# State of U.P v. Karan Singh & Ors. 846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 845
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-10
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 31 of 1991
- **Bench:** Siddharth, Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-karan-singh-ors-846-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-52329
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Government Appeal-
Accused acquitted from the charges under
Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC.

B. Reversal of acquittal-appellate courtusually
reluctant
to
interfere
with
a
judgement acquitting an accused- principle
that the presumption of innocence in favour
of the accused isreinforced by such a
judgment- Article 136 of the Constitution of
India-Sections 378 and 86 (a) CrPC- settled
proposition that enmity is a double-edged
weapon and cuts both ways-oral testimony of
eyewitnesses
needs
to
be
scrutinised
cautiously and with great circumspection-.
(Paragraphs 28 and 44)

HELD:
As the case in hand is a case of reversal of
acquittal, it isprudent to have a bird's eye view
of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court
in this regard. The appellate Court is usually
reluctantto interfere with a judgment acquitting
an accused on the principlethat the presumption
of
innocence
in
favour
of
the
accused
isreinforced by such a judgment. The above
principle has beenconsistently followed by the
Constitutional
Court
while
decidingappeals
against acquittal by way of Article 136 of the
Constitution orappeals filed under Section 378
and 386 (a) Cr.P.C. (Para 28)

After giving thoughtful consideration to the
documentsexhibited by the accused in support
of their plaint and taking into consideration the
fact that the deceased- Kanni had also initiated
acomplaint against accused Padam Singh,
Mahendra, Fateh, KaranSingh, Teji, Kunwar Pal,
Virendra, Tara, Har Gulab, Lakhmi andSiddhi
indicates that the relationship between the
accused personsand the complainant side were
acrimonious and there has been badblood
among the parties. It is a settled proposition
that enmity is adouble-edged weapon and cuts
both ways. Therefore, the oraltestimony of
eyewitnesses needs to be scrutinised cautiously
and withgreat circumspection. (Para 44)

C. Three types of witnesses- one who is wholly
reliable- one who is wholly unreliable- one who
is neither wholly reliable norwholly unreliable-
court is required to separate the chaff from
thegrain to find the genesis of the incident-
suspicion,however strong, cannot take the place
of proof- long-standingbad blood between the
parties- a major contradiction in the mode
andmanner of recovery of weapons has been
effected from the accused-pursuant to it, the
role assigned are sufficient to hold that
theoffence has not been committed in the
manner
as
has
been
explainedby
the
prosecution- probability of two views-if two
views on the evidence adduced are suggestive,
one pointing to the guilt of accused and the
other his innocence-view in favour of the
accused
should
beadopted-the
contesting
accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Government
Appeal
dismissed.
(Paragraphs 51, 52)

HELD:
The 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in
Balaram's caseagain reiterated
the wellestablished law that there are three types
ofwitnesses: (i) one who is wholly reliable, (ii)
one who is wholly unreliable and lastly, (iii) one
who
is
neither
wholly
reliable
norwholly
unreliable
and
placed
the
reliance
upon
landmark decision ofVedivelu Thevar v. State
of Madras. So far as the first two scenariosare
concerned, the testimony of the witnesses can
be wholly acceptedor discarded, but with
respect
to
the
third
scenario,
where
thetestimony
is
partly
reliable
or
partly
unreliable, the Court facesdifficulty, then the
court is required to separate the chaff from
thegrain to find the genesis of the incident.
(Para 51)

There is another canon of the criminal
jurisprudence withrespect to the appreciation of
the evidence that the suspicion,however strong,
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Karan Singh & Ors.
847
cannot take the place of proof. In the instant
case, the incident was taken on 14.10.1987, in
which one person died onthe spot, and another
had
received
severe
injuries
and
remainedunconscious for 3 days, as per the
testimony of an injured witness.The incident
was seen by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, who

## Text

_Characters 0–39,533 of 69,033. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39533 for what follows._

7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Karan Singh & Ors.
845
case of motor accident and the claim
petition under the Motor Vehicle Act
would not be dismissed on the ground of
delay in lodging the first informant report.

19. The claims tribunal has
recorded perverse findings of fact that there
was collusion in between the claimants and
owner of the vehicle as the owner is
resident of Bareilly but the vehicle was
insured at Allahabad and the claimants are
also resident of Allahabad whereas, from
the bare perusal of insurance policy, it is
apparent that the vehicle was insured by the
Bareilly office. The finding recorded by the
claims tribunal in this regard is against the
evidence and materials which are available
on record and it appears that the claims
tribunal without examining the evidence in
proper manner and without application of
judicial mind has recorded the incorrect
finding that the vehicle was insured from
Allahabad. The claims Tribunal has also
erred in holding that the involvement of car
was not proved whereas, the involvement
of car was not denied either by the owner
or by the insurance company before the
claims Tribunal and only negligence of
driver was denied. The claimants has fully
established the involvement of the car in
the accident and the opposite parties have
not led any evidence in rebuttal and even
the driver of car was not produced to deny
the involvement of car.

20. In view of the above discussion,
the order impugned dated 04.09.2018 passed
by the claims Tribunal is without application
of judicial mind and the finding recorded by
the claims Tribunal with regard to noninvolvement of insured car in the accident is
perverse and is against the evidence and
materials which are available on record. The
claims
Tribunal
has
committed
gross
illegality in dismissing the claim petition. The
court is of the view that the claimants have
fully proved the involvement of insured car in
the accident as well as rash and negligent
driving of driver of insured car by producing
cogent evidence. The issue no.1 is decided in
favour of claimants/appellants.

21. The first appeal from order filed
by the claimants-appellants is allowed. The
judgment and order dated 04.09.2018 passed
by the Additional District Judge, Court
no.10/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Allahabad in MACP No.178 of 2016 is set
aside. The matter is remanded back to the
concerned claims Tribunal to decide the
claim petition as fresh. The claims
Tribunal is directed to decide issue nos. 2,
3 and 4 regarding validity of driving
licence,
insurance
of
offending
car,
quantum of compensation and liability of
payment,
as
fresh
after
affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned expeditiously preferably within
a period of six months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order
without granting any undue adjournment
to either of the parties.

22. Office is directed to remit back
the record of claims tribunal immediately to
the concerned claims Tribunal.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 845
CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Government Appeal No. 31 of 1991

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Karan Singh & Ors. ...Respondents
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A., Brij Mohan Singh, Gaurav Khare,
Mahesh Kumar Kuntal, Rashtrapati Khare,
S.C. Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.V. Goswami, A.K. Verma, Ajatshatru
Pandey, B.P. Verma, Chandra Kumar Singh,
Lalit Kumar Shukla, Rahul Chaudhary,
Rajeev Goswami, S.R. Verma

A. Criminal Law - Government Appeal-
Accused acquitted from the charges under
Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC.

B. Reversal of acquittal-appellate courtusually
reluctant
to
interfere
with
a
judgement acquitting an accused- principle
that the presumption of innocence in favour
of the accused isreinforced by such a
judgment- Article 136 of the Constitution of
India-Sections 378 and 86 (a) CrPC- settled
proposition that enmity is a double-edged
weapon and cuts both ways-oral testimony of
eyewitnesses
needs
to
be
scrutinised
cautiously and with great circumspection-.
(Paragraphs 28 and 44)

HELD:
As the case in hand is a case of reversal of
acquittal, it isprudent to have a bird's eye view
of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court
in this regard. The appellate Court is usually
reluctantto interfere with a judgment acquitting
an accused on the principlethat the presumption
of
innocence
in
favour
of
the
accused
isreinforced by such a judgment. The above
principle has beenconsistently followed by the
Constitutional
Court
while
decidingappeals
against acquittal by way of Article 136 of the
Constitution orappeals filed under Section 378
and 386 (a) Cr.P.C. (Para 28)

After giving thoughtful consideration to the
documentsexhibited by the accused in support
of their plaint and taking into consideration the
fact that the deceased- Kanni had also initiated
acomplaint against accused Padam Singh,
Mahendra, Fateh, KaranSingh, Teji, Kunwar Pal,
Virendra, Tara, Har Gulab, Lakhmi andSiddhi
indicates that the relationship between the
accused personsand the complainant side were
acrimonious and there has been badblood
among the parties. It is a settled proposition
that enmity is adouble-edged weapon and cuts
both ways. Therefore, the oraltestimony of
eyewitnesses needs to be scrutinised cautiously
and withgreat circumspection. (Para 44)

C. Three types of witnesses- one who is wholly
reliable- one who is wholly unreliable- one who
is neither wholly reliable norwholly unreliable-
court is required to separate the chaff from
thegrain to find the genesis of the incident-
suspicion,however strong, cannot take the place
of proof- long-standingbad blood between the
parties- a major contradiction in the mode
andmanner of recovery of weapons has been
effected from the accused-pursuant to it, the
role assigned are sufficient to hold that
theoffence has not been committed in the
manner
as
has
been
explainedby
the
prosecution- probability of two views-if two
views on the evidence adduced are suggestive,
one pointing to the guilt of accused and the
other his innocence-view in favour of the
accused
should
beadopted-the
contesting
accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Government
Appeal
dismissed.
(Paragraphs 51, 52)

HELD:
The 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in
Balaram's caseagain reiterated
the wellestablished law that there are three types
ofwitnesses: (i) one who is wholly reliable, (ii)
one who is wholly unreliable and lastly, (iii) one
who
is
neither
wholly
reliable
norwholly
unreliable
and
placed
the
reliance
upon
landmark decision ofVedivelu Thevar v. State
of Madras. So far as the first two scenariosare
concerned, the testimony of the witnesses can
be wholly acceptedor discarded, but with
respect
to
the
third
scenario,
where
thetestimony
is
partly
reliable
or
partly
unreliable, the Court facesdifficulty, then the
court is required to separate the chaff from
thegrain to find the genesis of the incident.
(Para 51)

There is another canon of the criminal
jurisprudence withrespect to the appreciation of
the evidence that the suspicion,however strong,
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Karan Singh & Ors.
847
cannot take the place of proof. In the instant
case, the incident was taken on 14.10.1987, in
which one person died onthe spot, and another
had
received
severe
injuries
and
remainedunconscious for 3 days, as per the
testimony of an injured witness.The incident
was seen by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, who is
himselfinjured in the incident. Admittedly, there
was a long-standinglitigation between the
parties,
and
numerous
cases
were
filed
andcontested, therefore, possibility of false
implication cannot be ruledout. Its again a
admitted and proved fact that the accused Tara
Chandand Virendra Singh were minors at the
time of the incident. Thetestimony of injured
PW-3 and eye-witnesses PW-1 and PW-2
doesnot corroborate with the medical evidence.
There was long-standingbad blood between the
parties, a major contradiction in the mode
andmanner of recovery of weapons has been
effected from the accused,and pursuant to it,
the role assigned are sufficient to hold that
theoffence has not been committed in the
manner
as
has
been
explainedby
the
prosecution, and on taking a cumulative
effect of thetestimonies of the PW-1, PW-2,
PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-8suggest the
probability of two views and if two views on
the evidenceadduced are suggestive, one
pointing to the guilt of accused and theother
his innocence, the view in favour of the
accused
should
beadopted.
Moreover,
applying the laid down text in Doshi's
case(supra), we don't find any manifest error
in the trial court's approachin acquitting the
accused. (Para 52)

Government Appeal dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1.Laxman Singh & ors. Vs St. of Bih., (2021) 9
SCC 191

2. Ravindra Kumar & ors. Vs St. of Pun. Criminal
Appeal No.881 of 2001

3.Abdul Sayeed Vs St. of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC
259

4. St. of M.P. Vs Man Singh & ors., (2003) 10
SCC 414

5. Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs St. of Guj., (1996) 9
SCC 225

6. St. of M.P. Vs Sharad Goswami, (2021) 17
SCC 783

7. St. of Raj. Vs SheraRam, (2012)1 SCC 602

8. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs St. of Mah.,
(1973) 2 SCC 793

9. Sadhu Saran Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2016) 4
SCC 357

10. Basheera Begam Vs Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020)
11 SCC 174

11. Kali Ram Vs St. of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808

12. St. of Odisha Vs Banabihari Mohapatra &
ors., (2021) 15 SCC 268

13. Sujit Biswas Vs St. of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC
406

14. Balaram Vs St. of M.P. 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1468

15. Vedivelu Thevar Vs St. of Madras, 1957 SCC
OnLine SC 13

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. We have heard Ms. Puruhuta
Lodha, Shri Vijay and Shri Prem Shanker
Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the Stateappellant, Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ajatshatru
Pandey,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents, and perused the record.

2. The instant Government Appeal
has been preferred against the judgment
and order dated 13.9.1990 passed by
learned Special/Additional Sessions Judge,
Mathura in Sessions Trial No.225 of 1998,
titled as State v. Karan Singh and others,
arising out of Case Crime No.276 of 1987,
under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 IPC read
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with Section 149 IPC; and Sessions Trial
No.226 of 1988 titled as State v. Kunwar
Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime
Nos.277 of 1987, 278 of 1987 & 279 of
1987, under Sections 25 & 4/25 of Arms
Act respectively, both the cases registered
at Police Station Kosi Kalan, District
Mathura, in which the accused, namely,
Karan Singh, Har Gulab, Padam Singh,
Fateh Singh, Kunwar Singh and Lakhmi
Singh have been acquitted from the charges
of Sections 148, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC,
whereas the accused, namely, Tara Chand,
Virendra Singh, Mahendra Singh, Teji,
Shiv Singh and Lal Singh have been
acquitted from the charges framed under
Sections 147, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC,
and further the accused Lakhmi Singh,
Fateh Singh and Kunwar Singh have been
acquitted from the charge framed under
Section 25 Arms Act.

3. Aggrieved by the acquittal of all
the 12 accused, namely, Karan Singh, Har
Gulab, Padam Singh, Fateh Singh, Kunwar
Singh,
Lakhmi
Singh,
Tara
Chand,
Virendra Singh, Mahendra Singh, Teji,
Shiv Singh and Lal Singh, the Stateappellant has preferred the instant appeal
challenging the order of acquittal qua the
aforesaid accused persons.

4. During the pendency of the appeal,
the accused, namely, Karan Singh, Tara
Chand, Teji @ Tej Singh, Lachhi @
Lakhmi, and Lal Singh died. Hence, the
instant Government Appeal against them
stands abated.

5. Succinctly, the prosecution case is
that the complainant- Hudri approached the
Police Station Kosi Kalan with a tehreer
with regard to his brother's murder. On the
basis of which the police initiated the
investigation and subsequently the accused
persons faced the trial. For clarity, the
contents of tehreer are extracted herein
below:

"सेवा में श्रीमान् र्थानाध्यक्ष महोदय र्थाना कोसी कलॉ
मर्थुरा ननवेदन है नक आज नदनांक 14.10.87 को सुबह मेरा भाई
कन्नी व मेरा चचेरा भाई हेती पुत्र सुखपाल उिष पाला अपने खेतों से
(का०िटा) घर वानपस आ रहे र्थे। नक जब यह दोनों नारायन के घर
के सामने आये तो नगराषज के घेर के सामने (1) करन नसंह एस/ओ०
राम नसंह के हार्थ में िशाष (2) हरगुलाब एस / ओ० तेज नसंह के
हार्थ मे कुजहाड़ी (3) पदम नसंह एस/ओ० नगराषज के हार्थ में िशाष
(4) ितेनसंह एस/ओ० राम नसंह के हार्थ में बन्दूक 12 बोर (5)
कुमर नसंह एस/ओ० भूदल नसंह के हार्थ में कट्टा (6) ताराचन्र
एस/ओ० करन नसंह (7) बीरेन्र नसंह एस/ओ० भूदल नसंह (8)
महेन्र नसंह एस/ओ० नगराषज नसंह (9) तेजी नसंह एस/ओ० रघुनार्थ
के हार्थों मे लानठयों (10) लखमी एस/ओ० गोनबन नसंह के हार्थों
में िशाष (11) नशव नसंह एस/ओ० गोनवन्द नसंह व (12) लाल
नसंह एस/ओ० पीतम नसंह ननवासी महराना र्थाना बरसाना के हार्थों
में लानठयों नलये हुए खड़े र्थे। उनमे से पदम नसंह ने कहा इन दोनों को
पकड़ लो और इनको जान से खत्म कर दो। आज अच्छा मौका है
इन्होने हमसे मुकदमे बाजी चला रक्खी है। इस पर सभी ने एक राय
होकर एक दम कन्नी व हेती को पकड़ कर करीब पौने नौ बजे अपने
नौहरे में खीच कर ले गये और डूंगर के पेड़ के नीचे िशाष लाठी
बन्दूक कट्टों आनद से मारपीट करने लग कन्नी व हेती नचजलाये तो
मै व मेरे ही गॉव के बसंत व रमेश पुत्रगण नानगा व गोवधषन नसंह
एस/ओ० खूबी आनद बहुत से आदमी आ गये लेनकन उनके डर के
कारण हम अपने भाइयों को नही छुड़ा सके मेरे भाई कन्नी की जान
से मारकर हत्या कर दी है तर्था हेती को गम्भीर रूप से घायल कर
नदया है। दोनों मौके पर पड़े है। ररपोटष नलखकर कानूनी कायषवाही की
जावे। ता० 14.10.87 प्रार्थी हुदरी एस/ओ० मेदी गॉव दहगााँव
र्थाना कोसी कलााँ (मर्थुरा) ता० 14.10.87 नन०अं० हुदरी लेखक
अमीचन्द पुत्र जग्गी मल कोसी कलां मनीराम वास ता०
14.10.87

नोटः- मै एच०एम० प्रमानणत करता ह ाँ नक तहरीर की
नकल नचक हाजा पर शब्द ब शब्द अंनकत की है।

ह०अस्पि एच०एम०
14.10.87"

6. On the tehreer of complainant-
Hudri (PW-1), the First Information Report
bearing Case Crime no. 276, under
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Karan Singh & Ors.
849
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC and
FIR No. 277 and 278, u/s Section 25(1)(a)
and 25(1)(b) of Arms Act was registered on
14.10.1987 at P.S. Kosi Kalan, District
Mathura, against the accused persons.

7. After registration of the FIRs, the
police conducted the investigation and
recorded the statement of the witnesses
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and filed the
charge-sheet against all the 12 accused
persons named in the F.I.R. viz (i) Karan
Singh, (ii) Har Gulab, (iii) Padam Singh,
(iv) Fateh Singh, (v) Kunwar Singh, (vi)
Lakshmi, (vii) Tara Chand, (viii) Virendra
Singh, (ix) Mahendra Singh, (x) Teji, (xi)
Shiv Singh, (xii) Lal Singh. The Chief
Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance and
after complying with the provisions of
Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to
the court of sessions for its trial.

8. The trial court framed the
charges
under
Sections
302/149,
307/149, 147, 148 IPC against all twelve
accused persons and separate charges
were framed under section Section
25(1)(a) and Section 25(1)(b) of the
Arms Act against accused Fateh Singh
and Kunwar Singh, the same were read
over and explained to the accused
persons, who pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.

9. The prosecution has produced the
following documentary evidence to prove
its case:

"(i)
Written
Report
dated
14.10.1987, Ex. Ka-1

(ii) FIR dated 14.10.1987 at
10:15 a.m., Ex. Ka-13 and FIR dated
14.10.1987 at 11:00 p.m., Ex. Ka-2

(iii) Recovery memo of Axe
'Ahni', Bamboo & Farsa, Ex. Ka-16

(iv) Recovery memo of bloodstained and plain earth, Ex. Ka-17 and Ex.
Ka-18

(v) Recovery memo of bloodstained clothes, Ex. Ka-22

(vi) Recovery memo of S.B.B.L.
Gun, Ex. Ka-1

(vii) Injury reports, Ex. Ka-2 and
Ka-27

(viii) Post-mortem report, Ex. Ka3

(ix) Permission for prosecution
under Section 39 of Arms Act, Ex. Ka-8 and
Ka-9"

10. Besides the above documentary
evidences, the prosecution has examined
the complainant- Hudri as PW-1; Ramesh
as PW-2; Cousin of complainant Heti as
PW-3; Dr. P.C. Vyas as PW-4; Dr. U.C.
Vaishya as PW-5; S.I. Matadeen Verma as
PW-6; Ct. Ashok Kumar as PW-7; Dr. R.C.
Sharma as PW-8; Phool Singh as PW-9,
S.I. Mohd. Zahid as PW-10.

11.

Complainant
Hudri-
the
deceased's brother - was examined as PW1. In examination-in-chief, he reiterated the
facts mentioned in the impugned FIR and
stated that all the accused persons in the
court are residents of his village except the
accused, Lal Singh, who is a resident of
village Mahrana, Police Station Barsana.
The accused, Fateh Singh, is married to his
real sister. Except accused Lal Singh, all
the accused persons are members of one
family, and their ancestors were common.
Before the date of the unfortunate incident,
there was previous litigation between the
accused, Padam Singh, and the deceased
and his brother Hudri (PW-1) with respect
to the construction of the drain, and various
orders were passed by the civil courts. The
accused, Padam Singh, wanted to construct
a drain in the field belonging to the
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
informant Hudri (PW-1). He instituted a
complaint before the Canal Magistrate for
having damaged the drain. The complaint
was decided in favour of the informant and
his brother, Kanni- since deceased. The
deceased was doing Pairvi in the said case,
therefore, the accused Padam Singh, along
with
other
accused
persons,
became
inimical with the deceased.

12. He further deposed that in the
morning of 14.10.1987, the deceased-
Kanni, along with his cousin Heti, had gone
to cut the green fodder from their fields,
and while on return, when he reached near
the Gher1 of Giriraj Singh at about 08:45
a.m., all the 12 accused persons surrounded
him and his cousin- Heti. The accused
Fateh Singh and Kunwar Singh were armed
with guns and country-made pistols; the
accused Padam Singh, Lakhmi and Karan
Singh were armed with Farsa; the accused
Har Gulab was armed with an axe, and the
remaining accused persons Teji, Lal Singh,
Shiv Singh, Mahendra, Tara and Virendra
were having Laathis in their hands. The
accused, Padam Singh, exhorted by having
stated that today it is a good occasion to
finish the deceased Kanni as he instituted a
case against him for having damaged the
water canal. On the exhortation of the
accused Padam Singh, all the 12 accused
persons attacked Kanni by having wielded
their respective weapons. They dragged
and took the Kanni inside the Gher of
Giriraj Singh and caused severe injuries.
When Heti (PW-3), the cousin of the
deceased, tried to rescue him, he was also
beaten and inflicted with severe injuries by
all
the
accused
persons
with
their
respective weapons. On having raised the
alarm by Kanni and Heti, the informant
PW-1 Hudri, who is the real brother of the
deceased Kanni, Ramesh PW-2, Basant,
Goverdhan and others came there, but
could not rescue Kanni and his cousin Heti
due to fear of loss to their lives. Due to
severe injuries, Kanni died on the spot. Heti
also sustained a number of simple and
grievous injuries on his person. The
informant PW-1 Hudri, after having left his
brother deceased- Kanni, and injured
cousin Heti at the spot, went to market at
the shop of one Amichand son of Jaggi Mal
and dictated tehreer to him, who at that
time was present at his shop. On the
dictation of informant Hudri (PW-1), a
written report was prepared, and thereafter,
it was registered as FIR No.276 of 1987 at
Police Station Kosi Kalan on 14.10.1987 at
about 10:45 a.m.

13. The witness Hudri (PW-1) was
put to a lengthy cross-examination by all
the accused persons. Initially, the witness
was put to various questions with regard to
the relationship inter se between the parties
to the civil litigation pending between the
accused party viz-a-viz complainant party;
certain cases previously lodged by the
accused Padam Singh against the witness
and his relatives under Section 70 of
Northern Indian Canal and Drainage Act;
the location of agricultural field of the
accused Giriraj Singh, and the direction of
the house of Giriraj Singh and a few
questions about the site plan. In response to
one of the questions, the witness stated that
he does not know as to why the
Investigating Officer has not shown the
correct geography and demography of his
village in the site plan.

14. Ramesh (PW-2) stated that he
reached the place of occurrence after the
rescue call by the deceased- Kanni and
injured Heti (PW-3). He supported the
prosecution's case in his examination-inchief. In cross-examination, PW-2 has
stated that he had seen the incident from
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Karan Singh & Ors.
851
the eastern side of the Gher, which fell
towards the main road. The main gate of
Gher was on the northern side, and it was
closed by the accused from the inside. They
could have entered the Gher, but he did not
choose to enter because of fear of his death.
After the incident, he could enter into the
Gher. A lot of co-villagers also reached
there by the time and opened the gate of the
Gher. He knows the informant Hudri (PW1). He further stated that Basanta, Khajan
and Suresh are his real brothers. The
accused, Padam Singh, had lodged a case
against the deceased Kanni. Thereafter,
PW-2 was asked various questions related
to the civil and criminal litigations between
the
parties,
to
which
he
replied
affirmatively. PW-2 has stated that the
Investigating Officer came to the house on
the date of the incident, and when the
Investigating Officer came to his village, he
was at his agriculture field and had seen the
Investigating Officer at Gher of Giriraj
Singh, the place of incident. He told the
Investigating Officer that he had seen the
incident and had also taken the Investigating
Officer to the place of incident. Thereafter,
the witness was put to several questions about
the demography of the village and the
neighbour's house. First, there was a maarpeet on the road, and thereafter, the accused
took the deceased- Kanni and Heti (PW-3)
inside the Gher, where they murdered the
deceased- Kanni. On raising rescue calls by
the deceased and injured, the witness, along
with other co-villagers, reached the place of
incident. The witness was confronted with the
site plan and was asked several questions, to
which he stated that he did not approach the
Investigating
Officer;
in
fact,
the
Investigating Officer asked questions to him.

15. Heti (PW-3) is the real brother
of the deceased and was all along with him
at the time of the incident. He has also
received injuries on his person. He
supported the prosecution's case and stated
in his examination-in-chief that it was
around 01:45 p.m., he along with his
cousin- Kanni, after cutting the green
fodder from the fields was going back to
the house, and when they reached at the
Gher of Giriraj Singh, all the 12 accused
persons surrounded him and his cousin-
Kanni. The accused Fateh Singh and
Kunwar Singh were armed with guns and
country-made pistols; the accused Padam
Singh, Lakhmi and Karan Singh were
armed with Farsa; the accused Har Gulab
was armed with an axe, and the remaining
accused persons viz-a-viz Teji, Lal Singh,
Shiv Singh, Mahendra, Tara and Virendra
were having Laathis in their hands. The
accused, Padam Singh, exhorted by having
stated that today it is a good occasion to
finish the deceased- Kanni as he instituted a
case against him for having damaged the
water canal. On the exhortation of the
accused Padam Singh, all the 12 accused
persons attacked over Kanni by having
wielded their respective weapons. They
dragged and took him inside the Gher of
Giriraj Singh, who is the father of accused
Padam Singh and caused severe injuries.
The witness further stated that he was also
beaten and received injuries from all the
accused persons with their respective
weapons. Hudri, Basant, Ramesh and
Goverdhan reached the place of the
incident. The witness further stated that all
the accused persons had brutally beaten
them. The deceased, Kanni, was shot by a
firearm. They were inflicted injuries by
Laathi, Axe, and Farsa. He received injury
from Laathi, Axe, and Farsa, and the
deceased- Kanni sustained firearm injury
and died on the spot. His medical
examination was conducted twice as in the
first medical report, the doctor did not
mention the details of the injuries, and
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
subsequently, on the direction of the Chief
Medical Officer, a separate injury report
was prepared. The witness remained in the
hospital for 9-10 days. The witness says
that he does not know when the accused,
Lal Singh, was arrested by the police. He
gained consciousness three days after the
incident, and he does not know who took
him to the hospital. He further states that it
is hard to suggest that he was conscious
when he was taken to the doctor. The
accused have caused injuries to the injured
by Axe and Farsa. The accused fired at the
deceased with a country-made pistol and
was also assaulted by Laathi, Axe and
Farsa.

16. Dr. P.C. Vyas (PW-4), who
examined the injuries of the witness Heti
(PW-3) on 14.10.1987. The first injury
report suggests the following injuries on
the person of the injured- Heti:

"(i) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.5
cm x scalp deep vertically placed on right
side forehead, 5 cm above right eyebrow.
Margins lacerated, bleeds on cleaning,
read colour.

(ii) Lacerated wound 4 cm x 0.5
cm x muscle deep vertically placed on back
of left forearm middle part 10 cm below
elbow joint.

(iii) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 05.
cm x muscle deep obliquely placed on right
hand with right thumb hand. Advised x-ray.

(iv) Multiple lacerated wounds
five in number on front of right leg with
contused swelling measuring 2.5 cm x 0.5
cm x muscle deep to 1 cm x 0.2 cm muscle
deep in an area of 28 cm x 8 cm with
restricted and painful movements. Advised
x-ray.

(v)
Lacerated
wound
with
traumatic swelling in an area of 14 cm x 12
cm varying in size from 5.5 cm x 1.5 cm
bone deep to 2 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep
with restricted and painful movements.
Bleeds. Red colour Advised x-ray.

(vi)
Contused
swelling
right
shoulder 7 cm x 4 cm. Red colour. Advised
X-ray."

Dr. P.C. Vyas (PW-4) opined that the
injuries were fresh at the time of
examination, and except injury nos.3 to 6,
the injuries were simple in nature. X-ray
was advised to ascertain the nature of
injury nos.3 to 6. As per the witness, the
injuries could have been caused by some
heavy and blunt object, like the blunt side
of an Axe and Farsa.

17. The witness was again medically
examined on 7.12.1987 by Dr. U.C.
Vaishya (PW-5), Senior Radiologist of the
District Hospital, Mathura, on the direction
of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. On X-ray,
the witness found a comminuted fracture of
the right tibia, fibula, right proximal half
part and mid-distal part. He further found a
comminuted fracture of the left leg, both
the bones, tibia and fibula at different
levels. Dislocation at the distal I.P. joint of
the right thumb was also revealed. The
details of the injuries are mentioned herein
below:

 "(i) Unhealed wound (septic) 2.8
cm x 0.7 cm x bone (over left leg distal mid
third part anterior and medially having
discharge in the wound.

(ii) Septic wound on the right leg
medially superior aspect 2 cm x 0.4 cm x
S.C. and tissues (having discharge).

(iii) Healed mark of injury (fresh
red scar) 3 cm x 1.8 cm on the left knee
distal part.

(iv) Scar (healed injury on right
forehead), left forearm and just right hand
wrist (thumb side) right leg remedially and
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Karan Singh & Ors.
853
left leg and two medially present of healed
injuries."

As per opinion of the doctor, all the
injuries were healed. It could not be opined
as to which weapon was used to cause
injury nos.1 and 2.

18. Dr. U.C. Vaishya (PW-5), the
Senior Grade E.N.T. Surgeon of the
District Hospital, Mathura, conducted the
autopsy of the deceased on 15.10.1987 and
found the following ante-mortem injuries
on the person of the deceased:

"(i) Multiple LWs ranging in size
from 4 cm x 1 cm x scalp deep to 1 cm x
o.25 cm x scalp deep on the front of head
and forehead in an area of 18 cm x 14 cm.

(ii) Two LWs 1.5 cm x 0.25 cm x
bone deep, 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm x bone deep
on back of left elbow.

(iii) right collar fractured.

(iv) Multiple contusion on back of
whole chest, abdomen and left buttock.

(v) Contused 28 cm x 2 cm on
front of right side chest and abdomen.

(vi) 3 LWs 2 cm x 0.5 cm x bone
deep and rest two 1 cm x 0.5 cm x bone
deep on front of left leg middle part with
fracture.

(vii) Multiple abrasions on both
upper exts.

(viii) Multiple abrasions on front
of left knee.

(ix) Multiple firearm injuries
ranging 0.75 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep to
0.5 cm x 0.4 cm x bone deep on whole of
right leg front and back side. No tattooing
and charring. No F.B. present in muscle
tissue."

The doctor opined that the death of the
deceased was caused by coma as a result of
ante-mortem injuries. No pellets were
recovered from the body of the deceased.
There was a firearm injury on the right leg,
which is not fatal, and it could have been
caused from a distance of six feet. The
deceased died because of injury no.1,
which was caused on his head.

19. S.I. Matadeen Verma (PW-6)
deposed that on 14.10.1987, he was posted
at Police Station Kosi Kalan, and in his
presence, informant- Hudri (PW-1) brought
a written report and on the basis of which a
chik was prepared, and he has endorsed his
signatures on the chik. After taking
necessary documents, he proceeded to the
place of incident, where he examined the
dead body of the deceased and prepared the
Panchayatnama
and
other
necessary
documents. He made a seizure of the Axe,
and Farsa, which was found lying near the
dead body. He further made a seizure of
blood-stained
soil
and
recorded
the
statement of the witnesses. On the basis of
the information from the informer, he
conducted a raid at around 06:00 p.m. and
arrested two accused persons at 08:00 p.m.
Thereafter, recoveries were effected in the
following manner:

"S.B.B.L. country-made pistol with 12
bores and four cartridges was recovered from
accused Fateh Singh; a country-made pistol
with 12 bores and two cartridges from
Kunwar Singh; Farsa from accused Lakhmi,
and Laathi was recovered from the accused
Karan
Singh,
Har
Gulab,
Tarachand,
Virendra, Mahendra, Teji, and Lal Singh.
After collecting all the materials and upon
concluding the investigation against the
accused persons, he filed the charge sheet on
24.10.1987 under Sections 147, 148, 307 and
302 IPC against the accused-appellants."

20. The Investigating Officer was
questioned about the place of the incident
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and the village's demography, to which he
supported the prosecution's case. Further,
the witness was asked various questions
regarding the site plan, to which he replied
in accordance with section 161 Cr.P.C
statement.

21. Dr. R.C. Sharma (PW-8) has
stated that he was posted as a Senior
Radiologist in District Hospital, Mathura
and conducted the X-ray of the injured Heti
(PW-3) on 15.10.1987.

22. Constable Phool Singh (PW-9)
has stated that he was posted at Police
Station Kosi Kalan at the time of the
incident, and he is a witness to the inquest
report.
He
stated
that
the
inquest
proceedings
were
conducted
in
his
presence, and he along with Ashok Kumar,
had taken the deceased to Mathura by
Govind Singh's tractor for the post-mortem.
After collecting the necessary documents,
the same was submitted to the police
station.

23. S.I. Mohd. Jahid (PW-10) stated
that he was posted as S.I.-II in the Police
Station Kosi Kalan at the time of the
incident, and he is the witness to recovery
and has supported the prosecution's case.

24.
The
incriminating
material
produced by the prosecution during the trial
was then confronted by the accused persons
for recording their statements under Section
313 Cr.P.C. The accused persons have
stated that police have falsely implicated
them due to previous enmity between the
parties to save the real culprit.

25. The trial court discussed the
evidence adduced by the prosecution in
support of each of the circumstances at
great length and held that the prosecution
could not satisfactorily prove any of them,
and therefore, acquitted all the accused
persons. The State and complainant both
preferred the appeal before this Court
challenging the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal dated 13.9.1990.

26. Learned counsel for the
complainant vehemently espoused the
cause of the complainant and argued that
the order passed by the trial court is cryptic,
perverse and untenable, rendering the
impugned judgment unsustainable in the
eyes of law in presence of overwhelming
evidence in the form of eye-witnesses,
injured, medical reports comprising injury
reports, post-mortem report and recovery of
weapons,
used
by
the
accused
for
committing the crime. In support of his
contentions,
learned
counsel
for
the
complainant relied upon the decisions of
the Supreme Court in Laxman Singh &
Ors v. State of Bihar2; and Ravindra
Kumar & Ors v. State of Punjab3.

26.1 The trial court gravely erred
in not taking into consideration the
unimpeachable testimony of eye-witnesses,
Hudri (PW-1), Ramesh (PW-2), and
injured- Heti (PW-3), which is cogent,
consistent,
reliable,
corroborating
and
establishes the guilt of accused persons
beyond all reasonable doubts. All the eyewitnesses and injured PW-3 are reliable
and trustworthy witnesses. It is submitted
that all the aforesaid three witnesses were
thoroughly cross-examined, and on crossexamination,
nothing
adverse
to
the
prosecution's case has been brought on
record by the accused.

26.2 The place of occurrence,
recovery of the dead body, recovery of
weapons used, and injury report of the
injured Heti clearly establish the case of
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Karan Singh & Ors.
855
prosecution, and the trial Court completely
ignored to delve into these material facts.

26.3 The injured PW-3 was
examined twice; firstly on 14.10.1987 by
Dr. P.C. Vyas, who was examined as PW4, and subsequently on 15.10.1987 by Dr.
U.C. Vaishya, who was examined as PW-5,
on
the
direction
of
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate. Both the injury reports support
the prosecution's case, and there was no
reason for the trial court to disbelieve the
testimony of PW-4 and PW-5.

26.4 Right from the beginning,
the accused were named in the F.I.R., and
their role and complicity have been
established by trustworthy, reliable and
cogent evidence. All the accused persons
formed
the
unlawful
assembly
in
furtherance of the common object to
commit the murder of deceased- Kanni. So
far as the conviction under Section 147 IPC
is concerned, the presence of all the
accused persons at the time of the incident
and their active participation has been
established and proved by the prosecution
by examining the witnesses as PW-1, PW-2
and PW-3. The accused formed the
unlawful assembly at the Gher of Giriraj
Singh and committed the offence.

26.5 The evidence of the injured
witness has greater evidentiary value;
unless compelling reasons exist, their
statements are not to be discarded lightly. It
is
further
argued
that
the
minor
discrepancies do not corrode the credibility
of otherwise acceptable evidence. In cases
where there are large number of assailants,
it can be difficult for the witnesses to
identify each assailant and attribute a
specific role to him; moreover, when the
incident concluded within a few minutes, it
is natural to the exact version of the
incident, each minute detail meticulously is
not possible by an individual4. Therefore,
the deposition of injured witnesses should
be relied upon unless there are strong
grounds for rejection of his evidence on the
basis
of
major
contradictions
and
discrepancies5.

26.6 The PW-3 has clearly stated
that the accused persons dragged him and
the deceased- Kanni into the Gher of
Giriraj Singh and caused injuries to them,
and as a consequence thereof, the deceased
died on the spot, whereas the witness
received severe injuries on his person and
remained hospitalised for almost ten days
and could only gain conscious after three
days. The said incident was also witnessed
by PW-1 and PW-2.

26.7
The
motive
is
well
established from the evidence of PW-2,
who states that there was long-standing
litigation between the parties regarding the
construction of the drain, therefore, the
motive is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

26.8 There was no inordinate
delay in registration of the F.I.R. The
incident occurred at 08:45 a.m. on
14.10.1987,
and
the
complaint
was
registered at 10:15 a.m. on the same date.
The delay in registration of the F.I.R. by
itself cannot be a ground to doubt the
prosecution's case. There can be a variety
of genuine causes for delayed registration
of F.I.R. It's a common rule in India, and
lapse of time, if any, cannot be attributed to
fatal to the prosecution's case.

26.9 The accused were arrested
on the same day, and pursuant to their
pointing out, recoveries were effected from
them.

27. Per-contra, learned counsel for
the accused-respondents contended that the
eye-witnesses PWs 1, 2 and 3 were
interested witnesses, being the brother and
close relatives of the deceased, therefore,
their testimonies were rightly rejected by
the trial court. There was a possibility of
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
complainant
group
to
falsely
implicating the accused, who are resident
of the same village and born out of a
common ancestry. Thus, the chances of
false
implication
are
greater
being
admittedly proven indulged in long pending
litigation. The approach of the trial court
was justified and has strictly proceeded and
appreciated the evidence in the manner, the
law laid down by the Supreme Court.

27.1 The trial Court rightly
disbelieved the statements of PW-1, PW-2,
and PW-3 regarding motive, and raised
serious suspicion regarding the recovery
made under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act.

27.2 The trial Court order is a
well-merited judgment, and this Court
ought not to re-appreciate the evidence
unless and until the parameters of Ramesh
Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat6 are
met. The appellate court hearing an appeal
against acquittal must first report its
conclusion on the question whether the
findings of the trial court are palpably
wrong,
manifestly
erroneous
or
demonstrably unsustainable and then reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own
conclusion. The appellate court, while
hearing the appeal against the judgment of
acquittal, must satisfy itself that the
approach of the trial court was patently
illegal and its conclusion is unsustainable
in the eye of law.

27.3 The FIR is ante timed, and
there is a gross delay in the registration of
the
F.I.R.
The
prosecution has
not
satisfactorily explained the delay.

27.4 The injuries of injured- Heti
(PW-3) are self explained to demonstrate
that the same has not been caused in the
manner, which has been stated to be
inflicted on the injured in the manner stated
by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3.

27.5 There is a huge and material
contradiction between the statements of
injured- Heti (PW-3), the complainant and
eye-witness- Hudri (PW-1), and Ramesh
(PW-2).