# State of U.P v. Rajdeo Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 1251
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-29
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 3087 of 1986
- **Bench:** Rajiv Gupta, Surendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-rajdeo-singh-ors-52234
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 149, 395, 436, 323,
325 & 506 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 82, 83, 145,
161 & 313 - Appeal against acquittal -
According to prosecution case, deceased
was going to his School, respondents
assaulted him - Incident witnessed by
P.W.-1, P.W.-2 - Gun used for attracting
witnesses, two shots fired, no injury
caused to deceased, injuries are lathi
injuries - P.W.-2, reached house of
deceased for complaining about damage,
not earlier mentioned, first time in court -
P.W.-2
reached
place
of
incident
alongwith P.W.-1, highly doubtful, showed
himself as an eyewitness - Pending civil
and criminal litigations, enmity between
respondents and family of deceased -
P.W.-1, highly inimical and interested
witness, chances of false implication of
respondents
can't
be
ruled
out
-
Testimony
of
P.W.-1
suffers
from
inconsistencies,
embellishments
-
FIR
lodged by P.W.-1 himself, in his testimony,
he denied the version, but narrated as his
father told him after the incident - Not
mentioned in FIR - In the entire testimony
of P.W.-1, bringing police constables at
his
house,
action
taken
by
police
personnels,
not
explained
by
him,
police
constables
has
not
been
examined - P.W.-1 St.d assailants after
assaulting
his
father,
looted
jewelleries, set house on fire - Before
trial court, he St.d that this was not
personally viewed by him, but narrated
to him by his sister-in-law, mother and
father, not mentioned in FIR - Postmortem
report
doesn't
corroborate
prosecution
story
- After
receiving
injuries, particularly on head, difficult
to believe that on narration of incident
given by injured, the prosecution case
has been developed as St.d by PW-1 -
Ornaments not disclosed nor recovered
during investigation. (Para 61, 64, 68,
71, 76, 77, 79, 83, 84, 97, 100, 101)

Appeal dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,943 of 80,377. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39943 for what follows._

7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Rajdeo Singh & Ors.
1251
aware of their responsibilities and the
importance
of
adhering
to
statutory
deadlines.

27. Accordingly, a direction is
issued upon the Principal Secretary (Law),
Government of Uttar Pradesh, to take
necessary steps, in order to avoid the filing
of appeals beyond the statutory time limits,
by
the
Government.
The
Principal
Secretary (Law) is also directed to submit a
report before this Court on the action taken
in this regard within 6 months from the
date of this judgment. The Principal
Secretary (Law) may take assistance of a
committee of experts as may be required.

28. Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to communicate this order to the
Principal Secretary (Law) forthwith.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1251
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2024

BEFORE

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

Government Appeal No. 3087 of 1986

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Rajdeo Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A., G.D. Mekavi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Uttar Kumar Goswami, Pulak Ganguly, Ravi
Bhushan Singh, Sharda Chauhan, Praveen
Kumar Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 149, 395, 436, 323,
325 & 506 - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 82, 83, 145,
161 & 313 - Appeal against acquittal -
According to prosecution case, deceased
was going to his School, respondents
assaulted him - Incident witnessed by
P.W.-1, P.W.-2 - Gun used for attracting
witnesses, two shots fired, no injury
caused to deceased, injuries are lathi
injuries - P.W.-2, reached house of
deceased for complaining about damage,
not earlier mentioned, first time in court -
P.W.-2
reached
place
of
incident
alongwith P.W.-1, highly doubtful, showed
himself as an eyewitness - Pending civil
and criminal litigations, enmity between
respondents and family of deceased -
P.W.-1, highly inimical and interested
witness, chances of false implication of
respondents
can't
be
ruled
out
-
Testimony
of
P.W.-1
suffers
from
inconsistencies,
embellishments
-
FIR
lodged by P.W.-1 himself, in his testimony,
he denied the version, but narrated as his
father told him after the incident - Not
mentioned in FIR - In the entire testimony
of P.W.-1, bringing police constables at
his
house,
action
taken
by
police
personnels,
not
explained
by
him,
police
constables
has
not
been
examined - P.W.-1 St.d assailants after
assaulting
his
father,
looted
jewelleries, set house on fire - Before
trial court, he St.d that this was not
personally viewed by him, but narrated
to him by his sister-in-law, mother and
father, not mentioned in FIR - Postmortem
report
doesn't
corroborate
prosecution
story
- After
receiving
injuries, particularly on head, difficult
to believe that on narration of incident
given by injured, the prosecution case
has been developed as St.d by PW-1 -
Ornaments not disclosed nor recovered
during investigation. (Para 61, 64, 68,
71, 76, 77, 79, 83, 84, 97, 100, 101)

Appeal dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Darshan Singh Vs St. of Pun., (2024) 3 SCC
164
1252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Rohtash Vs St. of Har.a, (2012) 6 SCC 589

3. Sunil Kumar Shambhudayal Gupta & ors. Vs
St. of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657

4. Rudrappa Ramappa Jainpur & ors. Vs St. of
Karn., (2004) 7 SCC 422

5. Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs Chaluverapinake
Apal S.P. & anr., (2003) 3 SCC 175

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

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

8. Rajesh Prasad Vs St. of Bihar & anr., (Criminal
Appeal No. 111113 of 2015)

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

1. Heard Shri Jitendra Kumar
Jaiswal, learned AGA assisted by Shri
Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel
for the State/ appellant, Shri Pulak
Ganguly, learned counsel assisted by Shri
Ravi Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for
the accused-respondents and perused the
record.

2. This government appeal has
been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 18.08.1986 passed by Sessions
Judge, Ghazipur in Sessions Trial No. 175
of 1986 (State of U.P. Vs. Raj Deo Singh
and 4 Others), arising out of Case Crime
No. 79 of 1985, under Sections 147, 148,
149, 395, 436, 323, 325, 506 IPC, Police
Station Sadat, District Ghazipur, by which,
the
accused-respondents
have
been
acquitted of all the charges framed against
them.

3. During the pendency of the said
government appeal, accused-respondent
nos. 3 and 4 Raj Narain Singh and Ram
Ashrey Singh has already passed away and
as such, the instant government appeal qua
accused-respondent nos. 3 and 4 Raj Narain
Singh and Ram Ashrey Singh has been
abated vide order dated 19.04.2018 and
now,
it
survives
only
for
accusedrespondent nos. 1, 2 and 5, Raj Deo Singh,
Vikrama Singh and Radhey Shyam Singh.

4. The prosecution story as
unfurled in the FIR is that on the day of
incident at about 9:30 AM, Buddhi Ram,
father of the first informant was going
towards Ghazipur and when, he reached
near the Bawli, accused persons Raj Deo,
Vikrama, Raj Narain, Ram Ashrey and
Radhey Shyam suddenly emerged from the
willow. Witnessing them, Buddhi Ram
went into the field of Shiv Pujan, Raj Deo
then caught hold of him and immediately
thereafter, Vikrama, Raj Narain, Ram
Ashrey and Radhey Shyam also reached
there. Radhey Shyam and Ram Ashrey
fired a shot.

5. The accused persons thereafter
started assaulting Buddhi Ram with lathidanda and twisted his hands and legs
causing fracture injuries. Vikrama and Raj
Narain gave 50 blows on the knees of
Buddhi Ram and twisted his legs whereas
Radhey Shyam assaulted him by kicks and
fists. On alarm being raised by Buddhi
Ram, first informant and number of other
villagers from Harijan Basti reached at the
place of incident. The accused persons
chased them armed with guns. After
assaulting Buddhi Ram, accused Vikrama
snatched his two passbooks and a wrist
watch.

6. It is further alleged that accused
persons reached at the house of Buddhi
Ram and snatched the ornaments of
inmates of house and thereafter, set his
house on fire. Consequent to which, several
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Rajdeo Singh & Ors.
1253
articles of his house were burnt. Thereafter,
the inmates of the house ran away from
there. The accused persons are alleged to
have chased Deo Nath, elder son of Buddhi
Ram and one Lacchan, with their guns,
however, they made their escape good.

7. According to the prosecution
own case, it is further stated that PW-1 Shiv
Prasad, after witnessing the incident of
assault on his father in the field of Shiv
Pujan, straight away went to the Police
Outpost Bahariyabad, where he met two
police Constable and one Head Constable
and brought them to his home, where he
was informed by his sister-in-law that his
father has been taken away to the Police
Station, as such, he alone left for the Police
Station, however, on the way near the
temple, met his father lying on a cot, who
told him that when he reached in the field
of Shiv Pujan, then the assailants emerged
from the willow and started assaulting him.

8. It is further stated that PW-1
scribed the first information report near the
temple and thereafter, injured Buddhi Ram
is said to have been taken to the Police
Station Sadat, where written report (Exhibit
Ka-1) was handed over to the Moharrir by
Shiv Prasad (PW-1), on the basis of which,
chik first information report (Exhibit Ka-2)
was registered at Police Station Sadat vide
Case Crime No. 79 of 1985, under Sections
147, 148, 149, 395, 436, 323, 325, 506 IPC,
the corresponding G.D. Entry of which was
also drawn vide G.D. Report No. 17 at
11:45 hours, which has been proved and
marked as Exhibit Ka-3.

9. After registration of the FIR, the
victim was sent to the Primary Heath
Centre
(P.H.C.),
Sadat
for
medical
examination and the investigation of the
said case was taken over by PW-9 S.I. Brij
Mohan Singh.

10. On 11.09.1985 at 1:00 PM,
injured
Buddhi
Ram
was
medically
examined by Dr. Virendra Pal Singh at
P.H.C., Sadat, who noted following injuries
on his person :-

(i) Contusion 1 x 1/2 cm x 1
cm over the right elbow joint
posterior aspect surrounded by
diffuse swelling around right elbow.
Direction oblique, colour red, Kept
under observation, advised X-Ray
right elbow with its lower part and
upper par of right fore-arm.
(ii)
Abrasion
with
contusion 4 cm x 1 cm over right
knee joint lateral aspect direction
oblique, colour red, surrounded by
diffuse
swelling.
Kept
under
observation. Advised X-Ray right
knee joint.
(iii) Abrasion 1 x 1/2 cm x
1 cm over root of right toe on
anterior aspect. No scab seen.
(iv)
Contusion
with
abrasion 9 cm x 2 cm over lateral
aspect of left knee joint extending
upwards 6 x 1/2 cm above the left
knee joint, surrounded by diffuse
swelling. Kept under observation.
Direction vertical, advised X-Ray
lower part of left thigh including
left knee joint.
(v) Contusion 3 x 1/2 cm x
2 cm over anterolateral aspect of
left leg 6 cm below left knee joint
surrounded by diffuse swelling
colour red, direction oblique. Kept
under observation, advised X-Ray
left leg upper part.
(vi) Traumatic swelling 4
cm x 2 x 1/2 cm on the lower part
1254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of left leg 7 cm above the lateral
malleolus on lateral aspect. Kept
under observation, advised X-Ray
lower part of left leg.
(vii) He kept injuries nos.
1, 2 and 4 to 6 under observation
and advised X-Ray. In his opinion,
injury no. 3 was simple and that all
the injuries were fresh at the time
of medical examination.

11. After medical examination,
Doctor advised the victim to be taken to the
District Hospital, Ghazipur for higher
treatment and further management. The
victim was accordingly brought to the
District Hospital, Ghazipur and admitted
there, however, he succumbed to his
injuries on 12.09.1985 at 3:50 AM. The
information
about
his
death
was
accordingly sent to the Police Station
Kotwali, District Ghazipur.

12. On the basis of the said
information, Hari Shankar Verma (PW-7)
reached the District Hospital and conducted
the inquest on the person of the deceased
and prepared the inquest report (Exhibit
Ka-8). The relevant documents, namely,
challan nash, photo nash, letter to C.M.O.,
etc. were also prepared by PW-7, which has
been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-10
to Exhibit Ka-12.

13. After the inquest, the dead
body was sealed in a cotton cloth by
preparing the sample seal and handed over
to the constable for taking it to the
mortuary for post-mortem examination.

14. The Medical Officer (PW-7)
Dr.
Maan
Bahadur
Mal,
thereafter,
conducted an autopsy on the person of the
deceased on 12.09.1985 at 4:00 PM and has
found following injuries on his person :-
(i) Abrasion 3 cm x 1cm
above right eye ball.
(ii) Abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm,
4 cm above left eye ball.
(iii) Abrasion 15 cm x 1 cm
right elbow with multiple fracture
underlying bone.
(iv) Abrasion 7 cm x 4 cm
right knee.
(v) Abrasion 8 cm x 5 cm
left knee with fracture.
(vi) Abrasion 1.5 cm x 0.5
cm left elbow joint.
(vii) Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm,
4 cm below left nipple.
(viii) Abrasion 10 cm X 2
cm left lower abdomen.
(ix) Abraded contusion 2
cm x 1.5 cm, 11 cm below right
knee.
(x) In the opinion of the
Doctor, death was caused due to
shock and haemorrhage as a result
of anti-mortem injuries mentioned
above.

15. After lodging of the first
information
report,
the
Investigating
Officer (PW-9) reached the place of
incident and tried to trace out the accused
persons, however, they were not traceable.
The
Investigating
Officer
thereafter
recorded the statement of the witnesses
Deo Nath and Smt. Sharda and inspected
the place of incident and prepared the site
plan, which has been proved and marked as
Exhibit Ka-13.

16. From the place of incident, the
Investigating Officer had also found a live
cartridge,
which
was
taken
in
his
possession and its fard recovery memo was
prepared, which has been proved and
marked as Exhibit Ka-14. He also collected
the ashes of burnt Chhappar and kept it in a
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Rajdeo Singh & Ors.
1255
container and prepared its fard recovery
memo, which has been proved and marked
as Exhibit Ka-14-A.

17. After inspecting the place of
incident, the Investigating Officer (PW-9)
reached
the
Primary
Health
Centre
(P.H.C.), Sadat, where he was informed that
victim Buddhi Ram has already been sent
to the District Hospital, Ghazipur for
further treatment. Further on 12.09.1985,
he reached the place of incident, where he
was informed by Deo Nath that Buddhi
Ram
had
already
passed
away
on
12.09.1985. On the said date, he had shown
to have arrested the accused Raj Narain and
recorded his statement and then, reached
the Mortuary, where he recorded the
statement of first informant Shiv Prasad
and his mother Budhiya and examined the
other relevant witnesses.

18. Thereafter, on the basis of the
post-mortem report, converted the case
under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, the
necessary G.D. Entry was made vide G.D.
Entry No. 22 on 13.09.1985. He is said to
have recorded the statement of Lacchan
and thereafter, initiated the proceedings
under Sections 82/83 CrPC against the
absconding accused persons and after being
informed of their surrender in District Jail,
reached there and recorded their statements
on 17.09.1985 and after concluding the
investigation, submitted the charge-sheet,
which has been proved and marked as
Exhibit Ka-29 on 18.09.1985.

19. On the basis of the said chargesheet,
learned
Magistrate
had
taken
cognizance, however, since the case was
triable by the court of Sessions, committed
the same to the court of Sessions for trial,
where it was numbered as Sessions Trial
No. 175 of 1985 (State of U.P. Vs. Raj Deo
Singh and 4 Others). The trial court
thereafter framed charges against the
accused-respondents
vide
order
dated
24.01.1986, which was read out and
explained to them, who abjured the
charges, did not plead guilty and claimed to
be tried.

20. In order to prove the guilt
against
the
accused
persons,
the
prosecution has examined as many as 9
witnesses. Shiv Prasad (PW-1), son of the
deceased as well as first informant of the
incident and Lachhan Ram (PW-2) has
been examined as witnesses of fact. Head
Constable Girja Shankar Tripathi, who has
drawn the first information report and
proved
the
G.D.
Entries,
has
been
examined as PW-3. Constable Surendra
Kumar Singh is the police personnel, who
took the dead body to the Mortuary for
post-mortem
examination.
PW-5
Dr.
Virendra Pal Singh is the Medical Officer,
who examined the injuries of the victim.
PW-6 Dr. Maan Bahadur Mal is also the
Medical Officer, who conducted an autopsy
on the person of the deceased and proved
the post-mortem report. PW-7 S.I. Hari
Shankar Verma, who conducted the inquest
on the person of the deceased and proved
the same. PW-8 Constable Ajay Kumar
Singh, who had taken the victim to the
P.H.C., Sadat for medical examination.
PW-9 S.I. Brij Mohan Singh is the
Investigating Officer, who investigated the
case and submitted charge-sheet against the
accused persons, on the basis of which,
they were put to trial.

21. After recording of the entire
evidence, the statement of the accused
persons were recorded under Section 313
CrPC. The accused persons did not produce
any oral evidence in their defence but they
filed some documents, marked as Exhibit
1256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kha -1 to Kha-8, thereafter, the trial court
vide impugned judgment and order dated
20.03.1984, has acquitted all the accused
persons of all the charges framed against
them, against which, present government
appeal has been preferred with the prayer to
reverse the acquittal of the accusedrespondents and to convict them for the
offence charged with.

22. In order to appreciate the
controversy, in question, involved in the
present government appeal, it would be apt
to discuss the statements of the witnesses,
in brief, recorded during the course of trial.

23. PW-1 Shiv Prasad is the son of
the deceased as well as first informant of
the incident. He, in his statement, has stated
that his father Buddhi Ram (deceased) was
a teacher in Basic Primary Pathshala and at
the relevant time, he was discharging his
duties as a teacher. He further stated that
Prabhu Nath Singh is the Pradhan of the
Village, who are five brothers, namely, Deo
Nath Singh, Bihari Singh, Gauri Shankar
Singh and Sadhu Singh. Accused Raj Deo
and Vikrama are the real brothers and sons
of Jamadar Singh. Accused Ram Ashrey
and Raj Narain are also real brothers and
Deo Nath and Prabhu Nath are their uncles.
Deo Nath's wife Indrawati and Jamadar
Singh's wife Chandri are real sisters. It is
thus stated that Vikrama, Ram Ashrey, Raj
Narain, Raj Deo are related to each other.

24. It is further stated that Pradhan
Prabhu Nath Singh had given plot nos. 29
and 36 of Village Hartara to Buddhi Ram
on lease, however, he could not get
possession over the said land. It is further
stated that a complaint under Section 420
IPC was instituted by Pradhan Prabhu Nath
Singh against Buddhi Ram and his sons,
Deo Nath and Shiv Prasad alleging therein
that they had obtained lease of the said
plots by fraud and cheating, as such, a case
under Section 420 IPC was instituted
against them, in which, accused Radhey
Shyam was a witness, however, they were
acquitted in the said case.

25. It is further stated that Sehan of
the house of Buddhi Ram fell in the plot
no. 29 and they were in possession over
that land. It is also stated that on plot no.
36, Jamadar Singh, father of the accused
Raj Deo and Vikrama, had installed a
Pumping Set, for which, a civil suit was
also filed, in which, they had succeeded. A
case under Section 145 CrPC was also
instituted between Jamadar Singh and
Buddhi Ram etc. regarding plot no. 36.

26. It is further stated that about 45 years back, accused Raj Deo, Vikrama
and Naresh had beaten Smt. Budhiya, wife
of Buddhi Ram and mother of the first
informant Shiv Prasad, for which, they
were prosecuted and convicted.

27. It is further stated that on
account of said litigations between the
parties, accused persons had become
inimical with Buddhi Ram. Buddhi Ram
had given applications to the higher
authorities for the protection of his life and
property. It is further stated that on the date
and time of the incident, he was present at
his house alongwith Lacchan (PW-2). At
about 9:30 AM on 11.09.1985, his father
left the house for his school. After some
time, he heard a noise of firearm and cries
of his father, consequent to which, he
reached near the Bawli alongwith Lacchan,
where he saw Raj Deo, Vikrama, Raj
Narain, Ram Ashrey and Radhey Shyam
assaulting his father by lathi. On their
raising alarm, villagers also reached there
and then, Ram Ashrey and Radhey Shyam
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Rajdeo Singh & Ors.
1257
are said to have fired and when, he reached
in the field of Shyam Singh, he saw the
assailants assaulting his father and started
breaking his hands and legs. Seeing the
incident, he left for Police Outpost
Bahariyabad. On reaching there, he met
two
police
Constables
and
a
Head
Constable and brought them to the place of
incident, where he was told by his sister-inlaw that his father had already been taken
to the Police Station, thereafter, he
proceeded towards the Police Station but
on the way near the temple, met his father,
who disclosed him that when he reached in
the field of Shiv Pujan, then the assailants
emerged from the willow and Raj Deo
caught hold of him, thereafter, other
assailants forcibly threw him on the ground
and assaulted him. He was also informed
by his father that they had snatched a wrist
watch and two passbooks. On the basis of
the information given by his father and the
incident witnessed by he himself, he lodged
the first information report, which has been
marked as Exhibit Ka-1. Thereafter, his
father has been brought to the P.H.C.,
Sadat, where his injuries were examined
and thereafter, he was referred to the
District Hospital, Ghazipur for further
treatment. He was then brought at District
Hospital and admitted there, where during
treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on
12.09.1985.

28. During cross-examination,
PW-1 stated that the field of Shiv Pujan is
in the north side of the Bawli. He further
stated that first information report of the
said incident was scribed by him near the
temple, which is a distance of about 200
meters from his house. He further stated
that whatever he had seen and what was
narrated to him by his father, was scribed in
the first information report, however, he
has not stated in the first information report
that being attracted by the cries of his
father and noise of guns, he had reached the
place of incident. Even the factum of
visiting the Police Outpost Bahariyabad is
not mentioned in the first information
report and on being confronted, he stated
that due to shortage of time, he could not
mention it, though, the factum of visiting
the Police Outpost Bahariyabad was in his
knowledge. He further stated that after
being attracted by cries of his father and
noise of guns, he had reached the place of
incident alongwith Lacchan and had
witnessed the incident.

29.

On
being
specifically
confronted as to which of the assailants
were having guns in their hands at the time
of incident, he categorically stated that at
the time of assault, none of the assailants
had gun in their hands, rather, it was kept
on the ground. The guns were with the
assailants Radhey Shyam and Ram Ashrey,
who also chased the witnesses, however,
the said factum was not mentioned in the
first information report.

30. It is further stated that he did
not make any attempt to save his father. He
stayed in the field of Shyam Singh for a
minute and thereafter, left for Police
Outpost Bahariyabad on foot and thereafter,
on a bicycle. At the Bahariyabad Police
Outpost, he met two Police Constables and
Head Constable, however, he does not
know their names. The said police
personnels were on bicycle and they first
reached his house, however, at the relevant
time, neither his brother Deo Nath nor his
father was present in the house and
thereafter, he reached near the temple and
scribed the report. When he saw his father
near the temple, he was badly injured and
lying on a cot and was in a serious
condition
but
could
understand
the
1258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conversation. On the basis of the disclosure
made by his father, he scribed the first
information report, however, in his first
information report, he did not mention the
fact that on the information given by his
father, he had scribed the first information
report.

31. PW-1 further stated that prior
to his statement in the court, he had not
disclosed the factum of assailants setting
his house on fire and committing loot of
jewelleries, however, it is wrong to state
that since he suspected the truthfulness of
the said fact, as such, earlier he did not
disclose the said fact. He also did not
question his mother and sister-in-law as to
the ornaments snatched in the dacoity. He
further stated that he did not think it fit to
first take his father to the hospital, as such,
he reached the Police Station and thereafter,
went to the hospital for treatment. He
stayed with his father at P.H.C., Sadat for
half an hour and thereafter, he was referred
to the District Hospital, Ghazipur for
further treatment. He further stated that
while taking his father from P.H.C., Sadat
to District Hospital, Ghazipur, no further
injury was caused to him.

32.

He
further
denied
the
suggestion that incident has not taken place
at the time and in the manner as stated. He
further denied the suggestion that his father
was of loose character. He further denied
the suggestion that on the day of the
incident in the morning, there has been a
quarrel in his house. He further denied the
suggestion that in the morning, his brother
Deo Nath had assaulted his father because
of his loose character and on the date of the
incident, Deo Nath's wife also suffered
injuries. He further denied the suggestion
that just to conceal the actual incident of
fight between his family members, he had
set his house on fire and lodged the false
report against the assailants. He further
denied the suggestion that on account of
inimical terms with the assailants, he had
lodged the false report.

33. PW-2 Lacchan Ram is another
eye-witness of the incident and is next door
neighbour of PW-1. He, in his examinationin-chief, stated that on the date of the
incident, the goats of Buddhi Ram, had
damaged his crops, as such, to reproach
him, he had reached the house of Buddhi
Ram, who was leaving for the School. At
the relevant time, Shiv Prasad, son of
Buddhi Ram was also present there, while
he was conversing with Shiv Prasad, he
heard cries of Buddhi Ram and noise of
gun shots, consequent thereto, he alongwith
Shiv Prasad reached the Bawli and saw the
assailants assaulting Buddhi Ram. P.W.-1
Shiv Prasad thereafter ran away, however,
they went near the injured Buddhi Ram,
where his son Deo Nath and wife had also
reached. They then brought Buddhi Ram at
his house, where they saw his hamlet being
set on fire.

34. During cross-examination, he
stated that though he was not having
visiting terms with the family of Buddhi
Ram but had gone there only to complain
about the damage caused to him by the
goats of Buddhi Ram. He was interrogated
by the Investigating Officer and had
disclosed him that in order to complain
about the damage caused to him by the
goats of Buddhi Ram, he had gone to
reproach him at his house, however, if the
said factum has not been recorded by the
Investigating Officer in his statement under
Section 161 CrPC, then he can not assign
any reason as to why the Investigating
Officer has not recorded the said factum in
his statement.
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Rajdeo Singh & Ors.
1259
35. He further stated that no
appreciable damage was caused to his
crops by the goats of Buddhi Ram. He
further stated that he is Harijan by caste
and Buddhi Ram was also Harijan and both
of them are Chamar by caste. He further
stated that he never attended the marriage
of sons of Buddhi Ram nor Buddhi Ram
was ever invited by him in their marriages.
After Buddhi Ram had left for his school,
he remained in conversation with Shiv
Prasad and on hearing the noise of guns, he
had reached the place of incident and
witnessed the same alongwith Shiv Prasad.
He further stated that the incident took
place in the field of Shiv Pujan, which
lasted for 5-6 minutes and Deo Nath, son of
the deceased, had also reached there
alongwith other villagers and had witnessed
the incident.

36. He further stated that after the
incident, he had taken the injured to the
doorstep of his house on a cot and
thereafter, he went to his house and
remained there. He further denied the
suggestion that since he is next door
neighbour of Buddhi Ram and as such, he
is falsely deposing in the case. He further
denied the suggestion that on account of
enmity with co-accused Vikrama regarding
fixing of pegs, he is falsely deposing. He
further denied the suggestion that one day
prior to the incident, he had gone to visit
his relatives.

37. PW-3 Girja Shankar Tripathi is
the Head Moharrir and had drawn the chik
FIR, on the basis of the written report given
by the first informant, which has been
marked as Exhibit Ka-2. Its corresponding
G.D. Entry has also been drawn vide G.D.
Report No. 17 at 18:45 hours on
11.09.1985, which has been marked as
Exhibit Ka-3. The Investigating Officer on
12.09.1985 had converted the said case
under Section 302 IPC vide G.D. Report
No. 22 on 12.09.1985, which has been
marked as Exhibit Ka-4. He stated that
Buddhi Ram (deceased) was brought at the
Police Station and his chitthi majroobi was
prepared by Constable Harvansh Mishra,
which has been proved and marked as
Exhibit Ka-5.

38. During cross-examination, he
stated that after registration of the said
case,
the
Investigating
Officer
had
proceeded for its investigation. He further
stated that chitthi majroobi are usually
prepared in the prescribed form being Form
No. 33 but the chitthi majroobi of the
instant case is not prepared in the
prescribed form. He further denied the
suggestion that Buddhi Ram was admitted
in the Sadat Hospital as a 'private case' and
as such, on the chitthi majroobi, 'private
case' has been scribed. He further stated
that since prescribed form of chitthi
majroobi is not available, as such, it was
prepared on a plain paper.

39. PW-4 Constable Surendra
Kumar Singh, at the relevant time, was
posted at the Police Station Kotwali,
District Ghazipur. He stated that on
12.09.1985 at about 8:30 hours, the
Investigating Officer, after conducting the
inquest, had handed over the corpse
alongwith relevant papers for taking it to
the Mortuary for post-mortem, which was
taken to the Mortuary and handed over to
the doctor for post-mortem.

40. PW-5 Dr. Virendra Pal Singh is
the Medical Officer, who conducted the
medical examination and noted the injuries
of injured Buddhi Ram on 12.09.1985 at
about 1:00 PM and prepared the injury
report mentioning therein that seven
1260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
injuries have been found on the person of
the victim. He further stated that injury
no.3 was simple, whereas injury nos. 1, 2,
4, 5 and 6 were kept under observation and
advised for X-Ray. The said injuries could
have been caused on 11.09.1985 at about
9:30 AM. He further stated that for further
treatment and X-Ray, the victim was
referred to the Sadat Hospital. The said
injuries have been proved and marked as
Exhibit Ka-6.

41. During cross-examination, he
stated that there is an Injury Register
maintained at his hospital, in which, both
police case as well as private case are
registered. In case of private examination,
private case is mentioned, whereas in
police cases, police case is mentioned. In
the injury report, proved as Exhibit Ka-6,
he has written private case, which is
correct. When Buddhi Ram reached the
hospital, he was given some medical
treatment for about half an hour and
administered
injection.
The
medical
examination of Buddhi Ram, being a
private case, has been prepared on a plain
paper, however, further stated that while
conducting the medical examination, when
he had already written a line of the injury
report, a police constable reached there and
informed that instant case is a police case
and as such, his name was written in the
second line. He further stated that he found
only seven injuries on the person of the
injured Buddhi Ram. He further stated that
injuries of Buddhi Ram could also be
caused in between 4:00 - 5:00 AM on
11.09.1985. He further stated that none of
the injuries of the victim were smeared
with mud. He further denied the suggestion
that under the influence of the police and
the first informant, he has manipulated the
injury report.

42. PW-6 Dr. Maan Bahadur Mal
is the Medical Officer, who conducted an
autopsy on the person of the deceased on
12.09.1985 at 3:50 AM and has noted nine
injuries on his person, which has already
been
discussed
above.
In
internal
examination, scalp has been found to be
congested and extra dural haematoma was
found to be present. The said post-mortem
report has been proved and marked as
Exhibit Ka-7.

43. During cross-examination, he
stated that he can not state the duration of
the injuries, noted in the post-mortem
report. At the time of post-mortem, he had
noted nine injuries on the person of the
deceased. Injury nos. 1 and 2 were on the
face of the deceased and above the left eye.
He further stated that by the assault of lathi,
injuries may be either be a lacerated wound
or contusion or an abraded contusion. He
further stated that by the assault of lathi,
only abrasion could not be caused. He
further stated that if the head of the person
is forcibly dashed against the wooden part
of the cot, then injury nos. 1 and 2 could be
caused. The extra dural haematoma was
only due to injury nos. 1 and 2. He has not
found any dislocation in the feet or arm of
the deceased. The injuries could at most be
caused by 15 blows and not as a result of
50 blows as stated. There was no gun shot
injury on the person of deceased. He
further stated that injury nos. 1 and 2, noted
in
the
postmortem,
have
not
been
mentioned in the injury report (Exhibit Ka6). He can not state if, at the time of
medical examination, these injuries were
there or not. The injuries, caused on the
head, could be fatal because of blood
clotting haematoma would result and the
victim
may
lose
his
consciousness.
Haematoma caused by injury nos. 1 & 2
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Rajdeo Singh & Ors.
1261
was on the front of head. The head injury
may paralyse its corresponding area.

44. PW-7 S.I. Hari Shankar Verma,
at the relevant time, was posted as SubInspector at the Police Station Kotwali,
District Ghazipur and had conducted the
inquest on the person of the deceased on
12.09.1985 at 7:30 AM on the basis of
death memo sent by the District Hospital
and prepared the inquest memo, which has
been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-8.
He also prepared the challan nash, photo
nash and other relevant documents, which
has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka9, Ka-10 and Ka-17. After conducting the
inquest, the corpse was wrapped in a plain
cloth and after preparing the sealed sample,
it was handed over to the constable for
taking it to the Mortuary for an autopsy.

45. During cross-examination, he
stated that said case was not registered at
his Police Station, however, on the basis of
death memo sent by the District Hospital,
he had gone to conduct the inquest. At the
time of inquest, Shiv Prasad and Deo Nath,
both sons of the deceased Buddhi Ram,
were present and witnessed the inquest.

46. PW-8 Ajay Kumar Singh is
the Constable, who had taken Buddhi
Ram to the Sadat Hospital for medical
examination, who was in a conscious
state and was medically examined by the
doctor.

47. During cross-examination, he
stated that because of lapse of time, he does
not remember if he had handed over the
medical examination report at the Police
Station. He further denied the suggestion
that he did not went to the hospital
alongwith Buddhi Ram and is falsely
deposing.
48. PW-9 S.H.O. Brij Mohan
Singh is the Investigating Officer of the
instant case. He stated that on the day of
incident, he was posted as S.H.O, at the
Police Station Sadat, District Ghazipur. On
the day of the incident i.e. 11.09.1985, first
information report of the instant case was
registered in his presence and on the basis
of which, chik first information report has
been prepared, which has been marked as
Exhibit Ka-2 and the corresponding G.D.
Entry was also prepared, which has been
marked as Exhibit Ka-3. He further stated
that injuries of Buddhi Ram was noted in
the General Diary and thereafter, he was
sent through Constable Ajay Kumar Singh
to P.H.C., Sadat for medical examination,
however, he did not record the statement of
the first informant or his brother at the
Police Station as they had gone to the
hospital alongwith his father. He reached
the place of incident on that very day but
the accused persons could not be traced. He
recorded the statement of Deo Nath and
Smt. Sharda and thereafter, he inspected the
place of incident and prepared the site plan,
which has been proved and marked as
Exhibit Ka-13. From the place of incident,
a live cartridge was found, which was taken
in his possession and its fard recovery
memo has been prepared, which has been
proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-14. At
the place of incident, chhappar was found
in a burnt state and its ashes were taken in
his possession and its fard recovery memo
was prepared, which has been marked as
Material Exhibit Ka-1. Thereafter, he
reached the P.H.C., Sadat, where he was
informed that injured Buddhi Ram had
already been referred to the District
Hospital, Ghazipur. On 12.09.1985, he
reached the place of incident, where he was
informed that injured Buddhi Ram has
already passed away and thereafter, he
converted the case under Section 302 IPC.
1262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
On 13.09.1985, he recorded the statement
of PW-2 Lacchan Ram. He initiated the
proceedings under Sections 82/83 CrPC
against the accused persons and thereafter,
accused-assailants surrendered before the
court. On 18.09.1985, the Investigating
Officer concluded the investigation and
submitted charge-sheet against the accused
persons.

49. During cross-examination, he
stated that on 11.09.1985 in the morning,
he was present at the Police Station, when
injured Buddhi Ram reached there, he was
brought by the first informant and his
brother, who had taken him to the hospital,
however, Buddhi Ram was not interrogated
at the Police Station as he was crying with
pain. On 11.09.1985, he recorded the
statement of Deo Nath and Smt. Sharda.
The statement of the first informant Shiv
Prasad was recorded on 12.09.1985. The
site plan was prepared by him, wherein the
incident of assault is said to have seen by
Shiv Prasad and Lacchan from the distance
of 60 paces and further, from the distance
of 100 paces. The place of incident, where
assault had taken place, is at a distance of
120 paces from the house of Buddhi Ram
and the place of incident is not visible from
the house of Buddhi Ram. He further stated
that he recorded the statement of Lacchan
Ram on 13.09.1985 at 8:00 AM. He further
categorically stated that Lacchan Ram had
not informed him of going to the doorstep
of Buddhi Ram for complaining about the
loss being caused by the goats of Buddhi
Ram. He further did not disclose to him
that Buddhi Ram had told him that it is
time for his school and therefore, he is
leaving. PW-2 Lacchan Ram also did not
inform him that accused persons assaulted
Buddhi Ram and broke his arms and legs
and thereafter, he reached at the doorstep of
Buddhi Ram. To be precise the exact
statement of the Investigating Officer,
recorded during trial, is being quoted herein
below :-

"गि ि िछन क ब्य न मैनें 13.09.85
को करीब 8 बजे सुबि ग्र म िरिर में हिय थ । गि ि
िछन नें मुझे बुहधर म के दरि जे पर ज ने के ब ित निी
बत य थ हक बकरी के हिषय में ओििन देने गय थ ।
उसने यि िी निी बत य थ हक बुहधर म की बकरी ने
मेर नुकस न हकय थ । मुझे यि िी निी बत य थ हक
बुहधर म म स्टर ने उससे बत य थ हक मेर स्कूि क
समय िो रि िै और मै स्कूि ज रि ि ाँ। िछन गि ि
ने मुझे यि ब्य न हदय थ हक "मुहल्जम न म स्टर क
ि थ पैर बुरी तरि तो़ि हदये और उत्तर पूरब की तरफ
ि ग गये।" िछन गि ि ने मुझे यि निी बत य थ हक
"मुहल्जम न बुहधर म को म रे और ि थ पैर तो़ि हदये
इसके ब द जय बोिते ि ये बुहधर म के दरि जे पि ाँचे।"

50. he trial court, on the above
evidence led by the prosecution and the
defence version given by the accusedrespondents, has come to the conclusion
that the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the case against the accusedrespondents of all the charges framed
against them.

51. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment
and
order,
the
present
government appeal has been preferred by
the State.

52. Learned AGA for the State/
appellant has submitted that evidence
of P.W.-1 Shiv Prasad and P.W.-2
Lacchan Ram coupled with medical
evidence
would
show
that
the
prosecution has proved its case beyond
all reasonable doubt, yet the trial court,
on
the
basis
of
surmises
and
conjectures, has illegally recorded the
finding
of
acquittal
against
the
accused-respondents, which is bad in
law and is liable to be reversed.
7 All.