# Suresh & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 107
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-18
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 737 of 1986
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar, Zafeer Ahmad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suresh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54275
- **Pages:** 17

## Text

_Characters 0–39,806 of 59,396. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39806 for what follows._

3 All. Suresh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
107

53. Let the Trial court record along with a certified copy of this judgment be transmitted to the
court concerned for necessary compliance.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 107
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 737 of 1986

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

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to legality of judgment and order of conviction based on solitary testimony and non-recovery
of weapon.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-sec.302-Indian Evidence Act-sec 134- emphasis of the law is not on the quantity,
but on the quality of evidence- prosecution has not established any immediate provocation preceding the
incident- where ocular testimony inspires confidence-the prosecution is not required to prove motive-motive
assumes greater importance in cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence-not of decisive consequence-
conviction recorded by the learned trial court on the basis of the solitary testimony of PW-1 Brij Kishore does
not suffer from any legal infirmity-evidence of PW-1 satisfies the test of reliability-absence of a strong or
immediate motive does not render the prosecution case doubtful - non recovery of the weapon is not fatal -
when there is reliable and cogent ocular testimony -only a corroborative circumstance and not a sine qua non
for sustaining conviction- minor inconsistencies cannot outweigh- convincing eyewitness testimony-Appeal
dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282
2. Chandan v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 6 SCC 799
3. Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 3 SCC 219
4. Om Pal and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2292
5. Mohd. Rojali Ali and others v. State of Assam, (2019) 19 SCC 567
6. Jayabalan v. State (UT of Pondicherry),(2010) 1 SCC 199
7. Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364
8. Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 288
9. Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan v. State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2013
10. Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel v. State of U.P., (2002) 20 SCC 114
11. Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 3 SCC 654
12. Marwadi Kishor Parmanand v. State of Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 549

List of Acts
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Keywords
Solitary testimony; immediate provocation; motive; test of reliability; non recovery of the weapon; reliable
and cogent ocular testimony; corroborative circumstance; eyewitness testimony.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : S.S. Sharma, Kartikay Singh, Manoj Kumar Gupta, R.R. Acharya Counsel for
Respondent(s) : Govt. Advocate, Anoop Srivastava, Anuj Dayal, J.N. Chaudhary, Virendra Bhatia

(Delivered by Hon'ble Zafeer Ahmad, J.)

1. Heard Sri B.P. Singh Dhakray, learned counsel assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Sri
Kartikay Singh and Sri Shakti Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Atul Tiwari and Sri
Anuj Dayal, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Arunendra, AGA for the State and perused
the record.

2. The aforesaid criminal appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 08.10.1886 passed by
IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, in S.T. No. 479 of 1984 wherein the applicant has been
convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment u/s 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (in
short IPC) and five years of rigorous imprisonment u/s 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. It has been further been
provided that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant no.1 Suresh and appellant no. 2 Awadhesh
have died, therefore, the appeal stands abated on their behalf by means of order dated 07.01.2026.
Thus, the appeal survives on the behalf of appellant no. 3, Rakesh and appellant no. 4, Santosh.

Prosecution Case in Nutshell:

4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 15.07.1984 at 1:30 P.M. complainant Brij Kishore,
son of Suraj Deen, resident of village Manjore, submitted a written report at police station Ganga
Ghat, District Unnao stating therein that on the same day he along with his deceased father Suraj
Deen was working in their agricultural filed, towards the south of their village. His father was
putting earth on the boundary/farm ridge (मेड़) of the field with a shovel and complainant was
ploughing the field and his cousin named Kallu @ Ram Kumar was also working in his own field.
At around 11:30 A.M. accused Suresh, Awadesh, Rakesh and Santosh, resident of same village,
came from the village side and caught hold of Suraj Deen, who cried-out,then he saw that his father
was thrusted-down by the accused in the field. Suresh caught the legs of Suraj Deen, Rakesh and
Santosh chopped off the head of Suraj Deen by gandasa, while the Awadesh was standing nearby
with a country-made pistol in his hand. Complainant raised noise, whereupon his cousin, Kallu,
rushed form his filed and witnesses namely Amar Sing (r/o village Bani) and Rakesh Pandey (r/o
village Bankata), also ran shouting and saw the incident. Hearing their voice people from the
village also rushed towards the place of occurrence. Thereupon, Awadesh wrapped the severed
head of his father in a momiya paper (polythene) and put the same in a bag and went away towards
the south of the village. They were chased by the witnesses but they (accused) threatened them with
dire consequences, therefore, they could not be apprehended. Thereafter, when the complainant
came back to his father, he saw that his father was lying dead, his neck had been slit, there were cut
wounds on both the arms, blood was oozing and spread over the ground. It was further stated by the
3 All. Suresh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
109
complainant that about 24-25 years back Rajjan Tiwari, father of Santosh, had been murdered by
Suraj Deen (deceased) and Ram Kishore Tiwari of the same village were prosecuted but both of
them were acquitted. Since then there was enmity between these families and the family members
of Rajjan were internally fostering the object of taking revenge of the murder of Rajjan and out of
this revenge, murder of Suraj Deen was committed by the accused persons. All the accused persons
are related to each other as cousins.

5. On lodging of the written report (Ext. Ka-1),an FIR was registered (Ext. Ka-3) under
Section 302 IPC and GD entry of the same was made (Ext. Ka-4). The investigating officer started
the investigation on 15.07.1984 and took the sample of plain earth and blood-stained earth and
prepared a memo of the same (Ext. Ka-5),prepared inquest report (panchayatnama) (Ext. Ka-6),
sketch of the dead of body (Ext. Ka-7), police form no. 13 (Ext. Ka-8), letter to CMO (Ext. Ka-9),
letter to RI (Ext. Ka-10), and site plan (Ext. Ka-11).

6. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-12) under Section 302 IPC was
submitted against all the accused. The case was committed to the Court of Session, where charge
under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC along with Section 201 r/w Section 34 IPC were framed.
The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. To prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. PW-1 Brij Kishore, PW-2 Dr.
O.P. Gupta, PW-3 Amar Singh, PW-4 Ram Kumar @ Kallu, and PW-5 Hari Shanker Singh.

8. After recording of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section
313 CrPC were recorded, wherein they stated that they have wrongly been implicated in the case
due the enmity. No defence witness has been produced by the appellants on their behalf.

9. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the
learned Trial Court found all the accused guilty under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 of
IPC to undergo life imprisonment and under Section 201 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC to five
years of rigorous imprisonment and provided that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

Submissions made by learned counsel for the Appellants :-

10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
having disbelieved two alleged eye-witnesses, namely PW-3 Amar Singh and PW-4 Ram Kishore
alias Kallu, erred in convicting the appellants on the solitary evidence of PW-1 Brij Kishore, whose
presence at the spot is highly doubtful. It was further contended that there was no immediate
motive for the appellants to commit the alleged offence, and the motive alleged by the prosecution
relates to an incident which took place about twenty-five years back, when the sons of the
appellants were not even born, which is insufficient to establish motive for the present occurrence.
Learned counsel further submitted that Avadesh and Suresh, though allegedly armed with firearms,
did not assault anyone, which renders their participation highly doubtful. It was also argued that
from the statement of PW-1 Brij Kishore it is evident that the deceased had been prosecuted in
several cases shortly before the incident and had many enemies who could have caused his death. It
was further contended that the alleged occurrence took place at a lonely place far away from the
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
village abadi, therefore, the presence of the witnesses is highly improbable. Lastly, it was submitted
that PW-1 Brij Kishore was employed at Kanpur and permanently residing there, hence his
presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful, and that the sentence imposed is too severe. Thus,
the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside.

Submissions made by learned counsel for the Complainant and A.G.A:-

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. supported the
impugned judgment and order and submitted that the same has been passed after proper
appreciation of evidence on record and does not warrant interference by this Court. It was
contended that the testimony of PW-1 Brij Kishore is trustworthy, natural and inspires confidence,
and merely because other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case in entirety would not
render his evidence unreliable. It was further submitted that minor inconsistencies or discrepancies
are natural in criminal trials and do not affect the core of the prosecution case. Learned counsel
submitted that motive, though not essential where there is direct evidence, stands sufficiently
established from the background of hostility between the parties. It was also argued that the
presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence has been satisfactorily explained and cannot be
discarded merely on the ground of his place of employment. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that
the participation of the accused stands proved from available evidence on record and that the trial
court has rightly appreciated the material available before it. It was lastly contended that the
sentence awarded is commensurate with the gravity of the offence and calls for no interference, and
accordingly the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Oral Testimonies :-

In order to appreciate the issues arising in the present appeal, it is appropriate to examine, in
brief, the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution.

12. PW-1 Brij Kishore , son of Surajdeen, deposed that he was acquainted with the accused
persons Suresh, Rakesh, Santosh, and Awadhesh, as they belonged to his village and all the
accused persons are related as cousins. He further deposed that he had no knowledge of the murder.
He further deposed that Santosh's father had been murdered about 24-25 years back, and in that
case his father, Surajdeen (deceased), had been named as an accused along with Ramkishan Master
of the village, however, his father was acquitted by the court in that case, owing to this incident, the
accused persons bore enmity towards his family. He further deposed that the incident occurred
about one year and four months back, at approximately 11:30 A.M., and at that time, he was
ploughing his field. His uncle, Ramkumar, was working in his own field, and his father was
mending his field with a plough when suddenly, Rakesh, Santosh, Suresh, and Awadhesh arrived
and struck him on the ground. He further deposed that upon hearing shouting of his father, he ran
towards him and saw Suresh holding his father's legs, while Awadhesh stood nearby holding a
country-made pistol and Santosh & Rakesh were cutting his father's neck with a gandasa. He
further deposed that thereafter Awadhesh wrapped the severed head in a momiya paper (polythene)
and placed it in a sack. He further deposed that Ramkumar, Amar Singh, and Ramesh Pandey
witnessed the incident. He further deposed that when they ran a few steps to chase the assailants,
Awadhesh pointed the country-made pistol at them, and Santosh and Rakesh brandished the
3 All. Suresh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
111
gandasa, threatening that if they came any closer, they would kill them as well. He further deposed
that thereafter they approached his father, who was lying dead, with blood oozing from his body.
He further deposed that thereafter more villagers arrived, following which he went home, while his
uncle and mother remained near the dead body. At his home, he wrote a report (Ext. Ka-1). He
further deposed that he went to the police station along with Rajkishore and reached there at about
1:30 P.M. where he handed over the written report to the Munshi, who provided him with a copy.
He further deposed that at that time, the Inspector was not present at the police station.
Subsequently, the Inspector arrived at the place of occurrence, recorded his statement and took the
dead body and the fawda (फावड़ा) (spade or shovel) was handed over in his (witness) custody.

13. During cross-examination, he deposed that in the year 1964, Radha Krishan, son of Ram
Swaroop Brahmin, was murdered, but he was unaware of the reason for the same, as he was
residing in Kanpur, at that time, due to his employment. He further deposed that during that period,
he worked for about four years at the Kila Factory in Kanpur. He further deposed that Ram
Swaroop Brahmin had earlier been a resident of the village. He further deposed that he did not
know whether in the year 1979 a case under Sections 107/116 was registered against his father,
against himself and against his brother. He further deposed that Ramkumar @ Kallu is a witness
who at the time of this deposition, resided in Shuklaganj. He further deposed that Ramkumar had
been residing in Shuklaganj for about one and a quarter years and was earning his livelihood there,
though he did not know in which shop Ramkumar worked. He further deposed that he used to go to
the factory via Shuklaganj and that he had been residing in Kanpur on G.T. Road, in the quarters of
the Ordinance Factory, for the last four to five months. He further deposed that prior to this, he had
been residing in Lal Bangla since July,1984.He further deposed that his father had also been
employed in the Ordinance Factory and had retired after attaining the age of sixty years. He further
deposed that his father had retired four to five years prior to the incident and thereafter he had been
residing in the village, where he used to do agricultural work. He further deposed that during the
period of service, his father used to visit the village while on leave. He further deposed that prior to
the incident, he had not lodged any report against the accused persons. He further deposed that the
house of the accused persons was adjacent to his father's house and that next to his house was the
house of Ram Kishan Master, against whom a murder case relating to Ranjan Tiwari was held. He
further deposed that Ram Kishan Master was a teacher in Deoria Kala and used to commute to
school daily from village. He further deposed that he also used to visit agricultural land during
holidays. He further deposed that his father used to visit the agricultural fields and orchards in the
morning, when he used to go to ease himself and also in the evening. He further deposed that
sometimes his father would go by cycle from the village to the Kila Factory in the morning and
return in evening and duty hours at Kila were from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM. He further deposed that
his father did not work in the night shift and he was employed as carpenter in Kila. He further
deposed that the agricultural fields (in which occurrence is said to have taken place) were situated
to the south of the village and that one field was also located towards the west. He further deposed
that the southern field was at a distance of about half a mile from the village and that the incident
took place in the said southern field. He further deposed that the western field was at a distance of
about one and a quarter miles from the village. He further deposed that he had studied up to the
seventh standard. He further deposed that the Inspector did not prepare any recovery memo of the
fawda (फावड़ा) (shovel or spade) and only gave verbal directions for taking it back. He further
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deposed that around the place of occurrence there were fields and orchards on all four sides, and at
the time of the incident no person was seen in those fields or orchards. He further deposed that his
father had gone to the field at about 8 o'clock in the morning and had been tying the boundary of
the field. He further deposed that Rakesh and Santosh are their father's only sons. He further
deposed that for the first time he saw the accused persons from a distance of about 50-60 yards and
at that time the accused persons had caught hold of his father and put him down, and that all four
accused persons were pressing his father. He further deposed that he did not remember as to who
was holding his father's hands, but remembers that Santosh and Rakesh were holding his father's
head and cutting it. He further deposed that he did not try to protest against the accused persons by
throwing stones etc. He further deposed that he had moved five or six steps from where he saw the
occurrence. He further deposed that hearing his scream, five to ten villagers arrived, including
Jamuna Prasad, Malik, Mishrilal, and children. He further deposed that the villagers arrived after
the accused fled from the scene of crime. He further deposed that a case under Sections 326 and
323 I.P.C. was filed against his father for assaulting Shyamlal Nai and Kallu Nai. He deposed that
he does not remember and was not sure as to whether the said case was instituted in the year 1979,
but deposed that it had been instituted four to five years prior to the present incident. He further
deposed that he did not know as to whether in the year 1980, on the report of Hari Nai, a case under
Sections 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against his father. He further
deposed that he is unaware of the fact that in August 1982, his father along with others, complained
against the village head for illegally supplying timber to Mahavir Pasi. He further deposed 2 to 21/2
year before the incident, Harishanker and Kallu were charged under Sections 25A of IPC and 307
IPC. He further deposed that the case was filed based on his report and the same was dismissed. He
deposed that a case under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code was pending against
witness Amar Singh, and that Amar Singh and Ramesh used to visit his village. He further deposed
that Ramesh's maternal uncle, Jamuna Prasad, resided in the village and was a witness to the
panchayatnama. He further deposed that the villagers arrived about in ten minutes after the accused
persons fled, and that he had shown the Inspector, the place up to which he had chased the accused
persons. He further deposed that if the said place was not shown in the site plan, he did not know
the reason for the same. He further deposed Suresh was pressing the calves of the deceased and
while the deceased was still moving his hands and legs. He further deposed that prior to the written
report ,marked as Exhibit Ka-1, he had also written two reports, which were dictated by his father
and written by him. He further deposed that those reports had been written against some persons,
but he was unaware of the subject matter of those reports. He further deposed that those reports had
been written for submission at the police station, though he did not remember against whom they
were written. He further deposed that it took about half an hour to write the complaint (Ext Ka-1)
and that after writing the report, he did not return to the place of occurrence but proceeded to the
police station Ganganaghat via Deoria. He further deposed that he did not meet the Inspector in
Deoria and remained at the police station for about 20-25 minutes. He further deposed that he
returned to the village via Deoria and reached the village at about 3 o'clock. He further deposed
that when he returned to the place of occurrence, the Inspector had not arrived at that time, and that
the Inspector arrived about one hour later and remained there until about 6-7 in the evening. He
further deposed that the dead body had been sent by the Inspector at about 5 o'clock by bullock
cart. He further deposed that he did not accompany the dead body. He further deposed that when
the Inspector left at about 6-7 o'clock, he did not go with him and that thereafter he also did not go
separately to the police station. He further deposed that out of the constables, who had come with
3 All. Suresh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
113
the Inspector, three constables remained in the village. He further deposed that after the Inspector
left, he remained at home and did not go to Unnao, nor did he go there on the following day. He
further deposed that it was incorrect to state that report (Ext Ka-1) was written by him on the next
day after the police conducted its preliminary investigation. He further deposed that it was also
incorrect to state that he had not witnessed the incident or that he was not present at the place of
occurrence. He further deposed that it was also incorrect to state that he had received information
regarding his father's murder while he was in Kanpur. He further deposed that it was also incorrect
to state that when his father did not return home by the afternoon, a search was conducted and his
headless dead body was found, and that thereafter a false case was instituted on the advice of the
police. He further deposed that his father was a licensed firearm holder and that whenever he went
outside, he sometimes carried the firearm with him and sometimes did not.

14. PW-2, Dr. O P Gupta, E.N.T Surgeon District Hospital Unnao, deposed that on
16.07.1984 he was posted at the same post as stated above and on that day at around 3:30 P.M. he
conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased Surajdeen s/o Gajraj r/o Kanjoura Police
Station Gangaghat District Unnao. He further deposed that the dead body was brought by C.P. 640
Chedalal and Home Guard Ramprakash from police station Gangaghat and the constable had
identified the dead body along with sample seal. He further deposed that there was no head on the
dead body. He was about 62 years old and had been dead for about a day. The body structure was
normal. He further deposed that rigor mortis had passed and the part below the stomach had turned
blue. Following injuries were present on the body of deceased:

Injury No. 1: Incised wound measuring 15 cm X 3 cm X bone deep extending from the lower
part of the right shoulder joint to middle 1/3rd on the interior aspect right upper arm.

Injury No. 2: Incised wound measuring 18 cm X 6 cm X bone deep on the interior upper 1/3rd

Injury No. 3: Incised wound measuring 8 cm X 3 cm X clavicle bone deep on the right
supraclavicular region.

Injury No. 4: Incised wound measuring 12 cm X 13 cm X through neck at the level of C5
cutting larynx and upper part of the oesophagus, rest of the neck and head absent (part of the larynx
is above the vocal cord present).

He further deposed that on internal examination it was found that the stomach was empty,
small intestine was empty and there were some stool and gas in the large intestine. He further
deposed that the other things were normal. He further opined that the death must have occurred due
to shock and excessive bleeding, which was result of the injuries mentioned above. He further
deposed that it might also be possible that deceased died on 15.07.1984 at around 11:00/ 11: 30
A.M. He further opined that the injuries on the body of the deceased could have been caused by an
axe.

15. During the cross-examination, he deposed that there could be a difference of 6-7 hours on
both side in the time of death of the deceased. He further deposed that deceased might not have
gone to defecate before dying. He further deposed that the stomach gets empty 5-6 hours after
114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
eating. He further deposed that the dead body of Surajdeen along with the relevant papers were
received on 16.07.1984 at 11:45 AM. He further deposed that the injuries on the deceased could
also have been caused by kaanta ( hay fork or pitchfork) (कााँटा) or banka (curved knife or billhook)
(बांका).

16. PW-3 Amar Singh, identified the persons, Suresh, Awadesh, Santosh and Rakesh, who
were present before the court and deposed that they all are resident of Kanjora, which is 11/2
furlongs away from his village. He further deposed that about 11/2 years ago, at around 11:30 A.M.,
he was going from village Bani to Pipri and when he reached near the edge of Durga Kumhar's
orchard, he heard cries from behind saying, "bachao, bachao." He further deposed that all four
accused ,who were present in the court, were in the field of the deceased and were beating him. He
further deposed that Suresh was holding the deceased, Awadhesh was standing near his head with a
country-made pistol, and Santosh and Rakesh were beheading the deceased with a gandasa. He
further deposed that the Kallu was present in his field. He further deposed Brij Kishore, along with
his bulls, was passing from there and was also shouting. He further deposed that Ramesh Pandey
was also with him, and both of them ran towards the place while shouting. He further deposed that
after beheading the deceased, all four accused went towards their homes. He further deposed that
Awadhesh wrapped the severed head of the deceased in a Momiya paper, kept it in a bag, and
moved towards Pipri village. He further deposed that when they tried to chase and stop the accused
persons, they threatened to fire bullets at them and also threatened to kill them. He further deposed
that they stopped there and went near the dead body. He further deposed that he has no enmity with
the accused.

17. During cross-examination, he deposed that it would be wrong to say that he was threatened
by the police to give false testimony. He further deposed that he was sentenced to seven years
imprisonment in a case of kidnapping and rape of the daughter of Jugal Kishore Dubey and that he
was on bail granted by the High Court. He further deposed that he was falsely implicated in that
case due to enmity. He further deposed that it is wrong to say that the accused (Suresh) had done
pairvi against him (Amar Singh). He further deposed that in 376 IPC case, he had given a statement
that he was falsely implicated out of enmity and had not given the statement, that the accused,
Suresh and others, had falsely implicated him. He further deposed that his village is situated to the
east of Kanjaro, and Pipri is to the south of his village. He further deposed that he was just going
there to meet someone and there was no special work. He further deposed that he has known the
names of Suresh and Awadhesh's fathers for the past 5-6 years. He further deposed that it would be
wrong to say that he was instructed about the names of the accused persons' fathers by anyone. He
further deposed that it would be wrong to say that he has given a false testimony. He further
deposed that he met Ramesh Pandey in his village by coincidence and he had not come to his place.
He further deposed that Bankata is almost one mile away to the east. He further deposed that both
he and Ramesh were on foot. He further deposed that he and Ramesh are friends and used to meet
frequently. He further deposed that he and Ramesh were proceeding from the western embankment
of Durga Kumar's orchard, while he was walking along the north-south embankment of Durga
Kumar's orchard. He further deposed that if the investigating officer has not shown his presence on
that embankment, he cannot state the reason for the same. He further deposed that he had left home
after having his meal, which he had around 12 o'clock. He further deposed that after he had his
3 All. Suresh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
115
meal, he stayed at home for 10-15 minutes and thereafter met Ramesh. He further deposed that he
and Ramesh did not stop at any place; there was no conversation while standing, and any
conversation took place while walking. He further deposed that Ramesh was going towards Pipri;
however, he does not know as to whom Ramesh intended to meet. He further deposed that Ramesh
Pandey does not reside in Chikola, but in Bankata. He further deposed that it is possible that, by
mistake, he told the investigating officer that Ramesh Pandey of Chikola was accompanying him.
He further deposed that Ramesh Pandey is, in fact, from Bankata, and he may have inadvertently
stated his residence as Chikola to the investigating officer. He further deposed that it would be
incorrect to say that he does not know Ramesh Pandey or that he was making a false statement at
his instance. He further deposed that he remained at the place of occurrence for only 2-3 minutes
and thereafter returned to his home. He further deposed that he again went to the place of
occurrence; however, he does not remember as to whether he went during the daytime or in the
evening. He further deposed that he went to the place of occurrence on his own. He further deposed
that on his second visit, he stayed at the place of occurrence for about half an hour or one hour, and
after the dead body was taken away, he returned to his home. He further deposed that when he
returned, the time was around 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock in the evening, and when he went again, the
dead body was still lying in the field. He further deposed that Brij Kishore was present there and
that he had a conversation with him. He further deposed that Brij Kishore did not tell him that his
father was putting earth on the mends at the time of the incident, and that he himself was aware of
this fact. He further deposed that it would be wrong to say that he had not seen anything or that he
was giving false testimony. He further deposed that inspector recorded his statement but did not
read it over to him, and that he had informed inspector at the very first instance about the
circumstances of the occurrence.

18. P.W. 4, Ram Kumar alias Kallu, son of Rambharose, deposed that his native village was
Kanjora and that the deceased, Surajdeen, was his uncle. He further deposed that the incident had
occurred about one year earlier, approximately between 11:00 A.M. and 12:00 noon. He further
deposed that at the relevant time he was working in Shuklaganj and was present there on the date of
the incident, therefore, did not witness the occurrence. The witness was declared hostile in the trial
court.

19. During cross-examination, he deposed that the inspector had questioned him regarding
the incident and that he had narrated the correct facts to him. He further deposed that he had told
the inspector that at the time of the incident he was present in the field, where his cousin was
ploughing and his uncle Surajdeen was putting earth on mends. He further deposed that he did not
remember looking towards Kishore or in that direction and that he did not see the accused persons
thrusting Surajdeen to the ground. He further deposed that he heard some noise, but he did not
remember as to whether he had informed the police that Suresh was holding the legs, that Rakesh
and Santosh were cutting the neck with a gandasa, and that Awadhesh was standing nearby with a
pistol. He further deposed that he had no recollection of such details and suggested that it was
possible that the inspector had recorded such statements on his own. He further deposed that he did
not remember telling the police about the arrival of Amar Singh and Ramesh, nor did he remember
witnessing the severed head of his uncle being taken away, when his statements recorded under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was read out to him, he stated that he did not
understand it and, therefore, could not say anything regarding its contents. He further deposed that
116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
he had been residing in Shukla Ganj for the past four to five years and denied that he had colluded
with the accused persons. He further deposed that Brij Kishore mostly resided in Kanpur. He
denied having seen the incident and denied that he was deposing falsely due to any collusion. He
also denied that the statement earlier given by him to the Inspector was correct or that he was
intentionally giving a false statement before the Court. He further deposed that he was the real
nephew of Surajdeen. He further deposed that Brij Kishore had been working in the Kila Factory
for the past seven to eight years and was residing at Lal Bangla, Kanpur. He further deposed that
Surajdeen and the accused persons used to talk to each other.

20. P.W. 5, Hari Shankar Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Dewa Sharif Kotwali, District
Barabanki, deposed that from 15.07.84 to 11.08.1984, he was posted as Sub-Inspector at Ganga
Ghat Police Station. He further deposed that the F.I.R of this case was lodged in his absence on
15.07.1984 at 1:30 P.M. He further deposed that he had started the investigation of the case on
15.07.1984. He further deposed that he reached the place of occurrence at around 3:30 P.M., and
thereafter, appointed the witness of the panchayatnama (Ext. Ka-6). He further deposed that at the
same time, he prepared the sketch of the dead body (Ex. Ka-7), challan lash (Ext. Ka-8), letter to
C.M.O (Ext. Ka-8), and letter to R.I (Ext. Ka.-10). He further deposed that dead body was wrapped
and properly sealed in cloth. He further deposed that dead body was sent for post-mortem on the
same day through constable Cheddalal, along with the Chowkidar and Home Guard. He further
deposed that from the place of occurrence, he took the sample of blood-stained soil and plain soil
and prepared the memo of the same (Ext. Ka-5).He further deposed that thereafter he recorded the
statements of complainant Brij Kishore, Raj Kishore and inspected the place of occurrence. The
site plan is marked as Ext. Ka-11. He further deposed that on 16.07.1984, he had enquired and
searched for the accused but could not find him. He further deposed that on 15.07.1984, he
recorded the statement of witness Amar Singh. He further deposed that on 17.07.1984, while he
was searching for the accused, he returned to the police station and recorded the statement of Head
Moharir. He further deposed that a copy of the post- mortem was obtained. He further deposed that
on 19.07.1984, accused Santosh and Rakesh appeared before the court and on 20.07.1984, accused
Avadhesh and Suresh appeared before the court. He further deposed that on 23.07.1984, he
recorded the statement of the accused. He further deposed that on 11.08.1984, after completion of
the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet against the accused (Ext. Ka-12). He further
deposed that on 15.07.1984, he had recorded the statement of Ram Kumar @ Kallu. He further
deposed that he had produced the true copy, of the statement given to him by witness Ram Kumar
,before the court (Ext.Ka-13).

21. During cross-examination, he deposed that it is incorrect to say that the statements of the
witnesses were falsely written. He further deposed that it would be incorrect to say that the site plan
was falsely prepared and the inquest proceedings were falsely conducted. He further deposed that it
would be wrong to say that the inquest proceedings were prepared at the police station for this case
and that the entries of the F.I.R and G.D. were anti-timed. He further deposed that he had written
the statements of Rajkumar @ Kallu s/o Ram Bharose and had not taken the statement of Ram
Kumar. He further deposed that in the panchayatnama (Ex. Ka-6), he had not mentioned those
weapons with which injuries were said to have been caused. He further deposed that in the
panchayatnama, the time of preparation was not mentioned. He further deposed that at the spot, a
fawda was found, which was handed over to the complainant and no memo in respect of the same
3 All. Suresh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
117
was prepared. He further deposed that in the site plan, the place where the fawda was found, is
shown and no blood was found on the same. He further deposed that he remained at the spot from
15.07.1984 to 16.07.1984 till 23:55 hours. He further deposed that the site plan does not depict the
place from where the complainant chased the accused. He further deposed that witness Amar Singh
had given him the statement that when he reached near the western corner of the orchard from the
southern boundary of Durga Kohar's orchard, Ramesh Pandey of Chikola was also present with
him. He further deposed that the witness stated that all the accused fled towards the southern
direction. He further deposed that on 23.07.1984, during the course of investigation, he had gone to
Hafizabad @ Vankata village and had recorded the statement of Ramesh Pandey there. He further
deposed that he had not recorded the statement of any Ramesh Pandey of Chikola village. He
further deposed that it is incorrect to state that the charge-sheet was wrongly submitted in collusion
with the enemies of the accused.

Court Analysis:

Conviction on the Basis of Sole Eyewitness and Relevance of Motive

22. The principal submissions urged on behalf of the appellants is that the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, having disbelieved the testimony of PW-3 Amar Singh and PW-4 Ram Kishore
alias Kallu, gravely erred in recording conviction solely on the testimony of PW-1 Brij Kishore. It
has further been contended that there was no immediate or compelling motive for the appellants to
commit the alleged offence and that the motive suggested by the prosecution relates to an incident
said to have taken place nearly twenty-five years prior, which, according to the defence, is wholly
insufficient to sustain conviction.

23. Before adverting to the factual matrix, it would be apposite to notice Section 134 of the
Indian Evidence Act, which unequivocally provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in
any case be required for proof of any fact. The emphasis of the law is thus not on the quantity, but
on the quality of evidence. Moreover, In Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282, the
Supreme Court held in paragraph 3 as follows: