# The State of U.P v. Saheb Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 1027
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-19
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 2580 of 1985
- **Bench:** Om Prakash-Vii, Narendra Kumar Johari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-state-of-u-p-v-saheb-singh-ors-48715
- **Pages:** 41

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code.
1860 - Section 302-Accused attacked
informant's brother due to old enmitywitness ran towards the place of incidenceinjured succumbed to death-PW-1, PW-2
and PW-4 proved version of F.I.R.-Pw-5
proved
dying
declaration-day
light
occurrence-
no
material
contradictionscorroborated
by
medical
evidence-non
examination of I.O. will not vitiate the
prosecution
case-accused
constituted
unlawful
assembly
and
attacked
on
deceased
with
common
intention
and
knowledge-prosecution has succeeded to
prove
guilt
beyond
doubt
-impugned
judgment and order of acquittal deserves
interference.

Appeal allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,927 of 141,851. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39927 for what follows._

7 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Saheb Singh & Ors.
1027
collected by the prosecution during the
course of investigation. It is not required
for him to give in detail reasoning in the
application regarding analysis of every
evidence available on file. If, he is of
considered opinion that success of the
prosecution appears to be weak and, the
withdrawal from prosecution would further
the cause of justice and it would be in the
public interest, it cannot be said that the
Public Prosecutor has not applied his
independent mind.

25. Considering the law on the subject
as well as the facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court does not agree with the
finding recorded by the trial Court that the
Public Prosecutor had not applied his
independent mind, but he was guided by
the State Government decision to withdraw
from prosecution and, the impugned
finding does not appear to be correct one.
The application dated 06.04.2018 under
Section 321 CrPC filed by the Public
Prosecutor would suggest that the had
applied
his
independent
mind
and
considered facts, material and evidence in
the case. This Court is of the considered
view that the view of the trial Court is not
correct one and, therefore, the impugned
order dated 10.01.2020 is hereby set-aside.
The
revision
stands
allowed.
The
application dated 06.04.2018 filed under
Section 321 CrPC by the Public Prosecutor
is allowed.
----------
(2022)07ILR A1027
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH-VII, J.
THE HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J.

Government Appeal No. 2580 of 1985

The State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Saheb Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri A.G.A., Sri Vinay Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.K. Agarwal, Sri Alok Ranjan Mishra, Sri
Keshav Sahai, Sri Narendra Singh Chahar, Sri
G.S. Chaturvedi (Senior Adv.)

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code.
1860 - Section 302-Accused attacked
informant's brother due to old enmitywitness ran towards the place of incidenceinjured succumbed to death-PW-1, PW-2
and PW-4 proved version of F.I.R.-Pw-5
proved
dying
declaration-day
light
occurrence-
no
material
contradictionscorroborated
by
medical
evidence-non
examination of I.O. will not vitiate the
prosecution
case-accused
constituted
unlawful
assembly
and
attacked
on
deceased
with
common
intention
and
knowledge-prosecution has succeeded to
prove
guilt
beyond
doubt
-impugned
judgment and order of acquittal deserves
interference.

Appeal allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh & ors. AIR
2016 SC 5160

2. St. of U.P. Vs Jagdeo & ors. (2003) 1 SCC 456

3. Munigadappa Meenaiah Vs St. of Andhra
Pradesh (2008) 11 SCC 661

4. Brahma Swarup & ors. Vs St. of U.P., 2004 (2)
JIC 827 (All)

5. Hardev Singh & ors. Vs Harbhej Singh & ors.
1996 (4) Crimes 216 (SC)

6. St. of U.P. Vs Naresh & ors. (2011) ACR 370
1028 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. Surjit Singh Alias Gurmit Singh Vs St. of Pun.
1993 Supp (1) SCC 208

8. Majju & anr. Vs St. of M.P. 2002 SCC (Cri) 597

9. Subodh Nath & anr. Vs St. of Tripura (2013) 4
SCC 122

10. Marwadi Kishor Parmanand & anr. Vs St. of
Gujarat (1994) 4 SCC 549

11. Hayat Singh Bora Vs St. of Uttarakhand
[2012 (77) ACC 615]

12. St. of U.P. Vs Shane Haidar & ors. 2015 (1)
J.Cr.C. 775

13. Rohtash Kumar Vs St. 25 of Har., Criminal
Appeal No. 896 of 2011

14. Bipin Kumar Mondal Vs St. of W. B.l (2010)
12 SCC 91

15. Uma Shankar Vs St. of U.P. [2015 (89) ACC 421]

16. Paras Yadav & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, 1999 (2)
SCC 126

17. St. Through Reference Vs Ram Singh & ors.,
Death Sentence Reference No. 6/2013,

18. Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor
[(1938-39) 66 IA 66:AIR 1939 P.C. 47]

19. St. of Raj. Vs Bhup Singh (1997) 10 SCC 675

20. Sudhakar Vs St. of M.P., (2012) 7 SCC 569

21. Lakhan Vs St. of M.P. (2010) 8 SCC 514

22. Meharaban & ors. Vs St. of M. P., (1996) 10
SCC 615

23. St. of Rajasthan V. Champa Lal, (2009) 12
SCC 571

24. St. of M.P.Vs Dal Singh & ors., (2013) 14
SCC 159

25. Gulzari Lal Vs St. of Har., (2016) 4 SCC 583

26. Vithal Vs St. of Mah., 2007 Cr.L.J. 317
27. Ashabai & anr. Vs St. of Mah., (2013) 2 SCC
224

28. Dhanaj Singh alias Shera & ors. Vs St. of
Pun., 2004 Cri.L.J., 1807

29. Ram Gulam Chaudhury & ors.Vs St. of Bihar,
AIR 2001 SC 2842

30. Behari Prasad & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, (1996)
2 SCC 317

31. Ganga Singh Vs St. of Madhya Pradesh,
(2013) 7 SCC 278,

32. Abhilakh Singh Vs St. of U.P., [2013 (82)
A.C.C. 110]

33. Krishna Mochi & ors. Vs St. of Bihar, 2002
(2) J.Cr.C., 123

34. Sahabuddin Vs St. of Assam, 2013 Cr.L.J.
1252

35. Bakhsis Singh Vs St. of Pun., AIR, 1957 SC
904

36. Narendra Nath Khaware Vs Parasnath
Khaware, (2003) 5 SCC 488

37. Shivappa & ors. Vs St. of Karn., 2008 CRI.
L.J. 2992,

38. Hardev Singh Vs Harbhej Singh & ors. 1996
(4) Crimes 216
(Delivered by Hon'ble Narendra Kumar
Johari, J.)

1. The present government appeal has
been filed by the State seeking leave to
appeal against the judgment and order
dated 22.06.1985, passed by learned IIIrd
Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in S.T.
No.577/1983 (State Vs. Sahab Singh and
others), arising out of Case Crime No. 4 of
1983, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324,
307, 302 IPC, Police Station Chhaprauli,
District Meerut. By the impugned judgment
and order, learned trial court acquitted the
7 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Saheb Singh & Ors.
1029
accused-respondents Sahab Singh, Charan
Singh, Dharamvir, Dhara Singh and Shri
Pal for the offence punishable under
Sections 323/149, 302/149, 147 IPC.

2. In brief, the case of the prosecution
was that the informant Mahak Singh lodged
an F.I.R. in Police Station Chhaprauli,
District Meerut on 12.01.1983 at 18.10
hours stating that informant along with his
brother Satyapal Singh was returning from
his sugar cane field on 12.01.1983 at about
3.00 P.M. On the way, as he reached near
the sugarcane field of Zilley Singh, the
accused persons Sahab Singh, Charan
Singh, Dharamvir, Dhara Singh and Shri
Pal, who were hidden in the sugar cane
harvest of Zilley Singh's field, came out
from the filed caught Satyapal Singh and
started assaulting him. All the accused
persons had beaten him badly using the
weapons Lathies and Kharpali (a sharp
edged weapon). Informant, who was also
returning from his field and following
Satyapal Singh from some distance, seeing
the occurrence, ran towards them by raising
alarm to rescue his brother. Looking his
activities accused Saheb Singh attacked on
him with Danda. Having heard the voice of
informant, Ranvir, Chandan and Baljeet,
who were present in their fields, moved
towards the place of occurrence to save
them. As the witnesses reached on the spot,
accused persons made their escape good.
The accused persons had attacked on his
brother, due to old enmity.

3.
Injured/victim
Satyapal
was
brought from the place of occurrence to his
house by bullock cart and thereafter to
Police Station by bus. The police registered
F.I.R. on the basis of above written
Tehreer, scribe by Krishna Pal Singh. The
Investigating
Officer,
considering
the
serious condition of injured, recorded the
statement of Satya Pal Singh under Section
161 Cr.P.C. at Police Station. Thereafter,
the injured Satyapal Singh was sent to
Chaprauli Hospital for treatment. Since the
doctor was not available there, hence the
injured moved to Primary Health Center,
Baraut from Chaprauli, but on the way,
injured Satyapal Singh succumbed to his
injuries.
Injured
Mahak
Singh
got
medically examined at Primary Health
Center, Baraut at about 10.10 P.M.

4. Pursuant to the F.I.R., investigation
of the case was entrusted to Station Officer
Rajendra Singh, who prepared the Inquest
report, send the dead body of Satyapal
Singh for Post Mortem, inspected the spot,
sketched the site map and recorded
statement of the witnesses under Section
161 Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer also
collected the blood stained and plain soil
from the place of occurrence. On the
pointing out of the accused Sahab Singh,
the Investigating Officer recovered three
blood stained lathies from the Gher of his
residential house, prepared the Fard and
submitted the police report under Section
173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned
against all the accused persons.

5. Learned trial court framed the
charges under Section 323 read with 149,
302 read 149 and 147 IPC against accused
persons, who denied and abjured the
charges, pleaded not guilty and preferred
the trial.

6. On behalf of the prosecution
Mahak Singh as PW 1, Chandan Singh as
PW 2, Pheru as PW 3, Baljit as PW 4, Kalu
Ram S/o Hardan Singh as PW 5, Dr. T. Raj
Sharma as PW 6, Dr. V.P. Gupta as PW 7,
Constable Sohanpal Singh as PW 8,
Constable Budh Prakash as PW 9, R.S.
Kaushik as PW 10 and constable Sukhpal
1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Singh as PW 11 have recorded their
evidence.

7. PW 1, Informant Mahak Singh, has
corroborated the F.I.R. version in his
evidence and submitted that he was the eye
witness of the occurrence. At the time of
attack, accused Dhara Singh was having
Kharpali in his hand and other accused
persons were carrying Lathies. They started
beating Satya Pal with the weapons which
were carried by them in their hands. At that
time, he was approximately 25 steps behind
his brother. Having seen the occurrence he
shouted the voice for help. After sustaining
the injuries, Satya Pal had fallen down.
Informant
also
received
injuries
of
Lathi/Danda and had fallen down on earth
due to his injuries. After occurrence,
Mahipal carried them at his residence by
bullock
cart.
Informant
dictated
his
application to Krishna Pal and handed over
the application/Tehreer to Police. They
were sent by Police to Chaprauli Hospital
for treatment but the doctor was not
available there. Thereafter, they were
carried to Baraut Hospital. On the way,
injured Satya Pal succumbed to the injuries
sustained by him. At Baraut Hospital,
informant got medically examined. The
witness also discribed about the motive of
occurrence that approximately 8 months
prior to the occurrence his brother Satya
Pal was coming with bullock cart. Accused
Dhara Singh was also coming behind him
by a tractor and was trying to overtake the
bullock cart of Satya Pal but he could not
succeed. Due to the above reason some
quarrel took place between accused Dhara
and Satya Pal and for the aforesaid reason
accused Dhara developed the enmity with
Satya Pal. Co-accused persons Sahab
Singh, Dharamvir and Charan Singh are the
sons of accused Dhara Singh and Shri Pal
is his nephew.

8. PW 2 Chandan Singh has stated in
his oral evidence that on the date of
occurrence, upon hearing the voice of
informant, he reached on the spot and had
seen that accused Dhara, with Kharpali and
other accused persons with lathies were
beating Satya Pal. When Mahak Singh
(informant) intervened and tried to rescue
his brother, he was also beaten by lathies.
The injured Satya Pal was taken to his
village by bullock cart.

9.
PW
3
Feru deposed
that
approximately 7-8 months prior to the
murder of Satyapal, the witness was going
towards his field with Ranveer. On the
way, he saw that Satyapal was coming with
Buggi (bullock cart), behind him accused
Dhara was coming by his tractor. Satyapal
had carried paddy in his bullock cart. Dhara
was saying to give him pass but Satyapal
refused as the passage was as narrow as
there was no proper room to overtake the
bullock cart. Due to the reason some hot
talk took place in between them and also
they scuffled. The witness PW 3 and
Ranveer interfered and mediated to subside
the dispute. Thereafter, both the persons
moved towards the village abusing one
another.

10. Witness PW 4 Baljeet Singh
deposed that on the date of occurrence
when the accused persons were beating
Satyapal by Khaprali and lathies, the
witness reached on the spot. He had also
seen that accused Sahab Singh gave lathi
blow to Mahak Singh also. He also stated
that Satyapal had received several injuries
which have caused profused bleeding.

11. Kalu Ram who had been
examined by the prosecution as PW-5 has
stated that on 12.01.1983 Investigating
Officer/S.I. had recorded the statement of
7 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Saheb Singh & Ors.
1031
injured Satyapal in his presence. He further
stated that injured had described the details
of occurrence, name of accused persons
and weapons to S.I. who recorded the
statement and read over the same to
injured. The witness further had stated that
he also signed the statement as witness.
The witness PW 5 had verified his
signature on dying declaration and proved
the same.

12. PW 6 Dr. T. Raj Sharma deposed
and proved the Post Mortem Report of
deceased Satyapal. This witness had
conducted autopsy of deceased Satyapal.
He had found approximately 10 injuries on
the body of deceased Satyapal and stated
that all the injuries sustained by deceased
were sufficient, in normal course, to cause
death. The incised wounds have been
caused by Kharpali and contusions as a
result of Lathi blows.

13. As according to the postmortem
report, in autopsy the injuries found on the
body of deceased Satya Pal were as under
:-

"(i) Multiple contusion in right side of
arm, forearm and in palm in area of 58 cm.
x 16 cm. extended from 9 cm. below right
shoulder joint to base of all the fingers with
fracture of radial bone.

(ii) Multiple incised wound in dorsal
surface right arm in area of 8 cm. x 1.5 cm.
measuring from 2 cm. x .5 cm x muscle
deep to 1 cm. x .5 cm. x muscle deep just
above the right elbow joint.

(iii) Multiple contusion in back of
right side of gluteal region in area of 36
cm. x 30 cm. at the middle of right gluteal
region.

(iv) Multiple contusion in back and
front of right side thigh leg and foot in area
of 50 cm. x 18 cm., 30 cm. below the right
hip joint.

(v) Multiple incised wound in front of
right side of leg in area of 7 cm. x 2 cm.
measuring from 2.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. into bone
deep to 1.5 cm. X .5 cm. into muscle deep
10 cm. above the right ankle joint.

(vi) Multiple contusion in back and
front of left side of leg and ankle in area of
24 cm. x 18 cm., 8 cm. below the left knee
joint.

(vii) Multiple incised wound in front of
left leg in area of 10 cm. x 3 cm. measuring
from 2 cm. x .5 cm. x bone deep to 1 cm. x
.5 cm. x muscle deep, nine cm. above the
left ankle joint.

(viii) Multiple contusion in back of left
side of gluteal region in area of 30 cm. x 16
cm. at the middle of left gluteal region.

(ix) Multiple contusion with traumatic
swelling in dorsal surface of left forearm
hand palm in area of 28 cm. x 10 cm. 5 cm.
below the left elbow joint to base of all the
fingers of left palm.

(x) Incised wound in dorsal of left
forearm .5 cm. x .5 cm. x muscle deep at
the level of left elbow joint."

14. PW 7 Dr. V.P. Gupta proved the
injury report of informant Mahak Singh
and stated that he had inspected the injuries
of Mahak Singh and had prepared his
medical examination report.

15. The medical examination report of
injured Mahak Singh evidents that he had
undergone
medical
examination
on
12.01.1983 at 7:10 p.m. at P.H.C., Baraut,
where following injuries had been found on
his body:-

"1. Red contusion upon right forearm
middle on flexor aspect 3 cm. x 2 cm. It is
14 cm. above from merist of right.
1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Abrasion on right deltoid region 3
cm. x .5 cm. long. It is 8 cm. below from top
of right shoulder.

3. Lenear abrasion on back middle on
both sides 11 cm. x 1 cm. long. It is
transverse in line. It is 19 cm. below from
top of reverth and clavicle vertibre."

As according to the Doctor's opinion,
the injuries were simple in nature and
caused by some hard object. The duration
of injuries were fresh.

16. PW 8 Constable Sohanpal Singh
stated that he had prepared the Chik report
and G.D. entry on the basis of Tehrir given
by informant Mahak Singh at Police
Station Chhaprauli.

17. PW 9 Constable Budh Prakash
deposed that he had carried the dead body
along with relevant papers to doctor for
post mortem.

18. PW 10 S.I. Shri R.S. Kaushik
deposed that he had prepared the inquest
report of the deceased and sent the dead
body to P.H.C. Bagpat for post mortem
through constable Budh Prakash and
Veersen.

19. PW -11 Constable Sukhpal Singh,
in absence of Investigating Officer, proved
the investigation proceedings, (which were
carried by Investigating Officer Rajendra
Singh), the hand writing of Constable
Sohan Pal (who had prepared the Chik
report and made the G.D. entry) and the
recovery memos of three blood stained
lathies and soils blood stained as well as
plain.

20. After conclusion of prosecution
evidence, the trial court recorded the
statements of accused persons under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the accused
persons denied their implication in the
offence, stated that the witnesses had given
false evidence against them. They further
stated that they had been implicated in the
case due to Partiandi of the village. They
denied the facts mentioned in the F.I.R.,
oral as well as documentary evidence of
prosecution. They also denied the factum of
recovery of lathies. No oral evidence has
been produced as defence witness, in
support of their defence.

21. After considering the facts and
circumstances as well as the evidence on
record, learned Trial court acquitted the
accused persons from the charges levelled
against them. Aggrieved by the acquittal of
accused persons, the prosecution preferred
the instant appeal before this Court.

22. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the
trial court has committed material illegality
in acquitting the accused/respondents from
the charges. Learned trial Court did not
appreciate the evidence in accordance with
the legal principles. The prosecution had
succeeded in proving the guilt of accused
persons, that too, without any shadow of
doubt. There were injured witness as well
as eye witness account of the occurrence.
There was consistency in prosecution
evidence. Since Satya Pal had died before
the medical treatment, therefore, his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
deserve to be treated as his dying
declaration, and was liable to be considered
as trustworthy. The F.I.R. version is
supported by the statement of reliable
witnesses as well as documentary evidence
including medical evidence. In the light of
evidence
of
eye
witnesses,
if
the
Investigating Officer has not come forward
to record his evidence, that can not cause
any adverse effect on the prosecution case.
7 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Saheb Singh & Ors.
1033
Learned trial court has wrongly interpreted
the above points and acquitted the accused
persons from the charges. Hence, the
judgment and order passed by the trial
court, being based on surmises and
conjuncture, is liable to be set aside and
instant appeal deserves to be allowed. The
accused persons be punished for the crime
committed.

23. In reply, learned counsel for the
accused-respondents, referring the findings of
trial court, submitted that the prosecution
witnesses were not reliable. There were
discrepancies in documentary as well as oral
evidence of witnesses. Motive of the
occurrence has not been proved. There is
subsequent improvement in the prosecution
evidence. Dying declaration has not been
recorded in accordance with law. The
manner, by which, it was recorded by the
Investigating Officer makes it inadmissible in
evidence. The Investigating Officer has not
been produced by prosecution to adduce his
evidence and the Chik writer has not
completed his cross examination. The
evidence of PW 11 was not admissible.
Taking into consideration the above inherent
defects, the trial court has rightly acquitted
the accused persons as the prosecution had
failed to prove the charges of offence against
the accused persons. There is no illegality or
infirmity in the judgment of the trial court.
The instant appeal has no force and is liable
to be dismissed.

24. We have heard the arguments of
both the sides and perused the record
thoroughly. The appellate court is competent
and has jurisdiction to reassess the evidence
on record in the light of facts and
circumstances of the case.

25. The FIR of the occurrence has
been lodged at Police Station Chhaprauli,
District Meerut on 12.01.1983 at 18:10
hours for the offence which took place on
the same day at 3:00 p.m. The distance
from the place of occurrence to police
station has been shown as 6 miles. It has
also been shown that after the occurrence,
the injured persons were brought at his
residence
by
bullock
cart
first.
As
according to evidence of PW-1 the distance
from place of occurrence to his residence
was approximately 6-4 furlong, then after
that by Bus the victim was brought to
Police Station. Taking into consideration
the severity of injuries, distance and mode
of transportation, in the absence of any
evidence otherwise, it can be concluded
that the FIR of the offence was lodged with
due
promptness
and
without
any
unnecessary/undue delay.

26. Learned A.G.A. has submitted
that
prosecution
had
produced
11
witnesses, out of them, 5 were the
witnesses of fact. Apart from that, the
documentary
evidence
produced
by
prosecution, all were able to prove the case
against accused persons without any
shadow of doubt, but learned trial Court
failed to consider the prosecution evidence
in accordance with law.

27. In reply, learned counsel for the
accused-respondents has submitted that
witness PW-1 Mahak Singh is the real
brother of deceased Satya Pal. He is family
member as well as highly interested
witness, therefore, learned trial court has
rightly concluded that his testimony is not
reliable.

28. As according to fact and evidence
on record, the witness PW 1 although is real
brother of deceased Satya Pal, yet at the time
of occurrence, his presence alongwith Satya
Pal is not doubtful. The FIR of the occurrence
1034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as well as all the prosecution witnesses have
categorically shown his presence at the place
of occurrence. The statement of PW 1, so far
as his presence, role of accused persons and
injuries sustained by him and Satya Pal are
concerned, have been corroborated by oral
evidences of witnesses PW 2, PW 3 and PW
7 along with his injury report and post
mortem report of Satyapal, which have been
proved as Exts. Ka-3 and Ka-4. Witness PW1 had stated in his examination-in-chief that
when he tried to rescue his brother, he was
also beaten by Lathi Danda. He fell down in
drain (Naali) due to his injuries. Doctor had
medically examined him in Baraut Hospital
at about 8'O clock. Witness PW 4 Baljit, who
had reached at the place of occurrence
hearing the alarm of PW 1 was the eye
witness of occurrence. He had stated in his
chief examination as well as in crossexamination that when he reached on spot he
had seen that the accused at the spot had
beaten Satyapal, when Mahak Singh raised
an alarm to save his brother, thereafter, he too
was beaten by accused Sahab Singh. The
witness PW-7 Dr. V.P. Gupta, who had
examined him after the occurrence and had
prepared his medical examination report, has
proved the same in his evidence. The
witnesses PW 1, PW 4 and PW 7 had been
cross-examined by counsel for defence in
length but nothing otherwise could be
revealed. The FIR itself, which has promptly
been registered, also contains the fact that
when informant Mahak Singh tried to save
his brother Satya Pal, accused Sahab Singh
beaten him by wooden stick (Danda).
Nothing is on record which may prove that
informant had not received the aforesaid
injuries during the course of occurrence.

29. So far as the evidentiary value of
such a relative eye witness is concerned,
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh &
Others AIR 2016 SC 5160 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held in para 28, which
reads as under :-

"28.
A
survey
of
the
judicial
pronouncements of this Court on this point
leads to the inescapable conclusion that the
evidence of a closely related witnesses is
required to be carefully scrutinised and
appreciated before any conclusion is made
to
rest
upon
it,
regarding
the
convict/accused in a given case. Thus, the
evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on
the ground that the witnesses are related to
each other or to the deceased. In case the
evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent,
credible and trustworthy, it can, and
certainly should, be relied upon. (See Anil
Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318;
State of U.P. Vs. Jagdeo Singh, (2003) 1
SCC 456; Bhagalool Lodh & Anr. Vs. State
of U.P., (2011) 13 SCC 206; Dahari &
Ors. Vs. State of U. P., (2012) 10 SCC 256;
Raju @ Balachandran & Ors. Vs. State of
Tamil
Nadu,
(2012)
12
SCC
701;
Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy
& Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 298; Jodhan Vs.
State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 52) : (AIR
2015 SC (Supp) 1991)."

30. In the case of State of U.P. Vs.
Jagdeo & Others (2003) 1 SCC 456, the
Apex Court has held in para 7, which reads
as under :-

"7. There are three eye-witnesses of
the incident, that is, P.W.1 Ramraj son of
the
deceased
Ram Lachhan, P.W.2
Firangi and P.W.4 Sudama, who is an
injured witness and whose son Rajendra
is the other deceased. The High Court
doubted the evidence of these eyewitnesses merely on the ground that they
had motive in supporting the prosecution
case. Legally speaking, we are unable to
7 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Saheb Singh & Ors.
1035
accept this reasoning. Most of the times
eye-witnesses
happen
to
be
family
members or close associates because
unless a crime is committed in a public
place, strangers are not likely to be
present at the time of occurrence.
Ultimately, eye-witnesses have to be
persons who have reason to be present on
the scene of occurrence because they
happen either to be friends or family
members of the victim. The law is long
settled that for the mere reason that an
eye- witness can be said to be an
interested witness, his/her testimony
need not be rejected. For the interest
which an eye-witness may have, the court
can while considering his or her evidence
exercise caution and give a reasonable
discount, if required. But this surely
cannot be reason to ignore the evidence
of eye-witnesses. The High Court was
clearly in error in not considering the
evidence of eye-witnesses at all in the
present case for the reason that they
were interested witnesses. As seen
earlier, one of the eye-witnesses in an
injured person who received injuries in
the incident itself. He was rather
seriously injured. If he was not present at
the time of occurrence, wherefrom he
received the injuries, would be an
obvious question. In fact, P.W.4 is also
the father of the deceased Rajendra. It is
common in villages that male members of
a family sleep together in the open during
summer season. Sleeping near the tubewell is understandable because that
would
lend
some
coolness
to
the
atmosphere. The High Court totally
ignored the other aspect of the evidence
of the eye-witnesses. That is, the evidence
was consistent and the version of the
witnesses tallied with each other. In our
view, there was no reason to discard the
evidence of the eye-witnesses. This
evidence is clinching and it clearly
implicates the accused persons. There is
no reason to doubt the veracity of the
evidence of at least P.W.1 and P.W.4 and
that is sufficient to convict the accused
persons."

31. In the case of Munigadappa
Meenaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
(2008) 11 SCC 661, the Apex Court has
held in para 10, which reads as under:-

"10. We shall first deal with the
contention regarding interestedness of
the witnesses for furthering prosecution
version.

10..... Relationship is not a factor to
affect credibility of a witness. It is more
often than not that a relation would not
conceal
actual
culprit
and
make
allegations against an innocent person.
Foundation has to be laid if plea of false
implication is made. In such cases, the
Court has to adopt a careful approach
and analyse evidence to find out whether
it is cogent and credible."

32. Also in the case of Brahma
Swarup & Others Vs. State of U.P., 2004
(2) JIC 827 (All) this Court has expressed
the same view.

33. In the case of Hardev Singh &
Others Vs. Harbhej Singh & Others 1996
(4) Crimes 216 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the evidence of close
relations who testified facts relating to
occurrence be not rejected merely on
ground that they happened to be relatives.
Evidence of such witnesses be scrutinized
very carefully.

34. In the case of State of U.P. Vs.
Naresh & Others (2011) ACR 370, the
Apex Court has held that mere relationship
1036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cannot be a factor to affect credibility of a
witness. Evidence of a witness cannot be
discarded solely on the ground of his
relationship
with
victim
of
offence.
Contrary to the same the finding of trial
Court is perverse.

35. In the case of Surjit Singh Alias
Gurmit Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1993
Supp (1) SCC 208 the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held in para 9, which reads as under:-

"9. To be fair to the learned counsel
for the appellant, we may mention that he
ventured to argue that the evidence
regarding the marrying of the crime bullet
shells with the pistol recovered was not
convincing, mor so when the .303 pistol,
the alleged crime weapon, was recovered
from Gurmit Singh, co-accused. It is
noteworthy that Gurmit Singh, co-accused,
stands convicted under the Arms Act for
being in possession of that pistol. This
aspet of the case cannot be a substitute to
the eyewitness account or the plea taken by
the appellant. Had the presence of the two
witnesses, that is, Jaswinder Kaur PW5 the
Taljit Singh PW2 at the scene of the
occurrence been doubted, the recovery of
the weapon of offence and its connection
with the empty shells recovered at the spot
would have assumed some significance.
When the two eyewitnesses are natural
witnesses of the crime, one being the young
wife who would normally be in the
company of the husband at 10.30 p.m. on a
summer night and the other the newphew of
the deceased who had suffered grievous
injuries in the occurrence and was thus a
stamped witness, not much importance is to
be attached to this aspect of the case. The
venture is futile."

36. In the case of Majju & Another
Vs. State of M.P. 2002 SCC (Cri) 597, the
Apex Court has held in para 5, which reads
as under :-

"5. The counsel for the appellants
contended that the evidence adduced by the
prosecution was interested and therefore, it
cannot be relied upon. It is important to
note that the witnesses examined on the
side of the prosecution were all injured in
the incident. PW6 Ramchandra Sustained
a grievous injury, in the sense that he lost
one of his teeth. The other witnesses also
sustained injuries. That is proved by the
various medical certificates issued by the
doctor who examined them. Therefore, the
presence of these witnesses at the place of
occurrence cannot be suspected. All these
witnesses gave evidence to the effect that
when they along with deceased Bihari Lal
were coming from the temple after
performing some ceremony, the accused
surrounded and attacked them. We do not
find any infirmity in the evidence of these
witnesses."

37. In the case of Prithvi (Minor) Vs.
Mam Raj & Others (2004) 13 SCC 279,
the Apex Court held that the fact that
eyewitness sustained serious injuries in the
incident in question the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that giving credence to the
prosecution story that he was at the spot
when the offence was committed.

38. The informant Mahak Singh
(P.W. 1) was an injured witness, who had
received three injuries soon after the
occurrence had gone to Police Station
along with the injured Satya Pal, his
medical
examination
has
been
done
promptly and has been proved by witness
PW 7. There is no evidence regarding any
deliberations or any conspiracy before
lodging the FIR, against accused persons
leaving real assailant/culprit, if any. Five
7 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Saheb Singh & Ors.
1037
persons have been named in the FIR as
accused persons assigning role to attack on
deceased and informant with Lathi, Danda
and Kharpali. The deceased Satya Pal had
received ten injuries. No suggestion has
been given by counsel for defence to
witness PW 1 in his cross examination
indicating the fact showing any deliberation
of PW 1 with any other person to implicate
the accused persons falsely.

39. Although witness P.W. 1 is real
brother of deceased yet there is no
discrepancy in his evidence on the point of
occurrence. A close scrutiny of evidence of
P.W.
1
indicates
that
there
is
no
discrepancy in his statement on the material
points. Neither any contrary evidence has
been produced nor any such contradiction
has been pointed out in prosecution
evidence, which may prove the facts
otherwise or may place the ground to
disbelieve the testimony of injured witness
PW
1.
Hence,
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, the statement of
witness PW 1, who is injured eye witness,
is trustworthy and reliable. The contrary
finding of the trial court on the above point
is perverse and against the evidence on
record.

40. Learned counsel for the accusedrespondents has argued that prosecution
witnesses
were
failed
to
prove
the
prosecution
case
against
the
accusedrespondents. The statements of prosecution
witnesses
are
not
corroborating
the
prosecution
version
rather
there
are
contradictions and improvements. The FIR as
well as statement of injured Satya Pal, which
was recorded by the I.O. under Section 161
Cr.P.C. had not shown that amongst accused
persons who had carried Lathis and who had
carried Kharpali, this fact is subsequent
development. The statement of PW 1 that
accused Dhara had attacked Satyapal by
Kharpali, that too is improvement, hence,
learned trial court rightly concluded it
improvement and discrepancy, accordingly,
the statement of PW 1 is not admissible.

41. It reveals from the record that at the
time of submission of written Tahreer for
FIR, the informant and Satya Pal both were
having injuries on their body. Satya Pal had
received a number of grievous and fatal
injuries including incised wounds, which had
resulted excessive bleeding. At that time his
general condition also was not good. The fact
is also on record that within few hours from
recording his statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. the injured was expired before getting
any medical aid, hence in such a situation,
omission of all the detail is not unnatural. His
injuries were corroborated by his post
mortem report. The informant was of tender
age with rustic background, therefore, in such
panic situation, the omission to mention the
kind of weapons, which were carried by each
of the accused persons in their hands is quite
probable. Although, in his cross-examination,
he had explained that he had dictated scribe
to mention the aforesaid fact in Tehreer that
accused Dhara was carrying Kharpali in his
hand and he do not know why the scriber has
not mentioned the said fact in FIR. The law is
well settled that FIR is not a chronicle of the
exhaustive details of occurrence. A prompt
FIR does not require to have mention each
and every details of occurrence. The purpose
of FIR is to request for initiation of
investigation, it cannot be encyclopedia. In
the case State of U.P. Vs. Munesh, 2013
Cr.L.J., 194, in paragraph no. 13, Hon'ble
Apex Court has held as under:-

"13. Though it is stated that all the
details as spoken to by Pws 1, 2 and 3 were
not mentioned in the FIR, as rightly
observed by the trial Court, FIR is not an
1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
encyclopedia. It is just an intimation of the
occurrence of an incident and it need not
contain all the facts related to the said
incident."

42. In the case of State of U.P. Vs.
Harban Sahai and Others, 1998 SCC (Crl)
1412, the legal principles has been laid
down in paragraph no. 8, which is as
follows:-

"8. The aforesaid criterion is the result
of a strained reasoning. It is understood
that Kanta without sharp projection at the
end would be a mere stick or lathi. If the
nephew of the deceased mentioned in the
FIR that the assailants were armed with
lathis and guns there is no reason to
conclude that the information when he gave
first information had ruled out the
possibility of Kanta being used by the
assailants. FIR is not a chronicle of the
exhaustive details of the occurrence, nor
is it a catalogue of everything including
minor particulars of the events which took
place.
Picking
out
an
insignificant
discrepancy regarding description of one of
the weapons for jettisoning an otherwise
sturdy account of the eyewitness is not a
commendable approach in the evaluation
of evidence."

43. In the case of Stae of U.P. Vs.
Naresh and Others, [2011] A.C.R. 370, it
has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph no. 26, which is as follows:-

"26. The High Court has also fallen
into error in giving significance to a trivial
issue, namely, that in respect of the
morning incident all the accused had not
been named in the complaint/NCR.

It is settled legal proposition that FIR
is not an encyclopedia of the entire case. It
may not and need not contain all the
details. Naming of the accused therein
may be important but not naming of the
accused in FIR may not be a ground to
doubt the contents thereof in case the
statement of the witness is found to be
trustworthy. The court has to determine
after examining the entire factual scenario
whether a person has participated in the
crime or has falsely been implicated. The
informant fully acquainted with the facts
may lack necessary skill or ability to
reproduce details of the entire incident
without anything missing from this. Some
people may miss even the most important
details in narration. Therefore, in case the
informant fails to name a particular
accused in the FIR, this ground alone
cannot tilt the balance of the case in favour
of the accused. [Vide: Rohtash v. State of
Rajasthan, (2006) 12 SCC 64; and Ranjit
Singh & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
JT 2010 12 SC 167]."

44. The co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Mata Baksh Singh Vs.
State of U.P., 1978 Cri.L.J. N.O.C., 63
(All.), has held that FIR is not an
encyclopedia of the details of the crime. It
is not necessary that it should set out the
minor details of the occurrence.

45. In the present case, the FIR is
prompt,
the
prosecution
version
as
mentioned in the FIR, is supported by
medical evidence as well as oral evidence
of witnesses, PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW5. There is no substantial inconsistency in
their deposition. Therefore, in the light of
aforesaid
trustworthy
and
supporting
evidence of prosecution, the view taken by
learned trial court contrary to the same, is
bad in the eyes of law, the above omission
in the FIR and in statement of Satyapal is
neither subsequent development, nor fatal
for prosecution case.
7 All. The State of U.P. Vs. Saheb Singh & Ors.
1039

46. Learned counsel for the accusedrespondents has further submitted that
witness PW 1 in his statement had stated
that he had not gone Chhaprauli alongwith
injured Satypa Pal rather he joined him at
Baraut while going Baraut for medical
treatment. The above part of the statement
of witness creates doubt on his testimony
regarding
occurrence,
injuries,
dying
declaration and FIR, why not he joined
Satya Pal when he was going Chhaprauli
from Police Station. Prosecution is silent on
this point.

47. In reply, learned A.G.A.