# Ram Pratap v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 55 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-20 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 522 of 1983 - **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar, Zafeer Ahmad - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pratap-v-state-of-u-p-54921 - **Pages:** 22 ## Text _Characters 0–39,973 of 63,618. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39973 for what follows._ 4 All. Ram Pratap Vs. State of U.P. 55 12. In Sakatar Singh v. State of Haryana [Sakatar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2004) 11 SCC 291 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 58] , the Court was examining as to whether, letter written by the deceased discloses an offence under Section 304-B IPC. It was held that: (SCC p. 297, para 11) 11. In the above background, we will now consider the evidence led by the prosecution to establish the charge levelled against the appellants. In this process, we will first examine the letter written by the deceased to her mother. Though this letter does not mention the date, there is no dispute that the same was posted on 20-5-1986 which is evident from the postal seal found on the envelope which would be a date prior to the incident leading to the death of Devinder Kaur and the children. The contents of the letter indicate what transpired during her mother's visit to her in-laws' house and does not anywhere even remotely indicate any demand made by her in-laws. It only reflects the attitude of the deceased towards her in-laws and that she entertained a feeling that her mother was not properly treated by her mother-in-law during her last visit. 30. After going through the contents of the FIR, statements of P.W.-1, Jagdevi, P.W.-2 Hari Singh and P.W.-3 Lala Ram and their cross-examination, it is amply clear that there are material contradictions in their statements and further they have shifted the version of the FIR only for the reason that in the report of the post-mortem, no mark of injury external or internal was found on the person of the deceased, rather the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself due to severe illness. 31. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, it transpires that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case by leading cogent and credible evidence. The trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in the correct perspective. Therefore, conviction of the appellants is not sustained in law and it amounts to abuse of process of law. 32. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgement and order dated 30.07.1991 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Session Trial No.412 of 1990, Police Station Sandi, District Hardoi is hereby quashed. The appellants no.1, 2, 3 and 5 are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. They need not surrender unless required in any other case. However, appellants are directed to comply the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. 33. Let lower court record be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this judgement and order for compliance. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 55 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 20.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. THE HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. Criminal Appeal No. 522 of 1983 Ram Pratap ...Appellants Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent 56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Issue for consideration Whether crucial ingredients u/s 210 IPC is duly established in the conviction order. Headnotes Indian Penal Code-sec. 201, 149-Ocular evidence clearly establishes the presence and participation of the accused-appellants in the commission of the offence- death of the deceased is established-the prosecution has failed to prove the crucial ingredient of "causing disappearance of evidence" by the accused persons-mere fact that the dead body was found at a place different from the alleged place of occurrence is not sufficient to hold that the accused had caused disappearance of evidence- in the absence of proof of such act and the requisite intention to screen themselves-charge under Section 201 I.P.C. is not made out-the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 201 read with Section 149 I.P.C.-conviction under Sections 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C.; Section 147 I.P.C.; Section 325 read with Section 149 I.P.C.; and Section 323 read with 149 I.P.C. is affirmed-Appeal partly allowed. (E-9) Case Law Cited 1. Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra; (2007) 7 SCC 502 2. Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab; (1952) 2 SCC 177 3. Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel, (2018) 7 SCC 743 List of Acts Indian Penal Code, 1860 List of Keywords Overt act; ocular version; recovered; facilitated the commission of the offence; intention to screen the offender; causing disappearance of evidence; disappearance of evidence. Appearances of parties Counsel for Appellant(s) : S/Shri K.P. Singh, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Shiv S.E. Chitambar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ld. Govt. Advocate, S/Shri Abhisek Awasthi, Abhishek Ranjan, Purnendu Chakravarty (Delivered by Hon'ble Zafeer Ahmad, J.) 1. Heard, Sri Nagendra Mohan learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Shiv S.E. Chitambar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Purnendu Chakravarty learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Pranjal Jain, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the records. 2. The aforesaid criminal appeals arises out of the common judgment and order dated 18.07.1983 passed by IIIrd Additional District & Session Judge, Pratapgarh in Session Trial No. 227 of 1982 (State v. Rama Pati Misra & Ors.) arising out of case crime no. 146 of 1982, Police Station Badhrai,Sub-District Kunda, District Pratapgarh, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.) r/w Section 149 I.P.C. for life imprisonment, under Section 325 I.P.C. r/w Section 149 I.P.C for one year of rigorous imprisonment, under Section 323 I.P.C r/w Section 149 I.P.C for six months rigorous imprisonment, under Section 201 I.P.C r/w 149 I.P.C for five years rigorous imprisonment. It has further been provided that appellant Ram Pratap has to undergo further sentence for one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C.. 4 All. Ram Pratap Vs. State of U.P. 57 3. Since all the aforesaid criminal appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 18.07.1983, as such same have been heard together and decided by a common order. Prosecution Story in Nutshell: 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 05.09.1982 complainant Shyam Shankar Tripathi s/o Surya Narayan r/o Gogaur, Police Station Badhrai, District Pratapgarh submitted a written report stating therein that a land dispute was pending between the informants uncle, Chandra Prakash Tiwari, son of Mewalal Tiwari, and Ramapati and Salik Ram Agayara of his village, on account of which the accused persons were harbouring enmity against the deceased. On 05.09.1982 at around 6:00 P.M., while the deceased was sitting at his door and talking to Salik Ram Pradhan and Pati Ram Upadhyay, Radhe Krishna s/o Ram Khelawan came and called him on the pretext that a peon from the Tehsil was calling for him. Thereafter when he reached the southern road near the house of Ram Khelawan, he was surrounded by Ramapati Mishra, Salik Ram Misra, Ram Khelawan, and Triveni Prasad Mishra (sons of Devata Din), Ram Khelawan (son of Suraj Din), Ram Asray Radhe Shyam, Radhey Mohan and Randhey Krishna (sons of Ram Khelawan), Mithlesh Kumar, Dhirendra Kumar and Rakesh Kumar (sons of Salik Ram) and Om Prakash (son of Triveni Prasad), who caught hold of him and started assaulting him with lathis. On hearing the cries of the deceased, the complainant along with his father Suryanarayan, Dhruv Prakash, Satya Prakash, Salik Ram (Pradhan), Pati Ram Upadhyay, Jagan , Jagdev, his two aunts (chachi) and one paternal aunt (bua) reached the spot and attempted to intervene but the accused persons threatened them of dire consequences and prevented them from rescuing the deceased. It is alleged that even the women, who tried to shield the deceased, were assaulted and forcibly pushed aside. It is further stated that Ram Pratap, brother-in-law of Ram Asrey, who was present at the spot with other associates, threatened the witnesses with firearms, due to which they could not come near. The accused persons continued to beat the deceased with lathis in the presence of the witnesses, as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries. It is also alleged that the accused persons attempted to conceal the dead body. 5. On the basis of the written report, an F.I.R was registered by Head Moharrir Irshad Ahmad and the corresponding GD entry was also made. The investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I. Raj Deo Yadav, who proceeded to the place of occurrence and reached there at around 1:45 A.M. on 06.09.1982. Upon arrival, the dead body was not found at the alleged place of occurrence; however, after a brief search, the same was recovered from the field of Gaya Prasad. Owing to insufficient light, the inquest proceedings could not be conducted at that time and a constable along with a chaukidar was deputed to guard the dead body. Thereafter, information was received that some of the accused persons were hiding in the house of Ram Khelawan, whereupon S.I. Shyam Mani Singh along with police personnel was deputed to keep surveillance. On the morning of 06.09.1982 at about 6:00 A.M., the Investigating Officer conducted the inquest proceedings and prepared the panchayatnama (Ext. Ka-18), along with relevant papers including challan lash, photo lash, and sample seal, and sealed the dead body, which was sent for post-mortem to District Hospital, Pratapgarh in the custody of Constable Satyendra Yadav and Constable Kanhaiya Lal. 6. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 302 and 201 IPC against accused Ram Khelawan, Salik Ram, Triveni Prasad, Ram 58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Asrey, Rakesh Kumar, Radhey Krishna, Dhirendra Kumar, Ramapati, Radhey Mohan, Radhey Shyam, Mithilesh Kumar, Om Prakash and Ram Pratap. The trial court framed charges under Sections 148, 302/149, 325/149, 323/149 and 201/149 IPC against accused Ram Pratap, while separate charges under Sections 147, 302/149, 325/149, 323/149 and 201/149 IPC were framed against the remaining twelve (Ram Khelawan, Rakesh Kumar, Rmapati Misra, Salik Ram Misra, Triveni Prasad Misra, Mithilesh Kumar, Dhirendra Kumar, Om Prakash, Ram Asray, Radhey Shyam, Radhey Mohan and Radehy Krishna) accused persons. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Shyam Shankar Tripathi (P.W.-1), Jagannath @ Jagan (P.W.-2), Smt. Susheela Devi (P.W.-3), Dr. D.C. Srivastava (P.W.-4), Dr. Sampurna Nand (P.W.-5), Constable Lallan Singh (P.W.-6), Constable Indra Bahadur Singh (P.W.- 7), Constable Satyendra Yadav (P.W.-8) and S.I. Raj Deo Yadav (P.W.-9). 8. Following exhibits were produced and proved before the Trial Court by prosecution: Exhibit Particular Ext. Ka 1 Written Report Ext. Ka 2 Post Mortem Report of deceased Chandra Prakash Tewari Ext. Ka 3 Injury Report of Sushila Devi Ext. Ka 4 Injury Report of Savitri Devi Ext. Ka 5 Injury Report of Krishna Kali Ext. Ka 6 Copy of F.I.R and copy of Written Report Ext. Ka 7 Copy of General Diary Entry Ext. Ka 8 Recovery Memo of one country made pistol (katta 12 bore) Ext. Ka 9 Copy of Report containing details of goods to be sent to Sadar Hospital with Constable Lallan Singh Ext. Ka 10 Copy of Report containing details of return of Constable Lallan Singh after delivery of goods Ext. Ka 11 Recovery Memo of blood stained grass from the route from which deceased body was dragged Ext. Ka 12 Recovery Memo of bloodstained and plain soil, blood stained leaves of urad and arhar plants leaves near the body of deceased Chandra Prakash Ext. Ka 13 Recovery Memo of House Search of Salikram s/o Devatadeen Ext. Ka 14 Recovery Memo of House Search of Rama Pati s/o Devatadeen Ext. Ka 15 Sample seal Ext. Ka 16 Letter to CMO Ext. Ka 17 Letter to CMO Ext. Ka 18 Panchayatnama Ext. Ka 19 Police Form No. 13 4 All. Ram Pratap Vs. State of U.P. 59 Ext. Ka 20 Sketch of Dead body (photo naash) Ext. Ka 21 Copy of F.I.R Ext. Ka 22 Recovery Memo of a license gun BSA A/946 SBBL and 10 cartridges of 5 and 5.2 number in a plastic bag from house of Ram Pratap Ext. Ka 23 X-ray Report and Plate of the injury in hand of Sushila Devi Ext. Ka 24 Receipt of animals kept in animal shed (maveshikhaana) Ext. Ka 25 Recovery Memo of Blood Stained Shirt found in the garbage of house of Radhey Shyam and Radhey Mohan Ext. Ka 26 Attachment order of accused Radhey Shyam Ext. Ka 27 Attachment order of accused Radhey Mohan Ext. Ka 28 Auction Memo of movable property of accused Radhey Shyam, Radhey Mohan s/o Ram Khelawan Ext. Ka 29 Receipt of animals kept in animal shed (maveshikhaana) Ext. Ka 30 Auction memo of movable property of accused Mithilesh Kumar Ext. Ka 31 Receipt of animals kept in animal shed (maveshikhaana) Ext. Ka 32 Arrest warrant of accused Rama Pati Ext. Ka 33 Auction Memo of movable property of accused Rama Pati Ext. Ka 34 Receipt of animals kept in animal shed (maveshikhaana) Ext. Ka 35 Arrest warrant of accused Om Prakash Ext. Ka 36 Attachment order of accused Om Prakash Ext. Ka 37 Auction Memo of movable property of accused Om Prakash Ext. Ka 38 Receipt of animals kept in animal shed (maveshikhaana) Ext. Ka 39 Attachment order of accused Ram Pratap Ext. Ka 40 Site Plan Ext. Ka 41 Recovery memo of blood stained and plain soil taken into possession at the place of incident Ext. Ka 42 Recovery Memo of blood stained doorframe (beniya-chaukhat) from house of Ram Khelawan Ext. Ka 43 Recovery Memo of house search of accused Triveni Prasad Ext. Ka 44 Copy of Report Ext. Ka 45 Attachment order of accused Rama Pati Ext. Ka 46 Attachment order of accused Ram Pratap Ext. Ka 47 Charge sheet Ext. Ka 48 Charge sheet Ext. Ka 49 Copy of Munsif's Court order (Satya Prakash v. Ramapati and Ors.) 60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Ext. Ka 50 Copy of Decree (Satya Prakash v. Ramapati and Ors.) Ext. Ka 51 Copy of application of Criminal Revision (Criminal Revision No. 87/1982, Surya Naryan v. Salik Ram and Ors.) Ext. Ka 52 Copy of Munsif's Court order (Ram Asray v. Satya Prakash) Ext. Ka 53 Report of SHO Badhrai Ext. Ka 54 Copy of Execution Court Order Ext. Ka 55 Copy of Order in appeal no. 1991/1057 Ext. Ka 56 Forensic Serology Report of Material Exibits 1 to 8 Ext. Ka 57 Letter from Assistant Chemical Analyser to Chief Judicial Magitrate (Miscellaneous Form No. 5-F) Ext. Ka 58 Auction Memo of movable property of accused Mithilesh Kumar 9. In order to prove its case, the defence examined D.K. Sahu (DW-1) and proved following exhibits in their defence: Exhibit Particular Ext. Kha 1 Part of Jagannath's (PW-2) testimony Ext. Kha 2 Part of Jagannath's (PW-2) testimony Ext. Kha 2A Part of Sushila Devi's (PW-3) testimony Ext. Kha 3 Copy of Jagannath's (PW-2) testimony Ext. Kha 5 Copy of Jagannath's (PW-2) testimony Ext. Kha 6 Copy of Injury Report of Salikram Ext. Kha 7 Copy of Injury Report of Ram Asrey Ext. Kha 8 Copy of Injury Report of Triveni Prasad Ext. Kha 9 Copy of Injury Report of Radhey Krishna Ext. Kha 10 Copy of Injury Report of Ram Khelawan 10. Following material exhibits were produced and proved before the Trial Court: Material Exhibit Particular Material Ext.-1 Plain earth from the place where the assault occurred Material Ext.-2 Blood-stained earth from the place where the assault occurred Material Ext.-3 Door frame (Beniya) Material Ext.-4 Grass (the alleged route from which the deceased body was dragged from the eastern house of Ram Khelawan upto the Guru Prasad's field) 4 All. Ram Pratap Vs. State of U.P. 61 Material Exhibit Particular Material Ext.-5 Blood-stained earth from the field of Guru Prasad (place where the dead body was discovered) Material Ext.-6 Plain earth from the field of Guru Prasad (Place where the dead body was discovered) Material Ext.-7 Leaves from the agricultural field of Guru Prasad (Place where the dead body was discovered) Material Ext.-8 Blood-stained white shirt Material Ext.-9 Lungi (traditional cloth draped by men around their waist) Material Ext.-10 Underwear 11. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the prosecution case and pleaded false implication on account of prior enmity. Accused Ram Pratap stated that accused Ram Khelawan is his relative and that the brother of Ram Pratap, namely Sheo Prasad, had earlier deposed against the deceased Chandra Prakash in a case relating to a sale deed, thereby indicating pre-existing enmity. The other accused persons, namely Radhey Krishna, Dhirendra Kumar, Ram Asrey, Triveni Prasad, Salik Ram and Rakesh Kumar stated that they came to know about the incident only in the morning and when they reached near the dead body, the police personnel, particularly the Investigating Officer, subjected them to beating and pressurized them to disclose as to who had committed the murder, with a threat that otherwise the entire family would be falsely implicated in the case. Accused Ram Khelawan further stated that Radhey Krishna was not present at the place of occurrence and had gone to Allahabad for admission in B.A. classes; Radhey Mohan was also at Allahabad in connection with his service and Radhey Shyam was accompanying him there. It was further stated that Mithilesh Kumar was at Banaras pursuing L.T. studies, Om Prakash was a student and was not present at the house at the relevant time due to flood conditions in the river, and that accused Ram Pratap himself was not present at the place of occurrence and was at his village at the relevant time. Accused Radhey Mohan specifically stated that he was not absconding and that he was serving at Allahabad, and upon gaining knowledge of the case, he voluntarily appeared before the Court. 12. In defence, the accused persons produced portions of the statements of prosecution witnesses, namely Jagan and Smt. Susheela Devi, as well as injury reports of Salik Ram, Ram Asrey, Triveni Prasad, Radhey Krishna and Ram Khelawan. They also filed certain documents comprising copies of judicial records to establish prior enmity with the complainant. Additionally, Dr. A.K. Sahoo was examined as D.W.-1 in defence. 13. For convenience and clarity, the accused-appellants shall hereinafter be referred to, as per their array before the Trial Court, namely: A1 Ram Pratap; A2 Ram Khelawan; A3 Rakesh Kumar ; A4 Ramapati Misra; A5 Salik Ram Misra ; A6 Triveni Prasad Misra; A7 Mithilesh Kumar; A8 Dhirendra Kumar; A9 Om Prakash; A10 Ram Asray; A11 Radhey Shyam; A12 Radhey Mohan; and A13 Radhey Krishna. 62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 14. During the pendency of these appeals, it has been reported that accused-appellants A2 (Ram Khelawan), A5 (Salik Ram Misra), A6 (Triveni Prasad Misra), A9 (Om Prakash), A10 (Ram Asray) and A13 (Radhey Krishna) have died. Accordingly, the appeals on the behalf of the aforesaid accused-appellants stands abated. Thus, the appeal survives on behalf of A1 (Ram Pratap), A3 (Rakesh Kumar), A4 (Ramapati Misra), A7 (Mithilesh Kumar), A8 (Dhirendra Kumar), A11 (Radhey Shyam) and A12 (Radhey Mohan). It has also been brought on record that accused-appellant A3 (Rakesh Kumar) has been declared a juvenile at the time of occurrence. Submissions made by learned counsel for the accused-appellants:- 15. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the same is contrary to the evidence on record and suffers from serious legal and factual infirmities. It is contended that so far as accused-appellant A1 (Ram Pratap) is concerned, no overt act has been attributed to him in the commission of the offence. As per the prosecution case itself, his role is limited to that of an alleged instigator, and he is stated to have been present at the spot armed with a firearm. It is submitted that in the absence of any specific act of assault, his conviction with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C. is unsustainable. It is further submitted that the testimony of PW-3 Smt. Sushila Devi creates doubt regarding the prosecution version, inasmuch as while the incident is alleged to have occurred in the evening, the dead body was recovered in the morning from the field of Guru Prasad. According to the learned counsel, this circumstance renders the place and manner of occurrence doubtful. Learned counsel has further contended that the F.I.R and other related documents are ante-timed and have been prepared after deliberation, as is evident from the inconsistencies between the version in the FIR and the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. It is submitted that such discrepancies go to the root of the prosecution case. It is also argued that there exist material contradictions between the ocular version and the medical evidence. According to the learned counsel, the nature of injuries as reflected in the post-mortem report does not fully support the manner of assault as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. It is further contended that although the prosecution case suggests that the dead body was dragged from the place of occurrence to the field where, it was recovered, but there is no clear medical evidence indicating injuries consistent with such dragging, thereby creating doubt in the prosecution story. Lastly, it is submitted that though several blood-stained articles, soil and grass were allegedly recovered during investigation, no conclusive forensic analysis has been brought on record to establish that the blood found on such articles belonged to the deceased. This omission, according to the learned counsel, weakens the chain of circumstances sought to be established by the prosecution. Submissions made by learned A.G.A : - 16. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt and no interference is warranted. It is contended that the presence and participation of the accused-appellants in the occurrence stand proved from the consistent and reliable testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and so far as accused-appellant A1 is concerned, his liability is clearly attracted with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C., being a member of the unlawful assembly. It is further submitted that the alleged discrepancies regarding the time of occurrence and recovery of the dead body are minor in nature and do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The contention 4 All. Ram Pratap Vs. State of U.P. 63 regarding ante-timing of the F.I.R. is also denied, it being submitted that the F.I.R. was promptly lodged and duly proved. It is further argued that there is no material contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence, rather the same are in consonance with each other. The absence of specific injuries suggestive of dragging of the dead body, as well as the non-conducting of forensic examination of certain articles, are not fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when the ocular version is cogent and trustworthy. Oral Testimonies: In order to appreciate the issues arising in the present appeal, it is appropriate to examine, in brief, the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution. 17. PW-1 Shyam Shankar Tripathi, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that prior enmity existed between the parties. He further deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 6:00 P.M., the deceased Chandra Prakash was taken by A13 towards the house of A2, where the other accused persons were already present. He further deposed that when the deceased reached near the said place, the accused persons caught hold of him and dragged him towards the house of A2. Upon hearing his cries, PW-1 along with other family members and villagers reached the spot and saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased with lathis, while A1 was standing armed with a gun and threatening them from intervening. He further deposed that when the women of the family attempted to intervene, they were pushed aside and PW-3 sustained injury. He further deposed that due to fear, no one could intervene and the accused continued the assault, resulting in the death of the deceased. He proved the written report (Ext. Ka-1) and further deposed that the dead body was subsequently recovered from the field of Guru Prasad. 18. During cross-examination, he admitted that he saw the accused persons present near the dead body while going to lodge the report, but he did not state that he had seen them removing the body. He also admitted that certain facts regarding the injury to Smt. Sushila Devi were not stated in the written report. He denied the suggestion of false implication and reiterated the presence of A1 at the spot armed with a firearm. 19. PW-2 Jagannath, a neighbour of the deceased, deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 6:00 P.M., while he was sitting at his door, he heard cries of the deceased shouting for help. Upon looking towards the place of occurrence near the house of A2, he saw about 1213 accused persons, including A1, assaulting the deceased with lathis. He further deposed that A1 was armed with a gun and was threatening that anyone who came forward would be killed. He further deposed that upon hearing the cries, other witnesses including PW-1 and family members reached the spot, but due to threats extended by A1, no one could intervene. He further deposed that when the women attempted to rescue the deceased, they were pushed back by the accused persons. 20. During cross-examination, he deposed that his house is situated at a distance of about 80 steps from the place of occurrence and that the spot was visible from where he was sitting. He admitted that he had not seen the events prior to the cries and reached the occurrence only upon hearing the alarm. He further deposed that he had not seen the accused removing or concealing the dead body and denied the suggestion of false implication. 64 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 21. PW-3 Smt. Sushila Devi, wife of Dhruv Prakash, deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 6:00 P.M., upon hearing cries of the deceased, she, along with other family members, rushed outside and saw the accused persons taking the deceased towards the house of A2. She further deposed that the accused persons thereafter assaulted the deceased with lathis near the house of A2, while A1 was armed with a gun and was threatening that anyone who came forward would be shot. She further deposed that when she and other women attempted to intervene, A5 caught hold of her hand, twisted and assaulted it, due to which she fell down and sustained injuries, including fracture. She further deposed that the deceased died on the spot due to the assault and that she was medically examined subsequently, where her hand was X-rayed. 22. During cross-examination, she deposed that she had seen the accused persons taking the deceased prior to the assault and that all accused were armed with lathis. She admitted that though she stated that the accused had taken away the dead body, she had not seen them concealing it. She also admitted certain omissions in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. regarding the role of some accused. She denied the suggestion of false implication and maintained that she had sustained injuries in the same incident. 23. PW-4 Dr. D.C. Srivastava, Surgeon, District Hospital, Pratapgarh, deposed that on 07.09.1982 at about 12:30 P.M., he conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Chandra Prakash Tiwari and found the following ante-mortem injuries: • Injury No. 1: Lacerated wound measuring 11⁄2 "× 1⁄2"×scalp deep on the right side of the forehead, 1 inch above the eyebrow. • Injury No. 2: Contusion measuring 2"× 3⁄4 "×scalp deep on the left side of the face below the eyelid. • Injury No. 3: Lacerated wound measuring 3⁄4 "× ear lobule involving the entire thickness of the ear pinna, 1 inch above the ear lobule on the right ear. • Injury No. 4: Lacerated wound measuring 2"×1⁄2"×scalp deep on the right side of the head, 11⁄2" above the ear. • Injury No. 5: Lacerated wound measuring 2"× 1⁄2"×scalp deep on the right side of the head, 4 inches above the corner. • Injury No. 6: Lacerated wound measuring 1"X 1⁄2 " X cranial cavity deep on the right side of the head, exactly behind injury no. 4, and brain matter was oozing out from the wound. • Injury No. 7: Lacerated wound measuring 2"×1"× cranial cavity deep on the back of the head towards the right; brain matter was oozing out from this wound. 4 All. Ram Pratap Vs. State of U.P. 65 • Injury No. 8: Lacerated wound measuring 1"× 1⁄2 "× scalp deep on the back of the head in the midline, exactly above the occipital. • Injury No. 9: Several contusions on the left arm, on the front and outer side, 2 inches below the shoulder in an area of 5"×4". • Injury No. 10: Lacerated wound measuring 1" × 1⁄2 "× muscle deep on the left arm, on the back side, exactly above the elbow. • Injury No. 11: Lacerated wound measuring 1⁄2 "× 1⁄4 "× skin deep on the front of the left ring finger on the last phalanx; the finger bone was fractured. • Injury No. 12: Abrasion measuring 7"×3" on the left side of the lower part of the chest, 3" below the nipple. • Injury No. 14: Abrasion measuring 5 "×3" on the right side of the lower chest and abdomen, 3 1⁄2 " below the nipple. • Injury No. 15: Contusion measuring 2 "× 3⁄4" on the inner side of the right elbow. • Injury No. 16: Several contusions on the left side of the back in an area measuring 1"×6", starting from the lower part of the shoulder blade, in downward directions. • Injury No. 17: Contusion measuring 5 "×2 " on the right side of the back, 2 " below the lower edge of the shoulder blade. He further deposed that on internal examination, multiple skull fractures were present beneath injury nos. 4 to 8, with brain matter oozing out. He opined that the cause of death was coma resulting from head injuries, and that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further stated that all injuries could have been caused by a lathi at about 6:00 P.M. on 05.09.1982. He proved the post-mortem report (Ext. Ka-2). 24. No cross-examination of PW-4 was conducted. 25. PW-5 Dr. Sampurnanand, Pathologist, District Hospital, Pratapgarh, deposed that on 07.09.1982 he was posted as Medical Officer at District Hospital, Pratapgarh. He stated that on the same day at about 10:10 A.M., he medically examined Smt. Sushila Devi and found a traumatic swelling measuring 3 inches 1 inches on the front and back of the right wrist, though there was no visible external mark of injury. He further deposed that Smt. Sushila Devi complained of pain in her back, though no visible injury was found there. He further deposed that the above injury was kept under observation and X-ray was advised. He further deposed that the duration of injury could 66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES not be ascertained due to absence of visible marks. He proved the Ext. Ka-3 and opined that the above injury could be caused if the hand is forcibly caught, twisted or jerked. 26. During cross-examination, he deposed that he could not definitively comment on flexibility of bones at the age of 2530 years, as the same would fall within the domain of a bone specialist. He further deposed that if the above stated injury had been caused by a blow of a lathi (stick) resulting in fracture, there would ordinarily be visible external signs. He further clarified that fracture in the above injury depends upon the force applied in catching and jerking the hand, and that such fracture could occur either by forceful twisting or even by comparatively lesser jerking force. He further deposed that he could not determine whether the injury was 24 hours or 34 days old. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing under tutoring or that such injury could not occur by a simple jerk. 27. P.W-6 Lallan Singh, Constable, deposed that on 20.10.1982 he was posted as Constable in Police Station, Badhrai and on the same day he brought the articles recovered in S.T. No 227/82, Case Crime No. 46/82, from Police Station, Badhrai to Sadar Hospital, Pratapgarh so that the same can be sent to Agra for chemical test. He confirmed that articles remained in a sealed condition and none was allowed to tamper with the same. He further deposed that on 14.02.83, the articles of the above case after being produced before the court of CJM Pratapgarh were then deposited in Sadar Malkhana, Pratapgarh. He further deposed that after chemical testing, these goods came to the court of CJM from Agra. 28. No cross-examination of PW- 6 was conducted. 29. PW-7 Indra Bahadur Singh, Constable, Sadar Maal Khana Pratapgarh deposed that on 14.02.1983, he was posted as Assistant Malkhana Moharrir. He further deposed that the articles recovered in this case were brought and submitted CP Lallan Singh from Police Station Badhrai. He confirmed that articles remained in a sealed condition and none was allowed to tamper with the same. 30. No cross-examination of PW-7 was conducted. 31. P.W-8 Satyendra Yadav, CP 76, Police Station Badhrai, District Pratapgarh deposed that on 09.08.1982 he was posted as constable in Police Station Badhrai. He further deposed that in case no. 146/82 dated 06.09.82, he along with CP Kanhaiya Lal were handover the sealed dead body of deceased Chandra Prakash for the purpose of taking the same for post-mortem examination at Sadar Mal Hospital. He confirmed that the dead body remained in a sealed condition and none was allowed to tamper with the same. He further deposed that after the post mortem of the deceased was completed, he took a copy of the post mortem report in a sealed envelope along with a sealed bundle containing clothes, etc. and submitted the same in the police station. 32. No cross-examination of PW-7 was conducted. 33. PW-9 Rajdev Yadav, Sub-Inspector, deposed that the FIR was lodged in his presence and the investigation was entrusted to him. He stated that after recording the statement of the 4 All. Ram Pratap Vs. State of U.P. 67 complainant, he proceeded to the place of occurrence, where he did not find the dead body at the place of assault. Thereafter, upon receiving information, he reached the field of Guru Prasad, where the dead body was found. He conducted the inquest proceedings and proved the same (Ext. Ka-18) along with related documents. He further deposed that he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-40). He collected blood-stained and plain soil from the place of occurrence (Ext. Ka-41), seized the blood-stained benia (door frame) from the house of A2 (Ext. Ka-42), collected blood-stained grass from the alleged dragging path (Ext. Ka-11), and also collected blood-stained and plain soil along with leaves from the field, where the dead body was found (Ext. Ka-12). He further proved recovery of a country-made pistol from A10 (Ext. Ka-8), seizure of gun of A1, and recovery of a blood-stained shirt from the house of A11 and A12 (Ext. Ka-25). He also proved seizure of the clothes of the deceased (Ext. Ka-9 and Ext. Ka-10). He further deposed that some of the accused persons were arrested during investigation, while others absconded, whereupon attachment proceedings were initiated and properties of such absconding accused persons were attached on different dates. 34. During cross-examination, he admitted that although signs of dragging were noticed, he did not ascertain as to who had dragged the body and no direct evidence in that regard was collected. He further stated that certain statements recorded during investigation regarding dragging and concealment were not fully supported by witnesses in Court. He denied the suggestion that the investigation or recoveries were fabricated. 35. DW-1 A.K. Sahu, AMO District Jail Pratapgarh, deposed that on 06.09.1982 he was posted as Medical Officer in the District Jail and on the same day at around 5:05 PM he examined and recorded the injuries of A5 and also proved Exhibit Ka-6. He further deposed that on 07.09.1982 at around 8:05 AM he examined and recorded the injuries of A2, at around 8:20 AM the injuries of A6, at 8:35 AM the injuries of A13 and at around 10:30 AM the injuries of A2. Thus, proving Exhibit Kha-7 to Kha-10. He opined that such injury could occur by lathi blows and could have been inflicted at around 6:00 PM. He further deposed that injury to the abovementioned people could have occurred on 06.09.1982 at around 8:00 or 9:00 A.M. and such injury could have been caused if they were arrested in a violent manner. 36. No cross-examination of DW-1 was conducted. Court Analysis: Credibility and reliability of ocular evidence 37. The prosecution case rests substantially upon the ocular testimonies of PW-1 Shyam Shankar Tripathi, PW-2 Jagannath and PW-3 Smt. Sushila Devi. It is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that conviction can be based solely on ocular evidence, provided the same is found to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. The Court is required to assess such evidence on the touchstone of its intrinsic worth, consistency, probability and natural conduct of the witnesses. Minor discrepancies or omissions which do not go to the root of the matter are to be ignored, as they are but natural consequences of human fallibility. 68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 38. In the present case, PW-1 and PW-2 are natural witnesses, whose presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time stands duly established. PW-1 has given a vivid account of the incident, stating that the deceased was called out and thereafter surrounded and assaulted by the accused persons with lathis, while A1 stood armed with a firearm and extended threats to prevent intervention. PW-2, who is an independent witness, has corroborated the version of PW-1 and has categorically deposed that upon hearing the cries, he reached the spot and saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased, while A1 was threatening the onlookers. Their testimonies are consistent on material particulars, namely the presence of the accused, the manner of assault and the role played by A1. 39. The argument of the appellant that these witnesses are interested or not wholly reliable does not merit acceptance. It is well settled that the evidence of a related witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relationship, if it is otherwise credible and trustworthy. In the present case, the testimony of PW-1 stands corroborated by PW-2, who is an independent witness and has no reason to falsely implicate the accused. The law does not require a particular number of witnesses to prove a fact, and the quality of evidence is of paramount importance. 40. The learned counsel for the accused-appellants has further contended that PW-2 Jagannath could not have witnessed the incident from his house inasmuch as, as per the site plan, there existed structures obstructing his view and therefore his presence as an eyewitness is doubtful. This Court has carefully examined the said contention in light of the site plan (Ext. Ka-40) as well as the evidence on record. 41. A perusal of the site plan and the deposition of PW-2 indicates that the place marked as point B, lies in direct line of sight of the place of assault.