# Rameshwar Singh Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 220
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2007
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rameshwar-singh-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45029
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
401 - High Court's powers of revision
against acquittal - Revisional jurisdiction
against the order of acquittal - should be
exercised only in exceptional cases - to
correct a manifest illegality resulting
gross miscarriage of justice - but should
not act as Court of appeal to reappreciate the evidence (Para 17)

B. Criminal Trial - Code of Criminal
Procedure - S. 154 - Delayed FIR - Effect -
1 All. Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
221
Mere delay in lodging the FIR would not
be enough for discarding the prosecution
case - if it was otherwise proved - by the
testimony of an eye-witness & other
evidence brought on record (Para 21)
C. Criminal Trial - Conviction - on the
basis of the Sole testimony of single eye
witness - if the prosecution case could
get proved by - the testimony of one
eyewitness & testimony of that witness is
firmed, believable, cogent and credible -
it would be sufficient to convict the
accused (Para 22)

D. Criminal Trial - Appreciation of evidence
- minor/trivial contradictions - minor/trivial
contradiction
or
inconsistency
cannot
demolish the entire prosecution story, if it
is otherwise found to be credit worthy - If
the contradictions in the testimony of the
witnesses do not destroy the core of the
prosecution case, the prosecution case
should not be rejected - Every omission is
not a contradiction (Para 23)

E. Criminal Trial - Motive - Relevance -
motive becomes irrelevant when there is
ocular testimony of the incident (Para 26)

PW-1 (daughter of deceased) was 13-14 years
child - she stated that accused armed with Farsa
and Axe came and dragged her father and
chopped off his neck - she witnessed the incident
from window of her home - Assailants/accused
belonged to the same village and were known to
PW - 1 and she recognized them- This witness
was subjected to quite lengthy cross-examination
but she remained firm in her deposition Held -
minor discrepancy in her statement would not
make her testimony unbelievable - Contradictions
in the manner of assault by Axe on deceased as
stated by PW-1, and evidence of PW-4 would not
make the prosecution story improbable or false -
PW-1 was the natural witness - Trial court order
of acquittal set aside - matter remitted back to
the trial court for decision afresh.

Criminal Revision partly allowed. (E-5)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deceased was taken to Hallet Hospital vide
paper no. 28Ka/13, presence of P.W.-1 at
the place of incident is completely ousted.

91. According to case of prosecution,
P.W.-1 went to Police Station Shivli
alongwith written report. P.W.-1 has
nowhere stated in his deposition that after
registration of F.I.R. a free copy of same
was handed over to P.W.-1. It is also
relevant to point out that P.W.-4 Head
Moharrir, Munesh Shanker Dwivedi has
not stated in his deposition (at page 42 of
paper-book) that copy of F.I.R. was
handed over to first informant.

92. The case was registered under
Section 307 I.P. C. as Case Crime No.
331/2007 at Police Station Shivli vide
Report (Rapat) No. 45 dated 31.12.2007 at
9.25PM. Aforesaid report contains a
recital that alongwith first informant his
two brothers namely Subhash Chandra and
Santosh Kumar were also present at Police
Station Shivli at time of registration of
F.I.R. In this connection, it is also
important to mention that P.W.-1 in his
testimony (at page 17 of paper-book) has
admitted in clear terms that information
regarding incident was given to Santosh,
Subhash and other relatives on phone. He
met Santosh and Subhash at the mortuary
of
Hallet
Hospital.
In
aforesaid
circumstances, it can not be conceived by
any stretch of imagination that Santosh
and Subhash were present at the time of
registration
of
F.I.R.
In
these
circumstances, the only inference that can
be drawn is that F.I.R. is an ante-timed
document.

93. Learned A.G.A. could not point
out any infirmity or illegality in aforesaid
submissions urged by learned Senior
Counsel for appellant. We have ourselves
scrutinize the oral testimony of P.W.-1 and
P.W.-2 and find that contradictions,
inconsistencies and omissions in oral
testimonies of prosecution witnesses of
fact as alleged are present. In view of
aforesaid, this Court has no other option
but to discard prosecution witnesses of fact
i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 as incredible.
Consequently, their testimonies are not
worthy of trust. In view of above the
present criminal appeal is liable to
succeed. It accordingly succeeds and is
allowed. Appellant is acquitted of charges
levelled against him. He shall be released
forthwith if not wanted in another case.
----------
(2020)1ILR A220

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 109 of 2007

Rameshwar Singh ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
S.P. Singh Somvanshi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, K.R. Singh

A. Code of Criminal Procedure - Section
401 - High Court's powers of revision
against acquittal - Revisional jurisdiction
against the order of acquittal - should be
exercised only in exceptional cases - to
correct a manifest illegality resulting
gross miscarriage of justice - but should
not act as Court of appeal to reappreciate the evidence (Para 17)

B. Criminal Trial - Code of Criminal
Procedure - S. 154 - Delayed FIR - Effect -
1 All. Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
221
Mere delay in lodging the FIR would not
be enough for discarding the prosecution
case - if it was otherwise proved - by the
testimony of an eye-witness & other
evidence brought on record (Para 21)
C. Criminal Trial - Conviction - on the
basis of the Sole testimony of single eye
witness - if the prosecution case could
get proved by - the testimony of one
eyewitness & testimony of that witness is
firmed, believable, cogent and credible -
it would be sufficient to convict the
accused (Para 22)

D. Criminal Trial - Appreciation of evidence
- minor/trivial contradictions - minor/trivial
contradiction
or
inconsistency
cannot
demolish the entire prosecution story, if it
is otherwise found to be credit worthy - If
the contradictions in the testimony of the
witnesses do not destroy the core of the
prosecution case, the prosecution case
should not be rejected - Every omission is
not a contradiction (Para 23)

E. Criminal Trial - Motive - Relevance -
motive becomes irrelevant when there is
ocular testimony of the incident (Para 26)

PW-1 (daughter of deceased) was 13-14 years
child - she stated that accused armed with Farsa
and Axe came and dragged her father and
chopped off his neck - she witnessed the incident
from window of her home - Assailants/accused
belonged to the same village and were known to
PW - 1 and she recognized them- This witness
was subjected to quite lengthy cross-examination
but she remained firm in her deposition Held -
minor discrepancy in her statement would not
make her testimony unbelievable - Contradictions
in the manner of assault by Axe on deceased as
stated by PW-1, and evidence of PW-4 would not
make the prosecution story improbable or false -
PW-1 was the natural witness - Trial court order
of acquittal set aside - matter remitted back to
the trial court for decision afresh.

Criminal Revision partly allowed. (E-5)

List of cases cited: -

1. D. Stephens Vs Nosibolla (sic) AIR1951 SC
196
2. Ram Briksh Singh & ors Vs Ambika Yadav &
anr (2004) 7 SCC 665

3. Sunil Kumar Vs St. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
(2003)11 SCC 367

4. Bakhshish Singh Vs St. of Punj. & anr (2013)
12 SCC 187

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. This criminal revision under
Section 397/401 CrPC has been filed
against the judgment and order dated 16th
December, 2006 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act),
Unnao in Sessions Trial No.156 of 2004
by means of which the learned Sessions
Judge
has
acquitted
the
accusedrespondent nos. 2 to 8 (Rajjan Singh,
Guddu Singh, Raj Kumar Singh, Uttam
Singh, Udham Singh, Madal Singh and
Parashuram Singh) of the charges under
Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Sections
149 and 201 IPC and the accusedrespondent, Bhola Singh of the charge
under Section 120-B IPC.

2. An FIR at Case Crime No. 501 of
2003 was registered under Sections 147,
148, 302, 201 and 120-B IPC At Police
Station Hasanganj, District Unnao against
eight accused on a written complaint of
Rameshwar Singh, son of Late Guru
Prasad Singh (PW-2). The allegations in
the complaint were that the complainant
was resident of Village Tala Sarai, District
Unnao and when the incident took place,
he was living at Village Jawan, Police
Station
Auras,
District
Unnao.
On
26.10.2003, he along with his brother-inlaw Ahibaran Singh came to village Jawan
to meet his brothers on the occasion of
''Diwali'. His brother Girish Singh and his
brother-in-law Ahibaran Singh, niece
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ranjana Singh, daughter of Girish Singh
were sitting on the Courtyard of his house
and talking to each other. The lamps were
burning on the occasion of ''Diwali'. At
around 7:00 hours, the accused Rajjan Singh
and Guddu Singh, sons of Jairam Singh, Raj
Kumar Singh, Uttam Singh and Udham
Singh sons of Pooran Singh, Madal Singh,
son of Mahraj Singh, Parashuram Singh, son
of Narpat Singh armed with Axe, Farsa and
knife came there. They dragged out Girish
Singh, brother of the complainant, and they
chopped off his neck on a piece of wood in
front of house of Sunder Pasi. Thereafter, the
accused captured Hardayal Singh, another
brother of the complainant, who was sitting
in front of house of Nanhke Pasi, and
throttled him. It was said that the informant,
his brother-in-law Ahibaran Singh and niece
Ranjana Singh raised alarm and cried, but
nobody came forward for help in the village.
After killing two brothers, the accused took
away their dead bodies. Despite making
search, the dead bodies could not be
recovered. It was further alleged that the
accused
killed
two
brothers
of
the
complainant because Badake Singh, son of
Jairam Singh was killed 17-18 years back in
which the complainant and his brother
Girish Singh, and two other persons
belonging to Pasi Caste of the village were
accused. It was also said that at present there
was no enmity among them. It was also said
that the accused persons have killed his two
brothers by deceiving them. It was also said
that accused Bhola Singh, son of Shanker
was also involved in the incident. The
complainant could reach the police hiding
himself from the accused on next day and
did not come in the night, fearing danger to
his life from the accused.

3. The police, after investigating the
offence, filed charge-sheet under Sections
147, 148, 302, 201 and 120-B IPC.

4. The inquest of dead bodies of
Girish Singh and Hardayal Singh was
conducted from 15.05 hours to 18.10
hours. Postmortem examination of dead
body of Hardayal was conducted on
28.10.203 at 4:00 hours and of dead body
of Girish Singh was conducted on the
same day at 3.30 hours. The dead-bodies
of Girish Singh and Hardayal Singh were
buried under the ground by the accused
after their murder.

5. On 29.10.2003, the accused Raj
Kumar, Udham, Parashuram and Uttam
were arrested, and on their pointing out
Farsa and Axe were recovered. On
14.11.2003, accused Rajjan Singh, Madal
Singh and Guddu Singh were arrested. On
pointing out of accused Rajjan Singh one
Axe, on pointing out of Guddu Singh one
Axe and on pointing out to Madal Singh
one Axe were recovered.

6. The case was committed to the
Court of Session by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate. Vide order dated 21st
April, 2004, the charges under Sections
147, 148, 302 read with Sections 149 and
201 IPC were framed against accused
Rajjan Singh, Guddu Singh, Raj Kumar
Singh, Uttam Singh, Udham Singh, Madal
Singh and Parshuram Singh. Against
accused Bhola Singh, charge was framed
under Section 120-B IPC.

7. To prove its case, the prosecution
examined,
Kumari
Ranjana
Singh,
daughter of deceased Girish Singh, as PW1, Rameshwar Singh, the complainant ,
brother of the deceased Girish Singh and
Hardayal Singh as PW-2, Constable
Surendra Pal Misra was a formal witness
as PW-3, who proved the Chik FIR
(Exhibit Ka-2) and G.D. Entry (Exhibit
Ka-3) and sending of special report
1 All. Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
223
(Exhibit Ka-4), Dr. Shiv Kumar Singh,
who conducted postmortem examination
of deceased Girish Singh and Hardayal
Singh as PW-4, S.I. Krishna Kumar
Yadav, who arrested accused Rajjan
Singh, Guddu Singh and Madal Singh and
recovered three Axes on their pointing out,
and prepared seizure memo etc., as PW-5,
S.I. Vijay Kumar Singh, who was the first
investigating officer, who recovered the
dead bodies, got conducted the inquest and
sent the dead-bodies for postmortem
examination, as PW-7. He also recovered
Farsa and Axe on pointing out of Raj
Kumar Singh, Uttam and Parashuram,
which were allegedly used in commission
of the offence.

8. The accused, in their statements
recorded under Section 313 CrPC, denied
the allegations against them, and said that
there was enmity between them and the
deceased, and they had been falsely
implicated by the police in the case. The
accused did not lead any evidence in their
defence.

9. The trial Court determined the
following issues for consideration:-

i)whether deceased Girish and
Hardayal had died because of the injuries
caused to them, as stated by the
prosecution;

ii) whether the accused, with a
common object, formed an unlawful
assembly armed with Axe and Farsa, and
pursuant to that common object killed
deceased Girish and Hardayal; and

iii) whether on pointing out of
accused arms, used in commission of the
offence, were recovered under Section 27
of the Evidence Act.

10. The trial Court had concluded
that the FIR was registered after delay of
17 hours from the time of alleged incident.
The distance from the place of incident to
the police station was 12 kilometers. For
the delay, no explanation was offered in
the complaint by complainant Rameshwar
Singh. After considering the evidence of
Rameshwar Singh, PW-2, the trial Court
was of the opinion that the FIR was
written
at
the
police
station,
in
consultation and, PW-2 was not present
when the incident took place.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the trial
Court was of the opinion that the FIR was
suspicious.
After
the
incident,
the
complainant was called from the village
Jawankhera, where he was living, and
thereafter, he went to the police station to
lodge the FIR.

12. The trial Court, on first issue,
after considering statements of PW-1 and
PW-2 and testimony of PW-4, who
conducted the postmortem examination of
the dead-bodies of Girish Singh and
Hardayal Singh, was of the opinion that
there was discrepancy between medical
evidence and the testimony of the eyewitnesses. The medical evidence did not
support the oral testimony of the eyewitnesses, and from the medical evidence,
it was clear that the incident did not take
place in the manner described by the eyewitnesses. The trial Court had, therefore,
opined that the eye-witnesses did not
witness the incident.

13. On second issue, the trial Court
was of the opinion that there was wide
discrepancy between statements of PW-1
and PW-2. PW-1 stated that the accused
dragged the dead-bodies on west-side and
the blood was oozing from the bodies,
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whereas the PW-2 in his statement said
that the accused took the dead-bodies in
two different sags. Considering this
perceived discrepancy, the trial Court was
of the opinion that the PW-1 and PW-2
were not the eye-witnesses of the incident.
The trial Court also held that the incident
did not take place at the time and place
when and where it was alleged to have
taken place. The eye-witnesses were the
interested witness as the PW-1 was the
daughter of Girish Singh, and complainant
PW-2, was the brother of deceased Girish
and
Hardayal.
In
absence
of
an
independent witness, their testimonies
became suspicious and their presence was
also doubtful. There was discrepancy
between statements of the eye-whitenesses
and the Doctor (PW-4), who conducted the
postmortem on dead bodies of the
deceased.

14. After considering the statement
of investigating officer, it was held that the
incident,
as
was
projected,
became
suspicious. In respect of Bhola Singh, it
was said that except for the statement of
PW-2, where he said that in the incident
Bhola Singh was also involved, there was
no other evidence against him and,
therefore, the case against Bhola Singh
was not proved in any manner.

15. In view of the aforesaid, it was
held that the presence of PW-2 was
doubtful. There was wide discrepancy in
the statement of the PW-1 and PW-2. The
medical evidence did not support the
prosecution case regarding the manner in
which the incident was caused and,
therefore, the case against the accused was
not proved.

16. On third issue, the trial Court
held
that
there
was
no
immediate
cause/motive for causing the incident by
the accused. The alleged motive was that
18 years before the date of incident,
Badake Singh was murdered. He was
brother of Raj Kumar Singh and Guddu
Singh. In the aforesaid incident, deceased
Girish Singh, complainant, PW-2 and two
other
villagers
belonging
to
Pasi
Community were accused. It was said that
the motive was not established for
commission of the offence. The trial Court
was of the opinion that the defence version
that two deceased were killed somewhere
else and, after the dead-bodies were
recovered,
the
police
had
falsely
implicated the accused appeared to be
correct.

17. The grounds, on which a
revisional Court can set-aside a judgment
and order of acquittal, are well settled by
catena of judgments. The powers under
sections 397 to 401 of Cr.P.C. are to be
exercised sparingly. The High Court,
while exercising the revisional jurisdiction
against an order of acquittal, should not act
as Court of appeal to re-appreciate the
evidence. However, it is the duty of Court
to correct manifest illegality, resulting in
gross miscarriage of justice.

18. The Supreme Court in D.
Stephens vs Mosibolla , AIR1951 SC 196
held that revisional jurisdiction invoked
against the order of acquittal should be
exercised only in exceptional cases to
correct a manifest illegality or to prevent
gross miscarriage of justice. Para-10 of the
aforesaid
judgment
is
extracted
hereunder:-

" 10. The revisional jurisdiction
conferred on the High Court under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
not to be lightly exercised, when it is
1 All. Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
225
invoked by a private complainant against an
order of acquittal, against which the
Government has a right of appeal under
Section 417. It could be exercised only in
exceptional cases where the interests of public
justice require interference for the correction
of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a
gross miscarriage of justice. This jurisdiction
is not ordinarily invoked or used merely
because the lower court has taken a wrong
view of the law or misappreciated the evidence
on record. As already pointed out, there has
been no such error in the present case; on the
other hand, it seems to us that on both the
previous occasions, the Chief Presidency
Magistrate was right in holding that the
accused was not guilty of any offence under
Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Merchant
Shipping Act."

Similar view has been reiterated
in several judgments, including in Ram
Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika
Yadav and another, (2004) 7 SCC 665.

19. The questions, which arise for
consideration in the present revision, is
whether the trial Court has been correct in
discarding the testimony of PW-1, who
was an eye-witness to the incident in
which her father and uncle were killed
mercilessly, even it if it is believed that the
PW-2 was not an eye-witness. The second
question, which needs to be considered, is
whether discrepancy in the testimony of
PW-1 and PW-4 were so wide that the
prosecution case was to be rejected and the
accused were to be acquitted. The third
question is whether the trial Court had
overlooked the material evidence and
passed the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal, resulting in manifest illegality
and gross miscarriage of justice.

20. Keeping in mind the scope of
revisional jurisdiction of the High Court
against an order of acquittal the facts of
the present case are analysed. PW-1 was
13-14
years
child.
In
her
crossexamination-in-chief, she stated that it was
the ''Diwali Day' and the lamps were
burning. At around 7.00 p.m. accused
Rajjan,
Guddu,
Raj
Kumar,
Uttam,
Udham, Madal and Parashuram armed
with Farsa and Axe came and dragged her
father Girish to the house of Sundar Pasi.
They put him on a piece of wood and
chopped off his neck. It was further said
that at that time his uncle Hardayal was
sitting in front of house of Nanhke Pasi.
The accused dragged him also by putting
rope on his neck, and took him towards
west. She said that she witnessed the
incident from window of her home. She
also said that she knew and recognized the
accused. This witness was subjected to
quite
lengthy
cross-examination,
but
nothing came out, on the basis of which,
her testimony could be said to be shaken
or unbelievable. She remained firm in her
deposition. The minor discrepancy in her
statement and the deposition of PW-4
would
not
make
her
testimony
unbelievable. The trial Court did not keep
in its mind that she was a child 12-13
years old when the incident took place and
her father was mercilessly murdered by the
accused by chopping off his neck from the
body, and her uncle was also murdered.
The inference regarding manner of assault,
drawn on the basis of the medical
evidence, should not have been enough to
discard her testimony.

21. The prosecution case should not
have been rejected by the trial Court
merely on the ground that the FIR was
lodged with delay of 17 hours. It is
important to note here that because of fear
and terror being spread on account of
daredevil murder of two real brothers on
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the day of the ''Diwali', no witness from
the village came forward to depose against
the accused. The incident is said to have
been taken place at 7:30 p.m. on the day of
''Diwali'. The FIR was registered on 12:30
hours on the next day at the police station
which was 12 kilometers away from the
place of incident. Mere delay in lodging
the FIR would not be enough for
discarding the prosecution case, if it was
otherwise proved by the testimony of an
eye-witness and other evidence brought on
record. Even if it is believed that there was
a delay in lodging the FIR, and the same
was lodged after summoning PW-2, but if
the prosecution case could get proved by
the testimony of one eye-witness, it would
be suffice to convict the accused if the
testimony of that witness is firmed,
believable, cogent and credible.

22. The Supreme Court in the case of
Sunil Kumar Vs. State Govt. of NCT of
Delhi, (2003), 11 SCC 367 has held that
testimony of sole eye-witness can be
enough
for
conviction
provided
his
evidence is wholly reliable. There is no
legal impediment in convicting a person
on the sole testimony of a single witness.
Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of Sunil Kumar Vs.
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (supra),
which are relevant for the purpose of the
present case, are extracted herein below:-

"8. In Vadivelu Thevar v. State
of Madras [AIR 1957 SC 614 : 1957 Cri
LJ 1000] this Court had gone into this
controversy and divided the nature of
witnesses in three categories, namely,
wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and
lastly, neither wholly reliable nor wholly
unreliable. In the case of the first two
categories this Court said that they pose
little difficulty but in the case of the third
category
of
witnesses,
corroboration
would be required. The relevant portion is
quoted as under: (AIR p. 619, paras 1112)

"Hence, in our opinion, it is a
sound and well-established rule of law
that the court is concerned with the quality
and not with the quantity of the evidence
necessary for proving or disproving a fact.
Generally speaking, oral testimony in this
context may be classified into three
categories, namely:

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor
wholly unreliable.

In the first category of proof, the
court should have no difficulty in coming
to its conclusion either way -- it may
convict or may acquit on the testimony of a
single witness, if it is found to be above
reproach or suspicion of interestedness,
incompetence or subornation. In the
second category, the court equally has no
difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is
in the third category of cases, that the
court has to be circumspect and has to
look
for
corroboration
in
material
particulars by reliable testimony, direct or
circumstantial. There is another danger in
insisting
on
plurality
of
witnesses.
Irrespective of the quality of the oral
evidence of a single witness, if courts were
to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof
of any fact, they will be indirectly
encouraging subornation of witnesses."

9. Vadivelu Thevar case [AIR
1957 SC 614 : 1957 Cri LJ 1000] was
referred to with approval in the case of
Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. [1995
SCC (Cri) 160 : AIR 1994 SC 1251] This
Court held that as a general rule the court
can and may act on the testimony of a
single witness provided he is wholly
reliable. There is no legal impediment in
convicting a person on the sole testimony
1 All. Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
227
of a single witness. That is the logic of
Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (in short "the Evidence Act"). But, if
there are doubts about the testimony the
courts will insist on corroboration. It is for
the court to act upon the testimony of
witnesses. It is not the number, the
quantity, but the quality that is material.
The time-honoured principle is that
evidence has to be weighed and not
counted. On this principle stands the
edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act.
The test is whether the evidence has a ring
of
truth,
is
cogent,
credible
and
trustworthy, or otherwise.

10. Evidence of PW 5 has been
analysed with great care and caution by
the trial court as well as the High Court.
The so-called improvements do not, in any
way, introduce a new facet of the case.
Every omission is not a contradiction.
Minor details which are not indicated in
the first information report are later on
elaborated in court, do not justify a
criticism that the case originally presented
has been abandoned to be substituted by
another one. PW 5's evidence appears to
be clear, cogent and trustworthy. Nothing
substantial has been brought on record to
disregard the testimony of this witness.
Though PW 3 changed his version, yet his
evidence does not get totally wiped out. A
part of it which is reliable can be taken
note of by the court and has, in fact, been
taken note of. The evidence of this witness
notwithstanding his making a different
version provides some corroboration,
though as noted above, the evidence of PW
5 alone was sufficient to fix the guilt on the
accused persons. Merely because of the
fact that there were some minor omissions,
which are but natural, considering the fact
that the examination in court took place
years after the occurrence, the evidence
does not become suspect. Necessarily,
there cannot be exact and precise
reproduction in any mathematical manner.
What needs to be seen is whether the
version presented in the court was
substantially similar to what was stated
during investigation. It is only when
exaggerations fundamentally change the
nature of the case, the court has to
consider whether the witness was telling
the truth or not. As has been held by the
trial court as well as the High Court, the
evidence of PW 5 was truthful evidence.
He has graphically described the assaults
on the deceased. Accused Dharamvir gave
several blows on the person of the
deceased while accused Sunil caught hold
of him to facilitate the assaults. Section 34
of the Act is clearly attracted. This is not a
case where anything substantial has been
brought on record to disregard the
evidence of PW 5."

23. It is the settled law that minor
contradiction or inconsistency cannot
unnecessarily
demolish
the
entire
prosecution story, if it is otherwise found
to be credit worthy. If the contradictions in
the testimony of the witnesses do not
destroy the core of the prosecution case,
the prosecution case should not be
rejected.
In
a
murder
trial,
trivial
discrepancy should not be the ground for
rejecting the prosecution case, if it is
otherwise found to be credit worthy. The
Supreme Court in the case of Bakhshish
Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another
(2013) 12 SCC 187, in paragraphs 31 to 33
has held as under:-

"31. This Court in several cases
observed
that
minor
inconsistent
versions/discrepancies do not necessarily
demolish the entire prosecution story, if it
is otherwise found to be creditworthy.
InSampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[Sampath Kumar v.Inspector of Police,
(2012) 4 SCC 124 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri)
42] this Court after scrutinising several
earlier
judgments
relied
upon
the
observations
in
Narayan
Chetanram
Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra
[(2000) 8 SCC 457 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
1546] to the following effect: (Sampath
Kumar case [Sampath Kumar v.Inspector
of Police, (2012) 4 SCC 124 : (2012) 2
SCC (Cri) 42] , SCC p. 130, para 21)

"21. ... ''42. Only such omissions
which amount to contradiction in material
particulars can be used to discredit the
testimony of the witness. The omission in
the police statement by itself would not
necessarily render the testimony of witness
unreliable. When the version given by the
witness in the court is different in material
particulars from that disclosed in his
earlier statements, the case of the
prosecution becomes doubtful and not
otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound
to appear in the statements of truthful
witnesses as memory sometimes plays
false and the sense of observation differ
from
person
to
person.'
(Narayan
Chetanram Chaudhary case [(2000) 8
SCC 457 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1546] , SCC p.
483, para 42)"

32.
In
Sunil
Kumar
Sambhudayal
Gupta
v.
State
of
Maharashtra [(2010) 13 SCC 657 : (2011)
2 SCC (Cri) 375] this Court observed as
follows: (SCC p. 671, para 30)

"30. While appreciating the
evidence, the court has to take into
consideration
whether
the
contradictions/omissions had been of such
magnitude that they may materially affect
the
trial.
Minor
contradictions,
inconsistencies,
embellishments
or
improvements on trivial matters without
effecting the core of the prosecution case
should not be made a ground to reject the
evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after
going through the entire evidence, must form
an opinion about the credibility of the
witnesses and the appellate court in normal
course would not be justified in reviewing the
same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide
State v. Saravanan [(2008) 17 SCC 587 :
(2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 580] .)"

33. The embellishments in the
statements of Narinder Banwait (PW 19)
referred to above, in our view do not
constitute
such
contradictions
which
destroy the core of the prosecution case as
this Court in Raj Kumar Singh v. State of
Rajasthan [(2013) 5 SCC 722] has
observed as under: (SCC p. 740, para 43)

"43. ... It is a settled legal proposition
that, while appreciating the evidence of a
witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters,
which do not affect the core of the case of the
prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject
the evidence thus provided, in its entirety. The
irrelevant details which do not in any way
corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be
labelled as omissions or contradictions.
Therefore, the courts must be cautious and very
particular in their exercise of appreciating
evidence. The approach to be adopted is, if the
evidence of a witness is read in its entirety, and
the same appears to have in it, a ring of truth,
then it may become necessary for the court to
scrutinise the evidence more particularly,
keeping in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and
infirmities pointed out in the said evidence as a
whole, and evaluate them separately, to
determine whether the same are completely
against the nature of the evidence provided by
the witnesses, and whether the validity of such
evidence is shaken by virtue of such evaluation,
rendering it unworthy of belief."

24. Similar view has been taken in
(2009) 14 SCC 748, (2018) 5 SCC 435
and (2017) 11 SCC 85 and several other
cases.
1 All. Ayodhya Prasad Umrao & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
229

25. In the present case, the
contradictions in the manner of assault by
Axe on deceased Girish Singh, as stated by
PW-1, and evidence of PW-4 would not
make the prosecution story improbable or
false. The trial Court has been incorrect in
discarding the testimony of PW-1. Even if
it is believed that she did not witness the
murder of his uncle, her testimony could
not have been discarded, regarding the
murder of her father. PW-1 was the natural
witness. The assailants/accused belonged
to the same village and were known to her.
Her presence at the house and witnessing
the incident had been discarded by the trial
Court, considering the medical evidence.
The approach of the trial Court does not
appear to be correct.

26. The trial Court finding that there
was no motive for commission of the
offence does not appear to be correct. The
accused,
in
their
statements,
have
specifically stated that they have been
falsely implicated because there was
enmity between them and complainant due
to murder of Badake Singh in which
Guddu Singh, complainant and two others
belonging to ''Pasi Community' were the
accused. The motive becomes irrelevant
when there is ocular testimony of the
incident.

27. In view of the aforesaid, the
impugned judgment and order is set-aside,
and the matter is remitted back to the trial
Court for decision afresh. So far as
acquittal of Bhola Singh (respondent no.
9) is concerned, the trial Court was correct
in holding that except for bald statement of
PW-2 that he was involved in commission
of the offence, there is no evidence
regarding his involvement in commission
of the offence. Therefore, the impugned
judgment and order, so far as it relates to
Bhola Singh (respondent no. 9) is
concerned, it is affirmed. The trial Court is
directed to decide the case afresh in
accordance with law within a period of
four months from today.

28. Bail bonds of the respondents 2
to 8 (Rajjan Singh, Guddu Singh, Raj
Kumar Singh, Uttam Singh, Udham Singh,
Madal Singh and Parashuram Singh) are
cancelled. They are required to surrender
before the trial Court and apply for fresh
bail.

29. The revision is allowed partly.
Let a copy of this order, along with
L.C.R., be transmitted to the concerned
trial Court forthwith for compliance.
----------
(2020)1ILR A229

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4113 of 2018

Ayodhya Prasad Umrao & Anr.
 ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri I.M. Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Birendra Singh, Sri Kamal
Kishor

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -
Section 319 - Degree of satisfaction for
invoking Section 319 - should be more
than prima facie as exercised at the time
of framing of the charge, but short of
satisfaction
to
an
extent
that
the