# Ravindra & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 75
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 1984
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Anil Kumar-X
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravindra-ors-v-state-of-u-p-53977
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
Accused persons were allegedly intending to
commit the act of sodomy with the deceased.
The court addressed the key issue related to the
reliability
of
the
prosecution's
evidence,
specifically the testimony of the eye-witnesses
and doubt ful nature of the circumstantial
evidence.

Headnotes
Criminal
matter-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section
374(2),
164-Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections
147,
201,
302/149-Contradictory statements of the
witnesses-Late disclosure of the two more
accused-explanation for not reporting the
incident to anyone deemed unnatural and
unsatisfactory-no sign of unnatural sex
was found on the deceased's body-The
I.O. found no blood stains at the sceneBlood-stained knives were recovered but
the doctor (PW-4) stated that all injuries
were
caused
by
batons-
statement
recorded a month after the incident but
no provided by the I.O. for the delayProsecution failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt-Appeal allowed.
(E-6)

Held
The testimony of the eyewitnesses (PW-2 and
PW-3)was not consistent and did not inspire
confidence
due
to
material
contradictions
between their statements u/s 164 CrPC and
their
trial
depositions,
coupled
with
the
unnatural nature of their conduct-Further more,
The investigation was seriously doubted due to
the absence of blood at the alleged place of
occurrence and the contradiction between the
recovered weapons(knives) and the medical
evidence(injuries caused by batons)-The court
held that the prosecution had miserably failed to
prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt-The
appellant was acquitted of the charges.(Para 16
to 28)

Case law Cited:
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs State of Uttar
Pradesh AIR 2022 SC 5273, Subramanya Vs
State of Karnataka AIR 2022 SC 5110 , Chanan
Singh Vs State of Haryana, 1971 SC 1554, State
of Orissa Vs Mr. Brahmananda Nanda AIR 1976
SC 2488, Firoz Khan Akbar khan Vs The State of
Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 349-referred
to.

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

List of Keywords
Acquittal, Abatement, Contradictory Testimony,
Eyewitnesses (PW-2 Satendra Pal, PW-3 Anil
Kumar),Unreliable/Unnatural, Conduct, Material
inconsistencies, Postmortem report, Motive,
Recovery of Knives, Sodomy, Conviction.
Case Arising from
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 319 of 1984
From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
12.09.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.
Ravindra & Ors Vs. State of U.P.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Appellant(s)
 Seema Pandey (A.C.) P.N. Misra, Yadvesh
Yadav
Adv. for Respondent(s)
Dga

## Text

_Characters 0–39,982 of 42,773. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39982 for what follows._

9 All. Ravindra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
75
that it far outweighs the effect of the
omission on the part of the prosecution to
explain the injuries. The present, however,
is certainly not such a case, and the High
Court was, therefore, in error in brushing
aside
this
serious
infirmity
in
the
prosecution
case
on
unconvincing
premises."

23. In Nand Lal and others vs. State
of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 10 SCC 470, the
Apex Court has relied upon the above
observations made in Lakshmi Singh and
others vs. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC
394, the Apex Court has further placed
reliance in State of Rajasthan vs. Madho
(1991) Supp (2) SCC 396, State of M.P.
vs. Mishri Lal (2003) 9 SCC 426 and
Nagarathinam vs. State (2006)9 SCC 57,
while acquitting the accused persons due to
non explanation of injuries of accused by
the prosecution.

24. Thus from the aforesaid judgments
of the Apex Court, it can be safely
concluded that non explanation of injuries
sustained by the accused person by the
prosecution, makes the prosecution story
doubtful. That means the prosecution is not
coming with clean hands and there is an
attempt
to
suppress
the
real
facts.
Therefore,
the
prosecution
witnesses
becomes unreliable, and in case, the
defence has given the explanation of the
entire incident that becomes more reliable.
Therefore, the benefit of doubt is to be
accorded to the accused persons.

25. In the instant case, prosecution has
completely failed to explain the injury
sustained by the appellant no.1 and nonexplanation of the injuries sustained by the
accused persons by the prosecution creates
a doubt about the prosecution story and it
gives rise to the suspicion in the minds of
the Court that the actual genesis of the
incident is being suppressed by the
prosecution and the prosecution is not
coming forward with the actual story and is
trying to suppress the actual incident.
Therefore, the accused persons are entitled
for benefit of doubt.

26. Accordingly, the instant appeal is
allowed. The impugned judgment and
order dated 16.01.1985 passed by the trial
court
convicting
and
sentencing
the
appellants no.1 and 2 herein is hereby set
aside. The appellants no.1 and 2 are hereby
acquitted of the charges.

27. The appellants no.1 and 2 are on
bail. They need not surrender. Their bail
bonds are cancelled and Sureties are
discharged.

28. Office is directed to send a copy of
this judgment along with the record to the
trial court to be consigned.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 75
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 1984

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

Counsel for the Appellants:
Seema Pandey (A.C.), P.N. Misra, Yadvesh
Yadav

Counsel for the Respondent:
Dga
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
Accused persons were allegedly intending to
commit the act of sodomy with the deceased.
The court addressed the key issue related to the
reliability
of
the
prosecution's
evidence,
specifically the testimony of the eye-witnesses
and doubt ful nature of the circumstantial
evidence.

Headnotes
Criminal
matter-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section
374(2),
164-Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections
147,
201,
302/149-Contradictory statements of the
witnesses-Late disclosure of the two more
accused-explanation for not reporting the
incident to anyone deemed unnatural and
unsatisfactory-no sign of unnatural sex
was found on the deceased's body-The
I.O. found no blood stains at the sceneBlood-stained knives were recovered but
the doctor (PW-4) stated that all injuries
were
caused
by
batons-
statement
recorded a month after the incident but
no provided by the I.O. for the delayProsecution failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt-Appeal allowed.
(E-6)

Held
The testimony of the eyewitnesses (PW-2 and
PW-3)was not consistent and did not inspire
confidence
due
to
material
contradictions
between their statements u/s 164 CrPC and
their
trial
depositions,
coupled
with
the
unnatural nature of their conduct-Further more,
The investigation was seriously doubted due to
the absence of blood at the alleged place of
occurrence and the contradiction between the
recovered weapons(knives) and the medical
evidence(injuries caused by batons)-The court
held that the prosecution had miserably failed to
prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt-The
appellant was acquitted of the charges.(Para 16
to 28)

Case law Cited:
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs State of Uttar
Pradesh AIR 2022 SC 5273, Subramanya Vs
State of Karnataka AIR 2022 SC 5110 , Chanan
Singh Vs State of Haryana, 1971 SC 1554, State
of Orissa Vs Mr. Brahmananda Nanda AIR 1976
SC 2488, Firoz Khan Akbar khan Vs The State of
Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 349-referred
to.

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

List of Keywords
Acquittal, Abatement, Contradictory Testimony,
Eyewitnesses (PW-2 Satendra Pal, PW-3 Anil
Kumar),Unreliable/Unnatural, Conduct, Material
inconsistencies, Postmortem report, Motive,
Recovery of Knives, Sodomy, Conviction.
Case Arising from
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 319 of 1984
From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
12.09.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.
Ravindra & Ors Vs. State of U.P.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Appellant(s)
 Seema Pandey (A.C.) P.N. Misra, Yadvesh
Yadav
Adv. for Respondent(s)
Dga

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Seema Pandey, learned
Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Shri
Amit Sinha, learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been
preferred by the appellants Ravindra,
Rishipal, Satendra and Brij Bhushan
against the judgment dated 30.1.1984
passed in Sessions Trial No.257 of 1981
(State vs. Ravindra and Ors.). Appellants
Ravindra and Rishipal were convicted and
sentenced to six months' R.I. each under
Section 147 IPC, two years R.I. under
Section 201 IPC and imprisonment for life
under Section 302/149 IPC. Appellants
Satendra and Brij Bhushan were convicted
and sentenced to one year's R.I. under
Section 148 IPC, two years' R.I. under
Section 201 IPC and imprisonment for life
9 All. Ravindra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
77
under Section 302/149 IPC. Sentences were
made to run concurrently.

3. During pendency of this appeal,
appellants Rishipal, Satendra and Brij
Bhushan died. Accordingly, appeal filed by
them was declared abated on 4.7.2025.

4. Prosecution story in nutshell is that
Pitam Singh (PW-1) lodged a complaint
(Ex. Ka-1) before Police Station-Kotwali,
District
Muzaffarnagar
on
27.2.1981
wherein he stated that his son Harendra
Kumar, student of Class XII (Science),
aged about 18 years left his house on a
Hero Cycle to Civil Lines, North at about
6:15 pm on 26.2.1981 for obtaining
herbarium sheets from market but he did
not return by the midnight. Informant
started searching for him but could not
trace him. He came to know on 27.2.1981
at about 6:00 am that dead body of a boy
was lying near Kutcherry Post Office.
When he reached there, he found that dead
body was of Harendra Kumar and bleeding
from his nose was present. On the said
complaint, an FIR (Ex. Ka-15), being Case
Crime No.164/1981, was lodged at 7:10 am
on 27.2.1981 against unknown persons.
Investigation was handed over to SI Om
Prakash Tomar (PW-10) on the same date.
Dead body of Harendra was recovered
behind the Post Office of Kutcherry. Blood
stained and plain soil (Ex. Ka-17) were
collected from place of occurrence. Inquest
(Ex. Ka-2) was conducted and dead body
was sent for postmortem. After the
postmortem, postmortem report (Ex. Ka10) was prepared by Dr. S.C. Gupta (PW4). During investigation on 27.2.1981,
Investigating Officer came to know from
Virendra that in the evening at about 7:00
pm, Harendra along with other accused
Ravindra, Satendra, Rishipal, Santerpal,
Brij Bhushan and other 2-3 boys were
talking with each other. On next day,
Investigating Officer was informed by
police informer that one Mahadev, who
also resides in the same rented house where
deceased was residing, can give the details
of
the
alleged
offence.
Thereafter,
Investigating
Officer
recorded
the
statement of Mahadev (Madho) who told
him that on the day of occurrence, he along
with his brother had left for their village
but other students namely Anil, Krishan
Pal, Satendra and Vijendra, who were also
tenants of the same house told him that
after he returned, that Ravindra, Satendra,
Rishipal and Brij Bhushan had came in the
rented room of Mahadev and later on killed
him. They also told that the aforesaid
accused persons also carried away the dead
body after wrapping it in a quilt.

5. Thereafter, Investigating Officer
recorded statements of Anil and Krishan
Pal. Statements of Satendra, Krishan Pal
and Anil Kumar were also recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW-10 SI Om Prakash
Tomar arrested four accused persons and
illegal knife (Ex. Ka-11), blood stained
knife (Ex. Ka-12) and bicycle of deceased
was recovered from them. Relying upon
statements made by Anil, Krishan Pal and
Satendra Pal and from the recoveries made,
charge-sheet
against
accused
persons
Ravindra, Satendra, Rishipal, Brij Bhushan
and
Santerpal
was
submitted
by
Investigating Officer under Section 302 and
120 IPC. Charge-sheet under Section 4/25
Arms Act was also submitted against
accused Satendra.

6. Charges against Ravindra, Rishipal,
Santerpal and Naresh were framed under
Section 147, 302 read with Sections 149
and 201 of IPC. Charges against Satendra
and Brij Bhushan were framed under
Sections 148, 149, and 201 IPC. Accused
78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
denied the charges and claimed for trial. 11
prosecution witnesses were examined in
support of prosecution story. PW-1 Pitam
Singh, father of deceased has proved the
contents of written report (Ex. Ka-1). He
has identified clothes worn by the deceased
at the time of occurrence and proved
Exhibits 7 to 11. Apart from it, he has also
proved the receipt (Ex. Ka-12) of bicycle
he purchased for Harendra.

7. PW-2 Satendra Pal has deposed that
both deceased Harendra and accused
persons were known to him. He was also a
tenant in the house of Jile Singh. Madho
and Vijendra were also tenants in the said
house. He has further stated that on
26.2.1981 at about 7:45 pm, when he
alongwith Krishan Pal and Anil Kumar was
cooking
food,
6
accused
Ravindra,
Satendra, Brij Bhushan, Rishipal, Naresh
and Santerpal came alongwith Harendra
who was holding a cycle. After half an
hour, he heard voices coming from the
room of Madho. When he along with
Krishan Pal and Anil Kumar approached
near the room of Madho, they saw from the
space through door that Brij Bhushan and
Satendra were holding knives and Ravindra
and Rishipal were holding clubs. He has
also stated that they saw the incident as
room was lit with bulb. They were
threatening Harendra and were asking him
to open his Nara in order to satisfy their
unnatural lust. Harendra was offering
resistance. Then this witness opened the
door and tried to forbade them from doing
so. But he too was threatened by accused
persons who asked him and his companions
to return back or they will kill them. When
this witness along with other 2 boys
retreated to their room, they were locked
inside as accused bolted their door from
outside. 15 to 20 minutes afterwards, he
saw that all 6 accused persons were
carrying away Harendra who was put on a
cot and his body was wrapped in a quilt.
After about half an hour, they saw a man in
the adjacent house and called him to open
the bolt of their door. He informed this
incident to Madho on next day and returned
back to his village. Again he returned to
Muzaffarnagar on the very next day and he
was interrogated by the Sub Inspector. He
has also stated that all the accused persons
frequently visited the rented room of
Madho. PW-3 Anil Kumar has also
deposed the same facts as stated by PW-2
Satendra Pal. Both witnesses have stated
that Madho was not present in his room at
the time of alleged incident.

8. PW-4 Dr. S.C. Gupta who has
conducted postmortem has found following
ante mortem injuries on body of deceased :-

"1. Lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" x
bone on right side skull 3" above the ear
placed transversely.

2. Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/10"
x muscle on right side front of scalp on the
hair line.

3. Contusion 11⁄2 " x 1" on right
pinna of ear.

4. Contusion 1" x 3/4" on left
pinna of ear.

5. Lacerated wound 11⁄2 " x 1/4" x
bone on outer part of left eyebrow.

6. Lacerated wound 1⁄2" x 1/10" x
muscle on left upper eyelid.

7. Lacerated wound 1⁄2" x 1/10" x
bone on bridge of the nose with depressed
fracture of the nasal bones.
9 All. Ravindra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
79

8. Abraded contusion 2"x 1" on
right forehead just lateral to bridge of the
nose.

9. Lacerated wound 3/4" x 1/2" x
bone on front of chin.

10. Abraded contusion 3" x 2" on
left body of the mandible and area below it.

11. Abraded contusion 13" long
encircling the neck all round. The breadth
is 2 1⁄2"on left side and 1/2" on right side.

12. Abrasion 1" x 1" on inner end
of left collar bone.

13. Multiple abraded contusion in
area of 6" x 3" on back of right hand with
swelling.

14. Contusion 6" x 1" on outer
aspect of right thigh.

15. Lacerated wound 1" x 1/4" x
muscle on outer aspect of right thigh
middle 1/3rd.

16. Contusion 4" x 2 1⁄2 " on front
and upper aspect of right knee.

17. Lacerated wound 1/4 " x 1⁄4" x
bone on front right leg upper third.

18. Contusion 4" x 1 1⁄2 "on front
of right leg.

19. Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1 /4"
x muscle onfront of left leg middle 1/3.

20. Contusion 11" x 2" on front of
left thigh upper 1/3.

21. Multiple contusions 7" x 3"
on outer aspect of left thigh upper 1/3.

22. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 1/4"
x muscle in space between left thumb and
index finger.

23. Contusion 3" x 2" on inner
side of left forearm lower 1/3.

24. Contusion 10"x 6" on front,
top, beck and outer aspect of left shoulder
with swelling.

25. Multiple abraded contusions
in an area 8" x 4" on beck of right shoulder
and right scapular region.

26. Multiple abraded contusion in
an area of 8" x 5" On left scapular region.

27. Contusion 4" x 2" on right
gluted region."

PW-4 has stated that the deceased
died due to shock and haemorrhage as a
result of ante mortem injuries.

9. PW-5 Jile Singh was owner of the
house where PW-2 Satendra and PW-3
Anil Kumar were tenants. He has stated
that he had not rented any room to Madho.
He has also stated that Dinesh s/o Daya
Ram was also residing as a tenant in his
room. PW-6 Ravindra Kumar has proved
recovery of illegal knife (Ex. Ka-11),
recovery of blood stained knife (Ex. Ka12), recovery of blood stained quilt cover
(Ex. Ka-13), and recovery memo of bicycle
(Ex. Ka-14). PW-7 Head Constable Tayyab
Hussain has proved chik report (Ex. Ka15), PW-8 Constable Damber Singh has
stated that sealed dead body was handed
over to him by SI which was produced by
him before the doctor for autopsy. PW-9
Iqbal Singh @ Dharam Pal was declared
hostile. SI Om Prakash (PW-10) has given
details of investigation and has proved Ex.
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ka-17, Ex. Ka-5 and Ka-6, site plan (Ex.
Ka-18),
inquest
memo
(Ex.
Ka-2),
Statement of Iqbal Singh (Ex. Ka-20),
recoveries of knives (mat. Ex. Ka-2 & 3)
and other connected documents/materials
collected
during
investigation.
PW-11
Mohd.
Feyyaz
who
was
the
other
investigating
officer
has
also
given
statement before court. Statement of
accused persons were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have shown
ignorance about alleged offence and have
also denied their role. They have stated that
he was falsely implicated by S.H.O. Om
Prakash Tomar and Constable Om Pal due
to enmity. False recoveries of knives etc.
were made from them.

10. Upon the completion of the trial
when the court of Special Additional
District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, by its
judgement and order dated 30.1.1984
convicted Ravindra and Rishi Pal for the
offences punishable under Sections 147,
201 and 302/149 and Satendra Brij Bhusan
for the offences punishable under Sections
148, 201 and 302/149 IPC, the instant
Appeal was filed. It may be stated that the
accused Santer Pal and Naresh were
acquitted of the charges levelled against
them.

11. Upon being held guilty the accused
persons
were
sentenced
with
life
imprisonment under Sections 302 read with
Section 149 IPC.

12.
The
convicted
appellants
Ravindra, Rishipal, Satendra and Brij
Bhusan filed the instant Criminal Appeal
No. 319 of 1981. During the pendency of
the
Appeal,
the
appellants
Rishipal,
Satendra and Brij Bhusan died. The appeal
vis-a-vis them, therefore, abated. Vis-a-vis
the appellant - Ravindra the appeal was
argued by Ms. Seema Pandey learned
amicus curiae.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant
made the following submissions:-

I. The eye-witness account of
P.W.-2 Satendra Pal and P.W.-3 Anil
Kumar was absolutely unbelievable. In
their statements they had mentioned that
they had heard the accused asking the
deceased to open his Nada so that they
could commit the act of sodomy. However,
from the evidence on record, specially from
that of the Investigating Officer, it becomes
clear that, in fact, the deceased was not
wearing any Payjama but was wearing a
bell bottom which does not have a Nada
but in fact had buttons. He submits further
that the presence of the two eye witnesses
could not be established as their entire
conduct was unbelievable. They had stated
that when they had seen through the chink
of the door of Madhav's room, six accused
persons were intending to commit the act of
sodomy with the deceased, yet they had
dared to enter the room. Two of the
accused, namely, Brij Bhusan and Satendra
were having knives in their hands while
Ravindra and Rishi Pal were having sticks
in their hands and they were intimidating
the deceased to open his Nada so that they
could commit the act of sodomy. Learned
counsel for the appellant submitted that if
the accused were so heavily armed when
they were seen by the P.W.-2 and his two
friends, namely, Anil Kumar and Kishan
Pal then either they would have assaulted
them and would have tried to do away with
them or they would have themselves run
away. For the accused to just drive away,
the three eye-witnesses who had seen them
committing the crime was very unlikely.
Furthermore, it was still more unlikely that
they would just lock them in the
9 All. Ravindra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
81
neighbouring room by putting a latch from
outside.

14. Learned counsel for the
appellant further stated that the presence of
the eyewitnesses also became unbelievable
when they had stated that they had got the
latch unlocked after the accused persons
along with the deceased had gone away
from the site by calling an unknown person
in the neighborhood. Learned counsel
submits that in the event the person who
had been called had opened the latch for
the eye witnesses to come out of the room
then the first thing they would have done
upon having seen such a serious offence
being committed that they would have gone
to the police to report the matter. Learned
counsel further states that the eye witness
accounts still further became unreliable as,
though Satendra and Anil came to the
witness box, Kishan Pal who was also
staying in the same room never appeared in
the Box. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that even Madhav in whose room
the incident had happened and Vijendra
who was living in the neighbouring room
never came in the witness box.

II. The case of the prosecution
further gets falsified inasmuch as the P.W.-
1 had nowhere stated that he had seen six
persons, namely, Ravindra, Satendra, Rishi
Pal, Brij Bhusan, Naresh and Santer pal
committing the crime. In the statements
under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164
Cr.P.C., he had only stated that he had seen
the accused Ravindra, Rishipal Satendra
and Brij Bhusan. However, before the court
he had taken the names of two more
persons, namely, Santer Pal and Naresh.
Learned counsel submits that how Santer
Pal and Naresh were connected with the
crime was not known at all to the
prosecution. He submits that on this
account also the testimony of the eyewitnesses of the P.W.-2 and P.W.-3
becomes unbelievable.

III. Learned counsel for the
appellant further states that the recovery
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was
not done as per the law. In this regard,
learned counsel for the appellant relied
upon two judgements of the Supreme Court
in Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2022
SC 5273 and in Subramanya vs. State of
Karnataka reported in AIR 2022 SC
5110. No statements of the accused before
the recovery was recorded in the presence
of two independent witnesses.

IV. Learned counsel for the
appellant states that there was no injury of
a sharp edged weapon but the recovery had
mentioned that knives with blood on them
were
recovered.
Thus
recovery
also
becomes absolutely unbelievable.

V. The entire case of the
prosecution was that the six accused
persons had taken the deceased to commit
the offence of sodomy but nowhere on the
body of the deceased any sign of unnatural
sex was to be found.

VI. The dead body of the
deceased was found in the plots on the
southern side of the kutchery and post
office. But the incident allegedly had taken
place some distance away from the place
where the dead body was discovered but no
evidence was led as to whether there was
blood in the room of Madhav where the
incident allegedly took place.

VII. There was no blood at all
found at the alleged place of occurrence
namely the room of Madhav. If the incident
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had taken place in the room, the blood
would have been found there.

VIII. Even the testimony of Jile
Singh did not inspire confidence as he was
not even aware if Madhav was a tenant in
his house.

14. Learned AGA Sri Amit Sinha
opposed the Appeal and submitted that
P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 were giving eye witness
accounts which could not be disbelieved
lightly. He submitted that it mattered little
that there was blood found on the edges of
the knives which were recovered even if
there was no injury of any sharp edged
weapon on the body of the deceased.
Learned AGA submitted that not always
the accused could have reacted in the way
the learned counsel for the appellant argued
i.e. they would have definitely continued to
commit the murder even when they were
caught red hand. He also submitted that it
mattered little if no blood was found at the
place of incident.

15.
Before
embarking upon
the
discussions on evidence, it will be relevant
to note that alleged incident which occurred
on 26-2-1981 remained offscreen till dead
body was recovered on next day and F.I.R
was lodged against unknown by P.W.-1
Pitam Singh. Statement of three eye
witnesses were recorded by I.O. on 28-0281. All three witnesses were produced
before Judicial Magistrate on 25-03-81 and
their statements were recorded u/s 164
Cr.P.C. The prosecution asserts that the
testimony of the witnesses is impeccable,
and the appellants have failed to present
any evidence to impeach them.Appellants
contended that conduct of the witnesses,
who left for their village on next day
without disclosing the incident to anyone,
and
material
inconsistencies
in
their
statements, make them highly unreliable.
Before delving into other evidence, it
would be prudent to consider the testimony
of eyewitnesses first.

16. It's important to note that only two
eye witnesses, Satendra and Anil, were
produced by the prosecution out of the
three witnesses, namely Satendra ,Krishna
Pal and Anil. When their statement was
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., both
of them stated that they were residing in a
rented room owned by Zile Singh.
Madav,another tenant, was residing in
adjacent room.On February 26, 1981, at
approximately
7:45
pm,
four
boys?Ravindra, Satendra, Rishi Pal, and
Brij Bhusan?arrived at Madav's room. They
were
accompanied
by
the
deceased
Harendra, who was holding his cycle.Said
boys used to visit Madav's room frequently.
They unlocked the door and entered
Madav's room. At that time, witnesses were
busy in cooking their food. They heard
some noise of conversation coming from
Madav's room. Five minutes later,they
heard screams that I will not let do so. They
came after hearing the screams and went to
Madav's room.

17. They further stated that when they
peeped from seam of door, they saw that
Brij Bhusan and Satendra were wielding
knives and Ravindra and Rishipal were
beating Harendra with clubs . They were
demanding from Harendra to open strings
of his pyjamas to commit sodomy.
Harendra was resisting and was crying for
help. Braj Bhusan and Satendra were
threatening to kill Harendra on knife point.
Upon hearing screams, they reached there
and entered into the room after getting it
opened. However, all the accused pounced
upon them and threatened to retreat.
Satendra bolted their room from outside.
9 All. Ravindra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
83
Twenty minutes later, they saw all the
accused carrying Harendra away wrapped
in a quilt. An unknown person came there
to see Madav and he opened their bolt after
they asked for it. They didn't disclose the
incident to anyone out of fear except
Madav on next day.Another witness, P.W.-
3 Anil, has provided a slightly different
version of the events in his statement under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. He stated that
the door in Madav's room was locked, and
its lock was broken by the accused persons.

18. During trial,P.W.-2 Satendra in
examination in chief said that six persons
came along with Harendra. When he was
confronted with his statement u/s 164
Cr.P.C.during cross examination , he
admitted that he hadn't mentioned Santer
Pal and Naresh's names to the Magistrate
because they were merely strolling outside
the room and were not involved in the
incident. P.W.-3 Anil has made similar
statement in his deposition on this point.
P.W.-2 Satendra has stated u/s 164 Cr.P.C
that lock of Madav room was opened by
accused persons.Contrary to it,P.W.-3 Anil
has stated u/s 164 Cr.P.C that it was forced
open by accused.Both witnesses have
stated u/ s 164 Cr.P.C that they got the door
of room opened by accused persons and
forbade them to do so. During crossexamination, P.W.-2 Satendra revealed he
himself opened the door,doors of Madav's
room were not bolted from inside but were
left ajar. He said during cross examination
that he had not stated before Magistrate that
doors were bolted from inside.During
cross-examination, P.W.-3 Anil admitted
that he couldn't recall whether Madav's
door was locked or not. He couldn't recall
what he had said before the I.O or
Magistrate regarding how the accused
persons opened the lock.He also admitted
that he couldn't recall his previous
statement to the I.O. and Magistrate
regarding the door's position. He has denied
stating before Magistrate that they got the
door opened by accused persons.

19. It seems from statements u/s
Section 164 Cr.P.C. that deceased Harendra
and other accused arrived at spot in a
normal manner. Both witnesses have stated
same fact during examination in chief. But
during cross examination P.W.-2 Satendra
stated that he and Krishna Pal were sitting
in their room on a cot and saw from
window
that
five
accused
were
apprehending Harendra. Ravindra was
holding Harendra's cycle. Harendra was
silent. None had gagged his mouth. None
of the accused was holding club or knife.
Neither he nor Krishna Pal questioned the
accused about there act of grabbing
Harendra. On other hand, P.W.-3 Anil has
stated during cross examination that none
of accused had grabbed Harendra .

20. Both witnesses in their statements
u/s 164 Cr.P.C have stated that accused
were beating Harendra with clubs. But
P.W.-2
Satendra
has
stated
during
examination in chief that accused were
merely
threatening
Harendra.
When
confronted with this statement, he admitted
to having made it. Soon he clarified and
said that Ravindra and Rishi Pal were
beating with clubs. Both of them had stated
under Section 164 that the accused bolted
their doors from outside before they left
spot.They got it opened from an unknown
person who arrived there to meet Madav.
Both had stated in their examination in
chief that accused left the spot after twenty
minutes and carried Harendra away in
wrapped quilt. P.W.-2 Satendra in his
deposition stated that after half an hour, he
saw a person strolling on adjacent roof. He
called him who unbolted their latch. P.W.-3
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had stated in his deposition that a person
was strolling on roof of Bhanwar Singh
whom they called. He descended and came
there and then he opened the latch.

21. As elaborated in the preceding
paragraphs, it is evident that the statements
of witnesses u/s164 Cr.P.C and their
testimony are contradictory. They have
stated U/s 164 Cr.P.C that only four
accused persons came with deceased. But
when they were examined in court,they
added names of two more accused persons
i.e. Santer Pal and Naresh. When both were
confronted on this issue, they stated they
had not disclosed their names earlier
because latter named accused were only
walking outside the room and were not
involved in incident. P.W.-2 Satendra has
stated in cross examination that he was
stopped by these two accused when he was
peeping through seam of door. If said
testimony of P.W.-2 Satendra along with
the role assigned to both accused is relied
upon, it will indicate involvement of latter
added accused persons. But reasons put
forward by the witnesses for not disclosing
their names earlier is unacceptable.

22. P.W.-2 Satendra has stated u/s 164
Cr.P.C that accused opened the lock of
door, whereas P.W.-3 Anil stated that it
was broken by them. Even though P.W.-2
Satendra had said that Madav's room was
locked,none of the witnesses have stated in
their deposition about the mode of opening
lock which reveals that neither they have
corroborated nor contradicted their earlier
statements u/s164 Cr.P.C. It is admitted
fact that Madav was not present in his room
where the alleged incident occurred.During
cross examination P.W-3 Anil stated he had
seen anybody opening the lock and he even
doesn't remember whether door was locked
or not. He didn't remember whether he had
stated before I.O or U/s164 Cr.P.C that
accused unlocked the door.In foregoing
circumstances, it was imperative for
prosecution to explain as how accused got
access of the room. Whether they broke the
lock or opened it?

23. Both witnesses had claimed in
their earlier statements that they got the
door opened by accused persons when they
found them beating Harendra. However
P.W.-2 Satendra had stated during cross
examination that door was left ajar and he
himself opened it.On other hand, P.W-3
Anil during cross examination stated he
had not stated u/s 164 Cr.P.C that they
entered room after getting the door opened.
Witnesses had earlier stated that the
deceased and accused arrived at the spot in
a normal manner. However, during crossexamination, P.W.-2 Satendra revealed that
the deceased Harendra was brought there in
confinement by the accused persons. It's
strange
that
none
of
the
witnesses
intervened at that stage but they did so
when they heard screams from inside the
room of Madav. Both witnesses have stated
that the stranger from the neighbourhood's
roof arrived at the spot to meet Madav and
opened their door, as per Section 164
Cr.P.C. However, they have contradicted
this in their depositions, claiming that he
arrived there after being called by them.It is
trite that Statement under Section 164, Cr.
P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence
but can be used for the purpose of
contradiction or corroboration as provided
under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. The
purpose of contradiction between evidence
of a witness before the court and the
statement recorded under section 164 of the
Code is primarily to shake credit of the
witness and to put the court on guard to
scrutinize the evidence with great care. In
this case ,bare comparison of statements
9 All. Ravindra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
85
made by witnesses u/s164 Cr.P.C and their
deposition before court reflects that they
are not consistent even on single point.
There is no plausible explanation as to why
names accused Santer Pal and Naresh were
disclosed for first time during trial.
Witnesses are not firm on any point like
whether door of Madav was opened by the
accused or lock was broken. Similarly they
have made contradictory claims about the
manner in which deceased Harendra and
accused reached the spot. There statements
under Section 164 Cr.P.C reflects that all
arrived there in normal manner. Contrary to
it, P.W.-2 Satendra has also stated that
deceased was brought there in confinement.
P.W.-2
Satendra
had
stated
during
examination in chief that accused were
only threatening deceased which is entirely
different from the prosecution story.
Similarly both witnesses claimed in their
earlier statements that they got the room
opened when they heard screams. But they
stated in their deposition that the door was
left ajar. Like wise, they stated u/s 164
Cr.P.C, that a stranger from has himself
came and opened their door,whereas they
stated during deposition that they called
him .

24.
Minor
and
immaterial
inconsistencies and/or discrepancies shall
not harm the case of the prosecution. But if
testimony of prosecution witnesses is in
variance
with
his
earlier
statements,particularly
statements
made
under Section 164 Cr.P.C, his testimony
comes under cloud of suspicion. Testimony
of either witness is not firm on manner of
occurrence.

25. Every criminal act, especially
those committed against the human body,
involves preceding facts that occurred
shortly before the act, along with the actual
commission of the offence. Similarly, some
acts occur shortly after the occurrence of
the offence. It is expected that witnesses
will be consistent in their testimony when
they unfold aforesaid events. It is evident
that
both
witnesses
have
made
improvements in their testimony on each
count. Such improvements can not be
brushed aside by terming them as minor
contradictions. These improvements are
material
improvements.
Similarly,
admission by witnesses that they did not
inform about the incident to any one except
Madav is strange and unnatural. Both had
admitted in cross examination that they got
information about recovery of dead body
on next day at about 11:00AM when they
were going to their college. Even P.W-2
Satendra has stated that he left for his
village on next day. Both witnesses have
stated that they did not inform the incident
out of fear. Said explanation is unnatural
and unsatisfactory. Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Chanan Singh vs. State of Haryana,
1971 SC 1554 held in paragraph 13 that the
conduct of witnesses in keeping away from
the place of occurrence even though he was
not chased or threatened and yet remained
silent and did not report the incident even
to the relatives of either of the two
deceased person was abnormal behaviour.
Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in State
of Orissa vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda
AIR 1976 SC 2488 held that if a witness
says that incident was not disclosed out of
fear cannot be believe unless accused
persons are known gangster or a confirmed
criminal about whom people would be
afraid.

26.
Apart
from
that,
statements
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C were
made a month after the incident.Such a
long delay in recording the statements of
the
witnesses
speaks
much.
Hon'ble
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Supreme Court in Firoz Khan Akbarkhan
vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2025
LiveLaw (SC) 349 has held," No doubt
that Court has laid down that an inordinate
delay in recording witness statements can
prove to be fatal for the prosecution, as
pointed out by three learned Judges in
Ganesh
Bhavan
Patel
v
State
of
Maharashtra, (1978) 4 SCC 371?" it further
held that," Thus, stricto sensu, delay in
recording witness statements, moreso when
the said delay is explained, will not aid an
accused. Of course, no hard-and- fast
principle in this regard ought to be or can
be laid down, as delay, if any, in recording
statements will have to be examined by the
Court concerned in conjunction with the
peculiar facts of the case before it. Our
reading of the above shall apply on all
fours to delays in the context of Section
164 of the Code." Here witnesses were
accessible to I.O and he also recorded their
testimony u/s 161 Cr.P.C. But neither the
testimony of witnesses nor of I.O has come
forward with any explanation from which
inference as to cause of delay can be
deduced. Such a long delay in recording the
statement of witnesses speaks much.

27. From the foregoing circumstances,
it is difficult to hold that alleged occurrence
was witnessed by these witnesses. The
manner in which investigation was carried
out also casts serious doubts. Blood stained
soil was collected from the place where
dead body was recovered. Recovery of
blood stained quilt cover was also made.
But I.O has not found blood stains on place
of occurrence. It is difficult to assume that
no blood stain was found at the spot even
when so much of blood has oozed in the
occurrence. Similarly alleged cycle said to
in possession of deceased Harendra was
recovered on pointing of accused Braj
Bhushan. Ravindra and Anang Pal were
made recovery witnesses. Said cycle Mat.
Ex-1 was produced before court and was
identified by Ravindra and Anang Pal.
Father of deceased, PW-1 Pitam Singh, was
available on the next day when FIR was
lodged by him and he was the best person
to identify the said cycle. But identification
of the said cycle by aforesaid witnesses
itself makes the recovery doubtful. Blood
stained knife was also recovered from two
accused Ravindra and Satendra. This
recovery itself is strange as P.W.-4 Dr S.C.
Gupta has stated that all injuries were
caused by batons. Testimony of eyewitnesses
which
does
not
inspire
confidence, coupled with recoveries that
contradict substantial evidence rather than
corroborating it, cannot be relied upon for
convicting appellants. Prosecution has
miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt.

28. Under such circumstances, we are
of the definite opinion that the appeal
deserves to be allowed. In this view of the
matter, the judgement and order dated
30.1.1984 passed by the Special District
Judge, Muzaffar Nagar is quashed and the
appeal is allowed. The appellant no. 1 is
acquitted of the charges who alone is now
alive. The appellant no.1 is already on bail.
Sureties and bail bonds are discharged.
Further directed to furnish bail bond in
compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to the
satisfaction of the Court concerned within
two month from today.

29. The learned Amicus Curiae, Ms.
Seema Pandey, be paid a fee of Rs.
15,000/-. The Registrar General to oversee
the payment.

30. The Trial Court's record be
remitted back along with copy of this
judgment.
9 All. Surya Lal @ Shiv Lal Vs. State of U.P.
87

31. Compliance report be submitted to
this Court at the earliest. Office is directed
to keep the compliance report on record.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 87
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1201 of 2014
&
Criminal Appeal No. 1359 of 2017