# Ranvir Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 46
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-26
- **Case number:** Capital Case No. 4050 of 2016
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranvir-singh-v-state-of-u-p-50812
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Law-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section 374(2) - Indian Penal
Code,1860- Sections 302/34, 302/120B -
Arms Act, 1878 - Section 25 of-Challenge
to-Capital punishment- ocular testimony
of PW-2 and PW-3 that supports the
prosecution
case,
is
reliable
and
trustworthy-The contradictory statements
have been made with an ulterior motive to
9 All. Ranvir Singh Vs. State of U.P.
47
save their real brother-The portion of their
oral testimony that corroborates the
prosecution case can be segregated from
the unreliable statements made in their
testimony and can be considered as
credible evidence-It is settled law that the
court should separate the grain from the
chaff
while
appreciating
the
oral
testimony-These witnesses are not only
neighbours but also the real brothers of
the deceased-It is entirely natural for
them to be curious to know what is
happening
in
their
brother's
nearby
residence upon hearing the sounds of
gunshots in the odd hours of the nightConsidering the circumstances, where
multiple rounds of firing occurred over a
span of ten to twenty minutes, it is
expected that both witnesses would have
witnessed the incident- Furthermore, the
material on record indicates that due to
prolonged
cross-examination
with
significant intervals, their testimony may
have been influenced by the defence- The
oral testimony of PW-1 is also reliable, as
there are no significant contradictions or
serious discrepancies that would render
his
testimony
untrustworthy-The
prosecution has successfully established
the motive, and it is evident from the
manner in which the incidents occurred
and the intent behind the offense that
only the appellant, and no one else,
committed the crime- the trial court has
rightly placed reliance on the statements
of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3-The finding of guilt
for offense under Section 302/34 IPC
rendered by the trial court is just and
proper-From the prosecution evidence,
the charge under Section 302/34 IPC
stands proved beyond reasonable doubt,
against
the
appellant-However,
the
finding of guilt returned by the trial court
for offence under Section 25 of the Arms
Act based on the evidence of recovery
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is
not sustainable- the appellant-accused is
over 75 years of age. Considering all facts
and circumstances, imposing the death
penalty at this point of time will not be
just-the sentence of death is modified to
imprisonment for life with a fine of
Rupees two lacs.(Para 1 to 82)
The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,897 of 103,508. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39897 for what follows._

46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stated that PW-2 and PW-3 had reached the
place of incident and they saw the incident;
whereas PW-2 stated that they had seen the
appellant and the first informant in the
Varanda.

(v) No kerosene soaking earth
and simple earth were recovered from the
place of incident. PW-4 Investigating
Officer had stated that he did not see any
kerosene oil over the place of incident at
the time of inspection.

32. The contrary view taken by the
trial court is against the weight of the
evidence.
I
hardly
find
objective
evaluation, analysis, or scrutiny of evidence
in a proper perspective. The serious
infirmities pointed out by the defence
raising doubt with regard to the prosecution
case have been brushed aside by the
learned trial judge. The trial court, in my
view, was not right and justified in lightly
brushing aside the contradictions and
omissions borne out from the prosecution
evidence, that too, when the entire
prosecution rested on a sole eye-witness,
PW-1 Pramod Kumar Singh.

33. For all the reasons recorded and
discussed above, I am of the considered
view that the prosecution has failed to
prove the charge of offence punishable
under Section 307 of I.P.C. against the
appellant Sunil Prakash Gaur beyond
reasonable doubt. As the evidence on
record does not bring home the guilt of the
appellant beyond the pale of doubt, the
appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Consequently, the appellant is entitled to be
acquitted of the charge for which he was
tried.

34. As a result, criminal appeal is
allowed. The judgment and order of
conviction as well as sentence recorded by
the trial court dated 23.08.2022 is set aside.
The appellant is acquitted of all the
charges. The appellant is on bail, therefore,
his personal bonds and sureties are hereby
discharged. The appellant Sunil Prakash
Gaur will fullfill the requirement of section
437-A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the trial
Court at the earliest.

35. The trial court record be returned
forthwith together with a certified copy of
this judgment for compliance. The office is
further directed to enter the judgment in
compliance register maintained for the
purpose of the Court.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 46
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI, J.

Capital Case No. 4050 of 2016
Reference No. 7 of 2016

Ranvir Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ms. Tanisha Jahagir Monir

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal
Law-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section 374(2) - Indian Penal
Code,1860- Sections 302/34, 302/120B -
Arms Act, 1878 - Section 25 of-Challenge
to-Capital punishment- ocular testimony
of PW-2 and PW-3 that supports the
prosecution
case,
is
reliable
and
trustworthy-The contradictory statements
have been made with an ulterior motive to
9 All. Ranvir Singh Vs. State of U.P.
47
save their real brother-The portion of their
oral testimony that corroborates the
prosecution case can be segregated from
the unreliable statements made in their
testimony and can be considered as
credible evidence-It is settled law that the
court should separate the grain from the
chaff
while
appreciating
the
oral
testimony-These witnesses are not only
neighbours but also the real brothers of
the deceased-It is entirely natural for
them to be curious to know what is
happening
in
their
brother's
nearby
residence upon hearing the sounds of
gunshots in the odd hours of the nightConsidering the circumstances, where
multiple rounds of firing occurred over a
span of ten to twenty minutes, it is
expected that both witnesses would have
witnessed the incident- Furthermore, the
material on record indicates that due to
prolonged
cross-examination
with
significant intervals, their testimony may
have been influenced by the defence- The
oral testimony of PW-1 is also reliable, as
there are no significant contradictions or
serious discrepancies that would render
his
testimony
untrustworthy-The
prosecution has successfully established
the motive, and it is evident from the
manner in which the incidents occurred
and the intent behind the offense that
only the appellant, and no one else,
committed the crime- the trial court has
rightly placed reliance on the statements
of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3-The finding of guilt
for offense under Section 302/34 IPC
rendered by the trial court is just and
proper-From the prosecution evidence,
the charge under Section 302/34 IPC
stands proved beyond reasonable doubt,
against
the
appellant-However,
the
finding of guilt returned by the trial court
for offence under Section 25 of the Arms
Act based on the evidence of recovery
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is
not sustainable- the appellant-accused is
over 75 years of age. Considering all facts
and circumstances, imposing the death
penalty at this point of time will not be
just-the sentence of death is modified to
imprisonment for life with a fine of
Rupees two lacs.(Para 1 to 82)
The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Jayantilal Verma Vs St. of M.P. (2020) SCC
Online SC 944

2. Jarnail Singh Vs the St. of Pun.b (2009) 9
SCC 719

3. St. of U.P. Vs Shambu Nath Singh (1958) AIR
SC 376 (2000) 5 SCC 668 (2001) 5 SCC 667

4. Vinod Kumar Vs St. of Punj. CRLA No.554 of
2012

5. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Mah.
(1984) 4 SCC 116

6. Jaikam Khan Vs St. of U.P. (2021) SCC Online
SC 1256

7. Gulab & anr. Vs St. of U.P. CRLA No.2410 of
1985

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir,
learned counsel for the appellant, and Ms.
Archana Singh, learned AGA for the
State.

2. This capital criminal case (appeal)
has been preferred by the appellant Ranvir
Singh against the judgment and order dated
20/21.07.2016
passed
by
Additional
Sessions Judge, court no.4 Bulandshahr in
S.T. No.33 of 2009 (State vs. Ranvir Singh
and another) under section 302/34 and
302/120 B IPC, P.S. Aurangabad, District
Bulandshahr whereby the appellant has
been convicted U/s 302 IPC and sentenced
to penalty of death with a fine of Rs. 1 lac
and in default of payment of fine rigorous
imprisonment of 2 years. The appellant has
also been convicted in S.T. No. 35 of 2009
under section 25 of the Arms Act and
48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sentenced to undergo three years rigorous
imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50,000/-
and in default of payment of the fine, he
has been directed to undergo further
rigorous imprisonment of one year.

3. The Additional Sessions Judge has
also made a reference to this Court under
section 366 Cr.P.C. registered as reference
no.7 of 2016. The appeal and the reference
have been heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.

NARRATION OF FACTS

4. This is a case where Sukhveer and
his entire family comprising 7 members
namely Sukhveer Singh (D-1) his two sons
Surya Pratap (D-2) and Abhishek (D-3), his
two daughter-in-laws Mamata (D-4) and
Lata (D-5 full term pregnant), his wife
Suremvala (D-6) and grandson Cheekoo
aged
about
two
years
(D-7)
were
exterminated in the night of 28/29.07.2008.
Four persons were charge-sheeted namely
Ranvir Singh, Manveer Singh alias Sanjeev
Kumar (brothers of Sukhveer Singh), A S/o
Ranvir Singh, and Smt. Devendri W/o of
Ranvir Singh. During trial, A was declared
juvenile and his file was separated whereas
Manveer Singh alias Sanjeev Kumar and
Smt. Devendri W/o Ranveer Singh have
been acquitted of the charges of the offence
of criminal conspiracy.

5. Brief facts of the case are that in
the intervening night 0f 28/29.07.2009 at
3:20 am, information was received in the
city
control
room
from
mobile
no.9410670741 of which entry is made to
the effect that at village Barari the house of
Sukhveer Singh (D-1) has been surrounded
by miscreants and incessant firing is going
on and some murders have also been
committed. On receiving this information
the police team headed by SHO Balveer
Singh (P.W.-9) reached the village by
which time several persons had gathered at
the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1). The
police team witnessed the scary scene. Six
bodies with bullet injuries were strewn all
over the house and the body of Sukhveer
Singh (D-1) was lying at his tube well.

6. FIR of this case was lodged on the
written report of Sanjeev Kumar S/o Shiv
Charan Singh with the allegations that his
brother Sukhveer Singh was sleeping at his
tube- well situated at his agricultural field.
His two sons Surya Pratap alias Rinku and
Abhishek and their wives Mamata and Lata
and the wife of Sukhveer Singh namely
Suremvala and Chiku the son of Surya
Pratap were sleeping inside their house. In
the night at about 2 a.m., some unknown
miscreants after scaling the boundary wall
entered the house and started indiscriminate
firing and done to death the wife of
Sukhveer, both the sons of Sukhveer, their
wives, and grandchild Cheeku. Hearing the
sound of gunshots the villagers and family
members challenged the miscreants but
they did not allow anyone to move forward
and the miscreants after committing murder
of all the family members of Sukhveer
Singh
went
away.
Thereafter,
the
complainant and others went to the field of
Sukhveer and saw that he was also done to
death by slitting his neck. All the family
members have been done to death by the
miscreants and the bodies are lying on the
spot. On the aforesaid written information,
an FIR case crime no.199 of 2008, U/s 302
IPC against unknown was registered.

7. S.I. Surendra Singh (P.W.-4)
conducted the inquest on the dead body of
Mamata (D-4) and prepared the required
papers which are Ex. Ka.-6 to Ka.-12, he
also conducted the inquest of the dead body
9 All. Ranvir Singh Vs. State of U.P.
49
of Cheekoo (D-7) and prepared the inquest
and required papers marked as Ex.Ka.-12
to Ex.Ka.-17. He also conducted the
inquest on the dead body of Surya Pratap
alias Tinku (D-2) and prepared the required
papers marked as Ex.Ka-18 to Ka.-23.He
also collected blood-stained and plain baan
of the cot, part of bed sheets, and pillow
covers underneath the dead bodies of Surya
Pratap and Cheekoo. He also collected the
blood-stained and plain earth below the
dead bodies of Surya Pratap, Mamata, and
Cheekoo. Six empty cartridges of 315 bore
were also collected by him from the spot.
S.I. Surendra Singh prepared its memo Ex.
Ka.-24. S.I. Rajendra Prasad Sharma (P.W.-
5) conducted the inquest on the dead body
of Smt. Lata (D-5) and prepared the inquest
report and the required papers Ex. Ka.-25
to Ka.-29. He also conducted the inquest on
the dead body of Suremvala (D-6) and
prepared the inquest report and the required
papers as Ex. Ka.-30 to Ka.-34. He also
collected pieces of the blood-stained and plain
stairs and blood-stained and plain earth where
the dead body of Smt. Lata was lying. Three
empty cartridges 315 bore and two bullets were
also collected from the stairs and a memo Ex.
Ka-35 was prepared. S.I. Rajeev Kumar (P.W.-
7) conducted the inquest on the dead body of
Abhishek (D-3) and prepared the inquest report
and the required papers, Ex. Ka.-39 to Ka.-42.
One empty cartridge of 12 bores and one empty
cartridge of 315 bores from the spot were also
collected along with blood-stained and plain
earth and prepared its memo Ex. Ka.-51. The
inquest on the dead body of Sukhveer (D-1)
was conducted by S.I. Suresh Chandra and the
inquest report and required papers Ex. Ka.-53 to
Ka.-57 were prepared. He also collected bloodstained and plain earth from the spot and
prepared its memo Ex. Ka.-52.

8. During the investigation, one
Krishnaveer Singh S/o Jagveer Sing (not
examined) gave an application to S.O.
Aurangabad which has been made part of
the case diary. However, this written report
could not be proved by the prosecution due
to the death of Krishnaveer Singh. The
Investigation officer also recorded the
statement of Krishnaveer Singh. The
Investigating Officer prepared the site plans
Ex.Ka.-50.
The
Investigating
Officer
Inspector Balveer Singh also recorded the
statements of Pyare Singh, Jagveer Singh
S/o Shiv Charan Singh the real brothers of
Sukhveer Singh (D-1), and Amar Pal Singh
S/o Jai Charan Singh. Their statements U/s
164 Cr.P.C. were also got recorded by the
Investigating Officer before the Magistrate.
The witnesses Amar Pal Singh, Pyare
Singh, and Jagveer Singh have also
submitted affidavits to the SSP along with
the application which have been made part
of the case diary.

9. On 30.07.2008 at about 1:30 pm
one of the accused Ranvir Singh was
arrested by the police and on interrogation
the accused confessed his crime and also
disclosed that the country-made pistol and
balkati (sharp edge weapon) used in the
crime had been concealed by him and he
can get it recovered. The police party along
with accused Ranvir came to the paddy
field of Ranvir. From the corner of the field
under the Jamun tree, the accused removing
the old beed , got recovered two countrymade pistols of 315 bore and four live
cartridges. Thereafter at his instance, one
balkati and ladder used in the offence was
also recovered from the house of the
accused. Both the balkati and bamboo
ladders were blood stained, the recovery
memo Ex.Ka.-58 was prepared and the case
crime no.200 of 2008, U/s 25 of Arms Act
was registered against accused Ranvir.
After investigation, a charge sheet under
section 302/34, 302/120B IPC Ex.Ka.-61
50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was filed against Ranvir Singh, Manveer
Singh alias Sanjeev Kumar, A and Smt.
Devendri W/o Ranvir Singh.

10. The investigation of crime no.200
of 2008 under section 25 of the Arms Act
was conducted by S.I. Surendra Singh
(P.W.-4). He recorded the statements of
witnesses and prepared the site plan Ex.
Ka-66, obtained prosecution sanction Ex.
Ka.68 and submitted charge-sheet Ex.
Ka.67 against Ranvir Singh. Both the
sessions trials were committed to the court
of sessions being sessions trial no.33 of
2009 and 35 of 2009.

11. Charges under Sections 120B, 302
read with Section 34 I.P.c. and Section 25
Arms Act were framed against accused
Ranvir Singh, while accused Devendra and
Manveer @ Sanjeev were charged for the
offense under Sections 120 I.P.C. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.

12. The prosecution relied on the oral
testimony of the following witnesses:

i. Amar Pal Singh (P.W.-1)

ii. Pyare Sing (P.W.-2)

iii. Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3)

iv. S.I. Surendra Singh (P.W.-4)

v. S.I. Rajendra Prasad Sharma
(P.W.-5)

vi. Dr. Shivanath Singh (P.W.-6)

vii. S.I. Rajeev Kumar Yadav
(P.W.-7)

viii. Dr. Y.P. Singhal (P.W.-8)

ix. Inspector Balveer Singh (P.W.-
9)

x. S.I. Jagroshan (P.W.-10)

xi. Constable Niranjan Prasad
Sharma (P.W.-11)

xii. Subrati (P.W.-12)

The aforesaid witnesses have proved
72 prosecution papers as Ex. Ka-1 to Ex.
Ka-72 and material exhibit 1 to 57.

13. The statements of accused Ranvir
Singh, Manveer Singh alias Sanjeev Kumar
and Smt. Devendri were recorded U/s 313
Cr.P.C. The accused denied the allegations
made by the prosecution against them and
submitted that they had been falsely
implicated. The accused Ranvir Singh has
also denied that he has made any disclosure
statement and any recovery was made at his
instance. The accused Ranvir Singh has
also stated that the police were not
investigating the case properly and under
the pressure of the mob he pushed the
police officer, due to this he has been
falsely implicated. He is innocent. The
accused Manveer Singh alias Sanjeev in his
additional statement has stated that he lives
separately from his other brothers and has
no concern with them. He has lodged the
FIR of this case and he has not entered into
any criminal conspiracy. The accused
Devendri has stated that she is innocent and
has been falsely implicated. However, no
evidence in defence has been produced by
the accused.

14. The learned trial court after
hearing the counsels for both the parties, by
the impugned judgment and order has held
the accused Ranvir Singh guilty and
sentenced him as above. The learned trial
court acquitted the other co-accused
namely Manveer Singh alias Sanjeev
Kumar and Smt. Devendri from the charges
leveled against them.

AUTOPSY REPORTS

15. The postmortem of Sukhveer
Singh (D-1) was conducted at 12:45 p.m.
The deceased was aged about 55 years and
9 All. Ranvir Singh Vs. State of U.P.
51
the body average built. Rigor mortis was
present on the entire body. Following antimortem injuries were noticed:

i. Lacerated wound 6cm x 1.5 cm
x bone deep on left side head, 4 cm above
left ear at 4 O'clock position, obliquely
placed. Brain material coming out.

ii. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm
x bone deep on left side head, obliquely
placed, 4 cm above injury no.1.

iii. Lacerated wound 6 cm x 1cm
x muscle deep on the left ear, vertically
placed.

iv. Incised wound 12cm x 6 cm x
bone deep in front of the neck in middle
part, all vessels, trachea, skin cut.

v. Incised wound 8cm x 1.5cm x
muscle deep, in front of neck under the
chin.

In the internal examination, the
brain and its membrane, both lungs, liver,
spleen, and kidneys were pale. The parietal
bone was fractured. The brain and its
membrane were lacerated, in the stomach
100 ml fluid was present. Both the
chambers of the heart were empty. The
cause of death was due to shock and
hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem
injuries and the duration of death was about
half a day.

16. The postmortem of Lata (D-5)
was conducted on 29.07.2008 at 2:00 pm.
The age of the deceased was about 24
years, the body was average built, and rigor
mortis was present. The following ante
mortem injuries were noticed:

i. Firearm wound of entry on
right side of the occipital region of the
head, 3cm x 2cm x brain cavity deep,
blackening
and
tattooing
around
the
wound, 3cm away from the left ear at 3
O'clock position.

ii. Firearm wound of exit on the
right side of the interior part of the head,
3cm x 2.5 cm x communicating with injury
no.1. On exploration occipital and parietal
right sides fractured, membrane and brain
were lacerated.

iii. Firearm wound of entry 3cm x
2cm x chest cavity deep on the back of the
chest, 7cm below the root of the neck, and
2cm away from the midline of the body.

iv. Firearm wound of exit on front
of chest, 4cm x 2.5cm x chest cavity deep
at level of right nipple communicating to
injury no.3.

v. Firearm wound of entry on the
inner side to the knee joint, margin
inverted, 2cm x 1cm x muscle deep, on
exploration one metallic bullet recovered
from soft tissues, 6cm below the knee joint.

In internal examination brain, its
mambrane, both lungs, liver, spleen, and
kidneys were pale, 250 ml., semi-digested
food was present in the stomach. The uterus
was gravid having a full-term male fetus.

In the opinion of the doctor, the
cause of death was due to shock and
hemorrhage as a result of antemortem
injuries and the duration of death was about
half a day.

17. The postmortem of Mamata (D4)
was
conducted
at
3:00 pm
on
29.07.2008. The age of the deceased was
about 24 years, the body was average built,
and rigor mortis was all over the body.
Following ante mortem injuries were
noticed:

i. Firearm wound of entry, back
on the chest at the inferior angle of left
scapula bone, 3cm x 2cm x chest cavity
deep, blackening tattooing around the
wound, margins inverted, 3cm away from
the midline of the body.
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

ii. Firearm wound of exit on front
of the chest, just on the side of sternum
border at the left nipple, 3.5 cm x 1.8cm x
communicating
with
injury
no.1,
on
exploration left lung and pleura lacerated
and 1.5 ltrs blood in the chest cavity.

iii. Firearm wound of entry on the
front of the chest just outside the primary
border at the level of the right nipple, 3cm
x 1.5 cm x chest cavity deep, blackening
tattooing
around
the
margins,
on
exploration right lung lacerated and one
metallic bullet recovered from right lung.

iv. Firearm wound of entry on the
front of the chest (sternum bone) in the
middle part, 2cm x 1.5 cm., Chest cavity
deep margins inverted, on exploration one
metallic bullet was recovered from the
thoracic zone.

In the internal examination, the
brain and its membranes, both lungs, liver,
spleen, and kidneys were pale, and 200 ml
of semi-digested food was present in the
stomach. The uterus was non-gravid.

In the opinion of the doctor, the
cause of death was due to shock and
hemorrhage. The duration was about half a
day.

18. Dr. Shivnath Singh (P.W.-6) has
proved the aforesaid three postmortem
report as Ex. Ka-36 to Ka.38. The witness
has further opined that the death of all three
deceased may have occurred at about 2:00
a.m. in the night of 28/29.07.2008.

19. The postmortem of Abhishek (D3) was conducted at 12:50 p.m. The age of
the deceased was about 25 years and the
body was average built, rigor mortis was
present. The following ante mortem injuries
were noticed:

i. Gunshot wound of entry 3cm x
2cm x chest cavity deep on the left side of
the chest, 10cm below left nipple at 6
O'Clock,
margins
inverted
lacerated
blackening and tattooing present.

ii. Gunshot wound of the entry
left side of face 4cm x 3cmx brain cavity
deep just anterior to the left ear. Blackening
and tattooing present. Margins inverted
lacerated. Brain matter coming out.

iii. Gunshot wound of exit 3cm x
2 cm x cranial cavity deep on right side of
head 3cm above the right ear, margins
lacerated and everted.

In internal examination, both the
temporal and base of the brain were
broken, brain and its membranes were
lacerated. The left lung and its membranes
were lacerated, and two wad pieces and 9
pellets were recovered from the left lung.
100 gms of semi-digested material was in
the stomach.

The cause of death was due to
shock and hemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries. The duration was about
half a day.

20. The post-mortem of the Surem
Vala (D-6) was conducted on 29.07.2008 at
1:20 pm. The age of the deceased was
about 52 years, the body was averagely
built, and rigor mortis was present.
Following ante mortem injuries were
noticed:

i. Gunshot wound of entry 2cm x
2cm x brain cavity deep on mid of
forehead, 3cm above the nasal bridge,
margin lacerated inverted.

ii. Gunshot wound of exit 3cm x
3cm on the back of the head, 4cm above
neck margins, everted, lacerated.

iii. Abrasion 3cm x 2cm on the
anterior aspect of the right knee.

iv. Abrasion 2cm x 1cm on the
anterior aspect of the left knee.
9 All. Ranvir Singh Vs. State of U.P.
53

v. Abrasion 3cm x 2cm on the
right side of the head just lateral of the left
eyebrow.

vi.
Traumatic
swelling
with
fracture right wrist, lacerated wound 3cm x
2cm x bone deep.

In the internal examination, the
frontal occipital bone was fractured brain
and its membranes were lacerated, 200 ml
of semi-digested food material was present
in the stomach. The cause of death was
shock and hemorrhage and the duration
was about half a day.

21. The postmortem of the Cheekoo
(D-7) was conducted on 29.07.2008 at
about 2:10 pm. The age of the deceased
was about two years, the body was average
built. Rigormortis was present. Following
antemortem injuries were noticed:

i. Gunshot wound of entry 1cm x
1.5 cm x chest cavity deep in the right side,
back of the chest, 3cm from the midline
and 7cm below the root of neck, margins
lacerated,
inverted,
blackening
and
tattooing present.

ii. Gunshot wound of entry 2cm x
2 cm on right side back of the chest, 3 cm
from the midline and 4cm below injury
no.1. Blackening and tattooing present,
chest cavity deep.

iii. Gunshot wound of exit, 3cm x
2cm x chest, cavity deep on the right side
front of the chest, just above the right
nipple.

iv. Gunshot wound of exit, 3cm x
3cm chest cavity deep, margins lacerated
everted, on the left nipple.

In internal examination on the
right side second and fourth and on the left
side fourth and fifth ribs were broken. Both
lungs and their membranes were lacerated.
150 ml of clotted blood was present in the
chest cavity. 50 ml liquid was present in the
stomach. The cause of death was shock and
hemorrhage and the duration was about
half a day.

22. The postmortem of Surya Pratap
(D-2) was conducted at 2:30 p.m. The age
of the deceased was about 26 years, the
body was average built, and rigor mortis
was present. Following injuries were
noticed on the body:

i. Gunshot wound of entry, 3cm x
3cm on the left side of the face, on the left
eye, margins inverted, lacerated, cranial
cavity deep, blackening and tattooing
present.

ii. Gunshot wound of exit, 5cm x
4cm, cranial cavity deep on the top of head,
12 cm above left ear pinna and 15 cm
above nasal bridge, margins lacerated
everted.

iii. Gunshot wound of entry 2cm
x 2cm x chest cavity deep on the right side
of the chest on level of the nipple, margins
inverted, lacerated, blackening, tattooing
present.

iv. Gunshot wound of entry, 2cm
x 1cm, right side of chest, chest cavity
deep, 4cm below injury no.4, margins
inverted, blackening and tattooing present.

In the internal examination, the
frontal and parietal bones were fractured,
second to fifth right side ribs were broken.
Both lungs, membranes, and heart were
lacerated. 75 ml of clotted blood was found
in the chest cavity. 50 ml liquid was present
in the stomach. The cause of death was
shock and hemorrhage and the duration
was about half a day.

23. Dr. Y.P. Singhal (P.W.-8) has
proved the aforesaid postmortem reports as
Ex.Ka-45 to Ka.-48.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. Amar Pal Singh P.W.-1 in his
examination-in-chief has stated that on the
night i.e. 28/29.07.2008, he had gone to
ease himself and sat down in the field of
Pyare Singh which is adjacent to the house
of Sukhveer Singh (D-1). He heard the
sound of indiscriminate firing and saw the
light of the torch. It was 2-2:15 a.m. After
some time the firing stopped, thereafter he
saw Ranvir Singh and A coming out from
the house of Sukhveer Singh, both of them
were holding country-made pistols and
torches. A bamboo ladder was on the right
shoulder of Ranvir Singh and both of them
went on the way which goes outside the
village. The witness has further stated that
he has also heard Ranvir saying to A that
Sukhveer has been killed at the tube well
and the rest have been killed at the house
and no one is alive. The house of Ranvir is
on the way which goes outside the village,
and both of them entered the house. The
witness came to his house thereafter with
co-villagers he went to the house of
Sukhveer Singh (D-1). When he went
inside, he saw that all the family members
of Sukhveer were lying dead. He became
frightened and did not tell about the
incident to anyone. On the next day i.e.
30.07.2008 Ranvir Singh was arrested. On
3rd day he directly went to the police
station and narrated the entire incident to
the S.O.

25. Pyare Singh (P.W.-2) in his
examination-in-chief stated that they are
five brothers, he is the eldest then Jagveer
then Ranvir then Sukhveer and then
Manveer, All the five brothers lives next to
one another towards the west of the village.
His house is in the east of Ranvir Singh.
The house of Manveer is in the southeast
and the house of Sukhveer is in the east.
There was deep enmity between Ranvir and
Sukhveer on account of the elopement of
Pinki. The witness further stated that the
incident occurred at 2 - 2:30 am on the
night of 28/29.07.2008, he was sleeping in
the west of his "hutment". He woke up, to
the gunshots and screams. The firing
continued for 10-12 minutes towards the
east of his house. After gunshots turned
silent, he saw A standing at the door of the
house of Sukhveer and Ranvir had gone
towards east to fetch the ladder. Ranvir
came back within a minute carrying a
ladder. He identified Ranvir and A in the
light of the torch. Both of them were
alighting torches, both were holding
country-made pistols and they went away
towards the west. He saw both of them
from a distance of five steps. They were
saying that they had completed the task.
The
witness
further
stated
that
on
14.08.2008 he came to Bulandshahr and
got an affidavit addressed to SSP prepared.
He and his brother Jagveer have also given
application with affidavit related to the
incident to the SSP. The witness has
identified his signatures on the affidavit and
application which have been marked as Ex.
Ka-1 to Ka-2. The witness has further
stated that on 25.07.2011 he came to
Bulandshahr to got recorded his statement
U/s 164 Cr.P.C. The witness has proved and
identified his signatures on the statement
recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C., which has been
marked as Ex. Ka-3. The examination-inchief was recorded on 26.09.2011.

26. His cross-examination was
recorded on 05.12.2011 in which he did not
support the prosecution version and stated
that at the time of the incident, he was
irrigating his field with Naresh. When the
gunshots turned silent, he and Naresh came
to the spot. There was total darkness and
police were present, he had not seen any of
the accused, and he told the police that he
had not seen the incident. He has also
9 All. Ranvir Singh Vs. State of U.P.
55
stated that his earlier statement was under
the pressure of the police and government
advocate. His statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C.,
was also under the pressure of the police.
The witness was declared hostile, on prayer
of the prosecution. In cross-examination by
the prosecution, the witness has stated that
two months after the incident he left village
Barari after selling the entire property and
his house had turned into ruins. The witness
was confronted with the statements U/s 161
and 164 Cr.P.C. The witness has stated that
he has not given these statements, he only
put his signature on the statement recorded
under section 164 Cr.P.C. under the fear of
the police. The same fact has been stated
about the affidavit given to SSP. However,
the witness has admitted that after the death
of Sukhveer Singh (D-1), his property was
inherited by his mother. His son Madanpal
has got executed the sale deed of six bigha
land from his mother.

27. Jagveer Singh (P.W.-3) has stated
that they were five brothers. Pyare Singh,
Jagveer Singh, Ranveer Singh, Sukhveer
Singh and Manveer alias Sanjeev Kumar.
The houses of all the five brothers are at
one place. His house is on the northwest
corner and the house of Ranveer is in front
of it. In the south, the house of Pyare Singh
is adjacent to the house of Ranveer and in
the southeast, there are houses of Manveer
and Sukhveer. There is a 20 ft' wide
kharanja east-west between his house and
the house of Ranveer. Earlier relations of
all the brothers were cordial. But for some
time the relations between Ranveer and
Sukhveer were strained due to a dispute
over boundary (med ) and the elopement of
Pinki the daughter of Ranveer.

28. The witness has further stated that
the incident occurred on the night of
28/29.07.2008 at about 2:00 a.m. He was
sleeping in his house. He woke up to the
sound of gunshots. It came to his notice
that the firing was taking place in the house
of Sukhveer Singh (D-1). For 20 minutes,
the firing continued and he could not come
outside. He remained in his house as he had
no arms. The witness has further stated that
he saw two persons (Ranveer and A) in
front of the house of Sukhveer. At that
time, he was only suspicious. They were
holding torches and they had alighted it. He
became sure when both the accused
themselves confessed at the police station
that they have committed the murders. At
the time of the incident, he was only
suspicious and could not identify the
accused. Both of them came towards his
house. Ranveer removed the ladder from
the corner of the house of Sukhveer Singh
(D-1). Besides torches and ladders, they
were also holding country-made pistols.
When both of them came near his house he
went back and at that time he identified
both of them. He clearly heard both of them
saying that the entire family of Sukhveer
Singh
(D-1)
had
been
eliminated.
Thereafter they went into their house. The
witness has further stated that at the time of
the incident, his brother Pyare was
irrigating his field by tube well.

29. The witness has further stated that
on 14.08.2008 he came to SSP Office
Bulandshahr and got the affidavit and
application prepared. The witness has
identified his signatures on the application
and affidavit (Ex. Ka-4) On 25.08.2008 he
came to the court where his statement was
recorded before the Magistrate which is
true and correct. The witness has identified
his signature on it marked as (Ex.Ka-5).

30. In his cross-examination held on
28.01.2013 the witness has stated that he is
hard of hearing and also had a weak vision
56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and used spectacles. The house of Amar
Pal, the witness of this case is at a distance
of 800 meters to the east of the house of
Sukhveer Singh (D-1) and there are several
vacant places near his house. None of his
brothers keep medicines. The witness has
further stated about the topography and
various dimensions. He has also stated that
there are no stairs to reach the second floor
of the house of Sukhveer Singh (D-1) and
the ladder is used for the purpose. The
witness has further stated that it is his
notice that Amar Pal is a witness in 4-5
cases of sections 302 & 307 IPC and loot.
Amar Pal has deposed in the case of
Yashveer Pradhan of Manohar Gari and
Ranveer in the case U/s 302 and 307 IPC.
Amar Pal has also lodged a false report U/s
307 IPC crime no.136 of 2015 on
05.05.2012 against his son Subhash,
Manoj, and Sharad son of his sister. The
police have submitted a final report in it.
Nanak Chand the son of Sheeshpal who has
died, the tau of Amar Pal had also sold 2.5
bigha land to Dvendri wife of Ranveer. At
that time Kiranpal, one son of Nanak
Chand was minor. After Kiranpal attained
majority Amar Pal has filed a civil suit for
both the lands which are still pending. The
witness has denied the presence of Amar
Pal in the night of 28/29.07.2008 or on
29.07.2008 in the village.

31. On 04.06.2013 the witness again
appeared in the court for cross-examination
and has stated that the house of Sukhveer
Singh (D-1) where the murders were
committed is not visible from his house. He
came to know about the murders of the
family members of Sukhveer after 20-30
minutes of the incident. The witness has
further stated that he is not a witness of any
of the inquest or memo. For the first time,
he came to know about the involvement of
Ranveer and his son in the incident, the
next day at the police station. The witness
has stated that if anything else has been
mentioned in his statement then it is wrong.
The witness has further stated that he has
given the statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. on
tutoring of the police however, the witness
has admitted that at the time of preparation
of the affidavit, he has told that miscreants
were extending life threats and he was so
afraid that he did not tell anything to
anyone. The witness has denied that at the
time of the incident, he was not present in
the village.

32. On 04.06.2013 during further
cross-examination, the witness stated that
the police came to the spot an hour after the
incident. Sanjeev alias Manveer scribed the
report on dictation at about 10:00 am,
thereafter the witness said that he was not
aware of the timing, and it was lodged in
the morning. The witness has also stated
that there are no stairs in the house of
Sukhveer Singh (D-1) and without using a
ladder, the second floor and third floor
cannot be accessed. The witness stated that
he is not certain whether the police had
collected country-made pistols, cartridges,
and balkati lying on the spot on the date of
the incident but he had seen these things at
the police station on the evening of
29.07.2008. The witness has also stated that
his brother Ranveer had informed the
police at Dial 100 number about the
incident in the night.

33. The witness has also stated that
hearing the gunshots, he has closed the
door of his room. The firing continued for
20-25 minutes. It was total darkness. After
20 minutes, when the firing stopped, he
came out of his house, a crowd was
gathered there and they entered into the
house of Sukhveer. The dead bodies of
SuremVala and Lata were lying on the
9 All. Ranvir Singh Vs. State of U.P.
57
stairs. The dead body of Abhishek was
lying towards the north of the two rooms
on the first floor. The witness has stated
that he came to give an affidavit. The
affidavit was got typed by him and it was
prepared in consultation with the police,
relatives, and advocates. The witness has
also stated that he knew that Peetam Singh
had lodged a report U/s 323, 504, 324, 325,
307, 452 IPC at P.S. Aurangabad against
Harcharan,
Amit,
Rinku,
Tinku
S/o
Sukhveer Singh and Sukhveer Singh. After
the death of Sukhveer, his property
devolved on his mother Ram Kali. Ram
Kali died on 26.11.2009 at the house of
Madan Pal. Kusumlata the wife of Madan
Pal had secretly got executed the sale deed
of six bigha land from Ram Kali on
21.11.2009. He has filed the original suit
no.15 of 2011 in the court of Civil Judge
Bulandshahr against Kusum Lata. There
was no litigation between Ranveer and
Sukhveer. No report was lodged for the
elopement of Pinki by Ranveer, only a
missing report was lodged. The witness has
also stated that police have interrogated
about the incident but he has not given any
statement.

34. The witness was re-examined on
07.12.2015. When confronted about the
previous statements, the witness has stated
that he had given the statement that two tin
gates were fixed in his house. The witness
has further admitted that at the time of the
incident, these gates were not installed. The
witness has also stated that he has enmity
with Amar Pal. The witness has also
admitted that he has given the statement
that he saw two persons Ranveer and A in
front of the house of Sukhveer. At that time
it was only suspicion, they were holding
torch and they had alighted the torch. The
suspicion was confirmed on the next day
when both confessed that they had
committed murders. The witness has also
admitted that he has given the affidavit to
SSP and his statement was recorded U/s
164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. He has
given this statement voluntarily on the
counseling of police and relatives.

35. Subrati (P.W.-12) is also another
public witness. The witness has not
corroborated the prosecution case. He has
stated that Sukhveer Singh and six
members of his family were done to death
in the night seven years ago. Sukhveer
Singh, Pyare Singh, Jagveer Singh, Ranvir
Singh, and Manveer Singh are real
brothers. Their houses are situated towards
the west of the village at one place in a
cluster. The tube well of Sukhveer Singh is
situated in his agricultural field towards the
west of his house. The witness has feigned
ignorance about the fact that the daughter
of Ranvir has eloped with someone. The
witness has further stated that he is not on
visiting terms with accused Sanjeev alias
Manveer and Ranvir. He has denied the
prosecution case that in his presence
Ranvir, his wife Devendri, Sanjeev alias
Manveer, and Subhash son of Jagveer were
conspiring to exterminate Sukhveer and his
family. He has also denied that he has made
any money transactions with Ranvir. He
also disowned his statement recorded U/s
161 Cr.P.C. The witness has been declared
hostile.

36. S.I.