# Shankar & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 215
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2005
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar, Zafeer Ahmad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shankar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54826
- **Pages:** 32

## Text

_Characters 0–39,978 of 108,204. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39978 for what follows._

2 All. Shankar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
215

14. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on
the face of the record. Paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgement reads as follows:

"9. Under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there
is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record An error which is not self-evident and
has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face
of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In
exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule | CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be "reheard and corrected A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited
purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise"." (emphasis supplied)

15. In the case of Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. Assam SEBI reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677 a
three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court following the judgement of Parsion Devi (supra)
dismissed the review petitions holding that the scope of review is limited and under the guise of
review, the parties cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already
been addressed and decided.

16. In this view of the matter and above stated possession, Court is of the opinion that
judgement in question does not fall within the scope and abmit of review. The learned counsel for
the review petitioners have failed to make out any mistake or error apparent on the face of record in
the impugned judgment, and have failed to bring the case within the parameters laid down by this
Court as well as Hon?ble Supreme Court in various decisions for reviewing the impugned
judgment.

17. In that view of the matter, the review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 215
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2005

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

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the learned trial Court has examined the evidence and material on record
appropriately in a case of alleged mass murder of five persons by multiple accused persons and whether
conviction based primarily on testimonies of related eye-witnesses is sustainable in law.
216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Headnotes
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 148, 452, 307/149, 302/149, and 404 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 374(2) - Conviction for murder and rioting - Appreciation of
evidence.
Criminal Trial-Appreciation of Evidence-Case based on testimony of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3Requirement of careful scrutiny in case involving "5 persons have been killed allegedly by 18
persons". (Para 33)
F.I.R. - Credibility - Where "the report has been written very articulately giving not only the
names of accused persons but their parentage in seriatim"- creates doubt about spontaneity and
authorship by complainant under trauma. (Para 37)
Eye-witness - Presence Doubtful-Contradictions regarding place of hiding, conduct, and
sequence of events - "his evidence is not consistent and there is contradiction in examination-inchief and cross-examination". (Para 39)
Identification of accused-Improbability - "as to how a person could count 23-24 persons and
also identified at least fifteen persons"- casts doubt on reliability. (Para 41)
Appreciation of Evidence - Material contradictions and improvements - Where testimony is
inconsistent with F.I.R., site plan and medical evidence - credibility of prosecution case is
affected. (Para 40-41)
Criminal Jurisprudence - Burden of Proof - Trial Court's reasoning that omissions should not
benefit accused held erroneous as "in the criminal trial the question of any punishment to the
deceased and injured does not arise". (Para 41)
Held: The whole case is to be considered on the basis of evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and such
evidence requires deep scrutiny in view of seriousness of allegation -The F.I.R. appears doubtful as it is
written very articulately which creates doubt to have been got written solely by complainant - Testimony of
complainant suffers from contradictions: "his evidence is not consistent and there is contradiction in
examination-in-chief and cross-examination - Identification of large number of accused is improbable - this
Court failed to comprehend that as to how a person could count 23-24 persons and also identified at least
fifteen persons-Presence and capacity to witness entire घटना doubtful - it cannot be said that he could have
seen all the accused persons from the place, where he was hiding himself -Trial Court's reasoning flawed:
finding that omissions should not benefit accused is "not tenable. (Paras 33,37,39,41) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Md. Jabbar Ali and others Vs. State of Assam; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1440; Digamber Vaishnav and another
Vs. State of Chhatisgarh; Criminal Appeal Nos. 428-430 of 2019; Nanje Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka;
2017 CRI.L.J. 2830; Periyasamy Vs. State; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 314; Ram Singh Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh; (2024) 4 SCC 208 ; Tahsildar Singh Vs. State of U.P.; AIR 1959 SC 1012 ; State of U.P. Vs.
Naresh; (2011) 4 SCC 324; Baban Shankar Daphal Vs. State of Maharashtra; AIR 2025 SC 599;
Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol Vs. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala; (2022) 18 SCC 683; Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati
Venkat Reddy; (2013) 15 SCC 298 ; Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2003) 7 SCC 643 ; Dalip Singh Vs.
State of Punjab; AIR 1953 SC 364; Ravasaheb Vs. State of Karnataka; (2023) 5 SCC 391; Om Pal Vs. State of
U.P.; MANU/SC/1457/2025; Haribhau Vs. State of Maharashtra; MANU/SC/1463/2025; Lalji Vs. State of U.P.;
(1989) 1 SCC 437 ; Masalti Vs. State of U.P.; 1964 SCC OnLine SC 30

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959

List of Keywords
F.I.R.; eye-witness; related and interested witness; contradiction; identification; common object; recovery of
weapon; family enmity; massacre; dacoity; post-mortem; site plan; injured witness; improbable; false
implication.

Case Arising From
2 All. Shankar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
217
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Arising out of common judgment and order dated 18.12.2004 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Unnao in Sessions Trial No. 228 of 2001 (State Vs.
Rampal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2001, Police Station Makhi, District Unnao.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shri Adarsh Mehrotra, Amicus Curiae; Shri Amar Nath Dubey, Amicus Curiae; Shri Shreesh Kumar Mishra Atal,
Amicus Curiae; Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, Amicus Curiae.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Shri Pawan Kumar Misra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

(1) Heard Shri Adarsh Mehrotra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants in Criminal Appeal
No. 255 of 2005, Shri Amar Nath Dubey, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant in Criminal
Appeal No. 254 of 2005, Shri Shreesh Kumar Mishra Atal, learned Amicus Curiae for the
appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2005, Shri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, learned Amicus
Curiae for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 231 of 2005 and Shri Pawan Kumar Misra, learned
A.G.A. for the State.

(2) All the aforesaid criminal appeals under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (here-in-after referred to as Cr.P.C.) emanate from common judgment and order
dated 18.12.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Essential
Commodities Act), Unnao, in Sessions Trial No. 228 of 2001; State Versus Rampal and 14 others,
arising out of Case Crime No.41 of 2001, under Sections 148, 404, 452, 307/149 and 302/149 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (here-in-after referred to as I.P.C.), Police Station Makhi, District
Unnao.

(3) Since the above-captioned criminal appeals emanate from a common factual
matrix/incident, F.I.R. and impugned judgment and order 18.12.2004, therefore, the same are
clubbed together and we proceed to decide the same by a common judgment.

(4) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 12.02.2001, the complainant Guddu had
submitted a written report (Ext. Ka.1) at police station Makhi, district Unnao, alleging therein that
he is a resident of village Meharavan Khera, a hamlet of Methitikur, police station Makhi, district
Unnao. Gajju, Ram Kumar, Ram Kishan and brother-in-law of Raj Kumar, namely, Hari of his
village had killed his uncle Kishan about 19 years ago, in which all four accused persons were
sentenced to life imprisonment, among whom, Gajju and Ram Kishan have died. Sons of his uncle
deceased Kishan, namely, Anil and Siddha Nath and sons of Chotta, namely, Subedar and Ram
Bali, had killed Gajju in the year 1999. Due to this family enmity yesterday, on 11.02.2001, around
08:00-09:00 in the night, accused, (1) Ram Pal, (2) Shankar, (3) Shiv Nath, (4) Mishra, (5) Shiv
Ram sons of Shiv Charan Das, (6) Desha, (7) Ram Singh, (8) Babbun, (9) Indrapal sons of Gajju,
(10) Shiv Kumar, (11) Manoj sons of Shankar, (12) Ram Prakash (13) Ram Kumar, (14), Ram
Vilas sons of Pritam and (15) Mewa Lal son of Hemraj, who all are of his village and belong to his
community, came to his doorstep along with 7-8 outsider miscreants carrying a short barreled
countrymade gun, countrymade pistol, axes etc. and shot his father Sarju, who was warming
218 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
himself by the fire, as a consequence of which, his father fell down and died. Then, his brother
Chandrika came out of the house and ran. 6-7 miscreants shot him down on dung hill (?kwjs ij) in
east-north side of his village. Some miscreants entered his house and killed his sister-in-law
(HkkHkh) Smt. Satana, wife of Chandrika and when his brother Mangal shouted, then, they also
shot him. Due to fear, he (complainant) hid inside the house and was watching the incident and saw
that the miscreants were looking here and there inside the house with torches and they got his
nephew Arvind aged 12 years son of Chandrika Prasad, they assaulted him also by butts of the guns
and axe. Thereafter, all the miscreants came out from the house and killed his cousin Ram
Khelawan son of Tekchand also. Thereafter, all the miscreants, while firing and threatening the
villagers, came again into his house and snatched the gold chain from the neck and silver
ornaments from the ears of his sister-in-law (HkkHkh) Satana, who was dead and they also picked
four boxes, four wallets (cVqvk) of big pinked (cs/kk), four plates (Fkkfy;k), tharra, glass and lota
and all the miscreants fired 25-30 round and created so much terror that no villager came out of
house and all closed windows and doors due to fear. When miscreants went away, then, he came
out and saw that his father, brother Mangal and sister-in-law Satana were dead and nephew Arvind
was lying unconscious. When he saw on the east north side of village, he found that his brother
Chandrika was lying dead on dung-hill. This collective massacre continued nearly for an hour,
which was seen by him, his wife Puppi, his mother Kishana and wife of Ram Khelawan and several
villagers had come hearing the sound of fire and they saw and recognized. Due to terror of
miscreants, no one came near there. Ornaments, clothes and money were kept in the boxes, about
which he does not have complete knowledge. They recognized 7-8 miscreants came from outside
by their face and appearance. At the time of incident, lantern and lamp (nhid) were alight inside the
house and fire was burning outside. He, his wife and his mother can recognize the things on seeing,
which were taken away by the miscreants. Seeing dead bodies of his both brothers, sister-in-law,
father and cousin brother, he became scared and fell unconscious. When he gained consciousness,
it was already 12 Oclock in the night and there was no other person available to go along with
him, therefore, he could not come to the police station. Three dead bodies are lying in the house
and dead body of Chandrika outside of village on east-north and dead body of cousin brother Ram
Khelawan is lying in his house. He has come to report. Report may be written and legal action be
taken.

(5) On the basis of aforesaid written report, F.I.R., bearing Case Crime No. 41 of 2001, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 307, 404 I.P.C. was registered at police station Makhi, district
Unnao on 12.02.2001 at 07:00 A.M. The investigation of the case was taken over himself by
S.H.O. Shri Lajja Ram Yadav (P.W.8), Police Station Makhi, district Unnao.

(6) The Investigating Officer (P.W.8), after taking copy of chik F.I.R., copy of report,
recording of statement of scriber of F.I.R., Constable Deena Nath Singh (P.W.9) and complainant
Guddu (P.W.2), proceeded to the place of occurrence at village Meharvan and prepared inquest
reports of deceased Ram Khelawan, Sarju, Mangal, Smt. Satana, Chandrika and necessary papers
for the purpose of postmortem of their dead bodies as Ext. Ka.12 to Ext. Ka. 34 and handed over
the dead bodies in a sealed condition to Constable Daddan Pandey (P.W.5) and Constable Rajesh
Pandey (P.W.4). He also collected plain and blood stained soil from the place of occurrence and
prepared memos as Ext. Ka. 35 to Ext. Ka.39. He recovered broken wood of butts of gun and gun
arc from the place of occurrence under the recovery memo (Ext. Ka.40). He also recovered 13
2 All. Shankar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
219
empty cartridges 12 bore, one empty cartridge 315 bore and a bullet 315 bore under the recovery
memo as Ext. Ka.41. On the pointing out of complainant, he inspected the place of occurrence and
prepared the site plan as Ext. Ka.42. In the intervening night of 12/13.02.2001 at about 11:00 p.m.,
he arrested named accused Ram Kumar, Ram Vilas and Mewalal. He recovered one countrymade
pistol 315 bore and two cartridges from the possession of accused Ram Kumar; one countrymade
pistol 12 bore and two catridges 12 bore from the possession of accused Mewa Lal; and one blood
stained axe from the possession of accused Ram Vilas, under a recovery memo as Ext. Ka. 43. On
14.02.2001, he arrested accused Shivram, Shiv Kumar and Shivnath and from the possession of
accused Shivram, he recovered one countrymade pistol 12 bore and two catridges and on the
pointing out of accused Shiv Kumar and Shiv Nath, he recovered axes. On 19.02.2001, he arrested
accused Ram Singh and Babbun and on their pointing out, he recovered axe and lathi. On
20.02.2001, he recorded the statement of accused Shankar in jail, as, accused Shankar had
surrendered in Court. On 21.02.2021, on getting information from informer, he arrested accused
Deshraj, Indrapal and Mishri Lal and on the pointing out of accused Deshraj, he recovered one
countrymade pistol, two cartridges 12 bore and on the pointing out of accused Indrapal, he
recovered one countrymade pistol and two cartridges and on the pointing out of accused Mishrilal,
one country-made pistol and one cartridge 12 bore, under the recovery memo. On 23.02.2001, he
arrested accused Manoj and from his possession, he recovered one lathi with challa (a bamboo stick
with a metal ring at the end). On 03.03.2001, he arrested accused Pappu and from his possession,
he recovered one pistol and one cartridge 12 bore and from his left pocket of shirt, he recovered
one pair of silver jhala jhumki (bell-shaped drop earring) under the recovery memo.

(7) The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Ram Khelawan was performed by Dr.
Vinay Prakash (P.W.7) on 12.02.2021 at about 08:10 P.M. The doctor found the age of the
deceased about 45 years and probable time of death was on 11.02.2001 between 08:00-09:00 P.M..
The deceased was of average built and height. The eyes and mouth were closed and rigor mortis
was present in upper and lower extremities. He found following ante-mortem injuries on the body
of the deceased Ram Khelawan:-

1. An incised wound size 3.5 cm x 1 cm bone deep on forehead on Lt. side 3 cm above
Lt. eye brow. Skull bone Lacerated.

2. An incised wound 4 cm x 3 cm bone deep on Lt. parietal region 8 cm above Lt. ear.
Skull bone Lacerated.

3. An incised wound size 8 cm x 2 cm on occipital Sic in middle 5 cm below occiput,
brain matter coming out, wound is bone deep. Skull bone Lacerated.

On internal examination, Dr. Vinay Prakash found that the skull bones were fractured; the
membrances of the brain were also torn; about 100 grams of blood was found inside the skull
cavity; and the stomach contained about 150 grams of semi-digested food.

As per the opinion of Dr. Vinay Prakash, the cause of death was due to shock and
haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem head injuries. The ante-mortem injuries could be
attributable by a sharp edged weapon like axe.
220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(8) The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Sarju was performed by Dr. Vinay
Prakash (P.W.7) on 12.02.2021 at about 08:25 P.M. The doctor found the age of the deceased Sarju
about 60 years and probable time of death was on 11.02.2001 between 08:00-09:00 P.M.. The
deceased was of average built and height. The eyes were closed and mouth was open and rigor
mortis was present in upper and lower extremities. He found following ante-mortem injuries on the
body of the deceased Sarju:-

1. An incised wound size 8 cm x 1 cm on Lt. temporal regions, bone deep.

2. A firearm entry wound size 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm on Lt. side of chest 3 cm lateral to Lt.
Nipple at 4 O'clock position, cavity deep, it goes posteriorly & medially. Margins inverted,
blackening present and exit wound size 3 cm x 2.5 cm, on the back 3 cm lateral to spine at the level
of inferior angle of scapula. Margins everted.

On internal examination, Dr. Vinay Prakash found that the left lung was ruptured; the
membrances of the heart were torn; about 1.5 liters of blood was present inside the chest cavity;
and the stomach contained approximately 100 grams of semi-digested food.

As per the opinion of Dr. Vinay Prakash, the cause of death was due to shock and
haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The ante-mortem injury no.1 could be attributable
by a sharp edged weapon like axe etc. and injury no.2 could be attributable by fire arm like pistol,
countrymade gun.

(9) The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Mangal was performed by Dr. Vinay
Prakash (P.W.7) on 12.02.2021 at about 08:50 P.M. The doctor found the age of the deceased
Mangal about 35 years and probable time of death was on 11.02.2001 between 08:00-09:00 P.M.
The deceased was of average built and height. The eyes were open and mouth was closed and rigor
mortis was present in upper and lower extremities. He found following ante-mortem injuries on the
body of the deceased Mangal:-

. A firearm entry wound size 3 cm x 2.5 cm surrounded by multiple pellets entry wound
around one cm, cavity deep on the Lt. side of sic 9 cm lateral to Lt. Nipple at 4 Oclock position.
Direction of wound is medial and towards Rt. side traversing Lt. lung, heart and Rt. lung.

2. An incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm on occipital region 13 cm above Lt. ear, bone deep.

On internal examination, Dr. Vinay Prakash found that the left lung was ruptured; the
membrances of the heart were torn; about 1.5 liters of blood was present in the chest cavity; and the
stomach contained approximately 100 grams of partially semi-digested food.

As per the opinion of Dr. Vinay Prakash, the cause of death was due to shock and
haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem firearm injuries. The ante-mortem injury no.1 could be
attributable by a firearm like country made gun or pistol and injury no.2 could be attributable by
sharp edged weapon like axe etc.
2 All. Shankar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
221

(10) The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Smt. Satana was performed by Dr.
Vinay Prakash (P.W.7) on 12.02.2021 at about 09:15 P.M. The doctor found the age of the
deceased Smt. Satana about 35 years and probable time of death was on 11.02.2001 between 08:0009:00 P.M. The deceased was of average built and height. The mouth and eyes were open and rigor
mortis was present in upper and lower extremities. He found following ante-mortem injuries on the
body of the deceased Smt. Satana:-

1. A firearm entry wound size 5 cm x 3 cm on the neck joints lateral to trachea on Lt.
side, Blackening & tattoing present. Margins are inverted, direction of wound is downwards and
Rt. side and chest cavity deep, medial end of Lt. & Rt. clavicle fractured neck vessels damaged.

2. A firearm entry wound size 6 cm x 4 cm on Lt. Umber regions on lateral aspects 3 cm
above iliac crest. Blackening & tattoing present, margins are inverted cavity deep, goes medially &
right side. Small intestine is coming out from wound.

3. An abrasion size 8 cm x 7 cm on the Lt. knee joints.(cap)

On internal examination, Dr. Vinay Prakash found that the right lung was ruptured; about 750
milliliters of blood was present inside the chest cavity along with one wadding piece and ten small
pellets; and the stomach contained approximately 150 grams of blood along with two wadding
piece and 12 small pellets and 100 grams of digested food; the right side of the large intestine was
full; and the spleen and the left kidney were ruptured.

As per the opinion of Dr. Vinay Prakash, the cause of death was due to shock and
haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem fire arm injuries. The ante-mortem injuries no.1 and 2
could be attributable by a fire arm like country made gun or pistol and injury no.3 could have
resulted from a fall.

(11) The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Chandrika was performed by Dr.
Vinay Prakash (P.W.7) on 12.02.2021 at about 09:45 P.M. The doctor found the age of the
deceased Chandrika about 40 years and probable time of death was on 11.02.2001 between 08:0009:00 P.M. The deceased was of average built and height. The mouth was half open and eyes were
closed and rigor mortis was present in upper and lower extremities. He found following antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased Chandrika:-

1. An incised wound size .15 cm x 1.5 cm on Rt. parietal region of scalp, obliquely
placed behind ear, skull bones cut & badly Lacerated brain matter coming out 5 cm behind the Rt.
ear.

2. An incised wound size 7 cm x 1 cm on Lt. sic region 5 cm posterior to Lt. ear, skull
bone badly lacerated and brain matter coming out.

3. An abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on Lt. side of chest 3 cm below Lt. nipple.
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

On internal examination, Dr. Vinay Prakash found that the skull bones were fractured; the
brain membrances and brain were completely lacerated and 150 grams of digested food was found
in the stomach.

As per the opinion of Dr. Vinay Prakash, the cause of death was due to shock and
haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem head injuries. The ante-mortem injuries no.1 and 2 could
be attributable by a sharp edged weapon like axe and injury no.3 could have resulted from a fall.

(12) The injuries of injured Arvind were examined by Dr. Satya Prakash (P.W.16) at District
Hospital, Unnao on 12.02.2021 at 09:00 A.M. The doctor found the age of the injured about 13
years and probable time of injures was about half day old. He found the following injuries on the
body of injured Arvind :-

1. Lacerated wound multiple on back of skull & back of Left ear of various size X bone
deep.

2. Incised wound 7 cm x 1 cm on top of skull at middle.

3. Lacerated wound 2 cm x cm x muscle deep on left side of face.

4. Multiple contusion on Rt. side of face.

As per Dr. Satya Prakash (P.W.16), injuries no. 1, 2 and 4 were kept under observation and
advised for x-ray. Injury no.2 could be caused by sharp edged weapon and other injuries could be
caused by blunt object. In examination-in-chief, he stated that injuries no. 1, 3 and 4 could be
attributable by butts of gun and injury no.2 could be attributable by axe and these injuries could be
caused on 11.02.2001 between 8:00-09:00 p.m. In cross-examination, P.W.16 has stated that
injuries no. 1, 3 and 4 could be caused by lathi and danda and injury no.2 could be caused by sharp
edged weapon.

(13) On 14.04.2001, the Investigating Officer Lajja Ram Yadav (P.W.8) was transferred and,
thereafter, SO Kumari Mamta Vidyarthi (P.W.10) took over further investigation of the case, who,
after completing the necessary formalities including recording of statements of the witnesses, sent
the recovered weapons of assault from the accused for examination at Forensic Science Laboratory
on 08.05.2001. On 09.05.2001, after completing investigation, she submitted charge sheet (Ext.
Ka.66) against accused (1) Ram Pal, (2) Shankar, (3) Shiv Nath, (4) Mishra alias Mishri Lal, (5)
Shiv Ram, (6) Desha alias Deshraj, (7) Ram Singh, (8) Babbun, (9) Indrapal, (10) Shiv Kumar, (11)
Manoj, (12) Ram Prakash, (13) Ram Kumar, (14) Ram Vilas, (15) Mewa Lal, (16) Pappu, (17)
Kunju, (18) Mansaram and (19) Chota Raidas under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 307, 404,
411 I.P.C. out of which accused no.(7) Ram Singh, (8) Babbun, (9) Indrapal and (11) Manoj were
declared juvenile, therefore, their cases were forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board. In the order
dated 21.06.2002, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao noted that accused Mansaram appeared
in Court, but accused Chota Raidas was absconding, therefore, case lodged against accused Chota
Raidas was separated.
2 All. Shankar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
223

(14) Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on the aforesaid charge-sheet and
committed the case to the Court of Sessions by means of the order dated 21.06.2002 against
accused Ram Pal, Shankar, Shivnath, Mishri Lal, Shiv Ram, Desh Raj, Ram Singh, Babbun,
Indrapal, Shiv Kumar, Manoj, Ram Prakash, Ramkumar, Ram Vilas, Mewa Lal, Pappu, Kunji,
where the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 228 of 2001 : State Vs. Ram Pal and others.

(15) The learned Sessions Judge, Unnao, by means of the order dated 28.08.2001, framed
charges against fifteen accused persons, however, subsequently, by means of order dated
05.10.2001, the learned Sessions Judge referred the case of accused Ram Singh to the Juvenile
Justice Board. Accordingly, fourteen accused persons, namely, Ram Pal, Shiv Nath, Shanker, Misra
alias Mishri Lal, Shiv Ram, Desha alias Desh Raj, Shiv Kumar, Ram Prakash, Ram Kumar, Ram
Vilas, Mewa Lal, Pappu, Kunji and Mansha Ram, have been tried by the learned Sessions Judge in
Sessions Trial No.228 of 2001. All aforesaid fourteen accused persons denied their charges and
claimed to be tried.

(16) Apart from the aforesaid case, the cases under Section 25 of the Arms Act were also
registered and clubbed with the aforesaid case and tried together against the aforesaid accused
persons.

(17) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses, which are as under
:-

P.W.1-Smt. Agana
Wife of deceased Ram Khelawan
P.W.2-Guddu
Son of deceased Sarju/complainant
P.W.3-Arvind
Injured
P.W.4-Constable Rajesh Pandey
P.W.5-Daddan Pandey
Brought sealed dead bodies of the deceased persons for postmortem
P.W.6-Constable Bhagwan Deen Prepared the chik F.I.R. on the basis of recovery memo prepared
by Investigating Officer Lajjaram Yadav
P.W.7-Dr. Vinjay Prakash
conducted the post-mortem of the dead bodies of the deceased
P.W.8 Lajja Ram Yadav
1st Investigating Officer
P.W.9-Constable
Deenanath
Singh
Prepared the chik F.I.R. on the basis of written report of
complainant
P.W.10- S.O. Kumari Mamta
Vidyarthi
2nd Investigating Officer, who filed charge-sheet against accused
persons
P.W.11-R.D. Singh
Conducted the Investigation of Case Crime No. 68 of 2001
(Sessions Trial No. 234 of 2001) under Section 25 of the Arms
Act against accused Ram Prakash
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
P.W.12-Constable Ram Singh
prepared the chik report No. k4/1 on the basis of recovery memo
of Investigating Officer Lajjaram Yadav
P.W.13-Constable
Deenanath
Singh
registered Case Crime No. 48, 49 and 50 of 2001 under Section
25 of the Arms Act on the basis of recovery memo of
Investigating Officer Lajjaram Yadav
P.W.14-S.I. Sonelal
Investigating Officer of Case Crime No. 42 and 43 of 2001 under
Section 25 of the Arms Act
P.W.15-S.I.
Janardan
Prasad
Dubey
registered Case Crime No. 58 of 2001 under Section 25 of the
Arms Act against accused Pappu
P.W.16-Dr. Satya Prakash
examined the injuries of injured Arvind

(18) Apart from aforesaid witnesses, relevant documents have also been placed on record and
proved by the prosecution, which are as under :-

Ext. Ka. 1
Written Report
Ext. Ka.2
Chik F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 42 of 2001
Ext. Ka.3
Carbon copy of G.D.
Ext. Ka.4
Chik F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 44 of 2001
Ext. Ka.5
Post-mortem report of deceased Ram Khelawan
Ext. Ka.6
Post-mortem report of deceased Sarju
Ext. Ka.7
Post-mortem report of deceased Mangal
Ext. Ka.8
Post-mortem report of deceased Smt. Satana
Ext. Ka.9
Post-mortem report of deceased Chandrika
Ext. Ka.10
Inquest report of deceased Ram Khelawan
Ext. Ka.11
Inquest report of deceased Sarju
Ext. Ka.12
Inquest report of deceased Mangal
Ext. Ka.13
Inquest report of deceased Satana
Ext. Ka.14
Inquest report of deceased Chandrika
Ext. Ka.15
Letter to Reserve Inspector Police Line, Unnao, seeking permission for postmortem of the deceased persons
Ext. Ka.16
Letter to Chief Medical Officer, Unnao for conducting post-mortem of deceased
Ram Khelawan
Ext. Ka.17
Police Form No.33
Ext. Ka.18
Photo lash of deceased Ram Khelawan
Ext. Ka.19
Letter to Chief Medical Officer for conducting post-mortem of deceased Sarju
2 All. Shankar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
225
Ext. Ka.20
Letter to Reserve Inspector, Police Line Unnao seeking permission for postmortem
Ext. Ka.21
Photo lash of deceased Sarju
Ext. Ka.22
Police Form No. 33 of deceased Sarju
Ext. Ka.23
Letter to Reserve Inspector, Police Line, Unnao seeking permission for postmortem of deceased Mangal
Ext. Ka.24
Letter to Chief Medical Officer, Unnao for post-mortem of deceased Mangal
Ext. Ka.25
Police Form No. 33 of deceased Mangal
Ext. Ka.26
Photo lash of deceased Mangal
Ext. Ka.27
Letter to Chief Medical Officer, Unnao for post-mortem of deceased Smt. Satana
Ext. Ka.28
Letter to Reserve Inspector, Police Line, Unnao seeking permission for postmortem of deceased Smt. Satana
Ext. Ka.29
Photo lash of deceased Smt. Satana
Ext. Ka.30
Police Form No. 33
Ext. Ka.31
Letter to Chief Medical Officer, Unnao for post-mortem of deceased Chandrika
Ext. Ka.32
Letter to Reserve Inspector seeking permission for post-mortem of deceased
Chandrika
Ext. Ka.33
Police Form No. 33 of deceased Chandrika
Ext. Ka.34
Photo lash of deceased Chandrika
Ext. Ka.35
Ext. Ka.36
Ext. Ka.37
Ext. Ka.38
Ext. Ka.39
recovery memos of blood stained soil and plain soil collected from the place
where dead body of the deceased Ram Khelawan, Sarju, Chandrika, Smt. Satana,
Mangal
Ext. Ka.40
recovery memo of broken wood of butts of gun
Ext. Ka.41
recovery memo of 13 empty cartridges 12 bore, one empty cartridge 315 bore
and one bullet 315 bore
Ext. Ka.42
Site Plan
Ext. Ka.43
recovery memo of weapon of assault i.e. two countrymade pistol, cartridge and
axe from the accused persons
Ext. Ka.44
recovery memo of blood stained axe
Ext. Ka.45
recovery memo of one countrymade pistol
Ext. Ka.46
recovery memo of one country made pistol 12 bore, two cartridges 12 bore and
arrest memo of the accused persons
Ext. Ka.47
recovery memo of one countrymade pistol and catridges
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ext. Ka.48
recovery memo of one countrymade gun 315 bore and catridges and arrest memo
of the accused persons
Ext. Ka.49
recovery memo of one countrymade pistol 12 bore and catridges
Ext. Ka.50
site plan of recovery of weapon of assault
Ext. Ka.51
F.I.R., Case Crime No. 41 of 2001
Ext. Ka.52
carbon copy of G.D.
Ext. Ka.53
copy of raport No.10
Ext.
Ka.54
to
Ext. Ka.65
Form sending for chemical examination
Ext. Ka.66
Ext. Ka.67
charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 41 of 2001
Ext. Ka.68
site plan of arrest of accused in Case Crime No. 68 of 2001
Ext. Ka.69
sanction by the District Magistrate, Unnao for initiation of proceedings against
accused under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act in Case Crime No. 68 of 2001
Ext. Ka.70
charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 68 of 2001
Ext. Ka.71
chik F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 81 of 2001
Ext. Ka.72
Carbon copy of G.D.
Ext. Ka.73
site plan of arrest of accused in Case Crime No. 81 of 2001
Ext. Ka.74
charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 81 of 2001
Ext. Ka.75
chik F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 59 of 2001
Ext. Ka.76
carbon copy of G.D. in Case Crime No. 59 of 2001
Ext. Ka.77
site plan of arrest of accused in Case Crime No. 59 of 2001
Ext. Ka.78
Charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 59 of 2001
Ext. Ka.79
chik F.I.R., Case Crime No. 48 of 2001
Ext. Ka.80
carbon copy of G.D.
Ext. Ka.81
charge-sheet in case crime No. 48 of 2001
Ext. Ka.82, 83,
84
site plan of arrest of accused in Case Crime No. 48 of 2001
Ext. Ka.85
charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 42 of 2001
Ext. Ka.86
charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 43 of 2001
Ext. Ka.87
Ext. Ka.88
order of the District Magistrate Unnao for initiation proceedings against the
accused of Case Crime Nos. 42 of 2001, 43 of 2001 under Section 3/25 of the
Arms Act
2 All. Shankar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
227
Ext. Ka.89
chik F.I.R. Case Crime No. 38 of 2001
Ext. Ka.90
carbon copy of G.D. in Case Crime No. 38 of 2001
Ext. Ka.91
chik F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 45 of 2001
Ext. Ka.92
carbon copy of G.D.
Ext. Ka.93
order of the District Magistrate for initiating proceedings against the accused of
Case Crime No. 59 of 2001 under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act
Ext. Ka.94
charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 44 of 2001
Ext. Ka.95
order of the District Magistrate for initiating proceedings against the accused of
Case Crime No. 44 of 2001 under Section 25 of the Arms Act
Ext. Ka.96
carbon copy of G.D.
Ext. Ka.97
site plan in Case Crime No. 44 of 2001
Ext. Ka.98
order of the District Magistrate for initiating proceedings against the accused of
Case Crime No. 81 of 2001 under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act
Ext. Ka.99
charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 50 of 2001
Ext. Ka.100
order of the District Magistrate for initiating proceedings against the accused of
Case Crime No. 50 of 2001 under Section 3/24 of the Arms Act
Ext. Ka.101
site plan of arrest of the accused in Case Crime No. 51 of 2001
Ext. Ka.102
charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 48 of 2001
Ext. Ka.103
order of the District Magistrate for initiating proceedings against the accused of
Case Crime No. 48 of 2001 under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act
Ext. Ka.104
site plan in Case Case Crime No. 48 of 2001
Ext. Ka.106
injuries of injured Arvind
Paper
no.
133ka/1
to
133ka/5
F.S.L. Report as paper no.133ka/1 to 133 ka/5

(19) After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused persons
was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the occurrence and shown
ignorance to many things placed from evidence and stated that police has lodged the false case
against them and the evidence has been given on the basis of enmity. They stated that false
recovery of weapon on their pointing out has been shown by the police and they have been arrested
from home.

(20) In defence, no evidence either oral or documentary has been led by the accused
persons/appellants.

(21) After hearing the Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
defence and considering the evidence and material on record, the learned Sessions Court, Unnao,
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
acquitted the accused Pappu, Kunji, Munshi Ram from the charges under Section 148, 302/149,
307/149, 452, 404 I.P.C. and acquitted the accused Ram Kumar and Mewa Lal from the charges
under Section 25 of the Arms Act in Sessions Trial No. 229 of 2001, accused Shiv Ram from the
charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act in Sessions Trial No. 230 of 2001, accused Pappu from
the charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act in Sessions Trial No. 231 of 2001; accused Desha
alias Deshraj and Mishra alias Mishri Lal from the charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act in
Sessions Trial No. 232 of 2001, accused Shankar from the charges under Section 25 of the Arms
Act in Sessions Trial No. 233 of 2001, accused Ram Prakash from the charges under Section 25 of
the Arms Act in Sessions Trial No. 234 of 2001 and accused Rampal from the charges under
Section 25 of the Arms Act in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 2001 and convicted and sentenced the
accused Ram Pal, Shanker, Shiv Nath, Mishra alias Mishri Lal, Shiv Ram, Desha alias Deshraj,
Shiv Kumar, Ram Prakash, Ram Kumar, Ram Vilas and Mewa Lal in Sessions Trial No. 228 of
2001 arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2001 by means of a common judgment and order dated
18.12.2004 as stated here-in-below :-

i. Under section 148 I.P.C. to undergo 3 years R.I.;

ii. Under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment;

iii. Under Section 307 read with section 149 I.P.C. to undergo 12 years R.I.;

iv. Under Section 452 I.P.C. to undergo 6 years R.I.;

v. Under Section 404 I.P.C. to undergo 6 years R.I.

It has further been directed by the learned trial Court that all the aforesaid sentences shall run
concurrently.

(22) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.12.2004, convicts/appellants
Shankar, Desha alias Deshraj, Shiv Ram, Shiv Nath, Mishra alias Mishri Lal and Ram Pal have
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 2005, convict/appellant Shiv Kumar preferred Criminal
Appeal No. 254 of 2005, convicts/appellants Ram Prakash, Ram Kumar and Ram Vilas preferred
Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2005 and convict/appellant Mewa Lal preferred Criminal Appeal No.
231 of 2005.

(23) Learned A.G.A. has informed that no appeal, against the acquittal of other accused
persons by means of order dated 18.12.2004, has been preferred either on behalf of the State or
complainant.

(24) It is pertinent to mention that in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2005, appellant no.2-Ram
Kumar has died, therefore, Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2005 filed on behalf of appellant no.2-Ram
Kumar was abated by means of order dated 04.04.2025. Now, Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2005
survives only on behalf of appellant no.1-Ram Prakash and appellant no.3-Ram Vilas.
2 All. Shankar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
229

(25) Shri Shreesh Kumar Mishra Atal, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants in Criminal
Appeal No. 43 of 2005 submitted that the impugned judgment and order of the conviction and
sentence has been passed by the trial Court without considering and appreciating the evidence and
material on record appropriately. He submitted that a large number of assailants have been shown
but the injuries are two or three only to the injured and the deceased. No specific role has been
assigned to any assailant. He further submitted that recovery of weapons could not be proved,
therefore, appellants have been acquitted under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and once recovery
could not be proved, the trial Court has committed material irregularity in convicting the
appellants.