# Ramjilal & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 806
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-03-18
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Arvind Kumar Mishra-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramjilal-anr-v-state-of-u-p-43607
- **Pages:** 14

## Text

_Characters 0–39,964 of 45,393. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39964 for what follows._

806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. - 834 of 2012

Ramjilal & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Section 302/34 IPC - Circumstantial Evidence - "Last Seen
Together" - Presence of Accused at Scene - Recovery of Weapons - Medical
Corroboration - Arms Act - Section 4/25

Circumstantial evidence - Chain of circumstances
 In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, conviction is sustainable where the chain of
circumstances is complete, cogent, and consistent, and excludes every reasonable hypothesis of
innocence of the accused.

Last-seen circumstance - Presence in 'gher' at midnight -
Where the accused were seen at about 2.00 a.m. coming out of the 'gher' of the deceased armed with
deadly weapons and immediately thereafter the deceased was found murdered inside the same 'gher',
the proximity of time and place firmly establishes the last-seen theory against the accused.

No direct eyewitness - Effect -
Absence of direct ocular evidence of the act of murder is not fatal when circumstantial evidence clearly
proves that the accused alone had the opportunity to commit the crime and the death synchronises
with their presence at the scene.

Witness credibility - Torch-light identification -
Identification of accused in torch light by natural witnesses returning from agricultural work at night
cannot be discarded merely on conjecture, when their testimony is consistent, reliable and inspires
confidence.

Minor contradictions - Effect -
Trivial discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses which do not go to the root of the
prosecution case are to be ignored and do not weaken the prosecution version.

Motive - Land dispute
Long-standing land dispute and resentment arising from execution of sale deeds constituted a
sufficient motive for the commission of murder and stood duly proved.

Medical evidence - Corroboration
Multiple incised and grievous injuries found on vital parts of the body, consistent with the use of axe
and knife, corroborated the prosecution case and matched the weapons attributed to the accused.

Recovery of weapons - Forensic corroboration
3 All. Ramjilal & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.
807

Recovery of axe and knife at the instance of the accused, coupled with forensic evidence showing
presence of human blood on the axe, constituted a strong incriminating circumstance.

Arms Act offence - Section 4/25
Conviction under Section 4/25 Arms Act is sustainable where recovery of prohibited weapon from
possession of the accused is proved by reliable police witnesses and absence of licence is established.

False implication plea - Rejected
Defence plea of false implication due to village rivalry was rightly rejected in absence of any plausible
explanation as to why real culprits would be spared.

Acquittal of co-accused - Effect
Acquittal of some co-accused does not weaken prosecution case against remaining accused where
evidence against them is clear, specific and independently sufficient.

Appeal against conviction - Scope
Where trial court has properly appreciated evidence and recorded findings based on sound reasoning,
appellate interference is not warranted.

Held:
Prosecution successfully proved complete chain of circumstances. Conviction of appellants under
Section 302/34 IPC and conviction of appellant Banti under Section 4/25 Arms Act upheld.

Criminal appeal dismissed.

Case Listed

State of U.P. Versus Abhiman Singh and others, 2002(45)ACC 1124
Harendra Narain Singh and others Versus State of Bihar (1991)3 Supreme Court Cases
609,
State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh, 2002(44)ACC 471,
Arun Bhakta @ Thulu Vs. State of West Bengal (2008)17 SCC 367.
Harendra Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1991)3 Supreme Court Cases 609
State of Haryana Versus Ram Singh, 2002 (44) ACC 471
Arun Bhakta @ Thulu Vs. State of West Bengal (2008)17 SCC 367
State of U.P. Versus Abhiman Singh and others 2002(45) ACC 1124
Birender Poddar Vs. State of Bihar, 2011 ACC 283

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.)

1. The aforesaid criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants Ramjilal S/o
Shivlal and Banti s/o Ramjilal against the judgment and order of conviction dated 23.1.2012
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C.S.T. Act), Bulandshahr in S.T.
No.08/2009 (State Vs. Banti and others) and S.T. No.34 of 2009 (State Vs. Banti) arising
out of Case Crime No.198 of 2008 (under Section 302/34 IPC) and Case Crime No.199 of
2008 (under Section 4/25 Arms Act), Police Station Ramghat, District Bulandshahr,
respectively, whereby both the appellants, Ramjilal and Banti have been sentenced under
Section 302/34 IPC with life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in case of default they
will have to suffer additional rigorous imprisonment for six months. Further, accusedappellant Banti has been sentenced under Section 4/25 Arms Act with one year R.I. and a
808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fine of Rs.2,500/-, in case of default, he will have to suffer two months additional rigorous
imprisonment. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. Heard Sri V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants holding brief of Sri Omvir
Babu (counsel for the appellant) and Sri A.N. Mulla, learned AGA for the State and perused
the record.

3. The brief facts, as trickle out from perusal of the record appears to be that complainat
Ramdas s/o Gulab Singh, resident of Village-Jergawa, Police Station- Ramghat, district-
Bulandshahr lodged written report at Police Station-Ramghat, district Bulandshahr on
26.10.2008 at 6.15 a.m. to the effect that there was long drawn enmity on account of land
dispute between his brother Ramesh Chandra s/o Gulab Singh (deceased) and Prakash s/o
Babu Ram and Ramjilal s/o Shiv Lal. Litigation was pending with Ramjilal s/o Shiv Lal.
Informant's brother Ramesh Chandra as usual went for sleeping in his 'gher' from his house
in the evening (25/26-10-2008). In the intervening night of 25/26.10.2008 informant's
brother (Ramesh Chandra son of Gulab Singh) was murdered around 2.00 a.m. The incident
was witnessed by his nephew Satish s/o Ramesh Chandra and son Raj Kumar while they
were returning home after operating tubewell for watering their agricultural field. As soon as
both the aforesaid witnesses Satish and Raj Kumar arrived in front of gate of 'gher', they saw
in torch light, Ramjilal s/o Shiv Lal possessing axe, Ved Prakash s/o Shiv Singh possessing
knife, Ulfat s/o Shiv Singh possessing farsa (axe like weapon), Raja Ram s/o Mohan
Nirwasi possessing knife and Banti son of Ramjilal possessing knife in their hands. They
were seen coming out from inside the 'gher' and running away towards field. Informant's
nephew Satish and his son Raj Kumar raised alarm, whereupon complainant himself and a
number of villagers arrived at the spot and they chased the assailants but the assailants made
their escape good. First informant along with others went inside the 'gher' where they found
his brother Ramesh Chandra dead lying on a cot. It was stated in the first information report
that informant's brother has been murdered out of conspiracy hatched by Babu Lal s/o
Munshi Singh, Prakash s/o Babu Ram and Mithlesh wife of Ramjilal and commission of
offence of murder committed by Ramjilal, Ved Prakash, Ulfat Singh, Raja Ram and Banti.
Dead body is lying on the spot. Report be lodged and action be taken.

4. The written report is Exhibit Ka-1. Relevant entries of report exhibit Ka-1 were
entered in the chik FIR at Crime No.198/08 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B
IPC on 26.10.2008 at 6.15 a.m. This Chik FIR is Exhibit Ka-3.

5. The case was registered against appellants on the basis of entries made in the Chik
FIR at Rapat No.8 on 26.10.2008 at 6.15 a.m. at Police Station Ram Ghat, district
Bulandshahr at Crime No.198/08, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B IPC.

6. Thereafter the investigation of the case followed and the Investigating Officer
arrested one Mithlesh wife of Ramjilal of Village-Jergawa, Police Station-Ramghat, district-
Bulandshahr and one Banti resident of same place (as that of Mithlesh) on tip off
information on 27.10.2008 and alleged knife used in this offence was recovered from the
possession of Banti, therefore, a case under Section 4/25 Arms Act was registered against
3 All. Ramjilal & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.
809
accused Banti at Crime No.199 of 2008. Memo of arrest is Exhibit Ka-7 and Chik FIR
pertaining to Case Crime No.199 of 2008, under Section 4/25 Arms Act is Exhibit Ka-20.
Pertinent to mention that appellant Ramjilal surrendered before the court below on
17.11.2008. Recovery of axe was made on 23.11.2008 at the instance of Ramjilal. Memo of
the same was prepared by the Investigating Officer, which is Exhibit Ka-9.

7. Investigating Officer also collected plain and blood stained earth from the place of
occurrence and prepared memo of the same, which is Exhibit Ka-6. Recovery of certain
weapons allegedly used in the offence was made by the Investigating Officer but that
weapons were recovered from the other co-accused persons, who have been acquitted,
therefore, reference of the same need not be made here at this stage.

8. The inquest report of deceased Ramesh was prepared on 26.10.2008. It commenced
at 6.50 a.m. and completed at 8.35 a.m. In the opinion of panchan, the postmortem
examination was required to be done in order to ascertain the real cause of death. Inquest
report is Exhibit Ka-12. Thereafter relevant papers for sending the dead body for
postmortem examination were prepared by the Investigating Officer and postmortem
examination was conducted at District Hospital, Bulandshahr in the night of 26.10.2008 at 8
p.m. by Dr. M.L. Agarwal. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the
deceased:

1. Incised wound 9 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on left side top and back of head 5.5.
cm above from left ear at 1 O'clock position on exploration Haematoma present underneath
and occepital bone fractured. Membrane and brain lacerated.

2. Incised wound 6 cm x 3 cm x brain cavity deep just on left eyebrow middle part
extended upto root of nose. Brain matters coming out from wound. Nasal bone and frontal
bone found fractured underneath.

3. Incised wound 4 cm x 2.5 cm x bone deep on left side chin. Mandible bone
found cut underneath.

4. Contused traumatic swelling 6.5 cm x 4 cm right side face 1 cm below right
eye. Haematoma present underneath.

5. Incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.8 cm. x muscle deep on back of left hand 2 cm above
root of right little finger.

6. In the opinion of doctor the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage
as a result of ante-mortem injuries.

7. This postmortem report is Exhibit Ka-2 on record.
810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. The Investigating Officer also recorded statement of various persons including
the witnesses of fact and the complainant and also prepared the site plan of the incident. In
this case the site plan of occurrence has been proved by the Investigating Officer, as Exhibit
Ka-5 pertaining to Case Crime No.198 of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B
IPC and the site plan pertaining to Case Crime No.199 of 2008 under Section 4/25 Arms Act
is Exhibit Ka-18.

9. Thereafter Investigating Officer also filed charge-sheets against the appellants,
which are Exhibit Ka-8 and Exhibit Ka-11, respectively.

10. Thereafter the case of the appellants was committed to the court of Sessions from
where this case was made over for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge (S.C.S.T. Act), Bulandshahr where the accused persons were heard on point of charge
and prima facie ground was found existing for framing charged under Section 302/34 IPC.
The charge was read over and explained to the appellants, who denied the charge and opted
for trial. Charge under Section 4/25 Arms Act arising out of Case Crime No.199 of 2009
(S.T. No.34 of 2009) was also framed against the appellant Banti. He too denied the charge
and opted for trial. It may be mentioned that both the Sessions Trial 8/2009 (arising out of
Case Crime No.198 of 2009), Police Station Ramghat, District Bulandshahr) and S.T. No.34
of 2009 (arising out of Case Crime No.199 of 2009) under Section 4/25 arms Act were tried
together by the learned trial court and a common judgment was delivered vide order dated
23.1.2012.

11. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses.
P.W.1 is complainant Ram Das. He has proved Exhibit Ka-1, the written report and claims
himself to be the witness of fact regarding presence of assailants at and near the 'gher' during
night intervening 25/26.10.2008. P.W.2 is Satish. He is witness of fact regarding the
presence of assailants at and near the place of occurrence. P.W.3 is Chaman, he is witness of
fact of conspiracy. P.W.4 is Dr. M.L. Agarawal, who conducted postmortem examination on
the dead body of the deceased (Ramesh Chandra) on 26.10.2008 and has proved the same as
Exhibit Ka-2. P.W.5 is Constable-Preetam Singh Bhati. He has prepared chik FIR and the
concerned GD, (whereby the case was registered against the present appellants) as Exhibit
Ka-3 and Exhibit Ka-4, respectively. P.W.6 is Raj Kumar. He is also witness of fact
regarding presence of appellants at and near the place of occurrence (gher) in the intervening
night of 25/26.10.2008 at about 2.00 a.m. P.W.7 is S.I. Adil Rashid, who is the Investigating
Officer. He has proved various steps taken by him, in completing the investigation. He has
also submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants as Exhibit Ka-8 and Ka-11,
respectively. P.W.8 is Ashok Kumar Singh. He is witness of preparation of inquest report
and other relevant papers and has proved Exhibit Ka-12 to Ka-17. Besides, he has conducted
investigation in the case bearing Case Crime no. 199 of 2008, under Section 4/25 Arms Act,
P.S. Ram Ghat against appellant Bunty. He has detailed various steps taken by him
culminating into filing of charge sheet in aforesaid case crime number (199 of 2008) as
paper no. 19.
3 All. Ramjilal & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.
811

12. PW-9 is Constable Amit Prakash, he is witness of fact of making entry in the
relevant chik pertaining to aforesaid case crime no. 199 of 2008, under Section 4/25 Arms
Act and the concerned GD Rapat No. 12 at 8.05 hrs on 27.10.2008 as exhibit Ka-20 and Ka21, respectively. Thereafter, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of
appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In their statements appellants have
termed their implication false and claimed to have fallen a prey to village partibandi and
long drawn enmity. Besides, appellant Ramjilal stated that he is aged about 80 years and his
visibility is very poor. Bunty has further stated that Ramshree was wife of Ramjilal. Her
land was deceitfully got sold out through registered sale deed by the complainant side and
thereafter Ramshree was killed. A case has been registered for the same by Ramjilal against
the complainant. It was because of the aforesaid case that the complainant side in order to
exert pressure, has wrongly framed this case. Fact is that the deceased died at some
unknown place. Relevant to mention here that various material/weapons have been also got
proved as material exhibits. Defence has not led any ocular testimony however, by list 94-B
they have produced certain papers before the trial court.

13. After hearing both the sides on merit the learned trial court convicted appellant
Bunty and Ramjilal under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them with life imprisonment
and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in case of default, directed that they will have to suffer
additional imprisonment for six months R.I. Besides, appellant Bunty was also convicted u/s
4/25 Arms Act with one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2500/-, in case of default, he was directed
to suffer two months additional imprisonment.

14. Consequently this appeal.

15. Learned counsel Sri V.K. Sharma, vociferously urged that the entire judgment of
conviction is vitiated on several counts. First and foremost the chain of circumstances is not
complete and in case no one has seen the actual occurrence- say the murder of deceasedRamesh Chandra. Therefore, the case is confined to circumstantial evidence. Chain of
circumstances are woefully missing. Next, Mr. Sharma urged that initially the FIR was
lodged against 8 persons out of whom only Bunty, Prakash, Smt. Mithilesh and Ramjilal
have faced trial whereas, other four accused were not found involved in the case during
investigation. This shows hollowness of prosecution case set up in FIR. It is next, contended
that motive is very bleak in this case. There was infact no motive to commit the crime, as
suggested by the prosecution. Ocular testimony is not in conformity with the medical
evidence. Evidence and circumstances show and establish that the FIR is ante-timed. Even
the recovery of knife from appellant Bunty and axe from Ramjilal is tainted one and has not
been proved by any witness, therefore, the very recovery of weapon, as claimed by the
prosecution, has no legal teeth to stand legal scrutiny. There are two witnesses of fact PW-2
Satish and PW-6 Raj Kumar. They have stated that they saw the appellants coming out and
fleeing away from the 'Gher'. There is material contradiction in their ocular testimony.
Testimony regarding seeing the offenders in the torch light by the aforesaid two witnesses
appears to be improved one and it does not inspire any confidence. While concluding his
argument Mr. Sharma tried to engage our attention to certain factual aspects by pointing out
that deceased had many rivals / opponents against whom he had moved complaints/ FIR. In
812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
this backdrop of things whether it can be positively said that the assailants alone are the
perpetrator or author of the crime and on the same evidence two accused persons who were
tried along with appellants -say- Prakash and Mithilesh- have been acquitted. In support of
his contention learned counsel has placed reliance upon few decisions i.e.- State of U.P.
Versus Abhiman Singh and others, 2002(45)ACC 1124, Harendra Narain Singh and
others Versus State of Bihar (1991)3 Supreme Court Cases 609, State of Haryana Vs.
Ram Singh, 2002(44)ACC 471, Arun Bhakta @ Thulu Vs. State of West Bengal
(2008)17 SCC 367.

16. Sri A.N. Mulla, learned A.G.A. vehemently refuted aforesaid argument and
submitted that the case of the appellant is reasonably proved and the chain of the
circumstances is complete in all respect which unmistakably exclude every hypothesis of
innocence of the appellants and establishes guilt of the accused that they alone are the
perpetrators and the author of the crime and none else. Right from the very beginning the
two witnesses of fact have categorically stated their names in their testimony before the
court and nothing adverse has emerged even in their cross-examination, which may throw
any doubt on the veracity of the incident. Principle of stair decisis is attracted because
presence of accused in gher at 2.00 A.M. with weapons and instant death of Ramesh
Chandra- the deceased in the gher are intricately linked. Presence of appellants coincides
with death of Ramesh Chandra at the relevant point of time. It is obvious that as soon as the
appellants left the 'Gher' where the deceased was sleeping the witnesses rushed to the spot
and found the deceased murdered seeped in pool of blood.

17. In view of above rival submissions from both the sides point for determination, in
this appeal, arises whether the charge against the present appellants is reasonably proved
beyond reasonable doubt and the chain of circumstances is complete so as to exclude every
hypothesis of innocence of the present appellants?

18. Upon careful scrutiny of record and particularly the testimony adduced by the
prosecution we come across certain facts and at the very onset, we may take note of the FIR
which has been lodged at P.S. Ram Ghat on 26.10.2008 at 6.15 a.m. by complainant Ram
Das son of Gulab Singh. Obviously, the FIR names as many as 8 accused persons involved
in the incident. If we get to the substance of the FIR, we come across the allegation that the
incident allegedly took place in the night intervening 25/26.10.2008 at about 2.00 a.m. At
that point of time, it is stated that the two witnesses-PW-2 Satish and PW-6 Raj Kumar were
returning home after operating their tubewell in their agricultural field at about 2.00 (A.M.)
in the night, on way they came in front of Gate of 'Gher' of deceased Ramesh. They saw
appellants Ramjilal and Bunty son of Ramjilal in company of other co-accused persons
possessing axe and knife, respectively in their hands, coming out from 'Gher' and fleeing
away towards agricultural field. At this, alarm was raised by both the witnesses-Satish and
Raj Kumar, whereupon a number of villagers arrived at the spot, including the complainant.
It is stated that they gave chase to the assailants but in vain. The witnesses along with
villagers entered into the 'Gher' where they saw deceased Ramesh Chandra lying dead on a
cot. In this factual background the FIR alleges that death of Ramesh Chadnra has been
caused after entering into criminal conspiracy with Babu Lal, Prakash and Mithilesh and the
3 All. Ramjilal & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.
813
present appellants in company with other three persons have committed murder. Motive for
commission of the crime has been suggested in the FIR as old enmity due to landed
property. Now, we may switch over to the meritorial aspect of the case and particularly the
testimony of the two witnesses of fact PW-2 Satish and PW-6 Raj Kumar who claim to have
seen the appellants coming out from the gher of deceased. Before adverting to that it would
be desirable that testimony of Ram Das P.W.-1, is taken note of at this juncture for proper
appraisal of the evidence. PW-1 Ram Das is the complainant and it is stated that he arrived
at the spot only after hearing alarm raised by his nephew Satish PW-2 and his son Raj
Kumar PW-6, thereafter, they tried to chase the assailants, but could not succeed. He has
testified about the very motive for commission of the crime. He has testified that Ramshree
was his 'Buwa' and she was wedded to Ramjilal, the accused. Ramjilal began to live/reside
in his village and performed second marriage with one Mithilesh as no offspring was born to
him out of wedlock with Ramshree. Ramshree separated herself from her husband Ramjilal
and began to live with this witness. Father of Ramshree bequeathed 28-30 bigha of land to
her. The first informant took care of Ramshree due to which Ramshree was pleased with
him and his brothers and she sold out her land in favour of their wives. This land transaction
was the bone of contention and Ramjilal was having grudge against complainant and his
brothers particularly deceased Ramesh Chandra. He started false and frivolous litigation
against deceased and his brothers. Villagers intervened in the matter and ensured some
compromise between the complainant and Ramjilal but appellant Ramjilal was not satisfied
with the same. He has further testified that in the fateful night of 25/26.10.2008 his brother
Ramesh Chandra went for sleep in his gher and around 2.00 a.m. when his son Raj Kumar
and nephew Satish were returning home after operating tubewell in their agricultural field
they saw in torch light Ramjilal possessing axe, Ved Prakash possessing knife, Ulfat
possessing Pharsa (axe like weapon) and Bunty possessing knife, Raja Ram also possessing
knife, coming out from Gher where deceased was sleeping and fleeing away towards the
agriculture field, whereupon Raj Kumar and Satish raised alarm and then this witness also
arrived on the spot. All gave pursuit to the assailants but to no avail. They entered in the
Gher where they found dead body of Ramesh Chandra lying on cot. At this stage, we may
appropriately glance over testimony of the other two witnesses PW-2 Satish Kumar and
PW-6 Raj Kumar. They have stated categorically in their testimony that it was around 2.00
a.m. in the intervening night of 25/26.10.2008 when they were returning from their field
after operating tubewell and when they reached near gate of their 'Gher' they saw in torch
light the appellants in company with few others possessing axe and knife in their hands
rushing out of the Gher and fleeing towards agricultural field. These two witnesses raised
alarm whereupon Ram Das, Bholi, Budhsen, Bachchu etc. arrived on the spot chased the
assailants but to no avail. They came inside Gher, they found dead body of Ramesh Chandra
lying on the cot. It has been specifically stated that Ramshree had executed sale deed of her
land due to which, Ramjilal and other co-accused had conspired to kill Ramesh Chandra. It
has been suggested that presence of the two witnesses on the spot is most unnatural but
nothing adverse has emerged in their cross examination which may throw any doubt
regarding their presence on the spot. They have specifically answered to each specific
question put to them in their cross examination and in the cross-examination it has been
established that Ramshree had executed sale deed of her entire land 28/30 bigha for Rs. 8
lacs, out of which Ramshree gave Rs. 3.5 lacs to Ramjilal but he was not satisfied with the
814 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
same and this simmering discontent has been said to be the very motive for committing the
crime. In such situation motive so suggested is, in normal course, sufficient to give rise to
ill-will and jealously on the part of appellants and it cannot be said that execution of sale
deed in favour of wives of complainant side by Ramshree was ever reconciled by the
appellants. In their cross examination both the witnesses have described that they saw in
torch light the appellants in company with other assailants and they were seen coming out of
Gher and immediately fleeing away from the scene through agricultural field. Both these
witnesses raised alarm and number of villagers thronged on the ground, they rushed inside
the Gher where they found Ramesh Chandra lying dead on a cot. It is no denying fact that
no one saw the murder being committed by the present appellants. But the very testimony
given by these two witnesses virtually attracts principle of stair decisis and presence of
appellants on the spot is unmistakably established by the innocuous testimony of both the
witnesses and death of Ramesh Chandra was immediately noticed by these two witnesses
along with other persons. Presence of appellants in gher around 2 A.M. in the night (25/2610-2008) simultaneously coincides with death of Ramesh Chandra. This impeccable
circumstance unmistakably takes one to inescapable conclusion that death/murder of
Ramesh Chandra synchronises with the presence of the appellants in the very gher itself at
2.00 a.m. Things are self speaking. Evidence forthcoming regarding presence of the
appellants at the gate of gher by the two witnesses (P.W.2 and P.W.6) is upon appraisal
found to be most consistent, wholly reliable, clinching and inspiring confidence. The
necessary inference regarding culpability of accused in such circumstances is found
reasonably established. The assailants were well known to the witnesses and immediately
after their departure dead body of Ramesh Chandra was found lying on the cot inside the
gher. There is virtually no time gap between the period when the assailants left the Gher and
the witnesses arrived on the spot where the deceased was lying dead on a cot. In this view of
the matter, there is no need of direct testimony of incident of murder. Therefore, the
happening of murder invariably becomes an act of the appellants and the circumstances are
unerringly and conclusively established against the appellants.

19. At this stage, we may also consider the medical testimony. Upon careful scrutiny of
the ante-mortem injuries noticed in the post-mortem report (Exhibit ka-2), we come across
fact that as many as five ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of deceased Ramesh
Chandra. The Post-mortem examination was conducted at mortuary Bulandshahr on
26.10.2008 and this post -mortem report has been proved by PW-4 Dr. M.L. Agrawal. Injury
No. 1 is stated to be incised wound 9 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on left side top and back of
head 5.5. cm above from left ear at 1 O'clock position on exploration Haematoma present
underneath and occipital bone fractured. Membrane and brain lacerated.

20. Injury No. 2 is Incised wound 6 cm x 3 cm x brain cavity deep just on left eyebrow
middle part extended upto root of nose. Brain matters coming out from wound. Nasal bone
and frontal bone found fractured underneath.

21. Injury No. 3 is Incised wound 4 cm x 2.5 cm x bone deep on left side chin.
Mandible bone found cut underneath.
3 All. Ramjilal & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.
815

22. Injury No. 4 is Contused traumatic swelling 6.5 cm x 4 cm right side face 1 cm
below right eye. Haematoma present underneath.

23. Injury No. 5 is Incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.8 cm. x muscle deep on back of left hand
2 cm above root of right little finger.

24. In the opinion of doctor these ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the
deceased, which injuries could have been caused by use of knife and pharsa and death in
question can be caused around midnight at about 2.00 a.m. Again in his cross examination
doctor witness has specifically stated that injury no. 5 may have been caused by weapons
like farsa and axe. No apecific challenge has been made to the testimony of doctor that no
such injury could have been caused at 2.00 a.m. in the night intervening 25/26.10.2008.
Thus point of death of Ramesh Chandra at 2.00 a.m. in the night is established and factum of
death coincides with the presence of appellants in the gher near dead body of Ramesh
Chandra.

25. It is relevant to take note of the fact that PW-7 S.I. Adil Rashid, Investigating
Officer has proved recovery of knife from appellant Bunty on 27.10.2008 at his instance and
a case under Arms Act was got lodged by him against appellant Bunty at Case Crime No.
199 of 2008 on 27.10.2008 at P.S. Ram Ghat. He prepared memo of arrest and recovery of
knife and has proved the same as exhibit ka-7. Likewise he proved recovery of axe from
appellant Ramjilal made on 23.11.2008 although the date has been wrongly written as
23.08.2008, which on the face appears to be and is clerical one because custody of Ramjilal
was taken by the Investigating Officer on 22.11.2008 and on the very next day i.e.
23.11.2008 at 9.00 a.m. recovery of axe was made at his instance and which recovery has
been proved by the Investigating Officer as exhibit Ka-9.

26. Again it is relevant to take note of fact that these weapons along with other
materials were sent for chemical examination at Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra where
human blood was found on examination of the axe, blood found on the knife could not be
ascertained because it was disintegrated therefore, presence of human blood on the axe so
recovered from Ramjilal is amply borne out by the evidence on record. In so far as the place
of occurrence is concerned, the Investigating Officer has himself taken simple and blood
stained soil from the spot and has made memo of the same as exhibit Ka-6.

27. In this view of the matter suggestion given by the appellant that Ramesh Chandra
would have been killed somewhere else and his body was brought in Gher, cannot be
accepted to be fitting in the circumstances of this case for two reasons, first, that the two
witnesses of fact PW-2 and PW-6 rushed to the spot where Ramesh Chandra was lying dead
soon after the assailants had left the scene. They found Ramesh Chandra lying dead on a cot
with several injuries on his body, secondly, the very nature of the injuries so caused has
been proved as the ante-mortem injuries and the testimony of doctor (PW-4) that these
injuries can be caused by use of knife and axe remained unchallenged. Therefore, the
inescapable conclusion follows that the appellants themselves were the author of the crime
and the chain of circumstance is conclusively complete at that point of time. The very
816 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstance that the appellants were seen running away from the Gher and immediately
after their departure when the witnesses rushed to the spot they found Ramesh Chandra dead
in a pool of blood lying on cot. What else will be the conclusion in that event? Certainly
authorship of the crime invariably can be imputed to none other but the appellants
themselves. It is obvious that first informant PW-1 has himself proved that he got scribed
the report with Dinesh and thereafter, it was lodged at the police station in the following
morning at 6.15 a.m. The lodging of FIR at 6.15 a.m. on 26.10.2008 finds support from
testimony of PW-7 S.I. Adil Rashid and Constable (PW-5) who entered the relevant chik
entry and registered the case at relevant rapat number. PW-5 constable Preetam Singh, has
proved the chik and the relevant GD. Nothing adverse has emerged from their testimony,
which may throw any doubt on the very timing of the lodging of the FIR at 6.15 a.m. on
26.10.2008. Merely because certain technical defects have been noticed, which technical
defects are trivial in nature, which may be attributable to the alleged mistake committed by
the Investigating Agency, will not by itself create any doubt on the lodging of the FIR at
6.15 A.M. and it cannot be said that the FIR is ante-timed.

28. Further there is no whispering under circumstances to support claim of appellants
that the deceased was killed by some unknown person at some unknown place. Moreso,
there was no use to falsely implicate the appellants in this case sparing the real culprits. The
very motive imputed against the appellants being in form of grudge, is sufficient for
committing the crime in question. Every link in the chain of the incident say the very
motive, the presence of the appellants at the place of occurrence at a particular point of time,
recovery of dead body of Ramesh, immediately after the assailants left the place of
occurrence is intertwined and established. The very weapons, which were possessed by the
appellants were recovered from their possession. The weapons contained blood stains and
presence of human blood on axe was noted, blood mark on knife could not be ascertained
because it was disintegrated. In the opinion of the doctor, these injuries as found on the body
of deceased Ramesh, could have been caused by knife and axe, further strengthens guilt of
the accused. Appellants were seen possessing weapons axe and knife. These circumstances
taken as a whole virtually prove beyond doubt guilt of the accused and each and every link
of chain is thus conclusively established which completeness of chain leaves aside every
hypothesis of innocence of the appellants. The learned trial court has rightly taken view that
the circumstances pointing out guilt of appellants and their participation in the crime are
established.

29. The moot point worth consideration is that presence of the appellants at the place of
occurrence unflinchingly synchronizes with recovery of dead body from the place of
occurrence which fact leaves no room for doubt regarding guilt of the appellants. No doubt
there are certain minor contradictions in the testimony of two witnesses (PW-2 and PW-6)
of fact but the so called contradictions are not hitting at the root of the case but are of trivial
nature.

30. In so far as case under Section 4/25 Arms Act against appellant Bunty is concerned
in that regard PW-7 S.I. Adil Rashid has categorically testified that on 27.10.2008 he
recovered knife from the possession of appellant Bunty and a memo of arrest and recovery
3 All. Ramjilal & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.
817
was prepared and has proved the same as exhibit ka-7. The accused could not show any
licence or authority to keep the knife. Investigation of the case under Section 4/25 Arms Act
was conducted by PW-8 S.I. Ashok Kumar, he prepared the site plan of the place of
recovery and proved the same as exhibit ka-8. Besides he has also proved the various steps
taken by him in completing investigation and filing of charge sheet (exhibit ka-18). Certain
cuttings made in the document by itself appeared in usual course of proceeding, which
cannot question the very authenticity and veracity of fact of recovery of knife from the
appellant. Nothing adverse has emerged from the testimony of PW-8 S.I. Ashok Kumar, the
Investigating Officer of Crime No. 199 of 2008, under Section 4/25 Arms Act, which may
throw any shadow of doubt on the fact of recovery. Trial court has taken note of every
aspect of the case in detail and has gone to base its specific finding of conviction on material
on record which reasonably proved beyond doubt charge u/s 4/25 Arms Act. Therefore,
conviction of appellants u/s 302/34 IPC and conviction of appellant Bunty u/s 4/25 Arms
Act in case crime no. 198 of 2008 and 199 of 2008, respectively is sustained by us in appeal.

31. In so far as various citations relied on by the appellants are concerned, it is obvious
that all the aforesaid citations are not helpful to the appellants for the reason that in this case
in hand every link in the chain of circumstances is consistently proved leaving aside
hypothesis of innocence of the accused and unerringly alludes to the inference that none
other than the appellants themselves were the author of the crime. In the case of Harendra
Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1991)3 Supreme Court Cases 609, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed in case of death of widow, who was carrying four months' pregnancy,
was solely based on circumstantial evidence and the only evidence that was proved by the
prosecution was confined to the fact that the death was caused by the strangulation in the
neck and later on dead body of deceased widow was recovered from the courtyard of
accused in the village. In this case obviously the face of the dead body was not seen by any
of the witnesses, therefore, doubt was expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding
identity of the dead body in question in possession of accused.

32. In so far as the case of State of Haryana Versus Ram Singh, 2002 (44) ACC 471
is concerned, in that case eye-account testimony regarding shot being fired on the deceased
had been evidenced by the witnesses. Therefore, the factual aspect of the case is entirely
different from one, as existing in the present case in hand, therefore, aforesaid citation is
also not applicable in this case.

33. In so far as the case of Arun Bhakta @ Thulu Vs. State of West Bengal (2008)17
SCC 367 is concerned, even in this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court after contemplating
various circumstances putforth by the prosecution recorded finding to the effect that these
circumstances cannot be called to be circumstances proving and pointing to the guilt of the
accused. In this case the last-seen theory was not believed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as per
the testimony on record, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that diametrically
opposite versions of witnesses have emerged and therefore, it would be unsafe to direct
conviction.