# Satya Narain & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 535
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1450 of 2003
- **Bench:** Virendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satya-narain-ors-v-state-of-u-p-46780
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-
First
Information
Report-
Ante-
Timing-
It
is
settled
principle of law that first information
report is the first version in the shape of
complaint,
lodged
by
the
aggrieved
persons at concerned police station, in
order to get the investigating agency into
motion and to take action against the
guilty person. If it is lodged promptly
without
any
unreasonable
delay,
it
strengthen the prosecution story whereas
if it is lodged after unreasonable and
unexplained delay, it loses the veracity of
the prosecution story.

Where the FIR is lodged belatedly and the
delay is unexplained and unreasonable , it can
be presumed by the court that the FIR is antetimed but the same depends upon the facts of
each case.

Admittedly the first information report is
not in writing of the (P.W.-1), though, he
was educated and was able to write the
same-The contradiction between F.I.R.
(Ext.-Ka-1)
and
statements
of
these
prosecution
witnesses
further
creates
doubt in the F.I.R. as well as prosecution
story. The time of occurrence, including
the time of lodging the F.I.R. is doubtful.
It is ante-timed, hence, the prosecution
story is doubtful.

An ante-timed FIR that fails to corroborate the
testimony of the witnesses renders the story of
the prosecution doubtful.

Admittedly no person had received any
injury although the P.W.-1 had stated that
two bombs were thrown upon them by the
appellants and the bombs were fallen and
exploded just 1-2 step away from himNeither causing any injury to any person
nor causing any damage to the crops in
the field where (P.W.-1) was harvesting,
further creates doubt in the prosecution
story.

The oral testimony of the witnesses of the
prosecution would be rendered doubtful where
the same lacks corroboration from the medical
evidence or other evidences.

Evidence Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 114(g)- Section 134- Withholding
of vital evidence by the prosecution-
presumption
against-
Witnesses
are
nephew, uncle and cousin of (P.W.-1).
Their presence would be natural but the
prosecution has neither produced them
nor placed any justification for their non
examination. Although the prosecution is
not
bound
to
produce
so
many
prosecution
witnesses
and
the
prosecution case can succeed only on the
evidence of a single witness if he is
reliable, but non examination of such
witnesses, without any justification whose
presence at the time of occurrence was
natural and examination such witnesses
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whose
presence
has
been
doubtful,
further creates doubtful in the prosecution
case- The prosecution has not examined
the Investigating Officer who collected
the sample of ashes of crops and residue
of exploded bombs and further recovered
ashes or residue of bombs were neither
produced before the trial Court nor were
sent for chemical examination to prove
whether it was ashes of crops or not or
whether it was residue of any exploded
bombs. Failure of prosecution to produce
such important evidence, further creates
doubt in prosecution story.

Although it is the quality and not the quantity of
evidence that is important but where the
prosecution withholds vital evidence then the
court may take an adverse inference against the
prosecution.

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-2)

Case law/ Judgements relied upon-

## Text

1 All. Satya Narain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
535

40. Appeal is partly allowed and the
impugned judgment and order is modified
to above extent.

41. Let a copy of this judgment along
with lower court record be sent to the
concerned
trial
Court
for
necessary
information and compliance.
----------
(2021)01ILR A535
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1450 of 2003

Satya Narain & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Raza Zaheer, R.U. Verma, S.P. Singh, Sheo
Prakash Singh, Vijay Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973-
First
Information
Report-
Ante-
Timing-
It
is
settled
principle of law that first information
report is the first version in the shape of
complaint,
lodged
by
the
aggrieved
persons at concerned police station, in
order to get the investigating agency into
motion and to take action against the
guilty person. If it is lodged promptly
without
any
unreasonable
delay,
it
strengthen the prosecution story whereas
if it is lodged after unreasonable and
unexplained delay, it loses the veracity of
the prosecution story.

Where the FIR is lodged belatedly and the
delay is unexplained and unreasonable , it can
be presumed by the court that the FIR is antetimed but the same depends upon the facts of
each case.

Admittedly the first information report is
not in writing of the (P.W.-1), though, he
was educated and was able to write the
same-The contradiction between F.I.R.
(Ext.-Ka-1)
and
statements
of
these
prosecution
witnesses
further
creates
doubt in the F.I.R. as well as prosecution
story. The time of occurrence, including
the time of lodging the F.I.R. is doubtful.
It is ante-timed, hence, the prosecution
story is doubtful.

An ante-timed FIR that fails to corroborate the
testimony of the witnesses renders the story of
the prosecution doubtful.

Admittedly no person had received any
injury although the P.W.-1 had stated that
two bombs were thrown upon them by the
appellants and the bombs were fallen and
exploded just 1-2 step away from himNeither causing any injury to any person
nor causing any damage to the crops in
the field where (P.W.-1) was harvesting,
further creates doubt in the prosecution
story.

The oral testimony of the witnesses of the
prosecution would be rendered doubtful where
the same lacks corroboration from the medical
evidence or other evidences.

Evidence Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 114(g)- Section 134- Withholding
of vital evidence by the prosecution-
presumption
against-
Witnesses
are
nephew, uncle and cousin of (P.W.-1).
Their presence would be natural but the
prosecution has neither produced them
nor placed any justification for their non
examination. Although the prosecution is
not
bound
to
produce
so
many
prosecution
witnesses
and
the
prosecution case can succeed only on the
evidence of a single witness if he is
reliable, but non examination of such
witnesses, without any justification whose
presence at the time of occurrence was
natural and examination such witnesses
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whose
presence
has
been
doubtful,
further creates doubtful in the prosecution
case- The prosecution has not examined
the Investigating Officer who collected
the sample of ashes of crops and residue
of exploded bombs and further recovered
ashes or residue of bombs were neither
produced before the trial Court nor were
sent for chemical examination to prove
whether it was ashes of crops or not or
whether it was residue of any exploded
bombs. Failure of prosecution to produce
such important evidence, further creates
doubt in prosecution story.

Although it is the quality and not the quantity of
evidence that is important but where the
prosecution withholds vital evidence then the
court may take an adverse inference against the
prosecution.

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-2)

Case law/ Judgements relied upon-

1. Mohan Lal Gehani Vs St. of M.P., AIR 1982 SC
839
2. Sudarshan Vs St. of Mah., 2014 Cri LJ 3232
(SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Virendra Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. The instant criminal appeal, under
Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
'Code'), has been preferred against the
judgment and order dated 04.09.2003,
passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge,
Faizabad in Sessions Trial No.26 of 2001,
arising out of Case Crime No.123 of 1999,
under Sections-307/504/506/435 and 427
I.P.C.,
P.S.-Tanda,
District-Ambedkar
Nagar,
whereby
the
appellants-Satya
Narain, Amarjeet, Pawan Kumar and
Ashok Kumar (hereinafter referred to as
appellants) have been convicted and
sentenced for offence under Section 307
read with 34 I.P.C. for four years rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- each
and for offence under Section 435 read
with 34 I.P.C. for two years rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- each. It
has been further directed that the appellants
will
have
to
undergo
six
months
imprisonment for both the offences. All the
sentences of the appellants will run
concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is
that the informant (Ram Milan) (P.W.-1)
and the appellants are resident of VillageShapur Kurmaul, Police Station-Kotwali
Tanda, District-Ambedkar Nagar and civil
suits pertaining to agricultural land i.e.
Gata Nos.1095, 1096, 1047, 1146, 1230,
1065, were pending between them to which
both parties were claiming as Bhumidhar
with
transferable
rights
along
with
possession. On 05.05.1999, Ram Milan
(P.W.-1) was harvesting his wheat crops
since 6:00 a.m. along with his nephewDevdhar, uncle-Ramashray and cousin-
Ramajore. Meanwhile, the appellants-Satya
Narain, Ashok Kumar, Pawan Kumar and
Amarjeet came there at about 12:30 a.m.
The appellants-Satya Narain and Amarjeet
were carrying bombs, the appellant-Ashok
Kumar was carrying a katta (countrymade
pistol) whereas the appellant-Pawan Kumar
was carrying lathi. Upon exhortation of the
appellant-Pawan Kumar, all the appellants
hurled abuses and threatened to kill Ram
Milan (P.W.-1) and his family members
who were harvesting the crops ; the
appellants-Satya Narain and Amarjeet
threw the bomb with intention to kill them ;
and the appellant-Ashok Kumar fired with
Katta (countrymade pistol). Hearing the
explosion of bomb, firing of Katta
(countrymade pistol) and alarm raised by
the informant of his family members, Ram
Daur (P.W.-2), Ram Charitra (P.W.-3) and
Ramajore and so many co-villagers came
1 All. Satya Narain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
537
there and saw the occurrence. The
appellants fled away from the place of
occurrence by setting ablaze the field of
wheat and sugarcane crops. A typed written
information (Ext.-Ka-1) was lodged by the
informant (Ram Milan) (P.W.-1) at Police
Station-Tanda at about 4:35 p.m. which
was entered into General Diary (Ext.-Ka-3)
by S.I., Sheetla Prasad Upadhyaya (P.W.-
4), the then Head Constable, who registered
Chik F.I.R. (Ext.-Ka-2), as Case Crime
No.123/99 under Sections-307, 435, 504,
506, 427 I.P.C., against the appellants.

3. Investigation of the case was
handed over to S.I., Bhuvneshwar Prasad
(not examined), who visited the place of
occurrence, collected sample of exploded
bomb and ashes, prepared its recovery
memo (Ext.-Ka-4 and Ext.-Ka-5), prepared
site plan (Ext.-Ka-6) and after conclusion
of investigation, filed charge sheet (Ext.-
Ka-7) against the appellants, for offence
under Sections-307, 435, 504, 506, 427
I.P.C., before the concerned Magistrate,
who took the cognizance of the offence and
since the offence was exclusively triable by
the Court of Sessions, after providing the
copy of relevant police papers as required
under Section 207 of the Code, committed
the case to the Court of Sessions, Faizabad
for trial.

4. The learned trial Court framed
charges for the offence under Sections 307
read with 34, 504, 506 and 435 I.P.C
against the appellants to which they denied
and claimed for trial.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove
its case, examined Ram Milan (P.W.-1),
Ram Daur (P.W.-2), Ram Charitra (P.W.-
3), S.I. Sheetla Prasad Upadhyaya (P.W.-4)
wherein P.W.-1 to P.W.-3 are witnesses of
facts and P.W.4 is formal witnesses.

6. After conclusion of the prosecution
evidence, the statement of the appellants
were recorded under Section 313 of the
Code wherein they denied the prosecution
evidence alleging that they have been
falsely implicated due to previous enmity.

7. After conclusion of the trial,
learned trial Court convicted and sentenced
the appellants as above by the impugned
judgment. Aggrieved by the impugned
judgment, the appellants have preferred this
appeal.

8. Heard Sri Sheo Prakash Singh,
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
Brijendra Singh-I, learned A.G.A. for the
State.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants
has submitted that the appellants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated
due to previous enmity of civil disputes.
Learned counsel further submitted that all
the witnesses are interested witnesses and
were not present at the time of occurrence.
Learned counsel further submitted that in
the said occurrence, no injury was caused
either to Ram Milan (P.W.-1) or his family
members.
Learned
counsel
further
submitted that the alleged residue of
exploded bomb was not sent for chemical
examination in order to prove whether it
was residue of exploded bomb or not.
Learned counsel further submitted that the
first information report (in short F.I.R.) was
not written by any person and the same was
prepared on type writer machine by typist
which shows that the F.I.R. was ante-timed
and was lodged after due consultation.
Learned counsel further submitted that all
the appellants are family members and are
aged about 50-70 years having no criminal
history. Learned counsel further submitted
that the trial Court, without considering the
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
material and evidence available on record,
has passed the impugned judgment, which
is against the settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence and is liable to be set aside.

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A.,
vehemently
opposing
the
submissions
made by learned counsel for the appellants,
has submitted that in this case, the F.I.R.
was lodged without any delay and the
prosecution case cannot be thrown only on
the ground that the prosecution witnesses
are relative of the informant. Learned
A.G.A. further submitted that just twenty
days before the said occurrence, an order
for interim injunction against the appellants
and in favour of the informant was passed
by the concerned Court whereby the
appellant had annoyed, set fire to crops of
the informant and caused the alleged
offence. Learned A.G.A. further submitted
that the appellants had not denied the
factum of destruction of crops in their
statement under Section 313 of the Code
and it cannot be presumed that the
informant by setting fire on his crops,
would falsely implicate the appellants.
Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the
impugned judgment is well reasoned and
well discussed having no infirmity and is
liable to be affirmed.

11. I have considered the rival
submissions made by both the parties and
perused the record.

12. Admittedly, both the parties were
belligerent at the time of occurrence in civil
dispute pertaining the disputed land and the
name of Ramashray, father of appellantSatya Narain was recorded on the disputed
land as Bhumidhar which was set aside by
Deputy Director of Consolidation vide
order dated 12.04.1999. In addition to
above, the informant (P.W.-1) had also
filed Civil Suit No.227 of 1999 (Ram
Milan
and
others
vs.
Satyanarayan)
wherein vide interim injunction order dated
15.04.1999, passed by Civil Judge (J.D.),
Tanda,
District-Ambedkar
Nagar,
the
appellants were injected to interfere in the
peaceful possession of informant. From
perusal of two records, filed by the
informant (P.W.-1) before the trial Court
on 11.10.2002, it appears that before the
order dated 12.04.1999, passed by Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Faizabad, the
appellants were recorded as tenure holder
and whose name was deleted by the
aforesaid order.

13. Ram Milan (P.W.-1) has stated
that on 05.05.1999, he was harvesting his
wheat crops which was situated 60-70
meters towards north of his house since 6'o
clock with his nephew-Devdhar, uncleRamashray
and
cousin-Ram
Ajor.
Meanwhile, the appellants came there at
about 12:30 p.m. The appellants-Satya
Narain and Amarjeet were carrying bombs,
the appellant-Ashok Kumar was carrying
katta
(countrymade
pistol)
and
the
appelant-Pawan Kumar was carrying lathi.
He further stated that upon exhortation of
the
appellant-Pawan
Kumar,
all
the
appellants hurled abuses with intention to
kill them ; the appellants, carrying bomb,
threw upon them ; and the appellant-Ashok
Kumar,
carrying
katta
(countrymade
pistol), fired upon them. He further stated
that upon hearing the noise, Ram Charita
(P.W.-3),
Ram
Daur
(P.W.-2)
and
Ramajore (co-villager), who were also
harvesting the field with him (P.W.-1) but
had gone to drink water, reached there. He
further stated that the appellants, by hurling
abuses, reached at chak No.1230 wherein
wheat crops was sown, they set fire around
(charo taraf) by match box and also set fire
in another chak no.1047, wherein wheat
1 All. Satya Narain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
539
crops was also sown, and thereafter they
fled away. He further stated that about 45
minutes was taken in extinguishing the fire
and thereafter he went Tanda through
pagdandi (footpath) by hiding his identity
(lukte chipate), dictated a written report to
one typist and after putting his signature on
the typed written report (Ext.-Ka-1), he
filed it at concerned police station. In crossexamination, he admitted that he had not
shown
the
place
of
occurrence
to
Investigating Officer. He further admitted
that after the occurrence, he did not go to
concerned police station directly and after
getting report typed, he appeared at
concerned police station with typed report
(Ext.-Ka-1). He further admitted that no
person had received any injury in the said
occurrence. He further admitted that there
was enmity of civil dispute with the
appellant regarding Chak Nos.1146, 1230,
1047, 1065, 1095, 1096 and 1134. He
further admitted that he had not mentioned
in the F.I.R. either number of disputed field
or number of said field wherein the
occurrence was taken place. He further
admitted that at the time of occurrence, he
had taken 2-5 steps back out from the place
of occurrence but did not flee away from
there. He further stated that the appellants
had threw bomb from a distance of 20-21
meters which had fallen just one feet near
to him. He denied the suggestion that after
explosion of bombs, he fled away from the
place of occurrence. Stating that firstly the
appellant had set fire in wheat crops and
thereafter sugarcane crops, he further
admitted that the appellant had set fire from
one side only. He further stated that he had
not mentioned in the F.I.R. that he had
gone at concerned police station by hiding
(lukte chipate) his identity.

14. Ram Daur (P.W.-2) has stated that
at the time of occurrence, he was threshing
(dauri) his wheat crops since 10'o clock at
his threshing floor (khaliyan), situated
towards east of Ram Milan's (P.W.-1) chak.
Stating that at the time of occurrence, Ram
Milan (P.W.-1), Ramashreay and Devdhar
were harvesting wheat crops in their chak,
he further stated that at about 12:00 p.m.
the appellants came there, the appellantsSatynarayan and Amarjeet threw bombs at
Ram Milan (P.W.-1) and others family
members, with intention to kill them and
the appellant-Ashok Kumar fired Katta
upon them but no one received any injury.
He further stated that upon hearing the
noise, he, Ram Charitra (P.W.-3) along
with other people, reached there and
thereafter the appellants fled away from the
place of occurrence by setting fire in wheat
crops and sugarcane crops situated east to
place of occurrence. In cross-examination,
he admitted that father of the appellants
belong to his common ancestor. Stating that
at the place of occurrence, he had seen that
the appellants throwing the bomb and firing
with katta (countrymade pistol), he further
stated that he had seen the empty cartridges
and residue of exploded bomb. Stating
further that fire was set on only two chaks
which expanded due to month of May
(Chait month) in two other chaks also, he
denied that fire was set from four side. He
further admitted that the appellant had not
fled away after throwing the bomb and
firing with katta (countrymade pistol) even
till the extinguishing the fire. Stating
further that 1-1/2 hour would have been
taken to extinguish the fire, he further
stated that appellants fled away from the
place of occurrence when people reached
there. He further stated that Investigating
Officer had come in the evening on the
place of occurrence and after collecting the
ashes, sutli and residue of exploded bomb,
had taken his signature on a paper at 6:007:00 p.m.
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. Ram Charitra (P.W.-3)- has also
stated that at the time of occurrence, Ram
Milan
(P.W.-1),
Devdhar,
Ramashray,
Ramajore were harvesting their wheat crops
and he was threshing wheat at his Khaliyan.
Stating
further
that
the
appellantsSatyanarayan and Amarjeet, Ashok Kumar
and Pawan Kumar appeared at about 12'o
clock in the chak of Ram Milan, hurled
abuses ; the appellant-Ashok Kumar fired
with katta (countrymade pistol) ; the
appellants-Satyanarayan and Amarjeet threw
bomb upon Ram Milan (P.W.-1) and others
with intention to kill them whereas the
appellant-Pawan Kumar, carrying lathi, was
exhorting. Stating that no injury was caused
to any person, he further stated that Ram
Daur (P.W.-2) also reached there and saw the
occurrence. He further stated that as they
arrived, the appellants fled away by setting
fire in the wheat and sugarcane crops of Ram
Milan (P.W.-1). In cross-examination, he
admitted that 1-2 hours would have been
taken in extinguishing the fire . He further
admitted that after throwing the bomb and
firing with katta (countrymade pistol), when
the appellants set fire on crops, he (P.W.-3)
reached there and thereafter the appellants
fled away.

16. Sheetla Prasad Upadhyaya (P.W.-4)
had stated that on 05.05.1999, he was posted
as Head Constable at Police Station-Tanda,
District-Ambedkar Nagar and entered the
written information lodged by Ram Milan
(P.W.-1) and registered a Criminal Case
Crime No.123/1999 under Sections-307, 504,
435, 506 and 427 I.P.C. against the
appellants. He also proved a recovery memo
(Ext.-Ka-4
and
Ext.-Ka-5),
residue
of
exploded bomb, site plan of place of
occurrence (Ext.-ka-6) and charge sheet
(Ext.-Ka-7) filed by S.I.-Bhuvneshwar Prasad
(Investigating Officer).

17. It is settled principle of law that
first information report is the first version
in the shape of complaint, lodged by the
aggrieved persons at concerned police
station, in order to get the investigating
agency into motion and to take action
against the guilty person. If it is lodged
promptly without any unreasonable delay,
it strengthen the prosecution story whereas
if it is lodged after unreasonable and
unexplained delay, it looses the veracity of
the prosecution story. Sometimes it is seen
that the first information report is lodged
after much delay with due deliberation and
consultation but in order to show the
reliability of first information report, the
time of lodging the F.I.R. is shown much
earlier to its actual time because the first
informant or his legal advisor or police
personnel knew that delay in lodging the
F.I.R., will destroy the reliability of the
prosecution story. There is no settled
criteria to determine as to whether the
F.I.R. was anti timed or not and it varies to
facts and circumstances of each case. For
example, if the informant was educated and
able to write the F.I.R. but instead of going
to police station to lodge the F.I.R., he went
to another place to consult and F.I.R. was
prepared with the help of machine i.e.
typewriter etc. and thereafter had gone to
police station and from the fact and
circumstances of the case, it appears that
actual time between occurrence and time of
lodging the F.I.R. was more than time
shown by prosecution, similarly, if it is
proved that name of accused or witness or
any facts were not known to the informant
at the time of lodging the F.I.R. and it had
come after the time shown in lodging the
F.I.R., it can be said that the F.I.R. was
lodged by delay after the time, which was
shown in lodging the F.I.R. by concealing
such delay to avoid to give explanation.
1 All. Satya Narain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
541

18. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
Mohan Lal Gehani vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, AIR 1982 SC 839 where the
name of accused was not known to the
informant till the time of lodging of F.I.R.
and it came in knowledge, after the time
mentioned in the F.I.R. but his name was
shown in the first information report, held
that prosecution story was not reliable as
F.I.R. was ante time.

19. Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sudarshan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2014
Cri LJ 3232 (SC) where the informant after
the occurrence did not go to the police
station to lodge the F.I.R. but went to an
Advocate at a distance of 15 kms. from the
place of occurrence, for consultation and
the copy of F.I.R. was not sent to the
concerned Magistrate, held the F.I.R. was
anti-timed and the prosecution story was
not reliable.

20. Coming to the facts of this case,
admittedly the first information report is not
in writing of the Ram Milan (P.W.-1),
though, he was educated and was able to
write the same. Stating that after the
occurrence he had not gone directly to the
concerned police station to make complaint
or to lodge the F.I.R., he admitted that before
approaching the concerned police station to
lodge the F.I.R., he had approached a person
to dictate him the occurrence and get written
report typed and thereafter, putting his
signature had gone to police station. Stating
that said occurrence was started at about
12:30 p.m., he further stated that 45 minutes
was taken to extinguishing the fire whereas
Ram Daur (P.W.-2) and Ram Charitra (P.W.-
3) have admitted that 1-1/2 hrs. would have
been taken in extinguishing the fire.

21. From perusal of chik F.I.R. (Ext.-
Ka-2), it is clear that the place of
occurrence is situated 5 kms. away from
the concerned police station. Ram Milan
(P.W.-1) has also stated that due to fear, he
had not gone Tanda by road and he, by
hiding (lukte chipate) his identity, had
reached
at
Tanda
through
pagdandi
(footpath). According to prosecution, the
said occurrence was taken at about 12:30
p.m. in the month of May. Generally,
during this period, summer temperature is
presumed too high that people do not
harvest wheat crops at this time, they
usually start the harvesting at or before
sunrise and conclude before 11-12'o clock
in order to avoid heat stroke. In addition to
above, if fire was set on four fields of
wheat crops including sugarcane crops by
the appellants which damaged the crops of
worth Rs.5000-6000/- in the year 1999, it
means that the fire was caught in huge area
of the crops and the statement of
prosecution witneses that the said fire was
put off in only 45 minutes as stated by
P.W.-1 or within one and half hour as
stated by P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 is not reliable.

22. Further, in F.I.R. (Ext.-Ka-1), it
was
mentioned
by P.W.-1
that
the
appellants appeared at the place of
occurrence and due to previous enmity of
civil suits, they hurling abuses, threw
bombs, whereupon Ram Milan (P.W.-1)
and his family members, harvesting the
crops, fled away from the place of
occurrence, in order to save their lives and
thereafter the appellant-Ashok Kumar fired
with Katta (countrymade pistol). Thus, in
the F.I.R. (Ext.-Ka-1), it was not mentioned
that only appellants-Amarjeet and Satya
Narain were carrying bombs and Pawan
Kumar was carrying lathi whereas all the
eye-witnesses i.e. P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and
P.W.-3 had stated that only appellantAmarjeet and Satya Narain were carrying
bombs and the appellant-Pawan Kumar was
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
carrying lathi. P.W.-1 further stated that
after explosion of bombs, he had not fled
away from the place of occurrence. The
contradiction between F.I.R. (Ext.-Ka-1)
and
statements
of
these
prosecution
witnesses further creates doubt in the F.I.R.
as well as prosecution story.

23. In view of the above discussion, it
appears that either the alleged wheat crops
were put on fire at any time before the
time, as alleged by the prosecution or the
first information report was lodged after
due consultation and deliberation and was
not lodged on 05.05.1999 at about 16:15
p.m. rather it was lodged after the said time
as mentioned in Ext.-Ka-2 and Ext.-ka-3.
Thus, in my view, the time of occurrence,
including the time of lodging the F.I.R. is
doubtful. It is ante-timed, hence, the
prosecution story is doubtful.

24. In addition to above, admittedly no
person had received any injury although the
P.W.-1 had stated that two bombs were
thrown upon them by the appellants and the
bombs were fallen and exploded just 1-2 step
away from him. None of the prosecution
witness stated that any fire was caught in the
field wherein Ram Milan (P.W.-1) and his
family members were harvesting the wheat
crops. In my opinion, if the bombs were
exploded just 1-2 feet away from Ram Milan
(P.W.-1) and his family members wherein
wheat crops was also lying, it would have
either caused some serious injury to them or
had damaged the wheat crops also. Neither
causing any injury to any person nor causing
any damage to the crops in the field where
Ram Milan (P.W.-1) was harvesting, further
creates doubt in the prosecution story.

25. In addition to above, in F.I.R.
(Ext.-Ka-1) it has also been mentioned that
upon hearing the noise, Ram Daur (P.W.-
2),
Ram
Chaitra
(P.W.-3)
and
one
Ramajore
came
there
and
saw
the
occurrence. In this report, it has not been
mentioned that these witnesses were
harvesting the crops with Ram Milan
(P.W.-1)
whereas
P.W.-1,
during
examination, stated that Ram Daur (P.W.-
2) Ram Chaitra (P.W.-3) and Ramajore
were harvesting the crops with him (P.W.-
1) ; they had gone to drink water and upon
hearing the noise, they came there and saw
the occurrence but Ram Daur (P.W.-2) and
Ram Charitra (P.W.-3) had stated that at
the time of occurrence, they were threshing
their own wheat crops at their threshing
floor (khaliyan). Thus, the statement of
P.W.-1, that Ram Daur (P.W.-2) and Ram
Charitra (P.W.-3) were harvesting the crops
with Ram Milan (P.W.-1) and at the time of
occurrence, they had gone to drink water
and upon hearing the noise come back, is
contradictory to the statement of Ram Daur
(P.W.-2) and Ram Charitra (P.W.-3) and
also with the fact mentioned in F.I.R.
which makes the prosecution case further
doubtful in the present case where there is
enmity between the appellants and Ram
Milan (P.W.-1).

26. Further in the first information
report (Ext.-Ka-1) it has been clearly
mentioned that when the bombs were
thrown by the appellants upon Ram Milan
(P.W.-1) and his family members, P.W.-1
along with his family members fled away
from the place of occurrence but P.W.-1
has stated that he had not fled away from
the place of occurrence after the explosion
of
bomb.
According
to
prosecution,
Devdhar, Ramashray and Ramajore were
also harvesting the wheat crops with Ram
Milan (P.W.-1). These witnesses are
nephew, uncle and cousin of Ram Milan
(P.W.-1). Their presence would be natural
but the prosecution has neither produced
1 All. Yaqoob Husain & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
543
them nor placed any justification for their
non examination. Although the prosecution
is not bound to produce so many
prosecution witnesses and the prosecution
case can succeed only on the evidence of a
single witness if he is reliable, but non
examination of such witnesses, without any
justification whose presence at the time of
occurrence was natural and examination
such witnesses whose presence has been
doubtful, further creates doubtful in the
prosecution case.

27. In addition to above, the
prosecution
has
not
examined
the
Investigating Officer who collected the
sample of ashes of crops and residue of
exploded bombs and further recovered
ashes or residue of bombs were neither
produced before the trial Court nor were
sent for chemical examination to prove
whether it was ashes of crops or not or
whether it was residue of any exploded
bombs. Failure of prosecution to produce
such important evidence, further creates
doubt in prosecution story.

28. In the light of above discussion, I
am of the view that the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment
and order passed by trial Court is liable to
be set aside and the appellants are entitled
to be acquitted.

29. I am, therefore, unable to uphold
the
conviction
and
sentence
of
the
appellants. The impugned judgment and
order, passed by the Trial Court, is
accordingly set aside. The appellants are
acquitted. Consequently appeal is allowed.

30. The appellants are on bail, their
bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged.

31. Keeping in view the provision of
Section 437-A of the Code, appellants are
hereby directed forthwith to furnish a
personal bond of a sum of Rs.20,000/- each
and two reliable sureties each of the like
amount before the trial Court, which shall
be effective for a period of six months,
along with an undertaking that in the event
of filing of Special Leave Petition against
this judgment or for grant of leave,
appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall
appear before Hon'ble Supreme Court.

32. A copy of this judgment along
with lower court record be sent to Trial
Court by FAX for immediate compliance.
----------
(2021)01ILR A543
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Recall Application No. 3 of 2020
In
Criminal Revision No. 1649 of 1989
Connected with
Criminal Revision Nos. 1511 of 1992, 904 of
1995, 415 of 1996, 712 of 1997, 1202 of 2000 &
57 of 1996

Yaqoob Husain & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri V.P. Srivastava, Ms. Sufia Saba, Sri K.M.
Tripathi, Sri Shadab Ali

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 401/397 & Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 323/34 and