# Rammu & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1111
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of 1987
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh, Devendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rammu-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54697
- **Pages:** 12

## Text

4 All. Rammu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1111
the Government. The language of this clause is clearly mandatory and leaves no option to
the Court but to order forfeiture. This becomes clear if we read this clause in juxtaposition with
clause (c) which confers a discretion on the Court to order forfeiture of any packing, covering or
receptacle in which the essential commodity was found or any animal, E vehicle, vessel or any
other conveyance which was used to carry the same.

30. There are serious contradictions in the story of the prosecution. The prosecution has
failed to mention basic requirement of the violation of any control order or the violation of Section
3 of the Act. The prosecution has also failed to comply the provisions of Section 7(1)(b) of the Act.
The appellant who was the mere In-charge of the Purchasing Centre and he is not a dealer hence
the question of any violation of the control order prima-facie does not arise or come into existence.
The alleged competent person who inspected the Purchasing Centre of the Food Corporation of
India which is a Government Undertaking and even he fails to mention what kind of grade of the
wheat was recovered in excess alleged to be 12 quintals of wheat from the wheat procurement
centre, of F.C.1(Food Corporation of India) where the accused appellant was stated to be incharge.
It is obligatory duty for initiation of the prosecution against any person that there must be act
committed by accused in contravention of any control order or any violation of provision of Section
3 of the Act. There is no compliance of Section 7(1)(b) of the Act,1955. Therefore, the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

31. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law laid down, the impugned judgment and
order dated 20.05.1988 is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections
3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Consequently, his bail bonds and sureties stand
discharged.

32. The criminal appeal is accordingly allowed.
---------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1111
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of 1987

Rammu & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to legality of judgment and order of conviction u/s302/34 IPC.

Headnotes
1112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sec. 302/34 and 323/34- Cross-case- One-sided investigation-misreading of
defence under S. 313 CrPC- non-consideration of injuries on accused-delayed FIR -Investigating Officer
admitted that no investigation was conducted on the earlier report lodged by the accused - no steps were
taken to get the accused medically examined after arrest -Investigation found to be "tainted and one sided"-
Prosecution explanation for delay of more than fifteen hours in lodging the FIR found to be "too hard to
swallow"-Conviction and sentence set aside. Appeal allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860

List of Keywords
Cross-case; Earlier NCR; One-sided investigation; Misreading of S. 313 statement; Injuries on accused;
Delayed FIR; Acquittal.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Amar Chandra, Chandra Bhushan Verma, P.N. Mishra, Rajesh Kumar Verma, Ran
Jeet Singh, Sunil Kumar 6
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J )

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against a judgement and order dated 29.4.1987 passed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 403 of 1986 whereby the
learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment under Sections 302/34
IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC.

2. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 08.09.2025, appeal filed on behalf of appellant
Nos. 1 and 4 namely Rammu and Misri has been disposed of as abated. We are only concerned
with the appeal filed on behalf of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 namely Chet Ram and Rameshwar.

Facts of the case

4. The facts that formed the bedrock of the present criminal appeal are that a written report
was given by Bhikhari Lal (hereinafter referred to as the first informant) at the police station
Khudaganj, district Shahjahanpur on 19.08.1986 with the allegations inter alia that Rajpal and Babu
Ram lived in village Kapsenda, but started living in village Baraura for the last five or six years.
They had constructed a house in this village. Rajpal had advanced a sum of Rs. 220/- (rupees two
hundred twenty only) as loan to Rameshwar and Rameshwar had given his one and a half bigha of
land to Rajpal in lieu of interest. It was agreed between the parties that whenever Rameshwar pays
the amount, Rajpal would free the field. The first information report further recounts that
Rameshwar took possession of the land, but did not return the money. A day before the occurrence
Rajpal went to Rameshwar to demand the money, whereupon Rameshwar had said that he will give
it. On the date of occurrence, at about 05:00 PM, Rameshwar, Chet Ram, Rammu and Misri armed
4 All. Rammu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1113
with lathis went to the door of Rajpal and started beating him with lathis. At that time, Babu Ram
and his wife Somwati were inside the house. The first informant was also inside the house of
Rajpal. He and Babu Ram tried to save Rajpal, whereupon they also assaulted Babu Ram with
lathis. Babu Ram and the first informant also plied lathis in self defence, due to which accused
persons have also received injuries. Thinking Rajpal dead, they left him and fled. While the first
informant was taking Rajpal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and Babu Ram (hereinafter
referred to as the injured) to the police station on bullock-cart for lodging the report, on the way
near village Sara at about 12:00 in the night, Rajpal succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the first
informant returned to the village. Due to excessive rain, the first informant could not go to the
police station to lodge the report. At the home, he got the report scribed (Ext. Kha-1) by Jaivir
Singh and put his thumb impression after hearing it and handed over at the police station in the
morning.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered at case crime No. 84 of 1986,
under Sections 302/323 IPC, police station Khudaganj, district Shahjahanpur at 08:15 AM on
19.08.2026.

6. After the registration of the case, the investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-4, SI
Girish Kumar, who recorded the statement of the first informant Bhikhari and the Head Muharrir at
the police station and then went to the spot with necessary papers. On the way there were two
rivers, which were flooded at that time and there was excessive rain. He reached the spot, prepared
inquest report, photo lash, challan lash, sample seal, letter to the Chief Medical Officer, Ext. Ka 5
to Ka-9. He recorded the statement of PW-2, Babu Ram, the injured and other witnesses . On the
pointing out of the first informant and the witnesses, he prepared site plan Ext. Ka-10. He further
deposed that on his return, he arrested accused Misri, Chet Ram and Rameshwar. However,
accused Rammu surrendered in Court. After culmination of investigation and completing necessary
formalities, the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the accused Misri, Chet Ram
and Rameshwar on 06.9.1986, Ext. Ka-12 and against accused Rammu on 22.09.1986, Ext. Ka-13.

7. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 403 of
1986 and learned Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur vide order dated 05.12.1986 framed the charges
against the appellants Rammu, Chet Ram, Rameshwar and Misri under Sections 302/34 and
323/34, which were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi. The accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. To bring home guilt of the appellant beyond the hilt, the prosecution has examined as
many as five witnesses, out of which PW-1, Bhikhari Lal and PW-2, Baburam were the witnesses
of facts and remaining are formal witnesses.

9. PW-1, Bhikhari Lal is the first informant of the case. In his examination-in-chief, he
stated that he knows the accused Rameshwar, Chet Ram, Rammu and Misri. They are the resident
of his village. Accused Rajeshwar had taken a sum of Rs. 220/- as loan from his brother Rajpal
(deceased) a year before the occurrence. It was agreed that so long as he did not pay back the
amount, deceased will cultivate the land and when the amount is paid, he will leave the land. A
1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
month before the occurrence, Rameshwar forcibly cultivated the land without repaying the amount,
whereupon deceased made a demand of his money. Thereupon Rameshwar said that he would pay
the money after roping the paddy. The talk took place in the morning of date of occurrence. The
occurrence took place in the evening at about 05:00 PM. At that time, Rameshwar, Chet Ram,
Rammu and Misri armed with lathis went to the door of Rajpal and started beating him with lathis,
thereupon Rajpal fell down. At that time, he also reached there armed with lathi and plied lathi due
to which accused persons have also received injuries. First of all the accused persons have
assaulted Rajpal and thereafter Baburam. He also deposed that when the accused were assaulting
the deceased, they were witnessing the same from inside the house. After the occurrence, accused
fled.

10. PW-2, Babu Ram in his examination-in-chief has stated that at about 05:00 PM, on the
date of occurrence, he was present at his house. He along with Raj Pal (deceased) lives in the same
house. He along with his wife and maternal uncle-Bhikhari Lal were inside the house. Everything
of outside was visible from the place where he was sitting inside the house. Rameshwar, Misri,
Chet Ram and Rammu armed with lathis reached there and started beating the deceased. He further
stated that he along with Bhikhari came out of the house and also plied lathis. He also received
injuries. The accused persons went towards north after beating. Accused Rajeshwar had taken a
sum of Rs. 220/- as loan from his brother Rajpal (deceased) a year before the occurrence. It was
agreed that so long as he did not pay back the amount, deceased will cultivate the land and when
the amount be paid, he will leave the land. A month before the occurrence, Rameshwar forcibly
cultivated the land without repaying the amount, whereupon deceased made a demand of his
money. Thereupon Rameshwar said that he would pay the money. The talk took place in the
morning of date of occurrence and in the evening the incident in question took place.

11. PW-3, Dr. Santosh Kumar Medical Officer examined the injured Santosh Kumar at the
District Hospital, Shahjahanpur at 10:00 AM on 20.3.1986 and found the following injuries:

 1. Lacerated wound on scalp 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm muscle deep, 7 cm from left eyebrow and 11
cm from left year with moderate infection. Thin yellowish pus coming out.

 1. Abraded contusion red, 3 cm x 1 cm over outer aspect of left arm, 4 cm above left
elbow covered by dry scab.

 3. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 4 cm muscle deep over dorsum of proximal inter phalangeal
joint of 2nd toe with mild infection.

 4. Tenderness over the right knee outer side. X-ray advised.

12. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were two days old and were caused by blunt
object. Injury No. 1 to 3 were simple in nature and for injury No. 4, x-ray was advised.

13. In his evidence, which was recorded on 03.2.1987, PW-3, Dr. Santosh Kumar opined
that till date x-ray report has not been produced before him. In his cross-examination, doctor further
opined that injuries received by the injured could have been received at 08:00 PM on 18.8.1986.
4 All. Rammu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1115
14. Evidence of PW-4, SI Girish Kumar Sharma has already been discussed above.

15. PW-5, Dr. P.K. Gupta, who conducted the autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased,
found the following ante-mortem injuries:

 "1. Contusion 8 cm x 4.5 cm on the left side 6 cm above the ear.

 2. Contusion 9.5 cm x 4 cm on the left side of skull and temple 2 cm upward and above
the left ear.

 3. Contusion 4.5 cm x 3.5 cm on the left eyebrow.

 4. Contusion 8.5 cm x 4 cm on the right shoulder posteriorly.

 5. Contusion 7.5 cm x 3.5 cm on the right upper arm posteriorly 6 cm below the right
shoulder joint.

 (6) Contusion 5.5 cm x 4 cm on the neck posteriorly middle part.

 7. Contusion 5.5 cm c 3 cm on the uppermost part of right side neck."

16. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to coma as a result of antemortem injuries.

17. In addition to the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, Constable Sushil Chandra Tripathi
and Constable Girija Shankar Dixit have filed their affidavit stating therein that they took the dead
body and got the post mortem conducted

18. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused-appellants
were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the charges.

19. Appellant-Rammu further stated that he was not present at the time of occurrence.

20. Appellant-Rameshwar in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. further stated that at
about 08:00 PM he had gone to attend the call of nature and when he returned, he found Rajpal at
his house. On being challenged, Babu Ram and Bhikhari also arrived. This happened at the north of
Chaupal of Chet Ram, outside the room of Shri Ram. Thereafter, Rajpal, Babu Ram and Bhikhari
assaulted him. On his cries, his brother Chet Ram and father Misri Lal also arrived.

21. Appellant-Chet Ram in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. further stated that on
the date of occurrence at about 08:00 PM, Rajpal, Babu Ram and Bhikhari were abusing
Rameshwar out side his house. Raj Pal, Babu and Bhikhari were assaulting Rameshwar. On the
shrieks of Rameshwar, he also reached there and enquired as to why they were making noise, then
Rameshwar told him that Rajpal had entered his house. Thereafter, they started plying lathi. He
also plied lathi in self defence. He also received injury. Thereafter, he along with Misri and
1116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rameshwar went to police station Khudaganj to get the report lodged. At 12:00 in the night, he got
the report lodged. Thereafter, they went to the doctor to get himself treated. They stayed in the
hospital throughout the night and in the morning at about 8-9 AM, police arrested them.

22. Appellant-Misri in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that on the date of
occurrence Rameshwar was not at home and when he returned, he found Rajpal in his house.
Rameshwar tried to apprehend Rajpal, but in vain. Thereafter, Babu, Bhikhari and Rajpal came and
started assaulting Rameshwar. On hearing the noise, he along with Chet Ram also reached there.
All the three Babu, Bhikhari and Rajpal plied lathis. He also plied lathi in self defence. Thereafter,
he went to police station Khudaganj at 10:00 PM to get the report lodged at 11:00 PM, he lodged
the report. Thereafter, they went to hospital and stayed in the hospital throughout the night and in
the morning, Daroga Ji arrested them.

23. Dr. S.C. Shukla has been produced as DW-1. He stated that on 18.8.1986, he was
posted as Medical Officer as Primary Health Centre. In the night intervening 18/19.08.1986 at 1:00
AM, he examined Chet Ram, son of Ram Lal, resident of village Barora, police station Khudaganj,
district Shahjahanpur and found the following injuries:

 1. Lacerated wound 6 cm x 4 cm x muscle deep on the back of neck on the left side of mid
posterior line, fresh blood clot present in the wound, Direction of the wound is oblique with its
anterior and lying left lateral.

 2. Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on the right side of right calf muscle, colour red.

 The injuries were simple, fresh and caused by blunt object.

24. On the same day at 01:30 AM, DW-1, Dr. S.C. Shukla also examined Misri, aged about
55 years, son of Shri Shobhi, resident of village Barora, police station Khudaganj, district
Shahjahanpur and found the following injuries:

 1. Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm skin deep on the front of upper fifth of left leg at the
level of left tobial tubersity. Fresh blood clot present in the wound.

 2. Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on the outer aspect of upper end of right FA, colour red."

 The injuries were simple, fresh and caused by blunt object.

25. On the same day (18/19.8.1986) at 01:45 AM, DW-1, Dr. S.C. Shukla also examined
Rameshwar, aged about 25 years, son of Shri Misra lal, resident of village Barora, police station
Khudaganj, district Shahjahanpur and found the following injuries:

 1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep on the left side of forehead above the left
eyebrow, fresh blood clot.

 2. Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm, on the outer aspect of lower end of right forearm, colour red."
4 All. Rammu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1117
 The injuries were simple, fresh and caused by blunt object.

26. Accused-Rameshwar has examined himself as DW-2. He stated that on the date of
occurrence at about 08:00 PM he had gone to attend the call of nature and when he returned, he
found Rajpal at his house. On enquiry by Rameshwar about his (Rajpal) presence in his house,
Rajpal left the house. Thereafter, Rajpal started abusing him. At that time Bhikhari and Babu Ram
also arrived there armed with lathis. He also reached there and asked Rajpal as to why he is
abusing. Bhikhari and RaJ Pal took side of Rajpal. At that time, his brother Chet Ram, father Misri,
Raj Kumar and Shanker also arrived. They were having lathis. Thereafter Bhikhari, Babu and Raj
Pal started assaulting him with lathis due to which he along with Chet Ram, Misri received injuries.
They assaulted in self defence. He also plied lathi in self defence. It is further stated that assault
was made by Bhikhari, Babu and Raj Pal first and thereafter in self defence he along with Chet
Ram and Misri assaulted them in self defence. After the incident, Rameshwar, Chet Ram and Misri
went to police station and got the report lodged, which he proved as Ext. Kha-1. From the police
station, they went to the hospital where they were medically examined. In the morning at about
08:00 police arrested them from the gate of the hospital.

27. Learned Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur after hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and assessing, evaluating and scrutinizing the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the
accused-appellants as indicated herein above.

28. Hence this appeal.

Submission on behalf of the appellants

29. Shri Amar Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants submits that it was a cross case
and the accused-appellants have plied lathis in self defence and that the investigation has been
carried out one sided.

30. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the learned Trial Court
committed a manifest error of law by failing to consider the accuseds defence, ignoring material
evidence and skipping mandatory procedures, which violates principles of fair trial.

Submission on behalf of the State

31. On the other hand Shri S.K. Ojha, learned Additional Government Advocate-I
supported the findings of the learned trial court by stating that the learned trial court has correctly
martialled the evidence and considered each and every aspect of the case while convicting the
appellants.

Analysis and conclusion

32. Admittedly, there are two versions of the case. Report from the side of the accused was
lodged at 00:15 AM on 18/19.08.1986 at the police station Khudaganj, district Shahjahanpur under
Section 323/504 IPC by the appellant Rameshwar. In the report the time of incident has been
1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
shown as 08:00 PM on 18.08.1986 in which Raj Pal (deceased), Babu (injured) and Bhikhari (PW1) have been nominated as accused. The report is reproduced as under:

 "वाद ने बयान िकया िक मैं टट्ट करने गया था राजपाल जो मेरे गांव का है मेरे घर आ गया जब मैं
वापि आया तो मैंने पूछा िक रात में मेरे घर क्यू घुि आए तभ ििभयुक्त घर िे उठकर गांव में पििम में पड
आबाद के पाि खडा हो गया और मुझे गािलयां देने लगा क िाले मालदार बहुत बनता है मैंने कहा िक
गािलयां क्यू देता हैं इि वक्त बाबू और िभखार भ आ गए या मुझे लािठयों िे मारने लगे मैंने शोर मचाया तो
मेरे िपता िमश्र और मेरे भाई चेतराम आ गया उिे भ लािठयों िे मारा इि ब च शोर िुनकर गावाहन आ गई
और ललकारने पर ििभयुक्त भाग गए मैं िपने िपताज और भाई के िाथ ररपोटत िलखवाने आया हं"

33. The aforesaid report has been marked as Ext. Kha-1.

34. From the side of the first informant the report has been lodged 08:15 AM on
19.08.1986 at police station Khudaganj, district Shahjahanpur under Section 302/323 IPC by
Bhikhari Lal. In the report the time has been shown at about 05:00 PM on 18.08.1986 in which
appellants Rameshwar, Chet Ram, Rammu and Misri have been nominated as accused. The report
is reproduced as under:

 "िेवा मे श्र मान दरोगा ज थाना खुदागंज श्र मान ज िनवेदन है िक मेरे भान्जे राजपाल और बाबूराम
मेरे गांव मे ह 6 िाल िे रह रहे है और यह ं मकान भ बना िलया है। मेरे भान्जे ने िपछले िाल जेठ के मह ना
मे 220 रू रामेश्वर को उधार िदये थे और रामेश्वर ने ब्याज के बदले में िपन डेढ ब घा जम न राजपाल को दे
द थ और यह तय हुआ िक जब रामेश्वर पैिा दे देगा तभ राजपाल जम न छोड देगा परन्तु िब रामेश्वर ने
जम न पर कब्जा कर िलया और राजपाल के पैिा भ नह िदये। कल राजपाल ने रामेश्वर िे पैिे मांगे िक िभ
तुझे पैिे देते है। कल िमय कर ब 5 बजे शाम लाठड्ां लेकर रामेश्वर पुत्र िमश्र , चेतराम पुत्र रम्मू, रम्मू पुत्र
शोभ , िमश्र पुत्र शोभ जाटव हमारे गांव के राजपाल के दरवाजे पर आये और वह राजपाल को लािठयों िे
मारने लगे उि िमय राजपाल के घर पर मै मेरा भान्जा बाबूराम और बाबूराम क घरवाल िोमवत मौजूद थे।
मैं और बाबूराम राजपाल को बचाने लगे तो वह लोग बाबूराम को भ लािठयो िे मारने लगे बाबूराम और मैने
िपने बचाव मे लाठ चलाई िजिमे उनके भ मामूल चोटे आई है। तब वह राजपाल को मरा िमझ कर छोड
कर भाग गये। मै बैलगाड िे िपने दोनो भान्जो को लेकर िनगोह थाना रपट को जा रहा थ तभ रास्ते मे िंडा
गांव के पाि रात को 12 बजे कर ब राजपाल ने दम तोड िदया। तब मै वापि गांव आ गया। निदयो मे ज्यादा
पान होने के कारण रात मे मै रपट िलखाना थाना नह आ िका। तथा चुटैल भान्जे बाबूराम और मरे हुए
राजपाल को गांव मे ह छोडकर आया हूँ। यह घटना गांव के लोगो ने भ देख । मेर रपट िलखकर कायतवाह
क जाये। प्राथी िभखार लाल पुत्र कोिमल राम जाटव थाना खुदागंज िनवाि वरौरा िनशान िंगूठा िभखार
लाल लेखक जयव र ििंह s/o श्र िुन्दर ििंह िन० वरौरा थाना खुदागंज िज० शाहजहांपुर 19.8.86 ई०"

35. PW-4, SI Girish Kumar Sharma, who is the investigating officer of the case, in his
evidence has stated that accused-Rameshwar had lodged the report, which was NCR, which was
entered vide report No. 2 at 00:15 AM on 19.08.1986 by Constable Clerk Shri Krishna, which was
marked as Ext. Ka-11. He, however, admitted that the aforesaid report (NCR) lodged by the
accused-appellant Rameshwar has not been investigated by him. In his cross-examination, PW-4,
SI Girish Kumar Sharma was confronted with the report lodged of appellant-Rameshwar. The
4 All. Rammu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1119
relevant part of cross-examination of PW-4, SI Girish Kumar Sharma is reproduced herein under
for ready reference:

 "गवाह को रपट N.C.R. िदखाई थ तो गवाह के कहा िक यह रपट मुम्बिम रामेश्वर ने िलख थ ।
नकल रपट दाम्बखल क गई िजिपर Ext ख-1 डाला गया। जब मुम्बिम ने रपट िलखाई थ तो मै थाने पर
मौजूद था। जब तफत श शुरु क तो मैने मुम्बिम वाल ररपोटत नह देख थ । और न ह तफत श के दौरान उिे
देख थ । मुझे यह बात पता नह लग थ रपट मुम्बिम ने इि घटना के बारे मे िलखाई थ । मुझे आज पता
चला िक यह रपट इि घटना िे िंबंिधत थ । शंकर व राम कुमार के मैने बयान नह िलये थे। ग्र श ििंह व
िाधू ििंह पडोिियों के बयान िलये थे। यह गलत है िक उनके मकान चार पांच िौ कदम क दूर पर हों। मुझे
बाबूराम ने बताया था िक यह घटना गांव के और लोगो ने भ देख । वाद के दरवाजे के िामने बाहर क तरफ
एक छोटा िा छप्पर पडा है। इि छप्पर के न चे मुझे कोई खून नह ं िमला। लाश मुझे इि छप्पर िे दो त न
कदम बाहर िमल थ । नकशे मे 'A' थथान के पाि पििम मे C िलखा मालूम होता है लेिकन मैने िलखा नह है
डाट पैन ल ख करने के कारण बन गया हो। यह कहना गलत है िक मैंने मुकदमे को तरत ब देने के िलये ऐिा
कह रहा हूँ। बाहर वाले C के पाि लाइन बनाकर चार कदम मैने िलखा है। यह गलत है िक जगाह तबद ल
करने के िलये ऐि बात कह रहा हं। लाश जो कपडे पहने हुए था वह भ गे हुये थे। लाश के ऊपर मोमजामा
पडा हुआ था। उि मोमजामा को कबजे मे नह िलया। मैने यह नह नोट िकया िक कपडे भ गे हुये थे। यह
कहना गलत है िक मुम्बिमानो को िस्पताल भेजा गया हो तथा डाक्टर मुआयना हुआ हो। मुम्बिमान जाटव
है। जब मुम्बिमानो को िगरफ्तार िकया तब इनके पट्ट बंध थ । चोटे पुरान थ इििलये डाक्टर जांच नह ं
कराई। मैंने पट्ट खोलकर चोटे नह ं देख । चूंिक पट्ट बंध थ इििलये मैने िमझा चोटे पुरान है। यह कहना
गलत है िक मैने जान बूझकर मुम्बिमान क चोटो का डाक्टर मुआयना नह ं कराया और उनक ररपोटत क
तफत श नह ं क "

36. From the perusal of the evidence of PW-4, SI Girish Kumar Sharma, it is clear that no
investigation was conducted by him on the report lodged by appellant-Rameshwar. It is also clear
that he has not taken any steps to get the medical examination of the accused done after the arrest
of the accused. In sum and substance, the investigation in this case is tainted and one sided. The
investigating officer has not taken care to investigate the report lodged from the side of the
appellant, which was on earlier point of time than the report lodged by the first informant of the
case

37. Learned Trial Court while discussing the cross case set up from the side of the
appellants has recorded the following finding:

 "No specific enmity has been alleged by the accused persons in their statements under
Section 313 Cr.P.C.. They have simply said that they have been implicated due to enmity. The
defence has claimed that Rajpal had gone to the house of Rameshwar at about 08:00 PM when he
had gone to ease himself and when he returned, he enquired as to why he had gone at that hour
whereupon he went away and started abusing. If we peruse the statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. of the accused Rameshwar, we find that Bhikhari and Babu Ram reached there. This
means that they reached at his house. He immediately stated that this took place in the northern
corner of Chet Rams Chaupal. The statement appears to be confused. When he appeared as a
witness, he deposed on oath that Rajpal went away. Rajpal started abusing in the north-west
1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
corner of Chet Rams Chaupal where Gram Samaj land was lying. At that place Bhikhari and
Babu Ram reached there with lathis. They too reached there and said as to why he was abusing.
Chet Ram, his fater Misri, Ram Kumar and Shankar reached there. All had lathis. When he forbade
Rajpal from abusing, Bhikhari was siding with Rajpal. Thereafter, Bhikhari, Babu and Rajpal plied
lathis at him. He, Rameshwar, Chet Ram and Misri received injuries. He further deposed in
logon ne bachao men choten mari thin This means that he had admitted in a sense the
prosecution case that the injury to the accused was caused in self-defence. Soon after he deposed
that he caused injuries in defence. First they plied lathi and then, he plied lathi in defence. It is
significant to note here that the case taken up by the defence in the statement of Rameshwar on
oath was not taken at the earliest opportunity. It is not disputed that an FIR was also lodged from
the side of the accused persons which is Ext. Kha1. If it was a fact that the accused persons had
plied lathis in self defence, it was the earliest opportunity when they could have said so but it was
not said. It appears to me as argued by the learned counsel for the State that this case has been
developed later on when legal opinion was available. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion
that it cannot be said that the case taken up by the defence is even probable."

38. Before analysing the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court, it would be apposite
to refer the relevant portion of statement of the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

39. Appellant-Rameshwar in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that at about
08:00 PM he had gone to attend the call of nature and when he returned, he found Rajpal at his
house. On being challenged, Babu Ram and Bhikhari also arrived there. At that time, Rajpal, Babu
Ram and Bhikhari started assaulting him. On his cries, his brother Chet Ram and father Misri Lal
also arrived.

40. Appellant-Chet Ram in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. further stated that on
the date of occurrence at about 08:00 PM, Rajpal, Babu Ram and Bhikhari were abusing
Rameshwar out side his house. Raj Pal, Babu and Bhikhari were assaulting Rameshwar. On the
shrieks of Rameshwar, he also reached there and enquired as to why they were making noise, then
Rameshwar told him that Rajpal had entered his house. Thereafter, they started plying lathis. He
also plied lathis in self defence.

41. Appellant-Misri in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. further stated that on the
date of occurrence Rameshwar was not at home and when he returned, he found Rajpal in his
house. Rameshwar tried to apprehend Rajpal, but in vain. Thereafter, Babu, Bhikhari and Rajpal
came and started assaulting Rameshwar. On hearing the noise, he along with Chet Ram also
reached there. All the three Babu, Bhikhari and Rajpal plied lathis. He also plied lathi in self
defence.

42. From the perusal of statements of accused-appellants Rameshwar, Chet Ram and Misri,
it is crystal clear that it was Babu, Bhikhari and Rajpal, who assaulted accused-appellantRameshwar and in self defence lathis were plied by the appellants Rameshwar, Chet Ram and
Misri.It appears that the learned Trial Court while discussing the cross-case has misread the
statement of the accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to hold the appellants aggressor and
that the first informant and others have plied lathis in self defence.
4 All. Rammu & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1121
43. Learned Trial Court at paragraph No. 10 of the impugned judgement has held that "the
accused persons have also entered upon their defence and have examined DW-1, Dr. S.C. Shukla
who had medically examined one of the accused persons."

44. It appears that the learned Trial Court has incorporated a wrong facts in the impugned
judgement inasmuch as DW-1, Dr. S.C. Shukla has medically examined three accused persons
(instead of one as held by the learned Trial Court), whose injuries have already been discussed
above and at the cost of repetition, the same are reproduced below:

45. Injuries of accused-Chet Ram examined at 01:00 AM on 19.08.1986 examined by DW1 Dr. S.C. Shukla:

 1. Lacerated wound 6 cm x 4 cm x muscle deep on the back of neck on the left side of mid
posterior line, fresh blood clot present in the wound, Direction of the wound is oblique with its
anterior and lying left lateral.

 2. Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on the right side of right calf muscle, colour red.

 The injuries are simple, fresh and caused by blunt object.

46. Injuries of accused-Misri examined at 01:30 AM on 19.08.1986 examined by DW-1
Dr. S.C. Shukla

 1. Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm skin deep on the front of upper fifth of left leg at the
level of left tibial tubersity. Fresh blood clot present in the wound.

 2. Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on the outer aspect of upper end of right FA, colour red.

 The injuries are simple, fresh and caused by blunt object.

47. Injuries of accused-Rameshwar examined at 01:45 AM on 19.08.1986 examined by
DW-1 Dr. S.C. Shukla

 1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep on the left side of forehead above the left
eyebrow, fresh blood clot.

 2. Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm, on the outer aspect of lower end of right forearm, colour red.

 The injuries are simple, fresh and caused by blunt object.

48. From the above, it is apparent that the learned Trial Court has also not considered the
injuries of the accused-appellants namely Rameshwar, Chet Ram and Misri.

49. We also find that report from the side of the appellants was lodged at 00:15 AM in the night
intervening 18/19.08.1986 in which the incident was alleged to have taken place at 08:00 PM, whereas from
1122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the side of the first informant, the report was lodged at 08:15 AM on 19.08.1986, in which the incident was
alleged to have taken place at 05:00 PM on 18.08.1986. The first information is delayed by more than 15
hours. Explanation tendered by the prosecution for the delay in lodging the first information report is that
after the incident the first informant while going to the police station along with injured Raj Pal and Babu
Ram to lodge the first information and when he reached near village Sanda at about 12:00 in the night,
injured-Raj Pal (deceased) succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, he returned back to village and could not go
to the police station to lodge the first information report on account of flood in the river. The distance
between the police station Khudaganj and the place of occurrence is 07 Kms. As per evidence of PW-1,
Bhikhari, after the occurrence at 05:00 PM, he along with Raj Pal and Babu Ram left for the police station,
which was about 07 Kms. and when he reached near village Sanda at about 12:00 in the night, injured-Raj
Pal died and thereafter he returned to village. The explanation tendered by the prosecution is too hard to
swallow inasmuch as the first informant could not cover the distance of 7 kms. in seven hours. Whereas as
per version of the accused-appellants, the incident in question took place at 08:00 PM and their report has
been lodged at 00:15 AM, i.e. in four hours and fifteen minutes.

50. Further the injury of the injured Babu Ram was examined at 10:00 AM on 20.3.1986, which
was allegedly sustained at 05:00 PM on 18.03.1986, whereas the injuries of the accused-appellants were
examined at 01:00 AM on 18/19.3.1986.

51. In view of the above, we are of the view that the learned Trial Court has failed to examine the
case
of
the
accused-appellants
in
respect
of
cross
case
in
corrective
perspective.
52. Accordingly, the order dated 29.4.1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions
Trial No. 403 of 1986 is set aside.

53. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.

54. Appellants Chet Ram and Rameshwar are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties
are discharged.

55. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned along with necessary
documents for compliance and compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months.
---------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1122
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1548 of 2026

Rizwan ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent