# State of U.P v. Krishna Murari @ Murli & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 28
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-22
- **Case number:** Capital Sentence No. 1 of 2000
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Vivek Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-krishna-murari-murli-ors-48116
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 302,
120B-challenge
to-conviction-
death
penalty-rarest of rare case-no evidence on
record to establish that it was a preplanned and premeditated murder -PW-1
and PW-2 failed to narrate the specific
role
of
assault
of
weapon
by
the
appellants upon the deceased persons-no
criminal history of the appellants-crime
has been committed by the appellants by
Gandsa and Banka blows, but there is no
evidence to show or suggest the reason
for the appellants to commit the said
offence-Trial
court
awarded
death
sentence but no rarest of rare case is
made out-Brutality of the manner in which
a murder was perpetrated may be a
ground but not the sole criterion for
judging whether the case is one of the
'rarest of rare cases' as indicated in
Bacchan Singh's case -every murder is
brutal, and the difference between the
one from the other may be on account of
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Murari @ Murli & Ors.
29
mitigating
or
aggravating
features
surrounding the murder-Hence, the death
sentence is liable to be converted into life
imprisonment.(Para 1 to 78)

B.
Doctrine
of
rarest
of
rare
was
established in the case of Bacchan Singh's
Case.
Apex
Court,
in
this
case,
endeavoured
to
cut
out
a
doctrine
particularly for offences culpable with
death to decrease the ambiguity for
courts. The Ratio Decidendi of Baccahan
Singh case is that the death sentence is
constitutional if it is prescribed as an
alternative for the offence of murder. "the
rarest of rare case dictum serves as a
guideline in enforcing Section 354(3) and
establishes
the
policy
that
the
life
imprisonment is the rule and death
sentence is an exception. The Court held
that a death sentence would be awarded
only, "when a murder is committed in an
extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical,
revolting manner so as to arouse intense
and
extreme
indignation
of
the
community. (Para 77)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,734 of 135,051. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39734 for what follows._

28 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that ground, he should be released on bail
and also looking to the present Covid-19
pandemic.

19. However, he has failed to bring on
record any document which may reveal that
accused is not getting proper medical
treatment or care in jail or he requires such
treatment which can only be provided if he
is released on bail. In the absence of any
documentary evidence to the above effect,
this court is of the opinion that the
applicant who is involved in serious
economic offence cannot be granted bail on
the above mentioned medical grounds. The
mere fact that the accused is in custody for
more than one and half years, may not be a
relevant consideration to release such
accused on bail (Anil Kumar Yadav vs.
State (N.C.T.) of Delhi and another, 2018
(1) CCSC 117.

20. Keeping in view the modus
operandi
adopted
by
the
Companies
concerned for obtaining the Letter of
Credit, the amount of NPA, the nature and
gravity of the allegations/offences levelled
against the applicant which not only shake
the conscience of the society but also the
public at large, evidence collected during
investigation, complicity of accused and
without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, prima facie the court is
not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
The bail application is liable to be rejected
and the same is, accordingly, rejected.

21. However, it is expected that the
trial
court
shall
make
all
sincere
endeavours to expedite the proceedings of
the trial and conclude the same as
expeditiously as possible, in accordance
with law, within a period of six months.
----------
(2022)02ILR A28
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

Capital Sentence No. 1 of 2000
and other connected cases

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Krishna Murari @ Murli & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
From Addl. Session Judge, G.A., Shitla
Prasad Tripathi, Shiv Ganesh Singh, Umesh
Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Anuj Pandey, I.D. Shukla, S.K.
Merotra

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 302,
120B-challenge
to-conviction-
death
penalty-rarest of rare case-no evidence on
record to establish that it was a preplanned and premeditated murder -PW-1
and PW-2 failed to narrate the specific
role
of
assault
of
weapon
by
the
appellants upon the deceased persons-no
criminal history of the appellants-crime
has been committed by the appellants by
Gandsa and Banka blows, but there is no
evidence to show or suggest the reason
for the appellants to commit the said
offence-Trial
court
awarded
death
sentence but no rarest of rare case is
made out-Brutality of the manner in which
a murder was perpetrated may be a
ground but not the sole criterion for
judging whether the case is one of the
'rarest of rare cases' as indicated in
Bacchan Singh's case -every murder is
brutal, and the difference between the
one from the other may be on account of
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Murari @ Murli & Ors.
29
mitigating
or
aggravating
features
surrounding the murder-Hence, the death
sentence is liable to be converted into life
imprisonment.(Para 1 to 78)

B.
Doctrine
of
rarest
of
rare
was
established in the case of Bacchan Singh's
Case.
Apex
Court,
in
this
case,
endeavoured
to
cut
out
a
doctrine
particularly for offences culpable with
death to decrease the ambiguity for
courts. The Ratio Decidendi of Baccahan
Singh case is that the death sentence is
constitutional if it is prescribed as an
alternative for the offence of murder. "the
rarest of rare case dictum serves as a
guideline in enforcing Section 354(3) and
establishes
the
policy
that
the
life
imprisonment is the rule and death
sentence is an exception. The Court held
that a death sentence would be awarded
only, "when a murder is committed in an
extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical,
revolting manner so as to arouse intense
and
extreme
indignation
of
the
community. (Para 77)

The appeal is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Micheal @ Nai Micheal Vs St. Crl. A. (MD) No.
178 of 2010

2. Jaikaran & anr Vs St. of U.P., CRLA No. 431
of 1990

3. Jaikam Khan Vs St. of U.P.,CRLA No. 434-436
of 2020

4. Amar Singh Vs The St.(NCT of Delhi) CRLA
No. 335 of 2015

5. Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh (2017) 11
SCC 195

6. Shio Shanekar Dubey Vs St. of Bih. (2019) 6
SCC 501

7. Sudhakar @ Sudharshan Vs St. reptd. by the
Insp. of Police , Sri Rangam Police Station
Trichy,T.N. (2018) 5 SCC 435

8. Ram Singh Vs St. of Raj. (2012) 12 SCC 339

9. Bipin Kumar Mondal Vs St. of W. B. (2010) 12
SCC 91

10. Machhi Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj. (1983)
SCC 470

11. Dalbir Kaur Vs St. of Punj. (1976) 4 SCC 158

12. Piara Singh & ors. Vs St. of Punj.(1977) 4
SCC 452

13. Anil Phukan Vs St. of Assam (1993) 3 SCC
282

14. Kartik Malhar Vs St. of Bih. (1996) 1 SCC
614

15. Dalip Singh Vs St. of Punj. (1953) AIR SC
364

16. Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai Vs St. of Guj.
(1983) 2 SCC 174

17. Mani Ram Vs St. of Raj. (1993) Supp (3)
SCC 18

18. St. of Har. Vs Bhagirath (1999) 5 SCC 96

19. Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak Vs St. of
Guj.(2003) 5 SCC 223

20. Thaman Kumar Vs St.of U.T. of Chandigarh
(2003) 6 SCC 380

21. Krishnan Vs St. (2003) 7 SCC 56

22. Khambam Raja Reddy & anr. Vs Public
Prosecutor, H.C. of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 239

23. St. of U.P Vs Dinesh (2009) 11 SCC 566

24. St. of U.P. Vs Hari Chand (2009) 13 SCC
542

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

26. Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & ors. Vs
St. (2011) 7 SCC 421

27. Hari Shankar Vs St. of U.P. (1996) 9 SCC 40
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
28. Bikau Pandey & ors. Vs St. of Bih. (2003) 12
SCC 616

29. St. of U.P. Vs Kishanpal & ors. (2008) 16
SCC 73

30. Abu Thakir & ors. Vs St. of T.N. (2010) 5
SCC 91

31. Bipin Kumar Mondal Vs St. of W.B. (2010)
12 SCC 91

32. Lokhan Sao Vs St. of Bih. (2008) 16 SCC 73

33. Darya Singh Vs St. of Punj. (1968) AIR SC
328

34. Raghubir Singh Vs St. of U.P. (1972) 3 SCC
79

35. Appabhai & anr. Vs St. of Guj. (1988)
Supp(1) SCC 241

36. Pala Singh Vs St. of Punj. (1972) 2 SCC 640

37. Sarwan Singh Vs St. of Punj. (1976) 4 SCC
369

38. Anil Rai Vs St. of Bih. (2001) 7 SCC 318

39. Munshi Prasad & ors. Vs St. of Bih. (2002) 1
SCC 351

40. Aqeel Ahmad Vs St. of U.P. (2008) 16 SCC
372

41. Dharamveer Vs St. of U.P. (2010) 4 SCC 469

42. Sandeep Vs State of U.P. (2012) 6 SCC 107

43. Pedda Narayan Vs St. of A.P. (1975) 4 SCC
153

44. Khujji Vs St. of M.P. (1991) 3 SCC 627

45. Kuldip Singh Vs St. of Punj. (1992) Supp (3)
SCC 1

46. George & ors. Vs St. of Ker. & anr.(2008) 4
SCC 605

47. Suresh Rai Vs St. of Bih. (2000) 4 SCC 84

48. Amar Singh Vs Balwinder Singh (2003) 2
SCC 518

49. Radha Mohan Singh Vs St. of U.P. (2006) 2
SCC 450

50. Sambhu Das Vs St. of Assam (2010) 10 SCC
374

51. Bachan Singh Vs St. of Punj. (1980) AIR SC
898

52. Machhi Singh Vs St. of Punj. (1983) 3 SCC
470

53. Ramanresh & ors. Vs St. of Chhattisgarh
(2012) 4 SCC 257

54. Dharam Deo Yadav Vs St. of U.P. (2014) 5
SCC 509

55. Kalu Khan Vs St. of Raj. (2015) 16 SCC 492,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, .J.)

(1) The six accused persons, namely,
Krishna Murari Verma alias Murli,
Kashi Ram Verma, Raghav Ram Verma,
Ram Milan Verma, Ram Kripal Verma
and Ram Tilak Verma, were tried by the
X Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 85 of 1995 :
State Vs. Krishna Murari and others,
arising out of Case Crime No. 156 of 1994,
under Sections 148, 302, 120B I.P.C.,
Police Station Tarun, District Faizabad.

(2) Vide judgment and order dated
21.12.1999, X Additional
District &
Sessions Judge, Faizabad, while acquitting
accused Ram Tilak Verma and Ram Kripal
Verma of the charge of offence punishable
under Section 120-B I.P.C, convicted and
sentenced other accused persons, namely,
Krishna Murari Verma alias Murli, Kashi
Ram Verma, Raghav Ram Verma and Ram
Milan Verma in the manner as stated
hereinbelow :-
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Murari @ Murli & Ors.
31

"(i) Under Section 302 I.P.C. read
with Section 149 I.P.C. to be hanged
separately till they are dead ; and

(ii) Under Section 148 I.P.C. to
undergo imprisonment for one year R.I."

(3) Aggrieved by the aforesaid
judgment and order of their conviction and
sentence, four accused persons, namely,
Krishna Murari Verma alias Murli, Kashi
Ram Verma, Raghav Ram Verma and Ram
Milan Verma, have preferred, in this Court,
four separate criminal appeals, bearing
Nos. 25 of 2000, 26 of 2000, 27 of 2000
and 28 of 2000, respectively, from jail and
Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2000 through
their
counsels,
whereas
informant/revisionist Rama Kant Verma has
filed Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2000
against the judgment and order dated
21.12.1999 of acquittal of Ram Kripal
Verma and Ram Tilak Verma.

(4) Capital Sentence Reference No. 1
of 2000 arises out of the Reference made
by the learned trial Court under Section 366
(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 to this Court for confirmation of the
death sentence of four convicts/appellants
Krishna Murari Verma alias Murli, Kashi
Ram Verma , Raghav Ram Verma and Ram
Milan Verma.

(5) Since the above-captioned capital
sentence reference, appeals and revision
arise out of a common factual matrix and
impugned judgment dated 21.12.1999, we
are disposing them of by this judgment.

(6) It is pertinent to mention here that
vide judgment and order dated 21.12.2000,
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while
dismissing the criminal revision no. 14 of
2000 preferred by the informant Rama
Kant Verma and rejecting the Reference,
allowed the above-mentioned criminal
appeals preferred by convicts/appellants.

(7) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid
judgment and order dated 21.12.2000,
informant Rama Kant Verma and the State
had preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 934939 of 2001 : Rama Kant Verma Vs. State
of U.P. and others and Criminal Appeal
Nos. 1202-1206 of 2001, respectively,
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide judgment and
order
dated
02.12.2008,
allowed
the
aforesaid criminal appeals and remitted the
matter to the High Court for hearing the
cases afresh and dispose them of in
accordance with law.

(B) FACTS

(8) In the intervening night of
10/11.11.1994,
at
about
02:30
a.m.,
informant Rama Kant Verma and his cousin
Girish Chandra Verma son of Ram Naresh
Verma were sleeping in the room of the
Tube-well by closing the door of it. His
grand-father Shri Sukai Verma son of
Pachu and his uncle Shri Ram Naresh
Verma son of Sri Sukai Verma were
sleeping under the Chhappar (thatch) near
the tube-well and his another uncle Shri
Ram Dev Verma son of Shri Sukai Verma
was sleeping under the southern Chhappar
(thatch). His younger brother Uma Kant
Verma (P.W.2) was sleeping inside the
Saria for looking after the cattle.

His grand-father (Sukai Verma)
and his uncle (Ram Naresh Verma) raised
alarm and asked for help, then, he (Rama
Kant Verma) and his cousin (Girish
Chandra Verma) came out of the tube-well
room after opening its door and saw that
Krishna Murari Verma alias Murli son of
Ram Jagat Verma, Kashi Ram Verma son of
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Tidi Verma armed with Gandasa and
Raghav Ram Verma son of Nanhaku, Ram
Milan Verma son of Ram Awadh armed
with Banka, and 2-3 other persons, who
had muffled/covered their faces by means
of cloth, were beating and cutting the head
of his grand-father Sukhai Verma and his
uncle Ram Naresh Verma with Gandasa
and Banka.

Ram Dev, another uncle of the
informant, was sleeping south of the tubewell under the Chhappar. Rama Kant
(P.W.1), Uma Kant (P.W.2) and Girish
(deceased) tried to rescue the deceased
persons, but the assailants attacked Girish
(deceased) and Ram Dev (deceased) also
with their weapons. Rama Kant (P.W.1) and
Uma Kant (P.W.2) escaped and ran into the
field of sugarcane and also they raised
alarm. It was night time 2.30 a.m. on
11.11.1994 (in intervening night of 10th
and 11th November, 1984). Due to their
cries and alarm, Ram Tej, father of
informant, and several villagers came with
lathis and torches. The assailants ran away
towards the south.

It was further alleged that the four
appellants were seen and identified by
Rama Kant (PW l), Uma Kant (PW 2),
Ram Tej and villagers in the light of the
torches and the electric light. It was also
alleged that litigation regarding land had
been going on between the victims and
appellant Krishna Murari alias Murli. The
cattle of Krishna Murari were sent to Ram
Kripal ten days before the occurrence and
he had also sent his family out of the
village to his wife's house in another
village. Rama Kant further alleged that in
the morning Daljeet Singh (PW3), Jaising
Mau and Hari Om (PW4) told him that on
10.11.94 at 9.00 p.m. the appellants were
seen by them, consuming non-vegetarian
food alongwith Ram Tilak and Ram Kripal
at the shop of Ram Kripal. Rama Kant
therefore, alleged his suspicion against
Ram Kripal and Ram Tilak as the persons
who were instrumental in the commission
of this crime conspiring with the appellants.
All four victims had died instantaneously
on the spot. Then in the morning, the
informant scribed his F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-1).
Along with Manik Ram Verma , Munna Lal
Verma, one other person and the informant
P.W.1 (Rama Kant Verma ) proceeded to
Police Station Tarun, where he lodged his
F.I.R.

(9) The evidence of H.C. Ram Harsh
Yadava P.W. 12 shows that on 11.11.1994,
he was posted as Head Moharrir at Police
Station Tarun. On the basis of the written
report of Rama Kant Verma (P.W.1), he
registered the F.I.R. and prepared the chik
F.I.R on 11.11.1994 at 06:30 a.m. and on its
basis, Case Crime No. 156 of 1994, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B I.P.C.
was registered against the accused persons
Krishna Murari alias Murali, Kashi Ram
Verma, Raghav Ram Verma, Ram Milan,
Ram Kripal Verma and Ram Tilak Verma at
police station Tarun, district Faizabad.

(10) It is pertinent to mention that a
perusal of the chik F.I.R. also shows that
the distance between the place of incident
and the police station was 6 kilometres.

(11) The investigation of the case was
entrusted to the Station Officer of the Police
Station Tarun, namely, Sudhakar Pandey (PW
10), who, in his examination-in-chief, had
deposed before the trial Cout that on
11.11.1994, he was posted as Station Officer
at Police Station Tarun and case crime no.
156 of 1994 was registered on 11.11.1994, at
06:30 a.m. in his absence and at the time of
registering the case, he was busy in his duty
at Ayodhya in "PkkSng dkslh ifjdzek" and on
receiving information of this case, he reached
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Murari @ Murli & Ors.
33
Police Station Tarun and obtained a copy of
the FIR and other relevant papers from the
Police Station and reached the spot of
occurrence in village Barauli at about 9.00
a.m., wherein he found that SSI Sri Ramjirai,
police station Bikarpur, SI Riaz Khan of P.S,
Haiderganj, and SI Sifate Haider (PW13) of
Police Station Tarun were already reached
there along with other police personnel.
Thereafter, he directed S.I. Riaz Khan to get
the inquest proceeedings of the deceased
Sukai Verma and Ram Naresh and S.I. Sifate
Haider
(P.W.13)
to
get
the
inquest
proceedings of the deceased Ram Dev and
Girish Chandra Verma. On his direction and
under his supervision, the inquest reports of
the deceased Sukai Verma, Ram Naresh, Ram
Dev and Girish Chandra Verma were
prepared by them. After that, the dead bodies
were sealed in a separate clothes and sent the
dead bodies for post mortem examination to
Faizabad by Constable Ramjeet Rawat and
Constable Chandra Prakash Singh. He
prepared
the
duplicate
C.D.
of
Panchayatnama. Thereafter, he took down the
statements of Rama Kant Verma (P.W.l), Uma
Kant Verma (P.W.2), Manik Lal Verma
(P.W.7) and Munna Lal Verma (P.W. 8). He,
thereafter, inspected the place of occurrence
at the instance of the witnesses of fact and
prepared the site map (Ext. Ka 6). He found
the dead body of Sukai on a Cot upon which
dFkjh and pn~nj were sheeting and one jtkbZ
was also there, on which stained blood of the
deceased was present and blood was
splattered on the wall at the head of the cot.
After scratching the blood stained brick of the
wall, he sealed it in a separate container and
cloth was sealed in a separate container and
prepared its recovery memo (Ext. Ka.7).

Similarly, the dead body of Ram
Naresh Verma was on a cot with an
Angocha, a Kathri, a Chadar, another
coloured chadar and one bush-shirt stained
with blood. There were stains of blood on
the wall and the memo (Ex Ka 8) thereof
was also prepared and articles with blood
on walls were sealed separately.

In the same manner, dead body of
Ramdev was found on the Cot with kathri,
chadar, banyan and gamchha stained with
blood, and blood was also found on the
ground near the Cot. These articles were
sealed and blood stained and sample earth
were taken and sealed them separately and
recovery memo (Ex.Ka9) was prepared by
him. The bedding consisting of Kathri,
Rajai and two chadars and Tehmad of
deceased Girish was found on the cot
stained with blood.

The dead body of Girish was
found in a pit (gaddha) where his blood had
also fallen. Blood stained and plain earth
were taken into possession and were sealed
separately by the I.O. and memo of this and
other articles were prepared (Ext. Ka 10).
Then statements of witnesses of recovery
were taken down.

On the same day, he searched for
the accused persons but they were not
present at their homes. When he returned
from there, an information was received
from an informer and on this information,
he arrested accused Kashi Ram Verma,
Raghava Ram and Ram Tilak on the same
day and recorded their statements. He was,
after that, transferred from Tarun P.S, on
13.11.94.

In his cross-examination, P.W.10
has deposed before the trial Court that
firstly, he came to the police station from
Ayodhya at 08:40 a.m. and reached the
place of occurrence at 08:55 a.m. He did
not record the statement at the police
station and when he reached the place of
occurrence, S.I. who was present there, was
asked by him to do panchayatnama.
Approximately, three hours have taken for
preparation
of
panchayatnama.
After
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
completing panchayatnama, he prepared
the duplicate C.D. of panchayatnama,
recorded the statements of the witnesses
and prepared the site plan. About 3:00 p.m.,
he has prepared the site plan. Thereafter, he
prepared the recovery memo as deposed in
his examination-in-chief. He stayed at the
place of occurrence till 05:00 p.m. and sent
the dead bodies for post-mortem at 12:15
p..m. by a tractor. Along with the dead
bodies of the deceased, some persons were
also gone. He restrained the informant and
his brother. The informant and his brother
were along with him at the time of
inspection of the place of occurrence. He
found the dead bodies of the deceased,
except deceased Girish on the cot. He also
found the blood beneath one cot but he did
not find any blood beneath the other Cot.
He did not find any blood in the field. He
denied the suggestion that he falsely
implicated the accused persons on the
dictate of the informant.

P.W.10 has further deposed in his
cross-examination that he did not mention
the distance from the place of incident to
police station, F.I.R. number and weapon of
assault in the panchayatnama but he
mentioned only case crime number in the
Panchayatnama. He further deposed that on
11.11.1994, he recovered a live cartridge of
315 bore during the inspection of the place
of occurrence near the cot of Sukai and he
took it and prepared recovery memo (Ext.
Ka. 38), in which the signatures of
witnesses Ram Shanker and Manik Ram
were taken.

(12) The evidence of P.W.13 S.I.
Sidne Haider shows that on 11.11.1994, he
was posted as II officer at police station
Tarun District Faizabad. Before the incident
i.e. 08.11.1994, he was busy in his duty at
Ayodhya in "PkkSng dkslh ifjdzek" and on
11.11.1994, he received information of this
case and on receiving it, he reached the
Police Station Tarun, from where he
reached the place of occurrence village
Barauli, Police Station Tarun, wherein
police
personnel
of
police
station
Haiderganj and police station Bikapur and
other employees were present at the place
of occurrence. At that time, Sri Riyaz Khan
had prepared the panchayatnama of the
deceased Sukhai and Ram Naresh. SO
Sudhakar Pandey had also reached there
and on his direction, he prepared the
panchayatnama of accused Ram Dev and
Girish
Chandra.
He
filled
the
panchayatnama of the deceased Ram Dev
at 09:00 a.m. and thereafter, sealed the dead
body of deceased Ram Dev in a cloth and
prepared the document in this regard (Ext.
Ka.18). On the dead body of the deceased
Ram Dev, one blood stained dhoti and a
wrist watch on the left hand were present.
Thereafter, he prepared the photo lash of
the deceased Ram Dev (Ext. Ka. 20).
Subsequently,
he
conducted
the
panchayatnama of the deceased Girish
Verma.
He
started
to
conduct
the
panchayatnama of the deceased Girish
Verma on 11.11.1994 at 10:40 a.m. On the
dead body of the deceased Girish Verma, he
found a sweater, on which blood was
present. One bushart and a underwear were
also present on the dead body of the
deceased Girish Verma. He thereafter
sealed the dead body of the deceased Girish
Verma in a cloth and prepared the
documents in this regard. After completion
of all formalities, the dead bodies of the
deceased were sent for post-mortem along
with Constable Ram Deen and Chandra
Prakash.

In cross-examination, P.W.13 has
stated
that
while
conducting
Panchayatnama, he did not write the
number of chik FIR regarding the incident
nor wrote thereon the titled "State vs.
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Murari @ Murli & Ors.
35
Whose". He further deposed that while
filling panchayatnama, he did not give the
description of the used weapon. In the
panchayatnama, the distance from the place
of occurrence to the police station has not
been mentioned, for which he did not state
any reason. He did not find any mud or
clay on the body of the deceased Girish and
if it is found, the same would have been
written in the Panchayatnama.

(13) The evidence of P.W.14Constable Ram Narayan Pandey shows that
he was posted along with S.I. Riyaz Khan
at police station Haiderganj in 1996-97. He
had seen S.I. Riyaz Khan for reading and
writing and he knows his handwriting and
signature very well. Ext. Ka. 25 form no.
13 is in his handwriting and his signature.
S.I. Riyaz Khan died on 08.01.1997. The
sample seal (Ext. Ka.26) is in the
handwriting and signature of Sri Riyaz
Khan. Photo lash (Ext. Ka.27), Ext. Ka. 28
and Ext. Ka. 29 are in the handwriting and
signature
of
late
Riyaz
Khan.
Panchayatnama (Ext. Ka 30) is in the
handwriting and signature of Late Riyaz
Khan. The sample seal of deceased Sukai
Verma (Ext. ka. 31) is in the handwriting
and signature of late Riyaz Khan. Photo
lash of the deceased Sukai (Ext. Ka.32) and
letters to CMO (Ext. Ka. 32 and 33) are in
the handwriting and signature of Late
Riyaz Khan.

(14) After transfer of S.I. Sudhakar
Pandey (P.W.10) from police station Tarun,
the investigation was conducted by his
successor Ashutosh Sharma (PW 11), who
arrested Ram Milan and recorded the
statements of remaining witnesses and then
submitted charge-sheet (Ext. Ka.15) against
the six named persons.

In cross-examination, P.W. 11 has
deposed that he took the investigation of
the case on 14.11.1994.

(15) Going backward, the postmortem of the dead bodies of deceased
Ram Dev, Ram Naresh, Sukhai and Girish
was conducted on 12.11.1994, at 11:00
a.m., 11:45 a.m., 12:30 p.m. and 01:00
p.m., respectively, in District Hospital,
Faizabad by Dr. O. P .Khattri (PW-9), who
found the ante-mortem injuries on their
person as enumerated hereinbelow :-

"Ante-mortem injuries of the
deceased Ram Dev, aged 65 years :-

1. Abraded contusion 4 cm x 1
cm on the right side fore-head 6 cm away
from the eye-brow.

2. Abraded contusion 4 cm x 1.5
cm on the right side forehead 1 to 11⁄2 cm
below injury no.1.

3. Incised wound 7 cm x 3 cm
bone on the right side of face at the root of
the nose upto right ear. Clear cut margins.

4. Incised wound 14 cm x 4 cm x
bone deep on right side face 1 1/2 cm away
from injury no.3 on left side of face. Bone
cut. Parellel to injury no.3 from left to
right. Clear cut margins. Bone cut.

5. Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x
bone deep on right side of face 1 cm below
injujry no.4.

6. Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm x
bone deep on right side of face 1 cm below
injury no.5. Jaw fractured.

7. Incised wound 7 cm x 1.5 cm x
muscle deep on the upper left side Neck 4
cm below the jaw. Spindle shaped. Clear
cut margins.

8. Incised wound 7 cm x 1.5 cm x
muscle deep on right side Neck parallel to
injury no.7 and 1.5 cm below injury no.7.
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Stab wound 2 cm x 1 cm x
lungs deep on right side clavicle clear cut
margins. Bone fractured. Going downwards

10. Incised wound 7 cm x 7 cm x
bone deep on the right shoulder. Humerus
bone fractured.

11. Incised wound 10 cm x 1 cm
x bone deep on left fore-arm. Bone clear
cut underneath.

12. Incised wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm
x bone deep on the left fore-arm 1 cm
above injury no.11.

13. Incised wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm
x muscle deep above 1 cm from injury
no.12.

14. Incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm
x muscle deep left hand, 1 cm above injury
no.13.

15. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x
bone deep on right fore-arm. Bone
underneath clear cut. Wound was on the
back of the upper part of the forearm."

As per the opinion of Dr. O.P. Khattri
(P.W.9), deceased Ram Dev died due to
shock and haemorrhage on account of antemortem injuries.

"Ante-mortem injuries of deceased
Ram Naresh, aged 55 years

1. Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm x
bone deep on left side head 5 cm from ear.
Spindle shaped. Clear cut margins.

2. Incised wound 14 cm x 2.5 cm
x bone deep on left side head 1 cm above
the eye brow. Spindle shaped.

3. Incised wound 1 cm x 2 cm on
left side of head 2 cm below injury no.2.

4. Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm x
bone deep left side face 2 cm above the
middle of jaw. Vertically.

5. Incised wound 17 cm x 2.5 cm
x muscle deep left side Neck in the middle.
Blood vessel and trachea cut.

6. Incised wound 16 cm x 4 cm x
muscle deep on left side Neck. 2.5 cm
below injury no.5.

7. Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x
bone deep lower fore-arm (right). Bone
underneath cut.

8. Incised wound 4 cm x 1.5 cm x
muscle deep on right hand 2 cm below
injury no.7.

9. Incised woound 4 cm x 1 cm x
bone deep left fore-arm 4 cm above the
joint of wrist.

10. Incised wound 5 cm x 4 cm x
bone deep left wrist.

11. Incised wound 5 cm x 1.5 cm
x bone deep left hand.

12. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm
left hand. 1.5 cm below injury no.11.

13. Incised wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm
x bone deep left hand 2 cm below injury
no.11

As per the opinion of Dr. O.P. Khattri
(P.W.9), deceased Ram Naresh died due to
shock and haemorrhage on account of antemortem injuries.

"Ante-mortem injuries of deceased
Sukhai, aged 80 years

1. Incised wound 23 cm x 7 cm x
bone deep on right side of neck starting
from the upper lip to the back of Neck. AI
bones vervical verterae cut.

2. Incised wound 6 cm x 3 cm x
bone deep right fore-head 3 cm above the
right eye brow.

3. Incised wound 8 cm x 3 cm x
muscle deep on right side face. Extending
from the middle of nose upto right ear
below 4 cm. Margins clear cut. Spindle
shape.

4. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x
bone deep on right fore-head. Rt. Clavicle,
Right side 2nd to 7th ribs fractured.
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Murari @ Murli & Ors.
37
Membrances of Lungs torn. Right lung cut
7 cm x 4 cm.

As per the opinion of Dr. O.P. Khattri
(P.W.9), deceased Sukhai died due to shock
and haemorrhage on account of antemortem injuries.

"Ante-mortem injuries of deceased
Girish, aged 18 years

1. Incised wound 14 cm x 8 cm x
muscle deep on back of head 7 cm above
the 7th cervical bone. Brain matter was
coming out.

2. Incised wound 10 cm x 1.5 cm
x bone deep on left side of head 7 cm
above the left ear. Spindle shape.

3. Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x
bone deep lower part of left fore-arm.
There was cut of bone 2 cm above the ulna
bone.

4. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x
muscle deep front of left hand.

5. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x
muscle deep front of left hand.

6. 3 incised wounds 10 cm x 7 cm
on right shoulder. The biggest wound being
6 cm x 1 cm and smallest 2 cm x 1 cm x
skin deep.
7. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 2 cm muscle
deep on right upper arm 3 cm below injury
no.6.

8. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 2 cm x
bone deep right upper arm 4 cm above the
elbow.

9. Incised wound 4 cm x 0.1 cm x
muscle deep on right fore-arm 6 cm away
from the elbow.

10. Incised wound 4 cm x 1.5 cm
x muscle deep on right fore-arm on inferior
side 4 cm above the elbow.

11. Several incised wounds in an
area of 10 cm x 6 cm exterior of right hand
skin deep. Smallest 2 cm x 1 cm x skin.

12. Incised wound 7 cm x 4 cm x
muscle deep on right palm.

13. Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x
bone deep right palm.

14. Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x
bone deep right palm upto index finger.

15. Incised wound 7 cm x 3 cm x
bone deep left knee exterior side.

As per the opinion of Dr. O.P.
Khattri (P.W.9), deceased Girish died due to
shock and haemorrhage on account of antemortem injuries.

(16) It is significant to mention here
that Dr. O.P. Khattri (P.W.9) in his
deposition before the trial Court had
reiterated the aforesaid cause of death of
deceased Ram Dev, Ram Naresh, Sukhai
and Girish and deposed that on 12.11.1994
when he was posted as Medical Officer in
District Hospital, he conducted the postmortem of the dead bodies of the deceased
Ram Dev, Ram Naresh, Sukhai and Girish,
which were brought by Constable Chandra
Prakash and Ramdeen Rawat of police
station Tarun in sealed clothes. He deposed
that on internal examination of the dead
body of deceased Ram Dev, he found that
the right clavicle 4 ribs (3 to 7) on right
side chest were fractured; lung was cut;
semi-digest food was present in the
stomach;
and
faecal
matter
was
in
intestines. On internal examination of the
dead body of the deceased Ram Naresh, he
found that left clavicle was fractured; right
side ribs (3rd to 6th) were fractured; both
bones of right hand were fractured; semidigested food was in the stomach; faecal
matter was also in intestines. On internal
examination of dead body of deceased
Sukhai, he found that right clavicle, right
side 2nd to 7th ribs were fractured;
membrances of lungs were torned; right
lung cut 7 cm x 4 cm; semi digested food
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and faecal matter was found in stomach and
intestines. On internal examination of dead
body of deceased Girish, he found that
occipital bone back side fractured upto 3
inches; brain matter was coming out; semi
digested food and faecal matter were found
present.

(17) The case was committed to the
Court of Sessions by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad, where the
accused Krishna Murari alias Murli, Kashi
Ram Verma , Raghava Ram Verma , Ram
Milan were charged for offence punishable
under Sections 302, 149, 148 I.P.C. and
against accused persons Ram Kripal Verma
and Ram Tilak Verma were charged under
Section 120-B I.P.C. They pleaded not
guilty to the charges and claimed to be
tried. Their defence was of denial.

(18) During trial, in all, the
prosecution examined fourteen witnesses,
namely, P.W. 1-Rama Kant Verma, who is
the informant; P.W.2 Uma Kant Verma,
who is the brother of the informant; P.W.3
Daljeet Singh, P.W.4 Hari Om Singh, P.W.5
Amar Jeet Singh, P.W.6 Mithai Lal, P.W.7
Manik Ram, and P.W.8 Munna Lal, who
were examined to prove the factum of
occurrence and the circumstances; P.W.9
Dr. O.P. Khattri, who conducted the postmortem of the dead bodies of four persons;
P.W.10 Sudhakar Pandey and P.W. 11
Ashutosh
Sharma,
who
were
the
Investigating Officers of the case; P.W.12
Ram Harsh Yadava, who was the Head
Moharrir and was examined to prove FIR
and GD; and P.W.13 Sibte Haider and
P.W.14 Ram Narain Pandey, who were
examined to prove the inquest reports of
the four persons. In defence, Head
Constable Nahar Singh of the C.B.C.I.D.
Dog Squad Head Quarter, Lucknow was
examined as D.W.1.

(19) We would first like to deal with
the evidence of informant Rama Kant
Verma P.W.1. Since in paragraph-8, we
have set out the prosecution story primarily
on the basis of recitals contained in his
examination-in-chief, for the sake of
brevity, the same is not reiterated. P.W.1
Rama Kant Verma had deposed before the
trial
Court
that
the
incident
is
of
intervening night of 10/11.11.1994 at about
02:30 a.m. He was sleeping in Tubewell's
room. Alongwith him, his cousin Girish
Chandra Verma was also sleeping. They
were sleeping afer closing the door of the
tubewell room from inside. The name of
the father of Girish Chandra Verma is Ram
Naresh Verma. His grand-father Sukai and
his uncle Ram Naresh were sleeping under
the Chhappar on separate cots on the west
side of the tube-well. Ram Dev Verma was
sleeping under the Chhappar situated on the
south-west side of the tube-well. His
brother Uma Kant Verma (P.W2) was
sleeping on the cot in the west of the Sariya
on the way (rasta) adjacent to the Chhappar
where Ram Naresh, Sukhai were sleeping.
His uncle Sukhai and Ram Naresh raised
alarm cpkvks cpkvks (save, save). On hearing
this, he and his brother Girish awoke and
saw on opening the door that Krishna
Murari @ Murli son of Ram Jagat and
Kashi Ram son of Tidi armed with
Gandasa, and Raghav Ram son of Nanku
and Ram Milan son of Ram Awadh armed
with Banka were cutting his uncle and
grand-father. Besides these, 2-3 other
persons who had covered their faces by
cloth were also cutting his uncle and his
grand-father with Gandasa (halberds). They
(Girish and Rama Kant Verma) raised the
alarm and ran to save their lives. Then, all
the appellants had also assaulted his brother
Girish. Thereafter, Ram Dev Verma was
assaulted by these assailants with Gandasa
(halbreds) and Banka. He, thereafter, ran
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Murari @ Murli & Ors.
39
towards the northern side of tubewell in the
sugarcane field to save his life and his
brother Uma Kant Verma ran into the field
adjacent to the Sariya by raising alarm. The
electricity is available to his tubewell. On a
branch of ''Neem' tree situated in the southwest of the tubewell, electricity bulb was
burning and on its south direction of a
branch of another Neem tree, electricity
bulb was burning. He saw the occurrence in
the light of electricity bulb and identified
the accused persons very well. Thereafter,
on hearing the alarm, his father Ram Tej,
Manik Ram (PW7), Munna Lal (PW 8),
Lallan Prasad Tiwari, Babu Lal Harijan and
others came with Lathi and torch. On
arriving of these witnesses, all the accused
ran towards south direction. On account of
the assault of these accused persons, his
uncle Ram Naresh Verma, his grand-father
Sukai, Ram Dev and his brother Girish
Chandra Verma died instantaneously.

Before the incident i.e. since
1990, civil litigation of land was going on
between the father of Krishna Murari,
namely, Ram Jag and his family members
Ram Dev, Ram Tej, Ram Naresh. He did
not go to lodge the FIR in the night due to
fear. In the morning, when he was going to
Police Station Tarun on a bicycle along
with P.W. 7- Manik Ram, P.W. 8-Munna
Lal Verma and one another person, then, on
the way, Daljeet Singh Master (P.W.3) of
village Jaisingh Mau and Hari Om Singh
(P.W.4) of village Tikri met him, then, he
narrated the whole incident happened at
home to them, thereupon, they told him that
last evening at about 9 PM in the night, at
the shop of Ram Kripal Verma in Lal Ganj
Bazar, he had seen Ram Tilak Verma
alongwith Krishna Murari and 2-3 other
persons were consuming non-vegetarian
food. On their information, he was
convinced that Ram Tilak Verma, Ram
Kripal Verma, Krishna Murari took the
food and committed the murder of his
family members. He wrote the written
report of the incident at Tarun Bazar,
reached the Police Station Tarun at about
6:30 a.m. and handed over the written
report to the Munshi. It was marked as Ext.
Ka. 1.

Amar Jeet Singh and Mithai Lal
came to his residence after 3-6 days of
occurrence. They told him that in the night
of occurrence, they had also heard alarm
coming from Barauli and on hearing it,
they were standing near their house. After
some time, they had seen that Ram Tilak
and Ram Kripal armed with Gandasa and
Banka, respectively, were coming from
Barauli and blood was in their hands and
weapons. On lighting the torch, they (Ram
Tilak and Ram Kripal) asked who were
there, then, they (Amarjeet Singh and
Mithai Lal) hid by fear.

Mithai Lal Verma (PW 6) and
Amar Jeet Singh (PW 5) were the residents
of village Balli Kripal Pur and Amar Jeet is
also his distant relation. They had come to
his place for mourning. Thereafter, he went
to Police Station Turun and told these facts
to the Inspector but the Inspector told him
that he had already taken the statements of
Mithai Lal (P.W.6) and Amar Jeet Singh
(P.W.5). Accused had a gang and they all
are clever, on account of which, Manik
Ram, Munna Lal, Babulal Harijan, Daljit
Singh, Amarjeet and Mithai Lal got scared
by the accused persons and met them.

In
cross-examination,
P.W.1Rama Kant Verma had deposed before the
trial Court that he had orally stated the
Inspector about the factum as stated by
witness Amarjeet and Mithai Lal. The
witnesses Amarjeet and Mithai Lal came to
his residence after 5-6 days of the incident.
He further deposed that he did not
remember whether Amarjeet and Mithai
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Lal were coming at his house on the 2nd,
3rd, and 4th day of the incident. He further
deposed that he did not recognize Ram
Kripal Verma and Ram Tilak Verma at the
time of occurring the incident, because of
which, he did not name them in the FIR.
During the incident, he did not sustain any
injury. His brother Uma Kant Verma was
also not assaulted by the accused persons.
During the incident, witnesses Manik Ram,
Munna Lal, Babulal Harijan and his father
Ram Tej were not assaulted by the accused
persons.

P.W.1 has further deposed that he
knew accused Ram Tila prior to the
incident as he was a Master of Junior High
School situated at Vankatta. Before the
incident, he had no enmity with accused
Ram Tilak. He also knows accused Ram
Kripal prior to the incident and he had no
enmity with the accused Ram Kripal prior
to the incident. Accused Ram Tilak was
arrested on the date of incident. He also
deposed that in the examination-in-chief,
though he had stated that the accused
persons are having a gang and they are
clever, this fact was not stated to the
Inspector and the reasons for not saying
this to Inspector have not been stated.

P.W.1 has also stated that he did
not remember as to whether the night of the
incident had moonlight or darkness but it
was slightly cold. He did not remember
whether electricity light is prevailing at the
shop of Ram Kripal or near the shop of
Ram Kripal.