# Rudra Pal Singh & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 1117
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 583 of 1987
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Mrs. Renu Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rudra-pal-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-48966
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code 1860 -
Sections 302 & 34 - Evidence Act,1872 -
Section 3 - Murder - Proof - Minor
Contradictions - Evidence of the witnesses
can not be discarded only for the reason
that there are minor contradictions in the
statements of witnesses - It is natural for
minor
contradictions
to
arise
when
witness testimonies are recorded after a
considerable period of time - Human
memory fades over time - Minor variations
should not be given undue significance
when evaluating the credibility of witness
testimony (Para 35, 37)
The
convict-appellants
attacked
Bajrang
Bahadur Singh with a lathi and ballam, with
the intention to cause his death, resulting in
his demise due to the injuries inflicted - no
material contradictions pointed out - convictappellant had no specific defence as to why
they have falsely been implicated in the case -
prosecution
proved
its
case
beyond
reasonable doubt against the appellant - all
the convicts-appellants convicted u/s 302
readwith section 34 I.P.C. - conviction and
sentence fully justified - Appeal dismissed.
(43, 44, 45)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

9 All. Rudra Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1117

(C) Criminal Appeal No. 1552
of 2017

This Criminal Appeal preferred
by convict/appellant Sarvan is dismissed.

Convict/appellant Sarvan is in
jail. He shall serve out the sentence as
ordered by the trial Court vide impugned
order dated 29.08.2017.

99. However, as provided under
Section 415 Cr.P.C. execution of sentence
of death shall stand postponed until the
period allowed for preferring such appeal
has expired and if an appeal is preferred
within that period, until such appeal is
disposed of. It is also clarified that death
punishment shall only be executed in
accordance with law complying with all
guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court time and again.

100. Let a copy of this judgment
along with Trial Court record be sent to
Court concerned for compliance and two
copies of judgment as well as printed paper
book be sent to State Government, as
required under Chapter XVIII Rule 45 of
Allahabad
High
Court
Rules,
1952,
forthwith.

101. A copy of the judgment be also
sent to convicts/appellants Sarvan and
Suman
through
Jail
Superintendent
concerned
for
intimation
forthwith.
Compliance report be also sent to this
Court.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1117
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. RENU AGARWAL, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 583 of 1987

Rudra Pal Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Pankaj Nath, Amar Nath Dubey, G.C.
Verma

Counsel for the Respondent:
Government Advocate, Shiv Shanker Singh
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code 1860 -
Sections 302 & 34 - Evidence Act,1872 -
Section 3 - Murder - Proof - Minor
Contradictions - Evidence of the witnesses
can not be discarded only for the reason
that there are minor contradictions in the
statements of witnesses - It is natural for
minor
contradictions
to
arise
when
witness testimonies are recorded after a
considerable period of time - Human
memory fades over time - Minor variations
should not be given undue significance
when evaluating the credibility of witness
testimony (Para 35, 37)
The
convict-appellants
attacked
Bajrang
Bahadur Singh with a lathi and ballam, with
the intention to cause his death, resulting in
his demise due to the injuries inflicted - no
material contradictions pointed out - convictappellant had no specific defence as to why
they have falsely been implicated in the case -
prosecution
proved
its
case
beyond
reasonable doubt against the appellant - all
the convicts-appellants convicted u/s 302
readwith section 34 I.P.C. - conviction and
sentence fully justified - Appeal dismissed.
(43, 44, 45)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Suresh
Yadav
@
Guddu
Vs
St.
of
Chhattisgargh 2022 SCC Online SC 236

2. Sachin Kumar Singhraha Vs St. of M.P.
(2019) 8 Supreme Court Cases,371
1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Takhaji Hiraji Vs Thakore
Kubersingh
Chamansing, 2001(6) SCC,145

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal, J.)

1. Present Criminal Appeal under
section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed
against the judgment and order dated 0209-1987 passed by Sri Mukteshwar Prasad,
the then Ist Additional Sessions Judge,
Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 113 of
1986, convicting all the appellants under
sections 302/34 I.P.C. and sentencing them
to undergo to life imprisonment to each
convict-appellants under sections 302/34
I.P.C. The convict-appellants, Rudra Pal
Singh, Sita Ram Singh and Sri Ram Singh
had died during pendency of the present
appeal and case against them has been
abated vide order dated 05-12-2016. Thus,
the present appeal survives on behalf of the
appellant, Rajendra Pratap Singh.

2. Wrapping the facts of the case in brief
that the complainant, Vijay Bahadur Singh,
son of late Vishwanath Singh stated in the
F.I.R. that his brother, Bajrang Bahadur and
Ram Sahay Tewari, S/o Sri Ram Hit and
Salikram Murai, S/o Ramjeevan, R/o of
Kharagpur Ayodhya Nagar, were returning to
their home on 03-09-1984 at about 1.30 P.M.
When they reached Bibi Tali Talab, the
convict-appellants, Rudra Pal Singh, Sita Ram
Singh and Sri Ram Singh, sons of Fateh
Bahadur Singh and Rajendra Pratap Singh @
Mithu, son of Rudra Pal Singh attacked his
brother, Bajrang Bahadur Singh with Lathi
and Ballam. When his brother, Bajrang
Bahadur Singh raised alarm, Ram Sewak
Tewari and Salikram Murai rushed towards
the place of the incident and tried to save the
brother of the complainant, Bajrang Bahadur
Singh. The convict-appellants threatened them
not to come forward to save Bajrang Bahadur
Singh else they will bear the consequences.

3. Hearing noise at the place of
occurrence, the complainant and Surya Narain
Tewari, S/o Gayadin Tewari and Ram Lakhan
Upadhyay, S/o Ram Dular and other villagers
arrived at the place of incident and challenged
the assailants. Then, the convict-accused ran
away treating his brother half dead towards the
south. The brother of the informant was badly
injured and unconscious. He brought his
brother on a cot to the police station with the
help of Somai, Hari Ram Lal, Krishan Surya
Narayan. When they reached near a temple at
Peeparpur Road, his brother died on the way.
The complainant went to the police station
with dead body of his brother and lodged an
F.I.R. in writing.

4. The contents of the aforesaid
information were taken down in the concerned
Chik F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 161 of 1984,
under sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police StationPeeparpur, Sub. District-Amethi, districtSultanpur on 03-09-1984 at about 3.15 P.M.
5. On the basis of the entries so made in the
Chik F.I.R., a case was registered against the
convict-appellants. The investigation of the
case was entrusted upon to the Station Officer,
Satish Chandra Tripathi, P.W.-7 and the
autopsy of the dead body of the deceased was
conducted on the very same day i.e. 03-091984 at 17.30 hours in the presence of Surya
Narain Singh, Dwarika Singh, Girija Shanker
Singh, Ram Narain Shukla and Ganga Prasad
Singh. The Investigating Officer prepared the
inquest report of the dead body of the
deceased, which is on record.

6. The witnesses of the inquest
concurred with the Investigating Officer
that the dead body of the deceased be sent
for post-mortem in order to ascertain the
real cause of death. The dead body of the
deceased was sent for post-mortem with all
necessary papers i.e. Chik Report, Challan
Lash, Photo Lash, Report of the Chief
9 All. Rudra Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1119
Medical Officer and the Report of the R.I.
etc. in the form of Challan with letters to
the Chief Medical Officer and R.I.

7. The post-mortem of the deceased,
Bajrang Bahadur was conducted. The postmortem report is Exhibit Ka-2, which is
annexed with the file. The following antemortem injuries were found on the body of
the deceased:-

Ante-mortem Injuries .

(1) Punctured wound 2 cm. x 1 cm.
x bone deep over front of left leg. 9 cm.
below paletts.

(2) Punctured wound 2.5 c.m. x 1
cm. x bone deep 7 c.m. below injury No. one.

(3) Punctured wound 1 cm. x .5
cm. x bone deep over medial malleolus.

(4) Traumatic swelling over medial
part of right ankle joint in an area of 6 cm. x 4
cm. x diffused swelling around the joint also.

(5) Incised wounds over the back
of proximal inter phalangeal joints of index,
ring and middle finger. All linear and skin
deep.

(6) Traumatic swelling over whole
of the upper 1/2 of the right forearm 15 cm. x
entire girth with deformity with fracture of
both underlying bones(Radius & ulna).

(7) Multiple abrasion over back &
top of right shoulder over bony prominence
in area of 9 cm. x 5 cm.

(8) Contusion over right side back
in scapular & infra scapular region measuring
12 cm. X 3 cm. oblique & vertical in
direction.

(9) Contusion over left side back
13 cm. x 3 cm. vertical & oblique in direction
below inferior angle of Scapula.

(10) Incised wd. 4 cm. x 1 cm. x
bone deep over left side top of scalp 9 cm.
above left ear.

Cause of death is disclosed as
Shock & Hemorrhage due to ante-mortem
injuries.

8. The Investigating Officer visited
place of occurrence and prepared site plan
(Exhibit Ka-12). The Investigating Officer
collected blood stained cot from the
possession of the complainant and released
in his favour with the condition to produce
the same at the time of the evidence. He
also collected the blood stained and plain
earth from the place of occurrence and
prepared sample and sent it to Forensic
Laboratory. The report of the Forensic
Laboratory is on record.

9. After conducting investigation, the
Investigating Officer filed the chargesheet
against all the four convict-appellants, Rudra
Pal Singh, Sita Ram Singh, Sri Ram Singh
and Rajendra Pratap Singh under sections
302/34 I.P.C. The Magistrate concerned took
the cognizance and committed the case for
trial to the court of sessions.

10. The trial court framed charges
against all the four convict-appellants under
sections 302/34 I.P.C., which were read
over and explained to them in Hindi. The
convict-appellants abjured with a charge
and claimed to be tried. In furtherance to
prove their case, the prosecution examined
the following witnesses :-

(1) Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh,
P.W.-1, Complainant of the case. He
claimed himself to be an eye witness.

(2) Sri Surya Narayan Tewari,
P.W.-2, who also claims himself to be an
eye witness of the case.

(3) Sri Ram Sewak, P.W.-3 also
claims to be an eye witness of the case.
1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(4)
Dr.
V.K.Verma,
P.W.-4,
Medical Officer, who conducted the
autopsy of the dead body of the deceased,
Bajrang Bahadur S/o Vishwanath Singh
and found ten injuries on the dead body of
the deceased.

(5) CP Vijay Bahadur Mishra,
P.W.-5, who registered the F.I.R. of the
incident and made entry of the same in the
Chik Report and General Diary.

(6) CP Ram Achal Singh, P.W.-6,
who carried papers at the time of the
inquest report for the purpose of autopsy
coupled with dead body of the deceased for
autopsy.

(7)
Satish
Chandra
Tripathi,
P.W.-7, Station Officer, who conducted the
investigation of the case.

11. Apart from above oral evidences,
necessary relevant documents were also
proved by the prosecution which are as
under :-

1. Written Report(Exhibit Ka-1)

2. Post Mortem Report(Exhibit
Ka-2)

3.
First
Information
Report(Exhibit Ka-3)

4. Inquest Report(Exhibit Ka-5)

5. Recovery Memo(Exhibit Ka11)

6. Sita Plan (Exhibit Ka-12)

7. Recovery Memo(Exhibit Ka13)

12. After completion of the evidence
of the prosecution, the statements of the
convict-appellants were recorded under
section 313 Cr.P.C.

13. The convict-appellant, Rajendra
Pratap Singh, S/o Sri Rudra Pal Singh
denied the allegations levelled against him
and merely stated that he has falsely been
implicated in the present case due to enmity
in village. He has also refused to adduce
any defence evidence in his favour. No
witness was produced by him though the
opportunity of the same was given to him
by the trial court. No documentary
evidence was ever produced in the trial
court regarding enmity.

14.
 Learned
trial
court
heard
arguments from both the sides and after
analysing the evidence available on record,
concluded that there is no reason to
disbelieve the prosecution version. The
presence of P.W.-2,Surya Narayan Tewari
is doubted on the spot by the convictappellants, but, P.W.-2, Surya Narayan
Tewari, denied the suggestions of the
defence and affirmed that he saw the
incident. The trial court found nothing in
the cross-examination to conclude that
P.W.-2 is not an eye witness and minor
contradictions were discarded. The trial
court concluded that prosecution has
proved by reliable evidence that deceased,
Bajrang Bahadur died on account of
injuries caused to him by all the four
convicts-appellants in furtherance of their
common intention in the manner and at the
place
as
identified.
The
trial
court
convicted all the convicts-appellants under
section 302 readwith section 34 I.P.C. and
sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for
life.

15. Feeling aggrieved by the order of
conviction and sentence, the convictsappellants have filed the present criminal
appeal.

16. Sri Amar Nath Dubey, learned
counsel for the convict-appellants argued
that the learned trial court erred in
convicting and sentencing the convictappellant as there was no evidence found
9 All. Rudra Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1121
against him. The First Information Report
is ante-time document. The statements of
the prosecution witnesses were highly
contradictory. The trial court arrived at the
conclusion
from
those
contradictory
statements. The investigation suffers from
infirmities because there is inconsistency
between the medical evidence and ocular
evidence. The trial court did not look into
the infirmities and contradictions in the
case.

17. Learned counsel for the convictappellants pleaded that present convictappellant, Rajendra Pratap Singh, is shown
to have Lathi in his hands and the infliction
of injuries by Lathi is not corroborated with
the post-mortem report. Three injures of
punctured wounds were found on the body
of the deceased. However, the deceased is
not said to have any punctured wounds on
the palms of his hands. He further submits
that all the witnesses are the relatives of the
deceased, therefore, this appeal should be
allowed and the impugned judgment and
order should be set aside.

18. In support of his contentions,
leaned counsel for the convict-appellants
has relied upon the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Takhaji Hiraji Vs. Thakore Kubersingh
Chamansing,
reported
in
2001(6)
SCC,145.

19. On the contrary, Sri Prabhat
Adhaulia, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing on behalf of the Staterespondent argued that P.W.- 1 to P.W.-3,
are the eye witnesses and they have proved
the prosecution case and submitted to
uphold the order of trial court.

20. When accused were beating
deceased, Bajrang Bahadur Singh, then
complainant, Vijay Bahadur Singh, P.W.-1
and the witnesses, Surya Narayan Tiwari,
P.W.-2 and Ram Sewak, P.W.-3, reached at
the spot, where the convict-appellants,
Rudra Pal Singh, Sri Ram Singh and
Rejendra Pratap Singh were beating the
deceased by Lathi and Sitaram by Ballam.
When the deceased in order to save his life
ran towards south of the Chak Road and
reached the field of Beni Madho, the
accused followed him and started beating
the deceased. Due to injuries caused to him,
the deceased fell down on the ground and
became unconscious.

21. P.W.-1, Vijay Bahadur Singh, has
testified in unequivocal words that on the
fateful day of incident i.e. 03-09-1984 at
about 01.30 P.M., when he was going to
Ayodhya Nagar through Chak Road, P.W.-
2,Surya Narayan Tiwari and Ram Lakhan
Upahdyaya met him on the way. They were
at the distance of about fifty steps from the
scene of incident. When they heard alarm
raised by the the deceased Bajrang Bahadur
Singh and Ram Sewak, they rushed
towards the place of occurrence and saw
that the accused Rudra Pal Singh, Sita Ram
Singh and Sri Ram Singh were assaulting
the deceased Bajrang Singh by Lathi.
Convict-appellant, Rajendra Pratap Singh
was assaulting the deceased Bajrang
Bahadur Singh by Ballam. In order to save
his life, the deceased Bajrang Bahadur
Singh ran towards Chak Road in the field
of Beni Madho, but, after sustaining
injuries, he could not run very far and fell
down in the field of Beni Madho and
became unconscious .

22. P.W.-2, Surya Narayan Tewari,
who is an eye witness, stated on oath that
he had accompanied Vijay Bahadur and
Ram Lakhan also. When he heard the alarm
raised by Salik Murai, Ram Sewak Tiwari
1122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and Bajrang Singh, he reached the field of
Beni Madaho and saw that accused,Rudra
Pal, Rajendra and Sri Ram were assaulting
deceased by Lathi and Sita Ram was
assaulting the deceased by Ballam. The
deceased Bajrang Bahadur Singh sustained
injuries and he fell down in the field of
Beni Madho. When they challenged the
accused, the accused ran away. They
carried the deceased Bajrang Bahadur
Singh on a cot to Peeparpur. P.W.-2
reduced in writing the written F.I.R. on the
dictation of Vijay Bahadur Singh. The
written F.I.R.(Exhibit Ka-1) is proved by
this witness.

23. P.W.-3, Ram Sewak, who is also
an eye witness, stated on oath that on the
fateful day of the incident at about 01.30
P.M., he was coming from Ayodhya Nagar
through his village by Chak Road. He met
with Bajrang Bahadur and Salik Murai on
the way. He was 7-8 steps behind Bajrang
Bahadur. When they reached near the field
of Beni Madho, accused, Rudra Pal, Sri
Ram and Rajendra Pratap Singh suddenly
assaulted Bajrang Bahadur by Lathi and
Sita Ram by Ballam. Bajrang Bahadur ran
towards the south in order to save his life,
but,
accused
followed
him.
Bajrang
Bahadur fell down in the field of Beni
Madho due to the injuries sustained by him
during the assault caused by the accused.
When, they raised alarm, Vijay Bahadur
and Surya Narayan Tewari also arrived at
the spot. Bajrang Bahadur was in an
unconscious state due to Hemorrhage. It is
stated that he did not accompany Vijay
Bahadur and returned to his home. Later
on, he came to know that Bajrang Bahadur
had expired due to injuries sustained by
him.

24. P.W.-4, Dr. V.K. Verma, Medical
Officer,
District
Hospital,
Sultanpur,
appeared before the court and stated on
oath that he attended the deceased Bajrang
Bahadur Singh, S/o Vishwanath Singh,
who was identified by Constable, Ram
Achal Singh. P.W.-4, prepared the postmortem report of the deceased Bajrang
Bahadur. The deceased died due to Shock
and Hemorrhage due to the ante-mortem
injuries sustained to him. The post-mortem
report of the deceased is Exhibit Ka-2. In
the Chief Examination itself, P.W.-4, stated
that six injuries were caused to the
deceased by pointed weapons as Spear &
Ballam and rest of the injuries were caused
by hard and blunt objects i.e. Lathi.

25. P.W.-5, Vijay Bahadur Mishra,
appeared in the court and proved the Chik
F.I.R. on the basis of written report and
G.D. No. 17 time 15.15 P.M. as Exhibit
Nos. Ka-3 & Ka-4 respectively.

26. P.W.-6, Ram Achal Singh,
Constable
343.
C.P.,
Police
StationKadipur, district-Sultanpur proved all the
papers regarding post-mortem and C-Map,
which were handed over to him by the
Chief Medical Officer.

27. P.W.-7, Satish Chandra Tripathi,
Station House Officer, Police Station-Jami,
district-Sultanpur investigated the case and
prepared
Challan
Lash,
Photo
Lash,
Namoona Mohar and letters to C.M.O. and
R.I.(Exhibit Ka-06 to Exhibit Ka-10) and
recovery memo of cot (Exhibit Ka-11).
This witness prepared the site plan(Exhibit
Ka-12), recovery memo of the plain and
blood
stained
earth
in
the
separate
containers. Recovery Memo is Exhibit Ka14.

28. Learned counsel for the convictappellants vehemently argued that death of
the deceased is caused by Shock and
9 All. Rudra Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
1123
Hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries.
Hemorrhage is possible only by Ballam and
the convict-appellant is not assigned any
role to assault the deceased Bajrang
Bahadur Singh by Ballam. The convictappellant is said to have assaulted the
deceased Bajrang Bahadur by Lathi, by
which no such injuries may result in death
of the deceased, can be caused.

29. Perusal of the post-mortem report
of the deceased transpires that three
punctured wounds were found on the dead
body of the deceased. Two incised wounds
at serial nos. 5 & 10 are indicated by the
Doctors in the post-mortem report of the
deceased. Rest of the injuries are found to
be caused to the deceased by hard and blunt
objects. Injury no. 4 is Traumatic swelling
over medial part of Rt. Ankle joint in an
area of 6 cm x 4 cm. X diffused swelling
around the joint also. Injury no. 6 is
Traumatic swelling over whole of the upper
1/2 of the Rt. Forearm 15 cm x entire girth
with deformity with fracture of both
underlying bones (Radius & Ulna). Injury
no. 7 is Multiple abrasion over back & top
of Rt. Shoulder over bony prominence in
an area of 9 cm x 5 cm. Injury No. 8 is
Contusion over Rt. Side back in scapular &
intra scapular region measuring 12 cm x 3
cm oblique & vertical in direction. Injury
No. 9 is Contusion over Lt. Side back 13
cm x 3 cm., vertical & oblique in direction
inferior angle of Scapula.

30. Doctor, V.K.Verma, P.W.-4, in
his statement before the court stated that all
these injuries are possible to be caused by
hard and blunt objects i.e. Lathi. Dr. V.K.
Verma proved all these injuries to be
caused by hard and blunt objects.

31. During external examination, it is
found that Abdomen of the deceased was
distended, greenish discoloration over both
Iliac fossa present.

32. Learned counsel for the convictappellants submitted that the convictappellant did not choose to any dangerous
weapon during assault, which may result in
the death of the deceased.

33. From perusal of the record, it is
clear that all the four accused assaulted the
deceased
in
furtherance
of
common
intention to kill him and due to injuries
sustained during this assault, the deceased,
Bajrang Bahadur died when he was being
carried to the police station concerned,
therefore, it cannot be said that convictappellant, Rajendra Pratap Singh can be
given any benefit to the effect that he did
not use any dangerous weapon.

34. Learned counsel for the convictappellant submitted that there are many
contradictions in the statements of the
witnesses. However, no such material
contradictions have been pointed out from
the evidence of three eye witnesses. P.W-1
to P.W.-3 are the ocular witnesses, who
were present on the spot and the occurrence
happened in their presence and they
witnessed the incident.

35. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Suresh Yadav alias Guddu Vs. State of
Chhattisgargh, reported in 2022 SCC
Online SC 236, held that evidence of the
witnesses can not be discarded only for the
reason that there are minor contradictions
in the statements of witnesses. For
convenience, para no. 9 of the said
Judgment is reproduced as under :-

9. "Even otherwise, we do not
find the present one to be a case of manifest
illegality so as to call for interference. The
1124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evidence of PW-1, being the eye-witness to
the incident, remains unimpeachable and
has been believed by the two Courts. His 3
evidence cannot be discarded only for the
reason that he allegedly did not raise any
alarm or did not try to intervene when the
deceased was being ferociously assaulted
and stabbed. Excessive number of injuries
do not ipso facto lead to an inference about
involvement of more than one person;
rather the nature of injuries and similarity
of their size/dimension would only lead to
the inference that she was mercilessly and
repeatedly stabbed by the same weapon
and by the same person."

36. It is submitted by learned A.G.A.
that all the witnesses are rustic witnesses of
the village. Therefore, minor contradictions
are bound to take place and the evidence of
witnesses is recorded after two and half
years of the incident. The human memory
faints day by day. Therefore, minor
contradictions, if any, may be found in the
statements
witnesses
and
they
are
negligible and they do not wash away the
entire evidence of prosecution case.

37. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Sachin Kumar Singhraha Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2019) 8
Supreme Court Cases,371, held that minor
variation
should
not
be
taken
into
consideration while assessing reliability of
witness testimony and consistency of
prosecution version as a whole regarding
deposition of villagers. For convenience,
para no. 12 of the said Judgment is
reproduced as under :-

"12. The court will have to
evaluate the evidence before it keeping in
mind that rustic nature of the depositions of
the villagers, who may not depose about
exact
geographical
locations
with
mathematical precision. Discrepancies of
this nature which do not go to root of the
matter
do
not
obliterate
otherwise
acceptable evidence. It need not be stated
that it is by now well settled that minor
variations should not be taken into
consideration
while
assessing
the
reliability of witness testimony and the
consistency of the prosecution version as a
whole. In this view of the matter, in our
considered opinion, the evidence of PW 5
fully supports the evidence of PW 4 and the
case of the prosecution."

38. So far as the place of occurrence
is concerned, there is no dispute regarding
the same. The occurrence happened in the
field of Beni Madho, which is adjacent to
the Chak Road and the witnesses reiterated
in so many words that the deceased fell
down in the field of Beni Madho due to the
ante-mortem injuries.

39. The Investigating Officer sent the
blood stained and plain earth to the
Laboratory for examination. The analysis
report is annexed as Exhibit Ka-15 with the
file. Items no. 1 to 6 are found to be blood
stained and disintegrated. During trial,
papers are admitted by the learned counsel
for the convict-appellant, therefore, there is
no possibility that the blood stained and
plain earth collected from the place of
occurrence were not stained by the blood of
the deceased. Therefore, in view of the
overwhelming evidence on record, learned
trial court reached to the conclusion that the
deceased expired due to the anti-mortem
injuries caused by the convict-appellant.

40. Learned counsel for the convictappellant submitted that the post-mortem
report is anti-time and when the inquest
report was prepared, no crime number was
allotted to the incident, therefore, it can be
9 All. Baddan Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1125
said that after preparation of the inquest
report, the F.I.R. in question was lodged.
But, we are not convinced with the
argument advanced by learned counsel for
the convict-appellants.

41. We have perused the inquest
report and found that Crime No. 161 of
1984 under section 302 I.P.C. on a paper
book, Sultanpur is indicated to have been
lodged on 03-09-1984 at 15.15 P.M.
Therefore, the said submission advanced
by the learned counsel for the convictappellants is rejected. It is found that the
inquest report was prepared only after
F.I.R. is lodged at the police station.

42. During the statement recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C., the convictappellant, Rajendra Pratap Singh denied
the evidence of prosecution witnesses but
he did not disclose the genesis of dispute
that what was reason of his false
implication in the case. By answering
question no. 9, the convict-appellant,
Rajendra Pratap Singh stated that there
was
no
animosity,
however,
the
complainant had an enmity due to civil
cases pending between the parties. The
convict-appellant had no specific defence
as to why they have falsely been
implicated in the case. They did not
adduce any defence evidence. However,
the
convict-appellant
was
given
opportunity for the same.

43.

No
other
material
or
circumstance has been alleged by the
learned counsel for the convict-appellant
and no major contradiction is mentioned
in the statements of the witnesses.

44. In view of the aforesaid, we reach to
the conclusion that the convict-appellant has
failed to show that there was any major
contradictions in the statements of the
witnesses by which the convict-appellants
can be benefited.

45. In view of the foregoing discussions,
this court is of the opinion that the prosecution
has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
against the appellant. The conviction and
sentence of the appellant by the trial court for
the offence in question is fully justified.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and order
passed by the trial court convicting and
sentencing the appellant under section 302/34
I.P.C. for imprisonment for life is hereby
upheld.

46. This appeal is liable to be dismissed
and is dismissed accordingly.

47. The appellant, Rajendra Pratap Singh
is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence
awarded by the trial court.

48. Let the certified copy of the judgment
be sent to the trial court concerned for necessary
action and forwarding it to the concerned Jail
Superintendent where the accused appellant,
Rajendra Pratap Singh is detained.

49. Let the Lower Court Record be sent
back to the Trial Court concerned forthwith.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 1125
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1751 of 2015

Baddan Singh ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party