# Ram Singh Alias Ram Singha Alias Ram Singhwa & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 538
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1054 of 2016
- **Bench:** Saumitra Dayal Singh, Tej Pratap Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-singh-alias-ram-singha-alias-ram-singhwa-anr-v-state-of-u-p-52698
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

under section 302/34 of IPC. The case arose
from an incident in the District Jail, Ghazipur.
The
allegations
was
under-trial
prisoners
consumed a poisonous substance mixed in
Pepsi, FIR lodged against unknown prisoners,
later leading to a charge sheet against the
appellants.

Headnotes
A.
Criminal
law-Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections
302/34-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section
374(2)-
Challenge to -conviction-delay in FIRreliability of sole eye witness- Delay by
Jail
Superintendent(PW-2)
who
is
obligated to act promptly as per Uttar
Pradesh Jail Manual(Rules 608, 894),
raises grave doubt about the prosecution
story-Testimony of PW-3 deemed highly
doubtful-The witness's claims of seeing a
secret act of mixing poison from a
distance of 8-10 feet while the accused
spoke
"loudly"
about
committing
a
heinous
crime
is
unnatural
and
improbable-Lack of motive or inimical
relationship between the accused and the
deceased further weakens the sole eye
witness account-PW-4 and PW-5 did not
support prosecution case-PW-4 declared
hostile-PW-2 admitted no incriminating
material was found during post-incident
search-The recovery of the "Pepsi bottle"
was
contradicted

by
the
Jail
Superintendent, creating significant doubt
on
the
recovery
memo-Hence,
the
prosecution failed to prove the case
beyond
reasonable
doubt-The
appeal
allowed.
B.

Held
The court held that an unexplained delay in
lodging the FIR particularly by a responsible
public servant like jail Superintendent (PW-2) is
fatal to the prosecution case, it raises a grave
suspicion of an afterthought. The testimony of
hostile and unreliable witnesses support the
prosecution initially but retract their statements
immediately cannot be relied upon. The
prosecution's failure to establish motive for the
accused prisoners to poison the deceased,
coupled with contradictions regarding the
recovery of the poisonous substance and noncompliance of manual duties further reinforces
the doubt cast upon the entire investigation and
prosecution narrative.(Para 25 to 36) (E-6)

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Criminal Procedure
Code,1973, Indian Evidence Act,1872

List of Keywords
Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual(Rules 608, 894), jail
Superintendent Murder, Common Intention,
Eyewitness/testimony, First Information Report,
Contradiction/Embellishment, Suspicion, Crossexamination, motive, Recovery of weapon,
recovery of the poisonous substance Disclosure
of statement, benefit of doubt , conviction,
acquittal.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.- 1054 of 2016
Ram Singh Alias Ram Singha Alias Ram
Singhwa & Anr Vs. State of U.P.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s):-
Aditya Yadav, Ashish Bajpayee, Kalp Dev
Mishra, Pradeep Kumar Praveen Kumar Singh,
Rajeev Lochan Shukla, Sanjay Kumar Yadav,
Sushil Kumar Dwivedi
Advs. for Respondent(s):-
AGA P.K. Srivastava

Case law cited:
USA Agencies & Ors Vs The Commercial Tax
Officer (2013) SCC OnLine Mad 2062, State of
U.P. Vs Manbodhan Lal AIR 1957 SC 912, Manoj
Kumar Sharma & Ors Vs State of Chhattisgarh &
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Anr (2016) 9 SCC 1, Thulia Kali Vs The State of
Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 SCC 393-referred to.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,960 of 51,755. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39960 for what follows._

538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i) F.I.R. had been lodged after
about 10 hours of the incident without any
explaination.

(ii)
There
is
a
material
contradiction between the evidence of
Ranveer Singh (PW-1) and Smt. Sanjawati
(PW-2); PW-1 stated that the dacoits had
not broken the doors of the constructed
room whereas PW-2 stated that dacoits had
broken the doors of the house.

(iii) Except the appellants, other
unknown dacoits covered their faces at the
time
of
incident,
which
is
highly
improbable in the circumstances that the
witnesses and the appellants are/were
resident of same village.

(iv) Torch, dibia have not been
produced and proved by the prosecution as
source of light to identify the appellants at
the time of incident.

(v) PW-1 and PW-3, idenfied the
present appellant from the distance of 40 to
50 paces in the night whereas source of
light has not been proved by the
prosecution.

(vi) The younger son of Smt.
Sanjawati, who was sleeping near by PW2, had not sustained any injury in the
incident.

(vii) Besides above, there is
neither recovery of any looted article nor
any
country
made
pistol
or
empty
cartridges have been recovered from the
appellants or at his instance to connect the
link connecting the appellants in the
incident.

27. On the basis of the facts and
circumstances
discussed
above,
an
inference can easily be drawn that the
prosecution has not proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The contrary view taken
by the trial court is against the weight of
evidence.

28. For all the reasons recorded and
discussed above, I am of the considered
view that the prosecution has failed to
prove
the
charges
for
the
offence
punishable under Section 395 I.P.C. read
with Section 397 of I.P.C. against the
appellant no. 2 beyond reasonable doubt as
the evidence on record does not bring home
the guilt of the appellant no. 2 beyond the
pale of doubt, the appellant no. 2 is entitled
to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the
appellant no.2 is entitled to be acquitted of
the charges for which he was tried.

29. As a result, present criminal appeal
is allowed. The impugned judgment and
order of conviction as well as sentence
recorded by the trial court is set aside. The
appellant no. 2 Raj Bahadur, is acquitted of
the charges for which he has been tried.
The appellant no. 2 Raj Bahadur, is on bail,
therefore, his personal bonds and sureties
are, hereby, discharged. The appellant no. 2
will fulfill the requirement of Section 437A, Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the trial
court at the earliest.

30. The trial court records be returned
forthwith with a certified copy of this
judgment for compliance.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 538
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: 16.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1054 of 2016

Ram Singh Alias Ram Singha Alias Ram
Singhwa & Anr. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
10 All. Ram Singh Alias Ram Singha Alias Ram Singhwa & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
539
Counsel for the Appellants:
Aditya Yadav, Ashish Bajpayee, Kalp Dev
Mishra, Pradeep Kumar, Praveen Kumar
Singh, Rajeev Lochan Shukla, Sanjay
Kumar Yadav, Sushil Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A. , P.K. Srivastava

Issue for consideration
The appellants were convicted for the offense
under section 302/34 of IPC. The case arose
from an incident in the District Jail, Ghazipur.
The
allegations
was
under-trial
prisoners
consumed a poisonous substance mixed in
Pepsi, FIR lodged against unknown prisoners,
later leading to a charge sheet against the
appellants.

Headnotes
A.
Criminal
law-Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections
302/34-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section
374(2)-
Challenge to -conviction-delay in FIRreliability of sole eye witness- Delay by
Jail
Superintendent(PW-2)
who
is
obligated to act promptly as per Uttar
Pradesh Jail Manual(Rules 608, 894),
raises grave doubt about the prosecution
story-Testimony of PW-3 deemed highly
doubtful-The witness's claims of seeing a
secret act of mixing poison from a
distance of 8-10 feet while the accused
spoke
"loudly"
about
committing
a
heinous
crime
is
unnatural
and
improbable-Lack of motive or inimical
relationship between the accused and the
deceased further weakens the sole eye
witness account-PW-4 and PW-5 did not
support prosecution case-PW-4 declared
hostile-PW-2 admitted no incriminating
material was found during post-incident
search-The recovery of the "Pepsi bottle"
was
contradicted

by
the
Jail
Superintendent, creating significant doubt
on
the
recovery
memo-Hence,
the
prosecution failed to prove the case
beyond
reasonable
doubt-The
appeal
allowed.
B.

Held
The court held that an unexplained delay in
lodging the FIR particularly by a responsible
public servant like jail Superintendent (PW-2) is
fatal to the prosecution case, it raises a grave
suspicion of an afterthought. The testimony of
hostile and unreliable witnesses support the
prosecution initially but retract their statements
immediately cannot be relied upon. The
prosecution's failure to establish motive for the
accused prisoners to poison the deceased,
coupled with contradictions regarding the
recovery of the poisonous substance and noncompliance of manual duties further reinforces
the doubt cast upon the entire investigation and
prosecution narrative.(Para 25 to 36) (E-6)

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Criminal Procedure
Code,1973, Indian Evidence Act,1872

List of Keywords
Uttar Pradesh Jail Manual(Rules 608, 894), jail
Superintendent Murder, Common Intention,
Eyewitness/testimony, First Information Report,
Contradiction/Embellishment, Suspicion, Crossexamination, motive, Recovery of weapon,
recovery of the poisonous substance Disclosure
of statement, benefit of doubt , conviction,
acquittal.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.- 1054 of 2016
Ram Singh Alias Ram Singha Alias Ram
Singhwa & Anr Vs. State of U.P.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s):-
Aditya Yadav, Ashish Bajpayee, Kalp Dev
Mishra, Pradeep Kumar Praveen Kumar Singh,
Rajeev Lochan Shukla, Sanjay Kumar Yadav,
Sushil Kumar Dwivedi
Advs. for Respondent(s):-
AGA P.K. Srivastava

Case law cited:
USA Agencies & Ors Vs The Commercial Tax
Officer (2013) SCC OnLine Mad 2062, State of
U.P. Vs Manbodhan Lal AIR 1957 SC 912, Manoj
Kumar Sharma & Ors Vs State of Chhattisgarh &
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Anr (2016) 9 SCC 1, Thulia Kali Vs The State of
Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 SCC 393-referred to.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tej Pratap Tiwari,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Kalp Dev Mishra and Sri
Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri Nagendra Kumar
Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

2. Present criminal appeal arises from
the judgment and order dated 02.02.2016
passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 2, Ghazipur, in Sessions
Trial No. 09 of 2012 (State of U.P. vs. Ram
Singh alias Ram Singha alias Ram Singhwa
& Another) arising out of Case Crime No.
1839 of 2010, under Sections 328, 302
I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District
Ghazipur whereby the appellants have been
convicted for the offence under Section 302
read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced
to undergo life imprisonment and also to
pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default
of payment of fine to further undergo
imprisonment of six months.

3. The prosecution story emerges with
a written report dated 23.06.2010 submitted
by the first informant, Brijesh Chandra
Yadav,
Superintendent,
District
Jail,
Ghazipur (P.W.-2), stating therein that on
21.06.2010, the under trial prisoners
namely, Ram Bachan Yadav, Wasim
Ahmad, Guddu @ Raj Kumar and Suresh
Yadav
consumed
some
poisonous
substance in a soft beverage 'Pepsi', due to
which prisoner Ram Bachan Yadav, Wasim
Ahmad and Guddu @ Raj Kumar fell
seriously ill. The Medical Officer of the
jail, attended them at 6 p.m and looking to
the seriousness of the patients, referred
them to District Hospital, Ghazipur, where
they were treated for some time not
satisfied with the improvement of the
prisoners health, the Medical Officer of
District Hospital, Ghazipur referred them
for B.H.U., Varanasi. They were at once
taken to the B.H.U, Varanasi in police
custody, by jail ambulance. Sri Rakesh
Prasad
Varun
(Jail
Pharmacist)
also
accompanied them. Sri Rakesh Prasad
Varun had informed the informant Brijesh
Chandra Yadav (P.W.-2) telephonically
that prisoner Wasim Ahmad died on the
way to B.H.U. Hospital, whereas prisoner
Ram Bachan Yadav died during his
treatment at B.H.U. Hospital in the night.
The third prisoner Guddu @ Raj Kumar,
was undergoing treatment at B.H.U.
Hospital. The death of the above two
prisoners prima facie appeared to have
been
caused
by
administering
some
poisonous substance in 'Pepsi', that resulted
into the death of two prisoners whereas the
third prisoner, namely, Guddu @ Raj
Kumar (in unconscious state), was admitted
at B.H.U. Hospital. The fourth jail inmate
namely Surendra Yadav recuperated and is
languishing in jail. The aforesaid complaint
made by Brijesh Chandra Yadav (PW-2)
marked as Exhibit Ka-2.

4. On the aforesaid written complaint
made by Brijesh Chandra Yadav (PW-2),
an FIR was lodged on 23.06.2010 at 18.15
hours, at Police Station Kotwali, District
Ghazipur under Sections 328/302 IPC
against unknown prisoners, who had
administered the poison in 'Pepsi', that
resulted in the death of prisoners Ram
Bachan Yadav, and Wasim Ahmad and
also Guddu @ Rajkumar, who was
unconscious and under went treatment. The
prisoner Surendra Yadav is in jail. The said
FIR has been exhibited and marked as
Exhibit Ka-8.

5. Subsequently, Sub-Inspector D.P.
Singh (PW-10) prepared the Recovery
10 All. Ram Singh Alias Ram Singha Alias Ram Singhwa & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
541
Memo of Pepsi bottle, on 21.06.2010. In
the said memo, it is mentioned that the
under trial prisoners namely Ram Bachan
Yadav, Wasim Ahmad and Guddu @
Rajkumar drank Pepsi before they lost
consciousness. In that bottle, small quantity
of Pepsi was remained. The same has been
sealed with cloth and on which the
witnesses have affixed their signatures. The
Recovery Memo has been marked and
exhibited as Exhibit Ka-6.

6. Thereafter the 'Panchayatnama' of
the deceased Wasim Ahmad was conducted
on 23.06.2010 between 1.30 pm - 2.30 pm,
in the presence of Ramjeet Maurya-(PW1), which is marked and exhibited as
Exhibit
Ka-1.
Likewise
the
'Panchayatnama' of Ram Bachan Yadav
was also done on 22.06.2010 between 3.50
pm to 4.50 pm, which is marked and
exhibited
as
Exhibit
Ka-5A.
The
'Panchayatnama' of the third deceased,
Guddu @ Raj Kumar was done on
26.06.2010 between 12.30 pm to 01.30 pm
by the Medical Officer L.B.S. Government
Hospital, Ram Nagar, Varanasi, which is
marked and exihibited as Exhibit Ka-15.

7. Thereafter, postmortem examination
were carried out. The Autopsy Examination
Report of Wasim Ahmad was commenced
at 05.45 pm on 23.06.2010, and completed
by 7.00 pm. This autopsy examination was
conducted by Dr. Vinay Kumar Sharma,
examined as PW-8 at the trial. The Autopsy
Examination Report is proved as Exhibit
Ka-4 at the trial. Likewise, the autopsy of
deceased
Ram
Bachan
Yadav
was
conducted by Dr. Vinay Kumar Sharma on
23.06.2010 between 7.05 pm-8.10 pm,
which is marked and exhibited as Exhibit
Ka-5 at the trial. The autopsy of third
deceased
Guddu
it
commenced
on
26.06.2010 at 03.00 pm. It was completed
by 4.30 pm by Dr. Krishna Kumar Ojha
(PW-7), which is marked and exhibited as
Exhibit Ka-3. After the investigation, the
charge-sheet
was
submitted
by
Investigation Officer Dheerendra Pratap
Singh, In-charge Inspector (PW-10), Police
Station Kotwali, against the accused Ram
Singh @ Ram Singha @ Ram Singhwa and
accused Surendra Yadav in Case Crime No.
1839 of 2010 under Sections 328 and 302
IPC, Police Station Kotwali, Ghazipur,
which is marked as Exhibit Ka-7A at the
trial. On the trial being committed to the
Court of Session, the charge was framed by
the Sessions Judge against accused Ram
Singh @ Ram Singha @ Ram Singhwa and
Surendra Yadav under Section 328 and
302, read with Section 34 IPC. On being
denied the charges against them, the trial of
the accused commenced.

8. At the trial, besides the above,
documentary evidence, the prosecution
relied upon the oral testimony of 12
witnesses. At the first instance, Ramjeet
Maurya
(Naib
Tehsildar),
has
been
examined as (PW-2). He proved the
'Panchayatnama' of the deceased Wasim
Ahmad as Exhibit Ka-1.

9. Thereafter Brijesh Chandra Yadav
(P.W-2),
retired
Jail
Superintendent,
District Jail, Ghazipur was examined. He
deposed that on the day of occurrence,
'Pepsi' was administered by some of the
prisoners, that led to the death of two under
trial prisoners, namely, Ram Bachan Yadav
and Wasim Ahmad and caused serious
ailment to two other under trial prisoners
namely Guddu @ Raj Kumar and Surendra
Yadav. He further stated that due to
consumption of the 'Pepsi' consisting of
noxious substance, the prisoner Ram
Bachan Yadav and Wasim Ahmad were
sent to BHU, Varanasi for treatment and
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
while they were on the way to Varanasi,
prisoner Wasim Ahmad died and prisoner
Ram Bachan Yadav died during treatment.
The third prisoner Guddu @ Raj Kumar
was offered treatment at BHU, Varanasi
but he died during treatment. The fourth
prisoner Surendra Yadav was treated at the
Jail hospital. He later recovered. All the
three ailing prisoners were sent to BHU,
Varanasi with Rakesh Prasad Varun
(Pharmacist)
who
had
informed
the
complainant Brijesh Chandra Yadav (PW2) about the death of the prisoners on
telephone. The witness further stated that
he got to know that some prisoners had
arranged 'Pepsi with poisonous substance
in it, that had caused such incident. The
aforesaid narration was typed and signed
by him which was further sent to the
Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur on
27.06.2010, and has been proved by the
said witness as Exhibit Ka-2.

10. In his cross-examination, the said
witness has stated that he had lodged the
FIR on the basis of information, he had
gathered. He further deposed that the
information regarding the 'Pepsi' having
poisonous substance was communicated to
him by some prisoners and jail employees,
which had resulted into the illness of all
four prisoners.

11.
Thereafter,
the
prosecution
examined the eye witnesses namely, Ritesh
Singh alias Bantu Singh (PW 3), Ajay
Chaubey (PW 4), Manoj Kumar (PW 5).
These witnesses were also languishing in
the District Jail, Ghazipur at the time of the
occurrence.

12. In the examination-in-chief, Ritesh
Singh alias Bantu Singh (PW 3) has stated
that he was prisoner in the District Jail,
Ghazipur on 21.06.2010 at about 4:30 p.m.,
he was present near the jail canteen. At that
time, prisoner Manoj Kumar Gupta and
prisoner Ajay Chaubey were also present
there. Both were looking towards the toilet
situated behind the jail canteen, whereupon
he too looked in that direction. At that time,
Ajit Chaubey, Durga Chaubey, and Krishn
Kant also came there and were looking
towards the said toilet. Then accused Ram
Singh took out a paper packet from his
pocket and handed it over to accused
Surendra Yadav. Thereafter, Ram Singh,
with the assistance of Surendra Yadav,
mixed a powder-like substance into the
bread. On being asked, the prisoners
standing nearby quietly informed the
witness that Ram Singh and Surendra
Yadav were mixing poison in the bread and
planning to kill someone. The witness
further stated that accused Ram Singh and
accused Surendra Yadav also kept the
bottle of 'Pepsi' and plastic glasses, with
them. Thereafter, three prisoners, namely,
Wasim Ahmed, Ram Bachan, and Guddu,
came and sat there. At that moment,
accused Ram Singh remarked that they had
been waiting for them for a long time to
have snacks. He then served the bread,
mixed with the poisonous substance from
the aforesaid packet, to the said three
prisoners, who ate the bread and also drank
'Pepsi'. Accused Ram Singh himself also
drank 'Pepsi'. The witness categorically
stated that after consuming the bread and
Pepsi, the three prisoners, namely Wasim
Ahmed, Ram Bachan, and Guddu, said that
they are going to their respective barracks.
Accused Ram Singh remarked 'the work
has been done'. He had heard and seen the
whole incident. Soon thereafter, the health
of the aforesaid prisoners deteriorated.
Whereupon, they were first taken to the jail
hospital and thereafter referred to an
outside hospital. On the next day, he came
to know that prisoner Wasim Ahmad and
10 All. Ram Singh Alias Ram Singha Alias Ram Singhwa & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
543
Ram Bacchan had died. The very next day,
Guddu @ Raj Kumar also died. It was
informed that the cause of death of the
three aforesaid prisoners was due to
consumption of poisonous bread. During
cross
examination
conducted
on
29.11.2012, he deposed that the deceased
were given bread at about 4:30 p.m.
Thereafter, he returned to his barrack at
about 5:00 p.m., and deceased Ram Bachan
also returned to the barrack at about 4:45
p.m. The witness admitted, that out of fear,
he did not inform any person that poison
had been mixed in the bread of the
deceased. He also deposed that Ajit
Chaubey returned to the barrack with him,
at about 5:00 p.m. and further admitted that
he did not disclose this incident to anyone,
on that day.

13.
Then,
Ajay
Chaubey
was
examined as (PW-4). He did not support
the
prosecution
story
during
his
examination-in-chief. He was declared
hostile.

14. Thereafter, Dr. Krishna Kumar
Ojha was examined as (PW-7). He proved
the post-mortem report of Guddu. The postmortem of prisoner Guddu was conducted
by him alongwith Dr. Anil Kumar on
27.6.2010 at about 3.00 pm. The postmortem
report
number
is
1129/10.
Constable C.P. No. 417, Suresh Ram,
Police Station Lanka brought the body. The
dead body was identified by the deceased's
brother Jai Prakash and Prison Guard
Virendra Singh (District Jail, Ghazipur)
and Head Constable Sri Chandra Bharti
(District Jail, Ghazipur). The deceased was
admitted to Sir Sunder Lal Hospital, BHU,
on 22.6.10 at 1.40 am and was under
treatment in the ICU (bed No. 6). He died
on 25.6.10 at 8.15 PM. The hospital
registration number was 20534.

The dead body was having following
Antemortem Injuries:- Injury No. (1)-
Erosions on lips and tongue just below left
corner of mouth. (2) .5 cm stitched surgical
wound on front of right shoulder.

Internal Examination- Inside head
membranes were congested. Brain weighed
1314 gms. Congested. Teeth 14 each.
Larynx and vocal cords were normal except
mild C.S.I.C. In right side of chest, chest
membrane was stuck to chest wall. Left
lung had failed. Membrane was pale.
Cavidi NAD Right lung 319 gms right 573
gms Both were congested. Anaerobic. Pus
was present on palpation. Heart 183 gms.
Chambers
half
filled.
In
abdomen,
peratorium was congested. Cavidi NAD.
Stomach weighed 195 gms. Inside which
50 gms of black coloured pasty material
was found. Mucosa was congested. Mucus
and gas was found in small intestine and
mucosa was congested. Large intestine
contained fecal matter and gas. Liver was
congested 1179 gms. Gall bladder was
swollen. Spleen was congested 95 gms.
Pancreas was congested. Kidney right 102
gms
and
left
88
gms
both
were
congested.Bladder was empty and urethra
was normal. The cause of death could not
be ascertained. The viscera was preserved
for chemical analysis. All the relevant
documents were submitted to the lanka
police station. The post-mortem report has
been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-3.

15. Thereafter, Dr. Vinay Kumar
Sharma was examined as PW-8. On
23.06.2010 at 5.45 pm, the autopsy of
Wasim's body was done by Dr. Vinay
Kumar Sharma and under the supervision
of Assistant Dr. D. Sahay. The deceased
was brought dead to S.S. Hospital Varanasi
on 21.06.2010 at 11.50 PM. Which is
mentioned in record no. 3.
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

External examination of the deceased :
Deceased was a man of average height 175
cm, weight 61 Kg. The deceased's both
eyes and mouth were open. There was no
stiffness in the body. The stomach was
bloated.
There
was
green
colored
discoloration on the buttocks. Skin and hair
were
coming
out
when
pulled.
Decomposition had occurred in the entire
body. Nails were blue, condensed eye. The
mucous membrane inside the mouth on
both the lips and both the sides of the
mouth was memetic. The coracoid was
closed.

Internal examination- Brain membrane
was congested and brain weighed 900
grams. Teeth were 16 upper and 16 lower.
There was carious burn in upper part of
oesophagus. Right lung weighed 312 grams
and left 379 grams and both were
congested. Heart weighed 140 grams there
was no blood in the chamber. Peritoneum
was congested. Stomach contained 60
grams black coloured corrosive substance.
Membrane was congested. Small intestine
membrane was congested. Large intestine
had stool and gas. Yellow sac was filled
with gas. Liver weighed 748 grams and
was congested. Kidney was 61 grams and
decomposed. Right kidney was 70 grams
left kidney was 75 grams both were
congested and decomposed. In his opinion
death had occurred about 2 days ago. As
the cause of death was not clear, the viscera
was preserved and the viscera was given to
the constable along with the sample video
cassette. The autopsy report is in the
handwriting and signature of Dr. D. Sahay.
The autopsy report has been prepared under
supervision of Dr. Vinay Kumar Sharma,
which has been marked as Exhibit Ka-4.

16. Post-mortem of Ram Bachan- On
the same day by post-mortem No. 1070/10
at 7.50 pm, the body of deceased Ram
Bachan Yadav was identified by his
relative Musafir Yadav son of Kedar Yadav
and his brother.

External examination - The deceased
was of normal height, eyes were closed and
mouth was open. There was no stiffness in
the whole body. Stomach was bloated.
There was diarrhoea in the buttocks. Decay
was evident in the body. Nails were blue
and pupil of the eye was congested.

Internal examination - The membrane
of the brain was congested. Weight of brain
was 1580 grams. Number of teeth was
16/16. Weight of right lung was 525 grams,
weight of left lung was 622 grams. Both
were congested. Weight of heart was 232
grams, there was no blood in the chamber
of heart. Peritoneum was congested. There
was 50 ML of aloe coloured substance in
the stomach. The mucus of stomach and
small intestine was congested. There was
stool and gas in large intestine. Liver
weighed 1264 grams and was congested.
Gall bladder contained gas. Spleen weighed
134 grams and was congested. Pancreas
was also congested. Right kidney weighed
153 grams and left kidney weighed 151
grams, both were congested. Viscera was
preserved as the cause of death was not
clear. There were total 7 documents in the
postmortem
report.
All
these
seven
documents were signed by both doctors. P.
Yam. 5.0. Lanka Second copy with video
cassette Original sent to D.I.G Varanasi
First copy / C.M.O Varanasi. The report
contains paper number 8A/13 to 8A/18.
The witness identified his signature after
seeing it and said that the PM report is
signed by Dr. D. Sahay, whose writing is in
it. The autopsy report is marked as Exhibit
Ka-5.

17.
Thereafter,
the
Investigation
Officer D.P. Singh (PW-10) was examined.
10 All. Ram Singh Alias Ram Singha Alias Ram Singhwa & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
545
He did the investigation. He inspected the
place of incident and prepared map. He
further stated that a bottle of 'Pepsi' was
recovered. In cross-examination, he (P.W10) clarified that bread was not sold in the
jail canteen. On 28.6.10, statements of the
witnesses
mentioned
in
the
'Panchayatnama' of deceased Ram Bachan
Yadav, Shri Musafir Yadav, Shri Brijesh
Kumar, Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, Shri
Janglu, Shri Nandlal Yadav were recorded
in the case diary.

18.
Then,
prosecution
examined
Murlidhar
Mishra,
the
then
ADM,
Ghazipur, as PW-9 before whom the
'Panchayatnama' of deceased Ram Bachan
Yadav
was
done.
He
proved
that
'Panchayatnama' as Exhibit Ka-5.

19. The prosecution has also examined
Constable Bhim Singh as PW-11, who has
perused the handwriting of HCP Awadhesh
Prasad, who had lodged the FIR. The FIR
was marked as Exhibit Ka-8 and Ka-9.

20. The prosecution has also produced
Sunil K. Srivastava, as (PW-12), the then
Naib Tehsildar, Varanasi. He has proved
the 'Panchayatnama' of deceased Raj
Kumar @ Guddu which is marked as
Exhibit Ka-15.

21. After, the completion of the
prosecution
evidence,
statements
of
accused persons were recorded by the
Court on 3.10.2010 under Section 313
Cr.P.C. Both the accused persons stated
they had been falsely implicated. After
hearing the prosecution and the defence,
the learned trial court convicted the
appellants, as stated earlier

22. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellants and the learned AGA for the
State.

23. At the first instance the learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that the
report of the incident was filed two days
later, on June 23, 2010. This delay raises
doubt about the prosecution version and
suggests that the jail administration may
have sought to protect the jail officials and
its staff. Secondly, Brijesh Chandra Yadav
(PW2) admitted that the barracks were
searched
after the
incident,
but
no
incriminating material was found during
the inspection by senior officers. This
proves that no poisonous material was
found in the District Jail after the incident.
In his cross-examination, (P.W-2) had
stated that neither 'Pepsi' bottle was
recovered in his presence, nor any report
was prepared about the same. The evidence
indicates that the investigation officer
recovered a 'Pepsi' bottle from the prison
after the incident. Thirdly, Ritesh Singh
(P.W-3) stated that he witnessed the entire
incident from a distance of 8-10 feet. Yet,
he could not identify the direction of the
broken toilet. He stated, he was disoriented
and therefore, could not tell the direction.
At the time of the incident, the accused
were speaking loudly while they were
mixing the poison, which is very unusual
for this nature of secret act, amounting to
preparation and commission of most
heinous offence. It creates doubt about the
credibility of his testimony. Fourthly, Ajay
Chaubey (P.W-4), categorically denied that
he had gone to the canteen at 4:00 p.m. on
the day of occurrence, or that the accused
had purchased 'Pepsi', glasses, or bread in
his presence. He also denied having heard
any conversation between the accused to
mix poison in the 'Pepsi' or to serve it to the
three deceased and one injured prisoners.
He was declared hostile witness by the
ADGC and with the court's permission,
was cross-examined. However, in his crossexamination,
the
witness
denied
his
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
statements under Section 161 of the CrPC.
The witness has stated that bread and
'Pepsi' were not sold in the prison canteen.
Thus, the statement of this witness provides
no support to the prosecution's case. Next
Manoj Kumar (P.W-5) supported the
prosecution case in his examination-inchief.
During
his
cross-examination
conducted on the same day, he resiled from
his version on the very next day and denied
his earlier statements. Question arises as to
how far such a witness can be trusted. Who
supported the prosecution case in the
examination-in-chief and also supported
the
prosecution
case
in
the
crossexamination conducted on the same day but
on the very next day denied the statements
made in the examination-in-chief. Lastly,
the defence also suggests that prosecution
fabricated the story to gain a desired
advantage.

24.
First
submission
of
learned
counsel for the appellant is that the report
of the incident was filed two days later, on
June 23, 2010. This inordinate and
unexplained
delay
shows
that
the
administration wanted to protect the jail
authorities. It has further been submitted by
learned counsel for the appellant that
Brijesh
Chandra
Yadav
(PW-2)
had
admitted that the barracks were searched
after the incident but no incriminating
material was found by senior officers. This
proved that no poisonous material was
found in the jail after the incident.
Therefore, the story and recovery of 'Pepsi'
and bread containing poisonous substance
is highly doubtful. It has further been said
that the whole prosecution story begins
with the report submitted by (P.W-2)
Brijesh Chandra Yadav, who happens to be
the Jail Superintendent of the district jail,
Ghazipur. In the instant complaint, the
prosecution story raises the narration of
administering poisonous substance mixed
with 'Pepsi' by the prisoners to the
prisoners whereupon three died but no
report
regarding
examination
of
the
recovered 'Pepsi' was received to establish
that there any poisonous substance was
mixed in the 'Pepsi'. The prosecution has,
changed the whole story and a new story
emerged later stating that some poisonous
substance was mixed with the bread served
to the prisoners, that caused their deaths.

25. In fact, the prosecution has no
reliable eye-witness who has seen the
occurrence. The narration of the sole eyewitness Ritesh Singh (PW-3) is highly
doubtful, as he has stated that he witnessed
the entire incident from a distance of about
8 to 10 feet. Although, he could not
indicate the direction of the broken toilet.
He has also stated that he was disoriented
and, therefore, could not tell the direction.
He further narrated that at the time of
incident, Ram Singh and Surendra Yadav
were speaking loudly to each other which
was heard by him and other prisoners. This
creates doubt as it is very unusual and
uncommon
that
prisoners
who
were
preparing to commit heinous crime or
would have discussed the same in such a
casual manner. So far as the statement
pertaining to Ajay Chaubey (PW-4) is
concerned, he has categorically denied that
he went to the canteen at 2.00 pm on the
date of occurrence or that the accused had
purchased 'Pepsi', glasses or bread, in his
presence. He also denied knowledge of any
conversation
between
the
accused,
regarding poisonous substance being mixed
in 'Pepsi' to be served to the deceased
prisoners. Though, he was declared hostile
witness by the State represented through
ADGC (Criminal), however, in his crossexamination,
the
witness
denied
his
statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
10 All. Ram Singh Alias Ram Singha Alias Ram Singhwa & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
547
The witness has further stated that the
bread and 'Pepsi' were not sold in the
prisoners canteen. Thus the statement of
this witness provides no support to the
prosecution's case. Next, is the statement
made by Manoj Kumar (PW-5), who has
supported the prosecution case in his
examination-in-chief and even in the crossexamination conducted on the same day,
but he denied on the very next date his
earlier
statement.
Therefore,
to
his
statement, obvious question arises as to
how far such witness can be trusted. Lastly,
the defence argument also suggest that
prosecution has fabricated the story to gain
a desired advantage as the rules and
regulations provided by Jail Manual were
not followed.

26. On the other hand, learned AGA
submitted that the prosecution has proved
his case beyond all reasonable doubt and
the trial Court has rightly convicted the
appellant, on the basis of evidence
produced during the trial. The prosecution
witness Ritesh Singh (PW-3) has supported
the entire prosecution story and has stated
that he himself saw all the appellants
mixing the poison in the bread while they
were sitting on the platform near the toilet.
The prosecution narration based on the FIR
has duly been established by conducting
the inquest and the postmortem of the
deceased prisoners. The verdict of the
learned Sessions Court is absolutely based
on evidence and has been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, must be confirmed by
this Appellate Court.

27. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the record,
at the first instance, it is notable that the
complaint
was
made
by
the
then
Superintendent of District jail, Ghazipur
namely Brijesh Chandra Yadav, (PW-2 at
the trial). On the basis of the said
complaint, FIR was lodged on 23.06.2010.
He has narrated in the complaint that the
incident had taken place on 21.06.2010.
According to him, four under trial prisoners
were administered 'Pepsi' containing mixed
with
poisonous
substance,
by
the
appellants, namely, Ram Singh @ Ram
Singha @ Ram Singhwa and Surendra
Yadav (both prisoners). It finds mention in
the said complaint that after consuming the
said 'Pepsi', prisoners Ram Bachan Yadav,
Wasim Ahmad and Guddu @ Raj Kumar
fell seriously ill. They were first treated at
the jail hospital, but looking to their
deteriorating condition, they were shifted to
BHU, Varanasi by the jail ambulance
accompanied by the jail Pharmacist, Sri
Rakesh Prasad Varun (not examined). The
prisoners Wasim Ahmad died while on the
way to BHU, Varanasi, whereas prisoner
Ram Bachan Yadav died during his
treatment in BHU. The third prisoner
Guddu @ Raj Kumar had continued to
undergo treatment at the BHU, Varanasi.
The complainant, Brijesh Chandra Yadav
(PW-2) also narrated that prima facie two
prisoners died after consuming 'Pepsi'
containing poisonous substance. The fourth
prisoner Surendra Yadav was reported to
be in a fit state and had remained in the
District Jail, Ghazipur. Significantly, the
complaint is silent about the delay in
lodging the FIR, though the incident is said
to be occurred on 21.06.2010 in the
afternoon, but it was reported by the
Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur on
23.06.2010 at 18.15 hours (Exhibit-Ka-8).

28. It is understandable that in case of
sudden tragedy, an ordinary person may
take sometime to prepare himself before
approaching the authorities as it causes
mental trauma, but in the present case, the
complainant
(PW-2),
being
a
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Superintendent of Jail, entrusted with the
responsibility of safeguarding all the
inmates, did not suffer from such disability.
He ought to have acted wholly promptly to
report the matter to his higher authorities,
particularly when the incident had resulted
in the death of two prisoners. On the point
of lodging the belated FIR, the said witness
did not disclose who has also been
examined as prosecution witness (PW-2),
therefore, it is unexplainable that Jail
Superintendent who is under obligation to
supervise the jail has failed to inform his
higher authorities, when some of the
prisoners have died. It is also the duty of
the Jail Superintendent as mentioned in
Rule 608 and 894 of the Uttar Pradesh Jail
Manual, 2022.

"Rule:- 608. Information on
death of a prisoner. On the death of a
prisoner the Superintendent shall give
information to the nearest relative or friend
of the deceased, through a messenger or
through the police station concerned or by
any other expedient means and shall send
radiogram or fax to the State Government,
Director
General,
Deputy
Inspector
General of the Range, National Human
Rights Commission, State Human Rights
Commission, District Magistrate of the
district in which the jail is situated, the
District Magistrate of the district to which
the deceased belonged and to the Court
concerned.

The prisoner's warrant, duly
endorsed shall be returned to the Court
concerned. Notice of the death shall also be
sent to the Municipal Officer of health if
the jail is situated within the limits of a
municipality or the station officer-incharge of the police station if the jail is
situated in a rural area. Information shall
also be sent to the Registrar of Births and
Deaths.

Rule:- 894. Serious occurrence.
When a suicide or death under abnormal
conditions or escape or wrong release or
assault or disturbance or any other unusual
or serious occurrence has taken place in
any jail, the Director General (Prisons)
shall submit a report of such occurrence
immediately to the State Government
followed by a further report within a period
of one month, indicating the action taken
by him and his recommendations, if any, in
regard to the removal of any defects in the
system of the jail administration."

29. In the case of USA Agencies and
others versus The Commercial Tax
Officer 2013SCC OnLine Mad 2062,
Madras High Court stated that the question
whether 'shall' is mandatory or directory
depends on the language, intention of
legislature and scheme and design and
whether consequences spelt. Reliance was
placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs.
Manbodhan Lal AIR 1957 SC 912. It was
submitted by one of the counsels that the
petitioners mainly insist on the alternative
prayer to declare Section 19(11) as
directory and not mandatory instead of
striking down the provision. Therefore, in
the present case non compliance of the
aforesaid rules of Jail Manual is evident.

30. On the point of delay in lodging
FIR in the case of Manoj Kumar Sharma
and others versus State of Chhattisgarh
and another (2016) 9 SCC 1 it has been
held that

"Delay in lodging the FIR often
results in embellishment, which is a
creature of an afterthought. On account of
delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the
advantage of spontaneity, danger also
creeps in of the introduction of a coloured
10 All. Ram Singh Alias Ram Singha Alias Ram Singhwa & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
549
version or exaggerated story. In our
opinion, such extraordinary delay in
lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about
the truthfulness of allegations made by
Respondent No. 2 herein against the
appellants, which are, in any case, general
in nature. We have no doubt that by making
such reckless and vague allegations,
Respondent No. 2 herein has tried to rope
the appellants in criminal proceedings. We
are
of
the
confirmed
opinion
that
continuation of the criminal proceedings
against the appellants pursuant to this FIR
is an abuse of the process of law.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, the FIR
deserves to be quashed. In this context, it is
apt to quote the following decision of this
Court in Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of
Bihar & Anr. (2012) 4 SCC 379 wherein it
was held as under:-

"12. The FIR in a criminal case
is a vital and valuable piece of evidence
though may not be substantive piece of
evidence. The object of insisting upon
prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of the
commission of an offence is to obtain early
information regarding the circumstances in
which the crime was committed, the names
of the actual culprits and the part played by
them as well as the names of the eyewitnesses
present
at
the
scene
of
occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging
the FIR, it loses the advantage of
spontaneity, danger creeps in of the
introduction
of
coloured
version,
exaggerated account or concocted story as
a
result
of
large
number
of
consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly,
the promptness in lodging the FIR is an
assurance
regarding
truth
of
the
informant's version. A promptly lodged FIR
reflects the firsthand account of what has
actually
happened,
and
who
was
responsible for the offence in question."

31. In the case of Thulia Kali vs. The
State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 SCC 393 it
has been held thus:

"It
is
in
the
evidence
of
Valanjiaraju that the house of Muthuswami
is at a distance of three furlongs from the
village of Valanjiaraju. Police Station
Valavanthi is also at a distance of three
furlongs from the house of Muthuswami.
Assuming that Muthuswami PW was not
found at his house till 10.30 p.m. on March
12, 1970, by Valanjiaraju, it is not clear as
to
why
no
report
was
lodged
by
Valanjiaraju at the police station.