# Ranvir Singh & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 246
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2034 of 1984
- **Bench:** Siddharth, Vinai Kumar Dwivedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranvir-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54910
- **Pages:** 14

## Text

_Characters 0–39,915 of 51,810. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39915 for what follows._

246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 4 ILRA 246
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2034 of 1984

Ranvir Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether conviction under Ss. 302/34 IPC could be sustained on the basis of prosecution
evidence in view of doubtful ocular testimony, admitted enmity, material contradictions, non-examination of a
material witness and lack of reliable corroboration. (Paras 16-38)

Headnotes
Criminal Law - Murder - Sustainability of conviction based on testimony of alleged eye-witnesses
whose presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful and whose evidence contained material
contradictions and improvements - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302, 34 - Informant admittedly
not present at the place of occurrence at the time of incident; alleged eye-witnesses found
unreliable; conduct of witnesses unnatural; testimony not inspiring confidence - Conviction
cannot be sustained on doubtful ocular evidence. (Paras 17-24, 36-38)
Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Effect of material improvements and contradictions in
statements of prosecution witnesses - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 161 - Where
witnesses introduce material facts in Court which were not stated before the Investigating
Officer, such improvements affect credibility and render evidence unsafe for reliance. (Paras 18,
20, 21, 33, 36)
Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Whether suspicion arising from previous hostility can
substitute legal proof - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302, 34 - Suspicion, however grave, cannot
take the place of proof; conviction must rest upon clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence
proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 25-29)
Criminal Law - Enmity - Effect of admitted civil and criminal litigation between parties - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302, 34 - Enmity is a double-edged weapon; while it may furnish motive
for commission of offence, it may equally furnish motive for false implication; in absence of
reliable evidence conviction cannot be founded merely on existence of enmity. (Paras 18, 24-29)
Criminal Law - Recovery Evidence - Evidentiary value of articles allegedly belonging to accused
recovered from place of occurrence - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302, 34 - Recovery of cap
(topa), muffler and waist-cloth (tahmad) from spot not conclusively connected with accused; no
witness capable of identifying such articles as regularly used by accused examined - Recovery
held insufficient to connect accused with crime. (Paras 31-33)
Criminal Law - Investigation - Non-examination of material witness and failure to recover
weapon of offence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Investigation proceedings - nonproduction of material witness named in charge-sheet and absence of recovery of firearm or
knife from accused constitute circumstances creating serious doubt regarding prosecution
version. (Paras 34-35)
4 All. Ranvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
247
Criminal Law - Assessment of Ocular Evidence - Occurrence allegedly witnessed at 06:30 A.M. in
first week of January amidst heavy fog - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302, 34 - Claim of
witnessing occurrence held doubtful where surrounding circumstances relating to visibility
rendered prosecution version suspect. (Para 30)
Criminal Law - Appeal Against Conviction - Failure of Trial Court to properly appreciate evidence
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302, 34 - Trial Court having ignored major contradictions,
doubtful conduct of witnesses and infirmities in prosecution case, conviction held unsustainable;
accused entitled to acquittal by extending benefit of doubt. (Paras 37-39)
Held: The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - The alleged eye-witnesses were
found unreliable due to doubtful presence, material contradictions, improvements and unnatural conduct -
Recovery evidence was inconclusive and a material witness was withheld. (Paras 17-24, 31-36)
Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof - Mere enmity, in the absence of cogent and reliable
evidence, cannot sustain conviction. (Paras 25-29)
Conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC was set aside and the appellant acquitted -appeal allowed. (Paras
3739) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam; (2013) 12 SCC 406; State of Odisha v. Banabihari Mohapatra and Another;
(2021) 15 SCC 268; Sushil and Others v. State of U.P.; 1995 SSC (Cri.) 388; State of Punjab v. Sucha
Singh; (2003) 3 SCC 153

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
Murder; Appreciation of evidence; Eye-witness; Direct evidence; Suspicion; Proof; Benefit of doubt; Enmity;
False implication; Civil litigation; Criminal litigation; Contradictions; Improvements; Material witness; nonexamination of witness; Recovery; Cap (topa); Muffler; Waist-cloth (tahmad); Country-made pistol; Knife;
Place of occurrence; Visibility; Heavy fog; Acquittal; Conviction; Section 302 IPC; Section 34 IPC

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal arising out of the judgment and order dated 26.07.1984 passed
in Sessions Trial No. 163 of 1979 arising out of Case Crime No. 4 of 1979, under Section 302/34 IPC, Police
Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, whereby the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced to life
imprisonment.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Mr. Rahul Misra, learned counsel for the surviving appellant.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Mr. G.N. Kanaujiya, learned A.G.A.-I for the State/opposite party.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Rahul Misra, learned counsel for the surviving appellant, Omkar; Mr. G.N.
Kanaujiya, learned A.G.A.-I for the State/opposite party and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed by accused-appellants, Ranvir Singh, Omkar, Mangey
Ram and Hem Raj Singh against the judgment and order dated 26.07.1984 of learned Trial Court
passed in Sessions Trial No. 163 of 1979 (State v. Ranvir Singh and others) arising out of Case
Crime No. 4 of 1979, under Section 302/34 IPC, Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad.
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. Brief facts of the case are that informant Gajraj Singh (PW-7) got scribed the written report,
Exhibit Ka-10, by Bhanwar Singh and lodged an F.I.R., Exhibit Ka-2, on 05.01.1979 at 07:00 A.M.
against Ranvir Singh, Omkar Singh, Mangey Ram and Hem Raj Singh alleging inter alia that
"litigation is going on between us and our uncle Ranvir and grandfather Chunni, who have been
living for some time in village Pathauli, and they have executed an agreement of the land in favour
of Mangey Ram and Hem Raj of our village, and now both the parties have joined together. My
father, who was pursuing the land case, while he was alive, these people had no hope of winning
the case. Therefore, they were planning to kill my father (Shyam Singh). Today on 05.01.1979 at
about 6:30 A.M., my father and my maternal uncle (Segram) were coming from the jungle when
they reached near Mahavir's chak and the fields of Brahmapal Singh, then from the sugar-cane
field of Mahavir Singh, Ranvir Singh s/o Chunni, Omkar Singh s/o Ranvir Singh, Mangey Ram
and Hem Raj s/o Chhajju Singh came out and all four surrounded my father. Ranvir Singh and
Hem Raj had knives in their hands. Mangey Ram and Omkar Singh had country-made pistols.
These persons said that today we will give you taste of litigation. All of them suddenly attacked
upon him with country-made pistols and knives and caused injuries to him. After receiving injuries,
he fell down and succumbed to death. This incident was witnessed by Segram s/o Dharm Singh,
resident of village Saidpur, Balkishan s/o Harpal Singh, Veersen s/o Aman Singh, Jhabbar Singh
s/o Itwara, resident of village Abupur. My father's dead body is lying at the spot. Please get my
report lodged and appropriate action be taken."

4. After lodging the written report, Exhibit Ka-10, an F.I.R. was registered against the
accused-appellants at Case Crime No. 4 of 1979, under Section 302 IPC by Constable 498 Satyapal
Singh (PW-2) on 05.01.1979 at 07:00 AM. On receiving information about the incident, Ram
Charan Lal Sharma (PW-11) reached at the spot with police team including S.I. Ramraj and S.I.
P.D. Sharma. On the direction of Ram Charan Lal Sharma (PW-11), S.I. P.D. Sharma conducted
panchayatnama of the dead body of deceased, Shyam Singh, and prepared the same, Exhibit Ka-5.
S.I. P.D. Sharma also prepared challan nash, Exhibit Ka-6, letter to C.M.O., Exhibit Ka-7, photo
nash, Exhibit Ka-8, letter to R.I., Exhibit Ka-9. S.I. P.D. Sharma also took sample of bloodstained
soil and plain soil and prepared fard memo as Exhibit Ka-20 and Ka-21. He also collected four live
cartridges, two empty cartridges, one plastic tikli (button), five chindi, one striped waist-cloth
(tahmad dharidar), one muffler and one cap (topa) from the place of occurrence and prepared
recovery memo, Exhibit Ka-13. From the place of occurrence, S.I. P.D. Sharma collected burnt
clothes, hair and two teeth stuck with muscle of deceased, Shyam Singh. He also collected kheru of
white colour bloodstained on which mark of cut and burn was present and prepared fard, Exhibit
Ka-14, and burn clothes, Exhibit Ka-22. Investigating Officer Ram Charan Lal Sharma (PW-11)
prepared site plan of the place of occurrence as Exhibit Ka-11. The dead body of the deceased,
Shyam Singh, was sent for conducting post mortem examination. The Investigating Officer
recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also sent all articles and
objects collected from the place of occurrence for chemical examination to Forensic Science
Laboratory. After completing all formalities of the investigation, Investigating Officer Ram Charan
Lal Sharma (PW-11) submitted charge-sheet, Exhibit Ka-15, against the accused-appellants.

5. Dr. S.C. Goyal (PW-1) conducted autopsy of the dead body of the deceased, Shyam Singh,
and prepared the post mortem report, Exhibit Ka-1. He found following ante mortem injuries on the
dead body of the deceased, Shyam Singh:
4 All. Ranvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
249

"1. Incised wound 1 cm *1/2 cm *bone deep on the middle part of the forehead, 2 cm
from the root of the nose; margins clearly placed.

2. Lacerated wound 2 cm *1/2 cm *bone deep on the right-side head 8 cm above.

3. Lacerated wound 3cm *1/4cm *bone deep on right side head, 10 cm above the right
ear.

4. Lacerated wound 2 cm *1 cm *scalp deep on left side head 8 cm above left ear.

5. Lacerated wound 2 1/2 cm *1 1/2 cm *bone deep on the left side head, 10 cm above the
left ear.

6. Lacerated wound 1 cm *1 cm *bone deep on left side head, 9 cm above from the left
ear; margins irregular.

7. Incised wound 2 cm *1/2cm *muscle deep on the left mastoid region, 3 cm behind the
left ear; margins clearly cut.

8. Incised wound 1 cm *1/2 cm *muscle deep on the left angle of mouth.

9. Gunshot wound of entry 3 cm *2 1/2 cm *bone deep on right side of face middle of the
lower mandible blackening and scorching present around the injury in an area of 8 cm* 6 cm six
big pellets recovered from the wound.

10. Blackening and scorching present on right upper arm (upper third), extending up to
injury no. 9.

11. Blackening and scorching present in an area of 12 cm* 8 cm on the back of the right
forearm.

12. Gunshot wound of entry 2 cm *2 cm * chest cavity deep on left side front of chest, 5
cm above the nipple at 1 o'clock.

13. Incised wound 2 cm *1 cm *chest cavity deep left side back of chest, 9 cm below the
lower border of scapula."

6. In internal examination, left side of ribs nos. 2 and 3 of the left side of the chest was found
broken. Right side of lower jaw was also found broken. During the post mortem examination, six
bigger size of pellets were removed from the right side of the face. One large round pellet and
pieces of wadding were removed from the right chest cavity that were handed over to the constable,
who brought the dead body of the deceased to the post mortem house. According to the opinion of
Dr. S.C. Goyal (PW-1), cause of death of the deceased was haemorrhage and shock due to ante
mortem injuries. According to Dr. S.C. Goyal (PW-1), these injuries were sufficient to cause death
to the deceased.

7. Charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer in the concerned Magistrate Court.
Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, learned Magistrate committed the
case to the Court of Session.

8. Charges were framed against the accused-appellants on 19.07.1982 under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC by the Trial Court. The accused-appellants denied from the charges framed
against them and claimed trial.

9. To substantiate the charges against the accused-appellants, prosecution adduced Dr. S.C.
Goyal (PW-1), Satyapal Singh (PW-2), Shyam Sundar Dubey (PW-3), Madan Pal (PW-4), Sanjay
Gupta (PW-5), Tikam Singh (PW-6), Gajraj Singh (PW-7), Bir Sen (PW-8), Balkishan (PW-9),
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sewag Ram (PW-10) and Ramcharan Lal Sharma (PW-11). Apart from the above ocular evidence,
prosecution also relied on documentary evidence from Exhibits Ka-1 to Ka-16.

10. Trial Court recorded evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Thereafter, accused-appellants
were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accusedappellants denied from all allegations levelled by the prosecution against them. They have also
stated that they have falsely been implicated in this case due to village rivalry and enmity between
them. The surviving accused-appellant, Omkar, has stated that he lived in village Pathauli. A case
relating to attempt to murder him was instituted against Mangey and Gajraj, in which they were
convicted. From that time, I left the village. Due to this enmity, I had been falsely implicated in this
case.

11. After hearing the arguments of the prosecution and defence and perusing the evidence,
learned Trial Court found the accused-appellants guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC
and convicted them for life imprisonment.

12. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.07.1984,
accused-appellants preferred this criminal appeal before this Court.

13. During pendency of this criminal appeal, appellant nos. 1, 3 and 4, Ranvir Singh, Mangey
Ram and Hem Raj Singh have died. Therefore, the criminal appeal against appellant nos. 1, 3 and 4
stands dismissed as abated. Now, the criminal appeal is being adjudicated only in respect of
appellant no. 2, Omkar.

14. Learned counsel for surviving accused-appellant, Omkar, has submitted that the date and
time of the incident is 05.01.1979 at 06:30 A.M. However, informant Gajraj Singh (PW-7) lodged a
written report, Exhibit Ka-10, naming all accused-appellants, with surprising promptness within
half an hour at 07:00 A.M. at Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad. The distance of
police station from the place of occurrence is about two miles. It is also submitted that it is
surprising that only within half an hour, informant so quickly and rapidly got scribed a written
report from his brother, Bhanwar Singh, and reached the police station Muradnagar and lodged
written report, Exhibit Ka-10. This fact made the prosecution story doubtful. Apart from this, the
date 05.01.1979 falls in the winter season. In the first week of January, at 06:30 A.M., the sun
generally does not rise. In the month of January, even during the first week, there is usually heavy
fog in the atmosphere. Learned counsel for surviving accused-appellant, Omkar, has also submitted
that although prosecution produced informant Gajraj Singh (PW-7), Bir Sen (PW-8), Balkishan
(PW-9) and Sewag Ram (PW-10) as eye-witnesses of the incident, however, from the perusal of
their evidence, it is clear that they have not seen the occurrence with their own eyes. Evidence of
these prosecution witnesses speaks these facts loudly itself. Prosecution projected these prosecution
witnesses, Gajraj (PW-7), Bir Sen (PW-8), Balkishan (PW-9) and Sewag Ram (PW-10) as
projected witnesses with due consideration, deliberation and afterthoughts. From the place of
occurrence and the material articles recovered therefrom, it appears that the deceased, Shyam
Singh, was killed at night by some unknown persons. When dead body of the deceased, Shyam
Singh, was found lying at the place of occurrence and this news reached his house, then due to
previous enmity because a large number of litigation including civil and criminal nature was
4 All. Ranvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
251
pending between the deceased, Shyam Singh, and prosecution witnesses on one side and accusedappellants on other, prosecution, on the ground of suspicion, has falsely implicated the accusedappellants in the alleged crime after deliberation and afterthought, with a view to take revenge. The
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are not trustworthy and reliable. By their evidence itself, it
is clear that so called eye-witnesses of prosecution have not witnessed the happening of the
occurrence with their own eyes. It is also submitted that prosecution was unable to prove that so
called muffler, cap (topa) and waist-cloth (tahmad), which were recovered from the place of
occurrence, were surely of the appellant. The prosecution was unable to produce any witness, who
could prove and testify by their evidence that he has seen Omkar wearing the above muffler, cap
(topa) and waist-cloth (tahmad) regularly. However, without considering and discussing these
material facts in its judgment and order, learned Trial Court only on the ground of evidence of socalled eye-witnesses of prosecution, held the surviving accused-appellant, Omkar, and the deceased
appellants guilty for commission of the crime. There is no reasonable discussion regarding the
culpability and liability of the appellant that inspires confidence in the mind of the learned Trial
Court, on the basis of which the Trial Court was convinced that the surviving accused-appellant,
along with the other deceased appellants, had committed the alleged crime. Learned Trial Court has
not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and in legal manner and delivered a wrong
judgment and order against surviving accused-appellant, Omkar, wholly against the settled
principles of law. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, surviving accusedappellant, Omkar, is liable to be acquitted and judgment and order of conviction and sentence
passed by learned Trial Court is liable to be set aside.

15. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the
arguments of learned counsel for the accused-appellant and submitted that this is a case of direct
evidence. Prosecution witness Gajraj Singh (PW-7), Bir Sen (PW-8), Balkishan (PW-9) and Sewag
Ram (PW-10) were present at the place of occurrence at the time when incident happened.
Surviving accused-appellant, Omkar, with other dead appellants have brutally committed murder of
the deceased, Shyam Singh, by assaulting with knife and by firing upon him with country-made
pistol in front of the prosecution witnesses. There are no major or material contradictions in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses by reason of which the prosecution evidence could be
doubted. Learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper prospective and delivered a
reasonable judgment and order, which is based on cogent evidence and according to the settled
principles of law in this respect. There is no force in this criminal appeal of the accused-appellant,
Omkar. The appeal is devoid of merits, hence is liable to be rejected.

16. In the light of the above arguments of learned counsel for the surviving appellant, Omkar,
and the learned A.G.A. for the State, it is appropriate and judicious to peruse and analyse the
prosecution evidence to determine whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt.

17. From the perusal of the evidence of informant Gajraj Singh (PW-7), who is son of
deceased Shyam Singh, it is revealed that this witness is not an eye-witness of the incident. At the
time of the incident, this witness was not present at the place of occurrence but he was at his home.
This fact was itself admitted by this witness in his evidence that at the time of incident, I was at my
home and Jhabbar has come home and informed me that accused-appellants, Mangey, Hem Raj,
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ranvir and Omkar, have killed your father Shyam Singh and he also told that Ranvir and Hem Raj
had knife in their hand and rest of the accused had country-made pistols in their hand." According
to this witness as told by Jhabbar, he went to the spot. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, it is
established that informant Gajraj Singh (PW-7) is not an eye-witness of the incident because at the
time of happening of the incident, he was not present at the spot. Written report, Exhibit Ka-10, has
been got scribed by this witness by his brother, Bhanwar Singh. All the facts written by writer
Bhanwar Singh on the dictation of Gajraj Singh (PW-7), were stated by Jhabbar and other
prosecution witnesses. In other words, Jhabbar and other prosecution witnesses have narrated the
happening of the incident to informant Gajraj Singh (PW-7) and he in the same way has narrated
the prosecution story in the written report, Exhibit Ka-10.

18. From the evidence of the informant, Gajraj Singh (PW-7), it appears that, according to this
witness, a civil litigation was pending and continuing between the prosecution side on one hand
and the accused-appellants on the other. From the evidence of this witness, it emerges that not only
civil litigation was pending between the prosecution and defence sides, but several criminal cases
were also pending between them. In some cases, the prosecution witnesses supported the
prosecution story, while in other cases, the accused-appellants also appeared as witnesses in
support of their prosecution version. It also revealed that there was bitter enmity between both sides
due to civil and criminal litigations between them. Gajraj Singh (PW-7) stated that before three
days of the incident, accused-appellants have threatened his father, Shyam Singh, to kill him and
they have also threatened that we will teach you about the litigation. From the evidence of this
witness as submitted by him in the Court, it emerged that at the time of the incident, maternal uncle
of this witness, Sewag Ram, Bir Sen and Balkishan, were present at the place of occurrence when
accused-appellants have committed the crime. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, it is
revealed that this witness is not an eye-witness of the incident. There was bitter enmity between
both sides since civil and criminal litigation were pending between them. Apart from the above
facts, in his cross-examination, this witness has stated that I had told the Investigating Officer that
the accused had told my father that they would give him the taste of litigation. If the Investigating
Officer had not written this fact in my statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., I cannot tell reason for
this. I had stated in tehriri report that Jhabbar had come to my home and told about the incident and
I told these things to the Investigating Officer. If the Investigating Officer had not written in my
statement and Bhanwar Singh had not written these things in the tehriri report, then I cannot tell
reason for this. In this way, we find that this witness has made major improvement in his evidence
against the statement given to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Meaning
thereby, this witness with a view to give force to the prosecution story stated those facts and things
in the Court which were not stated by this witness to the Investigating Officer under Section 161
Cr.P.C. Thus, from the perusal of the whole evidence of informant Gajraj Singh (PW-7), we find
that this witness only after happening of the incident and receiving information about the incident
has lodged the written report at the police station naming accused-appellants as accused for the
commission of the crime. Apart from this, we find no other relevancy in the evidence of this
witness.

19. Bir Sen (PW-8) is also said to be the eye-witness of the incident. This witness has stated
that at the place of occurrence on 05.01.1979 at 06:30 A.M., this witness was going to water his
field from the tube-well. Then he heard the noise in the sugar-cane field of Brahmapal. Jhabbar was
4 All. Ranvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
253
also present with him. According to him, when he reached near the field of Brahmapal then he had
seen that Hem Raj and Ranvir Singh were assaulting Shyam Singh with knives. Shyam Singh was
retreating in order to defend himself. Mangey fired a shot from a country-made pistol at Shyam
Singh, but the shot missed. Thereafter, Mangey struck Shyam Singh on the head with the butt of
the country-made pistol. By the assault of the accused, Shyam Singh fell down. Omkar fired a shot
from the country-made pistol at Shyam Singh, which hit in his chest. Mangey wanted to shoot from
the country-made pistol but the cartridge fell down. Then Mangey loaded second cartridge and
fired shot near the right ear of Shyam Singh, which hit him. This witness also stated that along with
him, Singh Ram, Jhabbar Singh and Balkishan had also seen this incident at the place of
occurrence. According to this witness, at the time of committing of the offence, cap (topa),
muffler and waist-cloth (tahmad) of Omkar had fell down on the spot. From the evidence of this
witness, it is emerged that Chunni, father of the deceased Shyam Singh and accused Ranvir, had
left the village Abupur before this incident and went to village Pathauli. From this fact, it is clear
that at the time of the incident, surviving accused-appellant, Omkar, and his father deceasedappellant, Ranvir, was not living in the same village where incident happened. In other words,
surviving accused-appellant, Omkar, and his father, Ranvir, and his grandfather, Chunni, were
living in other village Pathauli at the time of the incident. From the evidence of this witness, it is
revealed that the incident happened for about 3-4 minutes. From the perusal of the crossexamination of this witness, it is revealed that he has stated that the Investigating Officer had taken
my statement. I had told him that Jhabbar also went on tube-well with me. I could not tell any
reason that why the Investigating Officer has not written this thing in my statement. This witness
has also stated that I had told the Investigating Officer that the noise was coming from the field of
Brahmapal. If the Investigating Officer had not written this thing, I cannot tell any reason for this.

20. Thus, from the perusal of the evidence of Bir Sen (PW-8), this fact is revealed that
according to this witness, four accused-appellants including surviving accused-appellant, Omkar,
were attacking Shyam Singh by knife and country-made pistol. However, the statement of Bir Sen
(PW-8) appears to be doubtful because if four accused persons simultaneously attacked the
deceased Shyam Singh with knives and country-made pistols, there is a possibility that some pellets
from the firearms could also have hit the accused persons, since according to this witness, all the
accused persons were assaulting. All the accused surrounded the deceased Shyam Singh and were
assaulting from very close range. However, there is no evidence of this kind in the record that some
injuries were also caused on the body of the accused persons. From the evidence of this witness, it
is also revealed that this witness has also improved his statement in the Court against the statement
which was given by him to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Evidence of this
witness appears to be concocted and afterthought. From the perusal and appreciation of the whole
evidence, it is apparent that the prosecution tried to project this witness as an eye-witness of the
incident. However, from the perusal of the evidence of this witness, it is clear that this witness has
not seen the happening of the incident with his own eyes. Although this witness has stated that
incident happened for 3-4 minutes but this witness has not made any attempt by calling people of
the nearby area to save life of the deceased, Shyam Singh, from assailants. Despite the fact that
incident happened for 3-4 minutes but this witness has not made any attempt to save the deceased
Shyam Singh. This witness has also not made any noise and hue and cry so that people of the
nearby houses could come at the place of the occurrence to save the life of the deceased, Shyam
Singh. In this way, conduct of this witness Bir Sen (PW-8) does not inspire confidence. This
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
witness has stated the happening of the incident in the way which appears to be concocted and
artificial and creates reasonable doubt about his presence at the place of occurrence. Due to this
reason, we find that testimony of this witness is suspicious and unworthy of credit. Hence, we
would not rely on the evidence of this witness in support of the prosecution story.

21. Balkishan (PW-9) has also stated the happening of the incident in the same way in which
Bir Sen (PW-8) has stated the prosecution story. The only difference is that according to this
witness on the day of the incident on 05.01.1979 at 06:30 A.M., he was returning on his cart
(buggi) from Modi Nagar Sugar Mill after delivering his sugar-cane at the mill. When this witness
reached his village near the field of Brahmapal, he heard Bir Sen, Jhabbar, and Segram shouting to
run towards Shyam Singh and save him. However, if we believe the statement of Balkishan (PW-9)
that Bir Sen, Segram, and Jhabbar made a noise and called upon people to reach the place of
occurrence to save the life of Shyam Singh, it is surprising that despite the noise made by these
three persons, none of the neighbours or persons from nearby houses heard the noise or came to the
place of occurrence to save Shyam Singh. Only this witness Balkishan (PW-9) has heard the noise
of Bir Sen, Segram and Jhabbar. It is also surprising that other prosecution witness Jhabbar was not
produced by the prosecution in the Court. Jhabbar ran towards the house of Shyam Singh and
informed Gajraj Singh (PW-7) about the incident, but none of the prosecution eye-witnesses called
for any help from the neighbours or persons residing nearby. This witness has also stated that
during the incident, cap (topa), muffler and waist-cloth (tahmad) of Omkar have fell down on the
spot. From the evidence of this witness, it is also revealed that this witness was also accused in
other cases and appellants were prosecution witnesses in that cases. According to this witness, the
sun had not risen at the time of the incident, but it was daylight and the sun was about to rise. It was
a winter day, and there was moonlight at the time of the incident. This witness has also stated
during cross-examination that I had not told to the Investigating Officer that cap (topa), muffler and
waist-cloth (tahmad) of Omkar had fell down on the spot because he has not questioned me.

22. Thus, from the perusal of the evidence of Balkishan (PW-9), it appears that this witness
has also stated in the same way, style and manner as was stated by Bir Sen (PW-8) in the Court.
From this fact, it is revealed that prosecution witness Balkishan (PW-9) was also not present at the
place of occurrence when incident happened. The prosecution also projected Balkishan (PW-9) to
support its case. Due to this reason, Balkishan (PW-9) has stated the happening of the incident in
the same way and manner as was stated by Bir Sen (PW-8). From the evidence of this witness, it is
also revealed that the sun had not risen at the time of the incident but was about to rise. It is also
surprising fact that none of the people from the nearby area or neighbours, who were residing in
houses near or at some distance from the place of occurrence, heard the noise of Bir Sen, Segram,
and Jhabbar, whereas only this witness, Balkishan (PW-9), has heard them shouting to run towards
the spot and save Shyam Singh. From the perusal of the evidence of Balkishan (PW-9), it appears
that this witness is also a projected witness by the prosecution to support its case. However, from
the evidence of this witness, we find that statement of this witness also does not inspire confidence.
In this way, we find that presence of this witness Balkishan (PW-9) is also doubtful at the place of
occurrence when the incident happened.

23. Prosecution witness Sewag Ram (PW-10) is brother-in-law of the deceased, Shyam Singh.
In other words, he is real brother of wife of the deceased, Shyam Singh. From perusal of the
4 All. Ranvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
255
evidence of this witness, it is revealed that this witness has stated that he had come to the house of
Shyam Singh two days prior to the incident upon hearing that a quarrel was going on between
Shyam Singh and his brother over agricultural land. According to this witness, he along with
deceased, Shyam Singh, had gone to ease themselves towards jungle. As per the statement of this
witness, when he and Shyam Singh after easing themselves were returning towards village and
reached at the field of Brahmapal then from the sugar-cane field of Mahabir, Ranvir and Hem Raj
with knives and Mangey and Omkar with country-made pistols came out. Hem Raj and Ranvir
assaulted with knives on Shyam Singh. According to this witness, when he made a noise then
Omkar and Mangey have said that go away otherwise we will shoot you. Thereafter, in his
evidence, nearly in the same way, this witness has also stated the prosecution story as was stated by
other prosecution witness, Bir Sen (PW-8) and Balkishan (PW-9). From the evidence of this
witness, this fact again emerged and corroborated that deceased-appellant, Ranvir, with his father
Chunni and children were living in village Pathauli. Thus, from the above statement of this witness,
this fact emerged that the deceased-appellant, Ranvir, and surviving accused-appellant, Omkar,
were not living in the same village where incident happened but they were living in village
Pathauli, away from village Abupur. This witness has accepted in his cross-examination that village
of this witness is eight kosh away from the place of occurrence. This witness has also stated in his
cross-examination that he has not stayed at the place of occurrence. From there, he went to the
house of Shyam Singh and from there he went to his village. According to this witness, after one
month, Investigating Officer called him at the police station and recorded his statement. From the
perusal of the whole evidence of Sewag Ram (PW-10), it is also apparent that this witness is also
not an eye-witness of the incident. This witness has not seen the incident with his own eyes. The
prosecution with consideration and afterthought projected this witness to be present at the home of
Shyam Singh prior to two days of the incident. Prosecution tried unsuccessfully to project this
witness with this story that he went to ease himself with the deceased Shyam Singh and when he
along with deceased, Shyam Singh, were returning from jungle to their home, then incident
happened. In this way, prosecution although tried to project this witness as an eye-witness of the
incident, however, he has himself stated that he has not stayed at the place of occurrence and had
went to the home of Shyam Singh and from there, he went to his village. This witness is a real
brother-in-law of the deceased, Shyam Singh, and maternal uncle of the informant Gajraj Singh
(PW-7) and Bhanwar Singh. In spite of this fact and his close relationship with the deceased Shyam
Singh and his family, being the real brother of the deceased's wife, this witness did not consider it
proper to stay at the place of occurrence, accompany the dead body to the post-mortem house, or
participate in the cremation proceedings of the deceased Shyam Singh. The above conduct of this
witness clearly indicates that he was later, upon consideration and afterthought, projected by the
prosecution as an eye-witness to support and strengthen the prosecution story and to falsely
implicate the surviving accused-appellant, Omkar, along with the other deceased-appellants. From
the conduct and behaviour of this witness, it is also explicitly clear that he was not present with the
deceased, Shyam Singh, at the time of the incident. Thus, from the overall perusal and analysis of
the statement of Sewagram (PW-10), we find that evidence and statement of this witness creates a
doubt and suspicion about the facts as stated by this witness in the Court in the support of the
prosecution story. Due to this reason, we are unable to believe the testimony of this witness as
reliable and trustworthy.
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. From the perusal of the whole evidence of the prosecution witness as available on record
and as stated by the informant Gajraj Singh (PW-7), Bir Sen (PW-8), Balkishan (PW-9) and
Sewagram (PW-10), it is clear that many civil and criminal cases were pending between the
prosecution and defence sides. The litigation was both civil and criminal in nature. Cases under
Section 307 IPC were pending against the prosecution side, in which prosecution witnesses were
arrayed as accused persons. There were also criminal cases in which one side was the prosecution
and the other side was arrayed as the accused. There was civil litigation pending between them
relating to agricultural land of Chunni Lal, father of deceased, Shyam Singh, and deceasedappellant, Ranvir Singh. Cases were also pending in Revenue Court. It is also revealed that there
was bitter enmity between the prosecution sides and accused-appellants. From the perusal of the
entire prosecution evidence, it is apparent that due to bitter enmity and suspicion between the
prosecution side and the defence side, the surviving accused-appellant, Omkar, along with the other
deceased appellants, has been falsely implicated in the present case for the commission of the
alleged crime.

25. However, only on the ground of suspicion and doubt without cogent and reliable evidence
which must be beyond reasonable doubt, no accused persons could be held guilty for commission
of the crime.

26. The Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam; (2013) 12 SCC 406 has held in
para-13 as under:

"13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a
large difference between something that may be proved, and something that will be proved. In a
criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of
proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between may be and must be is quite large,
and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to
ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof.