# Shiv Narain & Ors v. The State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 654
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1326 of 2004
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-narain-ors-v-the-state-of-u-p-53432
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 304(ii) -Culpable Homicide
not amounting to Murder - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 304(ii) - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2)
- Independent Witness not supporting
prosecution fully - Not a ground to discard
entire prosecution case - Conviction can
be based on related witness if credible -
FIR not an encyclopaedia of facts - FIR
only corroborative, not substantive
-
Evidence
of
P.W.1
held
reliable,
5 All. Shiv Narain & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P.
655
corroborated by medical and post-mortem
evidence
-
"Related
witness"
not
automatically
"interested
witness"
-
Conviction sustainable based on testimony
of related witness found to be truthful,
supported
by
medical
evidence
and
corroborative facts. (Para 2 to 20)

FIR lodged on 22.12.1999 - alleging fatal assault
by appellants - on the complainant's father with
lathis due to prior enmity - victim sustained
head injuries - died on 24.12.1999 - case
converted from Section 308 to Section 304 IPC.
(Para - 6, 7, 8)

HELD: - Contention that the independent
witness (P.W.4) did not support the incident is
totally misconceived and not tenable as the
incident has been proved by P.W.1, and time
and place of incident proved by P.W.4 -
Findings recorded by the trial court do not suffer
from
any
illegality,
error
or
perversity
warranting
interference
-
Conviction
and
sentence upheld. (Para -19,20)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. Section 4 of the Amended Act,
2024, expressly clarifies and permits "any
person"
to
provide
information
in
accordance with Chapter XIII of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(B.N.S.S.), confirms the legislative intent to
widen the scope of informants and further
clarify procedural access. This substitution
must be read as clarificatory in nature,
consistent with the principle that procedural
amendments apply to pending actions and
supports a harmonious construction with
sections 173 & 175 of BNSS, 2023. It
thereby reinforces that the police, or any
person aware of the commission of a
cognizable offence under the Act, 2021 is
empowered to initiate proceedings, thus
ensuring that the statute is not rendered
otiose.

19. Thus, "any person" aggrieved by
the unlawful conversion in infringement of
Article 25 of the Constitution of India, in
accordance with the provisions of Uttar
Pradesh
Prohibition
of
Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, as
amended by Act, 2024 entitled to file a
complaint before the police to lodge a FIR
to achieve its objectives.

20. Reverting to the present case, the
allegations made in the FIR and on perusal of
the statement of victim Gautam Yadav,
besides other victims, do clearly constitute a
cognizable offence justifying the registration
of the case and the investigation thereon, and
therefore, this case does not fall in any of the
category of the cases formulated in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others11, calling
for exercise of extraordinary or inherent
powers of the High Court to quash the FIR and
the proceedings arising out of the same.

20.1 It is further clarified, the
expression contained in the order shall have
no bearing on the merits of the case,
however, it shall be open for the applicant
to raise all the grounds at the appropriate
stage before the trial court.

21. Accordingly, the application is
hereby dismissed. As the applicant has not
been arrested by the police, therefore, it is
made clear that the applicants shall not be
taken into judicial custody, subject to the
terms and conditions as may be decided by
the trial court. In case, if the applicant does
not cooperate with the trial, the trial court
may proceed further in accordance with
law.
---------
(2025) 5 ILRA 654
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1326 of 2004

Shiv Narain & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
The State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
S.C. Mishra, Anil Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

(A) Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 304(ii) -Culpable Homicide
not amounting to Murder - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 304(ii) - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2)
- Independent Witness not supporting
prosecution fully - Not a ground to discard
entire prosecution case - Conviction can
be based on related witness if credible -
FIR not an encyclopaedia of facts - FIR
only corroborative, not substantive
-
Evidence
of
P.W.1
held
reliable,
5 All. Shiv Narain & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P.
655
corroborated by medical and post-mortem
evidence
-
"Related
witness"
not
automatically
"interested
witness"
-
Conviction sustainable based on testimony
of related witness found to be truthful,
supported
by
medical
evidence
and
corroborative facts. (Para 2 to 20)

FIR lodged on 22.12.1999 - alleging fatal assault
by appellants - on the complainant's father with
lathis due to prior enmity - victim sustained
head injuries - died on 24.12.1999 - case
converted from Section 308 to Section 304 IPC.
(Para - 6, 7, 8)

HELD: - Contention that the independent
witness (P.W.4) did not support the incident is
totally misconceived and not tenable as the
incident has been proved by P.W.1, and time
and place of incident proved by P.W.4 -
Findings recorded by the trial court do not suffer
from
any
illegality,
error
or
perversity
warranting
interference
-
Conviction
and
sentence upheld. (Para -19,20)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Amish Devgan Vs U.O.I., (2021) 1 SCC 1

2. Kartik Malhar Vs St. of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC
614

3. Baban Shankar Daphal & ors. Vs St. of Maha.,
2025 SCC OnLine 137

4. Karulal & ors. Vs St. of M.P., (2021) 13 SCC
391

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

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned
counsel for the appellants and learned
Additional Government Advocate (here-inafter referred as AGA).

2. This Criminal Appeal under Section
374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure
Code (here-in-after referred as CrPC) has
been filed for setting aside the conviction
and sentence awarded by Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court No. 4, Hardoi by means of the
judgment and order dated 21.05.2004
passed in Session Trial No. 300/2000; State
of Uttar Pradesh versus Shiv Narain (now
deceased) and others, arising out of Case
Crime No. 232/99 under Section 304 of
Indian Penal Code (here-in-after referred as
IPC), Police Station Kachhauna, District
Hardoi, by means of which the appellants
have been convicted and awarded a
punishment
of
5
years
rigorous
imprisonment each and Rs. 3000 fine each
and in violation of payment of fine, one
year additional simple imprisonment each
under Section 304(ii) of IPC.

3. This appeal has been filed by Shiv
Narain son of Girdhari Lal, Santosh and
Vinod both sons of Shiv Narain. The
appellant no.1- Shiv Narain son of Girdhari
Lal died during pendency of appeal,
therefore, the appeal on his behalf abated.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the appellants have been
falsely implicated in the case. He further
submitted that P.W. 4 Rakesh@ Kaalia,
who was an independent witness, has not
supported the prosecution case, therefore,
the appellants could not have been
convicted and awarded sentence, but
without considering it the appellants have
been convicted and awarded the sentence.
Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

5.
Per
Contra,
learned
AGA
vehemently opposed the submissions of
learning counsel for the appellants. He
submitted that P.W. 1, who was an
eyewitness to the incident, had lodged First
Information Report. He has proved the
incident. The place and time of incident has
been proved by the P.W. 4 also. He further
656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitted that the deceased had suffered
head injury, on account of which, he died,
which has been proved by the doctor, who
appeared as a prosecution witness. Thus,
merely because the P.W. 4 was not an
eyewitness, it cannot be said that the
incident is not proved and the conviction
and sentence is liable to be set aside. The
appeal has been filed on misconceived and
baseless grounds, which is liable to be
dismissed.

6. Brief facts of the case are that an
FIR was lodged on 22.12.1999 on the basis
of a written complaint at 00:15 A.M. at
Police Station Kachhauna, District Hardoi
alleging therein that in the month of July
last year, a fight had taken place between
the complainant i.e. P.W. 1-Shyama Kumar
son of Shri Sonelal and Santosh and Vinod,
both sons of Shiv Narain, in which he had
suffered injury, on account of which, he
had lodged a report in the Police Station
Kachhauna, due to which the accused(s)
were keeping enmity. On 19.12.1999, some
persons came for his marriage i.e. of the
complainant and Shiv Narain/the appellant
no. 1 told them that the boy is drunkard and
Goonda and it is not proper to marry with
him. When it came to knowledge of his
father Sonelal, then he asked to Shiv
Narain as to why he used to say so, on
account of which, on 21.12.1999 at about 8
in the night, when his father was coming
from the door of Saanwal, back to his
house after warmness from fire, the
accused(s), who were having lathies have
beaten father of the complainant with the
same.

7. The medical examination of the
injured was done on 22.12.1999 by InCharge, Medical Officer, Primary Health
Centre, District Hardoi at 01:00 A.M. on
22.12.1999 by Dr. R. B. Lal. He found a
lacerated wound of 3 c.m.×1/2 c.m. open
deep on back of his scalp 9.5 cm above
medial end of left eyebrow. The sensorium
was altered. Blood pressure/Pulse rate
normal. As per the opinion of the doctor,
the injury was caused by hard blunt object
and it was kept under observation. He
referred him to District Hospital, Hardoi for
further investigation and treatment. It has
also been recorded that nature of injury is
fresh. From District Hospital Hardoi, he
was referred to the Balrampur Hospital,
District Lucknow.

8. Sonelal died in Balrampur Hospital,
Lucknow on 24.12.1999, on account of
injuries suffered by him in the aforesaid
incident. His inquest and postmortem was
done on 24.12.1999 in the evening, which
was done by Dr. R.C. Prasad. He found
contusion of 8 cm x 12 cm present on top
of head and on opening achymosea present
underneath the injury and on opening the
same, deposited blood was found. He died
on account of antimortem injury. In view
thereof, the case was converted from
Section 308 IPC to 304/34 IPC and
investigation was done by Shri Saffruddin
Khan, Station House Officer himself. After
investigation, the chargesheet was filed.
The case was committed to Session by
means of the order dated 20.04.2000 passed
by
Civil
Judge,
Junior
Division,
Hardoi/Judicial Magistrate. The charge
under Section 304/34 IPC was framed by
court of Session on 05.05.2003. The
accused(s) denied the charge and prayed
for trial.

9. In the documentary evidence, the
written report as paper no. ka-1, medical
examination report as paper no. ka-2, chik
report as paper no. ka-3, carbon copy of
GD as paper no. ka-4, carbon copy of
change in GD as paper no. ka-5,
5 All. Shiv Narain & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P.
657
postmortem report as paper no. ka-6,
information regarding conversion as paper
no. ka-7, chargsheet as paper no. ka-8, site
plan as paper no. ka-9, panchayatnama as
paper no. ka-10, challan dead body as paper
no. ka-11, photo of dead body as paper no.
ka-12, letter of Chief Medical Officer,
Lucknow as paper no. ka-13 and sample of
seal as paper no. ka-14 were placed on
record. The oral evidence of complainantShyama Kumar as P.W. 1, Ram Ratan as
P.W. 2, Dr. R.B. Lal as P.W. 3, Rakesh @
Kaalia as P.W. 4, Ramesh Chandra
Shrivastava as P.W. 5, Dr. R. C. Prasad as
P.W. 6 and Safruddin Khan as P.W. 7 was
recorded. Thereafter, the statement of the
complainant under Section 313 CrPC was
recorded. All the accused(s) denied the
allegations in one voice and stated that they
have been falsely implicated on account of
enmity, but they did not produce any
evidence in their defense.

10. The learned trial court, after
hearing
the
Assistant
Government
Advocate, Criminal and the Defense
Counsel, decided the trial and convicted the
appellants and sentenced with the aforesaid
punishments. Hence this appeal has been
filed.

11. P.W. 1-the comlainant stated that
the accused Santosh and Vinod, sons of
Shiv Narain and they reside in the same
village. On 21/2-12-99 at about eight in the
night, he went to call his father for dinner,
who was sitting and warming his hands
from fire near the door of house of Saamal
Pradhan and when he was going back
behind his father near the door of Chunna,
accused(s) came with lathis in their hand
and started beating his father. He further
stated that he himself and his father had
torch in their hands. On hearing the noise,
Kallu, Rakesh and other persons of village
came and on their call, accused(s) went
back their home. His father had suffered
injuries and fell unconscious. He took his
father to home and then to Police Station
Kachhauna on bullock cart. He wrote the
complaint sitting outside and given it to the
Munshi ji, on which the First Information
Report was lodged. Thereafter, the police
took his father to hospital, where his
medical examination was done. However,
since his condition was bad, therefore, the
doctor referred him to the District hospital,
Hardoi, where also his condition was
serious, therefore, he was referred to
Balrampur Hospital, District Lucknow,
where he died. He further stated that prior
to aforesaid incident, in the month of July,
there was a fight between him and Santosh
and Vinod, in which he had suffered
injuries, on account of which the F.I.R. was
lodged at Police Station Kachhauna,
therefore, Santosh and Vinod were keeping
enmity with him, therefore, when some
persons came for his marriage then the
accused Shiv Narain told to them that the
boy is drunkard and Goonda and he does
not do any work. When it came into the
knowledge of his father, his father asked to
Shiv Narain as to why he says so, on
account of said enmity, the accused(s) had
beaten his father. His evidence was
questioned on the ground that the allegation
has not been shown in the First Information
Report. However, the learned trial court,
after considering the evidence and the fact
that nothing can be extracted from him in
his cross examination, held that the incident
was of about eight in the night, when the
deceased was called by his son for dinner
from the place where he was having
warmness in front of fire and when he
reached in front of house of Munna, the
incident had taken place and usually at that
time, people in village do not go for sleep,
therefore, lights in front of their house were
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not put off and since then, the accused were
known to the complaint, therefore, it cannot
be said that he could not have recognized
them. Thus, he proved the incident.

12. It is settled law that FIR is not an
encyclopedia disclosing all facts and details
relating to the office. First Information
Report is not even considered to be a
substantial piece of evidence and can only
be used to corroborate and construct the
informant's evidence in the Court. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Amish Devgan Versus Union of India;
(2021) 1 SCC 1 has held that the First
Information Report is not meant to be a
detailed document containing the chronicle
of all intricate and and minute details.

13. P.W. 4-Rakesh @ Kalia, though
could not prove the incident as he had not
seen, but he proved the time and place of
incident as he stated that after hearing the
noise, he reached near house of Munna and
saw Sonelal in the injured condition. Thus,
he has proved time and place of incident
and considering his evidence, the learned
trial court has recorded finding that he has
not proved the incident but he has
supported the time and place of incident
because he had reached on the spot after
hearing the noise. This Court does not find
any illegality or error in the finding
recorded by the learned trial court because
the incident has been proved by P.W. 1 and
P.W. 4 has also proved the time and place
of incident because when after hearing
noise, he reached in front of the door of
Munna, then he saw Sonelal in injured
condition, therefore, he proved not only
time and place of the incident but also that
Sonelal, the deceased was lying there in
injured condition, which also supports the
evidence of P.W. 1, therefore, merely
because P.W. 1 is the son of the deceased
and a relative, his evidence cannot be
discarded on the ground that he is an
interested witness.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Kartik
Malhar vs. State of Bihar; (1996) 1 SCC
614, observed that there is a distinction
between a witness, who is related and
interested witness. A relative is a natural
witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
opined that a close relative who is a natural
witness can not be regarded as an interested
witness. The term "interested" postulates
that the witness must have some direct
interest in having the accused somehow or
the other convicted for some animus or for
some other reason.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Baban Shankar Daphal and others
vs. State of Maharashtra; 2025 SCC
OnLine 137, has observed that the law
nowhere states that the evidence of the
interested witness should be discarded
altogether. The law only warrants that their
evidence should be scrutinized with care
and caution. It has been held by this Court
in the catena of judgments that merely if a
witness is a relative, their testimony cannot
be discarded on that ground alone.

16. A three judge Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Karulal and others vs. the State of M.P.;
(2021) 13 SCC 391, has held that the
testimony of the related witness, if found to
be truthful, can be the basis of conviction.

17. P.W. 2 is the witness to the
inquest. P.W. 3 is Dr. R. B. Lal, who has
proved the medical examination done by
him on 22.12.1999 and the injury and the
condition of the deceased at that time. P.W.
5-Ramesh Chandra Shrivastava has prove
the lodging of FIR, conversion of case from
5 All. Kalloo Vs. State of U.P.
659
Section 308 IPC to Section 304 IPC and the
documents in support thereof. P.W. 6-Dr
R.C. Prasad has proved the postmortem
report and the injuries shown by him in the
postmortem report. The evidence of P.W. 6
was questioned on the ground that the
lacerated wound was shown by the doctor in
his medical report dated 22.12.1999, whereas
blue mark was found by him but the learned
trial court found it at the same place where
the medical officer had found lacerated
wound and P.W. 6 after opening the same,
had also found the deposited blood. Thus, it is
only a matter of opinion and it may be on
account of fact that at the time of medical
examination on 22.12.1999, it was a fresh
injury and the postmortem was done after his
death on 24.12.1999, during which period it
cannot be said that the status of injury would
remain same and it might have been dried.
This Court does not find any legality or error
in the findings recorded by the learned trial
court.

18.
P.W.
7-Saffruddin,
who
investigated the matter after conversion of
case after death of Sonelal from Section
308 IPC to Section 304 IPC, proved the
conversion, statement of witnesses, inquest
report and arrest of the accused(s) on
31.12.1999 and filing of chargesheet after
investigation in accordance with law in the
matter.

19. In view of above and considering
the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, the contention of learned counsel for
the appellant, that the independent witness
P.W. 4-Rakesh @ Kalia has not proved the
incident, therefore, the appellants could not
have
been
convicted,
is
totally
misconceived and not tenable as the
incident has been proved by the P.W. 1 and
time and place of incident has been proved
by P.W. 4 also and it is also proved from
his evidence that at that time and place, the
deceased was injured and was lying in
injured condition, on account of which he
died subsequently. Thus, he supported the
evidence of P.W. 1. The learned trial court
has recorded finding after considering the
evidence and material on record in
accordance with law. The findings recorded
by the learned trial court does not suffer
from any illegality, error or perversity,
which may call for any interference by this
Court. The conviction and the punishment
awarded is also commensurate to the
charge, which has been proved by cogent
evidence. The appeal has been filed on
misconceived and baseless grounds.

20.
The
appeal
is,
accordingly,
dismissed
upholding
the
impugned
judgment and order passed by the trial
court.

21. Let a copy of this order along with
the records be sent back to the concerned
court forthwith for compliance.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 659
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1585 of 1983

Kalloo ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
K.N. Dwivedi,Kaustubh Tewari,Shrinath,Sri
Nath Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondent: