# Surya Lal @ Shiv Lal v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 87
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1201 of 2014
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surya-lal-shiv-lal-v-state-of-u-p-53784
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

Govt. Advocate

Issue for Consideration
The appeal revolves around the specific point
challenging the conviction-(a) Whether the Trial
court
committed
a
manifest
illegality
by
recording a finding of conviction based on
surmises
and
conjectures-(b)Whether
the
recovered knives were capable of causing the
fatal injuries-(c)Whether the recovery of clothes
and weapons was doubtful.

Headnotes
A.
Criminal matter-Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973-Section 374(2)-Indian Penal
Code,1860-Sections-Contradiction
between Medical and Weapon EvidenceThis contradiction created a fundamental
doubt about the prosecution's story and
recovered evidence-Doubtful recovery-The
prosecution
failed
to
produce
any
independent
public
witnesses
to
the
recovery memo, making the recovery
suspect-Unreliable Identification of the
accused inside a dense reserve forest -
The defective investigation and numerous
contradictions led to the accused being
given the benefit of the doubt-Appeal
allowed.

Held
The court found The medical officer stated that
the fatal injuries were likely caused by a heavy
sharp-edged weapon-However the prosecution's
case rested on the recovery of small knives with
7-8 inch blades from the accused-The police
failed to produce any independent public
witnesses to attest to the recovery of the
alleged weapons and blood-stained clothes-nonproduction
of
independent
witnesses
was
unexplained-The eyewitness (PW-1) claimed to
have identified the accused but the time,
location, and conditions made the identification
of the accused by the sole eyewitness highly
improbable and doubtful.(Para 47 to 86) (E-6)

Case law Cited
Vadivelu Thevar Vs State of Madras AIR 1957
Supreme Court 614,Jagdish Prasad Vs State of
Madhya Pradesh AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1251,
Sonvir @ Somvir Vs State NCT of Delhi (2018) 8
SCC 24, Prakash Vs State of Karnataka (2014)
12 SCC 133
Sujit Biswas Vs State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC
406, Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs State of
M.P. AIR 1952 Supreme Court 343, State Vs
Mahendra Singh Dahiya (2011) 3 SCC 109 &
Ramesh Harijan Vs State of UP (2012) 5 SCC
777,Kali Ram Vs State of Himachal Pradesh
(1973) 2 SCC 808-referred to.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code,1860, Criminal Procedure
Code,1973.

List of Keywords
Medical officer, fatal injuries ,heavy sharp-edged
weapon, recovery accused, independent public
witnesses, recovery of the alleged weapons,
blood-stained
clothes,
non-production
of
independent witnesses, dense forest, recovery
memo, investigation.

Case Arising from
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1201 of 2014
From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
11.09.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.
Surya Lal@Shiv Lal Vs. State of U.P.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Appellant(s)
 Amjad Siddiqui, Amul Mani Tripathi Mohemmed
Amir Naqvi, Piyush Kumar Singh, Shreesh
Kumar Mishra Alat, Shubham Gupta
Adv. for Respondent(s)
 Govt. Advocate

## Text

_Characters 0–39,633 of 68,420. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39633 for what follows._

9 All. Surya Lal @ Shiv Lal Vs. State of U.P.
87

31. Compliance report be submitted to
this Court at the earliest. Office is directed
to keep the compliance report on record.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 87
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1201 of 2014
&
Criminal Appeal No. 1359 of 2017

Surya Lal @ Shiv Lal ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Amjad Siddiqui, Amul Mani Tripathi,
Mohemmed Amir Naqvi, Piyush Kumar
Singh, Shreesh Kumar Mishra Alat,
Shubham Gupta

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Issue for Consideration
The appeal revolves around the specific point
challenging the conviction-(a) Whether the Trial
court
committed
a
manifest
illegality
by
recording a finding of conviction based on
surmises
and
conjectures-(b)Whether
the
recovered knives were capable of causing the
fatal injuries-(c)Whether the recovery of clothes
and weapons was doubtful.

Headnotes
A.
Criminal matter-Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973-Section 374(2)-Indian Penal
Code,1860-Sections-Contradiction
between Medical and Weapon EvidenceThis contradiction created a fundamental
doubt about the prosecution's story and
recovered evidence-Doubtful recovery-The
prosecution
failed
to
produce
any
independent
public
witnesses
to
the
recovery memo, making the recovery
suspect-Unreliable Identification of the
accused inside a dense reserve forest -
The defective investigation and numerous
contradictions led to the accused being
given the benefit of the doubt-Appeal
allowed.

Held
The court found The medical officer stated that
the fatal injuries were likely caused by a heavy
sharp-edged weapon-However the prosecution's
case rested on the recovery of small knives with
7-8 inch blades from the accused-The police
failed to produce any independent public
witnesses to attest to the recovery of the
alleged weapons and blood-stained clothes-nonproduction
of
independent
witnesses
was
unexplained-The eyewitness (PW-1) claimed to
have identified the accused but the time,
location, and conditions made the identification
of the accused by the sole eyewitness highly
improbable and doubtful.(Para 47 to 86) (E-6)

Case law Cited
Vadivelu Thevar Vs State of Madras AIR 1957
Supreme Court 614,Jagdish Prasad Vs State of
Madhya Pradesh AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1251,
Sonvir @ Somvir Vs State NCT of Delhi (2018) 8
SCC 24, Prakash Vs State of Karnataka (2014)
12 SCC 133
Sujit Biswas Vs State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC
406, Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs State of
M.P. AIR 1952 Supreme Court 343, State Vs
Mahendra Singh Dahiya (2011) 3 SCC 109 &
Ramesh Harijan Vs State of UP (2012) 5 SCC
777,Kali Ram Vs State of Himachal Pradesh
(1973) 2 SCC 808-referred to.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code,1860, Criminal Procedure
Code,1973.

List of Keywords
Medical officer, fatal injuries ,heavy sharp-edged
weapon, recovery accused, independent public
witnesses, recovery of the alleged weapons,
blood-stained
clothes,
non-production
of
independent witnesses, dense forest, recovery
memo, investigation.

Case Arising from
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1201 of 2014
From
the
Judgment
and
Order
dated
11.09.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.
Surya Lal@Shiv Lal Vs. State of U.P.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Appellant(s)
 Amjad Siddiqui, Amul Mani Tripathi Mohemmed
Amir Naqvi, Piyush Kumar Singh, Shreesh
Kumar Mishra Alat, Shubham Gupta
Adv. for Respondent(s)
 Govt. Advocate

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shreesh Kumar Mishra
Atal, Advocate for the two appellants as
Amicus appointed by the High Court and
learned AGA for the State Respondents.

2. These two criminal appeals have
been filed against judgement and order
dated 07.08.2014 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Bahraich in Session Trial
No. 49 of 2002, State of U.P. Vs. Surya Lal
and Another arising out of Case Crime No.
69 of 2001, Police Station, District
Bahraich, where by the Trial Court has
convicted and sentenced the appellants
under
Section
302/34
IPC
for
life
imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- in
default of which for further imprisonment
of one year, and under Section 353 IPC for
two years imprisonment and under Section
201 IPC for three years, imprisonment and
fine
of
Rs.5,000/-
and
additional
imprisonment of six months in case of
default in payment.

3. Case Crime No. 69 of 2001 was
initially registered in Police Station -
Sujauli, Bahraich on 06.08.2001 at 06:10
AM against three accused, all residents of
Ishwari Ganj Nepal, the informant did not
reveal any names. He only indicated that
one of them belonged to the family of
Ramswaroop Tharu, the other was a
relative of Purinder Tharu and the third one
was an unidentified fellow. It was stated in
the written report dated 06.08.2001 that on
04.08.2001 Forest Guard Jitendra and
Watcher Kallu were returning from their
duty in Beat no.2 of Katarniya Ghat Range.
Near No Man's Land Ishwari Ganj village,
they found two boys reading a book. Forest
Guard Jitendra questioned them and
scolded them by saying that these people
keep a watch on movement of Forest
Guards by making an excuse of reading
books, only to warn their accomplices who
were indulging in illegal felling and selling
of trees in the forest. The informant said
that he, Nanmoon, was working as Forest
Guard in Beat No.1 and on 05.08.2001
while returning from his Beat, he met
Jitendra Lala Forest Guard and Kallu
Watcher on the road also coming back to
forest checkpost on their cycles. All three
were then returning together when they
were accosted by the accused, who were
armed. They took them inside the jungle
about two kilometres and then threatened
and scolded Jitendra Lala for slapping them
last evening. They forced him to take off
his clothes and they tied his hands as well
as there of Kallu Watcher and the
informant. One of the accused then took
Jitendra Lala aside and stabbed him
repeatedly. Another accused then took
Kallu Watcher aside and stabbed him to
death, but let the informant go on his
begging them to spare his life. He came
back to his check post and told Nathuram
Forest Guard about it and then both of
them crossed the river and reached the
Forest Range Office where he told
everything to Dy. Range Officer Sri
Abdullah who then came to the Police
Station to lodge FIR.
9 All. Surya Lal @ Shiv Lal Vs. State of U.P.
89

4. The Investigating Officer did not try
to find out the names of the accused till the
night of 13.09.2001 when the three accused
Surya Lal, Chankau and Harichanda and
two others were arrested for illegally
cutting down a tree. It was thereafter that
weapons of assault were recovered and
charge sheet was filed and the Sessions
Trial commenced.

5. Harichanda was declared juvenile
by order of the Sessions Court on
24.07.2012. His case file was separated.
Surya Lal and Chankau were tried and
convicted.

6. The Trial Court examined eleven
prosecution witnesses. Three were officials
belonging to the Forest Department, two
were Medical Officers, and the rest were
Policemen.

7. P.W.1 and P.W.2, Nanmoon and
Dashrath Forest Watchers, have been
treated as witnesses of fact alongwith
P.W.3, Abdullah the Deputy Forest Ranger,
who had written the FIR. Dr. Ajay Kumar
Tiwari, P.W.4 was the Doctor on duty
when the victim Jitendra Singh Srivastava
was brought in for treatment. Dr. M.R.
Mallik P.W.6 and P.W.8 Dr. Saiyyad
Ashraf Hussain were Medical Officers,
who had conducted the postmortem of the
two deceased Jitendra Srivastava Forest
Guard and Kallu Watcher. P.W.5 M.Z.
Khan was in-charge of Special Operation
Group
Team,
P.W.7
was
Constable
Moharir, S.I. Digvijay Singh as P.W.9, S.I.
Sreenivas Chaudhary as P.W.10. and S.O.
Jitendra Kumar Kaushal as P.W.11 were
the three Investigating Officers.

8. Nanmoon, the first informant, stated
that he was illiterate and therefore, he
dictated the FIR to Abdullah Khan, the
Deputy Ranger, who wrote it down on a
piece of paper before it was submitted in
Sujauli Thana on 06.08.2001 at 6:10 AM.
Nanmoon P.W.1 stated that on 05.08.2001,
while he was returning from his Beat No.2
Katarniya Ghat Range, he met Jitendra Lala
Forest Guard and Kallu Watcher on the
way as they were returning from Beat no.1.
This was around 07:00 PM. When all of
them were riding their bicycles towards
their Check Posts they met three people on
the way, two of them were carrying guns
and the third had a knife. These three
people caught hold of Jitendra Lala, Kallu
and the informant Nanmoon and confronted
Jitendra Lala saying that he had scolded
them and slapped them last evening, that is
on the evening of 04.08.2001, and he
should not have done so. They pointed the
gun in their hands towards the victims and
they tied their hands with rope made of
Baint (Rattan) and threw away their cycles,
and then disrobed Jitendra Lala. Surya Lal
took him aside and tried to shoot him
down, but his gun malfunctioned, and he
took out his knife and repeatedly attacked
Jitendra Lala until he fell down. Surya Lal
returned to the place where Kallu Watcher
and Nanmoon were standing, and then
Chankau took Kallu Watcher some distance
away in the opposite direction and also
attacked him repeatedly with his knife
which resulted in instant death of Kallu
Watcher. P.W.1, then stated that he begged
the assailants to leave him, and they
decided to untie his hands and left him and
went their way towards the No Man's
Land. P.W.1 took his cycle and came to the
check post where he told the story to
Nathuram Forest Guard and they decided to
inform the Range Office across the River.
They took a steamer to cross the river and
reached the Range Office where P.W.1 told
his ordeal to Abdullah Khan, Deputy
Ranger, who wrote it down and it was
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
given to the S.H.O. Sujauli on 06.08.2001
in the morning.

9. P.W.1 stated that there were two
check posts near the No Man's Land. On
each there were employees of the Forest
Department, who had their service guns/12
Bore
guns
given
to
them
by
the
Government. P.W.1 was posted in Beat
No.1 check post with Forest Guard
Nathuram Tripathi and Watcher Ghasite. In
the check post on Beat No.2 Forest Guard
Jitendra Lala, and Watcher Kallu along
with Dashrath Watcher were posted.
Jitendra Lala had kept one more Watcher
Dashrath also with him.

10. On a specific query being made,
P.W.1 stated that while going to inspect
their Beat, they do not carry any weapons.
It is only when they received information
with regard to illegal felling of trees that
they take their guns along with them. All
weapons in the check post are under the
control of Forest Guard. Being Watchers
only they cannot take any guns without the
permission of the Forest Guard. Only when
Forest Guard and Forest Rangers move on
Inspection, they take their weapons along
with them. P.W.1 also admitted that in No
Man's Land on the Indian side, there is a
PAC outpost also with 20 persons posted.
This PAC output also had facility of
wireless at the time of the incident. The
Forest Check Post is about 3 kms. away
from the PAC outpost. Ishwari Ganj and
Karmohini villages in Nepal are around 3
kms. away from No Man's Land.

11. P.W.1 in his cross-examination
stated that he goes on Inspection every one
or two weeks during which he meets wild
animals and mafia and most of the times,
the wild animals move away when he fires
from his gun in the air. They used to fire
guns in the air also when they came across
forest mafia. P.W.1 further stated during
his examination-in-chief that he had been
working in the Forest Department for more
than 20 years, but had not caught any
person doing illegal felling and the only
time he had been part of an operation for
catching forest mafia was around one
month after the incident, when S.H.O. and
other Police persons had visited the Range
Office at night on 13.09.2001 and were told
by Nathu Ram Forest Guard about illegal
felling being done near his Beat No.1. The
Police
personnel
along
with
Forest
Department officials in the Range Office at
Katarnia Ghat, crossed the river in the dead
of the night and reached the PAC outpost
and took all persons from the PAC outpost
also while laying ambush on persons
illegally felling trees in the forest near
Ishwari ganj. When they reached the spot at
around 02:00 AM, the Police warned the
mafia not to try to run away as they had
been surrounded. Thereafter, five people
were caught doing illegal felling, he
recognised three of them as the assailants
of Jitendra Lala and Kallu Watcher. It was
then that P.W.1 came to know their names
as Surya Lal, Chankau and Harichanda.
P.W.1 also stated that he was witness of the
recovery made by the Police of cycles and
clothes of the deceased and weapons of
assault i.e. two knives that were buried in
the soil.

12. P.W.1 also stated that workers
were often called by the Forest Department
from Karmohini and Ishwari Ganj villages
in Nepal and Dashrath Watcher had his
second wife's parents living in Karmohini
Village Nepal. Dashrath Watcher had been
working since 1986-87, in Katarnia Ghat
and he used to regularly visit his wife's
village in Nepal. The Range Office has
three Foresters, one Range Officer, one
9 All. Surya Lal @ Shiv Lal Vs. State of U.P.
91
Deputy Ranger, one Forest Guard and four
to five Watchers. The Range Office is
equipped with firearms and as are all Forest
Check posts where one Forest Guard and
two Watchers are posted. All Watchers and
Forest Guards/employees of the Forest
Department are given training to how to
use firearms. There is a wireless set
available in the Range and one can talk to
another Range on this wireless set. The
D.F.O., Bahraich office also had a
telephone connection.

13. On repeated cross-examination
P.W.1 stated that, although Forest Check
Posts in all Beats have 12 bore rifles, and
the Range Office also has guns, they are
not being carried by Forest Guards and
Forest
Watchers
on
routine
Beat
inspections. P.W.1 admitted that he had
only caught one Sadhu Tharu some four
years ago, committing theft of forest
produce. Sadhu Tharu belonged to Nepal
Ganj. No Man's Land is land between India
and Nepal borders. Beat No.1 and Beat
No.2 are inside the forest on the Indian
side. The road between Beat No.1 and Beat
No.2 is around 12 ft. wide and it leads to
the Forest Check Post. P.W.1, along with
Jitendra Lala and Kallu Watcher was
stopped near Ghalghala Nala by three
people/assailants. At that time, P.W.1,
Jitendra Lala and Kallu Watcher had only
Lathis/sticks in their hand, whereas the
three assailants had two guns and a knife.
Because of the gun barrel being pointed
on Jitendra Lala's face they stopped, and
the three assailants tied their hands
behind their backs and made them sit
under a tree. Surya Lal then took Jitendra
Lala some 02 Km. away and then
returned some 15 minutes later. Chankau
thereafter took Kallu Watcher in the
opposite
direction
and
returned
15
minutes later.

14.
P.W.2
Dashrath
in
his
examination-in-chief had stated that on
04.08.2001, he was accompanying Forest
Guard, Jitendra Singh Srivastava and Kallu
Watcher during their inspection in Beat
No.2. They found two boys sitting in forest
land near Ishwari Ganj Village and reading
books. The Forest Guard Jitendra Lala had
asked them why they were sitting there and
scolded them and made them go away. On
walking a few paces they met another
Forest Watcher, who told them that these
boys were helping in illegal felling by
keeping a watch and raising a warning on
approach of Forest Guards. On coming to
know of this, Jitendra Lala had called the
two boys back, who told their names as
Surya Lal and Harichanda and they were
questioned and slapped by Jitendra. The
very next day, Jitendra Lala and Kallu
Watcher were killed in the forest. P.W.2
also stated that he had been working in
Beat No.2 Katarnia Ghat since 1988 and
his wife's name was Jayanti Devi and she
belonged
to
Karmohini
village,
P.S.
Rajapur Mandi, District Bardia in Nepal.
Karmohini and Ishwari Ganj villages were
situated next to No Man's Land.

15. P.W.2 denied any relation of his
wife with the accused, who were also
residents of Nepal. He also stated that his
wife had not gone to her maternal home for
nearly one year after the incident. P.W.2
however later during cross-examination
denied having seen Jitendra Lala and Kallu
Watcher scolding and slapping the accused
Harichanda and Surya Lal on 04.08.2001.
He denied the suggestion of Police having
interrogated him with regard to the incident
at any point of time.

16. P.W.3 Abdullah Khan, Deputy
Ranger, Katarnia Ghat Range, stated in his
deposition that on 13.09.2010, the S.H.O.
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sujauli Jitendra Kumar Kaushal along with
Sub-Inspector Shreenivas Choudhary and
Constables and S.O.G. In-charge M.Z.
Khan along with other persons had reached
the Range Office on a jeep. They told
Range Officer, Rajendra Prasad that secret
information had been received regarding
illegal felling taking place on the other side
of the river. All persons from the Range
Office then accompanied the Police and
S.O.G. team to PAC outpost on the banks
of the Gerua River and then reached the
place where they could hear the noise of
felling of trees. There were around thirty
persons in the team by the time they
reached the place. They surrounded the
place and caught five persons along with
their saws and axes and they disclosed their
names as Surya Lal, Harichanda, Chankau,
Haule and Hariram. Nanmoon Watcher
identified three of them as those who had
attacked
and
killed
Jitendra
Singh
Srivastava Forest Guard and Kallu Watcher
on 05.08.2001. The three accused admitted
to their crime. They also expressed the
willingness to show the place where they
had hidden the cycles, clothes of the
victims and their knives. At dawn, two
independent
witnesses,
Ameere
and
Ghasite, were taken along with the accused
near Ghalghala Nala where the accused
took out the cycles of the victims and their
clothes from the bushes,as well as two
knives, that they had buried under the
ground.

17. P.W.3 also stated that Forest
Guards have 12 bore guns with them and
Foresters and Rangers have rifles. All of
them are trained to handle such arms.
However, P.W.3 could not tell the number
of rifles and guns available in Katarnia Ghat
Range Office. He further stated that there
was no four wheeler in the Range Office at
the time of the incident and they had to walk
to the river bank. The Range Office is
around 1 Km. away from the banks of the
river Gerua. They had crossed the river by
using boats. Nathuram Tripathi, Forest
Guard had told them about illegal felling of
trees in the Range Office. After crossing the
river, they walked for around one to one and
a half kms before they reached the place
where the felling was being done. On
crossing the river Gerua, there is a 10 feet
wide forest road constructed up to No Man's
Land on the border, which is used by people
very often for coming to India and going to
Nepal. P.W.3 admitted that before such raid
on 13.09.2001, or even thereafter, no such
raid was carried out in Katarnia Ghat Range
to nab any forest mafia.

18. During cross-examination, P.W.3
stated that on 05.08.2001, and 06.08.2001,
he was posted in Katarnia Ghat Range
Office, but he was on leave some two to
three days earlier to the incident and
returned on duty one or two days later. He
also stated that there was a road between
Beat No.1 and Beat No.2, which led to
Rajapur in Nepal. Ishwari Ganj Village was
half a kilometre from No Man's Land, on
Nepal border and was around 3 kms from
the Forest Check Post. The team conducting
the raid on 13.09.2001 had not been told
about why they were going to Beat No.2. On
reaching the place on foot where illegal
felling
was
being
carried
out,
they
surrounded it and caught five persons of
whom three were identified by Nanmoon
Watcher as the ones who had attacked and
killed Jitendra Lala and Kallu Watcher.
These three were taken straightaway to the
Police Station by the S.H.O. The other two
persons, who were caught were taken to the
Range Office as accused in forest offence.
P.W.3 also stated that at the time of their
arrest, no arrest memo was prepared by the
Police.
9 All. Surya Lal @ Shiv Lal Vs. State of U.P.
93

19. P.W.4 Dr. Ajay Kumar Tiwari was
the Medical Officer on duty in District
Hospital - Bahraich where Jitendra Singh
Srivastava was admitted at 09:00 AM on
06.08.2001 in a serious condition. He died
soon thereafter at 09:15 AM. The news
regarding
death
of
Jitendra
Singh
Srivastava was sent to the Police Station
through a Ward Boy.

20. P.W.5 M.Z. Khan Inspector, was
In-charge of S.O.G. team he along with
Jitendra Kumar Kaushal S.H.O. P.S.
Sujauli had accompanied the Police and
S.O.G. team to Katarnia Ghat Range
Office, where they took Forest Guards and
Forest Department Officials and reached
the banks of River Gerua, which they
crossed on a steamer to reach the other
side. They found a PAC Check Post where
there was one Subedar and four Constables.
All of them then walked to the place where
they found illegal felling being done. It was
around 01:30 AM. He also stated the same
story regarding P.W.1, recognising three
out of the five persons caught as those who
had attacked and killed Jitendra Lala and
Kallu Watcher. He gave the names of two
independent witnesses as Amir Hasan S/o
Ghasite and Munnawar Ali S/o Kalute
residents
of
Katarnia
Ghat
who
accompanied them in the morning, when
the recovery of assault weapons and
belongings of the deceased were made.

21. While P.W.3, Abdullah Khan,
Deputy Ranger, in his examination has
stated that the S.O.G. team along with
Police team had come to Katarnia Ghat
Range office at around 9:00 PM on the
night of 13.09.2001, the S.O.G. team Incharge P.W.5 M.Z. Khan stated that they
had not gone to Katarnia Ghat Range
Office. They had reached the banks of the
Gerua River where they were met by the
forest team led by Rajendra Srivastav
Range Forest Officer, who told them
regarding illegal felling. They then crossed
the river together on the Forest Department
steamer and reached the PAC outpost. The
PAC Constables also joined them and a
total of 29 to 30 people then walked
stealthily to the place where the felling was
taking place and surrounded the accused.
They reached the place at around 01:30
AM in the morning. It is 2 kms. away from
Ishwari Ganj Village on Nepal border.
They could hear the accused talking and
cutting down a tree from about a fifty to a
hundred meters distance. He also stated that
they remained in the forest with the
accused after arrest for around four to five
hours till dawn, and then the accused took
them to the place where they had hidden
the belongings of the deceased and the
weapons of assault. After arrest, the
accused were not taken to the Forest Range
Office but to Sujauli Police Station at
around 10:00 AM in the morning on
14.09.2001.

22. P.W.6 Dr. M. R. Mallik had
conducted the postmortem of Jitendra
Singh Srivastava on 06.08.2001. There
were six incised wounds two on the face
and neck, one on the collar bone and two in
the abdomen and one incised wound on the
left hand. Such wounds were caused by
sharp edged weapons. He also stated that
Injury No.1 and Injury No.2 could have
been caused by a heavy sharp edged
weapon like an axe/farsa or a Gandasa as
they were deep and had cut through the
bones as well.

23. P.W.7 Head Constable Mohit
Yadav was posted as Head Moharrir. He
verified the chik FIR lodged at P.S. Sujauli
at 06:10 AM on 06.08.2001. The G.D.
entry was done by Sub-Inspector, Srinivas
94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Chaudhary as he was In-charge of the
Police Station at the time and the S.H.O.
Digvijay Singh was on leave. After lodging
of FIR, information was given on RT set to
the higher officers. Special report to the
Magistrate was sent at 06:15 AM on the
same day. This witness has stated that
Nanmoon P.W.1 and Abdullah Khan had
both come to the Police Station on bicycles
to lodge the FIR.

24. P.W.8 Dr. Syed Ashraf Hussain
stated that he was Medical Officer on duty
on 07.08.2001 when the body of Kallu
Watcher was brought in for postmortem by
Constable Ram Ratan Yadav and Constable
Mahant Yadav. The death had occurred
around one and a half days ago. The body
was
covered
with
maggots.
It
had
decomposed and the skin had left the bone
and disintegrated at some places. There
were six incised wounds all on the face,
around the neck, upper part of the body, on
the thorax and cutting through trachea,
vertebral column, carotid artery, jugular
vein and food pipe.

25. P.W.8 was recalled for crossexamination, and he stated that the nature
of the incised wounds on Kallu Watcher's
body were such that they might have been
caused by Farsa, Gandasa or Kanta, a
heavy sharp edged weapon and not by a
knife as a knife may cause a punctured
wound.

26.
P.W.9
Digvijai
Singh
SubInspector was In-charge, Sujauli Police
Station at the time of the incident, but he
had gone on leave, and therefore, the
investigation was initially carried out by
S.I. Sreenivas Chaudhary. He took over
investigation with effect from 09.08.2001.
He was transferred out of Sujauli Police
Station on 19.08.2001.

27. P.W. 10 Sreenivas Chaudhary took
up investigation on 06.08.2001. He stated
that
he
had
accompanied
Forest
Department employees to the place of the
incident and recovered the dead body of
Kallu Watcher and conducted inquest. He
also took blood stained soil and plain soil
from where he had found the dead body of
Kallu Watcher and made a site plan of the
scene of crime. He also took blood stained
soil and plain soil from the place where
Jitendra Srivastava the injured had been
lying, on the pointing out of Forest
employees. However, he did not find
Jitendra Srivastava at the scene of crime
and he did not try to find out the
whereabouts of Jitendra Srivastava, who
perhaps was taken to the hospital by forest
employees. He also did not collect any
papers about the inquest and postmortem
conducted
on
the
body
of
Jitendra
Srivastava.
He
handed
over
the
investigation to Digvijai Singh on his
return from leave on 09.08.2001.

28. P.W.10 stated the same story with
regard to accompanying the SOG team and
Forest
Department
Team
and
PAC
personnel to the forest, where they
discovered five persons illegally trying to
cut a sheesham tree. It took the Police, the
SOG Team, the Forest Officials and PAC
personnel 5 to 6 hours to reach the place
where illegal felling was being done. They
reached the place at around 01:30 AM and
surrounded the persons cutting the tree and
caught five of them.

29. P.W.10 also admitted that he made
no efforts to go to Ishwari Ganj Village to
find out about the relatives of Ramswaroop
Tharu and Purinder Tharu, whose mention
had been made in the FIR by the first
informant. He was in charge of the
investigation only for three days. He,
9 All. Surya Lal @ Shiv Lal Vs. State of U.P.
95
however, accompanied the Police Team
that went on 13.09.2001 to Katarnia Ghat
and found five persons, who were illegally
cutting trees with their equipment. P.W. 10
stated that they had started in the evening
of 13.09.2001 and reached the Range
Office at around 09:00 to 10:00 PM from
where they walked to the place where
Nathuram Tripathi, Forest Guard had stated
illegal felling to be taking place. P.W. 10
also stated that the Forest Department had
made some noting with regard to recovery
of axe and saw from the five people they
had caught on the night of 13.09.2001.
They reached the Forest Department Check
Post at around 03:00 AM in the morning of
14.09.2001 and reached the Police Station
at around 10:00 AM. Three of the accused,
who had admitted their involvement in
killing Jitendra Srivastava and Kallu
Watcher, were taken to the Police lockup .
The remaining two were handed over to the
Forest Department employees to initiate
proceedings
against
them
for
forest
offence.

30. P.W.11 Jitendra Kumar Kaushal
S.H.O. had taken over the investigation
after Digvijai Singh on 26.08.2001. The
Case Diary contained the statements of
almost
all
witnesses.
However,
on
30.08.2001, D.W.11 recorded additional
statements of the first informant, P.W.1 and
of Dashrath P.W.2. He also recorded
statements of Smt. Jayanti Devi and her
husband Bhukali. He accompanied the
Police Team along with SOG Team and
Forest and PAC personnel on 13.09.2001 in
the raid which led to arrest of three accused
along with two others who were charged with
forest offence later on for illegally felling
trees in the reserved forest. P.W.11 stated the
same story regarding the incident of
05.08.2001, and of 13.09.2001 as told by
other
prosecution
witnesses.
The
recovery/arrest memo was dictated by
P.W.11 and noted down by P.W. 10. The site
plan of the place of arrest of the accused on
13.09.2001 was drawn up by P.W.11. He had
also noted the statements of the accused, and
of S.I. M. Z. Khan In-charge of SOG team,
constables accompanying them, Range Forest
Officer Rajendra Kumar and Deputy Range
Officer Abdullah Khan on 14.09.2001 and
15.09.2001.

31. Charge sheet was submitted by
P.W.11 on 07.10.2001 in the Trial Court. The
two knives recovered as the weapons of
assault was sent by him along with other
material evidence to the Forensic Science
Laboratory on 01.03.2002.

32. During cross examination by the
counsel for defence, P.W. 11 admitted that
the names of the three accused were revealed
to him by Nanmoon and Dashrath and his
wife, when he had recorded their additional
statements on taking over the investigation.
He, however, made no correspondence with
his superiors to enable him to go to Ishwari
Ganj and Karmohini villages in Nepal
from where the accused had reportedly
come. He did not make any effort to track
the accused to their villages. It was only
by chance that on 13.09.2001, while
conducting
inspection
on
Indo-Nepal
Border along with SOG team, he came to
know of illegal felling in Katarnia Ghat
Beat No. 1 and then caught the three
accused along with two others.

33. After conclusion of the evidence of
prosecution, the statement of the accused
was recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the
evidence produced by the prosecution and
claimed
that
they
had
been
falsely
implicated and that they were not present
on the spot.
96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

34. The defence Advocate had argued
before the Trial Court that since the forest
mafia had killed two Departmental officials
there was huge public pressure and also
from the authorities on them to somehow
solve the case and the accused being
innocent Nepali citizens had been called
from their Village and locked up at the
Police Station and the raid which took
place on 13.09.2001 did not actually
happen.

35. The learned Amicus Curie for the
appellants has submitted that the Trial
Court has committed a manifest illegality
in appreciating the evidence available on
record and has recorded a finding of
conviction on the basis of surmises and
conjectures. All the witnesses were official
witnesses, who were interested in seeing
conviction of accused as there was great
pressure from the authorities to solve the
case. Therefore, the Trial Court has
committed an illegality in accepting their
evidence as truthful.

36. It was further argued by the
learned counsel for the appellants that as
per the opinion of the Medical Officer, who
conducted the postmortem of the deceased,
the injuries were such as would have been
caused by a heavy sharp edged weapon,
like a Pharsa, Gandasa or Kanta and it was
doubtful that the injuries were caused by
simple knives which though have sharp
edges were too light to have caused such
deep wounds. The Trial Court has not
considered this aspect of the matter in a
correct perspective.

37. It has also been argued by the
learned Amicus that independent witnesses
were shown to be present on the spot when
recovery memo was prepared of the
clothing and other belongings of the
deceased and the weapons of assault.
However, they have not been produced
before the Trial Court. It has further been
submitted that the FIR of the case has been
lodged ante-timed and in fact nobody had
seen the incident and only with the purpose
of solving a blind case of murder, the
departmental officials have implicated the
appellants.
There
are
material
contradictions and embellishments in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and
the Trial Court has failed to notice such
discrepancies and relied on evidence of
such
untrustworthy
witnesses.
The
appellants are entitled to be acquitted.

38. The learned counsel for the
appellants argued that P.W.1 at different
places has given different statements.
Initially, he had stated that two of the
assailants, who stopped them were carrying
guns and one was carrying an iron road. At
another place, he has stated that two were
carrying guns and one was carrying a knife.
Also at one place, P.W.1 stated that PAC
outpost was 03 Km. away, it had a wireless
set and armed Constables on duty.
However, at another place he stated that
there was no PAC outpost near the place
where the accused had stopped and
attacked them. P.W.1 did not initially say
in his deposition that after reaching check
post of Beat No.1 and narrating the incident
to Nathuram Tripathi, they went to the
Range Office. In the Range Office there
were several persons including the Ranger,
Rajendra Kumar and Deputy Ranger
Abdullah. Besides Foresters, Forest Guard,
and Forest Watchers, but none of them
attempted to inform the Police or send
information to the adjacent Range's Office
through
wireless
set
which
was
functioning. He also did not say that the
employees at the Range Office had initially
gone to the place where Jitendra Lala had
9 All. Surya Lal @ Shiv Lal Vs. State of U.P.
97
been attacked. Kallu watcher was found
dead while Jitendra Lala was found in a
serious condition and was taken to hospital
on the night of 05.08.2001.

39. During the course of cross
examination of other prosecution witnesses,
it has come out that after P.W.1 disclosed
about the incident at the Range Office, the
Ranger and Dy. Ranger along with some
fifteen to twenty people had reached the
place of incident by crossing the river on a
steamer. It has also come out that P.W.1
did not accompany the Deputy Ranger to
the Police Station- Sujauli for lodging of
the FIR. The Police Station was only half
an hour away from the Range Office by
jeep. After the lodging of the FIR, the
police had kept P.W.1 and P.W.2 Dashrath
Forest
Watcher
and
Bhukali
Forest
Watcher for fifteen to twenty days in the
Police lock up and interrogated him as they
did not believe their story. P.W.1 also
stated that he did not know the names of
the accused till the time of their arrest on
13.09.2001, when they themselves told
their names to the Police and S.O.G. team,
who had caught them however in his
additional statement to S.O. Jitendra Kumar
Kaushal, the third Investigating Officer, he
had indeed told the names of the accused.

40. It has been argued by learned
counsel for the appellants that it is difficult
to believe that three well built Forest
Guards and Forest Watchers were stopped
on the main road to Nepal Ganj, which is
quite a busy road, by three young men and
killed with no witnesses, except P.W.1 to
have seen the incident.

41. It has also been argued that the
motive that has been disclosed by the
official witness P.W.1 is hearsay and
P.W.2, Dashrath Watcher is too weak a
motive for the accused to kill the victims
and it may also be tainted by personal
enmity as Dashrath and Bhukhali Forest
Watchers, who were accompanying the
team that caught the accused, were both
residents of Nepal and Bhukali's wife
belonged to the same village from where
the accused hailed.

42. The Trial Court has glossed over
several discrepancies and contradictions in
the prosecution story. It has been stated in
the prosecution story as narrated in the
Trial Court judgement that on 13.09.2001,
Jitendra Kumar Kaushal, Station House
Officer, along with one Constable and one
Sub-Inspector
Sreenivas
Chaudhary
accompanied the Special Operations Group
headed by Sub-Inspector, M.Z. Khan and
other Constables went on Govt. jeeps to
conduct inspection on Nepal border, and
after conducting such inspection reached
Katarnia Ghat Range Office, Nathuram
Tripathi Forest Guard told them about
illegal felling of trees in his Beat near
Gerua River. In the Forest Range Office at
Katarnia Ghat, they met the Ranger -
Rajendra
Kumar,
Deputy
Ranger
-
Abdullah Khan, Foresters, Forest Guards,
and
Forest
Watchers,
who
then
accompanied them to the place near Gerua
River, where trees were being illegally felt.
On reaching the banks of Gerua River, they
also took along personnel manning PAC
outpost, and reached the spot as shown by
Nathuram Tripathi Forest Guard. They
quietly surrounded the place where a tree
was being felled at around 01:30 AM and
caught five persons along with axes and
saws used for cutting trees. These five
persons revealed their names as Surya Lal,
Harichanda, Chankau, Haule, all residents
of Ishwari Ganj and Hariram Tharu
resident of Soli Thana, Rajapur in Nepal.
On lighting the torch Nanmoon the
98 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
informant told them that of the five, three
i.e. Surya Lal, Chankau and Harichanda
were the same persons who had killed
Jitendra Munshi and Kallu Watcher in his
presence on 05.08.2001.

43. In the Recovery Report/arrest
dated 13.09.2001, it has been mentioned
that after the three accused were identified
by P.W.19, they themselves told the Police
team that they had killed Jitendra Lala and
Kallu Watcher because they had insulted
and beaten them up the previous evening
without any fault. They also expressed a
willingness to show the place where they
had hidden the cycles and the clothes of the
deceased and the knives they had used for
assaulting the victims. When it was dawn,
they had taken the accused with them, who
took out the cycles and the clothes of the
victims and dug out the knives used in the
assault from the ground. Both the knives
had around seven to eight inches long
blades. One had a wooden handle the other
had a metal handle. The accused confessed
of having first asked the victims to take off
their clothes, then tied their hands behind
their backs and then had killed him with the
knives which had been recovered. The
knives and clothes were sealed in separate
bundles to be sent to the forensic lab for
examination, the Recovery Memo was
prepared on the spot, it was read out to the
accused and their thumb impressions taken
on it. The other two persons Haule S/o Ram
Charan and Hariram S/o Dude Tharu were
also arrested and handed over to Rajendra
Prasad Range Officer Katarnia Ghat for
being separately prosecuted for forest
offence.

44. Learned AGA on the other hand has
submitted that the Trial Court has not
committed any illegality in appreciating the
evidence available on record and has relied
on the evidence of witnesses of fact, who,
according to him appear to be trustworthy
and reliable.