# Ram Pal (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 366
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 2012
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pal-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-46797
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) & Indian
Penal Code, 1860- Sections 302, 201, 394challenge to-conviction-no eye witness-no
recovery
from
the
accused
of
any
incriminating article-he was named after
considerable
period
of
time-his
fingerprints have not been sent for DNA
examination-no forensic science report-no
material
on
record
to
suggest
that
whether the death was accidental,
suicidal or homicidal- as per the evidence
of P.W.-8, no such body was discovered
during the said time period-absence of the
appellant from his duty on the date of the
alleged incident, there is neither any
document produced on the record of the
case nor any witness was examined - The
prosecution has not been able to prove,
even, the aspect of last-seen together,
and the motive for the crime.-appellant
had spotted deceased talking with some
unknown male at Theatre which prompted
him to commit the alleged offence, that
male was also not examined to establish
the said fact- appellant granted the
benefit of doubt- trial Court committed an
error in solely relying on the alleged
statement made by the appellant before
the police, while in custody of police. (Para
1 to 29)

B. Merely relying on the confession
alleged to be made by the appellant, while
he was in custody of P.W.-8, the trial
Court came to the conclusion that the
appellant
was
guilty
of
the
alleged
offence. It is very well-known that a
statement made by an accused before the
police, while in custody of police, cannot
be used against him. It is no doubt true
that there are certain circumstances,
which
raises
suspicion
about
the
involvement of the appellant in the
alleged offence. But there is a well settled
principle
of
law
that
the
suspicion
howsoever strong it may be, cannot be
substituted for the evidence. In the
instant case, it cannot be said that the
chain of events stands completed and it
points towards the guilt of the appellant
only and that it is not possible to take a
different view, then, the one taken by the
trial Court. (Para 24,25)

The Appeal is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in default of payment of fine from three
years to six month by observing as under:-

"But
considering
the
circumstances placed before us on behalf
of the appellant-accused that he is very
poor; he is merely a carrier; he has to
maintain his family; it was his first offence;
because of his poverty, he could not pay the
heavy amount of fine (rupees one lakh) and
if he is ordered to remain in jail even after
the period of substantive sentence is over
only because of his inability to pay fine,
serious prejudice will be caused not only to
him, but also to his family members who
are innocent. We are, therefore, of the view
that though an amount of payment of fine of
rupees one lakh which is minimum as
specified in Section 18 of the Act cannot be
reduced in view of the legislative mandate,
ends of justice would be met if we retain
that part of the direction, but order that in
default of payment of fine of rupees one
lakh, the appellant shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months instead of
three years as ordered by the trial court
and confirmed by the High Court."

10. A perusal of the record shows that
the appellant was arrested by the police on
11.01.2008. During trial he is continuously
in jail because no order has been passed on
his bail application filed before this court
alongwith this appeal.

11. Thus, it is clear that the appellant
has undergone 12 years of his sentence and
period of rigorous imprisonment for three
years in default of payment of fine may be
reduced.

12. Taking into account the totality of
the facts and circumstances of the case and
relying on the law laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the above cited Shanti Lal's
case, period of sentence of 12 years'
rigorous
imprisonment
has
already
undergone by him and the period of
imprisonment for three years in default of
payment of fine is reduced to the period of
six months imprisonment.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly
allowed. The appellant shall be released
after the period of sentence as indicated
herein above, is over.

14. The seized contraband shall be
destroyed by the officer concerned in
accordance with the notifications issued
under Section 52A of The Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act.

15. Let a copy of this judgement and
order be sent to the court below within a
week for ensuring its compliance.

16. The registry is directed to pay Rs.
10,000/- to the learned counsel for the
appellant/Amicus Curiae as counsel's fee
without any delay and, in any case, within
one month from the date of receipt of copy
of this judgment.
----------
(2021)02ILR A366
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 2012

Ram Pal ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
2 All. Ram Pal Vs. State of U.P.
367
Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra

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

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) & Indian
Penal Code, 1860- Sections 302, 201, 394challenge to-conviction-no eye witness-no
recovery
from
the
accused
of
any
incriminating article-he was named after
considerable
period
of
time-his
fingerprints have not been sent for DNA
examination-no forensic science report-no
material
on
record
to
suggest
that
whether the death was accidental,
suicidal or homicidal- as per the evidence
of P.W.-8, no such body was discovered
during the said time period-absence of the
appellant from his duty on the date of the
alleged incident, there is neither any
document produced on the record of the
case nor any witness was examined - The
prosecution has not been able to prove,
even, the aspect of last-seen together,
and the motive for the crime.-appellant
had spotted deceased talking with some
unknown male at Theatre which prompted
him to commit the alleged offence, that
male was also not examined to establish
the said fact- appellant granted the
benefit of doubt- trial Court committed an
error in solely relying on the alleged
statement made by the appellant before
the police, while in custody of police. (Para
1 to 29)

B. Merely relying on the confession
alleged to be made by the appellant, while
he was in custody of P.W.-8, the trial
Court came to the conclusion that the
appellant
was
guilty
of
the
alleged
offence. It is very well-known that a
statement made by an accused before the
police, while in custody of police, cannot
be used against him. It is no doubt true
that there are certain circumstances,
which
raises
suspicion
about
the
involvement of the appellant in the
alleged offence. But there is a well settled
principle
of
law
that
the
suspicion
howsoever strong it may be, cannot be
substituted for the evidence. In the
instant case, it cannot be said that the
chain of events stands completed and it
points towards the guilt of the appellant
only and that it is not possible to take a
different view, then, the one taken by the
trial Court. (Para 24,25)

The Appeal is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Nizam & anr. Vs St. of Raj. (2015) LawSuit
(SC) 826

2. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs St. of Mah. (2006)
10 SCC 681

3. St. of Raj. Vs Kashi Ram (2007) Suppl. ACC
485

4. Ram Nath Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2007) Suppl.
ACC 495

5. Kalu @Laxminarayan Vs St. of M.P. (2019) 10
SCC 211

6. Rambraksh alias Jalim Vs St. of Chatt. (2016)
12 SCC 251

7. Kanti Lal Vs St. of U.P. CRLA No.2183 of 2011

8. Chetankumar Dahyabhai Patel Vs St. of Guj.
CRLA No.437 of 2003

9. Mohd. Younus Ali Tarafdar Vs St. of W. B.
(2020) 3 SCC 747

10. Surendra Singh Vs St. of U.P. (2018)
Supreme (All) 2467
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the appellant and
learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This appeal challenges the
judgment and order dated 1.12.2011 passed
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kannauj
in Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2011 convicting
Ram Pal, appellant, for commission of
offence under Sections 302, 201 and & 394
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as 'I.P.C.').

3. The factual matrix of the case in
hand, as gleaned from the pleadings and
submissions of the parties as also the record
is that on 2.9.1992, a complaint was moved
by Suraj Kumar to the police authority at
Kannauj stating that Ram Beti, wife of the
late brother of Suraj Kumar and Kumari
Draupadi alias Bauna, daughter of Ram
Beti were gone missing from 12.00 noon
on the said date and he suspects that they
have been abducted and killed as his search
for them turned in failure.

4. On the aforesaid complaint, G.D.
Report No.43 was made at 21.30 hrs on
2.9.1992 and the matter was investigated,
during investigation, dead bodies of Ram
Beti and Draupadi alias Bauna were found
from the place of incident, description of
the same were written in G.D. Report No.2
at 00.15 hrs on 3.9.1992 on the basis of
which Case Crime No.548 of 1992 under
Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. was lodged
and investigation was moved into motion
and after recording statements of various
persons, the Investigating Officer submitted
the charge-sheet to the competent court on
9.2.1993.

5. The accused was facing charges
which were exclusively triable by the Court
of Sessions, he was committed to it.

6. On being summoned, the accused
pleaded not guilty and wanted to be tried.

7. The prosecution examined about 6
witnesses who are as follows:
1
Deposition of
Prem Shanker
27/01/11 PW1
2
Deposition of
Dr. Prithibi Raj
Singh
14/03/11 PW2
3
Deposition of
Ved
Prakash
Giri
07/04/11 PW3
4
Deposition of
Ram Nandani
05/05/11 PW4
5
Deposition of
Ram Ratan
18/06/11 PW5
6
Deposition of
Pradeep
Pradhan
18/07/11 PW6

8. In support of ocular version
following documents were filed:

1
Written Report
& Application
02/02/92 Ex.Ka.1
&
Ex.
Ka.3
2
Recovery
memo
and
Supurdginama
of Lock and
Goods
03/09/92 Ex.Ka.14
3
Recovery
Memo
of
White Cloth
03/09/92 Ex.
Ka.
15
4
Recovery
Memo of 'Suti
Nara'
(Kamarband)
03/09/92 Ex.
Ka.
16
5
Postmortem
Report
03/09/92 Ex.Ka.3
6
Postmortem
Report
03/09/92 Ex.Ka.4
7
Panchayatnam
03/09/92 Ex. Ka.6
2 All. Ram Pal Vs. State of U.P.
369
a
8
Charge-sheet
09/02/93 Ex.
Ka.17

9. On the witnesses being examined
and the prosecution having concluded its
evidence, the accused was put to questions
under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

10. Hearing the arguments on behalf
of prosecution and the defence, the learned
Sessions Judge convicted the appellant as
mentioned aforesaid. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the impugned judgment,
the appellant has preferred this appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant
has contended that there are several
missing links and the learned judge has
committed a grave error in convicting the
accused on the basis of the statements made
by witnesses who are not reliable.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant
has relied on the decision in Nizam and
Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in
2015 LawSuit (SC) 826 and has contended
that the circumstantial chain was full of
gaps; there is no consistency in their
depositions and convection is based on
mere hypothesis of the facts that the
accused was working at the place where the
dead bodies of the deceased were found.

13. He has further submitted that no
incriminating circumstances have been
proved against the accused also except the
one wherein he was alleged to working in
the house of deceased. It is submitted by
the learned counsel for the appellant that
the learned Judge below could not have
convicted the accused as there was no
dacoity or loot or robbery and nothing was
recovered from the accused. Learned
counsel for the appellant has further
submitted that the learned judge had gone
on the basis that it might be that the
accused could have tried to hide the dead
bodies of the deceased. It is further
submitted that the conviction is based
solely on these hypothesis.

14. As against this, learned A.G.A for
the State has taken us through the record
and has submitted that it was not a suicidal
death but it was a murder. Circumstantial
evidence proves to the hilt that the accused
alone was the perpetrator of murder and he
has relied on the decisions in Trimukh
Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2006) 10 SCC 681, State of Rajasthan
Vs. Kashi Ram, 2007 (Suppl.) ACC 485,
Ram Nath vs. State of U.P. and others,
2007 (Suppl.) ACC 495, Kalu alias
Laxminarayan Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2019) 10 SCC 211 and has
contended that the circumstantial chain is
complete and points only towards accused.

15. P.W.1, Prem Shankarm has
deposed that he is aware that the deceased
was staying in the house from where dead
bodies of the two ladies were found.

16. We conclude that ligature mark on
the dead bodies showed that it was a
homicidal death. We are not delving further
on this aspect as we have come to the
conclusion that it was homicidal death but
question is whether it was caused by the
accused and accused alone?

17. In his oral testimony, P.W.3 has
opined that he had received information on
2.9.1992 at 9:30 p.m. about fact that Ram
Beti wife of late Tulsiram Mishra and
Draupadi alias Bauna daughter of late
Tulsiram were missing from home. It was
registered as missing application and was
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
thereafter turned into a G.D. entry and S.I.
M.B. Lal taken the statements. After the
dead body was recovered, it was sent for
postmortem. The broken lock and the cloth
with which both were done to death, was
also recovered at the place of incidence.
The
prosecution
witness
No.4,
Ram
Nandani, has also in his ocular version
stated that the incident occurred about 18
years before and has stated that the accused
used to work at her place and therefore she
knew him and she had sent him to her
mother's place and he has ran away. P.W.
5, Ram Ratan, also opined that the incident
occurred 19 years back. Ram Beti and her
daughter were staying together. Rampal
was a carpenter at their place and for
sometimes Ram Beti, her daughter and
accused-Ram Pal were not seen. He did not
see clothes with which they were done to
death. According to the other witnesses
also, similar facts are mentioned.

18. The statement of accused under
section 313 Cr.P.C. was one of denial and
the accused specifically stated that he
was falsely implicated. He has stated that
he was not there on the place of the
incidents as the son of the deceased has
conveyed to him that he would call him
after a certain period of time and when he
would come back on leave, he would call
him and, therefore, he had gone away.

19.

On
appreciation
of
the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses,
there are certain facts which emerge
namely there is no eye witness and can
we convict the accused on the basis of
oral testimony of being working at the
place of deceased?

20. The circumstances of last seen
together
is
one
of
the
chain
of
circumstances
which
has
to
be
corroborated by other factual data. None
of the witnesses have remotely conveyed
that death occurred when the accused was
in the house. The son of the deceased,
P.W.1, is also not aware as the death took
place in his absence. None of them had
given any name to anybody and when he
came to his house on 3rd December his
house was open and the lock in the
internal rooms were not broken but the
main door was brought down.

21. Hence, the learned judge has
committed an error which can be said to
be an error apparent on the face of record
as there is no connecting link between the
accused and the death of the two ladies.
We are fortified in our view by the
decision
of
the
Apex
Court
in
Rambraksh alias Jalim Vs. State of
Chattisgarh, (2016) 12 SCC 251. Only
on the basis of last seen, conviction
cannot sustained and the accused had
acquitted. Similar is the case here in our
case. No one has seen the accused with
the deceased. The only evidence is that he
was staying in the said house.

22. Reference to a recent decision of
this Court in Criminal Appeal No.2183
of 2011 (Kanti Lal Vs. State of U.P)
decided on 19.1.2021 can be made.

23. We can safely rely on the decision
of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 437 of 2003 (Chetankumar
Dahyabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat)
decided on 3.9.2013 where in the Court has
held as under:

"16. Thus, from the discussion of
the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses
following aspects emerges;

(1) Nobody has seen the crime
actually being committed;
2 All. Ram Pal Vs. State of U.P.
371

(2) There is no material on
record to suggest that whether Sonali has
expired or not or whether the death of
Sonali
was
accidental,
suicidal
or
homicidal;

(3) The case of the prosecution
is based solely on the alleged disclosure
made by the appellant, while he was in
custody of the police in connection with
the complaint made by P.W.-1;

(4) Even, as per the evidence of
P.W.-8, when he made inquires about the
discovery of body of a female from the
river about the time of the incident, he
was informed that no such body was
discovered during the said time period
and the aforesaid fact shakes the very
basis of the case of the prosecution that
the appellant had pushed Sonali from
over the bridge;

(5) Though, P.W.-8 stated, in
his evidence, that he had recorded the
statement of the Manager of Relief
Theater, Bharuch, to verify the aspect of
running of movie "Meri Aan" on the date
of the alleged offence, the Manager was
not examined as a witness. Moreover,
though, P.W.-8 stated that he had
obtained evidence with regard to absence
of the appellant from his duty on the date
of the alleged incident, there is neither
any document produced on the record of
the case nor any witness was examined by
the prosecution to establish the said
aspect;

(6) P.W.-1 failed to explain as
to why he did not made any inquires
about Sonali for two years and as to what
prompted him to lodge the complaint,
Dated : 20.04.1996, after a period of
about
two
years
before
the
PI,Ankleshwar;

(7) In view of the fact that the
body of Sonali was never recovered, it
was incumbent on the prosecution to
show as to on what basis Section 302 of
the
IPC
was
applied
against
the
appellant;

(8) The prosecution has not been
able to prove, even, the aspect of lastseen
together, since, there is no witness was
examined nor any material was produced
to establish the same;

(9) The prosecution has not been
able to establish the motive for the crime.
Insofar as the aspect of doubt about the
character of Sonali on the part of the
appellant is concerned, there is no material
on record was produced to substantiate the
same.

Moreover,
though,
in
the
complaint it is stated that on the date of the
alleged offence, the appellant had spotted
Sonali talking with some unknown male at
Relief Theater, Bharuch, which prompted
him to commit the alleged offence, the
aforesaid male was not examined by the
prosecution to establish the said fact, and
thus, the motive for commission of the
alleged offence by the appellant remains
shrouded in mystery.

17.
Thus,
from
the
above
discussion it becomes clear that merely
relying on the confession alleged to be
made by the appellant, while he was in
custody of P.W.-8, the trial Court came to
the conclusion that the appellant was guilty
of the alleged offence. It is very well-known
that a statement made by an accused before
the
police,
while
in
custody
of
police,cannot be used against him. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the trial Court
committed an error in solely relying on the
alleged statement made by the appellant
before the police, while in custody of
police. It is no doubt true that there are
certain
circumstances,
which
raises
suspicion about the involvement of the
appellant in the alleged offence. But, there
is a well settled principle of law that the
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
suspicion howsoever strong it may be,
cannot be substituted for the evidence. In
the case on hand, in view of the above
discussion, it cannot be said that the chain
of events stands completed and it points
towards the guilt of the appellant only and
that it is not possible to take a different
view, then, the one taken by the trial Court.
We are,therefore, inclined to accept the
submissions made by Mr. A. D. Shah,
learned Sr. Advocate for the appellant that
the appellant requires to be granted the
benefit of doubt.

18. In the result, the appeal is
ALLOWED. The judgment and order of
the trial Court, Dated : 05.04.2003,
rendered in Sessions Case No. 134 of
1998, is quashed and set aside. The
appellant - original accused is given the
benefit of doubt and is ordered to be
acquitted. The appellant is on bail, and
hence, his bail bond stands canceled. The
amount of fine, if any, paid, be refunded
to the appellant. A copy of this order be
sent to the concerned jail authorities,
immediately."

24. In this case there are certain
aspects which requires to be seen namely
there is no recovery from the accused of
any incriminating article, he was named
after considerable period of time, his
fingerprints have not been sent for DNA
examination and there is no forensic
science report which would permit us to
concur with the learned Sessions Judge in
holding the appellant guilty.

25. The submission of the learned
A.G.A for the State is that this was a cold
blooded murder and the circumstantial
evidence goes to show that it was the
accused and accused alone who had
perpetrated the murder.

26. The decisions cited by the learned
A.G.A. are threadbare considered by us and
the difference in those decisions are that
there are no incriminating substances which
are
clearly
established
against
the
appellant. Explanations were given by the
accused-appellant
and,
therefore,
the
judgment in Kashi Ram (Supra) cannot be
made applicable. The accused has given
cogent explanation. Unfortunately, the
circumstances from which an inference of
guilt is sought to be drawn must be
cogently and firmly established. In this
case, there is nothing which point to the
guilt of the accused leave apart cumulative
chain. Hence, judgment in Trimukh
Maroti Kirkan (Supra) will not apply. As
far as the judgment in Kalu alias
Laxminarayan (Supra) is concerned, the
factual data will not permit us to confirm
the conviction.

27. Recently, in Mohd. Younus Ali
Tarafdar Vs. State of West Bengal (2020)
3 SCC 747, the dead body of the deceased
was found floating in the well, postmortem
was conducted and it was partially
decomposed. Investigation led to the arrest
of the appellant therein and there was a
confession
made
by
the
appellant.
Appellant alone was convicted by the
courts below which has been upturned by
the Hon'ble apex court. The circumstantial
evidence which prosecution has relied has
to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond
all human probability. It must point out that
it was the accused and accused alone who
had perpetrated the offence. In our case
there was no recovery from the accused,
hence, we are unable to agree with the
learned A.G.A. that section 114 of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 be read into and that
the decision which have been cited would
apply to the facts of this case.
2 All. Ram Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
373

28. Hence, we are unable to concur
with the learned Sessions Judge. A
further mention to the decision of this
Court in Surendra Singh Vs. State of
U.P., 2018 0 Supreme (All) 2467 would
also not permit us to concur with the
learned judge.

29. The appeal is allowed. The
conviction under Section 302 read with
Sections 201 and & 394 of I.P.C. cannot
be sustained. The accused will have to be
set free.

30. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the trial court forthwith.
----------
(2021)02ILR A373
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 344 of 1981

Ram Kumar Sharma ...Accused Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri
Amresh
Kumar
Sharma,
Sri
A.
Kulshrestha, Sri Havaldar Verma, Sri S.N.
Pandey

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

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) & Indian
Penal
Code
,1860-Section
161
&
Prevention
of
Corruption
Act,1947-
Section 5(2)-modification of -quantum of
sentence- incident is of the year 1978-
accused -appellant posted as operator at
the public tube-well, was habitual of
accepting bribes from the farmers to
irrigate their fields-Complainant's sugar
cane (perhi) field measuring six bighas
was not irrigated and it went dry-The tube
well
operator,
the
present
accused
appellant, was demanding Rs. 60/- as
bribe from the complainant and the
complainant gave the currency notes to
the accused appellant who kept the same
in his pocket-The appellant is now aged
about 82 years and he is suffering from
age
related
ailments-appellant
has
suffered physical and mental agony of
criminal trial and conviction for more than
40 years in the trap case involving a petty
amount-ratio of the law laid down by the
Apex Court for reducing the substantive
sentence
by
enhancing
the
fine
is
affirmed.(Para 1to 20)

The Appeal is partly allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Ashok Kumar Vs St. (Delhi Admin.) (1980) 2
SCC 282

2. Sharvan Kumar Vs St. of U.P. (1985) 3 SCC
658

3. Ajab & ors. Vs St. of Mah. (1989) Supp. 1
SCC 601

4. V.K. Verma Vs CBI CRLA NO. 404 OF 2014

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Singh, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for
appellant, learned AGA appearing for the
State and perused the record of this case.

2. The prosecution story of this in
brief is that on 20th June, 1978 one Suraj
Mal moved a complaint against the present
accused appellant Ram Kumar in writing
(Ext. Ka-13) before the Superintendent of
Police
(Vigilance),
Meerut.
It
was
mentioned in the said complaint that the
accused appellant posted as operator at the
public tube-well No. 52 H.G. in village