# Shambhu & Anr v. State

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 130
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1507 of 1983
- **Bench:** Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shambhu-anr-v-state-53457
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Murder and Attempt to
Murder - Conviction - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 302, 307 read with 34 -
Proof of Common Intention - Motive and
Direct Evidence Established - Testimony of
related or interested witnesses, if credible
and
trustworthy,
is
sufficient
for
conviction - Presence of eye-witnesses,
corroborated
by
post-mortem
and
chemical analysis, sufficiently established
the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable
doubt - motive and sequence of events
ruled
out
false
implication.
(Para
-
12,42,47 to 53,72,73)

(B) Words and Phrases - "Interested
witness" does not mean "related witness"
- an interested witness is one who has a
personal stake in the conviction. (Paras
40)

Accused having married the widow of the
informant's nephew - seeking sole claim over
agricultural land - developed animosity when
the
informant
initiated
legal
proceedings
asserting reversionary rights - On 26.11.1982,
at about 7:30 a.m., accused and one other -
armed with tabbals, assaulted and killed the
informant's son - attempted to murder the
informant and another witness by firing at them,
but they escaped unhurt - FIR was lodged
promptly at 10:15 a.m. the same day. (Para - 3,
15-18, 30)

HELD: - Conviction of the appellants under
Sections 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 34
IPC was affirmed. Prosecution had established
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt through credible eye-witnesses supported
by medical evidence. Defence theory was found
to be untrustworthy and unconvincing. FIR was
held to be lodged promptly. Presence of the
accused at the place of occurrence and their
participation in the crime was proved.(Para -
72,73)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:
5 All. Shambhu & Anr. Vs. State
131

## Text

_Characters 0–39,997 of 99,773. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39997 for what follows._

130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

69. Accordingly, the appeals are
allowed.

70. The appellants, namely, Shera and
Lakhan are on bail. Therefore, their bail
bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged. They need not surrender, if
they are not wanted in any other case.

71. In compliance with the provision
contained in Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the
appellants are directed to furnish their
personal bonds and two sureties each to the
satisfaction of the court concerned within a
period of eight weeks from today.

72. Let a copy of this judgment be
placed on the records of connected
Criminal Appeal No.605 of 2001 titled as
Lakhan vs. State of U.P.

73. Let the trial court record along
with a copy of this judgment be transmitted
to the learned trial Court for its information
and necessary compliance through fax/ email, forthwith.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 130
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1507 of 1983

Shambhu & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Pawan Shukla (A.C.), Ayank Mishra, Maha
Prasad, Tanmay Verma, Vivek Kumar
Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Murder and Attempt to
Murder - Conviction - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 302, 307 read with 34 -
Proof of Common Intention - Motive and
Direct Evidence Established - Testimony of
related or interested witnesses, if credible
and
trustworthy,
is
sufficient
for
conviction - Presence of eye-witnesses,
corroborated
by
post-mortem
and
chemical analysis, sufficiently established
the guilt of appellants beyond reasonable
doubt - motive and sequence of events
ruled
out
false
implication.
(Para
-
12,42,47 to 53,72,73)

(B) Words and Phrases - "Interested
witness" does not mean "related witness"
- an interested witness is one who has a
personal stake in the conviction. (Paras
40)

Accused having married the widow of the
informant's nephew - seeking sole claim over
agricultural land - developed animosity when
the
informant
initiated
legal
proceedings
asserting reversionary rights - On 26.11.1982,
at about 7:30 a.m., accused and one other -
armed with tabbals, assaulted and killed the
informant's son - attempted to murder the
informant and another witness by firing at them,
but they escaped unhurt - FIR was lodged
promptly at 10:15 a.m. the same day. (Para - 3,
15-18, 30)

HELD: - Conviction of the appellants under
Sections 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 34
IPC was affirmed. Prosecution had established
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt through credible eye-witnesses supported
by medical evidence. Defence theory was found
to be untrustworthy and unconvincing. FIR was
held to be lodged promptly. Presence of the
accused at the place of occurrence and their
participation in the crime was proved.(Para -
72,73)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:
5 All. Shambhu & Anr. Vs. State
131
1. Bathula Nagamalleswar Rao & ors. Vs St.
Rep. By Public Prosecutor, 2008 (2) CRIMES 188
(SC)

2. Appukutan Vs State, 1989 Cri LJ 2362

3. Amar Singh Vs Balwinder Singh & ors.,
(2003) 2 SCC 518

4. Krishna Mochi & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, (2002) 6
SCC 81

5. Masalti Vs St. of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202

6. Darya Singh Vs St. of Punj., AIR 1965 SC 328

7. St. of A.P. Vs S. Rayappa & ors., (2006) 4
SCC 512

8. Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy Vs St.
of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444

9. Jayabalan Vs U.T. of Pondicherry, 2010 (68)
ACC 308 (SC)

10. Dharnidhar Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 7 SCC 759

11. Ram Bharosey Vs St. of U.P., AIR 2010 SC
917

12. Baban Shankar Daphal & ors. Vs The St. of
Maha., 2025 SCC Online SC 137

13. Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Vs St. of
Maha., (2023) 12 SCC 558

14. Pahalwan Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P., 2020
(6) ALJ 166

15. Jarnail Singh Vs St. of Punj, (2009) 9 SCC
719

16. Vadivelu Thevar & anr. Vs St. of Madas, AIR
1957 sc 614

17. Mathura Prashad & anr. Vs St. of M.P., 1992
Supp (1) SCC 406

18. St. of Uttrakhand Vs Darshan Singh, (2020)
12 SCC 605

19. Gopi Ram Vs St. of U.P., 2006 (55) ACC 673,
SC,
20. St. of U.P. Vs Nabaw Singh, 2005 ACC
(Cri.)33

21. Shiv Raj Bapu Ray Jadhab Vs St. of Karn.
(2003) 6 ACC 392,

22. St. of Rajasthan Vs Arjun Singh, AIR 2011
SC 3380,

23. Radha Mohan Singh Vs St., 2005 CRLJ 167

24. St. of Guj. Vs Aniruuddh Singh, AIR 1997 SC
278

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar
Husain Idrisi, J.)

1- (i)- Office report dated 03.08.1983
demonstrates that Trial Court Record has
been received way back in the year 1983
and the accused appellants were released
on bail vide order dated 09.06.1983. The
paper books were also prepared pursuant to
the order dated 15.07.2019. Order sheet
transpires that the learned counsel for the
accused appellants avoided to appear
before the Court to argue the appeal,
despite consistent orders. In these pressing
and compelling circumstances non-bailable
warrants were issued against the accused
appellants on 15.07.2019, which were duly
executed upon the accused appellants, the
accused appellants appeared in the court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai
and were released on bail with undertaking
that they would appear before this court on
the date fixed. A perusal of the order sheet
further evinces that the appeal was listed on
16.03.2022 and 31.08.2022 for hearing but
no one appeared on behalf of appellants to
advance arguments. The appeal was again
listed on 31.01.2024 for hearing. On that
date, learned counsel for the accused
appellants appeared and made a request for
being adjourned. The appeal was again
listed for hearing on 12.07.2024, but on
account of call of strike by members of
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bar, hearing could not be done. Again the
appeal was directed to be listed on
25.07.2024 and in the meantime notices
were served upon the accused appellants
personally which is evident vide letter
dated 5.6.2024 sent by Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai and the office
report dated 3.7.2024. Eventually, the
appeal was listed on 5.11.2024. On that
date, despite repeated calls, none appeared
on behalf of accused appellants to press the
appeal. Thus the record demonstrate that
the counsel for the accused appellants as
well as accused themselves employed all
gadget to oscillate the appeal sine die,
without seeing day light. The present
appeal being of the year 1983 has been
swinging years together on the dilatory and
stalling tactics adopted by the counsels as
well as the accused appellants themselves.

(ii)- In view of the above, we are
of the opinion that no useful purpose would
be served to keep the present appeal
swinging
any
more
accommodating
counsel for the appellants to advance
argument on three dates. The Court is
under bounden obligation to proceed with
the matter and decide it after hearing the
learned
counsel
for
the
parties,
consequently, Sri Pawan Shukla, Advocate
was appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue
the appeal on behalf of accused appellants.

2- The instant appeal has been
instituted on behalf of appellants against
the judgment and order dated 21.5.1983
passed
by
the
learned
Special
Judge/Additional Sessions Judge Jalaun at
Orai in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 1983 (State
versus Shambhu and another) arising out of
Case Crime No. 292 of 1982 under sections
302/307 IPC Police Station Kadaura,
District Jalaun whereby the appellants have
been convicted and sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-
each for the offence punishable under
sections 302 I.P.C. and were also directed
to
serve
out
five
years
rigorous
imprisonment for the offence punishable
under section 307 IPC with fine of Rs.
500/- with default stipulations. Both the
sentences
were
directed
to
run
concurrently.

3- (i)- Succinctly, the prosecution
case, as divulged in First Information
Report
(in
short
F.I.R.)
and
other
undisputed facts and circumstances, is that
on 26.11.1982 at about 7.30 a.m. Informant
Ghanjua S/o Matain, R/o- village Kahata,
within circle of Police Station Ata, District
Jalaun, orally informed to the P.S. Kadaura,
about the incident occurred on 26.11.1982
at about 07.30 a.m. He informed that the
accused appellants are originally residents
of village Kahata, within circle of Police
Station Ata, but since last few years they
have started living in village Kanakhera,
where the incident took place. In village
Kanakhera the informant Ghanjua s/o
Matain and his nephew Raghubir s/o
Chunbaddhi families were residing and
they had some joint agricultural land.
Raghubir had died about seven years before
the incident, and after his demise, name of
his wife Smt. Janakia was mutated in
revenue records jointly with the informant
in place of Raghubir.

(ii)- About three years ago Smt.
Janakia remarried with accused Shambhu.
Since then accused Shambhu and his other
family members started living with Janakia
in village Kanakhera. About one month
before the incident accused Shambhu asked
complainant Ghanjua that he should get his
name struck off from revenue records over
the land of Janakia and him to give his
consent to get his name expunged. The
informant Ghanjua agreed to this. He went
5 All. Shambhu & Anr. Vs. State
133
to Kadaura with the accused Shambhu and
gave his consent before the Consolidation
Authorities for deleting his name over the
land
of
Janakiya.
Thereafter
the
complainant-
Ghanjua
consulted
and
deliberated to the lawyers, for initiating
legal process.

(iii)-
During
discourse
with
lawyers it came to his notice that since his
cousin daughter-in-law (Janakiya) had remarried to Shambhu therefore, she would
not have any right, title or interest over the
land belonging to deceased Raghubir and
the land left by Raghubir would come back
to his share. At this legal advice, Ghanjua
started making preparation for ensuing
legal process. Two days' before the
incident, the complainant Ghanjua had
gone to Kalpi to instruct his counsel for
preparation of initiating the process of
taking action in a legal forum. Incidently
accused Shambhu was also present at Kalpi
and he somehow came to know of the
intention of the informant and took ill of it.

(iv)- One day before the incident,
Shambhu called informant's son Gayadin
and threatened that since the informant was
preparing to go for litigation against him,
he would see him. He also asked the
informant's son to return Rs.2/- which he
had expended in taking him to Kadaura for
giving consent to strike off his name in
revenue records. The accused appellant
Shambhu exerted pressure upon Gayadeen
to intimate his father to return back Rs. 2/-
and also extended warning that he would
take drastic steps against them. The said
exchange of words with accused appellant
Shambhu was duly communicated by
Gayadeen to his father/ complainant. This
is to suggest that the accused was now bent
upon for show down.

(v)- The prosecution story further
unrevealed that on the fateful day at about
7.30 a.m. informant's son Thakurdin was
going to his field to harvest green fodder
for cattle having a 'Hasiya' (sickle). The
informant/
complainant
Ghanjua
and
witness named Rasna, who is also resident
of the same village, were going to ease
themselves in field and were following the
deceased. When the deceased reached near
the end of 'Gadhaiya-wala Jwar'/ field of
Jagannath Singh Verma situated outside the
village, accused Shambhu and Lakhan both
son of Gauri Shanker Raidas resident of
village Kahata, police station Ata, district
Jalaun, who were residing in the village of
complainant, hiding themselves in the
shrub of crop of Jwar, duly armed with
tabbals, appeared and abruptly ensued to
inflict tabbals' blows to the deceased
Thakurdeen. The deceased after receiving
fatal injuries, immediately fell down on the
ground. The informant and witness Rasna
raised alarm and challenged the assailants
and ran towards them making shriek and
scream. On hearing the alarm and shrill
raised by the complainant and Rasna,
informant Ghanjua's another son Gayadin,
by chance who was present at the house of
witness Kadora s/o Alam hailing to the
same village and whose house is situated
about 5-6 paces from the place of incident
reached at the place of occurrence raising
voice. Gayadin and Kadora at the time of
incident were talking and preparing tobacco
to eat when they heard the cries. They
immediately ran towards the place of
occurrence and also saw the accused
persons attacking the deceased. When the
accused persons were challenged they
advanced towards Ghanjua and Rasna.
Accused Shambhu took out a pistol from
his pocket and fired at them with intention
to eliminate them. Witness Rasna escaped
threadbare without sustaining any injury as
Rasna sat down promptly and Informant
Ghanjua hide himself in the crop standing
in the near by field. On follow up by
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complainant
and
other
village
folks
accused, appellant disappeared from the
place of occurrence, unleashing reign of
terror. On account of horrific and awful
scene developed by the accused appellants,
the complainant and other folks of the
locality could not muster courage to pursue
them. At this they turned to Thakurdeen,
and found him dead on the spot.

(vi)- The complainant / informant
immediately went at the police station
Kadaura along with chaukidar to intimate
the police about the incident. His oral
intimation was entered into kaimi GD No.
13 at 10.15 A.M. dated 26.11.1982 and
reduced in writing in chick FIR (Ext. Ka-
4) registering Case Crime No. 292 of 1982,
under Section 302, 307 Indian Penal Code
(in short I.P.C.) against the accused
appellants Shambhu and Lakhan, P.S.
Kadaura, District Jalaun was registered in
the presence of station officer S.I. Arjun
Singh Tomar. It may be mentioned that
police station at about 10 kms away from
the place of occurrence and accused
appellant were named in the FIR.

(vii)- The station officer S.I.
Arjun Singh Tomar taken over the
investigation of the case himself and set the
investigation into motion. He recorded
statement of the complainant at the P.S.
itself on the same day and reached at the
place of occurrence within two hours of the
incident.
After
completing
requisite
formalities inquest of the dead body of the
deceased was conducted in the presence of
I.O. and witnesses. The inquest report was
prepared as Ext. Ka-1. Wrapped the corps
in the clothes, sealed it and handed over to
constable C.P. 68 Ramji Tiwari and
constable C.P. 468 Om Prakash to carry it
in their supervision and vigil to the
mortuary for autopsy, on the same day i.e.,
26.11.1982 at about 3.00 P.M.

(viii)-
I.O.
collected
the
incriminating material to corroborate the
prosecution case such as blood-stained
cloth, pair of shoes, sickle (Hasiya) Ext-1,
which the deceased was allegedly carrying
with him, at the time of incident, it was in
two parts. I.O. collected both the pieces of
the Hasiya, plain and blood-stained soil and
sent them for chemical examination. The
dead body of the deceased was sent for post
mortem examination. I.O. also prepared
site plan on the same day, at the instance of
complainant. The postmortem of deceased
Thakurdeen was conducted by PW-6 Dr.
H.G. Gupta on 27.11.1982 at about 1.00
P.M. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause
of death of deceased Thakurdeen is shock
and Haemorrhage, as a result of antemortem injuries. Investigation Officer also
recorded the statement of witnesses and
after collecting the credible and convincing
material, submitted the charge-sheet against
the accused appellants, showing their
involvement in the incident, in the court of
CJM, District- Jalaun, who took the
cognizance of the case. Since, the case was
exclusively triable by the court of sessions,
CJM, Jalaun committed it to the Sessions
Court, vide his order dated 08.02.1983.
where it was registered as S.T. No. 16 of
1983 and later transferred to Special Judge/
Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai
for trial.

4- Learned Trial Sessions Judge vide
its order dated 02.03.1983 directed to frame
formal charges u/s 302 and 307 both read
with section 34 IPC accordingly formal
charges were framed against the accused
appellants, on 02.03.1983 against the
accused appellants. Mentioning that they
have
committed
these
offences
in
furtherance of their common intentions
accused appellant abjured the charges.
5 All. Shambhu & Anr. Vs. State
135
They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.

5- In order to bring charges home,
against accused/ appellants, prosecution has
examined witnesses in ocular evidence as
under:-

Sl.
no.

PW
No.
Name
Remarks
1.
PW-1
Bhoora
Witness of inquest
2.
PW-2
Ghanjua
Informant
/Eye
witness
3.
PW-3
Rasna
Eye witness
4.
PW-4
Karhora
Eye witness
5.
PW-5
Con-S.
N
Tiwari
Head
Moharrir
Witness
6.
PW-6
Dr.
H.G.
Gupta
Performed
post
mortem
7.
PW-7
Arjun
Singh
Tomar
I.O.

6- In order to further substantiate the
charges levelled against the appellant,
prosecution has also adduced the following
documentary evidence:-

Sl
no.

Documents
Exhibited
Proved by

Ext
Nos.

1
Panchyatnama
P.W.- 1,7
Ext.
Ka- 1
2
Recov.
memo
B.
Stained/Plain soil
P.W.-
1,3,7
Ext.
Ka- 2
3
Recovery
memo
Shoes, Hasiya
P.W.-1,3,7
Ext.
Ka- 3
4
Recovery memo B.
Stained Dhoti
P.W.-1,3,7
Ext.
Ka- 4
5
Oral intimation/ chick
F.I.R.
P.W.- 2,7
Ext.
Ka- 5
6
Kaimi GD
P.W.-5
Ext.
Ka- 6
7
Post Mortem Report
P.W.-6
Ext.
Ka- 7
8
Site Plan with Index
P.W.-7
Ext.
Ka- 8
9
Photo Lash
P.W.-7
Ext.
Ka- 9
10
Chalan Lash
P.W.-7
Ext.
Ka-10
11
Charge Sheet
P.W.-7
Ext.
Ka-11
12
Chemical
Examination Report
P.W.-7
Ext.
Ka-12
13
Chemical
P.W.-7
Ext.
Examination Report
Ka-13
14
CH-5
-
Paper-n
64

7- Besides, in further corroboration to
prosecution case, it has also exhibited
physical objects in its evidence as under:-

Sl.
no.
Objects Exhibited
Proved
by
Ext Nos.
1
Hasiya
with
broken parts
P.W.-7
Ext.-1
2
Blood stained Soil
P.W.-7
Ext.-2
3
Plain Soil
P.W.-7
Ext.-3
4
One pair of shoes
P.W.-7
Ext.-4
5
With Bricks
P.W.-7
Ext.-5
6
Blood
stained
Dhoti
P.W.-7
Ext.-6
7
Kurta
of
the
Deceased
P.W.-7
Ext.-7 &
8
8
Under wear
P.W.-7
Ext.-9
9
Tahemad
P.W.-7
Ext.-10

8- (i)- After the conclusion of the
prosecution evidence, accused / appellants
were confronted with the evidence adduced
against
them
during
trial
and
their
statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C has
been
recorded.
In
their
statement
accused/appellants denied the allegations
and claimed that they have been falsely
implicated due to enmity.

(ii)- According to the accused
persons, enmity between the both the
parties pertains to the fact that Shambhu
had purchased land from Smt. Jankiya.
This was not relished by the complainant. It
is alleged that the complainant falsely
implicated the two accused persons on
account of this enmity. It is established
from the sale-deed, Ext. Kha 3 and which
has not been disputed by the prosecution
that in March, 1980 Smt. Jankiya, widow
of Raghubir, sold away certain agricultural
land in village Kanakhera to Shambhu.

9- Accused appellants have examined
following witnesses in support of their
defence as ocular evidence:-
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sl
no.
PW No.
Name
of
witness
Remarks
1.
DW-1
Krishna Lal
Defence Witness
2.
DW-2
Maniram
Ahirwar
Defence Witness
1.
DW-3
Param
Shukh
Defence Witness

10- In order to further fortify their
defence the accused appellants has also
adduced the documentary evidence as
under:-

Sl
no
Documents
Exhibited
Proved
by
Ext Nos.
1
Affidavit of
Kadora
D.W.-1 Ext.
Kha-1
2
Affidavit of
Rasna
D.W.-1 Ext.
Kha-2
3
Sale deed
D.W.-3 Ext.
Kha-3
4
Compromise
Deed
-
P.noKha89

11- Heard Sri Pawan Shukla A.C.,
learned counsel for the appellants and Sri
Amit Sinha learned A.G.A. representing
the State, in extenso, and also perused the
entire materials on record.

12- After hearing rival submissions of
both the parties and marathon analysis of
the evidence and other material on record,
learned Trial Sessions Judge concluded that
prosecution has fully proved that the
accused appellant committed the crime
beyond all reasonable doubts and by
judgement and order dated 21.05.1983
convicted and sentenced accused appellants
for the offence under sections 302 and 307
read with 34 I.P.C. with understanding that
these offences has been committed by
accused appellants in furtherance of their
common intention. Aggrieved by their
conviction and sentence accused appellants
preferred the present appeal, before this
Court. In order to fortify their stand learned
Amicus Curiae appearing for accused
appellants
and
learned
A.G.A.
has
advanced various arguments and rival
submissions, but their rival submissions has
to be tested on the anvil of the evidence
adduced
by
them.
Therefore,
it
is
imperative to discuss the evidence adduced
by the prosecution at this juncture firstly.

13-
P.W.1
Bhura,
examined
on
21.03.1983, stated on oath that it was the
incident of about four months back.
Thakurdeen who was belonging to his
village was done to death. The station
officer
P.S.
Kadaura
had
come
to
Kanakhera, so as to investigate the
incident. The investigating officer had
prepared the inquest report of Thakurdeen
in his presence. He identified and verified
his signature on the inquest report which
was duly proved as Ext. Ka.1. by P.W.1
Bhura. He also proved the collection of
blood saturated and plain soil as well as
taking of corpse of deceased Thakurdeen
into his control by the I.O. He also
identified his signature on the recovery
memos of these articles as Ext. Ka.2. He
also proved recovery memo of the shoes,
cloths and other incriminating articles
collected during investigation and duly
proved them as Ext.Ka.3 and Ext.Ka.4. The
blood saturated Dhoti Ext.-6 by which
deceased Thakurdeen was covered was also
taken into custody and recovery memo of
the same was prepared. He proved it as Ext.
Ka.4. P.W.-1 Bhura narrated the incident in
a
natural
way
without
adding
any
embellishment.
He
also
proved
the
presence of Devi Dayal, Rasna ,Vidyasagar
Narain Singh and other folks of the locality
at the spot.

14- In his cross-examination P.W.-1
Bhura admitted that he reached near the
dead body of Thakurdeen at about 12.30
5 All. Shambhu & Anr. Vs. State
137
P.M. He came to know about the murder of
Thakurdeen from the co-villagers. Thus,
this witness is certainly not present at the
time of occurrence at 07.30 a.m. and not an
eye witness of the incident and came to
know about the incident from the covillagers. However, he had proved place of
occurrence Ext. Ka. -8. Inquest report Ext.
Ka.-1 and he also admitted Ghanjua and
Rasna to be the members of his family.

15- Prosecution examined P.W.-2
Ghanjua s/o Mataiya (complainant) on
21.03.1983. He stated on oath that the
incident had occurred about four months
ago. He was going to attend nature's call at
about 7.30 a.m. at in har (field) through
passing a narrow alley path. The said
narrow alley path was running through the
field of Jagannath Verma. The witness
Rasna was also pursuing him. His son
Thakurdeen was going ahead to them, for
harvesting green fodder for cattle. When
Thakurdeen reached in the mid way the
field of Gadhaiya wala Jwar, hailing to
Jagannath Verma, where the crop of Jwar
was standing having height of about 5 feet
and below to it, the crop of arhar was
standing. The accused appellants were
hiding themselves in the shrubs of Jwar and
arhar. When Thakurdeen reached mid of
that field, they exhorted him to stop. At this
the victim Thakurdeen stayed there, both
the accused persons namely Shambhu and
Lakhan equipped with tabbal started to
inflict multiple injuries on him. P.W.-2
Ghanjua and Rasna P.W.-3 were about 40
to 45 paces back from victim Thakurdeen.
On the shriek and scream of victim
Thakurdeen, the complainant and they also
raised alarm and shriek. Hearing the awful
hue
and
cry,
his
son
Gayadeen
(complainant other son) associated with
Kadora rushed towards the place of
occurrence. In the meantime witness Rasna
also reached near them. The accused
assailants after eliminating Thakurdeen,
turned
towards
them.
The
accused
Shambhu took out Katta (Country made
pistol) from his pocket and fired upon
them. The complainant and Rasna having
sensed danger to life ran towards the shrubs
of standing crops. The complainant and
Rasana escaped threadbare from the hit of
firing with Katta. The accused assailants
fled away towards the village. Witnesses
pursued some steps to the accused
assailants, but on account of fear and terror
unleashed by them. They came back to
injured victim Thakurdeen and found
Thakurdeen lying dead, as a sequel of antemortem injuries inflicted on his person. He
went at the police station concerned alongwith Chaukidar parting from the corpse of
Thakurdeen, in the vigil and supervision of
number of persons gathered at the place of
occurrence.
He
gave
intimation
of
occurrence to the police at the police
station. The first information report was
lodged at the statement of complainant
P.W.2. After scribing the report, thumb
impression of P.W.2 Ghanjua was affixed
on it. The said report was duly reduced in
writing and marked and proved by him as
Ext. Ka.5. In the process of recording the
statement, it was unfolded by P.W.2
Ghanjua that there is his joint agricultural
land with Raghubir (his nephew). His
nephew
Raghubir
was
married
with
Jankiya. Raghubir had expired and after his
demise, the said agricultural land of
Raghubir was mutated in the name of
Ghanjua but it came in the ownership and
possession of Jankiya. After passing away
of some period from the death of Raghubir,
Jankiya came in contact with Shambhu and
settled her marital knot with Shambhu.,
During
the
course
of
consolidation
proceeding, the accused Shambhu told the
complainant that his name be mutated on
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the share of Raghubir and Complainant
Ghanjua might be expunged amicably. The
said episode relates one month before the
murder of Thakurdeen. P.W.2 Ghanjua had
gone with accused Shambhu and accused
Shambhu had paid Rs.2/-towards the
charges of his Tanga fare. Thereafter he
had gone to Kalpi and consulted to the
Advocates who suggested him that since
Jankiya had remarried, the land left by
deceased Raghubir will be owned and
possessed by his family members. It
prompted P.W.2 Ghanjua to ensued the
legal battle for acquiring the land left by
Raghubir. This fact anyhow came in the
notice of Shambhu, who cherished and
nurtured grudge and animus against them.

16- It was also divulged by P.W.-2
that prior to one month of the said incident,
when his son Gayadeen was coming back
from Har to his home, Shambhu called him
and told that firstly his father Ghanjua had
consented to return back the land after
getting his name expunged, now he is
playing deceptive and illusory game and
therefore
now
he
will
face
dire
consequences. He also exhorted pressure
upon him to communicate his father
Ghanjua to return back Rs 2/- which he has
paid his tanga fare. This fact was narrated
by Gayadeen to P.W.2 Ghanjua and after
three days of this verbal duel, the accused
appellants had executed the said offence of
liquidating Thakurdeen. P.W.2 Ghanjua
proved strong motive nourished by accused
appellants behind the commission of crime.
He had also proved that the broken sickle
(Hasiya) was lying at a distance of two
paces from the dead body of Thakurdeen.
Thus the P.W.-2 Ghanjua had given
detailed description of the incident in
unison of first information report. He had
portrayed the vivid and glowing scene
narrating the incident in natural and
articulate manner. He made his best to
prove the prosecution version without any
adornment and embellishment

17- The prosecution has examined
Rasna on 23.3.1983 as P.W.3. who deposed
that about to four months earlier at about
7.30 a.m. he was going to attend nature's
call
through
the
field
of
Vermaji.
Thakurdeen was going ahead to him. He
was going behind to Ghanjua. When
Thakurdeen had crossed about half of the
field of Gadhaiya wala Jwar belonging to
Vermaji, he heard apathetic and heartrending voice. He rushed towards voice and
saw that accused appellants Shambhu and
Lakhan had appeared from the south side of
arhar field and were inflicting blows with
Tabbal upon Thakurdeen. As soon as P.W.-
3 Rasna proceeded running ahead, accused
Shambhu shot firing at him, it may be
remembered that Rasna was following
P.W.-2 Ghanjua. They fell down so as to
save their life. Thus both of them narrowly
escaped
unhurt.
P.W.-3
Rasna
was
thunderstruck and flabbergasted on account
of loose of terror hence he could not see
disappearance of accused persons. In the
meantime Gayadeen and Kadora s/o Alam
also arrived at the spot. After disappearance
and departure of the accused persons, they
reached near Thakurdeen and found him
dead on account of fatal injuries and
profuse bleeding. Subsequent thereto, the
police personnel arrived at the spot and
carried out necessary formalities i.e.
recovery of blood stained and plain soil,
recovery of blood stained sickle (Hasiya)
recovery of blood stained dhoti and shoes
which were duly marked as Ext.2,3, and 4.
P.W.3 Rasna was cross-examined in detail
on various points but in the cross
examination, nothing could be elicited to
discredit his testimony. P.W.3 Rasna had
narrated the manner of assault and mode of
5 All. Shambhu & Anr. Vs. State
139
incident in vivid and natural manner
without any colouration.

18- The prosecution has examined
P.W.4 Kadora s/o Alam on 23.3.1983. He
deposed that it was about four months ago,
he was sitting at his door steps at about
7.30 a.m. where Gayadeen s/o Ghanjua was
also present. There was a path for going
Margayan crossing near his house. There
was also a Nali with the width of 4 feet
from that path running towards the field of
Gadhaiya wala jwar of Jagannath Verma.
The said Nali was generally used in rainy
season and in a rest of months, it was being
used as path. Gayadeen told him to provide
tobacco. P.W.4 Kadora after rubbing
tobacco ingested himself and gave to Gaya
Deen. In the meantime, a frightful and
terrible voice was heard seeking help.
P.W.4 Kadora and Gayadeen rushed
speedily towards the field of Vermaji. They
saw that Shumbhu and Lakhan were
inflicting blows with tabbal upon Thakur
Deen, who was at a distance of one and
half foot from narrow alley running from
the field of Verma Ji. At some paces
Rakhan alias Rasna, Ghanjua and others
were present and raising alarm and shrill.
The assailants had inflicted injuries with
tabbal upon Thakurdeen at his neck, head
etc. Subsequent thereto, Shambhu shot fire
upon them but they escaped unhurt. After
causing
injuries
to
Thakurdeen,
the
assailants disappeared from the place of
occurrence. When P.W.-4 Kadora and
others reached near Thakurdeen. They
found him dead. In cross-examination,
defence could not extract any material
belying and discrediting the testimony of
P.W.-4 Kadora rather the testimony of
P.W-4. Kadora was delineation of glowing
picture of incident which added impetus in
the prosecution version. He proved his
presence on spot at the time of incident
narrating all interrogations in a simple and
natural way.

19- The prosecution also examined
constable 381 Siddhnath Tiwari as P.W.-5
on 25.3.1983. He deposed that he was
posted
at
police
station
Kadora
as
Constable Moharrir on 25.03.1983. He
proved the chik F.I.R Ext. Ka.-5. scribed by
him on the oral statement of Ghanjua. The
said information was copied in Kaimi G.D.
no.-13 which is marked as Ext. Ka.6. On
27.11.1982 at 10.15 a.m. I.O./station
Officer A.S. Tomar had handed over
incriminating articles i.e. blood stained soil,
plain soil, broken sickle (Hasiya) Dhoti,
shoes, and other articles in a sealed cover.
He disclosed that on 26.11.1982 at about
10.30 a.m. the station officer had departed
to visit and inspect the place of occurrence.
The station officer did not come back at the
police station on 26.11.1982. He came back
at the police station on 27.11.1982. The
first information was registered in the
presence of station officer on 26.11.1982.
The chaukidar Divya had also associated
with informant. The FIR relating to this
incident was sent on 26.11.1982 at 12.20
O' clock to the authorities concerned and
ilaka Magistrate. The said report was sent
through constable 294 Shyam Kishore.
26.11.1982 at about 21.45 hours, the said
constable came back at the police station
after making service of special report. An
entry to this effect was made in G.D. No.-
28 on 26.11.1982. He stated that first
information report was registered on
26.11.1982 before 12 'O' clock thus the
defence did not succeed to create any dent
in the testimony of P.W.5. Siddhnath
Tiwari and the prosecution version stood
fully above board.

20 -(i)- The prosecution examined on
25.3.1983 Dr. H.G. Gupta, Medical Officer
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jail Hospital at Orai as P.W.-6 who stated
on oath that on 27.11.1983 he was posted
as Medical Officer Police & Jail Hospital at
Orai. On the fateful day, the corpse of
Thakurdeen S/o Ghanjua was brought by
constable CP 68 Ramji Tiwari & constable
468 Om Prakash posted at police station
Kadaura. The corpse of Thakurdeen was in
an intact sealed cover.

(ii)- The Doctor PW.-6 Sri H.G.
Gupta, conducted post mortem examination
of the corps of deceased Thakurdeen on
27.11.1982 at about 01.00 P.M. During
autopsy
Dr.
found
following
facts,
mentioned in PMR-

(iii)
Ante-Mortem
Injuries:-
Doctor found the following ante-mortem
injuries on the body of the deceased at the
time of autopsy:-

(1)- Incised wound 7 cm x 3 cm x
2cm on the humerus bone left side. The
bone under it was cut upon left shoulder
outer side. Apex of the wound was
backward.

(2)- Abrasion 2 cm x 1⁄2 cm which
was 2 1⁄2 cm above injury no.1.

(3)- An incised wound 14 cm x 4
cm x 3 cm on left side of skull on perital
region. The perital bone was cut and brain
matter was coming out from wound. The
wound started from the upper part of the
left ear and extended upto the middle and
top of the head.

(4)- Incised wound 8 cm x 1 1⁄2
cm x 3 cm. This was skull bone deep
incised wound 8 cm x 1 1⁄2 cm x 3 cm. This
was skull bone deep and left mastoid and
occipital bone were broken. The brain
matter was coming out from the wound.

(5)- A punctured wound 1 cm x 1
cm x 4 cm just below left mandible angle.
The edges were clean cut and direction was
towards right.

(6)- Punctured wound 1 cm x 1
cm x 3 cm which was 1 cm below injury
no.5. Edges were clean cut and direction
was towards trachea.

Cause of Death:- In the opinion
of the Doctor P.W.-6, the cause of death of
deceased Thakurdeen was shock and
Haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem
injuries specially injury no. 3 and 4.

According to the Doctor P.W.-6
H.G. Gupta, Thakurdeen died about 11⁄4
days earlier conducting autopsy. He further
clarified his death may be occurred on
26.11.1982 at 07 to 07.30 a.m. Doctor has
proved post mortem report as Ext. Ka.- 7.

The
post
mortem
report
demonstrates that stomach of the deceased
was empty and semi-liquid matter was
present in small intestine. The large
intestine was full of solid faecal. The
bladder was having 100 gm. urine.

The doctor opined that cut
wounds could be caused by tabbal.
Punctured wounds could also be caused by
tabbal, in case tabbal had a pointed and
sharp edged end. The defence could not
elicit any thing to disprove the medical
report which remained consistent with
prosecution version.

In his cross examination P.W.-6
Dr. H. G. Gupta at one place has stated that
the death of the deceased is possible to be
occurred in the morning (in the night of
25/26) at about 03.00 to 04.00 a.m. also.

21- (i)- P.W.-7 Arjun Singh Tomar
Station Officer P.S. Kadaura District Jalaun
at Orai, is the investigating officer of the
case. He was examined by the prosecution
on 11.4.1983. He deposed that the first
information report was lodged in his
presence. On getting the information with
respect to said occurrence, he started to
investigate the case. During the course of
investigation, he recorded the statement of
5 All. Shambhu & Anr. Vs. State
141
complainant
at
the
police
station
concerned.
Subsequent
thereto
he
proceeded to the place of occurrence and
recorded the statement of witnesses namely
Kadora, Rasna and Bhura etc. He prepared
the site plan at the instance of the
complainant Ghanjua, photo lash, Challan
lash and also collected blood stained and
plain soil, shoes, dhoti, kurta, Tahemad. He
also recovered a pair of Shoes, broken
sickle, dhoti and other incriminating
articles of deceased Thakurdeen. He
prepared the recovery memos of these
articles. He stated that all the incriminating
articles collected from the spot. He also
proved that he had sent blood saturated
articles to chemical analyst. The blood
stained soil was put in red container and the
plain soil was put in green container. It also
transpired during investigation Jankiya had
sold her some land in favour of Shambhu.
The name of Shambhu was recorded on the
land purchased by him before one month of
the occurrence. The investigating officer
did not collect any revenue paper from
Ghanjua in relation to disputed property.
According to information gathered by
investigating officer, Jankiya had sold
approximately more than ten acres of land
to Shambhu.

(ii)-
During
the
course
of
investigation, it came in the notice of
investigating officer that tabbal is bigger
than axe but is smaller than spear. Tabbal
has pointed edge in both side .

(iii)- The site plan was prepared
on the pointing of the complainant. The site
plan duly prepared and signed by the
investigating officer was identified by him.
He proved the site plan as Ext. Ka-8.

22. There are also reports of the
chemical analyst to whom blood stained
incriminating
articles
were
sent
for
chemical analysis. According to these
reports, human blood stains were found on
the blood saturated articles i.e. Dhoti,
Kurta, Tahemad, underwear which the
deceased Thakurdeen was wearing on the
fateful day. Similar blood stains were found
on the blood saturated soil and sickle
(Hasiya) which the investigating officer
had collected from the spot of occurrence.
All these blood saturated articles were
hailing to belong blood group 'A".

23. Ext. Ka-14 is the notice in C.H.
Form No.5. In remarks column a note is
shown to the effect that Smt. Jankiya had
remarried Shambhu and on the land of
Raghubir, the possession of Ghanjua was
recorded. This notice was issued on
22.07.1982 and the name of the tenureholder has been shown as Janakiya, widow
of Raghubir.

24. It will not be out of place at this
stage to discuss defence evidence also.
Defence has examined Krishan Lal S/o
Baldeo Prasad as D.W.-1. He stated that he
has prepared Affidavits of Kadora and
Rasna
resident
of
Kanakhera
on
05.01.1983. He prepared the Affidavits as
per their instructions. They wanted to
prepare the affidavits with regard to the
facts as if they have not seen the
occurrence and they have been wrongly
named as witnesses in the charge sheet
against the accused Shambhu and Lakhan.
In his cross examination he admitted that
these deponents were known to him earlier
as they use to visit his neighbour advocate
but he failed to give any instance when
these deponent met him earlier. He also
admitted Rasna and kadora are illiterate.
They never came before earlier any other
work. He also admitted that he has attached
his Vakalatnama with notarial affidavits
prepared. He is unable to tell in which court
these affidavits were filed.
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25.