan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
745
abraded contusion found on the body of the
deceased. All these circumstances signify
that the witnesses had actually witnessed
the incident. It has been submitted that the
graphic description of the manner in which
the deceased was dragged with the aid of
trouser knotted around the neck, would
indicate that it was witnessed by the
witnesses and the ocular account is truthful.
Even if there were lapses in sending the
special report under Section 157 CrPC, the
prosecution story cannot be disbelieved.

20. In response to the argument that
the first information report was ante-timed,
learned AGA submitted that the inquest
report contains the case details suggesting
that the first information report had already
been lodged. Further, there is no statutory
requirement to send copy of the chik FIR
and GD entry of the written report to the
autopsy surgeon. As the inquest report was
forwarded to the autopsy surgeon and it
bears the details of the case, the name of
the informant and the date and time when
the
information
was
given
by
the
informant, it cannot be said that the first
information report was not in existence till
the autopsy was conducted. Learned AGA
therefore submits that this is a case where
the ocular account finds support from the
medical evidence and the surrounding facts
and circumstances of the case therefore, the
judgment and order of the trial court
deserves to be affirmed and the appeal is
liable to be dismissed.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

21.

Having
noticed
the
rival
submissions and the introductory facts of
the case, before we proceed further, it
would be useful to notice, in brief, the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
Their testimony, in brief, is as follows:_

22.

PW-1-
Dharamvir
(the
informant). PW-1 stated that the deceased
Chiranji is his nephew; the accused Ram
Charan and Rajpal are real brothers; at the
time of the incident, at about 6 am, while
he was defecating in the field of Ajab
Singh, he heard screams of his nephew
Chiranji; hearing the screams, PW-1 rushed
to the spot; Kundan (PW-2) and Ramkaur
(mother of the deceased) also arrived;
there, they noticed Ram Charan and Rajpal
having tied a noose around the neck of
Chiranji made out of Chiranji's trouser and
were pressing his neck; when PW-1 and
others tried to intervene, the accused
threatened them to stay away or else they
will be shot, as a result, the witnesses
retreated; the accused dragged the deceased
by pulling the trouser tied on Chiranji's
neck and dragged him right through Ajab
Singh's Jwar (Millet) field; when on the
alarms of PW-1, PW-2 and deceased's
mother, 4-6 men including Raghuveer,
Ramveer, Sukkha and Bundu arrived,
following the drag marks noticed in the
fields, they found the body of Chiranji
lying in the sugar cane filed of Udayveer;
they all noticed that the trouser of Chiranji
was tightly knotted, with 3-4 knots, around
his neck. PW-1 stated that those knots were
untied and the body of Chiranji was
brought to his house and kept on a cot. PW1 stated that the written report of the
incident was got scribed by dictating it to
Jodha. The written report was made Ex.
Ka-1. In respect of the motive for the
crime, PW-1 stated that 8-9 months before
the incident, Chiranji had teased accused's
sister Dharmo.

On a query of the court, PW-1
stated that he can write a little bit in Hindi.

During cross examination by
the defence, PW-1 stated that accused
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons are sons of Lal Singh (some where
it is stated Leela Singh); Lal Singh has
three daughters, namely, Shikha aged 24
years, Rajpali aged 18 years and Dharmo
aged 9-10 years. In respect of PW-1's
relation with Kundan (PW-2), PW-1 stated
that Meghraj and Lekhraj are real brothers.
PW-1 is son of Lekhraj, whereas PW-2
(Kundan) is son of Meghraj. PW-1 stated
that Neksa son of Lekhraj is in police and is
posted at Dehradun. Neksa is the father of
Chiranji. In respect of village party bandi,
PW-1 stated that prior to the incident there
was election of Pradhan in which Charan
Singh, Bhabuti and Harish Chandra had
contested. PW-1 and his family had
supported Harish Chandra, whereas the
accused and his family had supported
Charan Singh. Harish Chandra had won the
election. On account of Pradhan election,
there is party bandi in the village. The
leader of one side is Harish Chandra,
whereas the leader of the other side is
Charan Singh.

In respect of the dispute between
Harish Chandra and Leela Singh over a
chak road, PW-1 stated that he has no
knowledge.

In respect of the parentage of the
accused persons, he stated that both are
sons of Leela Singh (Jat). He denied the
suggestion that there is any other person by
the name of Rajpal in the village.

In
respect
of
omission
of
parentage of the accused in the written
report, PW-1 stated that he had dictated the
parentage of the accused for being
mentioned in the report but it may have
been left out inadvertently. PW-1 then
clarified that when the report was read out
to him, he had pointed out to the scribe that
father's name of the accused has not been
mentioned therefore, the same may be
mentioned, upon which, the scribe stated
that it can be filled later as the accused
have already been taken to the police
station. At this stage, it would be useful to
reproduce the exact statement of PW-1 in
that regard, which is as follows:-

"tc fjiksVZ eq>s i<+dj lqukbZ xbZ rks eSaus
fy[kus okys ls dgk Fkk fd rqeus eqyfteksa ds cki dk
uke vkSj tkr ugha fy[kh gS bldks fy[k nks rks mlus
dgk fd pyks jgus nks] eqyfteku rks Fkkus igqWp gh
x;s gS vkxs fy[kok nsukA"

In respect of accused's sister
Dharmo, PW-1 stated that her name was
mentioned in the written report but if it was
not written, he cannot give reason for the
same. PW-1 stated that at the time when
Chiranji died, Dharmo must have been
aged 10-12-13 years old; and that the house
of Chiranji and the accused persons were
adjoining each other. PW-1 stated that no
report was lodged by the accused in respect
of Chiranji teasing Dharmo. He also stated
that he does not remember the day and date
of that incident but he was aware of that
incident since before the death of Chiranji.
The information of that incident was given
by Rajendra Master to his brother Kundan
Singh (PW-2) and PW-2 had informed PW1. He denied the suggestion that there was
no such incident of Chiranji teasing
Dharmo.

In paragraph 12 of his statement,
PW-1 stated that Chiranji and PW-1 are of
the same Khandaan and since death of PW1's father, Chiranji's family and PW-1's
family have their food cooked at one place.

In respect of the field in which
they had gone to defecate, PW-1 stated that
that field was of Ajab Singh of about 28
Kachcha bigha. In about 8 bigha, Jwar was
8 All. Ram Charan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
747
sown whereas the rest had maize (Makka).
In paragraph 17, PW-1 stated that at that
time the maize crop was tall, equal to the
height of a man. In the field of Udayveer,
there was sugar cane crop which was taller
than a man. He stated that Ajab Singh's
field was adjoining the village and the
accused had killed the deceased in the next
field. He stated that he had shown the spot
to the I.O.

In paragraph 18, PW-1 stated that
at the time of the incident, the sun was not
out. PW-1 stated that the spot where noose
was tied around the neck of Chiranji was at
a distance of 20-25 paces from the spot
where PW-1 was defecating. PW-1 stated
that when he heard the screams, he could
gather that some untoward incident has
occurred. He ran towards the spot while
raising alarm but at that time nobody was
working in the field. Nabiya, however, was
harvesting his maize crop but all those who
arrived there, did not have lathi/danda. PW1 stated that the accused dragged Chiranji
towards south east. At the time when the
accused were dragging Chiranji, they had
raised alarm but they all were bare handed.
The accused Rajpal had a Katta (country
made pistol). PW-1 stated that he had
mentioned in the report that Rajpal had
Katta in his hand but if it was left out, he
cannot give the reason for the same. PW-1
also stated that he had disclosed to the I.O.
that Rajpal had Katta in his hand but if it
was left out while recording his statement,
he cannot give the reason for the same.
PW-1 stated that when the witnesses
collectively entered the standing Jwar crop,
the accused left Chiranji 10-15 paces away
and escaped. In paragraph 19, PW-1 stated
that he had disclosed in the report that the
accused had tied a noose around the neck
of the deceased with the aid of trouser but
the word Phaansi was not used.

In paragraph 21, PW-1 stated that
at the place where the body was lying,
about 100 villagers had arrived including
Pradhan Harish Chandra and Chowkidar
Tota.

At this stage, on being questioned
by the court, PW-1 stated that the body was
left in the field for 15 minutes. Amongst
those who had arrived there, 50% had
arrived from their field whereas the balance
came from their residence.

PW-1 stated that the body of
Chiranji was brought to his house on a cot
by Raghuveer, Ramveer and Nanak. The
cot with the body was kept at the chabutara
in front of the Baithak. PW-1 stated that the
body was kept there till the police had
arrived. Thereafter, he left to lodge the
report.

In paragraph 22, PW-1 stated that
the trouser was left in the field and was
brought by a constable of P.S. Chandpur. In
paragraph 22, PW-1 stated that to lodge the
report, Harish Chandra and Tota had come
with him. In paragraph 23, PW-1 stated that
after leaving the body at home, they had
first gone to Sahkari Nagar Chowki,
thereafter, they came to Bulandshahr
whereafter, they went to Kutchery. At
Kutchery, they found Jodha Singh who
scribed the report. They arrived there on a
''Tonga', which took them 45 minutes. At
Kutchery, it took them about half an hour to
scribe the report. PW-1 stated that he did
not know Jodha from before but Tota knew
him. PW-1 stated that Jodha Singh was
informed about the incident by him. When
questioned by the court, PW-1 stated that to
go to P.S. Chandpur from Sahkari Nagar
Police Chowki one has to pass through
Bulandshahr. In paragraph 24, PW-1 stated
that after getting information of the
748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
incident, Neksa came next day from
Dehradun and went straight to the mortuary
at Bulandshahr. He denied the suggestion
that the first information report was lodged
after arrival of Neksa in consultation with
Harish Chandra and the police; and that the
written report was ante-timed. PW-1 stated
that after lodging the report, they arrived at
the village by about 9.30 and within 15
minutes thereafter the police of police
station Chandpur arrived. Thereafter, PW-1
stated that the police might have arrived
about half an hour later.

In paragraph 26, PW-1 stated that
about 10-12 police personnel had arrived
from police station Chandpur in which 2-3
police personnel were of the rank of
Daroga
(sub
inspector),
rest
were
constables. He denied the suggestion that
some unknown person had killed Chiranji
and that no one witnessed the incident. He
also denied the suggestion that the incident
had not occurred in the manner alleged. He
denied the suggestion that the accused were
implicated on account of enmity and party
bandi at the instance of Gram Pradhan,
Neksa and the police. On being shown the
trouser (material Ex. C-1), he identified the
trouser as the one which was used to
strangulate the deceased. When the trouser
was taken out, its length was found to be
equal to 4 and a half handspan.

On being cross examined by the
defence, after the trouser was made
material Ex. C-1, PW-1 denied the
suggestions that at the time of the incident
Chiranji was aged 18-20 years and that the
trouser (Ex. C-1) was not of Chiranji.

23. PW-2- Kundan. PW-2 reiterated
what has been stated by PW-1 in his
examination in chief. He stated that after
untying the trouser knots from the neck of
the deceased, the body was brought on a
cot to Chiranji's house and PW-2's son had
brought that trouser of the deceased from
the spot. PW-2 identified the trouser (Ex.
C-1) and stated that it is that very trouser
with which the accused tied a noose around
the neck of the deceased. PW-2 stated that
in the house of Leela Singh and Rajpal
there is a Montessori school run by Master
Rajendra. Chiranji was a student of that
school; Rajendra Master had told him,
about 8-7 months before the incident, that
Chiranji will not be allowed to continue
because he had been teasing Rajpal's sister
Dharmo. PW-2 stated that because of this
animosity the deceased Chiranji was killed.

In paragraph 8 of his statement,
PW-2 stated that he had not disclosed to the
I.O. that a Montessori school was being run
in the house of Leela Singh and Rajpal.
PW-2 stated that he forgot to disclose the
same to the I.O. PW-2 also informed the
court that when he came to know that
Chiranji had teased Dharmo, he got
Chiranji removed from the school. He
denied the suggestion that Chiranji was
stopped from going to the school. He also
denied the suggestion that Chiranji had not
teased Dharmo and that the story was
developed on the suggestion of the police.
Questions were also put to him in respect
of the spot from where he witnessed the
incident, PW-2 disclosed that he was also
defecating at that time and had arrived at
the spot on hearing screams. In respect of
the height of the standing crop in the field,
he stated, as was stated by PW-1, that the
crops were tall. He reiterated that he had
informed the I.O. that his son had brought
the trouser of the deceased from the spot. In
respect of time of arrival of the police, PW2 stated that the police had arrived by about
10 hours. PW-2 stated that the trouser was
handed over to the police by him and a
8 All. Ram Charan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
749
memorandum in respect thereof was
prepared.
PW-2
stated
that
in
the
memorandum he had signed but the
memorandum, which is there, does not bear
his signature.

Note:- It be noted that the trouser
seizure memo (Ex. Ka-8) does not disclose
that PW-2 is a witness thereof.

PW-2 stated that the inquest was
held in his presence. PW-2 added that the
body was taken from home at 11-11.30 am
for being dispatched to Bulandshahr. PW-2
stated that the body was brought to the
mortuary by about 2 pm but the autopsy
was conducted next day. During this time,
they were there at the mortuary. PW-2 also
stated that the body was delivered at around
4.30 pm. PW-2 stated that the date when
the autopsy was conducted, the deceased's
father Neska arrived from Dehradun. PW-2
stated that he had not gone with Dharamvir
to lodge the report though Tota had gone.
PW-2 stated that his statement was
recorded that very day at 1.30 pm. PW-2
denied the suggestion that he did not
witness the incident and that on account of
enmity and party bandi and relationship, he
is telling lies.

24. PW-3- Dr. Chandra Prakash.
PW-3 proved the autopsy report which was
marked Ex. Ka-2. He was shown Ex. Ka-1
(trouser). He stated that if Ex. Ka-1 is tied
around the neck and is pulled then the
nature of the injury, recited as injury no.1,
is possible. PW-3 stated that the injury no.1
by itself is sufficient to cause death. PW-3
stated that 7 out of 9 papers that were
received by him at the time of autopsy are
there before him.

During cross examination, PW3 stated that injury no.1 was not all around
the neck but towards the front. He clarified
that if someone is pulled by tying a cloth on
the neck then it is not necessary that injury
would be caused all around the neck. He
accepted the possibility that injury no.1 can
also be caused if the front of the neck is
pressed by a lathi. On being shown the
cloth of the trouser, PW-3 stated that it is of
nylon and of soft material. PW-3 stated that
if this pant is tied around the neck and one
is pulled, it might result in an abraded
contusion. PW-3 stated that injury would
be caused at that point where pressure is
put. He denied the suggestion that no
abrasion with contusion would be caused if
the pant is tied on the neck and is pulled.
PW-3 stated that the width of the injury
would depend on the width of the cloth tied
around the neck. He accepted that it is more
probable that injury no.1 may be caused by
a lathi pressing the neck. On further cross
examination, he stated that it is also
possible that the deceased might have been
aged 21 years.

In respect of the time when the
body was received, PW-3 stated that the
body was received on 11.09.1982 at 2.45
pm and the concerned papers were received
at about 12.30 pm. PW-3 stated that the
time when the autopsy was conducted all
the papers, that he received, were signed by
him. He accepted that the deceased could
have died at 3 am on 10.09.1982 or one or
two hours earlier but not earlier than that.

25. PW-4- Yashvir Singh. PW-4
conducted the inquest proceedings. PW-4
stated that the body of Chiranji was kept in
a cot in front of his Baithak. He proved the
inquest report, which was marked Ex. Ka2. He proved the letter making a request for
autopsy, chalan lash and photo-nash. PW-4
stated that he had noticed the trouser kept
near the body. It was seized and a seizure
750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
memo (Ex. Ka-8) was prepared. He also
identified the trouser seized, which was
exhibited as Ex. C-1.

In his cross examination, PW-4
stated
that
at
the
time
of
inquest
proceedings
there
were
30-40
men
including Gram Pradhan Harish Chandra,
who was one of the inquest witnesses. PW4 stated that the trouser seized was found
kept on the cot near the head of the body.
On being shown Ex. Ka-6 (chalan lash),
PW-4 stated that in the fifth column there
appears some over writing and in Ex. Ka-4
to Ex. Ka-6 the name of the accused and
the section is not mentioned. PW-4 stated
that in the inquest report, he had stated that
the death was on account of strangulation
but he has not mentioned as to how he was
strangulated. PW-4 also stated that in the
inquest report, he had not made a mention
of the trouser being soiled. In paragraph 3
of his statement, he stated that the body
was dispatched at about 1 am on a ''Tonga'.
He denied the suggestion that the trouser
was not of Chiranji.

26. PW-5- C.P. Sewati Lal. He
proved the registration of the FIR at 9.20
am on 10.09.1982 by proving the GD entry
thereof and preparation of the Chik FIR.
The Chik FIR was exhibited as Ex. Ka-9
and GD entry thereof was exhibited as Ex.
Ka-10.

In his cross examination, PW-5
admitted that in the written report the
parentage
of
the
accused
was
not
mentioned therefore he did not make entry
of the parentage in the general diary. He
denied the suggestion that the parentage of
the accused was not disclosed as the
identity of the accused was not confirmed.
PW-3 stated that that very day there was no
other cognizable report made at the police
station
concerned.
He
denied
the
suggestion that the GD entry was kept
vacant to adjust the report. On being shown
Ex. Ka-9, PW-5 stated that the report was
received in the court by magistrate on
13.09.1982.

27. PW-6- Ramphal Singh Tyagi -
Investigating Officer. PW-6 stated that on
10.09.1982 he was posted at Sahkari Nagar
Chowki. The investigation of this case was
marked to him. He started investigation on
that very day and recorded the statement of
Dharamvir and Kundan as well as others
and made inspection of the spot and
prepared site plan, which was exhibited as
Ex. Ka-11. PW-6 stated that the accused
were arrested on that very day. PW-6 stated
that he conducted investigation upto
11.09.1982 and thereafter the investigation
of the case was taken over by Harnandan
Singh, Inspector, Chandpur. PW-6 stated
that the investigation of the case was
completed by 09.11.1982 and charge sheet
was submitted by Harnandan Singh whose
signature he could recognise. The charge
sheet was exhibited as Ex. Ka-12.

During his cross examination,
PW-6 stated that the case was not
registered in his presence but in the
presence of Harnandan. PW-6 stated that
the informant had arrived on a police jeep
with Harnandan at his Chowki at about 10
am. At the Chowki, the informant's
statement was recorded and he was there at
the Chowki for about an hour.