# Veda @ Vedpal & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 485
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 4672 of 2007, 5743 of 2007, 5037 of 2007
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Mayank Kumar Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/veda-vedpal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-51189
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

Law
-
Appeal
against
conviction - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 148, 302 r. w. Section 149, 120B, Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 - Murder -
Unlawful Assembly - Arms Possession -
Illicit relationship - conspiracy - firearms -
recovery
-
torchlight
identification
-
Disclosure statement of the accused must
be recorded in the presence of public
witness before making recovery - Merely,
non-mentioning of the names of the
appellants on the inquest report does not
conclusively
indicate
that
the
first
information report came into existence
after
inquest
proceedings.
(Para
-
111,114)

(B) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Section
313 CrPC cannot be seen simply as a part
of audi alteram partem - It confers a
valuable
right
upon
an
accused
to
establish his innocence and can well be
considered beyond a statutory right as a
constitutional right to a fair trial under
Article 21 of the Constitution, even if it is
not to be considered as a piece of
substantive evidence, not being on oath
under Section 313(2) Cr PC. (Para - 119)

Appellants were convicted for murder of four
individuals - armed with firearms - case involved
allegations
of
an
illicit
relationship
and
conspiracy - Eyewitnesses claimed to have
identified the accused in the light of torches and
lanterns - torches, lanterns, and other items
mentioned were not produced in court as
evidence - No forensic report supported the
recovery of firearms, leading to inconsistencies
in the prosecution's case - Key eyewitnesses
(Punji,
Pappu,
Sukhveer,
Om
Prakash,
Singhveer) not produced by prosecution -
appellants were convicted - hence appeal.
(Paras 1-24, 52-77 ,124)

HELD: - Court found defence's evidence more
convincing than prosecution's motive theory.
Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, leading to the appellants'
acquittal. Deceased were done to death by
some unknown persons and not by the
appellants. Convictions were set aside. (Para -
124,125)

Appeals allowed. (E-7)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,693 of 103,678. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39693 for what follows._

10 All. Veda @ Vedpal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
485
46. Let the record of trial court be
returned and this judgment be notified to
the trial court within two weeks.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 485
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE MAYANK KUMAR JAIN, J.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 4672 of 2007, 5743 of
2007, 5037 of 2007

Veda @ Vedpal & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Gaurav Kakkar, Sri D.K. Dwivedi, Sri
Dushyant Singh, Sri Jai Shanker Audichya, Sri
M.C. Singh, Sri Omvir Singh Rajpoot, Sri P.C.
Srivastava, Sri Prakash Chandra Srivastava, Sri
Ram Chandra Tripathi, Sri Vishnu Prakash

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Vikas Goswami (A.G.A.), Sri S.P.S. Chauhan,
Sri Anil Raghav

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
Appeal
against
conviction - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 148, 302 r. w. Section 149, 120B, Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 - Murder -
Unlawful Assembly - Arms Possession -
Illicit relationship - conspiracy - firearms -
recovery
-
torchlight
identification
-
Disclosure statement of the accused must
be recorded in the presence of public
witness before making recovery - Merely,
non-mentioning of the names of the
appellants on the inquest report does not
conclusively
indicate
that
the
first
information report came into existence
after
inquest
proceedings.
(Para
-
111,114)

(B) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 313 - Section
313 CrPC cannot be seen simply as a part
of audi alteram partem - It confers a
valuable
right
upon
an
accused
to
establish his innocence and can well be
considered beyond a statutory right as a
constitutional right to a fair trial under
Article 21 of the Constitution, even if it is
not to be considered as a piece of
substantive evidence, not being on oath
under Section 313(2) Cr PC. (Para - 119)

Appellants were convicted for murder of four
individuals - armed with firearms - case involved
allegations
of
an
illicit
relationship
and
conspiracy - Eyewitnesses claimed to have
identified the accused in the light of torches and
lanterns - torches, lanterns, and other items
mentioned were not produced in court as
evidence - No forensic report supported the
recovery of firearms, leading to inconsistencies
in the prosecution's case - Key eyewitnesses
(Punji,
Pappu,
Sukhveer,
Om
Prakash,
Singhveer) not produced by prosecution -
appellants were convicted - hence appeal.
(Paras 1-24, 52-77 ,124)

HELD: - Court found defence's evidence more
convincing than prosecution's motive theory.
Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, leading to the appellants'
acquittal. Deceased were done to death by
some unknown persons and not by the
appellants. Convictions were set aside. (Para -
124,125)

Appeals allowed. (E-7)
List of Cases cited:
1. Reena Hazarika Vs St. of Assam, 2018 0
Supreme (SC) 1106
2. Darshan Singh Vs St. of Punj., Laws (SC)
2024-1-18
3. St. of Karna. Vs Suvarnamma & anr., (2015)
1 SCC 323
4. Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs
St. of Maha., 2022 SCC Online SC 883
5. St. of Karna. Vs Suvarnamma & anr., (2015)
1 SCC 323
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. Durbal Vs St. of UP, Crl. Appl. no.1398 of
2008
7. Nallabothu Ramulu @ Seetharamaiah Vs St.
of A.P., 2014 (12) SCC 261
8. Darshan Singh Vs St. of Punj. ,Crl. Appl. No.
163 of 2010
9. Subramanya Vs St. of Karna., (2023) 11 SCC
255
10. Boby Vs St. of Kerala, 2023 SCC Online SC
50

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mayank Kumar
Jain, J.)

1. Accused Veda @ Vedpal, Ganga,
Jagan, Pyare, Rakesh, Babloo @ Balua,
were
tried
together
by
the
learned
Additional Sessions Judge under Sections
148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC
relating to Crime No.252 of 2004, Police
Station Debai, District Bulandshahr and
Section 25 Arms Act. They have been
convicted under Section 302 read with
Section 149 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act
and sentenced to life and lesser sentences
all of which are to run concurrently.

Accused
Neetu,
Vimlesh
and
Keshav Giri @ Naga Baba were tried under
Sections 120-B read with Section 302 IPC
relating to Crime No.252 of 2004, Police
Station
Debai,
District
Bulandshahr.
Accused Keshav Giri @ Naga Baba was
also tried under Section 25 Arms Act. They
were acquitted after trial.

2. Aforesaid criminal appeals are
preferred by the appellants against the
judgment and order dated 30.6.2007 passed
by Sri Raj Singh Verma, the then
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track),
Court No.20, Bulandshahr, whereby:

(a) All the six appellants,
namely, Veda @ Vedpal, Ganga,
Jagan, Pyare, Rakesh and Babloo
@ Balua have been convicted and
sentenced to one year rigorous
imprisonment under Section 148
IPC, with a fine of Rs.500/- each,
and
sentenced
to
rigorous
imprisonment for life under Section
302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC,
with a fine of Rs.5000/- each in
Sessions Trial No.625 of 2004,
State vs. Veda @ Vedpal and 8
others;
(b) The appellant Rakesh
has been convicted and sentenced
to one year rigorous imprisonment
under
Section
25 Arms Act,
coupled with a fine of Rs.1000/- in
Sessions Trial No.766 of 2004,
State vs. Rakesh;
(c) The appellant Veda @
Vedpal has been convicted and
sentenced to one year rigorous
imprisonment under Section 25
Arms Act, coupled with a fine of
Rs.1000/- in Sessions Trial no.1138
of 2004, State vs. Veda @ Vedpal;
(d) The appellant Babloo @
Balua has been convicted and
sentenced to one year rigorous
imprisonment under Section 25
Arms Act, coupled with a fine of
Rs.1000/-
in
Sessions
Trial
No.1139 of 2004, State vs. Babloo
@ Balua;
(e) The appellant Jagan has
been convicted and sentenced to
one year rigorous imprisonment
under
Section
25 Arms Act,
coupled with a fine of Rs.1000/- in
Sessions Trial No.1140 of 2004,
State vs. Jagan;
(f) The appellant Pyare has
been convicted and sentenced to
10 All. Veda @ Vedpal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
487
one year rigorous imprisonment
under
Section
25 Arms Act,
coupled with a fine of Rs.1000/- in
Sessions Trial No.1141 of 2004,
State vs. Pyare; and
(g) The appellant Ganga
has been convicted and sentenced
to one year rigorous imprisonment
under
Section
25 Arms Act,
coupled with a fine of Rs.1000/- in
Sessions Trial No.1142 of 2004,
State vs. Ganga.

3. The trial Court further directed
that in case of default of fine, each
appellant
shall
undergo
one-year
additional imprisonment. It was also
directed that all sentences shall run
concurrently.

4. During the pendency of the
present appeals, appellant Jagan died on
02.04.2014 and vide order dated 5.8.2024
of this Court, the appeal in respect of
accused Jagan stands abated.

5. Since all the appeals arise out
of a common judgment and order,
therefore, they are being disposed off by
this common judgment.

6. This is a case where four
persons were done to death during one go
of
incident
that
occurred
in
the
intervening night of 24/25.5.2004.

In the first occurrence, Zalim
Singh was shot dead at his tube well, in
the second occurrence, Santosh and
Dinesh were done to death at their tube
well and in the third occurrence, Kunwar
Singh was shot dead by assailants at his
tube well.

The FIR
7. The First Information Report
was registered at Police Station Debai,
District Bulandshahar on the basis of a
written report submitted by informant
Bunty, the son of deceased Dinesh on
25.05.2004 at 6:20 AM.

8. The case of the prosecution
unfolded in the FIR is summarised thus:

(a) Accused Neetu W/o
Pramod was having illicit relation
with accused Veda @ Vedpal. Their
relation
was
opposed
by
the
informant and his family members.
Veda
and
his
family
were
prejudiced against the informant.
They had started to hold grudge
against them. They threatened to
take care of the informant and his
family.
(b) Accused Vimlesh and
Naga Baba visited Village Aukhand
and met Veda on 24.05.2004. Naga
Baba and Vimlesh threatened the
informant and his family members.
They asked the informant that why
they were stopping Neetu from
going to Veda. On this, informant
asked
them
how
they
were
concerned with Neetu and Veda.
Naga Baba and Vimlesh told the
informant that Neetu and Veda
were their friends and that Neetu
and Veda love each other. They said
that
the
informant
must
not
intervene in their relationship, else
they
will
have
to
face
dire
consequences.
(c) On the intervening night
of 24/25.5.2004 at about 1:00-1:30
am, accused Veda, Jagan, Pyare,
Ganga, Nahariya, Rakesh and one
unknown
person,
armed
with
country-made pistols and guns, in
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
continuation
to
their
common
intention, reached at the tube-well
of Zalim Singh. Zalim Singh was at
his well. The uncles of the
informant, namely Sheeshpal and
Sukhveer Singh were irrigating
their field. Upon reaching there, the
accused shot Zalim Singh and he
died. Witnesses Sheeshpal and
Sukhveer Singh rushed towards the
tube-well
and
identified
them
running away in the torch light.
(d) After this, the assailants
reached the tube well of Santosh
and Dinesh, who were irrigating
their fields. They attacked and shot
them dead. The informant along
with Pappu and Punji identified
them in the torch light.
(e) After this, they reached
the tube-well of Kunwar Singh and
shot him dead. His son Vinod, who
was irrigating his field with his
father,
witnessed
the
incident.
Besides this, Singhveer Singh and
Om Prakash, who were on their
tube-well,
had
also
seen
the
assailants running away in the light
of torch and bulb.
(f) Due to fear and in order
to save their lives, they were unable
to oppose the accused because they
were armed with deadly weapons.
The informant and witnesses were
all empty-handed. The miscreants
spread so much terror by firing that
they could not go to their village at
night.
(g) Accused Naga Baba,
Vimlesh and Neetu had committed
conspiracy to commit the murders
of Zalim Singh, Dinesh, Santosh
and Kunwar Singh.

Investigation
9. On the basis of the
aforesaid written report (Ex.Ka.1),
First Information Report (Ex.Ka.8)
came
to
be
registered
under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B
IPC, as Case Crime No. 252 of
2004 at Police Station Debai,
District
Bulandshahr.
The
investigation
was
entrusted
to
Station House Officer, Yashveer
Singh.

10. Inquest of the bodies
of
deceased
Kunwar
Singh
(Ex.Ka.51), Santosh (Ex.Ka.56),
Dinesh
(Ex.Ka.61)
and
Zalim
Singh (Ex.Ka.66) were conducted.
The dead bodies were sent for
postmortem
with
relevant
documents.

11.

The
autopsy
of
deceased
Kunwar
Singh
was
conducted by Dr. A.K. Bansal on
26.5.2004 at 11:00 AM. Report
(Ex. Ka. 12) was prepared. The
following injuries were noted:

(i) Firearm wound
of entry 4 cm x 4 cm x chest
cavity deep on the front of
outer part Rt Chest below
Rt
clavicle.
Blackening
tattooing
present
all
around.
(ii) Firearm wound
of entry 4 cm x 4 cm x chest
cavity deep on the front of
Lt side chest 8 cm above Lt
nipple.
Blackening
and
tattooing present all around
wound.

12. The autopsy of the deceased
Santosh Kumar was conducted by Dr. A. K.
10 All. Veda @ Vedpal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
489
Bansal on the same day at 11:30 am. Report
(Ex. Ka.13) was prepared. Following
injuries were noted:

(i) Firearm wound of entry
4 cm x 4 cm x chest cavity deep on
the front of Lt side chest 4 cm
below Lt clavicle. Blackening and
tattooing all around.
13. The autopsy of the deceased
Zalim Singh was conducted by Dr. A. K.
Bansal on the same day at 12:45 pm.
Report
(Ex.
Ka.14)
was
prepared.
Following injuries were noted:

(i) Firearm wound
of entry 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm
over front of chest 10 cm
from Rt nipple at 2'O clock
position. Blackening and
tattooing
all
around
wound.
(ii) Firearm wound
of Ext. 2 cm x 2 cm over Lt
side back of lower part
chest 6 cm Lt to mid line.

14. The autopsy of the deceased
Dinesh was conducted by Dr. A. K. Bansal
on the same day at 12:15 pm. Report (Ex.
Ka.15) was prepared. Following injuries
were noted:

 (i) Firearm wound of entry 3 cm x
3 cm x chest cavity deep on Lt side chest
just below Axilla (out ax line). Blackening
and tattooing all around present.
(ii) Lac wound 2 cm x 1 cm
over front of chest middle in
between nipple x subcut tissue
deep.
(iii) ab. contusion 2 cm x 3
cm adjacent to Injury no.2.
(iv) Lac wound 2 cm x 1 cm
x muscle deep over front of Rt
Thigh Middle Part. Fracture femur
Rt Traumatic swelling around.

15. The Investigating Officer
visited the places of occurrence. Out of the
pointing of the informant, he prepared site
plans of the places where deceased Kunwar
Singh (Ex. Ka.16), Santosh & Dinesh
(Ex.Ka.17) and Zalim Singh (Ex.Ka.18)
were done to death.

16. The appellant - Babloo @
Balua was arrested on 28.5.2004 and on the
basis of his disclosure statement, a country
made pistol of 315 bore, one fired cartridge
in its barrel and seven live cartridges were
recovered out of his pointing in the
presence of independence witnesses Vinod
Kumar
and
Pappu.
Recovery
memo
(Ex.Ka.28) was prepared. Case Crime
No.254 of 2004 under Section 25 Arms Act
was registered against him.

17. On the same day, the appellant-
Veda @ Vedpal was arrested and on the
basis of his disclosure statement, one
country made pistol of 12 bore, six live
cartridges and one fired cartridge in its
barrel were recovered out of his pointing in
the presence of independent witnesses
Vinod Kumar and Pappu. Recovery memo
(Ex.Ka. 28.) was prepared. Case Crime
No.253 of 2004 under Section 25 Arms Act
was registered against him.

18. On 3.6.2004, the accused-
Keshav Giri @ Naga Baba, during Police
Custody Remand (PCR), got recovered out
of his pointing out a country made pistol of
12 bore, one fired cartridge in its barrel and
two live cartridges of 12 bore in the
presence of independent witnesses Mohar
Singh and Ravindra Singh. Recovery
memo (Ex.Ka. 29) was prepared and Case
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Crime No.260 of 2004 under Section 25
Arms Act was registered against him.

19. On 5.6.2004, the appellant -
Rakesh was arrested. One SBBL gun of 12
bore, one fired cartridge in its barrel and
two live cartridges were recovered out of
his pointing in the presence of independent
witnesses, Mohar Singh and Kamal Singh.
Recovery memo (Ex. Ka. 30) was prepared
and Case Crime No.261 of 2004 under
Section 25 Arms Act was registered against
him.

20. Appellants - Jagan, Pyare and
Ganga, during Police Custody Remand
(PCR), got recovered out of their pointing
three country-made pistols of 12 bore, two
fired cartridges in the barrel and six live
cartridges in the presence of witnesses,
Kamal Singh and Mohar Singh. Recovery
memo (Ex.Ka.34) was prepared. Case
Crime Nos.265, 266 and 267 of 2004 under
Section 25 Arms Act were registered
against them respectively.

21. During the investigation,
recovered arms and cartridges, clothes of
the deceased and other articles were sent
for forensic examination. FSL Report
(Ex.Ka. 92) is brought on record.

22. During the investigation,
statements of the informant and the
eyewitnesses were recorded. Torches were
taken by the Investigating Officer from
informant-Bunty,
Singhveer
Singh,
Sukhveer Singh, Sheeshpal Singh, Punji
Singh, Pappu, Om Prakash and Vinod
Kumar, the witnesses alleged to have seen
the incident. Recovery memos (Ex. Ka. 42
to 49) were prepared. The torches were
returned to the aforesaid persons, with a
direction that they shall produce them
before the Court/Police when required.
23. After investigation, chargesheet (Ex. Ka. 50) came to be filed against
all the appellants under Section 147, 148,
302/149 and 120-B of IPC. Simultaneously,
charge-sheets under Section 25 Arms Act
were also filed by the Investigating Officer
against appellant - Rakesh (Ex.Ka.72),
Keshav Giri @ Naga Baba (Ex.Ka. 80),
appellant - Jagan (Ex. Ka.85), appellant
Pyare (Ex. Ka.86), appellant Ganga (Ex.
Ka. 87), appellant - Veda @ Ved Pal
(Ex.Ka.75) and appellant Babloo @ Balua
(Ex.Ka.76).

24. The case was committed to the
Court of Sessions by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bulandshahr. It was registered
as Sessions Trial No.625 of 2004 (State vs.
Veda @ Vedpal and 8 others). Similarly,
cases under Section 25 Arms Act were also
committed to the Court of Sessions and
were registered as Sessions Trial Nos.766
of 2004 (State vs. Rakesh), 1138 of 2004
(State vs. Veda @ Vedpal), 1139 of 2004
(Babloo @ Balua), 1140 of 2004 (State vs.
Jagan), 1141 of 2004 (State vs. Pyare) and
1142 of 2004 (State vs. Ganga).

The Charges

25. Charges were framed against
appellants, namely, Veda @ Vedpal, Ganga,
Pyare, Nahariya, Jagan, Rakesh and Balua
@ Babloo under Sections 148, 302 read
with Section 149 IPC, whereas charges
were framed against appellants, namely,
Keshav Giri @ Naga Baba, Vimlesh and
Neetu under Section 302 read with 120-B
IPC. Separate charges under Section 25 of
the Arms Act
were
framed
against
appellants - Rakesh, Keshav Giri @ Naga
Baba, Ganga, Pyare, Jagan, Veda @ VedPal
and Babloo @ Balua. All the appellants
denied with the charges and claimed to be
tried.
10 All. Veda @ Vedpal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
491
Documentary Evidence

26. The prosecution witnesses
proved the following documents, executed
during investigation, as exhibits:-

(1) Ex. Ka.1 - Written
Report
(2) Ex. Ka.2 - Chik FIR
(3) Ex. Ka.3 - Copy of
Report
(4) Ex. Ka.4 - FIR
(5) Ex. Ka.5- Copy of
Report
(6) Ex. Ka.6- FIR
(7) Ex. Ka.7- Copy of
Report
(8) Ex. Ka.8- FIR
(9) Ex. Ka.9- Copy of
Report
(10) Ex. Ka.10- FIR.
(11) Ex. Ka.11- Copy of
Report
(12)
Ex.
Ka.12-
Postmortem report of Kunwar
Singh
(13)
Ex.
Ka.
13-
Postmortem
report
of
Santosh
Kumar
(14)
Ex.
Ka.
14-
Postmortem report of Jalim Singh
(15)
Ex.
Ka.
15-
Postmortem
report
of
Dinesh
Kumar
(16) Ex. Ka.16- Site plan -
Kunwar Singh
(17) Ex. Ka.17- Site plan -
Dinesh & Santosh (18) Ex. Ka. 18-
Site plan of Jalim Singh
(19) Ex. Ka. 19- Site plan
of Jalim Singh
(20) Ex. Ka. 20- Recovery
Memo of blood stained and plain
earth.
(21) Ex. Ka. 21- Recovery
Memo of blood stained and plain
earth.
(22) Ex. Ka. 22- Recovery
Memo of blood stained and plain
earth.
(23) Ex. Ka. 23- Recovery
Memo of blood stained and plain
earth.
(24) Ex. Ka. 24- Recovery
of empty cartridge.
(25) Ex. Ka. 25- Recovery
of empty cartridge
(26) Ex. Ka. 26- Recovery
of blood stained Ban of Cot
(27) Ex. Ka. 27- Recovery
of blood stained Khus
(28) Ex. Ka. 28- Recovery
of Tamancha, empty and live
cartridges
(29) Ex. Ka. 29 - Recovery
of Tamancha, empty and live
cartridges
(30) Ex. Ka. 30- Recovery
of SBBL gun, live and empty
cartridges
(31) Ex. Ka. 31- Statement
of Maharaj
(32) Ex. Ka. 32- Statement
of Raghvendra
(33) Ex. Ka. 33- Tehrir -
CD
(34) Ex. Ka. 34- Recovery
memo of 3 Tamancha, empty and
live cartridges
(35) Ex. Ka. 35- Site plan
of recovery by Keshav Giri @
Naga Baga
(36) Ex. Ka. 36- Site plan
of recovery by Jagan
(37) Ex. Ka. 37- Site plan
of recovery by Pyare
(38) Ex. Ka. 38- Site plan
of recovery by Ganga
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(39) Ex. Ka. 39- Site plan
of recovery of 12 bore pistol
(40) Ex. Ka. 40- Site plan
of recovery by Babloo @ Balua
(41) Ex. Ka. 41- Site plan
of recovery by Veda @ Vedpal
(42) Ex. Ka. 42- Recovery
Memo and supurdiginama of Torch
(43) Ex. Ka. 43- Recovery
Memo and supurdiginama of Torch
(44) Ex. Ka. 44- Recovery
Memo and supurdiginama of Torch
(45) Ex. Ka. 45- Recovery
Memo and supurdiginama of Torch
(46) Ex. Ka. 46- Recovery
Memo and supurdiginama of Torch
(47) Ex. Ka. 47- Recovery
Memo and supurdiginama of Torch
(48) Ex. Ka. 48- Recovery
Memo and supurdiginama of Torch
(49) Ex. Ka. 49- Recovery
Memo and supurdiginama of Torch
(50) Ex. Ka. 50- Chargesheet under Sections 147, 148, 149,
302, 120-B of IPC
(51)
Ex.
Ka.
51-
Panchayatnama of Kunwar Singh
(52) Ex. Ka. 52- Letter RI
(53) Ex. Ka. 53- Letter to
CMO
(54) Ex. Ka. 54- Photo of
dead body
(55) Ex. Ka. 55- Chalan -
Dead body of Kunwar Singh
(56)
Ex.
Ka.
56-
Panchayatnama of Santosh Kumar
(57) Ex. Ka. 57- Letter RI
(58) Ex. Ka. 58- Letter to
CMO
(59) Ex. Ka. 59- Photo of
dead body
(60) Ex. Ka. 60- Chalan -
Dead body of Santosh
(61)
Ex.
Ka.
61-
Panchayatnama of Dinesh Kumar
(62) Ex. Ka. 62- Letter to
CMO
(63) Ex. Ka. 63- Letter RI
(64) Ex. Ka. 64- Photo of
dead body
(65) Ex. Ka. 65- Chalan of
dead body of Dinesh
(66)
Ex.
Ka.
66-
Panchayatnama of Jalim Singh
(67) Ex. Ka. 67- Letter RI
(68) Ex. Ka. 68- Letter to
CMO
(69) Ex. Ka. 69- Photo of
dead body
(70) Ex. Ka. 70- Chalan of
dead body of Jalim Singh
(71) Ex. Ka. 71- Site plan
for recovery u/s 25 Arms Act by
Rakesh
(72) Ex. Ka. 72 - Chargesheet - Rakesh
(73) Ex. Ka. 73- Order DM
(74) Ex. Ka. 74- Site plan
for recovery u/s 25 Arms Act by
Veda
(75)
Ex.
Ka.
75-
Chargesheet u/s 25 Arms Act by
Veda
(76)
Ex.
Ka.
76-
Chargesheet u/s 25 Arms Act by
Babloo
(77) Ex. Ka. 77 - Order
DM - Veda
(78) Ex. Ka. 78- Order DM
- Babloo
(79) Ex. Ka. 79- Site plan
for recovery u/s 25 Arms Act by
Keshav Giri
(80) Ex. Ka. 80 - Chargesheet against Keshav Giri u/s 25 of
Arms Act
(81) Ex. Ka. 81 - Order
DM - Keshav Giri
(82) Ex. Ka. 82- Site plan
for recovery by Jagan
10 All. Veda @ Vedpal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
493
(83) Ex. Ka. 83- Site plan
for recovery by Pyare
(84) Ex. Ka. 84- Site plan
for recovery by Ganga
(85) Ex. Ka. 85- Chargesheet against Jagan u/s 25 Arms Act
(86) Ex. Ka. 86- Chargesheet against Pyare u/s 25 Arms Act
(87) Ex. Ka. 87- Chargesheet against Ganga u/s 25 Arms
Act
(88) Ex. Ka.88- Order DM
- Jagan u/s 25 Arms Act
(89) Ex. Ka. 89- Order DM
- Pyare u/s 25 Arms Act
(90) Ex. Ka. 90 - Order
DM - Ganga u/s 25 Arms Act
(91) Ex. Ka. 91- FSL
Report - dead body
(92) Ex. Ka. 92 - FSL
Report of CMP and Gun.

Oral Evidence

27. To prove its case, the
prosecution
produced
the
following
witnesses,

during the trial:
(i)
(PW-1)
Bunti
(informant)
(ii)
(PW-2)
Sheeshpal
Singh, the eye witness
(iii) (PW-3) Vinod Kumar,
the eye witness,
(iv)
(PW-4)
Constable
Clerk Murari Lal
(v) (PW-5) Constable 1241
Shishupal Singh
(vi) (PW-6) Bunti S/o Om
Pal Singh, witness of conspiracy
(vii) (PW-7) Raghvendra
Singh, witness of conspiracy
(viii)
(PW-8)
Maharaj
Singh, witness of conspiracy
(ix) (PW-9) HCP 178 -
Rameshwar Singh
(x) (PW-10) Dr. A. K.
Bansal
(xi)
(PW-11)
Inspector
Yashveer Singh (I.O.)
(xii)
(PW-12)
Sub
Inspector Nahar Singh
(xiii) (PW-13) SI Rajan Lal
Yadav
(xiv)
(PW-14)
Sub
Inspector Ram Avtar Sharma
(xv) (PW-15) Sub Inspector
Anil Kumar.

28. After conclusion of the
evidence of the prosecution, statements of
the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
were recorded.

29. All the appellants categorically
denied that they committed the murder of
deceased Zalim Singh, Dinesh, Santosh and
Kunwar Singh on the intervening night of
24/25.5.2004
with
firearm
weapons.
Further, they denied any recovery of
firearm weapons and cartridges made on
the basis of their pointing. They stated that
the witnesses, Bunti, Sheeshpal and Vinod
Kumar, were having enmity with them, so
they deposed against them.

30. The appellant Babloo @ Balua
stated that there was party-bandi in his
village. He is falsely implicated at the
behest of opposite parties.

31. The appellant Veda @ Vedpal
stated that he had no relation with Neetu.
He was doing the trading of Milk and had
given advance money to Bunti, Sheeshpal
and Vinod Kumar, but they did not supply
the Milk. They did not return his money
and stopped supply of milk. His father was
village Head. They started holding grudge
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against his family. There was rivalry
between the informant and the witnesses
from the time of the tenure of his father as
village head. Bunty was having enmity
with his Fufa and his family members on
account of dowry death of his Bua. Bunty
was the informant, deceased Dinesh,
Santosh and Kunwar Singh were witnesses,
and Zalim Singh was doing pairvi in that
case. It is possible that due to this rivalry,
deceased were done to death by unknown
persons.

32. The appellant Pyare stated that
informant Bunty, witnesses Vinod Kumar
and Sheeshpal had rivalry with appellant
Veda due to money lending in milk trade.
His brother Harfool had contested the
election of village head. Due to this rivalry,
he is falsely implicated in this matter.

33. The appellant Ganga repeated
the version of appellant Pyare.

34. Appellant Rakesh stated that he
is implicated for being a relative of
Vimlesh.

35. Copy of FIR relating to Crime
No.108/03, under Sections 498-A, 304, 201
of IPC and 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
P.S. Debai, District Bulandshahr and
charge-sheet are filed on behalf of the
appellants as documentary evidence in
defence. Bunty, the informant of the present
case, is also nominated as a witness (as
informant) in the charge-sheet. Besides
this, deceased Santosh Kumar and Dinesh
Kumar were nominated as witnesses of
fact.

Appellants' Contention

36. Sri P. C. Srivastava, Sri Pankaj
Kumar Tyagi and Ms. Kanchan Chaudhary,
learned
counsels
for
the
appellants
submitted that it is the case of the
prosecution that the occurrence had taken
place, in a series, in the intervening night of
24/25.5.2004 between 1:00 am to 1:30 am.
In the first occurrence, Zalim Singh was
done to death, in the second occurrence
Santosh and Dinesh were done to death and
in the third occurrence, Kunwar Singh was
done to death. At the time of first
occurrence, Sheeshpal and Sukhveer Singh
were irrigating their field. During the
second occurrence, informant Bunty, Pappu
and Punji were irrigating their field, while
during the third occurrence, Vinod along
with Singhveer Singh and Om Prakash
were present at their Tube-well. The
alleged eyewitnesses such as Sukhveer
Singh, Pappu, Punjji, Singhveer and Om
Prakash, were not produced by the
prosecution during the trial. The motive
attributed to the appellants to commit
murder of four persons is alleged that they
were opposing the relationship of Neetu
and Veda @ Vedpal. On the eve of the
occurrence, Keshav Giri @ Naga Baba,
Vimlesh and Neetu visited the informant
and lodged their protest over the opposition
made by the informant and his family
members.

37. It is submitted that admittedly,
the intervening night of 24/25.5.2004 was
dark. The identification of the appellants at
the place of occurrence is highly doubtful
since there was no source of light. It is
stated by the witnesses that they along with
other persons, who were with them, were
having torches. Besides this, lanterns were
also lighting near the place of occurrence.
No such lantern was recovered by the
Investigating
Officer.
Therefore,
the
existence of a lantern at the place of the
occurrence is completely false. Secondly, it
is stated that PW-1 Bunty, PW-2 Sheeshpal
10 All. Veda @ Vedpal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
495
and PW-3 Vinod Kumar, who claim
themselves to be the eyewitnesses to the
incident,
were
having
torches.
They
identified the appellants, armed with
firearms weapons and committing murder
of Zalim Singh, Santosh, Dinesh and
Kunwar Singh in torch light.

38. The Investigating Officer,
during investigation, took the torches from
these witnesses. He prepared recovery
memos. The torches were returned to them.
These witnesses were directed to produce
these torches at the time of their deposition
during trial. These witnesses failed to
produce torches before the trial Court when
their
testimony
was
recorded.
No
explanation was offered by them for the
non-production of such torches. Even
during the deposition of Investigating
Officer, these torches were not produced by
the prosecution before the trial Court.
Therefore, this theory cannot be relied upon
that the witnesses identified the appellants
in the torchlight.

39. It is also submitted that as per
the prosecution version, the occurrence
took place between 1:00 am to 1:30 am.
FIR was lodged at 6:20 am, while the
inquests of the deceased were prepared
from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm. There is no
recital of the name of the accused persons
on the inquest report. The Investigating
Officer had stated that he reached at 6:50
am at the place of occurrence, but no entry
in General Diary about his Ravangi is
brought on record. Therefore, the FIR is
ante time. It has also come into evidence of
the witnesses that the First Information
Report was lodged after due deliberations.

40. It is also vehemently argued on
behalf of the appellants that the conduct of
all the three alleged eyewitnesses such as
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 is highly unnatural.
When the father of informant, Dinesh along
with Santosh were already done to death,
the informant did not disclose this fact to
Sheeshpal and other persons, when he went
to the place where Zalim Singh was done to
death. As per his testimony, he did not even
approach to the place where the bodies of
Dinesh and Santosh were lying. He
immediately started towards the tube-well
of Zalim Singh in the morning without
attending his father and uncle.

41. It is also submitted that so far
as the recoveries of firearm weapons and
cartridges out of the pointing of the
appellants are concerned, all the recoveries
are shown from the field of Karanwas, in
and around the Ashram of Keshav Giri @
Naga Baba. The learned trial Court
completely ignored the conclusion drawn
by the Forensic Laboratory through its FSL
report.

42. It is further submitted that no
motive has been attributed to the appellants
to commit the murder of the deceased
persons. Neetu is not directly related to the
informant and his family, therefore, there
was no occasion for the informant and his
family members to oppose the relationship
between Neetu and Veda @ Vedpal. There
are
material
contradictions
in
the
statements of the witnesses as well as
version of the FIR. No specific role has
been assigned to any of the appellants in
the FIR. During testimony of the alleged
eyewitnesses, it was not stated as to which
of the appellant committed the murder of
which of the deceased. It is also submitted
that the appellants are in jail since 18 years
and with remission, it comes to 24 years.

43. It is further submitted that none
of the independent witnesses before whom
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
country
made
pistols
and
other
ammunitions were alleged to be recovered
were examined during trial. Therefore, the
recovery is planted.

44. It is further contended that
accused Babloo @ Balua was not named in
the FIR. Informant Bunty has admitted,
during his deposition, that he was knowing
Babloo
@
Balua
since
before
the
occurrence and he identified him at the
time of occurrence, but he did not mention
his name in the FIR.

45. It has been further argued on
behalf of the appellants that the postmortem
report of deceased Dinesh shows the presence
of pellets in his body, which does not appear
to have been fired by a firearm of 315 bore,
though it appears to have been fired by a
firearm of 12 bore. Recovery of a country
made pistol of 315 bore along with one fired
cartridge and seven live cartridges has been
shown out of the pointing of appellant-Veda
@ Vedpal. Postmortem report of Dinesh does
not show any injury of 315 bore. PW-1 Bunty
has deposed that appellant Veda @ Vedpal
fired upon his father Dinesh and committed
his murder. This factum demonstrates that
PW-1 is not an eyewitness to the incident.
FSL report does not corroborate that Veda
fired with the country made pistol of 315
bore since it was not found to be matched.

46. In support of their submissions,
learned counsels for the appellants placed
reliance upon the following judgements of
the Hon'ble Apex Court:

(i) Reena Hazarika vs.
State of Assam, 2018 0 Supreme
(SC) 1106;
(ii) Darshan Singh vs.
State of Punjab, Laws (SC) 20241-18; and
(iii) State of Karnataka
vs. Suvarnamma & Anr., (2015) 1
SCC 323.

State's Reply

47. Per contra, learned AGA Sri
Vikas Goswami, vehemently argued that in
the present case, four persons were done to
death. All the three witnesses, namely, PW1-Bunty, PW-2-Shishpal and PW-3-Vinod
Kumar are the eyewitnesses to the incident.
These witnesses identified the appellants at
the time of incident, armed with firearm
weapons.
There
is
no
contradiction,
improvement or embellishment in their
testimony. According to the prosecution
case, entire incident happened in three
phases. The appellants, in furtherance to
their common intention, firstly, committed
the murder of Zalim Singh. Thereafter, they
committed the murder of Dinesh and
Santosh and lastly, they committed the
murder of Kunwar Singh. They threatened
the informant and other witnesses at the
place of occurrence. It is also submitted
that out of the pointing of the appellants,
country made pistols, live and empty
cartridges were recovered. All the four
deceased died on the spot. In the injuries of
deceased Zalim Singh, Dinesh, Santosh and
Kunwar Singh, blackening and tattooing
were noted at the time of postmortem,
which indicate that the appellants fired
from the close proximity to ensure that in
all probabilities, the deceased would die.

48. It is also submitted that it is the
specific case of the prosecution that the
eyewitnesses were having torches with
them and they identified the appellants at
the time of occurrence in the torch light.
The torches were taken by the Investigating
Officer and recovery memos were also
executed, which are duly proved. It has also
10 All. Veda @ Vedpal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
497
come in the testimony of the eyewitnesses
that lanterns were also lighting at the time
of incident.

49. Learned AGA further argued
that the informant, appellants and the
witnesses were known to each other
because they are the residents of the same
village. On the eve of the incident, accused
Keshav Giri @ Naga Baba, Vimlesh and
Neetu visited the informant and extended
threat
that
they
would
face
dire
consequences, if they continue to oppose
the relationship of Neetu and Veda @
Vedpal.

50. He further submitted that the
statements of the witnesses have to be read
as a whole and not in piecemeal. Minor
contradictions are bound to occur during
the testimony of the witnesses since they
are rustic villagers. He vehemently argued
that where direct evidence is available, the
motive loses its importance. However, in
the present case, the motive is also proved
beyond doubt against all the appellants by
cogent evidence.

51. Reliance is placed by learned
AGA on the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Shahaja alias
Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. State
of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC Online SC
883. The relevant paragraphs are extracted
below:

27. The appreciation of
ocular evidence is a hard task.
There is no fixed or straight-jacket
formula for appreciation of the
ocular evidence. The judicially
evolved principles for appreciation
of ocular evidence in a criminal
case can be enumerated as under:
I. While appreciating the
evidence of a witness, the approach
must be whether the evidence of the
witness read as a whole appears to
have a ring of truth. Once that
impression
is
formed,
it
is
undoubtedly necessary for
the
Court to scrutinize the evidence
more particularly keeping in view
the deficiencies, drawbacks and
infirmities pointed out in the
evidence as a whole and evaluate
them to find out whether it is
against the general tenor of the
evidence given by the witness and
whether the earlier evaluation of
the evidence is shaken as to render
it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before
whom the witness gives evidence
had the opportunity to form the
opinion about the general tenor of
evidence given by the witness, the
appellate court which had not this
benefit will have to attach due
weight to the appreciation of
evidence by the trial court and
unless there are reasons weighty
and formidable it would not be
proper to reject the evidence on the
ground of minor variations or
infirmities in the matter of trivial
details.
III. When eye-witness is
examined at length it is quite
possible for him to make some
discrepancies. But courts should
bear in mind that it is only when
discrepancies in the evidence of a
witness are so incompatible with
the credibility of his version that
the court is justified in jettisoning
his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on
trivial matters not touching the
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
core of the case, hyper technical
approach by taking sentences torn
out of context here or there from
the evidence, attaching importance
to some technical error committed
by the investigating officer not
going to the root of the matter
would
not
ordinarily
permit
rejection of the evidence as a
whole.
V. Too serious a view to be
adopted on mere variations falling
in the narration of an incident
(either as between the evidence of
two witnesses or as between two
statements of the same witness) is
an unrealistic approach for judicial
scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness
cannot be expected to possess a
photographic memory and to recall
the details of an incident. It is not
as if a video tape is replayed on the
mental screen.
VII.
Ordinarily
it
so
happens that a witness is overtaken
by events. The witness could not
have anticipated the occurrence
which so often has an element of
surprise.
The
mental
faculties
therefore cannot be expected to be
attuned to absorb the details.
VIII.
The
powers
of
observation differ from person to
person. What one may notice,
another may not. An object or
movement might emboss its image
on one person's mind whereas it
might go unnoticed on the part of
another.
IX. By and large people
cannot
accurately
recall
a
conversation and reproduce the
very words used by them or heard
by them. They can only recall the
main purport of the conversation. It
is unrealistic to expect a witness to
be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time
of an incident, or the time duration
of an occurrence, usually, people
make their estimates by guess work
on the spur of the moment at the
time of interrogation. And one
cannot expect people to make very
precise or reliable estimates in
such matters. Again, it depends on
the time-sense of individuals which
varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness
cannot be expected to recall
accurately the sequence of events
which
take
place
in
rapid
succession or in a short time span.
A witness is liable to get confused,
or mixed up when interrogated
later on.
XII. A witness, though
wholly truthful, is liable to be
overawed by the court atmosphere
and the piercing cross examination
by counsel and out of nervousness
mix
up
facts,
get
confused
regarding sequence of events, or fill
up details from imagination on the
spur
of
the
moment.
The
subconscious mind of the witness
sometimes so operates on account
of the fear of looking foolish or
being
disbelieved
though
the
witness is giving a truthful and
honest account of the occurrence
witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement
though seemingly inconsistent with
the evidence need not necessarily
be
sufficient
to
amount
to
contradiction. Unless the former
statement has the potency to
discredit the later statement, even if
10 All. Veda @ Vedpal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
499
the later statement is at variance
with the former to some extent it
would not be helpful to contradict
that witness.
[See Bharwada Bhoginbhai
Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983
Cri LJ 1096:(1983) 3 SCC 217:AIR
1983 SC 753, Leela Ram v. State of
Haryana,(1999) 9 SCC 525:AIR
1999 SC 3717, and Tahsildar Singh
v. State of UP, AIR 1959 SC 1012]
28.