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

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 1199
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 4506 of 2005
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Saumitra Dayal Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pal-singh-ors-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-46896
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Sections 154 & 157-
Ante- Timed FIR- Specific to the plea of
ante timed FIR set up by the appellants, in
Mehraj Singh Vs State of U.P.; (1994) 5
SCC 188, two external tests had been
relied, to decide that plea. First external
test is the report made to the magistrate
1200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 157 Cr.P.C. and the second
external test is the copy of the FIR sent
with the dead body, for postmortem
examination and its reference on the
inquest report.- No cross examination on
the point- The fact that the full FIR
details (with respect to Case Crime
Number etc.) are clearly and correctly
mentioned on both the 'Panchayatnama',
there remains no reason to doubt that the
FIR had been lodged on the date and time
as
disclosed
therein.
Therefore,
the
external tests as relied by the Supreme
Court in Mehraj (supra) are not found to
have failed.

The two tests for proving the ante-timing of
FIR are the time when the special report
was sent to the Magistrate and as to
whether copy of the FIR was part of the
police papers at the time of the inquest and
post mortem examination. In absence of
any effective cross-examination of the
defence on these points and the presence
of full details of the case crime no. on the
panchayatnama show that the FIR is not
ante-timed.

Evidence Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 8- Section -Motive for commission
of offence is not a primary factor to be
established in a case where direct ocular
evidence
has
been
adduced
by
the
prosecution yet, that evidence must be
intrinsically
reliable
and
inherently
probable and not tainted with animosity-
Though not self contradicted or patently
false yet it may require corroboration in
regard to material particulars from other
prosecution evidence to eliminate any
doubt that the same may be tainted with
animosity.

Motive is insignificant in a case of direct ocular
evidence but where the testimony of an
interested witness is tainted with malice and
animus then the Court has to look for
corroboration of the same from other material
evidence.

The fact that the Investigating Officer did
not consider it necessary to get the injured
medically examined and he further did not
record the statements of those injured
witnesses at the first met opportunity may
not carry much weight, in face of the fact
that in the FIR lodged promptly, at 11.20
am, the said witnesses were named as
injured persons - The fact of medical
examination actually carried out being
proven the rest are matters that may point
to deficiencies in the police investigation but
may not discredit the testimony of the
injured witness itself. As held by the
Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs
Kishore, (1996) 8 SCC 217, an irregularity or
even an illegality during investigation would
not cast doubt on the otherwise trustworthy
and reliable evidence.

It is settled law that the accu

## Text

_Characters 0–39,945 of 81,957. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39945 for what follows._

3 All. Ram Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1199
Judge instead of writing philosophy, if he
did not think it was a case of acquittal but
could have punished under Section 304 part
I or II of I.P.C. which was attracted in the
facts of this case.

27. While we have decided that the
provisions go to show that injuries were
caused after altercation as from perusal of
the statements of all the witnesses, it
appears that abusing took place and then all
of a sudden the offence occurred, therefore,
it would fall within the scope of the
provisions of Section 304 I.P.C. as narrated
herein above as far as accused- Shankar
and Prem Singh are concerned.

28. As far as accused-appellant Hoti
Lal is concerned there is no clear evidence
against him who has only instigated and
also nothing was recovered on pointing out
of Hoti Lal. Therefore, the accused- Hoti
Lal is exonerated. Hoti Lal shall be
released forthwith if not required in any
other offence.

29. So far as other accused- Prem
Singh and Shankar are concerned, the
accused- Shankar is family member of
deceased and the accused are in jail for a
period of more than 15 years. It is a matter
of fact as it transpires from the F.I.R. and
as we have held that it is homicidal death
but not murder. We hold the accused guilty
for Section 304 of I.P.C. but not under 302
read with Section 34 I.P.C. The punishment
of life imprisonment is reduced to ten
years. The period of ten years is already
over, the accused- Prem Singh and Shankar
shall be released forthwith if not required in
any other offence. However, this would be
coupled with the fine imposed by the court
below. The fine be deposited within four
weeks of their release, failing which they
shall
undergo
three
months
simple
imprisonment in default.

30. In view of the aforementioned
discussion, the appeal of accused- Hoti Lal,
i.e. Crl. Appeal No. 1201 of 2011 is allowed.
So far as appeals of other accused, namely,
Shankar and Prem Singh, i.e. Crl. Appeal
Nos. 1202 of 2011 and 1203 of 2011, are
concerned, the same are partly allowed.

31. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the trial court.
----------
(2021)03ILR A1199
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4506 of 2005

Ram Pal Singh & Ors. ...Appellant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Rakesh Chandra Upadhyay, Sri Ambrish
Kumar Kashyap, Sri Arimardan Singh, Sri
Bhaiya Ram, Sri G.P. Singh, Sri J.N. Singh,
Sri R.C. Yadav, Sri S.N. Singh, Sri V.K.
Sharma, Sri Ambrish Kumar Kashyap

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri R.K. Pathak, Sri Ankit Srivastava.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Sections 154 & 157-
Ante- Timed FIR- Specific to the plea of
ante timed FIR set up by the appellants, in
Mehraj Singh Vs State of U.P.; (1994) 5
SCC 188, two external tests had been
relied, to decide that plea. First external
test is the report made to the magistrate
1200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 157 Cr.P.C. and the second
external test is the copy of the FIR sent
with the dead body, for postmortem
examination and its reference on the
inquest report.- No cross examination on
the point- The fact that the full FIR
details (with respect to Case Crime
Number etc.) are clearly and correctly
mentioned on both the 'Panchayatnama',
there remains no reason to doubt that the
FIR had been lodged on the date and time
as
disclosed
therein.
Therefore,
the
external tests as relied by the Supreme
Court in Mehraj (supra) are not found to
have failed.

The two tests for proving the ante-timing of
FIR are the time when the special report
was sent to the Magistrate and as to
whether copy of the FIR was part of the
police papers at the time of the inquest and
post mortem examination. In absence of
any effective cross-examination of the
defence on these points and the presence
of full details of the case crime no. on the
panchayatnama show that the FIR is not
ante-timed.

Evidence Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 8- Section -Motive for commission
of offence is not a primary factor to be
established in a case where direct ocular
evidence
has
been
adduced
by
the
prosecution yet, that evidence must be
intrinsically
reliable
and
inherently
probable and not tainted with animosity-
Though not self contradicted or patently
false yet it may require corroboration in
regard to material particulars from other
prosecution evidence to eliminate any
doubt that the same may be tainted with
animosity.

Motive is insignificant in a case of direct ocular
evidence but where the testimony of an
interested witness is tainted with malice and
animus then the Court has to look for
corroboration of the same from other material
evidence.

The fact that the Investigating Officer did
not consider it necessary to get the injured
medically examined and he further did not
record the statements of those injured
witnesses at the first met opportunity may
not carry much weight, in face of the fact
that in the FIR lodged promptly, at 11.20
am, the said witnesses were named as
injured persons - The fact of medical
examination actually carried out being
proven the rest are matters that may point
to deficiencies in the police investigation but
may not discredit the testimony of the
injured witness itself. As held by the
Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs
Kishore, (1996) 8 SCC 217, an irregularity or
even an illegality during investigation would
not cast doubt on the otherwise trustworthy
and reliable evidence.

It is settled law that the accused cannot benefit
from a defective investigation where the
testimony of the witnesses is reliable and
trustworthy.

Evidence Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 3- In such an occurrence where a
large number of rounds of ammunition
were fired indiscriminately by four or five
assailants some of which were stated to
have been fired from close range i.e. when
the assailants had reached the 'Chabutra'
and fired at the victims from that position,
it is quite possible that one of the injuries
suffered
by
a
deceased
may
have
remained from being specified in the
ocular evidence.

In a case where a large number of accused
have resorted to indiscriminate firing then it is
naturally not possible for an eyewitness to
specify the authors of the injuries sustained by
the deceased.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 157- Site PlanThe fact that exact depictions were not
made on the site plan where each member
of the victim party was seated, may also
not be of great relevance. A site plan is
not a piece of substantive evidence.

Only that part of the site plan may be
admissible in evidence which indicates what was
seen by the police officer himself at the spot but
3 All. Ram Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1201
that part of the site plan depicted on the basis
of statements of the witnesses would be
inadmissible in evidence as the same would be
no more than a statement made to the police
and therefore hit by Section 162 of the CrPc.
(Para 17(i), 17(ii), 17 (iii), 18 (vi), 18 (x), 19(v),
20, 21 (i), 21(ii))

Criminal Appeal rejected. (E-2)

Case law/ Judgements relied upon:-

1. Mehraj Singh Vs St. of U.P.; (1994) 5 SCC
188

2. Rameshwar Vs The St. of Raj, AIR (1952) SC
54

3. Dalip Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj., AIR (1953)
SC 364

4. Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Vs The St. of
A.P (2006) 11 SCC 444

5. St. of Raj. Vs Kishore, (1996) 8 SCC 217

6. Jagdish Narain & anr. Vs St. of U.P.; (1996) 8
SCC 199

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal
Singh, J.)

. 1. Heard Sri Ambrish Kumar
Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellants
and Sri Ankit Srivastav, learned AGA for
the State-respondent.

2(i). The appellants Rampal Singh,
Udaibhan and Chandrabhan filed the
present
appeal
against
the
common
judgment and order dated 05.10.2005
passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Singh,
Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast
Track Court No. 2, Mainpuri, in Sessions
Trial No. 411 of 2012 (State Vs. Rampal
Singh & Udaibhan) and Sessions Trial No.
128 of 2004 (State Vs. Chandrabhan). By
that judgment and order, the appellants -
Rampal Singh, Udaibhan and Chandrabhan
were convicted for offences under Sections
147, 148, 307/149 and 302/149 IPC. Upon
conviction, for the offence under Section
147 IPC each of the appellants was
sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
Upon conviction for the offence under
Section 148 IPC, each of the appellants was
sentenced to one year's imprisonment.
Upon conviction for the offence under
Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC,
each of the appellants was sentenced to ten
years' rigorous imprisonment together with
fine Rs. 3,000/-. In the event of nonpayment of fine, they were to undergo
further imprisonment of one year. Upon
conviction for the offence under Section
302 read with Section 149 IPC, each of the
appellants was sentenced to imprisonment
for life and fine Rs. 5,000/-. In the event of
non-payment of that fine, the appellants
were to undergo further imprisonment of
one year and six months.

2(ii). Upon the present appeal being
filed,
appellant
no.1-Rampal
Singh
(hereinafter also referred to as the 'deceased
appellant') was enlarged on bail by order
dated
24.10.2005
whereas
the
bail
application of the other two appellants was
rejected. During the pendency of this
appeal, appellant no.1-Rampal Singh died
and the appeal filed by him was declared to
have abated, vide order dated 13.12.2019.
Appeal filed on behalf of appellant no.3Chandrabhan (hereinafter also referred to
as the 'appellant granted remission') also
did not survive as he was granted remission
by the State Government. It was dismissed
as
not
pressed,
vide
order
dated
07.10.2020. Thus, the present appeal
survives and has been heard on behalf of
appellant no.2-Udaibhan.

3(i). The prosecution case is that a
First Information Report (Exhibit Ka-4)
1202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(hereinafter referred to as the FIR), in Case
Crime No.63 of 2001, under Sections 147,
148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC, was lodged on
11.07.2001 at 11:20 a.m., at Police StationKurra,
Sub-District-Karhal,
DistrictMainpuri, by Sureshpal Singh (PW-1),
son of Vishwanath Singh, upon a written
application submitted in his handwriting.
The FIR disclosed : on 10.07.2001 at 10:30
a.m., the first informant was sitting on a cot
under a shed/'Chhappar' outside his house
while his brother Devendra Singh along
with Harvendra @ Tika, Chandra Pratap
Singh and Shiv Vir Singh were sitting on a
raised platform/''Chabutra' under a Neem
tree, in front of his house, adjoining a
public pathway running in the North-South
direction. At about 10:30 a.m., the
deceased appellant (appellant no.1 herein),
Udaibhan and Chandrabhan (both sons of
Mewaram), Mewaram (father of Udaibhan
Singh and Chandrabhan) and Shailendra
Singh @ Kintoo reached there on foot from
the South side of the public pathway.
Rampal Singh (deceased appellant) was
armed with his licensed rifle, Chandrabhan
with his double barrel gun and the others
with illicit, single barrel guns. They fired
indiscriminately
at
Devendra
Singh,
Harvendra Singh @ Tika, Chandra Pratap
Singh and Shiv Vir Singh. Devendra Singh
and Harvendra Singh @ Tika died on the
spot, as a result of the firearm injuries
suffered by them. Upon hearing the gun
fire, besides the first informant, Makrand
Singh,
Ram
Saran,
Harendra
Singh,
Virendra Singh and Rajarshi Vir Singh
reached the spot and witnessed the
occurrence. Thereafter, the assailants fled -
taking the same path, and in the same
direction they had come from i.e. South. He
also disclosed that the assailants bore old
animus. The bodies of Devendra Singh and
Harvendra Singh @ Tika were stated to be
lying at the place of occurrence.

3(ii). Vide Exhibit Ka-26, drawn on
11.07.2001, the Investigating Officer (I.O.)
obtained and sealed, a sample of plain earth
and blood soaked earth obtained from the
Crime Scene, in the presence of Ram Saran
and Ram Ratan. A second sample of plain
earth and blood soaked earth was obtained
and sealed from the Crime Scene by the
I.O. It was marked as Exhibit Ka-27. Vide
Exhibit Ka-28, the I.O. recovered six
empty cartridges of 12 bore caliber, bearing
a red mark at the base and the marking
'Shaktiman 12 Express'; 4 empty cartridges
of 12 bore with a marking KF 12 00 (on
one) and KF 12 01 (on other three) and;
one empty cartridge of .315 bore, with a
marking 9 MM KF 00.

3(iii). It also appears, during the
investigation, the house of Rampal Singh
(deceased
appellant),
Mewaram,
Chandrabhan, Udhaibhan and Shailendra
Singh @ Kintoo were searched. The search
memos are Exhibit Ka-29, Ka-30 and Ka31. However, no recoveries were made as a
consequence of that search.

3(iv). The ''Panchayatnama' with
respect to the dead body of Devendra Singh
(Exhibit
Ka-09)
was
prepared
on
11.07.2001. It bears the FIR details
including Case Crime No.63 of 2001.
However, there is an overwriting as to the
time of the FIR being lodged. The over
writing appears to read 11:20 a.m. As to the
time
of
the
''Panchayatnama'
being
prepared, it is disclosed to have started at
12:10 p.m. on 11.07.2001 and completed at
13:10 p.m. on the same day. Similarly, the
''Panchayatanama' for the dead body of
Harvendra Singh @ Tika (Exhibit Ka-8)
was also prepared on 11.07.2001. It also
bears the full details of the FIR, being Case
Crime
No.63
of
2001.
In
this
''Panchayatnama'
also
there
is
an
3 All. Ram Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1203
overwriting as to the time of the FIR being
lodged. It reads 11:20 a.m. As to the time
of that ''Panchayatnama' being prepared, it
is disclosed to have started at 13:20 p.m. on
11.07.2001 and completed at 14:20 p.m. on
the same day.

3(v). The postmortem examination
report of Devendra Singh (Exhibit Ka-6)
reveals, it was conducted at the District
Hospital
Mainpuri
at 1:30 p.m.
on
12.07.2001. It records the following antemortem injuries:

"(1) Wound of entry 5 cm x 3 cm
x cranial cavity brain matter coming out of
wound on occipital.

(2) Wound of entry 2 cm x 1 cm x
muscle deep on back side of chest axillary
fold.

(3) Wound of exit 3 cm x 1 cm on
left shoulder 6 cm medial to top of left
shoulder continuous to Inj No. (2).

(4) Wound of entry 1.5 cm x 1.5
cm on low back side at level L-4 vert.

(5) Gutter shaped firearm wound
2 cm x 1 cm muscle deep on lat. Side of
prox. Phalanx of Rt index finger.

(6) Gutter shaped firearm wound
8 cm x 5 cm muscle deep on postero lat/lt
firearm 2 cm elbow directed shown.

(7) Wound of entry three, in area
8 cm x 10 cm over left chest near left
nipple."

3(vi). Similarly, the post mortem
examination report of Harvendra Singh @
Tika (Exhibit Ka-7) reveals, it was
conducted at the District Hospital Mainpuri
at 2:00 p.m. on 12.07.2001. It records the
following ante-mortem injuries:

"(1) Wound of entry 9 cm x 5 cm
x oral cavity deep mid chin to floor to Rt
side hard pellet fractured mandible floor of
mouth. Blackening present.

(2) Wound of entry 3.0 cm x 2 cm
on left sub-clavicular region.

(3) Wound of exit 3 cm x 2 cm
from left side back 4 cm lateral T-1 midline continuous to inj. No. (2).

(4) Wound of entry 3 cm x 2 cm
just adjacent and lat to inj. No. (2) on left
side chest fractured Lt clavicle.

(5) Wound of entry 4 cm x 3 cm
on back Rt thigh just below glatier fold

Fractured mandible and maxilla
Rt side and base of Ant. Cranial fossa and
left clavicle."

3(vii). The postmortem report re
Devendra Singh also records recovery of
three pellets from left thoracic wall and it
also records placing in double sealed
envelopes, cardboard-1, distorted metallic
bullet-1, pellets-25 that were also recovered
during the post mortem examination.
Similarly, the post mortem report re
Harvendra
Singh
@
Tika
records
recoveries of pellets from left shoulder to
left chest. It further records placing in a
sealed envelope - cardboard-1 and 21
pellets recovered from the dead body of
Harvendra Singh @ Tika. Both reports
record the cause of death as 'Coma' due to
ante
mortem
injuries.
The
above
postmortem examinations were conducted
by Dr. R.D. Pandey (PW-6) - on the dead
body of Devendra Singh at 1:30 p.m. and
1204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the dead body of Harvendra Singh @
Tika at 2:00 p.m., on 12.07.2001.

3(viii) . It is the further case of the
prosecution that in the incident, Chandra
Pratap Singh (PW-3) suffered injuries for
which he was examined on 11.07.2001 at
about 7:45 p.m. by Dr. R.P.S. Chauhan
(PW-4). In that examination (Exhibit Ka2), the following injuries were reported:

"1) Fire Arm wound of entry 0.3
cm x 0.3 cm x skin deep - left side of chest
clotting blood.Kept HO Adv X Ray.

2) Fire Arm wound of entry over to
lt arm upper in area 16 cm x 4 cm Size 0.3 cm
x 0.3 cm x skin deep. Kept UO Adv X Ray.

3) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5
cm x bone deep on left wrist part clotted
blood present. Kept UO Adv X Ray.

4) Fire Arm wound of entry 0.3 cm
x 0.3 cm x skin deep on back of left hand.
Clotted blood present. Kept UO Adv X Ray.

5) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm
x bone deep on middle side of Rt leg 8 cm
below knee. Kept UO Adv X ray.

6) Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.4
cm x bone deep on middle aspect of Rt leg 0.5
cm below to Inj No. 5. Clotted blood present.
Kept UO Adv. X Ray.

7) Multiple abrasion over Rt Leg
size 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm.

8) Multiple abrasion over Rt thigh
size 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm.

9) Pin Head abrasion middle
aspect of Rt thigh multiple in number size
0.1 cm x 0.1 cm."

3(ix). Similarly, the injured Shiv Vir
Singh (PW-2) was also examined by Dr.
R.P.S. Chauhan (PW-4) at 7.55 pm on
11.07.2001 (Exhibit Ka-3). The following
injuries were reported:

"Three lacerated wounds at back
of Rt thumb of Size 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm x
muscle deep; 0.6 cm x 0.2 cm x muscle
deep and; 1.5 cm x 0.2 cm x skin deep xxxx
injury of nail of thumb. Clotted blood
present. Kept UO Adv X Ray"

The injury reports of Chandra
Pal Singh and Shiv Vir Singh are Exhibits
Ka-2 and Ka-3, respectively.

3(x). Initial investigation in the case
was carried out by the I.O. - Sri M.P. Singh
Nagar. Upon his transfer from Police
Station-Kurra,
the
investigation
was
transferred to the Sub Inspector Surendra
Nath
(PW-7)
who
completed
the
investigation. Sri M.P. Singh Nagar died
before leading any evidence at the trial.
Sub-Inspector Surendra Nath (PW-7)
proved the investigation.

3(xi). Upon completion of the
investigation and upon submission of the
Charge Sheet, vide order dated 22.01.2003,
charges were framed against Rampal Singh
(deceased appellant) and Udaibhan - for
offences under Sections 147, 148, 307 read
with Sections 149 and 302 read with
Section 149 IPC. Similar charges were
framed against Chandrabhan by a separate
order dated 22.03.2005. Both trials were
clubbed. To the charges thus framed, all the
appellants pleaded not guilty. Thus the trial
commenced

4. At the trial, the prosecution
examined seven witnesses while the
defence examined one witness, as below:
3 All. Ram Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1205

(i)
Sureshpal
Singh/informant
(PW-1) - witness of fact;

(ii) Shiv Vir Singh/injured
witness (PW-2) - witness of fact;

(iii) Chandra Pratap Singh/injured
witness (PW-3) - witness of fact;

(iv) Dr. R.P.S. Chauhan/expert
witness (PW-4) - to prove the injury
reports;

(v) Shiv Nath Singh (PW-5) -
Constable Clerk who prepared the ''Chik'
report;

(vi) Dr. R.D. Pandey (PW-6) - to
prove the postmortem examination reports;

(vii) Surendra Nath (PW-7) - to
prove the investigation and;

(viii) Yashpal (DW-1) - to
disprove implication of Ram Pal Singh.

5(i). Sureshpal Singh (PW-1), first
proved the date, time and place of the
occurrence as narrated in the FIR. He also
described that the deceased and the injured
persons received firearm injuries in the
assault committed by Rampal Singh
(deceased appellant) with his licensed rifle,
Mewaram with his single barrel gun,
Chandrabhan with his double barrel gun
and Udaibhan and Shailendra @ Kintoo
with their single barrel guns. According to
him, the assailants arrived together at the
place
of
occurrence
and
fired
indiscriminately, at the victim party. It
resulted in the instantaneous death of
Devendra Singh and Harvendra Singh @
Tika whereas Chandra Pratap Singh and
Shiv Vir Singh received firearm injuries.
According to him, the occurrence was
witnessed by Virendra Singh, Makrand
Singh, Ram Saran and Rajarshi Vir Singh.
It may be noted here itself that those
persons/witnesses to the crime were not
examined at the trial. He further stated to
have lodged the FIR against a complaint
written in his hand.

5(ii). According to him, the assault
was committed on account of old village
rivalry arising from successive elections to
the post of village ''Pradhan'. Ram Pal
Singh had defeated two rival candidates
from the family of the informant Sureshpal
Singh (and the deceased Devendra Singh),
being Munni Devi (wife of Brij Pal Singh -
a maternal cousin brother of Navratan
Singh) and Makrand Singh (brother of
Navratan Singh).

5(iii). He further stated, prior to the
present occurrence, a case had been
registered against him, Navratan Singh,
Brij Pal Singh and Makrand Singh under
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
wherein the wife of the deceased appellant
- Rampal Singh was a prosecution witness.
During his cross-examination carried out
on 22.02.2004, the said Sureshpal Singh
further admitted that his son Sonu was an
accused person in the murder case of
Sandeep @ Dabloo, son of the deceased
appellant - Rampal Singh. He further
admitted
that
Chandrabhan
(appellant
granted remission) was the scribe of the
FIR in that case, lodged against Sonu. His
father Mewaram and brother Udaibhan
(present appellant) were witnesses in that
case. He also admitted that his son Sonu
was absconding and that a reward of
Rs.20,000/- had been announced for his
arrest yet, he was absconding. He further
elaborated as to the existence of two
parties/groups in the village, one of which
1206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
he was a member along with Brijpal Singh,
Navratan Singh, Makrand, Vakeel and the
other of which Rampal Singh (deceased
appellant),
Mewaram,
Chandrabhan,
Udhaibhan and others were members. He
however denied the suggestion of false
implication of Rampal Singh (deceased
appellant), whose house was stated to be
about 2 furlong (220 yards) from the
'Chabutra'.

5(iv). As to the manner of the
occurrence, on being cross examined, he
described
that
the
assailants
had
approached the victims from the South,
walking side by side (to each other). They
opened fire at the victim from the
'Kharanja' near the 'Chabutra' where the
deceased and the injured were sitting under
a Neem tree. Also, according to him, the
victim party had been surrounded by the
assailants from all four sides and had been
fired at from the 'Chabutra'. He confirmed
that the bodies of the deceased lay where
they fell upon being assaulted - about two
feet apart from each other. He further
described, upon being injured, Shiv Vir
Singh and Chandra Pratap Singh fled to the
East and that they were bleeding at that
time. He also claimed, after the assailants
fled, he found Devendra Singh dead while
Harvendra Singh @ Tika was still alive.

5(v). He saw the entire incident from
the time the assailants approached the
victims from the 'Kharanja' and fired
indiscriminately and thereafter escaped on
the
path,
towards
the
South.
He
categorically stated, he had not been fired
upon in the incident though he was about
24 steps from the assailants when he saw
and had been seen by the assailants who
were positioned besides him at the
beginning of the assault. According to him,
the incident lasted about 10-12 minutes
during which time he remained present and
cried for help. About 16-18 rounds were
fired by the assailants, who were 5-6 in
number. They had also reloaded their
weapons.

5(vi). As to the report being lodged
and arrival of the Police, he deposed to
have travelled to the police station Kurra,
alone, on his bicycle and to have written
the complaint using a pen taken from a
shop outside that Police Station. First, he
claimed to have stayed at the Police Station
for 20-25 minutes and obtained the copy of
the FIR. However, on being confronted
with the ''Chik' report (that did not bear his
signature), he admitted having received a
copy of the ''Chik' report, the next day, after
the postmortem examination. He denied the
suggestion that the FIR was ante timed. He
claimed that the police had arrived after
about one hour and thirty minutes to one
hour and forty-five minutes after the
incident.

5(vii).

Regarding
the
injured
witnesses Shiv Vir Singh and Chandra
Pratap Singh, he stated they returned after
the police had arrived, at about 12 noon.
Shiv Vir Singh was described to have
received one firearm injury on his right
thumb while Chandra Pratap Singh had
suffered four-five firearm injuries. They
were stated to have bled while trying to
escape the assault. Later, he further stated
that the injured had been taken to the
hospital at about 4.00 p.m. They returned
the next day, in the morning, along with the
police.

5(viii). Also, as to the conduct of the
''Panchayatnama', he did state that the dead
bodies were sealed between 12.20 p.m. to
2.20 p.m. and were dispatched, the same
day.
3 All. Ram Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1207

5(ix). He specifically denied the
suggestion that the FIR had been lodged
after consultation or on the suggestions
given by the police.

5(x). As to the arrival of the police,
besides stating that the Police Inspector had
visited the Crime Scene, one and half to
two hours after the incident, during his
cross-examination
on
07.05.2004,
he
further stated that the Circle Officer also
visited the crime scene at about 2.00 p.m.
on 11.07.2001. Upon being questioned as
to how the injuries were sustained by the
victims, he stated that the assailants began
firing from the South of the injured and the
deceased. While Shiv Vir Singh and
Chandra Pratap Singh were stated to have
been shot from about 10-15 feet, he further
stated that Harvendra Singh @ Tika was
shot at while he was sitting. Devendra
Singh was stated to have been first shot on
his back while he was standing and that he
fell to the ground on being hit. He was
again fired at by the assailants when they
reached the 'Chabutra'. All the assailants
shot at Devendra Singh and Harvendra
Singh @ Tika.

6(i). Shiv Vir Singh (PW-2), one of
the two injured witness was also examined
by the prosecution. He described the
occurrence took place at about 10.30 a.m.
on 11.07.2001 when he along with
Harvendra Singh @ Tika, Shiv Vir Singh,
Devendra Singh and Chandra Pratap Singh
were sitting at the ''Chabutra' in front of the
house of Sureshpal Singh. According to
him, the assailants approached from the
South side. Rampal Singh (deceased
appellant) was armed with his licenced
rifle, Chandrabhan was armed with a
double barrel gun and the rest of the
assailants were armed with single barrel
guns. Again, according to this witness, all
the assailants opened fire, simultaneously.
He claimed to have been hit on his right
thumb. Harvendra Singh @ Tika and
Devendra Singh succumbed on the spot
while himself and Chandra Pratap Singh
were also injured.

6(ii). He claimed to have met the
Police Inspector about four hours after the
incident. He also claimed to have shown
him his injuries but that his statement was
not recorded that time. It was recorded on
the next day.

6(iii). The assailants were disclosed to
have fled in the same direction from which
they had come i.e. to the South of the
Crime Scene.

6(iv). As to his own medical
examination, he submitted, he had gone for
medical examination at about 2.20 to 3.00
p.m. to Karhal, in a police jeep, with a
constable upon an oral direction given by
the Circle Officer to the Police Inspector.
He reached Karhal at about 5.00-5.30 p.m.
but did not get his X-ray examination done.
As to the bleeding that may have taken
place upon being hit with bullets and
pellets, he did state that there was some
bleeding but, upon cross examination, he
could not establish whether any blood had
fallen to the ground and if the same had
been examined by the police, at the Crime
Scene.

6(v). He denied knowledge of the
direction in which Chandra Pratap Singh
escaped. However, he also stated that
assault began when the assailants were
about 10-12 feet away and that 18-20
rounds were fired. He insisted to have run
to save his life when he was chased down
by the assailants for some distance and
fired at. He claimed to have escaped,
1208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
having hidden in an open field behind the
house of Virendra for 4-5 hours.

6(vi). As to arrival of the police, he
disclosed that the police arrived at about
12.30 p.m. Yet, he could not name any of
the 'Panch' witnesses.

6(vii). As to old animosity between
the parties. He admitted to have been
accused in one case of SC/ST Act wherein
Rampal Singh (deceased appellant) was a
prosecution witness.

7(i). Chandra Pratap Singh (PW-3),
the second injured witness also described the
time, date, and place of the occurrence at
about 10.30 a.m. on 11.07.2001 at the
''Chabutra' in front of the house of Sureshpal
Singh. According to him as well, the
assailants arrived at the spot from the South
side
of
the
''Kharanja'
adjoining
the
''Chabutra'.
Rampal
Singh
(deceased
appellant) was armed with his licenced rifle,
Chandrabhan with his double barrel gun and
rest of the assailants, with single barrel guns.
He stated, the assailants opened fire,
simultaneously and indiscriminately, at the
victim party wherein Devendra Singh and
Harvendra Singh @ Tika died on the spot.
The assailants fled in the same direction from
which they had come, i.e., to the South.
Additionally, he stated, Udaibhan had fired at
Harvendra Singh @ Tika from a close range
as well. That shot hit the deceased Harvendra
on his face.

7(ii). During his cross-examination,
he stated to have received three bullet
injuries that caused bleeding, and that he
had not received any injury other than the
firearm injuries.

7(iii). As to the manner of the assault
committed, this witness also described that
the assailants had walked side by side (in a
line) and started firing at the victims. He
specified
the
distance
between
the
'Chabutra and the Chhappar' to be 24-25
paces and the place from where the
assailants shot at the victims at about 10-12
paces from the 'Chhappar' (where the first
informant was sitting). He also confirmed
that not a shot was fired at the first
informant.

7(iv). As to his own injuries, though the
said witness insisted to have recieved three
gunshot injuries and other pellet injuries, he
further claimed to have suffered little blood
loss (2-4 drops) that caused stains on his
clothes. He also claimed to have shown his
injuries to the Police Inspector when he first
visited the Crime Scene but that he did not
show his blood stained clothes at that time.
He also confirmed that the Police Inspector
did not send him for the medical examination
but that the Circle Officer sent him for the
medical examination though he had not
himself shown his injuries to the said Circle
Officer. He claimed to have left for medical
examination
at
about
3:00
p.m.
on
11.07.2001. He also claimed to have got done
an X-ray examination on the third day.

7(v). As to his reaction to the assault,
the said victims claimed to have stood up and
run for his life upon being assaulted. He
further claimed to have been first shot at on
his wrist, then on his thigh and third on his
chest. He also confirmed that total 18-20
shots were fired in the incident and that he
came out of hiding only after the police
arrived. Yet, he admitted to have not shown
the Police Inspector the place where he hid to
save his life.

8. Dr. R.P. Singh Chauhan (PW-4),
the doctor who examined the injured
witnesses Chandra Pratap Singh (PW-3)
3 All. Ram Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1209
and Shiv Vir Singh (PW-2), proved the two
injury reports (Exhibits Ka-2 and Ka-3)
stated to have examined the injured at about
7.45 p.m. on 11.07.2001 at the District
Hospital, Mainpuri (where he was posted as
EMO), upon reference made by the
Community Health Centre, Karhal. He
proved the injury reports and, in his opinion,
injury nos. 1, 2, 4 and 9 caused to Chandra
Pratap Singh (PW-3) were firearm injuries,
about half day old. He further proved, he had
advised an X-ray for the injury suffered by
Chandra Pratap Singh (PW-3). He further
proved to have examined the other injured
Shiv Vir Singh (PW-2) at about 7.55 p.m. on
11.07.2001 at the same hospital, upon
reference made by the Community Health
Centre, Karhal. He proved that injury report
as well. He opined that it was possible, the
injuries may have been received at 10.30 a.m.
on 11.07.2001 and that, according to him,
Shiv Vir Singh may have suffered firearm
injury. During his cross-examination, he
stated that it was possible that the time of
injuries caused, as disclosed by him, may
carry a margin of 3 to 4 hours. None of the
injuries
suffered
by
the
injured
had
blackening, tattooing, or scorching. He
further denied of having noticed any traces of
gun powder on any of the wounds. As to
injury nos. 7 and 8, suffered by Chandra
Pratap Singh, he opined that it was possible
that such injuries may be abrasion injuries.
Though, he admitted having not recovered
any pellet or bullet or traces of gun powder
from the wounds suffered by those injured
persons, yet, in his opinion, those injuries
were firearm injuries, considering their
measurements and penetration. He denied the
suggestion that the injuries were possible to
be incurred by placing hot needle or a stick or
rod.

9(i). Shiv Nath Singh, the Constable
Clerk was examined as PW-5. He proved
the fact of the preparation of ''Chik' report
no. 61 of 2001 in Case Crime No. 63 of
2001, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307,
302 IPC, in his own handwriting (Exhibit
Ka-4). He further proved that this case was
disclosed in GD No. 15 at 11:20 a.m. on
11.07.2001. He denied the ''Chik' report
having been ante timed.

9(ii) . During his cross-examination,
he could not disclose as to who prepared
the ''Chitthi Majrubi' of Shiv Vir Singh and
Chandra Pratap Singh. He claimed that the
''Chik' FIR had been promptly dispatched.
However, he also admitted, it was received
by the learned Magistrate on 16.07.2001.
He was not questioned further as to the
delay of about four days (including three
working days), in that regard

10. Dr. R.D. Pandey (PW-6), who
conducted the post-mortem on the dead
bodies of Devendra Singh and Harvendra
Singh @ Tika, proved the ante-mortem
injuries reported in the two post-mortem
examination reports (Exhibits Ka-6 and
Ka-7) and the cause of death. He further
established that pieces of cardboard (wad)
and pellets were recovered from the dead
bodies. According to him, (firearm) injury
no.1 on Devendra Singh had been caused
from the back side and that all (firearm)
injuries suffered could have been caused
either while the deceased was standing or
sitting. Further, injury no.1 was opined to
have been caused upon the deceased
Devendra being shot at from close range,
while the other firearm injuries may have
been caused from more than 3 ft. Similarly,
injury no.1 suffered by the deceased
Harvendra @ Tika was opined to have been
caused from close distance while the others
may have been caused from a distance of
more than 3 ft. Upon being questioned as to
the intestinal contents, the doctor opined
1210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the deceased must have had food about
six hours before his death.

11(i). Sub-Inspector Surendra Nath
(PW-7) (the second Investigating Officer)
was examined as the Investigating Officer.
By that time, the first I.O. M.P. Singh
Nagar (who was transferred mid way into
the investigation), had died. He proved the
steps of investigation, the recoveries made,
and the statements recorded. During his
cross-examination he deposed that the start
time of investigation and the time when the
I.O. first reached the Crime Scene were not
recorded in the Case Diary. He was also
questioned as to the genuineness of the
''Chitthi Majrubi'. Here, he stated that the
Case Diary records that the same were
issued at the instruction of the Circle
Officer. Those documents did not bear the
Case Crime number. He described the place
of occurrence as the ''Chabutra'. On being
questioned,
he
denied
having
been
informed during the investigation that the
licenced rifle of Rampal Singh (deceased
appellant) had been deposited with any
arms dealer. In fact, he stated to have been
informed that the said rifle was in the
custody of the brother-in-law of Rampal
Singh
(deceased
appellant),
namely
Shailendra Singh @ Kintoo. Since that
Shailendra Singh @ Kintoo could not be
found, hence that rifle could not be
recovered. He was not questioned either as
to the overwriting on the 'Panchayatnama'
(as to time of the FIR being lodged or as to
any delay in submitting the report u/s
Section 157 (1) Cr.P.C.)

11(ii).

Thereafter,
all
the
incriminating circumstances appearing in
the prosecution evidence were put to them
and their respective statements were
recorded under Section 313 CrPC. They
attributed the earlier FIR - lodged against
Sonu (for the murder of Sandeep @
Dabloo), as the real reason for their false
implication. Rampal being the father of
Sonu, Chandrabhan being the scribe of that
FIR and Udaibhan being brother of
Chandrabhan and prosecution witness. The
Injury Reports of Shiv Vir Singh and
Chandra Pratap Singh were stated to be
fabricated.
The
deceased
appellant
-
Rampal Singh also claimed to be not
present and ill at the relevant time.

12.

Thereafter,
Yashpal
was
examined as DW-1 wherein he sought to
explain that the licenced rifle of Rampal
Singh (deceased appellant) had been
deposited with an arms repairer on
03.06.2001 and it was received back after
repair on 20.07.2001. He further tried to
establish that the appellant Rampal Singh
(deceased appellant) was ill at the time of
the incident and that he was 71 years old at
the commencement of the trial. However,
no proof arose to the licenced rifle of
Rampal Singh (deceased appellant) having
been given for repair, as claimed.

13. Upon hearing the parties, the
learned trial court found the appellants
guilty on all counts and, accordingly,
passed
it's
judgment
and
order
of
conviction and punished Rampal Singh
(deceased appellant), Chandrabhan Singh
and Udaibhan Singh, as above.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants
has
first
submitted
that
the
entire
prosecution story is an afterthought. In this
regard, reference has also been made to the
cross-examination of constable clerk Shiv
Nath (PW-5) who admitted that the FIR
was first received by the learned Magistrate
on 16.07.2001, clearly indicating that the
FIR was ante-timed. The real occurrence
had not been truly reported. The FIR is
3 All. Ram Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1211
clearly ante timed is also borne out from
the
plain
reading
of
the
inquest
''Panchayatnama' with respect to the dead
bodies of Harvendra Singh @ Tika and
Devendra Singh, wherein the time of the
FIR being lodged has been
clearly
overwritten only to give sanctity to the
otherwise ante timed FIR. Upto that time,
no FIR existed. Further, the ''Chitthi
Majrubi' also does not bear the FIR
number.