# Subedar v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 244
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2798 of 1988
- **Bench:** Arvind Singh Sangwan, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/subedar-v-state-of-u-p-52099
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code-1860Sections-34, 302-Criminal appeal against
judgment of conviction U/s 302/34 IPC- F.I.R.
was registered by deceased himself in injured
condition. He had clearly named Buddhu (since
deceased) and appellant along with two other
unknown persons as the assailants-No delay in
reporting the matter to the police- Eye witness
duly corroborated the version given in the F.I.R.
that she had seen that accused- had fired upon
her husband and appellant-Subedar along with
two other persons gave him injuries with lathies-
PW4 & PW6 who conducted the postmortem of
the deceased also had St.d that injury was a
firearm injury which was sufficient to cause
death- Ocular version is duly corroborated by the
medical evidence.

Appeal dismissed. (E-15)

## Text

244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
purposes of building an opinion that it would
lead to the conviction of the accused, as for
the purposes of framing of charges against
the accused suspicion alone relating to
alleged commission of offence is enough.

25. Before parting with this
judgment, this Court deems it necessary to
observe
that
in
many
cases,
such
applications are filed by the accused
before the trial courts and the such
applications are decided by passing a
separate
order,
which
otherwise
is
incomplete in the absence of order framing
charges, and the consolidated statutory
exercise under sections 227 and 228
Cr.P.C. is split in two parts, thereby not
only the trial courts are over burdened, but
it also causes delay in conclusion of trial.
Consequently, it is directed that the trial
courts shall decide the prosecution case
for the purposes of framing of charges by
passing one common order, i.e either
discharging the accused or framing
charges against the accused by strictly
complying with the statutory provisions
contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure or any other applicable special
statute.

26. Resultantly, in view of the above
discussion, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the appeal is without any merit
and the same is hereby dismissed.

27. Let a copy of this order be sent to
all the District and Sessions Judges in the
State of U.P. for further forwarding it to the
Judicial
Officers
in
their
respective
divisions.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 244
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2798 of 1988

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

Counsel for the Appellant:
Malik Sayeed Uddin, C.K. Jha, Dilip Kumar
Kesharwani, Prem Prakash

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code-1860Sections-34, 302-Criminal appeal against
judgment of conviction U/s 302/34 IPC- F.I.R.
was registered by deceased himself in injured
condition. He had clearly named Buddhu (since
deceased) and appellant along with two other
unknown persons as the assailants-No delay in
reporting the matter to the police- Eye witness
duly corroborated the version given in the F.I.R.
that she had seen that accused- had fired upon
her husband and appellant-Subedar along with
two other persons gave him injuries with lathies-
PW4 & PW6 who conducted the postmortem of
the deceased also had St.d that injury was a
firearm injury which was sufficient to cause
death- Ocular version is duly corroborated by the
medical evidence.

Appeal dismissed. (E-15)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Singh
Sangwan, J.)

1. Present appeal is filed challenging
the judgment of conviction dated 3.12.1988
vide which accused-Subedar and Buddhu
were convicted for offence punishable under
Section 302/34 of IPC and the order of
sentence
5 All. Subedar Vs. State of U.P.
245
dated 5.12.1988, vide which they were
sentenced to life imprisonment.

2. It is worth noticing that this Court
vide judgment dated 6.4.2017 dismissed the
appeal of appellant-Subedar noticing that
appellant-Buddhu had died somewhere in
the year 1999 and no one represented
appellant-Subedar. The appeal was heard
without affording opportunity of hearing to
the appellant. Thereafter, appellant-Subedar
filed SLP (Criminal ) No.6684 of 2020
which was later on converted into Criminal
Appeal No.886 of 2020 in which, noticing
the fact that the appellant was not afforded
opportunity, the case was remanded back to
this Court by the Supreme Court with a
direction
to
dispose
of
the
appeal
expeditiously.

3. Heard Sri Shravan Kumar Yadav,
learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and
learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

4. With the assistance of learned
counsel for the parties, the entire evidence is
re-scrutinized and re-appreciated.

5. The facts as stated by the informant
in the complaint given on 4.4.1987 are as
under:

"In the night, I along with my
wife-Roopdevi and children was sleeping in
the house. At about 2.00 am, on hearing the
voice of barking dog, I woke up and found
that from the side of a broken door, 3-4
persons were standing. When in the light of
the torch, I asked them, one Buddhu resident
of Kasumara and Subedar resident of
Murab were seen. They were carrying
country made pistol. Buddhu fired upon me
which hit on my stomach and other accused
gave me lathi blows. On raising voice, my
neighbour Rameshwar Singh and Kallu
Singh came and on seeing them, these
persons ran away by challenging me."

6. On the basis this complaint, Chik
F.I.R. was registered by Head MoharrirIsrar Ali at Case Crime No.80, under Section
307 IPC at Police Station- Aonla, District-
Bareilly on 04.04.1987 at 04.30 A.M. The
chik report is Ex.Ka.7. On the basis of chik
report, a case was registered at G.D. No.3 on
04.04.1987 against the accused. Copy of GD
entry is Exhibit Ka-8.

7. The case was initially registered
under Section 307 I.P.C. The injured was
sent to Primary Health Centre at Aonla for
treatment and medical examination. Dr. Raj
Kumar P.W.4 M.O. examined the injuries of
Vedpal Singh on 4.4.1987 at 5.45 A.M. and
prepared his injury Ex.Ka.4 The doctor
found the following injuries on the person of
the injured:-

1. A gunshot wound 1 cm x 1 cm
x cavity deep left side of chest 14 cm below
left nipple. This wound is surrounded by
gunshot burns in an area of 5 cm x 4 cm.
This injury is kept under observation and xray advised.

2. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.1
cm x muscle deep left side forehead 5 cm
above left eyebrow.

3. Contusion 1 cm x 1 cm on right
side skull 6 cm above right ear.

4. No any other visible injury seen
but only complaint of pain all over the body.

8. In the opinion of the doctor, Injury
no.1, could be caused by firearm, was kept
under observation. X-ray was advised. The
injury nos.2 and 3 were simple and could be
caused by blunt weapon.

9. The injured Vedpal Singh was
referred to District Hospital, Bareilly for
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conducting x-ray of his injury no.1 and
further treatment where Dr. S.P. Singh M.O.
District Hospital, Bareilly P.W.6 attended to
him. But in the meantime, Vedpal Singh
succumbed to his injuries on 4.4.1987 at
8.45 A.M. in the District Hospital, Bareilly.

10. The postmortem on the dead body
of the deceased was conducted by Dr. S.P.
Singh P.W.6 vide postmortem report
Ex.Ka.6 The Doctor found the following
ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the
deceased:-

1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm x
scalp left side forehead 8 cm above
eyebrow.

2. Three abrasions in an area of 8
cm x 6 cm on the back of left shoulder joint
upper part..

3. Abrasion 3 cm x 1⁄2 cm on the
top of the right shoulder joint.

4. Gunshot wound 2 cm x 1 cm x
chest cavity deep left side chest 13 cm below
and lateral to left nipple- margins inverted,
blackening, tattooing and scorching present.

5. Circular interpeded abrasion
left arm 3 cm in size.

11. In the opinion of the Doctor death
was caused due to shock and haemorrhage
on account of injury no.4.

12. The information regarding death of
Vedpal Singh was sent to Police Station-
Kotwali, District-Bareilly vide Ex.I on
4.4.1987 at 10.20 P.M. which was recorded
in G.D., carbon copy of which is Ex. Ka-14.
Inspector S.K. Sharma P.W.8 of Police
Station- Kotwali was conducting inquest
proceedings on the dead body of the
deceased. After completing the inquest, he
prepared photograph Ex.Ka.16, challanreport vide Ex.Ka.17, specimen seal
Ex.Ka.18 and inquest report Ex. Ka.15.
Later on, the case was converted under
Section 302 I.P.C. vide G.D. entry Ex.
Ka.13 and the investigation of the case was
entrusted to S.I. Gandharv Singh Badhoria
P.W.7 who recorded the statement of the
informant, which is Ex.Ka.10. The I.O. also
visited the place of occurrence and took
possession of blood-stained dhoti vide
memo Ex.Ka.1, torch vide memo Ex.Ka.2,
two empty cell vide memo Ex.Ka.4. Then he
also prepared site plan vide Ex.Ka.13.
Thereafter, the investigation of the case was
transferred to Senior Sub-Inspector police
Sri O.P. Tyagi P.W.5 on 28.4.1987, who
after usual investigation, submitted chargesheet against the accused vide Ex.Ka.5.

13. Thereafter, Chalan was presented.
The charges were framed under Section 302
read with Section 34 of IPC. In prosecution
evidence, Roopwati (PW-1) stated on the
line of the version given in the F.I.R. that out
of four persons, Buddhu and Subedar were
standing and she identified them. She further
stated that Buddhu fired a gunshot onto her
husband and other three accused gave lathi
blows. In the meantime, Kallu Singh and
Rameshwar Singh came and accused
persons ran away. While leaving they fired
second gunshot. Her husband got the
complaint scribed through one Madan Pal
Singh and gave it to the police which was
exhibited as Ex.Ka-1. The F.I.R. was
registered. The torch which was recovered
was handed over to her and supurdginama
was exhibited as Ex.Ka-2. In cross
examination, this witness stated that Kallu
Singh is nephew of her husband and he is
indulged in the business of cultivation of
opium.

14. Kallu Singh (PW-2) also stated on
similar line that when his uncle, deceasedVedpal was looking in the light of the torch,
accused-Subedar
and
Buddhu
were
5 All. Subedar Vs. State of U.P.
247
standing. They were carrying country made
pistol and total four persons were there. He
identified the accused persons when his
uncle asked, the accused fired upon his
uncle which hit on him and other accused
gave him lathi blows. In the meantime, his
brother-in-law, Rameshwar Singh also
reached there.

15. In cross examination, this witness
admitted that he is indulged in the business
of cultivation of opium but he did not do the
sale or purchase of the same. He denied that
deceased-Vedpal was helping him in his
business. Vedpal was having small tea shop
at Railway Station. He denied the suggestion
that he had any enmity with Subedar or
Buddhu. He also denied that Subedar is
having his agricultural land abutting the land
of this witness.

16. Madan Pal Singh (PW-3) stated
that he scribed the complaint on the asking
of Vedpal which is Ex.Ka-3. He stated that
Vedpal was daily wager. He denied the
suggestion that Kallu was doing cultivation
of opium and Vedpal was working with him.

17. In cross examination, he stated that
the field of Kallu was abutting his field and
Kallu's field was also abutting the field of
Subedar and one litigation is pending
between Kallu and Subedar.

18. Dr. Raj Kumar (PW-4) stated that
he has conducted the MLR of the victim.
The injuries are already reported above.

19. O.P. Tyagi (SIS) (PW-5) stated that
vide memo Ex.Ka-5, he had taken the dead
body after postmortem.

20. Dr. S.P. Singh (PW-6) who
conducted the postmortem stated about the
injuries as reproduced above. In cross
examination, this witness stated that injury
No.4 alone is sufficient to cause the death
which is a gunshot injury. However, injury
No.1 to 3 & 5 alone in the absence of injury
No.4 are not sufficient to cause the death.

21. S.H.O. Gandharv Singh, (PW-7)
stated that he was the Investigating Officer and
a report Ex.Ka-3 was submitted in the police
station on which, Chik report was prepared
vide Report No.3. The Chik Report was
Ex.Ka-7 and report No.3 was Ex.Ka-8. This
witness stated that vide letter (Ex.Ka-9), the
injured was sent to the hospital and entry was
made in the Case Diary (Ex.Ka-10). He
recorded statement of Smt. Roop Devi, the eye
witness and widow of deceased, who handed
over her bloodstained dhoti which was tied
around the body of her husband at the time of
incident vide recovery memo Ex.Ka-1. The
torch was recovered vide recovery memo
Ex.Ka-2. One empty cartridge of 12 bore and
one empty cartridge of 315 bore were
recovered vide recovery memo Ex.Ka-11.
Statement of eyewitness, Kallu Singh, was
recorded and Naksha Nazri was also prepared
which is Ex.Ka-12. Statement of Rameshwar
Singh was also recorded. After the death of
Vedpal, Section 302 of I.P.C. was added in
G.D.
(Ex.Ka-13).
Accused-Subedar
surrendered before the C.J.M., Bareilly on
16.4.1987. In cross examination, this witness
further stated about the investigation carried
by him.

22. Sub Inspector S.K. Sharma (PW-8)
stated
that
he
prepared
the
Panchayatnama/Inquest Report (Ex-1). Copy
of which is Ex.Ka-14. He proved the
photograph of the dead body (Ex.Ka-16),
Chalan as Ex.Ka-17 and Sample Seal as
Ex.Ka-18.

23.

Sadat
Ali
(PW-9),
Chief
Pharmacist, proved the Bed head ticket of
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deceased regarding his admission in District
Hospital, Bareilly vide Ex.1. In cross
examination, he stated that when accused
was admitted, he was in garping stage and
was unconscious and, therefore, no dying
declaration was recorded.

24. On conclusion of the prosecution
evidence, statement of the accused under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded in
which, all the incriminating evidence was
put to him. In all the questions, the accused
gave reply that he do not know about the
offence. Regarding Question No.4 that the
Investigating Officer has submitted the
Charge-sheet against him, accused-Buddhu
replied that it is incorrect as all the witnesses
are relative and gave false statements. In
reply to Question No.16 why he has been
nominated as an accused, he has stated that
he has enmity with the police and even
previously he was nominated in two cases.
However, he was acquitted. He further
stated that he want to lead defence evidence.

25. Similar is the statement of accusedSubedar who replied all the questions as
having no knowledge and stated that he has
been nominated because of enmity with
Kallu Singh.

26. Thereafter, one Gyan Singh (DW1) was produced who stated that on hearing
noise, he had gone to the house of Vedpal.
He was lying unconscious on a cot and his
wife told him that someone has fired upon
him but did not disclose the name.
Thereafter, he accompanied Vedpal on a
bullock cart to the Police Station from
where, he was sent to the hospital. He stated
that Subedar comes to my village, however,
Buddhu never comes.

27. Thereafter, Trial Court, vide
impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence convicted the accused, Buddhu
and Subedar, and sentenced them to life
imprisonment under Section 302/34 of IPC.

28. As noticed above, one of the
accused namely Buddhu has already died in
1999 and appeal qua him stands abated.

29. Counsel for the appellant submits
that presence of the PW-1 at the spot is
highly doubtful. It is doubtful that at about
2.00 AM in the morning, the victim had seen
Buddhu and Subedar in torch light.

30. It is next argued that firearm injury
was attributed to Buddhu which proved fatal
whereas rest three persons were attributed
lathi injuries. Counsel has referred to the
statement of Dr.S.P. Singh (PW-6) who
conducted the postmortem wherein he has
admitted that injury No.4 which is a firearm
injury attributed to Buddhu was alone
sufficient to cause death. He further stated
that injury Nos. 1 to 3 & 5, which are
abrasions and lacerated wounds caused by a
blunt weapon, independently are not
sufficient to cause death as these are on non
vital part of the body.

31. Counsel submits that injury
attributed to the appellant-Subedar is only a
lathi injury that too with other persons
whose identity was never proved and,
therefore, the appellant is not attributed the
fatal injury.

32. It is next argued that the police
investigation is highly unreliable as police
never tried to identify the two other persons
who were present at the spot as per the
deceased-Vedpal, PW-1 or PW-2.

33. It is next argued that motive to
commit the offence is not proved and there
is no enmity with the deceased.
5 All. Subedar Vs. State of U.P.
249

34. It is submitted that PW-2- Kallu
Singh has denied that he was having any
dispute with appellant -Subedar regarding
their abutting land. It is submitted that in the
absence of any motive, the Trial Court has
wrongly convicted the appellant.

35. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that PW-1-Roopwati has
stated that after Buddhu has fired on her
deceased husband which hit him on his
stomach, another fire was made at the door
of the house but it is not so mentioned in the
FIR ( Exhibit-Ka-13). It is also not
mentioned in the statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. It is next argued that as per PW-1, both
Buddhu and Subedar were carrying countrymade pistol however, no such recovery of
pistol was effected from the appellant-Subedar
and rather no such pistol attributed to the
appellant was ever used in the commission of
crime. It is submitted that false story has been
cooked up as the deceased was murdered by
some known persons and the petitioner has
been falsely implicated.

36. Counsel further submits that Trial
Court has not considered the statement of
defence witness i.e. DW-1 who stated that
when he heard the noise of firearm, he reached
the house of Vedpal who was lying in an
unconscious condition on a cot and his wife
stated him that some unknown persons had
fired upon him and she did not disclose
anybody's name.

37. In reply, learned AGA for State
submits that both the eye witnesses i.e. PW-1
and
PW-2
have
duly
supported
the
prosecution version and the medical evidence
of the deceased also corroborate the
prosecution version.

38. It is next argued by learned A.G.A.
that the matter was reported to the police
without any delay. It is submitted that the
initial complaint was given by deceasedVedpal himself which was scribed by one
Madan Pal Singh upon which Chik F.I.R. was
registered and the deceased himself had stated
that he had seen both appellant-Subedar and
Buddhu at the spot and Buddhu had fired upon
him.

39. Learned A.G.A. has further
submitted that there was sufficient light as
deceased was carrying a torch and the version
given in the F.I.R. by the deceased himself is
corroborated by both PW-1 (Roopwati-wife of
deceased) and PW-2, Kallu Singh (an eyewitness).

40. Learned A.G.A. submits that PW-4
has stated that the deceased died of firearm
injury No.4 which was sufficient to cause
death. Counsel submits that even at the first
instance, when deceased-Vedpal was brought
to primary health centre, PW-4 conducted the
medico legal examination and reported that
Vedpal had suffered one firearm injury along
with three other injuries and after the death of
Vedpal, the same injuries were reported in the
Postmortem report by PW-6. Therefore, the
ocular version is duly supported by the
medical version.

41. After hearing counsel for the parties
and on re-appreciation of entire evidence, the
Court finds no merit in the present case for the
following reasons :

(a) The F.I.R. was registered by
Vedpal (deceased) himself in injured
condition. He had clearly named Buddhu
(since deceased) and appellant-Subedar
Singh along with two other unknown
persons as the assailants. Therefore, neither
there was any delay in reporting the matter
to the police nor there is any discrepancy in
the prosecution version.
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b) The case of the prosecution is
duly proved by two eye-witnesses namely
PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1, Roopwati (wife of
the deceased), being an eye witness, duly
corroborated the version given in the F.I.R.
that in torch light, she had seen that accusedBuddhu had fired upon her husband-Vedpal
Singh and appellant-Subedar along with two
other persons gave him injuries with lathies.
The testimony of this witness could not
shattered by the defence.

Similarly, even the second eyewitness namely PW-2 (Kallu Singh-nephew
of deceased) has also supported the
prosecution version as stated by Vedpal in
the F.I.R. Even in lengthy cross examination
by the defence, his testimony could not be
shattered.

(c) Madan Pal Singh (PW-3) who
scribed the complaint forming basis of the
Chik F.I.R. has also stated that Vedpal, in an
injured condition, came to him and on his
asking, he had scribed the complaint which
was read over to him and then he put his
thumb impression. Statement of this witness
shows that complaint was given to the police
promptly. Therefore, the version given in
the F.I.R. is duly corroborated by the
statement of PW-1, PW-2 & PW-3.

(d) Even statement of Vedpal
(Ex.Ka-10) recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C.
is
also
consistent
regarding
narration of the facts as per the written
report scribed by PW-3 (Ex.Ka-3)

(e) Vedpal was medico legally
examined at the first instance by PW-4 who
had stated that he had suffered firearm injury
and after his death PW-6, who conducted the
postmortem of the deceased also had stated
that injury No.4 was a firearm injury which
was sufficient to cause death. Both PW-4
and PW-6, the two doctors, who conducted
the
medico
legal
examination
and
postmortem of the deceased-Vedpal are
consistent with regard to a firearm injury
sustained by Vedpal which proved to be
fatal. Therefore, ocular version given by
PW-1 & PW-2 is duly corroborated by the
medical evidence.

(f) Statement of Gyan Singh (DW1) more or less is a hearsay as he stated that
when he reached at the spot, Vedpal was
lying in unconscious condition on a cot and
his wife (PW-1) told him that some
unknown persons had fired upon him.

DW-1 is suppressing the correct
fact, as contrary to his version, Vedpal was
taken to the Police Station and in between he
got the complaint scribed by Madan Pal
Singh (PW-3) and, therefore, he was
conscious till the time the complaint was
scribed by PW-3 which falsified the version
given by DW-3 that immediately after the
incident when he reached the spot, Vedpal
was lying in unconscious condition on a cot.
Therefore, statement of DW-1 is not natural
and trustworthy.

(g) The suggestion given to PW-2
that his land is abutting the field of accusedSubedar was denied and in defence neither
any Sajra Map of the land nor the Khasra
number was proved by way of leading any
evidence.

42. From the evidence led by the
prosecution, it is proved that both accusedBuddhu (since deceased) and Subedar had
premeditated meeting of mind to commit the
murder of Vedpal. Therefore, appellantSubedar Singh, who has caused injuries on
person of the deceased by using a lathi, and
accused-Buddhu who has fired upon a gun
shot injury which was sufficient to cause
death in ordinary course, are responsible for
committing the murder of Vedpal in view of
the provisions of Section 34 of IPC.
Accused-Subedar Singh has taken active
part in commission of crime and the Trial
Court has rightly held him guilty of offence
punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC.
5 All. Chandrapal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
251

43. As no other point was raised from
either side, we find that the Trial Court has
passed the judgment in accordance with law
while awarding imprisonment for life to
both the accused under Section 302/34 of
IPC.

44. Therefore, finding no merits in the
present appeal, the same is dismissed. The
impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence are upheld. As noticed in the
order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 886
of 2020 while remanding the case back to
this Court for fresh decision that appellantSubedar Singh has since been taken in
custody, the appellant-Subedar will undergo
the remaining part of the sentence.

45. Copy of this order along with
record be transmitted to the Trial Court
forthwith.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 251
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
THE HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN
MISHRA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4116 of 2015
With
Criminal Appeal No. 3950 of 2015
With
Criminal Appeal No. 4087 of 2015

Chandrapal & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Amit Kumar Srivastava, Chandra Kant
Bharadwaj, J.S. Baghel, Sikander B. Kochar,
V.P. Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate, Ajay Panday, Vijay Tripathi

Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code-1860Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 & 392-Criminal
appeal against order of conviction- PW-1
has taken a complete somersault with regard to
allegations in the FIR where a person was initially
cited as a witness and then citied as an accused/
principal conspirator the version given by PW-1
regarding presence of all other accused is not
reliable- the eye witness of the incident has not
mentioned about any white colour ambassador
car in which four accused persons had come- no
weapon of the offence including the licensed rifle
of deceased was recovered- neither there was
recovery of any weapon nor blood stained earth,
blood stained clothes of victim or PW-1 or his
father or the empty cartridges were never sent
for forensic science investigation, despite the fact
that the deceased was Inspector in UP Police.

Benefit of doubt would go to the accused as case
property like blood-stained earth, the clothes
worn by the deceased or the bullet recovered
from the spot or retrieved from the dead body or
the car were never sent to forensic science
examination and never produced before the trial
court, on the plea that everything has been
destroyed including the original case diaryResult-Order of conviction set aside.

Appeal allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi Vs St. of Guj.t,
(2023) 9 SCC 164

2. Vadivelu Thevar Vs St. of Madras, 1957 0 AIR
(SC) 614

3. Kaur Sain Vs St. of Pun., 1974 AIR (SC) 329

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Singh
Sangwan, J.)

1. These appeals have been filed
challenging the judgment of conviction
dated 03.08.2015, passed by Special Court
(S.C./S.T. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge,