# State of U.P v. Raja Ram & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 704
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-05
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 1851 of 1983
- **Bench:** Rajiv Gupta, Surendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-raja-ram-ors-52432
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860
- Section 302 - Death - Circumstantial
evidence - suspicion - It is settled law
that the suspicion, however strong it may
8 All. State of U.P. Vs. Raja Ram & Ors.
705
be, cannot take the place of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be
convicted on the ground of suspicion, no
matter how strong it is. An accused is
presumed to be innocent unless proved
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (Para
67)

B. Criminal Law -Criminal Procedure Code,
1973- Section 378 - Appeal against an
order of acquittal - scope of interference
by an appellate Court for reversing the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial
Court in favour of the accused - (i) That
the judgment of acquittal suffers from
patent perversity; (ii) That the same is
based
on
a
misreading/omission
to
consider material evidence on record; (iii)
That no two reasonable views are possible
and only the view consistent with the guilt
of the accused is possible from the
evidence available on record. Appellate
Court, in order to interfere with the
judgment of acquittal, would have to
record pertinent findings on the above
factors, if it is inclined to reverse the
judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial
Court. In the instant case Motive was not
satisfactorily proved. The testimony of
Badley and Surajveer was not at all
reliable, and a false story was cooked up
by them in order to lend credence to the
prosecution story. A vital delay in lodging
the first information report was not
satisfactorily explained. The chain of
circumstances was not complete so as to
record the finding of conviction against
the accused-respondent by reversing the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial
court. The trial court passed a well
reasoned and detailed order, which cannot
be said to be perverse, impossible and
illegal and, as such, the Government
Appeal filed by the State was dismissed.
(Para 89, 93, 94, 95)

C. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 302 - Death - Circumstantial
evidence
-Instant
case

based
on
circumstantial evidence, as most of the
witnesses produced during the trial were
not eyewitnesses to the incident. Only
Ramphal Singh (P.W.-4) was alleged to be
an eyewitness. Ramphal Singh stated that
on the date of the incident, while he was
easing himself in his field, he saw 6-7
persons forcibly taking away Har Lal. He
further stated that Chand assaulted Har
Lal with a knife, while the other accused
attacked him with lathis. Thereafter, they
wrapped Har Lal in a bed sheet and
carried him toward the village by hanging
him on a lathi. However, Ramphal Singh
neither made any attempt to rescue the
deceased nor raised an alarm. Instead,
after witnessing the incident, he simply
went home. He did not even attempt to
lodge a report, which casts serious doubt
on the credibility of his testimony. His
conduct
raised
questions
about
the
truthfulness of his eyewitness account,
making him a highly doubtful witness,
unworthy of reliance. Furthermore, during
cross-examination, he admitted to having
appeared as a prosecution witness in
multiple police cases, leading to the
inference that he was a pocket witness for
the police. Held : Considering these
factors, the Court held that it would not be
safe to rely upon his uncorroborated
testimony
as
an
eyewitness
to
the
incident. (Para 64)

Dimissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,602 of 99,411. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39602 for what follows._

704 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Station Jamo, District-Sultanpur was placed
on record before the Lower Appellate Court
as paper no.24-Ga/1, which indicates that
the compliance of judgment and decree
dated 12.01.2010 passed by the Civil Judge
(Sr.Div.), Court No.15, Sultanpur was made
by the police on an application made by the
plaintiff-appellant on 14.02.2010, therefore
it appears that the plaintiff-appellant was
not in possession on the land in dispute on
the date of judgment and decree dated
12.01.2010, whereas the Suit was filed
alleging therein that the plaintiff-appellant
is owner and in possession of the land in
dispute and defendants-respondents have
neither any concern with the land in dispute
nor in possession of the same. The interim
injunction for maintaining the status quo by
the parties was granted on 06.05.2005 in
Civil Revision filed by the plaintiffappellant before the Court of District
Judge, Sultanpur and application for
interim injunction was allowed by means of
order dated 06.12.2006 by the trial court,
therefore the First Appellate Court while
considering the case and evaluating the
evidence and material on record should
also have considered it.

35. In view of above this court is of
the view that though the First Appellate Court
has considered all the issues framed by the
trial court and no new issue was raised to be
considered but recorded perverse findings on
the basis of conjectures and surmises. Hence
the same are not tenable in the eyes of law
and liable to be set aside with a direction to
re-consider and decide the appeal afresh. The
substantial questions of law formulated in this
appeal are decided accordingly.

36. This Second Appeal is,
accordingly, partly allowed. The judgment
and decree dated 21.11.2013 passed in Civil
Appeal No.4 of 2010; Ram Karan Pandey
and others Versus Shyampati by the
Additional District Judge, Court Room No.4,
District-Sultanpur is hereby set aside. The
matter is remitted back to the First Appellate
Court to consider and decide the Civil Appeal
No.4 of 2010; Ram Karan Pandey and others
Versus Shyampati in accordance with law
and in the light of the observations made
here-in-above in this order expeditiously and
preferably within a period of six months from
the date of production of a certified copy of
this order without granting unnecessary
adjournment to either of the parties. The
parties shall appear before the First Appellate
Court on 18th of September 2024. No order
as to costs.

37. The Lower Court Record shall
be remitted back to the Lower Appellate
Court expeditiously and in any case within
a period of two weeks from today.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 704
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Government Appeal No. 1851 of 1983

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Raja Ram & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A., Sri Kamal Krishna

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri S.P.S. Raghav, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, Sri
Akash Tyagi

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860
- Section 302 - Death - Circumstantial
evidence - suspicion - It is settled law
that the suspicion, however strong it may
8 All. State of U.P. Vs. Raja Ram & Ors.
705
be, cannot take the place of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be
convicted on the ground of suspicion, no
matter how strong it is. An accused is
presumed to be innocent unless proved
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (Para
67)

B. Criminal Law -Criminal Procedure Code,
1973- Section 378 - Appeal against an
order of acquittal - scope of interference
by an appellate Court for reversing the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial
Court in favour of the accused - (i) That
the judgment of acquittal suffers from
patent perversity; (ii) That the same is
based
on
a
misreading/omission
to
consider material evidence on record; (iii)
That no two reasonable views are possible
and only the view consistent with the guilt
of the accused is possible from the
evidence available on record. Appellate
Court, in order to interfere with the
judgment of acquittal, would have to
record pertinent findings on the above
factors, if it is inclined to reverse the
judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial
Court. In the instant case Motive was not
satisfactorily proved. The testimony of
Badley and Surajveer was not at all
reliable, and a false story was cooked up
by them in order to lend credence to the
prosecution story. A vital delay in lodging
the first information report was not
satisfactorily explained. The chain of
circumstances was not complete so as to
record the finding of conviction against
the accused-respondent by reversing the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial
court. The trial court passed a well
reasoned and detailed order, which cannot
be said to be perverse, impossible and
illegal and, as such, the Government
Appeal filed by the State was dismissed.
(Para 89, 93, 94, 95)

C. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 302 - Death - Circumstantial
evidence
-Instant
case

based
on
circumstantial evidence, as most of the
witnesses produced during the trial were
not eyewitnesses to the incident. Only
Ramphal Singh (P.W.-4) was alleged to be
an eyewitness. Ramphal Singh stated that
on the date of the incident, while he was
easing himself in his field, he saw 6-7
persons forcibly taking away Har Lal. He
further stated that Chand assaulted Har
Lal with a knife, while the other accused
attacked him with lathis. Thereafter, they
wrapped Har Lal in a bed sheet and
carried him toward the village by hanging
him on a lathi. However, Ramphal Singh
neither made any attempt to rescue the
deceased nor raised an alarm. Instead,
after witnessing the incident, he simply
went home. He did not even attempt to
lodge a report, which casts serious doubt
on the credibility of his testimony. His
conduct
raised
questions
about
the
truthfulness of his eyewitness account,
making him a highly doubtful witness,
unworthy of reliance. Furthermore, during
cross-examination, he admitted to having
appeared as a prosecution witness in
multiple police cases, leading to the
inference that he was a pocket witness for
the police. Held : Considering these
factors, the Court held that it would not be
safe to rely upon his uncorroborated
testimony
as
an
eyewitness
to
the
incident. (Para 64)

Dimissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Mah.

2. G. Parshwanath Vs St. of Karn. (2010) 8 SCC
593

3. Sadhu Saran Singh Vs St. of U.P. (2016) 4
SCC 397

4. Harljan Bhala Teja Vs St. of Guj. (2016) 12
SCC 665

5. Rajesh Prasad Vs St. of Bihar & anr. Criminal
Appeal No. 111113 of 2015

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar
Jaiswal, learned AGA for the State, Sri
706 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Pankaj Kumar Tyagi assisted by Sri Akash
Tyagi, learned counsel for the accusedrespondents and perused the record.

2. Learned AGA has informed this
Court that in the instant Government
Appeal, Raja Ram, Bhagwan Singh and
Sagar Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh has
already passed away and the instant appeal
on their behalf has already been abated vide
order dated 15.5.2024 and now the appeal
survives only qua appellant No. 3- Shri
Chand.

3. The present Government Appeal
has been filed against the judgment and
order dated 3.5.1983 passed by Special
Judge, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No.
230 of 1980 (State Vs. Raja Ram and
others), P.S. Gulaoti, District- Bulandshahr,
by which the accused-respondents have
been acquitted of all the charges framed
against them.

4. The prosecution case as
unraveled in the first information report
lodged at the instance of P.W.-6 Surajveer
is that the first formant is the permanent
resident
of
village-Bhadaula,
P.S.
Modinagar, District-Ghaziabad, however
for the last eight years they have been
living at the house of one Badley, their
maternal
uncle
resident
of
villageBarmadpur,
P.S.
Gulaoti,
District-
Bulandshahr, who was running a Wheat
Flour Mill (Aata-Chakki). It is alleged that
said Wheat Grinding Mill was run by Har
Lal brother of the first informant. On
19.6.1978 at about 5 p.m., elder daughter of
Shyami Gurjar reached at Wheat Grinding
Mill for collecting her wheat flour. At the
relevant time, Har Lal was present at the
Wheat Grinding Mill and incidently, his
shoulder rubbed against the shoulder of the
girl, consequent to which, she felt bad and
the girl after hurling abuses left for her
house.

5. It is further alleged that the said
factum was disclosed by his brother to
Pyare Lal and Bachan Singh. At about 7.30
p.m. when his brother after taking his meal
was sitting at the Wheat Grinding Mill,
Bhagwan Singh, Rajaram and Sagar Singh
reached there and started hurling abuses for
the aforesaid conduct of Har Lal. On his
refusal for the same, they took him away
for clarifying the said incident of the
matter. He alongwith his maternal uncle
started following them, however they were
stopped stating that he will return very soon
after clarifying the matter, as such they did
not accompany him.

6. It is further alleged that when
his brother Har Lal did not return back at
his Wheat Grinding Mill till 9.30 P.M., then
he alongwith his maternal uncle Badley set
out to know his whereabouts and searched
for him towards village- Ustara, where near
the canal contributory they saw Rajaram,
Bhagwan Singh, Sagar Singh. Shri Chand
son of Shyami alongwith 2-3 unknown
persons coming from the field of Jalla. It is
further alleged that they were carrying his
brother in a hanging position towards the
Wheat Grinding Mill Ustara. On their
interception they started assaulting his
maternal uncle Badley by lathi and also
rushed towards him, however he alongwith
his maternal uncle made his escape good.
On account of fear they stayed the whole
night in the Jungle and on the next morning
reached the police station to lodge the
report, however, found that all the accused
assailants were present there, as such they
dared not to enter the police station and on
making query, it was revealed that they had
killed his brother and had lodged a false
report of loot.
8 All. State of U.P. Vs. Raja Ram & Ors.
707
7. It is further alleged that on that
very day at about 6 p.m. he had sent a
telegram addressed to S.P, Bulandshahr
from Hapur. On the basis of said written
report, a first information report is shown
to have been registered on 22.6.1978 at
12.15 p.m., vide Case Crime No. 144A,
under Sections 147, 323, 504, 302 IPC, P.S.
Gulaoti, District- Bulandshahr in respect of
an incident alleged to have taken place on
19.6.1978 at 7.30 p.m.

8. Perusal of the record of the
instant case shows that prior to lodging of
the aforesaid first information report
another FIR had already been lodged by
Mukhtiar Singh father of accused Sagar
Singh at the same police station of District-
Bulandshahr, which is registered vide Case
Crime No. 144 of 1978, under Section 394
IPC alleging therein that near village-
Ustara they are having their fields having a
tubewell and a Wheat Grinding Mill, where
his son Sagar Singh alongwith his servant
Rajendra Singh were sleeping and a bulb
was lighting at the tube-well. At about
11.30 in the night, some miscreants came at
his tube-well and looted his son and servant
and assaulted them. On raising alarm, his
younger brother Parmal Singh alongwith
some
other
villagers
reached
there,
consequent thereto, the miscreants left the
place looting his wrist watch, however one
of the miscreant, who was having a country
made pistol alongwith cartridges was
apprehended by Rajendra and Sagar Singh
alongwith villagers. In the said attempt to
apprehend him, he suffered injuries on his
head. While the miscreant was being
carried in a buggi, he died in the
intervening night at about 2.30 A.M.
Leaving him in the buggi, he has come to
lodge the report. On the basis of a written
report a first information report has been
registered at P.S. Gulaoti, Bulandshahr on
20.6.1978 at 2.45 A.M. After registration of
the said information, its corresponding
G.D. Entry was prepared at the police
station and thereafter S.I. Dinesh Lal
Sharma (P.W.-12), who was posted there at
the relevant time, proceeded to village-
Ustara for conducting the inquest on the
person of the deceased and when he
reached near old Dharamshala, he found a
corpse lying in a buggi and large number of
persons had collected there. P.W.-12 Dinesh
Lal Sharma conducted the inquest of the
deceased and prepared the inquest report
and also prepared the other relevant
documents namely Challan nash, Photo
nash, Letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O. and
thereafter sealed the corpse in a cloth and
after preparing its sample seal handed over
the same to the police constable for
carrying to the mortuary for conducting of
an autopsy on the person of the deceased.

9. On 20.6.1978 at 4.45 p.m. Dr.
V.P. Mittal had conducted an autopsy on the
person of the deceased Har Lal and has
noted the following injuries :-

1. Lacerated wound 2 1⁄4" x
1⁄3" bone deep right Side head 4"
above right ear.
2. Lacerated wound 3⁄4" x
1⁄4" muscle deep tip of nose.
3. Contusion 4" x 4" right
shoulder.
4. Contusion 7" x 3" outer
aspect to arm middle.
5. Contusion 11" x 3 1⁄2"
outer and back of right forearm.
6. Stab wound 1" x 1⁄2"
right lateral chest cavity deep right
side chest 5" below right nipple at
8 o'clock upward and obliquely
directed.
7. Abrasion 3" x 1⁄4" right
side chest 2" above injury no. 6.
708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8.
Multiple
abraded
contusions are of 14 1⁄2" x 12 1⁄2"
on the back scapular region.
9. Traumatic swelling 7" x
3 1⁄2" front of right leg middle
fracture tibia right.
10. Contusion 3" x 1 1⁄2"
left shoulder.
11. Contusion 6" x 3 1⁄2"
front of left thigh lower 1/3rd.

The cause of death has
been noted to be as a result of
injuries.

10. After the autopsy on the person
of the deceased, his corpse was handed
over to his brother Surajveer and Badley,
who had taken the dead body to Hapur in a
truck. Enroute to Hapur it is stated that at
about 8.35 p.m. in the night on 20.6.1978 a
telegram addressed to S.P. Bulandshahr,
was sent by P.W.-6 Surajveer, wherein it is
stated that his brother Har Lal, who was
taken away by Rajaram, Bhagwan Singh
and Sagar, has been done to death at the
Wheat Grinding Mill of Sagar Singh in
village- Ustara and when he went to lodge
the report, the police detained him till 3
p.m. but did not lodge his report and is in
collusion with the accused persons. The
said telegram has been proved and marked
as Exhibit Ka - 2.

11. Perusal of the record further
shows that on 22.6.1978 P.W.-6 Surajveer
reached at P.S. Gulaoti and handed over a
written report to the Head Moharrir at
Police
Station-
Gulaoti,
District-
Bulandshahr, on the basis of which, a cross
case was registered vide Case Crime No.
144A, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 302
IPC against four accused respondents in
presence of Surajveer. After registration of
the aforesaid first information report, the
investigation of the said case was handed
over to P.W.-12 Dinesh Lal Sharma, Ist
Investigating Officer, who recorded the
statement of first informant Surajveer and
then proceeded to village- Barmadpur,
where he recorded the statement of Badley,
Ratiram, Ramphal, Jeet Singh and other
witnesses and thereafter inspected the place
of incident on way to Wheat Grinding Mill
and prepared the site plan proved and
marked as Exhibit Ka-17 & 18. On the way
to Wheat Grinding Mill of accused Sagar
Singh found blood at three places at the
boundary marks of Ramphal and Vedpal
and from the field of Khoob under the
mulberry tree. He collected the blood
stained earth and plain earth from the said
places, which was kept in a container and
sealed and its fard recovery memo was
prepared. The aforesaid recovery memo has
been proved and marked as Exbts. Ka-19,
20 & 21. On 22.6.1978, the Investigating
Officer is said to have collected a Register
maintained at the Wheat Grinding Mill of
the Surajveer containing the name of one
Kalicharan, who had given wheat for
grinding on 16.6.1978. On the basis of
which, a recovery memo has been prepared
by the Investigating Officer, which has
been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-16.
The
Investigating
Officer
thereafter
recorded the statement of Pyare Lal and
Bachan
Singh
and
thereafter
the
Investigation
is
said
to
have
been
transferred to P.W.-10- Shashi Pal Singh
Tomar, 2nd Investigating Officer, who after
concluding the investigation submitted the
charge
sheet
against
the
accusedrespondents on 28.11.1978.

12. On the basis of said charge
sheet,
learned
Magistrate
had
taken
cognizance and since the case was
exclusively triable by the court of Sessions,
as such the same was made over to the
8 All. State of U.P. Vs. Raja Ram & Ors.
709
court of Sessions for trial, where it was
registered as Session Trial No. 230 of 1980
(State vs. Rajaram and others). The trial
court framed the charges against the
accused-respondents, which was read over
and explained to them, who abjured the
charges, did not plead guilty and claimed to
be tried.

13. During the course of trial, the
prosecution in order to prove the guilt
against the accused respondents have
produced as many as twelve witnesses.
Badley
(P.W.-2),
Ratiram
(P.W.-3),
Ramphal Singh (P.W.-4), Jeet Singh (P.W5), Surajveer (P.W.-6) and Pyare Lal (P.W.-
11) are the witnesses of fact whereas Dr.
V.P. Mittal (P.W.-1) is the medical officer,
who conducted an autopsy on the person of
the deceased and prepared the post-mortem
examination report, Dr. Anees Ahmad
(P.W.-7) is the medical officer, who had
examined the injuries of P.W.-2- Badley,
Khoob Chand (P.W.-8) is the constable,
who had taken the dead body to the
mortuary for autopsy, Santpal Singh
(P.W.-9) is the Head Moharrir, who had
proved the chick first information report
lodged by Surajveer (P.W.-6), Shashi Pal
Singh Tomar (P.W.-10) is the second I.O.,
who concluded the investigation and
submitted the charge sheet and Dinesh
Lal Sharma (P.W.-12) is the Investigating
Officer
of
the
instant
case. After
recording
the
entire
evidence,
the
statement of the accused persons were
recoded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and
thereafter statement of one Dr. M.P.
Singh, who was produced as defence
witness, was recorded and thereafter the
trial court vide impugned judgment and
order dated 3.5.1983 has acquitted all the
accused persons. Against which, the
present Government Appeal has been
preferred with the prayer to reverse the
acquittal of the accused-respondents and
to convict them for the offence charged
with.

14. In order to appreciate the
controversy in question and to determine
the
correctness
of
the
conclusions
recorded by the trial court, it would be
apt to discuss the evidence in brief
adduced by the witnesses examined by
the prosecution as well as defence.

15. Dr. V.P. Mittal (P.W.-1) is the
medical officer, who had conducted an
autopsy on the person of the deceased
and has noted the ante-mortem injuries
found on the person of the deceased. The
said injuries have already been discussed
in the earlier part of the judgment. As per
the opinion of the doctor, the deceased
could have died on 19.6.1978 at 8.30 p.m.
and the injury no. 6 could be caused by a
knife, which itself was sufficient to cause
death, the other injuries could be caused
by lathi.

16. Badley (P.W.-2) is the maternal
uncle of the deceased. He, in his testimony,
has stated that Har Lal was his nephew, he
alongwith Surajveer were living with him
for the last eight years and used to run his
thresher and Wheat Grinding Mill. Accused
Bhagwan Singh and Shri Chand are the
nephews of Rajaram and accused Sagar
Singh is the friend of Shri Chand, resident
of village-Ustara. He further stated that
about four years back, Har Lal was done to
death. On the day of incident, Sheela
daughter of Kalicharan had reached at the
Wheat Grinding Mill of Har Lal for taking
flour. At the time of her leaving, Har Lal's
shoulder incidently brushed the shoulder of
Sheela, consequent thereto she felt bad
about it and started hurling abuses to Har
Lal, however thereafter she left. Badley
710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
further stated that on the same day in the
evening at about 7 p.m. he alongwith
Surajveer and Har Lal were sitting at the
Wheat Grinding Mill alongwith Pyare Lal
and Bachan, who are the employees of Har
Lal. At
the
relevant
time
Rajaram,
Bhagwan Singh and Sagar reached there
and Rajaram and Bhagwan asked Har Lal
as to why he pushed the girl and started
hurling abuses. Har Lal stated that he can
clarify the said issue and with an intention
to clarify things, set out with them. They
also tried to follow him, however Har Lal
stopped them stating that he would return
back after making clarification.

17. It is further stated that they
waited there till 9 p.m. however, Har Lal
did not return back at the Wheat Grinding
Mill and as such he alongwith Surajveer set
out to search him out and went upto the
house of Kalicharan but could not find him
there,
then
they
returned
back
and
proceeded
towards
village-Ustara
for
searching Har Lal and when they reached at
the bridge of the canal contributory near the
field of Jalla, they saw all four accused
persons alongwith three unknown persons,
who were having a bundle (hereinafter
referred to as gathri) from which cries of
some
person
could
be
heard.
On
questioning the accused assailants as to
where they left Har Lal they kept the gathri
down and Bhagwan Singh and Shri Chand
assaulted him with lathi, consequent to
which he fell down, however Surajveer
made his escape good and thereafter the
accused persons after assaulting him left
the place taking away the gathri. It was a
moon lit night. After the accused persons
left, he slowly proceeded towards his
village and on the way found Surajveer
sitting on the boundary marks of the field
of Kalicharan. He also sat with him and
remained sitting there the whole night due
to fear and on the next day when it dawned
morning they left for Gulaoti and reached
at the police station Gulaoti and asked the
police to lodge their report however, the
police personnel asked them to sit down,
but despite assurance did not lodge their
report.

18. It is further alleged that inside
the police station they saw all four accused
persons alongwith one Mukhtiar, father of
Sagar standing, however the police did not
lodge their report and continued to
converse with the accused persons. He
further categorically stated that he had seen
the dead body of Har Lal lying inside
police station. At about 10-11 a.m., the
police tied the corpse of Har Lal on a tonga
and asked him to take the corpse to
Bulandshahr. He sat alongwith the corpse
on the tonga and reached Bulandshahr.
Surajveer also reached separately at the
hospital in Bulandshahr. At the hospital his
injuries were examined. After the autopsy
on the person of deceased Har Lal, he
returned back to his house and corpse of
Har Lal was taken away by Surajveer to his
village.

19. During cross examination he
stated that Har Lal is the resident of
Bhadaula, District- Ghaziabad and one
P.W.-11 Pyare Lal is also of the same
village, however, the village of Bachan
Singh another witness is not known.
Surajveer brought Pyare Lal and Bachan at
his Wheat Grinding Mill for training. The
distance between village- Barmadpur and
Ustara is two miles.

20. Further, he stated that about 67 years back, elections for the office of
Pradhan were held in his village, which
was contested by Bhuley and Ramphal. He
supported the candidature of Ramphal
8 All. State of U.P. Vs. Raja Ram & Ors.
711
however, Bhuley was supported by accused
Bhagwan Singh, Rajaram and his family
members, and since then there has been
parti-bandi in the village.

21. He further stated that house of
Shri Chand, Bhagwan Singh and Rajaram
is situate at a distance of 25 paces from his
house. He further stated that in his village
there are four persons in the name of Shri
Chand, however accused Shri Chand is the
son of Kalicharan. After about 3-4 days of
the incident, the Investigating Officer had
recorded his statement. He further stated
that the incident of brushing of shoulder of
Har Lal with Sheela resulting in hurling of
abuses by Sheela did not occur in his
presence but was disclosed to him by Har
Lal, which fact he had disclosed to the
Investigating Officer. However, if the said
factum has not been recorded by the I.O. in
his statement, then he cannot explain the
reason for the same. He further stated that
in the evening he was sitting at his Wheat
Grinding Mill when the accused persons
reached there. Pyare Lal (P.W.-11) and
Bachan were also sitting there. He further
stated that as soon as the accused persons
reached there, they started hurling abuses,
which lasted for 2-3 minutes, however then
he did not suspect that the accused persons
will commit such an incident. He did not
restrain Har Lal not to accompany the
accused alone in the night hours. The
accused took him away to give clarification
before the girl. There was no reason to
follow them. It is wrong to state that the
accused persons did not come at his Wheat
Grinding Mill and Har Lal did not
accompany them. At the time of setting out
to search Har Lal he did not ask Pyarelal
and Bachan to accompany him. He further
stated that on the day of incident when he
alongwith Surajveer reached at the canal
contributory, in search of Har Lal no
persons were present there. When for the
first time he had seen the 'gathri', he was 56 paces away from it. The said place was
pointed out by him to the Investigating
Officer, however he cannot explain as to
why Investigating Officer has not shown
the said place in the site-plan.

22. He further stated that "मैनें दरोगा को
यह ब्यान बदया था "हमने मुिबजमान से पूछा बक तुमने हरिाि को
कहाूँ छोडा इतने में उन्होनें गठरी रख दी। िगवान बसंह व श्री चन्द ने
मुझे िाठी मारी।" यह िात दरोगाजी ने क्यों नहीं बिखी कारण नही
िता सकता।

मेरी चोर्ों से खून नही बनकिा। मैनें दरोगाजी को िता
बदया था बक जि मैं बगर गया तो मुिबजमान ने और िाठी मारी यह
िात ब्यान में नहीं बिखी, कारण नहीं िता सकता।
मुिबजमान के जाने के िाद मैं उठ कर अपने गांव की
तरफ चि बदया। मै 40, 50 गज िरमदपुर की तरफ चिा तो मुझे
सूरजवीर मेंड पर िैठा बमिा। मैनें दरोगाजी को ब्यान बदया था बक "
मै मुिबजमान के चिे जाने के िाद िीरे िीरे उठ कर गाूँव कीर तरफ
चिा और मेरा िाूँजा सूरजवीर मेंड पर िैठा बमिा मै उसके साथ िैठ
गया और रात िर वहीं िैठा रहा " मैं कारण नहीं िता सकता मेरे
ब्यान में क्यों नही बिखा।
हम थाने के िीतर नही गये हमें थाने के फार्क पर ही
बिठा बदया था। मुझे फार्क पर पुबिस के बसपाही बमिे थे कहा था
यही िैठना। मैने उस बसपाही से कहा था बक हमे अन्दर जाने दो रपर्
करानी है तो बसपाही ने कह बदया यही िैठे रहे। हरिाि की िार्
घोडा तांगे में रखी थाने के फार्क पर ही आ गई ताूँगे में मैं िैठा एक
चोकीदार िैठा। िार् िाहर आ जाने के िाद मैंने थाने में घुसने का
प्रयास नही बकया क्योबक डर गया।
जि हम अस्पताि से िार् िेकर चिे तो रात हो गई
थी। मैने या सुरजवीर ने थाना कोतवािी में कोई रपर् नही बिखाई। मै
और सूरजवीर चीरघर से िार् िेकर ठेिे से गुिावर्ी आठ िजे आ
गये। गुिावर्ी पहुूँचकर मैं ठेिे से उतर गया और सूरजवीर िार्
िेकर अपने घर चिा गया।
मैनें दरोगाजी को यह ब्यान बदया था " हमने कहा बक
हमारी ररपोर्श बिख दो थाने वािो ने कहा की िैठ जाओ हम तुम्हारी
ररपोर्श बिख देगे। थाने वािो ने हमारी ररपोर्श नही बिखी" मेरे ब्यान
मे दरोगा ने यह िात नहीं बिखी कारण नही िता सकता।"

23. He further stated that it is
wrong to state that no such incident has
712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
taken place and on account of parti-bandi
and enmity, he is falsely deposing. He
further denied the suggestion that on
19.6.1978 accused Sagar Singh and his
servant were sleeping at the tube-well and
at about 11.30 p.m. Har Lal and 2-3 other
miscreants went at the tube-well and
assaulted him and looted him. He further
denied the suggestion that Mukhtiar and
Sagar Singh were taking away the dead
body at Gulaoti on a buggi, where he died.
He further denied the suggestion that in
order to save himself from the incident
reported by Mukhtiar Singh, he is falsely
deposing.

24. Rati Ram (P.W.-3) is an
another witness of the incident, who alleges
to have seen Sri Rajaram, Bhagwan Sahai
and Sagar taking away Har Lal towards
Ustara. In his oral testimony he states that
about four years back at about 8 p.m. he
had gone to ease and while he was
returning back home, he met 6-7 persons
but identified Sri Rajaram, Bhagwan Singh
and Sagar. Har Lal was also there, Sagar
and Shri had held Har Lal by his shoulders,
Rajaram gagged his mouth and Bhagwan
Singh was pushing him towards villageUstara. They were armed with lathies. On
being questioned they asked him to leave
and stated that it is none of his concern. On
the next day, he came to know that Har Lal
was done to death.

25. During cross examination, he
stated that after three days of the incident,
he was interrogated by the Investigating
Officer. He in his statement recorded u/s
161 Cr.P.C. had disclosed the fathers name
of accused persons however, if it is not
there he cannot assign any reason for the
same. Since last one year, there is no
dispute between him and accused Bhagwan
Singh. He had gone to ease near the pond,
however except the accused persons no one
was met him there. He had pointed out the
said place to the Investigating Officer,
however, he does not finds the said place,
shown in the site-plan for which he cannot
state anything. He saw the accused persons
for a minutes who thereafter proceeded
towards vilalge-Ustara and he returned
back home and remained there till his
statement was recorded by the Investigating
Officer. He further stated that he did not
disclose the aforesaid fact to any other
person except the Investigating Officer. He
further stated that there are two persons by
the name of Kalicharan, one is father of
Shri Chand and other Kalicharan is the son
of
Girdhari.
He
further
denied
the
suggestion that because of inimical terms
and parti-bandi and on the instigation of
Surajveer
and
Badley
he
is
falsely
deposing.

26. Ramphal Singh (P.W.-4) is
another eye witness, who claims to have
seen the accused persons assaulting the
deceased. He stated that about four and a
half years back at about 8.30 p.m. he was
easing in his millet field. When he saw 6-7
persons taking away Har Lal from village
Barmadpur to village- Ustara. He identified
Sagar, Bhagwan Singh, Rajaram and Shri
Chand amongst them but not the three
others. Sagar and Bhagwan Singh were
holding him by his arms and rest were
pushing him. Rajaram held him by his
mouth. When Rajaram hands slipped from
the mouth of Har Lal then he had bitten
Sagarmal, consequent to which, Sagar
asked Shri Chand to stab him by a knife.
Shri Chand then assaulted Har Lal by a
knife while others assaulted him by lathies.
Thereafter they wrapped him in a bed
sheet, hanged him on a lathi and proceeded
towards
village-Ustara.
He
further
categorically stated that he did not reacted
8 All. State of U.P. Vs. Raja Ram & Ors.
713
at all and returned back to his home. Next
day he came to know that Har Lal had been
killed by the accused persons. At the time
of incident, there was moon light.

27. During cross examination, he
stated that in number of cases, he had been
a police witness and had deposed before the
Court. He further stated that he had pointed
out to the Investigating Officer the place,
where he had gone to ease, however the
said place has not been shown in the siteplan. He further stated that he had seen the
accused persons from a distance of 4-5
paces but did not question them, when
accused persons had taken Har Lal towards
village-Ustara then he returned back to his
house. After 3-4 days of the incident, the
Investigating Officer has recorded his
statement. He further stated that on the next
day the factum of accused taking away Har
Lal was disclosed by him to the villagers,
however, he did not consider it necessary to
lodge any report of the incident.

28. During cross examination he
stated that he saw the accused persons and
their men dragging away Har Lal towards
Ustara but no mark of dragging was seen
by him. He further denied the suggestion
that on account of enmity and parti-bandi
and under the influence of police he is
falsely deposing.

29. Jeet Singh (P.W.-5) is the
another witness of the incident and he
stated that about four years back at about
10 p.m. he alongwith one Charan Singh
was returning from village-Ustara to his
village and when he reached near the
mulberry tree in the field of Vedu, he saw
5-7 persons present, out of which Rajaram,
Sagar, Shri and Bhagwan Singh could be
identified however, the other three persons
standing under the mulberry could not be
identified. They were armed with lathies
and a bundle (gathri) was lying there. He
tried to question them, however he was
snubbed. Thereafter on the next day he
came to know that Har Lal has been killed.
He further denied the suggestion that there
is some dispute between him and Rajaram
over irrigation of their fields by rotation.

30. He further stated that on the
relevant day of incident, he had gone
alongwith Charan Singh to purchase a
buffalo, however, could not buy it. He
further stated that he did not disclose to the
Investigating Officer that he had gone to
Sherpur to buy a buffalo rather had stated
to him that after completing his job he was
returning back from Ustara which was
correct. He further stated that he had
pointed out the place to the Investigating
Officer, from where he had seen the
accused persons but it has not been shown
in the site plan. He had disclosed the said
incident to the some villagers and then
went to sleep and on the next day he came
to know about the murder of Har Lal
however, he did not lodge the report nor
asked anyone else to lodge the report. He
further stated that he is related to Badley.
He further denied the suggestion that on
account of being the relative of Badley and
being an inimical terms and under the
pressure of the police, he is falsely
deposing.

31. Surajveer (P.W-6) is the first
informant of the incident and brother of the
deceased. He further stated that since last
eight years, he has been staying in village-
Barmadpur alongwith his brother Har Lal
at the house of his maternal uncle, where he
runs a Wheat Grinding Mill and a thresher
machine. About four years back at about 5
p.m. Sheela daughter of Kalicharan had
come at his Wheat Grinding Mill for
714 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
grinding of wheat, however, while she was
leaving, her shoulder brushed with the
shoulder of Har Lal, consequent to which,
she hurled abuses and left. On the same day
at about 7 p.m. When he alongwith his
brother Har Lal, maternal uncle Badley,
servants Bachan Singh and Pyare Lal were
present at the Wheat Grinding Mill,
Bhagwan Singh, Rajaram and Sagar came
at the Wheat Grinding Mill armed with
lathies and started hurling abuses and asked
Har Lal to explain his conduct of brushing
his shoulder with that of the girl. He
alongwith Har Lal tried to clarify the issue
however, they restrained him there and took
away Har Lal stating that he will come
back after clarifying the issue. When Har
Lal did not return back even after 9 p.m.
then he alongwith Badley set out to find out
his whereabouts and went towards the
house of Kalicharan but did not find him
there then they proceeded towards canal
contributory to search Har Lal and when
they reached on the bridge of the canal near
the field of Jalla then they heard some faint
noise and were 4-5 mitres away then saw
Rajaram, Lakhan Singh, Sagar and Shri
Chand alongwith 2-3 unknown persons
holding a gathri proceeding towards
village-Ustara. The said gathri was hanging
on a lathi. On questioning them about Har
Lal they kept down the gathri and started
assaulting them. He did not receive any
injury and ran away, however, his maternal
uncle received injuries. He thereafter hid
himself in the field of Rajaram. After 5
minutes Badley also reached there and on
account of fear they stayed there the whole
night and in the morning at about 5 a.m.
reached police station- Gulaoti to lodge the
report. On reaching there they found the
accused persons present in the police
station- Gulaoti, however, the police
personal asked them to sit outside the
police station and detained them there till
11
a.m.
On
questioning
the
police
personnels, he was informed that accused
persons had lodged a false report of dacoity
and had killed Har Lal. At about 11 a.m. the
police personnels sent the corpse of Har Lal
for post-mortem by a tonga, on which his
maternal uncle also sat and subsequently,
he also reached at the mortuary in
Bulandshahr. At about 5 p.m. after the postmortem the corpse of Har Lal was handed
over to him, who brought corpse on a truck
to Hapur and thereafter at about 8 p.m. he
sent
a
telegram
addressed
to
S.P.
Bulandhahr, a copy of which is proved and
marked as Exbt. Ka-2 and thereafter he
took the corpse to his village- Bhadaula.
On the next day he came to Bulandshahr
and met the S.P. who took a written report,
which has been proved and marked as
Exbt. Ka-3 signed by him and scribed by
one Dilawar Singh. The accounts of Wheat
Grinding Mill was maintained by his
brother Har Lal in a register marked as
Material Exhibit- 1, which contains an
entry dated 16.06.1978 in the name of
Kalicharan, which has been marked as
Exhibit- 4.

32. During cross examination he
stated that he was an Army personnel and
remained in Army Services for five years
however, he was tried and convicted in a
case. He used to visit his nanihal since
childhood and the house of the accused
persons is at a distance of 100-150 meters
from his chakk. He has further stated that
although he was aware of the parentage of
accused Rajaram, Bhagwan Singh and
Sagar but did not mention it in the FIR. He
further stated that he had not mentioned the
name of Shri Chand in his telegram as he
was in a hurry and had nominated only
three persons in the telegram as only these
three persons came to call his brother. After
three days of the incident, the Investigating
8 All. State of U.P. Vs. Raja Ram & Ors.
715
Officer had recorded his statement. He
further stated that in the FIR he had stated
that Sheela daughter of Kalicharan had
come for grinding of her wheat at his
Wheat Grinding Mill, however if the said
fact is not written there, he cannot assign
any reason for the same. He further stated
that when he reached at his Wheat Grinding
Mill at 6.30 P.M., the incident with Sheela
had already been over.

33. He further stated that when
accused persons came at his Wheat
Grinding Mill in the evening he was sitting
however, no one else was sitting with him.
Though he saw the accused persons were
armed with lathi but he did not suspect
anything
otherwise.
On
drawing
his
attention to the register marked as Material
Exhibit-1, he pointed out that name of the
person, who comes for grinding of wheat,
is entered in the register however, in the
said register name of Sheela is not
mentioned. He further stated that he is not
aware of the fact that there are two persons
in the name of Kalicharan in his village.

34.