# Sunil & Ors. (In Jail) v. State of U.P. 616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 615
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1996
- **Bench:** Bachchoo Lal, Narendra Kumar Johari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-ors-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-616-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-45716
- **Pages:** 37

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code -
Sections 148, 302, 395, 506 - Appeal against
conviction.

Their
testimonies
are
not
reliable.
Considering the evidence of PW- 1 and
PW- 2 in totality, no substantial variation
or
discrepancy
is
found
regarding
happening of occurrence or place of
occurrence. The statements of witnesses
Pw- 1 & Pw- 2 are supported and
corroborated by post-mortem report and
other prosecution papers. Their statements
are also corroborated by the evidence of
PW- 7 Doctor S.M. Gupta. There is no
contradiction in their testimonies on the
core
of
prosecution
case.
If
some
inconsistency is found, that do not affects
the prosecution case substantially. (Para
39)

It is to be considered that spot map was
prepared by I.O. on the pointing of
complainant,
as
witness
Pw-
1
has
mentioned in cross examination. This fact
has also been mentioned by I.O. in case
diary which is available on record (back
page of Paper No. 33 Kha/3 dated
12.04.1994) and the witness Pw- 1 has not
been cross examined by counsels of
accused
persons
on
the
above
shortcomings of spot map. In the light of
above dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court, I.O.
cannot be asked about not showing the
place
of
accused
persons
and
eye
witnesses. (Para 52)

If I.O. has not prepared spot map on scale
or there was any fault of investigation in
sketching the spot map it can be treated as
latches of I.O., which does not affects the
case
of
prosecution
adversely,
where
direct, ocular and reliable evidence is
available on record. (Para 53)

If eye-witnesses of occurrence are reliable
and trustworthy then in that case no
corroborative evidence is needed and
conviction can be based on the evidence of
even sole reliable eye-witness. (Para 54)

Admittedly the F.I.R. was lodged by
complainant after that conversation with
his wife but there is no detail of robbed
articles in F.I.R. He has also mentioned in
his evidence that accused persons had
given threat to his wife and servant. (Para
56)

Considering
the
evidence
on
record,
surrounding circumstances and keeping in
mind
that
no
looted
articles
were
recovered from the pointing out of accused
persons or from their residence at the time
of proceeding of attachment which took
place under the Provisions of Section 83 of
Cr.P.C, the occurrence of robbery is not
established. Prosecution has
failed to
prove the occurrence of robbery beyond
reasonable doubt against accused persons.
(Para 58)

No error of law as well as in appreciation
of fact and evidence is found in impu

## Text

_Characters 0–39,814 of 127,960. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39814 for what follows._

2 All. Sunil & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
615
shadow of any doubt. Excluding the
accused persons who have been acquitted,
the number of the convicted accused
persons/appellants has been four and two
eyewitnesses
have
stated
the
whole
incident in a very natural and spontaneous
way. It is also clear that the FIR for the
horrifying occurrence was lodged without
any delay and even if for the sake of
argument there was any delay, the same
has been reasonably explained by the
prosecution witnesses and circumstances
of the case. The injuries found on the body
of the deceased person find support from
the medical evidence by which the date
and time of causing the injuries is very
much corroborated. Medical evidence
clearly indicates that injuries were possible
by lathi and sabbal which were assigned to
the accused persons and because of
injuries the deceased must have died
immediately as the brain was coming out
from the head. The place of occurrence has
been fully established. There is no
substantial contradiction or discrepancies
in the evidence of the prosecution and
some of the minor contradiction and
discrepancies which have been discussed
above goes to establish the reliability of
the witnesses and that also shows that they
are not tutored. Thus, the witnesses
examined by prosecution are natural,
credible and trustworthy.

87. As such, in view of the above
discussion, the surviving accused-appellants
namely Pahalwan and Nathu Singh have
been rightly convicted for the offence under
section 302/34 IPC. All these convicted
persons have been awarded life imprisonment
which is liberal option of punishment under
section 302 IPC.

88. In our considered view, the
judgement/finding of the learned trial court is
sound and based on settled principles of law
and the sentence awarded to the accused
persons is adequate. There is no illegality or
perversity in the judgement of the trial court,
nor there is any misreading and wrong
appreciation of the evidence on record.
Therefore, we are of the view that the learned
trial court has very rightly convicted the
accused-appellants and adequately awarded
sentence. The appeal has got no force and is
liable to be dismissed.

89. The appeal is dismissed.

90. Appellants Pahalwan and Nathu
Singh are directed to surrender before the
learned trial court forthwith where from they
will be sent to jail to undergo the sentence.

91. Amicus Curiae Sri Harish
Chandra Tiwari, Advocate shall be paid
Rs. Ten Thousands only for the assistance
and legal service provided by him in
conducting this appeal for the accusedappellant Nathu Singh.

92.

Lower
court
record
be
transmitted back to the court below. Office
is directed to send a copy of this order to
the court below for communication and
compliance.
----------
(2020)02ILR A615

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BACHCHOO LAL, J.
THE HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 1996

Sunil & Ors. ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Apul Mishra, Sri A.P. Mathur, Sri P.N.
Mishra, Sri R.M. Pandey, Sri Raj Kumar
Mishra, Sri V.P. Srivastava, Sri Rajneesh
Pratap Singh, Sri S.P.S. Raghav

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Sri Ravindra Rai, Sri
Amit Daga, Sri Arun Kumar Sharma, Sri
Ashok Kumar Rai, D.G.A.

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code -
Sections 148, 302, 395, 506 - Appeal against
conviction.

Their
testimonies
are
not
reliable.
Considering the evidence of PW- 1 and
PW- 2 in totality, no substantial variation
or
discrepancy
is
found
regarding
happening of occurrence or place of
occurrence. The statements of witnesses
Pw- 1 & Pw- 2 are supported and
corroborated by post-mortem report and
other prosecution papers. Their statements
are also corroborated by the evidence of
PW- 7 Doctor S.M. Gupta. There is no
contradiction in their testimonies on the
core
of
prosecution
case.
If
some
inconsistency is found, that do not affects
the prosecution case substantially. (Para
39)

It is to be considered that spot map was
prepared by I.O. on the pointing of
complainant,
as
witness
Pw-
1
has
mentioned in cross examination. This fact
has also been mentioned by I.O. in case
diary which is available on record (back
page of Paper No. 33 Kha/3 dated
12.04.1994) and the witness Pw- 1 has not
been cross examined by counsels of
accused
persons
on
the
above
shortcomings of spot map. In the light of
above dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court, I.O.
cannot be asked about not showing the
place
of
accused
persons
and
eye
witnesses. (Para 52)

If I.O. has not prepared spot map on scale
or there was any fault of investigation in
sketching the spot map it can be treated as
latches of I.O., which does not affects the
case
of
prosecution
adversely,
where
direct, ocular and reliable evidence is
available on record. (Para 53)

If eye-witnesses of occurrence are reliable
and trustworthy then in that case no
corroborative evidence is needed and
conviction can be based on the evidence of
even sole reliable eye-witness. (Para 54)

Admittedly the F.I.R. was lodged by
complainant after that conversation with
his wife but there is no detail of robbed
articles in F.I.R. He has also mentioned in
his evidence that accused persons had
given threat to his wife and servant. (Para
56)

Considering
the
evidence
on
record,
surrounding circumstances and keeping in
mind
that
no
looted
articles
were
recovered from the pointing out of accused
persons or from their residence at the time
of proceeding of attachment which took
place under the Provisions of Section 83 of
Cr.P.C, the occurrence of robbery is not
established. Prosecution has
failed to
prove the occurrence of robbery beyond
reasonable doubt against accused persons.
(Para 58)

No error of law as well as in appreciation
of fact and evidence is found in impugned
judgement.
Therefore,
conviction
and
sentence
of
appellants
under
Section
302/148 I.P.C. is affirmed. It is further
concluded that since the prosecution could
not prove the charge of Section 395 I.P.C.
against appellants, hence appellants are
acquitted from the charge of Section 395
I.P.C. (Para 59)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

1. Meharaj Singh Vs. St. of U.P. 1994 SCC (Cri.)
1391,

2. Radha Mohan Singh alias Lal Saheb and
others Vs. St. of U.P. 2006 CRI. L. J. 1121,
2 All. Sunil & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
617
3. Jai Shree Yadav Vs. St. of U.P. 2004 SAR
(Criminal) 748,

4. Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh and others
2003 (46) ACC 619 (SC),

5. Narendra and others Vs. St. of U.P. 2006 (3)
JIC 681 (All),

6. Kuria & Another Vs. St. of Raj. AIR 2013 SC
1085,

7. Shivappa and others Vs. St. of Kar. 2008
CRI. L. J. 2992,

8. Munshi Prasad and others Vs. St. of Bihar
2002 SCC (Cri) 175,

9. Bijoy Singh and another Vs. St. of Bihar 2002 CRI.
L. J. 2623,

10 .Jagjit Singh Alias Jagga Vs. St. of Punj. (2005) 3
SCC 689,

11. Harbeer Singh Vs. Sheespal and others (2016)
16 SCC 418,

12. Sidhartha Vashisht Alias Manu Sharma Vs. State
(N.C.T. of Delhi) 2010 (69) ACC 833,

13. Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh and others
2003 (46) ACC 619,

14. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and others Vs. St. of
Bihar (2008) 12 SCC 173,

15. Kuria and another Vs. St. of Raj. (2012) 10 SCC
433,

16. Uma Shankar Vs. St. of U.P. 2015 (89) ACC 421,

17. Gulam Sarbar Vs. St. of Bihar (Now Jharkhand )
( 2014 ) 3 SCC 401,

18. Rohtash Kumar Vs. St. of Har., Criminal Appeal
No. 896 of 2011,

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

20. Balram Singh Vs. St. of Punj. 2003 AIR (SC)
2213,

21. Baboolal Vs. St. of U.P. 2001 SCC (Cri) 1484,

22. St. of Punj. Vs. Hakam Singh Appeal (Crl.) No.
130 of 2000,

23. Gopal Singh Vs. St. of Uttarakhand (2013) 7 SCC
545,

24. Ram Bali Vs. St. of U.P. 2004 (2) JIC 168 (SC),

25. Baleshwar Mandal and another Vs. St. of Bihar
1997 JIC 1030 (SC),

26. Tori Singh and another Vs. St. of U.P. AIR 1962
SC 399,

27. Allarakha K. Mansuri Vs. St. of Guj. 2002 SCC
(Cri) 519,

28. Ved Ram & Ors. Vs. St. of U.P. 2004 (2) JIC 17,

29. Namdeo Vs. St. of Maha. Criminal Appeal No.
914 of 2006,

30. Seeman Alias Veeranam Vs. St. by Inspector of
Police 2005 CRI. L. J. 2618,

31. Jai Shree Yadav Vs. St. of U.P. 2004 SAR (Cri.)
748,

32. Krishna Mochi and Others Vs. St. of Bihar etc.
2002 (2) J.Cr.C 123,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Narendra Kumar
Johari, J.)

1. The instant appeal has been filed
against the judgement and conviction
order of appellants passed by Special
Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh
in Sessions Trial No. 699 of 1994, Crime
No. 105 of 1994, under Sections 148, 302,
395,
506
I.P.C.,
P.S.-
Sikandrarau,
District- Aligarh.

2. By the impugned order learned
Sessions Judge has convicted accused
appellants Sunil Ballu, Dhannu, Avadesh,
Ram Das, Ram Datt and Kanhai Lal under
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sections 148, 302, 395 I.P.C. The Court
has sentenced appellants for two years
rigorous imprisonment under Section 148
I.P.C., life imprisonment under Section
302
I.P.C.
and
10
years
rigorous
imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- as fine to
each appellants under Section 395 I.P.C. It
has also been ordered that in case of
default in payment of fine they will
undergo rigorous imprisonment of two
years. The court has acquitted all the
appellants under Section 506 I.P.C.

3. During the pendency of appeal
appellant no. 6- Ram Das and appellant
no. 7- Ram Datt have died, consequently
the appeal has been abated for them.

4. The fact of the case, as per
prosecution, in brief is as under- complainant
Ram Gopal has given a written application
(tahrir) to S.H.O., P.S.- Sikandrarau, District-
Aligarh dated 12.04.1994 that today at about
7.15 a.m. after defecation he was returning
from forest to his home as he reached near
goddess temple he saw that his neighbours
Sunil, Ballu, Dhannu, Avadhesh, Kanhai Lal,
Ram Das and Ram Datt opened fire on his son
Satish with intention to kill him. His son was
worshipping in the temple at that time. Due to
fire-arm injury his son died on spot. Many
persons
including
Rameshwer
and
Ghanshyam heard the sound of fire and his
shouting. When complainant raised his voice
and started running towards his house to save
his life the aforesaid accused persons pursued
him. They entered in his house and robbed his
licencee gun, jewellery and cash by threatening
his wife and servant. After committing robbery
they fled away by giving threats of life.

5. On the basis of above tahrir, the F.I.R.
was lodged against above persons under
Section 396 I.P.C. at P.S.- Sikandrarau,
District- Aligarh on 12.04.1994 at 9.30 a.m. as
Crime No. 105 of 1994, under Sections 148,
302, 395 and 506 I.P.C, accordingly G.D.
entry was made.

6. The investigation of offence was
started by Sub-inspector Narendra Pal Singh
with S.I. S.N. Rakesh. They reached on spot
along with police force. The inquest report was
prepared by Sub-inspector S.N. Rakesh and
sealed dead body of deceased Satish was sent
for post-mortem with constables S.P. Dube
and Kailash Singh. The investigating officer
collected blood-stained and plain soil from the
spot. He prepared recovery memo of Hawan
Kund and Lota. He enquired about the
occurrence from persons present on spot. He
further took the statement of witnesses and
prepared spot map.

7. During the investigation he
recovered
the
weapons
2
kattas
(countrymade pistols) and cartridges on
the pointing out of accused Sunil and
Ballu. After completion of investigation
the charge-sheet against accused persons
has been filed by investigating officer
under Sections 302, 395, 397 I.P.C. After
appearance of accused persons, charges
were framed against them under Sections
148, 302, 395, 506 I.P.C. They denied the
charges, accordingly trial proceeded.

8.

As
documentary
evidence
prosecution has filed original tahrir (Ex.
Ka- 1), chick F.I.R. (Ex. Ka- 2), chick
report Crime No. 204, of 1994 (Ex. Ka- 3),
inquest report (Ex. Ka- 4), Chalan Nas
(Ex. Ka- 5), Sample Seal (Ex. Ka- 6),
letter to C.M.O. (Ex. Ka- 7), photo dead
body (Ex. Ka- 8), spot map (Ex. Ka- 9),
recovery memo blood-stain and plain soil
(Ex. Ka- 10), recovery memo of lota and
hawan kund (Ex. Ka- 11), search memo of
accused persons (Ex. Ka- 12), chargesheet (Ex. Ka- 13), recovery of weapon
2 All. Sunil & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
619
(Ex. Ka- 14), P.M.R. (Ex. Ka- 15). Apart
from that the prosecution has produced to
Ram Gopal Sharma (first informant and
eye witness) as PW- 1, Ghanshyam as
PW- 2 (eye witness), Smt. Raj Rani
(mother of deceased who was present at
the time of robbery in house) as PW- 3.
Constable Kailash Singh (who carried the
dead body of deceased from place of
occurrence to mortuary) as PW- 4.
Constable Surendra Singh (Chick and
G.D. writer) as PW- 5. Ex-sub-inspector
N.P. Singh (investigating officer) as PW-
6. Doctor S.M. Gupta (who carried postmortem) as PW- 7. Sub-inspector Vinod
Shukla (investigating officer) as PW- 8.

9. The statement of accused persons was
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the
incriminating materials/circumstances were
put to them one by one in shape of incidence.
The accused persons denied each allegations
levelled against them by stating either incorrect
or they don't know, however, they admitted
that they belong to village of complainant and
they are his neighbours. The accused persons
further stated that in the village quarrel took
place amongst children that is why they have
been falsely implicated by complainant. The
accused Kanhai replied that at the time of
occurrence he was on his duty at School
Kuthila.

10. Learned Sessions Judge after
appreciating all the evidences and submissions
made by the public prosecutor and defence
counsel convicted and sentenced appellants as
has been referred hereinabove. Aggrieved by
the
judgement
and
sentenced
accused/appellants
preferred
the
present
appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants
has submitted that the appellants have wrongly
been convicted. The F.I.R. lodged by
complainant is anti-timed, place of occurrence
has been changed. Witnesses of prosecution
who adduced their oral statement as witnesses
of fact are not trustworthy. There are
contradictions in their statement, investigating
officer has recorded the statement of witnesses
with inordinate delay. The position of accused
person and places from where witnesses have
seen the occurrence, has not been shown in site
plan. The witness who was named in F.I.R.,
has not been produced. There is no F.S.L.
report regarding the blood-stained soil. Police
has not recovered all the weapons as
mentioned in F.I.R. Motive for offence has not
been proved. Prosecution has failed to prove
his case against appellants beyond reasonable
doubt. The judgement of trial court is against
the principles of law. Appellants are entitled to
be acquitted.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for
the complainant and learned A.G.A. has
replied
that
accused
persons
have
committed the offence of murder with preplanning. It was day light murder. The
occurrence has been witnessed by eyewitnesses. The statement of eye-witnesses
is well supported by medical evidence.
Witnesses of prosecution are reliable and
trustworthy. Weapons used in occurrence
have been recovered on the pointing out of
accused appellants. Motive of offence is
proved. F.I.R. is prompt. There is no proof
of anti-time F.I.R. If there is any defect in
investigation, it does not affect the
prosecution case adversely, particularly in
the light of cogent and trustworthy
evidence.
There
is
no
substantial
contradiction
in
testimony
of
eye
witnesses. Common object of accused
persons/appellants
is
proved.
The
appellants have rightly been convicted by
the learned sessions judge. Prosecution has
proved his case against appellants beyond
reasonable doubt. Order of sessions judge
620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
does not suffer from any illegality or
infirmity. The appeal is liable to be
dismissed.

We
have
considered
the
rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

13. F.I.R.

In first information report, date and
time of occurrence has been shown as
12.04.1994 at 7.15 a.m., whereas the F.I.R.
has been lodged on same day at 9.30 a.m.
The distance of police station from the
place of occurrence has been shown as 19
kms. The complainant is Ram Gopal
Sharma (PW-1) and scriber of tahrir is
Ashok Kumar Sharma. Deceased was son
of complainant. In his oral statement,
complainant mentioned at Page- 7 that
after the occurrence he stayed their for 45
minutes. Further at Page- 6 he has
mentioned that for lodging the F.I.R. he
had gone by his own tractor. The way by
which went for police station, takes one
hour to reach police station. Witness Pw- 1
has further stated in his evidence at Page-
5 that he got written the application for
F.I.R. at Sikandrarau by Ashok Kumar. He
met him at bus-stand- Sikandrarau. The
paper was given by Ashok Kumar as he
was ever in law practice and due to the
reason he preferred to get tahrir written by
him. At present, Ashok Kumar is not
doing practice. Accordingly, conclusion
arrives that after occurrence which took
place at 7.15 a.m., complainant moved
from the place of occurrence by 8.00 a.m.
for lodging F.I.R. It took one hour reach at
police station- Sikandrarau and in the
meantime, few 12 to 20 minutes would
have been consumed in draftig of
application (tahrir). As it has been stated
by witness Pw- 1 in his evidence. Hence, if
the F.I.R. of the occurrence has been
lodged at 9.30 a.m. then in that case, it
cannot be said that F.I.R. has been lodged
with any inordinate delay.

Whether F.I.R. was Anti-timed

14. It has been argued by learned
counsel for the appellants that the
aforesaid F.I.R. has been lodged anti-time.
In the meantime complainant planned to
implicate appellants falsely as accused,
due to enmity of children quarrel which
had taken place in village. In fact, the
deceased had gone in forest for defecation
where he was killed by some unknown
persons and complainant carried his dead
body in the goddess temple and falsely
implicated appellants. Learned counsel has
pointed out that the inquest report does not
contain Crime Number, Sections of I.P.C.,
weapons used in occurrence and name of
accused persons, whereas the above entries
are necessary to be mentioned in inquest
report to check any manipulation like
registration of F.I.R. anti-timed and to
avoid any false implication of accused
persons. In support of his argument
learned counsel for appellants has quoted
Para- 11 of case law Meharaj Singh Vs.
State of U.P. 1994 SCC (Cri.) 1391,
which is reproduced as under:-

"11.
According
to
PW
3
Kamlesh, the deceased had left the house
at 7.00 a.m. He would, therefore, have
taken his food before leaving the house
because it is not the prosecution case. that
food was served to him while he was in the
fields. Death, according to the medical
witness, could have occurred within about
2 or 2 1/2 hours from the time the
deceased had taken food on account of the
presence of 150 gms of semi-digested food
in the stomach of the deceased. According
to PW 3, however the occurrence took
place at about 11.30 a.m. which would
imply that the deceased took his food later
2 All. Sunil & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
621
and did not leave his house at 7.00 a.m.
but at about 9.30 a.m. That is nobody's
case. The effort on the part of Kamlesh
PW 3 to show that the occurrence took
place at 11.30 a.m. appears to have been
made because she wanted to back up the
prosecution story by stating that the FIR
had been lodged promptly at 12.45 p.m. by
Makhar Singh and that she had seen the
occurrence. According to the prosecution
case PW 8, the investigating officer, left
for the place of occurrence after the case
had been registered at the police station
but we find that in the inquest report which
was prepared by PW 8 Sultan Singh, the
investigating officer at the spot, the
number of the FIR or the crime No. has
not been given. Even the heading of the
case, does not find mention in the inquest
report. No explanation has been furnished
for the omission of these vital matters from
the inquest report. Was it because no FIR
had actually been registered at the time as
alleged by the prosecution and PW 8 had
reached
the
spot
and,
after,
some
consultations and deliberations it came
into existence? In this connection it is also
relevant to note that copy of the FIR was
not even sent to the medical officer along
with the inquest report and the dead body
for postmortem. The explanation of PW 8
for not sending the copy of the FIR or
mentioning the name of the case or the
crime No. in the inquest report is wholly
unacceptable and the High Court erred in
accepting the ipse dixit of Sultan Singh
PW 8. It deserves to be noticed that in the
inquest report even the name of the
accused has not been mentioned. It also
does not contain the names of the
eyewitnesses or the gist of the statement of
the eyewitnesses. It does not reveal as to
how many shots had been fired or how
many weapons had been used. The inquest
report is not signed by any of the
eyewitnesses, although the investigating
officer has categorically asserted that
Kamlesh and Shiv Charan were present at
the place of occurrence when he visited
and he recorded their statements. If he had
actually recorded their statements, there is
no reason why the details which we have
found missing from the Inquest report
should not have been there. There is yet
another factor which is very relevant. The
prosecution led no evidence to show as to
when did the copy of the FIR, special
report,
which
was
required
to
be
despatched under the statutory provisions
of Section 154 CrPC read with Section
157 CrPC promptly, to the Magistrate was
actually despatched. There is no evidence
either to show as to when the copy of the
FIR was received by the Magistrate. PW 8
has remained singularly silent on this
aspect of the case. According to PW 3, the
Police Inspector had taken her thumb
impression at the site, but the prosecution
has withheld that document from scrutiny
of the courts, for reasons best known to it.
The argument of Mr Tewatia, the learned
Senior Counsel that since no FIR had been
registered till the investigating officer
arrived at the spot and conducted the
inquest proceedings, the thumb impression
of PW 3 was taken by the police on a
document which was required to be used
as an FIR, cannot be said to be without
any merit. It was the duty of PW 8 to
explain as to on which document he had
obtained the thumb impression of the
widow of the deceased at the spot and
produce that document for scrutiny of the
courts. He did not do so."

15. According to law it is not
necessary to mention Crime No., Sections,
name of accused persons and weapons
used in offence in the inquest report. The
language used by legislation in Section
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
174 of Cr.P.C. clearly indicates the scope
of inquest report. There is printed
proforma for preparation of inquest report
which contains no column for the said
entries. The provisions of 174 Cr.P.C., is
reproduced as under:-

"174 (1) When the officer in charge
of a police station or some other police officer
specially empowered by the State Government
in that behalf receives information that a
person has committed suicide, or has been
killed by another or by an animal or by
machinery or by an accident, or has died
under circumstances raising a reasonable
suspicion that some other person has
committed an offence, he shall immediately
give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive
Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and,
unless otherwise directed by any rule
prescribed by the State Government, or by any
general or special order of the District or Subdivisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the
place where the body of such deceased person
is, and there, in the presence of two or more,
respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood,
shall make an investigation, and draw up a
report of the apparent cause of death,
describing such wounds, fractures, bruises,
and other marks of injury as may be found on
the body, and stating in what manner, or by
what weapon or instrument (if any), such
marks appear to have been inflicted.

(2) The report shall be signed
by such police officer and other
persons, or by so many of them as
concur therein, and shall be forthwith
forwarded to the District Magistrate or
the Sub-divisional Magistrate.

(3) When--

(i) the case involves suicide
by a woman within seven years of her
marriage; or

(ii) the case relates to the
death of a woman within seven years of
her marriage in any circumstances
raising a reasonable suspicion that some
other person committed an offence in relation
to such woman; or

(iii) the case relates to the death of a
woman within seven years of her marriage and
any relative of the woman has made a request
in this behalf; or

(iv) there is any doubt regarding the
cause of death; or

(v) the police officer for any other
reason considers it expedient so to do, he shall,
subject to such rules as the State Government
may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body,
with a view to its being examined, to the
nearest Civil Surgeon, or other qualified
medical man appointed in this behalf by the
State Government, if the state of the weather
and the distance admit of its being so
forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on
the road as would render such examination
useless.

(4) The following Magistrates
are empowered to hold inquests, namely,
any District Magistrate or Sub-divisional
Magistrate and any other Executive
Magistrate specially empowered in this
behalf by the State Government or the
District Magistrate."

16. On the above point of argument
Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of
Radha Mohan Singh alias Lal Saheb
and others Vs. State of U.P. 2006 CRI.
L. J. 1121 that there is no requirement in
law of mentioning the details of the F.I.R.,
names of accused or names of eye-witness,
the relevant Para of dictum is reproduced
as under:-

"13.In Podda Narayana v. State
of A.P. AIR 1975 SC 1252, it was held that
the proceedings under Section 174 have a
very limited scope. The object of the
proceedings is merely to ascertain whether
2 All. Sunil & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
623
a person has died under suspicious
circumstances or an unnatural death and
if so what is the apparent cause of the
death. The question regarding the details
as to how the deceased was assaulted or
who assaulted him or under what
circumstances he was assaulted is foreign
to the ambit and scope of the proceedings
under S.174. Neither in practice nor in law
was it necessary for the police to mention
those details in the inquest report. It is,
therefore, not necessary to enter all the
details of the overt acts in the inquest
report. Their omission is not sufficient to
put the prosecution out of Court. In
Shakila Khader v. Nausher Gama, AIR
1975 SC 1324, the contention raised that
non-mention of a person's name in the
inquest report would show that he was not
a eye- witness of the incident was repelled
on the ground that an inquest under
Section 174, Cr.P.C. is concerned with
establishing the cause of death and only
evidence necessary to establish it need be
brought out. The same view was taken in
Eqbal Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh,
AIR 1987 SC 923, that the non-mention of
name of an eye-witness in the inquest
report could not be a ground to reject his
testimony. Similarly, the absence of the
name of the accused in the inquest report
cannot lead to an inference that he was not
present at the time of commission of the
offence as the inquest report is not the
statement of a person wherein all the
names (accused and also
the eyewitnesses) ought to have been mentioned.
The view taken in Podda Narayana v.
State of A.P. (supra) was approved by a
three-Judge Bench in Khujji @ Surendra
Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1991 SC 1853, and it was held that the
testimony of an eye-witness could not be
discarded on the ground that their names
did not figure in the inquest report
prepared at the earliest point of time. The
nature and purpose of inquest held under
Section 174, Cr.P.C. was also explained in
Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, 2003 (2)
SCC 518. In the said case the High Court
had observed that the fact that the details
about the occurrence were not mentioned
in the inquest report showed that the
investigating officer was not sure of the
facts when the inquest report was
prepared and the said feature of the case
carried weight in favour of the accused.
After noticing the language used in Section
174, Cr.P.C. and earlier decisions of this
Court it was ruled that the High Court was
clearly in error in observing as aforesaid
or drawing any inference against the
prosecution. Thus, it is well settled by a
catena of decisions of this Court that the
purpose of holding an inquest is very
limited, viz. to ascertain as to whether a
person has committed suicide or has been
killed by another or by an animal or by
machinery or by an accident or has died
under circumstances raising a reasonable
suspicion that some other person has
committed an offence. There is absolutely
no requirement in lawof mentioning the
details of the FIR, names of the accused or
the names of the eye-witnesses or the gist
of their statement nor it is required to be
signed by any eye-witness. In Meharaj
Singh v. State of U.P. (supra) the language
used by the legislature in Section 174,
Cr.P.C. was not taken note of nor the
earlier decisions of this Court were
referred
to
and
some
sweeping
observations have been made which are
not supported by the statutory provision.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the
observations made in paras 11 and 12 of
the reports do not represent the correct
statement of law and they are hereby overruled.
The
challenge
laid
to
the
prosecution case by Shri Jain on the basis
624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the alleged infirmity or omission in the
inquest report has, therefore, no substance
and cannot be accepted."

17. On the same point the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Jai Shree Yadav
Vs. State of U.P. 2004 SAR (Criminal)
748 has held in Para- 17 which is
reproduced as under:-

"17. The next contention in this
regard is that the requisition sent by PW-8
to PW-4, the doctor, to conduct post
mortem did not accompany all the
particulars found in the inquest report and
the complaint like the particulars of the
case, the weapon used and the names of
the accused persons etc. which according
to the learned counsel for the accused
indicates that when the dead body was
sent for post mortem the investigating
agency did not know the full particulars of
the case. We do not think that these
omissions, if any, would lead to the
conclusion that the FIR is anti-timed. It is
a settled principle in law that though it is
necessary to give
the gist of the
information collected during the course of
inquest proceedings and from the material
available in the FIR to the doctor
conducting the post mortem, it is not
necessary to give all the particulars as
contained in either of the above said
documents. This is clear from
the
judgment of this Court in the case of
Mahendra Rai vs. Mithilesh Rai & Ors.
(1997 10 SCC 605)."

18. In the case of Amar Singh Vs.
Balwinder Singh and others 2003 (46)
ACC 619 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court has
held in Para- 11 that

"11. The High Court has also
held that the details about the occurrence
were not mentioned in the inquest report
which showed that the investigating officer
was not sure of the facts when the inquest
report was prepared and this feature of the
case carried weight in favour of the
accused. We are unable to accept this
reasoning of the High Court. The
provision for holding of an inquest and
preparing an inquest report is contained in
Section 174 Cr.P.C. The heading of the
Section is "Police to enquire and report on
suicide, etc." Sub-section (1) of this
Section provides that when the officer in
charge of a police station or some other
police officer specially empowered by the
State Government in that behalf receives
information that a person has committed
suicide, or has been killed by another or
by an animal or by machinery or by an
accident, or has died under circumstances
raising a reasonable suspicion that some
other person has committed an offence, he
shall immediately give information to the
nearest Executive Magistrate and shall
proceed to the place where the body of
such deceased person is, and there, in the
presence of two or more respectable
inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall
make an investigation, and draw up a
report of the apparent cause of death
describing
such
wounds,
fractures,
bruises, and other marks of injury as may
be found on the body and stating in what
manner, or by what weapon or instrument
(if any), such marks appear to have been
inflicted. The requirement of the section is
that the police officer shall record the
apparent cause of death describing the
wounds as may be found on the body and
also the weapon or instrument by which
they appear to have been inflicted and this
has to be done in the presence of two or
more respectable inhabitants of the
neighbourhood. The Section does not
contemplate that the manner in which the
2 All. Sunil & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
625
incident took place or the names of the
accused should be mentioned in the
inquest report. The basic purpose of
holding an inquest is to report regarding
the apparent cause of death, namely
whether
it
is
suicidal,
homicidal,
accidental or by some machinery, etc. The
scope and purpose of Section 174 Cr.P.C.
was explained by this Court in Podda
Narayana & Ors. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1252 and it will be
useful to reproduce the same.

"The proceedings under Section
174 have a very limited scope. The object
of the proceedings is merely to ascertain
whether
a
person
has
died
under
suspicious circumstances or an unnatural
death and if so what is the apparent cause
of the death. The question regarding the
details as to how the deceased was
assaulted or who assaulted him or under
what circumstances he was assaulted is
foreign to the ambit and scope of the
proceedings under Section 174. Neither in
practice nor in law was it necessary for
the police to mention those details in the
inquest report.

It is therefore not necessary to
enter all the details of the overt acts in the
inquest report. Their omission is not
sufficient to put the prosecution out of
Court."

19. The co-ordinate Bench of this
Court has held in the case of Narendra
and others Vs. State of U.P. 2006 (3) JIC
681 (All) that:-

"28. It is also contended by the
learned counsel for the appellant that the
crime number and sections in the inquest
report was mentioned in different ink and
the title of the case was not mentioned in
other police papers which were dispatched
along with the inquest report. We do not
find any substance in this submission
because on this ground it cannot be said
that the First Information Report was not
in existence at the time of preparation of
inquest report. The First Information
Report
was
one
of
the
enclosures
mentioned in the inquest report, name of
complainant was mentioned in the inquest
report and it was also that death was due
to fire-arm injury. There is no provision
for mentioning the title of the case in all
police papers. The crime numbers and
sections are already mentioned in all
relevant papers."

20.

Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants has further placed reliance on
case Meharaj Singh Vs. State of U.P.
(Supra) and argued that the copy of F.I.R.
was not sent to medical officer along with
dead body for post-mortem. Therefore, the
case of prosecution becomes doubtful. It
appears that learned counsel for appellants
could not inspect the inquest report Ex.
Ka- 4, properly, as Page No.- 3 of inquest
report contains the entry that copy of
F.I.R. has also been sent to mortuary along
with dead body of deceased. Police Form
No.- 13 (Ex. Ka- 5) also shows the entry
of Doctor, wherein it has been mentioned
that post-mortem papers has been received
at 8.00 a.m. Witness PW- 4 has deposed
that the concerning papers have been
delivered in police line by constable- S.P.
Dubey and he had carried the papers from
police line to mortuary, further he has
denied the suggestion that all the papers
were not available at the time of postmortem, hence, the argument has no
substance that the copy of F.I.R. was not
annexed with inquest report. The recovery
memo of blood-stained soil was prepared
when I.O. reached on place of occurrence
for the first time on 12.04.1994 i.e. at the
time of investigation. The said recovery
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
memo (Ex. Ka- 10) contains the Crime
No. 105 of 1994 and Section 396 I.P.C. It
has not been disputed by the appellant that
the said recovery memo (Ex. Ka- 10) was
prepared by I.O. at that time.

21. Learned counsel for the appellant
has further submitted that there is
overwriting in timing as mentioned in
inquest report for starting and concluding
the inquest report. Learned counsel for the
complainant has replied that there is no
overwriting in timing for lodging F.I.R. as
mentioned in inquest report. There may be
difference of timing in wrist watch or slip
of pen. The overwriting in figure (of
timing) regarding starting and concluding
the inquest report does not co-relates with
any doubtful fact. Although, S.I. S.N.
Rakesh has not been produced in evidence
by prosecution and the inquest report has
been proved by witness PW- 6 S.I.
Narendra Pal Singh as he was present at
the time of preparation of inquest report
and the entries in the report has been made
by S.I. S.N. Rakesh on dictation of PW-6.
The witness Pw- 6 (I.O.) in his evidence,
in cross-examination by counsel for
accused Sunil, has denied the suggestion
in clear words that "it is wrong to say that
inquest report has not prepared at the time
shown in the report." He further stated that
it is wrong to say that "at the time of
preparation of inquest report, the copy of
F.I.R. was not available with him." In
reply of the question the witness Pw- 6
stated
in his
cross-examination
that
nowhere in inquest report (Ex. Ka- 4)
Crime No. and Sections has been written.
He has also accepted that he has not
mentioned name of accused persons and
weapon used in offence. According to
Section 145 of Evidence Act it has not
been asked by the aforesaid witness that
why the above entries have not been made
in the aforesaid report. He has not been
asked to explain the reason about such
non-enty. Witness PW- 6 also denied that
the timing mentioned in Ex. Ka- 4 for
concluding the inquest report there is no
overwriting. He has also denied that at the
time of preparing inquest report he was not
having the copy of F.I.R. It has been held
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kuria & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan
AIR 2013 SC 1085 that-

"21. For instance PW15, in his
cross-examination, had stated before the
Court that Laleng had twisted the neck of
the deceased. According to the accused, it
was not so recorded in his statement under
Section 161, Exhibit D/2 upon which he
explained that he had stated before the
police the same thing, but he does not
know why the police did not take note of
the same.