# Ratan Shanker @ Silloo v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 862
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2134 of 1983
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ratan-shanker-silloo-v-state-of-u-p-52476
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302/34 - Punishment for murder -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Section 313 - Appeal against conviction -
Imprisonment for life - Incident occurred
on 6.6.1982 at 6.20 pm, a FIR was lodged
at 6.50 pm by informant (PW-1) - When
deceased and informant were returning
after seeing a movie by a bicycle, Shiv
Singh and appellant along with two other
persons surrounded them - Appellant and
two other persons pulled down deceased
from bicycle, Shiv Singh shot at him by his
pistol - Informant along with PW-2 had
gone to police station, returned with two
constables at the site, deceased was taken
8 All. Ratan Shanker @ Silloo Vs. State of U.P.
863
to hospital, but died on the same day -
Motive was explained in FIR, there was
enmity between them - Held, appellant
along with Shiv Singh, co-accused were on
the spot
- PW-1 escaped and two
unknown accused persons followed him
makes no difference - Appellant was not
involved in case which was lodged by coaccused against deceased and PW-1 -
Appellant was not aware of any other
criminal cases between co-accused and
PW-1 and deceased - In other criminal
cases appellant was out of them all, not
been assigned any specific motive to do
away with deceased - Role of appellant
not come within purview of having
common intention with co-accused, acquit
him of all charges. (Para 2, 12, 14, 15)

Appeal is allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Suresh vs. St. of U.P. reported in (2001) 3 SCC
673

## Text

862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
44. In the instant case, criminal
machinery came into motion about 36 years
ago and the present appeal has been
pending for a long period of 32 years.
There is nothing on record to show that the
appellants are previous convict or having
any criminal antecedents. Also the accusedappellants alone cannot be held responsible
for long delay in disposal of this appeal. At
present appellant no.1 Surajdin is 77 years
old, appellant no.2 Ram Kishore is 57 years
old, appellant no.3 Sri Naraina is 67 years
old and appellant no.4 Sheo Shanker is 74
years old. It has been submitted and also
finds support from the record that the
appellants remained in custody for about
one month. Neither any injury has been
caused by the accused appellants to the
abductee nor any ransom was demanded by
them for the sake of his release. Hence,
considering all aspects of the matter, in my
view, no useful purpose would be served
by sending accused-appellants in judicial
custody at this stage, rather in the aforesaid
special circumstances, it would be in the
interest of justice if in lieu of one year's
rigorous
imprisonment
they
may
be
sentenced for the period already undergone
by them in this case and also sufficient fine
may be imposed upon them which would
be an adequate punishment to them in the
entire circumstances of this case. The
appellants, who are old men at present
should be repenting men.

45. Resultantly, the appeal is partly
allowed. The conviction of the appellants
for the offence under Section 365 IPC is
upheld but the sentence of one year's
rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial
court vide impugned judgment and order is
converted
into
the
period
already
undergone by them alongwith a fine of Rs.
2,000/- each. Appellants are on bail. They
need not surrender. Their bail bonds are
cancelled and sureties are discharged. The
amount of fine shall be deposited within
two months from today failing which the
appellants will have to undergo for ten days
simple imprisonment as default sentence.

46. A copy of this order alongwith
trial court record be transmitted to the
Sessions Judge, Fatehpur for necessary
compliance.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 862
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2134 of 1983

Ratan Shanker @ Silloo ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Satish Trivedi, Sri Rajesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
D.A.G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302/34 - Punishment for murder -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Section 313 - Appeal against conviction -
Imprisonment for life - Incident occurred
on 6.6.1982 at 6.20 pm, a FIR was lodged
at 6.50 pm by informant (PW-1) - When
deceased and informant were returning
after seeing a movie by a bicycle, Shiv
Singh and appellant along with two other
persons surrounded them - Appellant and
two other persons pulled down deceased
from bicycle, Shiv Singh shot at him by his
pistol - Informant along with PW-2 had
gone to police station, returned with two
constables at the site, deceased was taken
8 All. Ratan Shanker @ Silloo Vs. State of U.P.
863
to hospital, but died on the same day -
Motive was explained in FIR, there was
enmity between them - Held, appellant
along with Shiv Singh, co-accused were on
the spot
- PW-1 escaped and two
unknown accused persons followed him
makes no difference - Appellant was not
involved in case which was lodged by coaccused against deceased and PW-1 -
Appellant was not aware of any other
criminal cases between co-accused and
PW-1 and deceased - In other criminal
cases appellant was out of them all, not
been assigned any specific motive to do
away with deceased - Role of appellant
not come within purview of having
common intention with co-accused, acquit
him of all charges. (Para 2, 12, 14, 15)

Appeal is allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Suresh vs. St. of U.P. reported in (2001) 3 SCC
673

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.
&
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. This criminal appeal has been
filed against the judgment and order dated
8.9.1983 passed by the VII Additional
Sessions Judge, Kanpur by which the
appellant Ratan Shankar @ Silloo was
convicted for an offence under section
302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was
sentenced for life imprisonment.

2. When the alleged incident
occurred on 6.6.1982 at 6.20 pm, a First
Information Report was lodged at 6.50 pm
by Chandra Mohan Singh. The first
informant had reported that when he along
with Sanjeev Tripathi-the deceased were
returning after seeing a movie by a bicycle
then the incident had occurred. He had
stated that Sanjeev Tripathi was sitting on
the rod of the bicycle and when they were
going westwards on the Durga Devi Road,
from behind them, Shiv Singh @ Jhallar
and Ratan Shanker Dixit @ Silloo along
with two other persons surrounded them.
He mentioned that Ratan Shankar Dixit @
Sillu and two other persons pulled down
Sanjeev from the bicycle and thereafter
Shiv Singh @ Jhallar shot at him. The first
informant abandoned the bicycle and ran
towards the Jawahar Nagar Chowki and
from there he came along with two
constables at the site. The incident was
evidenced by Devendra Sharma, Narendra
Kumar Mishra and Ram Kishore. The two
constables who had accompanied the first
informant from the police station, took the
injured Sanjeev Tripathi @ Sanju to the
hospital on a rickshaw. In the FIR itself, the
first informant had stated that he had gone
to the police station along with Ram
Kishore. Also in the FIR, he had mentioned
about the motive behind the incident. He
had stated that there was enmity between
the deceased and the accused. Viz.-a-viz.
Jhallar, he had stated that around two and
half months earlier, Jhallar was stabbed by
someone and Jhallar had a feeling that
Sanjeev and the first informant Chandra
Mohan had stabbed him and a case with
regard to that incident was also lodged in
the police station Nazeerabad.

3. After the FIR was lodged, the
police got into action and started with the
investigation. The bicycle and the slippers
etc. were taken into custody and the
recovery memo of was prepared which was
exhibited as Exhibit Ka-5. Similarly, the
plain soil and the soil with blood was also
taken into custody and the recovery memo
was also prepared which was exhibited as
Exhibit Ka-6. The clothes which the
deceased was wearing at the time of
incident were also recovered and were
exhibited as Exhibit-Ka-12. Thereafter the
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
post-mortem was conducted. It has been
stated that the FIR was initially lodged
under section 307 IPC but when the
deceased passed away, the case was
investigated under section 302 IPC read
with section 34 IPC. The post-mortem was
preceded by a panchayatnama. After the
police had submitted its police report, the
7th
Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Metropolitan Area, Kanpur on 20.10.1982
framed the charges and when the charges
were read over to the accused and when
they denied them, the trial commenced.

4. The PW-1, the first informant
had come to the witness box and had stated
in his examination-in-chief the method in
which the incident had occurred and also
had stated the motive regarding which a
mention was already there in the FIR. He
has very categorically stated in his
statement in chief that Silloo had held the
handle of the bicycle and had pulled down
Sanjeev and while Sanjeev was falling
down, the other co-accused Shiv Singh @
Jhallar had shot at him by his country made
pistol. Thereafter he has stated that the
other two persons, who were present along
with Shiv Singh and Ratan Shankar Dixit,
had chased the first informant but as luck
could have it, he escaped and had reached
the police station. At the police station, he
had met two constables who had come
along with him to the place where Sanjeev
was lying and the two policemen took
Sanjeev to the hospital on a rickshaw. At
the time when Sanjeev was being taken to
the hospital, he was alive. Thereafter the
first informant and Ram Kishore went to
the police station Seesamau and got the FIR
lodged. He had also proved the Tehrir
which was exhibited as Exhibit Ka-1. He
has stated that thereafter Sanjeev died on
the same day. He has stated that as Sanjeev
was very grievously hurt and there was a
remote possibility that he would survive, he
had not accompanied him to the hospital. In
the cross-examination, he has stated that
the accused had held the bicycle and
thereafter after holding the collar of
Sanjeev, they had pulled him down and
while he was being pulled down from the
bicycle, Shiv Singh and the other coaccused had fired on Sanjeev. He reiterates
what he had stated in the examination in
chief with regard to the fact as to how he
had escaped from the site and how he got
the FIR lodged. He had mentioned about
Ram Kishore, Devendra and Narendra in
the cross-examination upon a question
being raised with regard to them. Even
though he had mentioned that Ram Kishore
was staying at Kahu Kothi, he did not know
why he was at that point of time staying at
Jawahar Nagar. Devendra and Narendra, it
was stated, because they were afraid of
giving evidence, they did not come in the
witness box. With regard to the fact as to
why the first informant had not called the
doctor, he had stated that even though the
deceased was his friend since childhood,
because of the fact that he was afraid that it
was a police case, he did not go to the
doctor but went to the police. He admits in
his cross-examination that he had not stated
in the FIR that Sanju was pulled down by
Ratan Shanker along with the two others
from the bicycle. He has also stated that he
had not mentioned in the FIR that the
accused had held the handle of the bicycle.

5. PW-2 is the other eye-witness,
Ram Kishore who has stated virtually what
had been stated by the first informant. He
gives the reason as to why he was staying
at Jawahar Nagar despite the fact that his
address was of Kahu Kothi. He has stated
that when the first informant Chandra
Mohan had run towards him i.e. the PW-2,
then the two other co-accused had followed
8 All. Ratan Shanker @ Silloo Vs. State of U.P.
865
Chandra Mohan. He had also stated upon
being asked as to why he did not
accompany the injured Sanjeev to the
hospital, he stated that he had thought that
Sanju had died on the spot and he did not
consider it necessary to accompany him to
the hospital.

6. PW-3-Ranveer Singh was
Investigating Officer and has also proved
the Chik FIR.

7. PW-4 SI Ramyagya Singh is the
police officer who had proved the inquest
and the other documents accompanying the
dead body which were there when the body
was sent for the post mortem.

8. PW-5 was a formal witness.

9. PW-6 was Constable Ramesh
Chandra Sharma who had accompanied
the first informant Chandra Mohan from
chowki Jawahar Nagar to the place of
incident. He had also carried the body
from the place of incident along with
the other Constable to the hospital and
has also informed the Court the name of
the
other
Constable
who
had
accompanied him to the hospital and
has given his name as Constable Shiv
Prasad.

10. The two accused who were
named in the FIR were apprehended and
the trial had taken place against them only
and the other two were never apprehended
and the trial did not take place against
them.

11. The two accused Ratan
Shanker Dixit @ Silloo and Shiv Singh got
their statements recorded under section 313
Cr.P.C.
They
denied
the
occurrence
absolutely.
12. Sri Satish Trivedi, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar
Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the incident had in fact never
occurred in the manner as was projected by
the prosecution. Learned counsel for the
appellant stated that both the accused Shiv
Singh and Ratan Shankar Dixit were never
there on the spot and in fact the PW-1 and
PW-2 were brought up witnesses. Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant
has
very
strenuously tried to convince the Court that
in fact the first informant was not on the
spot but had, after the incident occurred,
come on the spot and thereafter had got the
FIR lodged. Learned counsel for the
appellant further stated that the PW-2 Ram
Kishore Mishra was in fact a resident of
Kahu Kothi and he never had any
connection with Jawahar Nagar and,
therefore, his presence was also very
doubtful. Learned counsel for the appellant
further stated that simply because the first
informant and the deceased were named in
an earlier criminal case which was lodged
by the accused Shiv Singh @ Jhallar, they
had implicated Shiv Singh @ Jhallar and
Ratan Shankar Dixit @ Silloo. Learned
counsel for the appellant further has drawn
the
attention
of
the
Court
to
the
contradiction in the statements of PW-3
when he stated that after Chandra Mohan
extracted himself from the place of incident
and had run westward towards the chowki,
he had met Ram Kishore Mishra and
thereafter both of them had gone together
towards the police station but Ram Kishore
Mishra states that when Chandra Mohan
had run away from the place of incident
then one of the two accused had actually
followed him then Ram Kishore Mishra
raised a hue and cry as to why they were
following him. Upon this they ran away.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant,
therefore, states that in view of the
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contradiction, the involvement of the
accused becomes doubtful. Still further,
learned counsel for the appellant has made
an argument in the alternative and has
submitted that even if it is taken that Shiv
Singh @ Jhallar assailed the deceased
Sanjeev Tripathi, the present appellant in
the present appeal namely Ratan Shankar
Dixit @ Silloo had absolutely no role so far
as his involvement under section 302 IPC
was concerned. Learned counsel for the
appellant states that if the averments in the
FIR are perused, it becomes clear that the
role assigned to Ratan Shankar Dixit was
only to the extent that he had pulled down
the deceased Sanjeev Tripathi from the
bicycle. Learned counsel for the appellant,
therefore, states that after pulling down the
deceased, whether there was a common
intention being shared by the appellant
Ratan Shankar Dixit with Shiv Singh was
absolutely not known and there is no
allegation to the effect that Shiv Singh and
Ratan Sankar Dixit had, with a common
intention, gone on the spot to murder
Sanjeev Tripathi. Learned counsel for the
appellant states that it was just possible that
Ratan Shankar Dixit had pulled down the
deceased to just give him a slap or two but
he had no idea that in fact Shiv Singh was
going to use his country made pistol which
had actually been used and thereafter
Sanjeev Tripathi had died. Learned counsel
for the appellant further states that the act
of murder by Shiv Singh was an individual
act of Shiv Singh and Ratan Shankar Dixit
had absolutely nothing to do with the actual
murder.

13. Sri Amit Sinha, learned
Additional Government Advocate assisted
by Ms. Mayuri Mehrotra, however, has
submitted that when the incident had
occurred and the eye-witnesses had given
their eye witness accounts, their evidence
could not be brushed aside lightly. Learned
AGA has further submitted that the
sequence of events as has been narrated in
the FIR was also corroborated by what was
stated by the prosecution witnesses i.e.
PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1 when had stated
that he was accompanying the deceased
and when their cycle was stopped it was
but natural for him to get down the cycle
and run away and therefore, it could not be
said that if the PW-1 was left unharmed
then in fact he was not there on the spot.
Learned AGA has further stated that it
mattered little if there was a minor
contradiction in the statements of PW-1
and PW-2 and also it was of no
consequence, virtually, if the PW-1 had
given a slightly different account in the FIR
from
what
he
had
stated
in
the
examination-in-chief. Learned AGA has
stated that if the first informant was being
chased by two unknown accused persons
and if that fact was not mentioned in the
FIR and also in the statement-in-chief of
the PW-1 and that it was only mentioned in
the statement of PW-2 then it hardly made
any difference. Learned AGA further stated
that when the appellant Ratan Shankar
Dixit was definitely there on the spot along
with Shiv Singh and he had come
alongwith Shiv Singh and also had escaped
with Shiv Singh then the only conclusion
was that there was a common intention
being shared with Shiv Singh and in this
regard learned AGA relied upon the
judgement of Supreme Court in Suresh vs.
State of U.P. reported in (2001) 3 SCC
673.

14. Having heard learned counsel
for the appellant and learned AGA, this
Court is of the view that if the statement of
PW-1 and PW-2 are perused then the
conclusion definitely is to the effect that the
appellant
alongwith
Shiv
Singh,
co-
8 All. Smt. Manju Vs. State of U.P.
867
accused, who had filed Criminal Appeal
No.2130 of 1983, definitely was at the
place of incident. The Court has no doubt
with regard to the fact that the appellant
alongwith Shiv Singh was there. The
statements made in the FIR coupled with
the statements made by the PW-1 and PW2 definitely go to establish that the
appellant Ratan Shankar Dixit was there on
the spot alongwith Shiv Singh. The minor
contradictions with regard to how the first
informant escaped and whether the two
unknown accused persons were following
him makes no difference. Still further the
statement of PW-1 that he had immediately
upon the occurrence of the incident
approached the Chowki Jawahar Nagar and
had come back with the two police
personnel also appears to be a natural thing
to happen. Still further, for the Police to
have carried the injured to the hospital also
appears to be a very natural thing. The fact
that the other eye-witnesses Devendra
Sharma and Narendra Kumar Mishra
whose names find place in the FIR did not
appear would also not affect the case
inasmuch as they definitely were, as has
been stated by the PW-1, afraid to appear in
the witness-box and, therefore, the defence
cannot get any advantage of their nonappearance in the witness box. However,
what appeals to the Court is that nowhere
in the FIR or in the evidence led, even an
iota of mention was there about the fact
that when the two accused Shiv Singh and
Ratan Shankar Dixit along with the other
persons had reached the place of incident,
Ratan Shankar Dixit was sharing a
common intention with Shiv Singh to
murder Sanjev Tripathi. Ratan Shankar
Dixit was definitely not involved in the
case which was lodged by Shiv Singh @
Jhallar against the deceased Sanjeev
Tripathi and first informant Chandra
Mohan Singh. Ratan Shankar Dixit was
also not aware of any other criminal cases
which were there in between Shiv Singh
and Chandra Mohan Singh and the
deceased. In the evidence, there is a
mention of other criminal cases as well, but
Ratan Shankar Dixit was out of them all.
He has definitely not been assigned any
specific motive to do away with Sanjeev
Tripathi.

15. Under such circumstances, to
implicate Ratan Shankar Dixit along with
Shiv Singh by saying that he had a
common intention to murder Sanjeev
Tripathi would be erroneous. The role of
Ratan Shankar Dixit not having come
within the purview of having a common
intention with Shiv Singh, we consider it
appropriate to acquit him of the charges
under section 302 read with section 34 IPC.
The appeal, therefore, stands allowed.
Since the appellant is on bail, he need not
surrender. His sureties and bail bonds are,
therefore, discharged.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 867
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2421 of 2006

Smt. Manju ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Raj Narayan Rastogi

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 - Section
8C/21, 42, 50 - Challenged the conviction