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

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1002
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1989
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir, Sanjiv Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-das-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54815
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

1002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
28. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the petitioner is entitled to the following reliefs from
the State and its functionaries:-

 - The petitioner be paid damages @Rs.15,000/- per month for the economic loss from
08.09.2024 till the restoration of vehicle.

 -The petitioner be also paid damages of Rs.20,000/- for the mental agony and harassment.

 - If the State fails to restore the vehicle to the petitioner, then, the petitioner is also
entitled to depreciated cost of vehicle of Rs.4 lacs, but in this case, the petitioner will be entitled to
damages @ Rs.15,000/- per month for only 12 months.

 - The above amounts be paid to the petitioner within 15 days.

29. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.03.2025 passed
by the District Magistrate, Chandauli and the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Commissioner,
Varanasi Division, Varanasi are hereby quashed. The State is at liberty to realize the damages
awarded to the petitioner from the concerned employees and officials.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1002
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.04.2026

BEFORE

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

Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1989

Ram Das & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the prosecution had proved the charge under S. 302 I.P.C. beyond reasonable
doubt where the F.I.R. was lodged after more than 24 hours of the incident, the informant was not an
eyewitness, one eyewitness turned hostile, the other eyewitness was found unreliable, the ocular evidence
was not supported by the medical evidence, and an eyewitness cited by the prosecution was not examined.
(Paras 23-33)

Headnotes
Criminal Law - Murder - Appreciation of evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Burden of
proof in criminal trial - Prosecution required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - Where
the case rests on direct evidence, credibility of eyewitnesses assumes significance - Held,
prosecution failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 23, 32, 33)
Criminal Law - Murder - Delay in lodging F.I.R. - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - First
Information Report lodged after more than 24 hours of the occurrence - Informant not an
4 All. Ram Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1003
eyewitness - Evidence indicating that police had reached the place of occurrence on the same
day at about 8:00 p.m. - No plausible explanation for lodging the F.I.R. on the next day in the
afternoon - Held, F.I.R. lodged with inordinate delay without any plausible explanation raising
serious doubt about the prosecution case. (Paras 23-25)
Criminal Law - Murder - Motive - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Though motive loses
significance in a case based on direct evidence, where prosecution sets up a motive it must
prove the same - No evidence to show that the deceased had shot the father of one of the
appellants - Held, prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive. (Para 26)
Criminal Law - Murder - Eyewitness account - Evidence of hostile witness - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - S. 161 - Eyewitness not supporting prosecution case and unable to identify
assailants due to poor vision - Statement under S. 161 Cr.P.C. not a substantive piece of
evidence and usable only for corroboration or contradiction - Held, statement recorded under S.
161 Cr.P.C. had no evidentiary value and testimony of the witness was of no help to the
prosecution. (Para 27)
Criminal Law - Murder - Appreciation of testimony of related and interested witness - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Sole supporting eyewitness being cousin of deceased - Material
contradictions between examination-in-chief and cross-examination regarding manner of
occurrence - Held, testimony did not inspire confidence and was not reliable. (Para 28)
Criminal Law - Murder - Ocular evidence vis-à-vis medical evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
S. 302 - Witness stating that deceased was shot from behind while running - Post-mortem
showing that except one injury, all gunshot entry wounds were on the front side of the body -
Held, medical evidence did not corroborate ocular testimony creating serious doubt about the
prosecution case. (Paras 29, 30)
Criminal Law - Murder - Non-examination of material eyewitness - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S.
302 - One eyewitness not examined by prosecution though cited as present at the scene - Other
eyewitnesses found unreliable or hostile - Held, adverse inference liable to be drawn against the
prosecution. (Para 31)
Criminal Law - Murder - Acquittal - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Trial Court convicting
appellants on appreciation of evidence found erroneous - Prosecution failing to prove case
beyond reasonable doubt - Held, conviction and sentence liable to be set aside and appellants
acquitted. (Paras 32-34)
Held: In a criminal case, the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt - the F.I.R. was lodged after more than 24 hours of the incident and has been lodged with inordinate
delay without any plausible explanation which raises serious doubt about the prosecution case - the
prosecution failed to prove the motive for the appellants to commit the offence and there is no evidence to
show that appellant Munender's father was shot by the deceased - the evidence of P.W.4 Baba Ravi Giri is of
no help for the prosecution and the statement recorded under S. 161 Cr.P.C. has no evidentiary value - the
testimony of P.W.2 Ram Deen does not inspire confidence and it is hard to rely upon it and being a relative
and interested witness his testimony required careful scrutiny - the medical evidence does not corroborate the
ocular testimony of P.W.2 Ram Deen which creates a serious doubt about the prosecution case - the nonexamination of the other eyewitness gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution - the
testimony of P.W.2 Ram Deen is not trustworthy or consistent and P.W.4 Baba Ravi Giri has not supported the
prosecution case and P.W.3 Ram Ratan is not an eyewitness to the incident - the ocular evidence is not
supported by the medical evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt -
the Trial Court appreciated the evidence incorrectly and reached the conclusion of guilt in error based on
conjectures and the conviction and sentence of the appellants are liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
(Paras 23-34) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188; Hem Raj v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC
614.

List of Acts
1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

List of Keywords
murder; burden of proof; direct evidence; eyewitness; interested witness; relative witness; hostile witness;
delayed F.I.R.; motive; ocular evidence; medical evidence; contradiction; corroboration; adverse inference;
Section 161 Cr.P.C.; beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal; conjectures

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal arising from the common judgment and order dated 12.01.1989
passed by the Ist Additional Session Judge, Farrukhabad in Session Trial No. 09 of 1985 connected with
Session Trial No. 210 of 1985 convicting the appellants under S. 302 I.P.C. and sentencing them to
imprisonment for life.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. Tahira Kazmi, learned Amicus Curiae.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Divya Ojha, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State.

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

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by three convicts Ram Das, Suraj Singh and
Munendra against the common judgment and order dated 12.01.1989 passed by Sri Sarnam Singh,
the then Ist Additional Session Judge, Farrukhabad, in Session Trial No. 9 of 1985 connected with
Session Trial No.210 of 1985, under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.).

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants, namely Ram Das, Suraj Singh and
Munendra were held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., convicted and
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the informant, Ram Ratan, son of Bhairav, a
resident of Village Nardoli, Police Station Sikanderpur Baish, District Etah submitted a written
application (tehrir) at Police Station Kampil, District Farrukhabad, stating therein that on
17.07.1984, his brother of full blood, Asha Ram, had gone to Kampil to meet his aunt (Bua). While
returning to Village Nardoli along with Baba Ravi Giri, Sohan Lal and Ram Deen, near Village
Nakara falling within local limits of Police Station Sikanderpur Baish, four men, namely Vinod
Kumar, Ram Das, Suraj Singh and Munendra Singh, residents of Village Nagla Malikhan, Police
Station Patiyali, District Etah, intercepted and surrounded them and pointed country-made pistols at
his brother, Asha Ram and his companions. Despite repeated requests and entreaties to spare him,
Munendra Singh instructed his companions to leave the others unharmed and thereafter shot at
Asha Ram, declaring that Asha Ram had earlier killed his father, Kishan Pal and that the time had
come to take revenge. Thereupon, Munendra Singh, Ram Das and Suraj Singh opened fire
employing their country-made pistols to shoot the informants brother, Asha Ram, causing his
death on the spot. Vinod Kumar stood nearby, brandishing his country-made pistol (tamancha) and
threatening the informant and others. Upon alarm being raised, all the accused fled from the scene
towards Jinol. It is further said that on the previous day, the informant had gone to Police Station
Sikandarpur, District Etah to lodge a report, but the same was not registered on the ground that the
offence fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kampil. Thereafter, the informant proceeded to
4 All. Ram Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1005
lodge the present First Information Report. The incident is stated to have occurred on 17.07.1984 at
about 12:00 noon.

4. On the basis of this information, First Information Report being Case Crime No. 141 of
1984, Section 302 I.P.C. was lodged at Police Station Kampil on 18.07.1984 at 12:20 p.m.. The
investigation was entrusted to D.R. Mishra, Station House Officer of the police station concerned.
The Investigating Officer commenced investigation and reached the place of occurrence, from
where he collected plain earth, bloodstained earth, bloodstained umbrella and a towel and prepared
a recovery memo thereof. He also prepared the site-plan and recorded the statements of the
informant and other witnesses. The inquest of the deceased was held, an inquest report was
prepared and the body was sent for autopsy. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted and
the cause of death was opined as shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem gunshot injuries.

5. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Vinod Kumar, Ram Das and Suraj
Singh under Section 302 IPC before the learned magistrate and a separate charge sheet was filed
against Munendar Singh, also for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

6. The magistrate took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. They
appeared before the Court and were furnished copies of the relevant prosecution papers under
Section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the cases were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Before
the Sessions Court, accused Vinod Kumar, Ram Das and Suraj Singh appeared in Sessions Trial
No.09 of 1985, while accused Munender Singh appeared in Sessions Trial No.210 of 1985.
Charges under Section 302 I.P.C. were framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.

7. Since both the sessions trials arose out of the same incident, the Trial Court consolidated
both the trials and Sessions Trial No. 09 of 1985 was treated as the leading case.

8. The prosecution has examined six witnesses to prove its case, namely, P.W.1 Constable
Multan Singh, P.W.2 Ram Deen, P.W.3 Ram Ratan, P.W.4 Baba Ravi Giri, P.W.5 S.I. Data Ram,
and P.W.6 Dr. Manohar Singhal.

9. P.W.1, Constable Multan Singh, a formal witness, proved the G.D. entry dated
18.07.1984 made at 12:20 p.m. at Police Station Kampil while being posted there as Head
Moharrir, on the basis of the chik FIR Ext:Ka-1, the copy of which he has proved as Ext. Ka-2. In
his cross-examination, he has said that no other report regarding any cognizable or non-cognizable
offence was recorded either before or after this entry.

10. P.W.2 Ram Deen has said that he knew all the four accused . The deceased, Asha Ram
was his cousin. At the time of the incident, he, along with Baba Giri, Asha Ram, the deceased and
one more man were all returning from Village Kampil. He also said that they were proceeding to
their village, Nardoli. When the party reached near a thatched structure located in Village Nakara,
all the four accused emerged from Behaya tree, carrying country-made pistols. The assailants
surrounded them and Munender Singh, Suraj Pal and Ram Das opened fire targetting Asha Ram,
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
while Vinod threatened them not to come forward. Asha Ram died on the spot. The accused fled
away. Thereafter, he sent information to Asha Rams brother, Ram Ratan, through a messenger.

11. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 Ram Deen has said that Asha Ram had met him at
Village Kampil along with Babu Ram and Ram Chander and they stayed there during the night.
Ram Chander and Babu Ram are sons of Asha Ram. Baba Giri met at Lord Kailash Nath Temple at
about 7:00 p.m. The next day, at about 7:00 a.m., they proceeded towards their village. At the time
of the incident, he was present at the place of occurrence and was on his way back from
Shamshabad to Kampil. Ravi Giri, Sohan Lal and Asha Ram were there with him. As soon as they
reached near Chetram's hut, they saw the asccused at a distance of 4-5 steps. The acused pulled out
country-made pistols from their pockets and pounced upon the victims. The informant along with
others ran to save themselves and the accused chased and followed them across a distance of about
8-10 paces. The informant had taken a lead, Sohan Lal was to his left, Ravi Giri to his right and
Asha Ram was running behind him. They heard four shots ring out . Asha Ram sustained injuries
and collapsed to the ground. The rest of the victim party stopped after running across 10 paces.
Baba Giri and Sohan Lal were running at a distance of one step to his left and right respectively and
Asha Ram was about 4-5 steps behind him. The accused fled away after Asha Ram collapsedto the
ground. He has stated that he saw the occurrence after he stopped and turned his face back. He did
not go to the police station and Ravi Giri went to Police Station Nardoli. The police came to the
spot at about 8:00 p.m. The police arrived there, followed by Ram Ratan, his mother Phool Mati
and 8-10 other persons. The police asked Ram Ratan to go and lodge a report. The police inspected
the place of occurrence, prepared the site-plan and the Investigating Officer also recorded
statements at the same place.

12. P.W.3, Ram Ratan, the informant, has said that Asha Ram was his brother, who was
shot at about 12:00 noon while returning to his house at Nardoli from village Kampil, where his
aunt (Bua) resides. Ram Deen, Ravi Giri and Sohan Lal accompanied Asha Ram and when they
reached near Chetrams hut, all the four accused met on the way. They pounced upon Asha Ram
and his companions, whereupon they pleaded for their life. In consequence the accused Munender
Singh asked others to spare all but Asha Ram and further, said that Asha Ram had shot and killed
his father and that they would take revenge. Vinod Kumar kept standing there, waving his countrymade pistol and the rest of the three accused opened fire employing their country-made pistols, shot
Asha Ram and killed him. Upon alarm, the accused ran towards Village Jinaula. Thereafter, he
went to Police Station Sikanderpur, where the Police refused to lodge the report, saying that the
incident falls under the local limits of Police Station Kampil. He also has said that he got the Tehrir
scribed from his Buas son, Jyoti Swaroop and thereafter affixed his signature over it. The witness
has proved the Tehrir Ext. Ka-3 and stated that the FIR was lodged at Police Station Kampil. In his
cross-examination, he has said that a Gram Pradhan election was conducted prior to incident, in
which Devraj @ Mahendra Singh was one of the contestants. He has also said that he was not an
eye-witness to the incident and lodged the report on the basis of information given by Ram Deen,
Ravi Giri and Sohan Lal.

13. P.W.4, Baba Ravi Giri, is an eyewitness to the incident, but has not supported the
prosecution case. He said that he could not identify the accused who committed the offence due to
4 All. Ram Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1007
his poor vision. The witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. However,
nothing material has emerged from his testimony in support of the prosecution case.

14. P.W.5 Data Ram, the Investigating Officer of the case, has stated about the
investigation carried out by him and said that for a first he reached the place of occurrence and took
the dead body into his custody. Thereafter, the inquest was held and a report prepared by S.I. Raja
Ram along with the other connected papers, which he has proved as Ext. Ka-4 to Ka-9. He further
said that he recorded the statements of the informant and other witnesses and on pointing out of the
informant, prepared the site-plan of the place of occurrence, which he proved as Ext. Ka-9. He
collected blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of occurrence, along with a blood
stained umbrella and towel and prepared its recovery memo, which he proved as Ext. Ka-10. He
also recorded the statement of Baba Giri on 18.07.1984 and filed its copy, which is in his own
handwriting and has been proved as Ext. Ka-11. After collecting evidence, he filed a charge-sheet
against the accused , except Munendra Singh. Thereafter, the charge-sheet against accused
Munendra Singh was filed by S.I. Babu Ram Sagar, which has been proved through secondary
evidence.

15. P.W.6 Dr. Manohar Singhal is a formal witness, who conducted the autopsy of the
deceased, Asha Ram, on 19.04.1984 at 3:15 p.m. while on duty at District Hospital, Fatehgarh. He
has stated that the deceased was about 40 years of age and average built. Rigor mortis had passed
off from all limbs. The skin had peeled off at places. The body was swollen, with blisters present at
several places. The scrotum and penis were swollen. Reddish froth was coming from the mouth and
nostrils. The clothes were soiled with dirt and clotted blood at places. He found the following antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-

 "(i) Gunshot wound of entry 2.5 cm * 2 cm, bone deep, present on the right side of the
neck, lacerated, ecchymosed, and inverted.

 (ii) Gunshot wound of entry 4 cm * 3.5 cm * chest cavity deep, present on the right side of
the chest (lateral aspect), 12 cm below the axillary fold, oval in shape.

 (iii) Multiple gunshot wounds of entry, 7 in number, present in an area of 14 cm * 12 cm
over the left scapular region up to the midline, varying in size from 0.5 cm * 0.25 cm to 0.25 cm *
0.2 cm, skin to chest cavity deep.

 (iv) Gunshot wound of entry 6 cm * 4 cm* abdominal cavity deep, present on the left side
of the back near the midline, surrounded by multiple gunshot wounds of entry, 18 in number, in an
area of 11 cm * 7 cm, varying in size from 0.5 cm * 0.5 cm to 0.2 cm * 0.2 cm, skin to cavity deep.

 (v) Gunshot wound of entry 6 cm * 5 cm* abdominal cavity deep, present on the
midline at the level of T12-L1, oval in shape."

16. During the internal examination, P.W.6 Dr. Manohar Singhal found that the C2, C3,
and C4 cervical vertebrae, as well as T12 and L1, were fractured, the spinal cord was lacerated, the
pleura was lacerated, the larynx and trachea were lacerated, both lungs were lacerated, the
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pericardium was lacerated and the stomach, intestines, liver, pancreas, spleen and both kidneys
were lacerated. A total of 125 small and medium-sized pellets and 7(wads) were recovered from
the dead body.

17. P.W.6, Dr. Manohar Singhal, has also said that the cause of death was shock and
hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries and the death could have occurred about two days
earlier. The witness proved the post-mortem report (Ext. Ka-14) and said that Asha Ram could
have died on 17.07.1988 at about 12:00 noon due to gunshot, fired from a country-made pistol. In
his cross-examination, the witness said that injury Nos. 1 and 4 could have been caused when the
assailant was at a higher level than the deceased. He further said that all the injuries were caused
from a distance of more than four feet.

18. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused were recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the prosecution case and stated that the witnesses
had deposed against them due to enmity. No evidence was adduced by the accused in their defence.

19. After hearing the arguments of both parties and perusing the evidence on record, the
Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt against the accused, Ram Das, Suraj Singh and Munender, while the charge against the
accused Vinod was not proved. Accordingly, accused Vinod Kumar was acquitted and the
appellants, Ram Das, Suraj Singh and Munender were convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

20. Heard Ms. Tahira Kazmi, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and Ms.
Divya Ojha, learned Additional Government Advocate-I appearing on behalf of the State.

21. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the testimony of the eyewitnesses is not
reliable. It is further submitted that the first informant, Ram Ratan is not an eyewitness to the
alleged incident. Another eyewitness, Baba Ravi Giri has not supported the prosecution case and
turned hostile. It is also submitted that the oral testimony is not corroborated by the medical
evidence, which raises serious doubts about the prosecution case. It is further submitted that
another eyewitness, Sohan Lal was never examined and although the incident is alleged to have
taken place near the hut of Chetram, he was also not examined. There are material contradictions in
the testimony of P.W.2, Ram Deen, which directly contradicts the chronology of events. It is
further submitted that, according to P.W.2 Ram Deen, the deceased, Asha Ram was shot from
behind while running, however, the post-mortem report indicates that the entry wounds are on the
front side of the body and there is no entry wound on the back of the deceased. It is also submitted
that there was no motive for the appellants to commit murder. Therefore, the prosecution case is
highly doubtful and the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants without properly
appreciating the evidence, on the basis of conjectures.

22. Per contra, learned A.G.A.-I has submitted that the prosecution case is proved beyond
reasonable doubt. It is a daylight murder and the eye-witness account has duly proved the
prosecution case. The oral testimony is consistent, reliable and trustworthy. It is also submitted that
there are no major contradictions between the oral and medical evidence and minor contradictions
4 All. Ram Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1009
in the oral testimony are likely to occur when a witness is cross-examined at length. Therefore, the
appellants were rightly convicted. This appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

23. It is settled law that in a criminal case, the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The present case is based on direct evidence. The first
argument on behalf of the appellants is that the F.I.R. has been lodged belatedly without any
reasonable explanation for the delay, which raises a serious doubt about the prosecution case. In
this regard, according to the prosecution, the incident occurred on 17.07.1984 at 12:00 noon and the
F.I.R. was lodged on the next day, i.e., on 18.07.1984 at 12:20 p.m. This would mean that the F.I.R.
was lodged after more than 24 hours of the incident. According to the check F.I.R., the distance of
the place of occurrence from the Police Station is 7 miles. The informant, P.W.3 Ram Ratan, is a
brother of full blood of the deceased, Asha Ram. Admittedly, Ram Ratan was not present at the
place of occurrence at the time of the incident and he has stated on oath that he lodged the F.I.R. on
the basis of information furnished by Ram Deen, Ravi Giri and Sohan Lal, as he did not witness the
incident. The reason for the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been explained by the prosecution that
firstly, Ram Ratan went to Police Station Sikanderpur to lodge the F.I.R., where it was refused on
the ground that the incident had occurred within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kampil.
Thereafter, the informant went to Police Station Kampil, where he lodged the F.I.R.

24. It is relevant to mention that P.W.2, Ram Deen, the cousin of the deceased, is an
eyewitness to the incident. He has testified that after the incident, he informed the deceased's
brother, Ram Ratan. In his cross-examination, he has said that the police reached the place of
occurrence at 8:00 p.m. followed by Ram Ratan, his mother Phool Mati and others. The police told
Ram Ratan to go and lodge the F.I.R. The above testimony of P.W.2, Ram Deen, is significant
because if the police had reached at the place of occurrence at about 8:00 p.m., the same day, then
there was no reason for the informant to lodge the F.I.R. the next day in the afternoon. Therefore,
the F.I.R. has been lodged with inordinate delay without any plausible explanation, which raises
serious doubt about the prosecution case.

25. In this regard, the observation of the Supreme Court in Meharaj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State
of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188, in paragraph 12 is relevant and reads as follows:

 " FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece
of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting
upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in
which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by
them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eye witnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the
FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an after thought. On account of delay,
the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the
introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the FIR,
was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts generally look for certain
external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a
murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give
rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded,
unless, of course the prosecution can offered a satisfactory explanation for the delay in dispatch or
1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. Prosecution has led no evidence at all in this
behalf. The second external check equally important is the sending of the copy of the FIR along
with the dead body and its reference in the inquest report. Even though the inquest report,
prepared u/s 174 Cr.P.C. is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the
prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during inquest
proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the
prosecution story was still in embryo and had not been given any shape and that the FIR came to
be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante timed to give it
the colour of a promptly lodged FIR."

26. According to the prosecution, the motive for the appellants to commit the murder was
that the appellant Munender swore revenge on Asha Ram, as he was under the impression that his
father, Kishan Pal, had been shot dead by Asha Ram. This is a case of direct evidence and in such
cases, motive loses its significance. However, it is relevant to note that if the prosecution sets up a
case that there was a motive for the appellants to commit the offence, then it is its duty to prove the
same like any other fact asserted by it. In this regard, the prosecution have failed to prove the
motive for the appellants to commit the crime. There is no evidence to show that appellant
Munenders father, Kishan Pal was shot by the deceased Asha Ram. Therefore, although motive
has no significant role to play in this case, but the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged
motive for the appellants to commit the offence.

27. According to the prosecution, at the time of the incident, the deceased Asha Ram was
accompanied by Baba Ravi Giri, Sohan Lal and Ram Deen and the incident occurred in their
presence. The prosecution has examined Ram Deen and Baba Ravi Giri to prove their case. Sohan
Lal has not been examined by the prosecution for reasons best known to it. P.W.4 Baba Ravi Giri
has not supported the prosecution case and has stated that he could not identify the assailants
because of poor vision in his eyes. The witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and in his
cross-examination, nothing material has come in support of the prosecution case. Therefore, the
evidence of P.W.4 Baba Ravi Giri is of no help for the prosecution. The prosecution have proved
the statement of Baba Ravi Giri recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as Ext. Ka-11 during the
evidence of the Investigating Officer, but it is settled law that a statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence and such a statement can be used only for
corroboration or contradiction of the witness during his examination before the Court. In the
present case, the witness has not supported the prosecution case and said in his cross-examination
that he did not give any such statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Therefore, the statement of Baba
Ravi Giri recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has no evidentiary value.

28. A perusal of statement of P.W.2, Ram Deen shows that his testimony also does not
inspire confidence and it is hard to rely upon it. P.W.2, Ram Deen is a cousin of the deceased.
Therefore, he is a relative and an interested witness. It is settled law that the testimony of a relative
or interested witness has to be examined carefully. P.W.2, Ram Deen, in his examination-in-chief,
has said that when he, along with Baba Ravi Giri, Asha Ram and another person, were returning to
Village Nadauli, and reached near the hut of Chet Ram under Village Nakara, all the four accused
emerged from the Behaya tree, surrounded them and Munender, Suraj Pal and Ram Das shot Asha
Ram, as a result of which he died on the spot. Thus, according to P.W.2, Ram Deen, the deceased
4 All. Ram Das & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1011
Asha Ram was shot after the accused surrounded him. Whereas, in his cross-examination, he has
stated that the appellants were carrying country-made pistols in their hands and pounced upon
them, and they(the victim party) ran towards west. The appellants chased them and they ran
together to save themselves and while running, he (P.W.2) was in the lead with Sohan Lal to his
left and, Baba Ravi Giri to his right and the deceased Asha Ram behind him. He has also stated that
while on the run, Baba Ravi Giri and Sohan Lal were one step away from him, and Asha Ram was
4-5 steps behind him. He has further said that he heard four shots ring out, and as soon as Asha
Ram fell, the accused fled away. All this incident he saw after turning his face back, upon stopping.

29. According to the prosecution, the deceased was shot with a country-made pistol. As per
the statement of Ram Deen, he, along with the deceased, Sohan Lal and Baba Ravi Giri, was
running when Asha Ram was shot. According to Ram Deen, they were running in close proximity
to each other, therefore, one or more of them ought to have sustained injuries from the dispersal of
pellets. However, none of the witnesses or the persons accompanying Asha Ram sustained any
gunshot injury, which casts doubt on the version of Ram Deen that the deceased was shot while
running alongside him.

30. The statement of P.W.2 Ram Deen is also contradictory to the medical evidence on
record. According to the post-mortem report of the deceased, Asha Ram sustained five gunshot
entry wounds. Out of these, one was on the right side of the neck, another on the right side of the
chest, the third was in the scapular region up to the midline, the fourth was over the abdominal
cavity and the fifth was deep in the abdominal cavity along the mid-line at the level of the iliac
crest. Therefore, except for the gunshot entry wound found in the scapular region up to the midline, all other gunshot entry wounds were on the front side of the body. However, according to Ram
Deen, the deceased was shot from behind. Thus, the medical evidence does not corroborate the
ocular testimony of P.W.2 Ram Deen, which creates a serious doubt about the prosecution case.

31. As the testimony of P.W.2 Ram Deen is found to be not credible and P.W.4, Baba Ravi
Giri has not supported the prosecution case, the non-examination of the other eyewitness, Sohan
Lal, by the prosecution gives rise to an adverse inference against the prosecution, as held by the
Supreme Court in Hem Raj v. State of Haryana (supra) that an unexplained omission to examine
independent eye-witness would give rise to an adverse inference, particularly, when the eyewitnesses actually produced were not found to be reliable and there were serious doubts about their
presence at the spot.

32. In view of the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not
been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of P.W.2, Ram Deen, is not
trustworthy or consistent. P.W.4, Baba Ravi Giri, has not supported the prosecution case. P.W.3,
Ram Ratan, is not an eyewitness to the incident. The ocular evidence is not supported by the
medical evidence. The FIR has been lodged belatedly and there is no reasonable explanation for the
delay in lodging the FIR.

33. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial
Court has appreciated the evidence on record incorrectly and reached the conclusion of guilt for the
1012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellant, in error, based on conjectures and thus, the conviction and sentence of the appellants is
liable to be set aside.

34 . In view of the above, the instant criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment
and order dated 12.01.1989 passed by the Trial Court is set aside and the appellants, Ram Das,
Suraj Singh and Munendra are acquitted.

35. The appellants, Ram Das, Suraj Singh and Munendra are on bail. They need not
surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties discharged.

36. The appellants shall each execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- under
Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 437-A of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) for their appearance, in the event of an appeal being
preferred against their acquittal.

37. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Trial Court concerned alongwith the Trial
Court record for information and necessary compliance.
---------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1012
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 1985

Rameshwar Prasad Gupta ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to legality of conviction order for abatement to suicide.

Headnotes
Abatement to suicide-Indian Penal Code-Sections 306- appellant is the husband of deceased- burden
of proof lies upon the prosecution- mere harassment not sufficient to constitute an offence u/s 306 IPC-
unless accompanied by deliberate acts of incitement or facilitation -should be proximate to the time of suicideshould have clear connection between the accused's behaviour and the tragic outcome- nowhere been stated
by both witnesses- dying declaration could not be recorded- sustained burns about 95 per cent- admitted by
her brother-in-law (Jeth)- no smell of kerosene oil was emanating from the body of the deceased- prosecution
failed to prove that appellant committed any harassment for want of dowry- conviction and guilt of the
appellant was passed on conjunctures-Appeal allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Meharaj Singh (L/NK.) v. State of U.P., (1994) 5 SCC 188
2. Jayedepsingh Pravinsingh Chavda & Others V State of Gujarat, 2025 (2) SCC 216