# Vijai Pal Singh (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1033 of 1986
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-27
- **Case number:** CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1033 of 1986
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Misra-I, Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijai-pal-singh-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-46419
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

law-
Indian
Penal
Code
-
Sections - 302, 307, 324 and 309 -
Appeal against conviction.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt -
Held :- The testimony of witnesses are
natural
and
consistence
the
site
plan
indicates place of occurrence which is proved
by the Investigating Officer. (para 22)
Prosecution has proved the case beyond
reasonable doubt. (Para 24)

Appeal rejected. (E-2)

## Text

3-5 All. Vijai Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
367

42. Certify this judgment to the court
below for information and necessary
compliance.

43. The compliance report be
furnished to this Court through the
Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad
within one month.

44. Ms.Mahima Maurya, learned
Advocate rendered valuable assistance to
the Court. The Court quantifies Rs.15,000/-
to be paid to Ms.Mahima Maurya,
Advocate
towards
fee
for
the
able
assistance provided by her in hearing of
this Criminal Appeal. The said payment
shall be made to Ms.Mahima Maurya,
Advocate by the Registry of the Court
within the shortest possible time.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A367
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISRA-I, J.
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1033 of 1986

Vijai Pal Singh ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri P.C. Misra, Sri Bhawishya Sharma
(A.C.)

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal
law-
Indian
Penal
Code
-
Sections - 302, 307, 324 and 309 -
Appeal against conviction.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt -
Held :- The testimony of witnesses are
natural
and
consistence
the
site
plan
indicates place of occurrence which is proved
by the Investigating Officer. (para 22)
Prosecution has proved the case beyond
reasonable doubt. (Para 24)

Appeal rejected. (E-2)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J. &
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by
the appellant - Vijai Pal Singh, son of Sri
Babu Singh against the judgment and order
of conviction dated 10.03.1986, passed by
the Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions
Trial No. 255 of 1984 (State vs Vijai Pal
Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 45 of
1984, under Sections - 302, 307, 324 and
309 I.P.C., Police Station - Barhpura,
District - Etawah, whereby the appellant
was convicted under the aforesaid sections
and was sentenced to life imprisonment
under Section - 302 I.P.C.; three years'
rigorous imprisonment under Section - 324
I.P.C.; and one year rigorous imprisonment
under Section - 309 I.P.C.

2. All these sentences were directed to
run concurrently.

3. In the same trial, accused was
found not guilty under Section - 307 I.P.C.
and was acquitted of the charge.

4. Factual chronology of the case,
culminating into lodging of the F.I.R. by
informant Chhotey Singh (P.W.1), on
23.06.1984 at 01.55 a.m,. at Police Station -
Barhpura, District - Etawah, at Case Crime
No. 45 of 1984, under Sections - 307, 309
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
I.P.C., was that the informant was a
Company Hawaldar of 37 Batallion P.A.C.
and was posted as such at Police Station -
Barhpura. Today i.e. on the date of
occurrence (23.06.1984), Constable/P.A.C.
19520 - Vijai Pal Singh was on Sentry duty
at the said police station from 11:00 p.m.
(to be precise 22.06.1984) to 01:00 a.m. (on
26.06.1984) in the night intervening
22/23.06.1984 and his duty was to be
followed by another Sentry Constable -
20185 Arun Kumar, whose duty was to run
from 01:00 a.m. to 03:00 a.m. on
23.06.1984. Neither did Constable Vijai Pal
Singh wake up/report the informant after
his duty was over, nor did he wake up
Constable Arun Kumar for taking on his
duty (after 1:00 a.m. in the night). It was
around 01:30 a.m. (in the night intervening
22/23.06.1984) when a sound of fire was
heard. This awakened the informant as well
as the other personnel of the force. Vijai
Pal Singh was sighted running towards the
office of the police station with rifle and he
was chased by the informant (Chhotey
Singh), Constable 20251 Shanker Bux,
Constable
19596
Siddh
Nath
Rai.
Constable 19766 Bhai Lal Yadav and
Sentry of the Police Station - C/C.P. 294
Ramesh Singh and Constable 119 Devi
Prasad, who were holding torches in their
hands. Suddenly, Vijai Pal Singh pointed
his rifle towards them and fired two shots
on the informant and others, with intention
to kill, from the verandah of the office of
police station, but the informant and others,
escaped unhurt as the bullet missed target
and did not hit them. In the meanwhile,
Constable Bhai Lal Yadav moved ahead to
overpower Vijai Pal Singh, when he
effected blow by bannet of his rifle on the
back of Bhai Lal Yadav and caused injury
to him and entered into the male lockup
and confined himself there in the male lock
up of the police station, and tried to commit
suicide by shooting himself with his rifle
on his abdomen. Consequently, he fell
down in the lock up. When the informant
and others also rushed to the well of the
police station, they found Constable Rama
Shanker groaning in pain on account of
gunshot injury on his stomach. F.I.R. also
contains details about the background of
this
happening
that
on
21.06.1984,
Constable Vijai Pal Singh had rebuked
P.A.C./Constables in the barrack, including
Constable Shanker Bux. When Rama
Shanker objected to the rebuking, Vijay Pal
Singh
threatened
him
with
dire
consequences and on account of that
animosity, he shot Rama Shanker with
Rifle No. 38458 and Butt No. F632 along
with bannet, which were recovered from
Vijai Pal Singh. There was one empty
cartridge entangled in the chamber of rifle
and there was one live cartridge in the
magazine. Apart from that, 45 live
cartridges were recovered from the belt of
Vijai Pal Singh along with 10 chargers. 3
empty cartridges were found from the
verandah. All these articles were deposited
at the police station and request was made
for lodging the report. The written report is
Ext.Ka.1, whereas the Check F.I.R is Ext.
Ka.12, whereafter a case was registered at
aforesaid case crime number against the
appellant in the relevant G.D. of the
aforesaid date and time at aforesaid police
station.

5. The investigation was taken over
by P.W.8 Chandra Shekhar, who recorded
statement of various witnesses. Besides
that, he also recorded the statement of
Rama Shanker and has proved the same as
Ext. Ka.14. Thereafter, he prepared Siteplan (Ext. Ka.15) and various memos.
Prime being one pellet, which was
recovered from male lockup. The recovery
memo of the same was prepared and
3-5 All. Vijai Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
369
marked as Ext.Ka.16. All the materials
collected from the spot were kept in the
police malkhana and description of the
same was entered in the relevant G.D. of
the police station. The same is proved as
Ext.Ka.17. He also prepared memo of
torches, which were marked as Ext.Ka. 3
and Ext. Ka.19, respectively. He was also
informed about the death of Rama Shanker,
whereupon the case was converted from
one under Sections - 307, 309 I.P.C. to one
under Sections 302, 307, 309 I.P.C.
Relevant note was made in the G.D.
Concerned as Rapat No. 2 of date
24.06.1984. This witness has proved the
G.D. entry as Ext. Ka.20, which was
prepared in the hand writing of one
Chhatrapal (Constable), with whom he is
well acquainted and knows his handwriting
as well. The Investigating Officer has also
proved the inquest report of deceased -
Rama Shanker as Ext. Ka.21. However, it
is
noticeable
that
during
course
of
investigation,
Vijai
Pal
Singh
was
medically examined on 23.06.1984 at 04:35
a.m. at District Hospital, Etawah by P.W.7
Dr. Diwakar Sharma, wherein he found the
following injuries on his person :-

1. Gun shot wound 1 cm x 1 cm x
cavity deep on the front of abdomen 6 cm
above umbilicus at 1 o' clock position.
Margins
inverted.
Blackening
present
(Entry).

2. Gun shot wound 5 cm x 5 cm x
cavity deep on the back of left side 8 cm
above iliac crest 11.5 cm away from mid
line. Margins everted. Fresh bleeding
present. (wound of exit)

In the opinion of doctor, the
condition of patient was poor. The patient
was admitted and police was informed.
Plain X-ray of abdomen was advised.
Nature
of
injury
was
"kept
under
observation". Injury was stated to have
been caused by firearm. Duration of the
injury was noted fresh. The injury report of
Vjai Pal Singh - Constable - is on record
and the same is marked as Ex.Ka.6.

6. P.W.7 Dr. Diwakar Sharma had
also medically examined the injuries of
deceased Rama Shanker (as he was then
alive) on 23.06.1984 at 4:50 a.m. at District
Hospital, Etawah, wherein he found the
following injuries on the person of the
deceased:-

1. Gun shot wound 1 cm x 1 cm x
cavity deep on front of lower abdomen 6
cm below umbilicus at 7 o' clock position 1
cm away from midline (right). Margins
inverted. Blackening present (wound of
entry).

2. Gun shot wound 2.5 cm x 3.5
cm x cavity deep on the right side back 36
cm below the root of neck. Margins
everted. Bleeding present. (wound of exit)

In the opinion of the doctor,
the condition of patient was poor. He
was admitted and police was informed.
Plain X-ray of abdomen was advised.
Nature of injury was "kept under
observation". Duration of the injury was
found fresh. The injury report of Rama
Shanker, Constable is on record and the
same is marked as Ex.Ka.7.

7. Besides, Dr. Diwakar Sharma
also examined Constable Bhai Lal
Yadav at 06:15 a.m. on 23.06.1984 and
found the following injury on his
person:-

1. Incised wound 2 cm x 0.8 cm x
muscle deep on left scapular region 14 cm
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
below top of left shoulder tailing present
downwards. Wound was longitudinal.

In the opinion of doctor, the
injury was simple and caused by sharpedged weapon. Duration of injury was
found fresh. The injury report of Bhai Lal
Yadav-Constable-is on record and the same
is marked as Ex.Ka.8.

8. Dr. Diwakar has also proved fact
that the condition of patient Rama Shanker
was at the admission and during treatment
serious,
therefore,
he
informed
the
Magistrate for recording his statement,
whereupon Tehsildar, Etawah recorded
statement of Rama Shanker in his (Dr.
Diwakar) presence after his certification
about the fit condition of the patient prior
to and subsequently to the recording of the
statement, was given. This certification has
been proved on the original sheet of the
statement and marked as Exts.Ka.9 and
Ext.Ka.10, respectively. The statement of
the injured Rama Shanker, as recorded by
the Tehsildar, Etawah has been proved as
Ext. Ka-5. Pertinent to observe that P.W.6
Tej Pal Singh-the then Tehsildar of the area
- posted in Etawah on 23.06.1984, has
proved recording of the statement of
Rama Shanker in the morning and has
proved his handwriting and the statement
recorded at 05:00 a.m. and ended at 05:07
a.m.
(on
23.06.1984)
as
Ext.Ka.5.
However, the injured Rama Shanker died
during the course of treatment. P.W.7 Dr.
Diwakar Sharma has testified to the fact
that the information of death of Rama
Shanker in the hospital was conveyed to
S.H.O., Kotwali by Dr. H.N. Singh, with
whom this witness was earlier posted and
as
such,
was
acquainted
with
his
handwriting.
He
has
proved
the
communication letter made by Dr. H.N.
Singh as Ext. Ka.11.

9. The post postmortem examination
on the cadaver of the deceased Rama
Shanker was done by Dr. M. Ali, wherein
the following ante mortem injuries were
found:-

1. Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm
x 1 cm x cavity deep in front of abdomen
7.5 cm below the umbilicus in midline
directing upward & backward.

2. Gun shot wound of exit 4 cm x
3.5 cm x cavity deep on back of lumbar
regions in midline 33 cms below the neck.

Both the wounds were dressed.

3. Two wounds of cut open in
both legs.

Cause of death was due to shock
and
haemorrhage.
The
postmortem
examination report of deceased Rama
Shanker is on record and has been proved
as Ext.Ka.4.

10.

After
completing
the
investigation, charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.24) was
submitted against the accused under the
aforesaid sections of I.P.C.

11. Charges were framed under
Sections - 302, 307, 324 and 309 I.P.C. The
same were denied and trial was opted by
the accused.

12. Prosecution, in all, produced 8
witnesses, out of which, P.W.1 Chottey Singh,
P.W.2 Bhai Lal, P.W. 3 Shanker Bux, P.W.4
Siddh Nath Rai and P.W.5 Ramesh Singh were
examined as witnesses of fact. Apart from that,
the following formal witnesses were also
examined - P.W.6 Tej Pal Singh was the
Tehsildar, Etawah, he recorded statement of
both the accused as well as the deceased and
has proved it as Ext.Ka. 5. Apart from that, he
3-5 All. Vijai Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
371
has also proved certain statement recorded by
him, which he has admitted in his cross
examination as Ext.Ka.12. P.W.7 Dr. Diwakar
Sharma has medically examined the deceased
prior to his death as well as the other injured
constables including the accused after the
occurrence on 22/23.06.1984 at District
Hospital, Etawah and he has proved the
process. P.W.8 S.I. Chandra Shekhar, is the
Investigating Officer. He has detailed the
investigation carried out by him and fact of
filing the charge-sheet.

13. As no other testimony was adduced,
evidence for the prosecution was closed and the
statement of the accused was recorded under
Section - 313 Cr.P.C., wherein allegation of
firing on Rama Shanker was denied by him and
he claimed to have been falsely implicated by
levelling baseless charges by the informant side.
However, in his submission, he has stated that
Head Constable- Kashi Prasad had fired on him
when he had gone to the chabutra to call Arun
Kumar. In order to avert danger to himself, he
also fired, which fire, instead of hitting Kashi
Prasad, hit Rama Shanker.

14. No evidence, whatsoever, was led by
the defense.

15. The trial court after vetting the
testimony
on
record
and
properly
appraising the facts and circumstances,
recorded aforesaid finding of conviction
and
sentenced
the
appellant
to
imprisonment for life under Section -
302
I.P.C;
three
years'
rigorous
imprisonment under Section - 324
I.P.C.;
and
one
year
rigorous
imprisonment under Section - 309
I.P.C. which paved way for this appeal.

16. We have heard Sri Bhawishya
Sharma,
learned
Amicus
Curiae
appearing on behalf of the appellant, Sri
Krishna Pahal, learned A.A.G. assisted
by Sri Bhanu Prakash Singh, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.

17. Contention has been raised on
behalf of the appellant that in this case, all the
prosecution witnesses are highly interested
witnesses. They are highly motivated and
influenced by the higher authorities and they
are deliberately stating false theory before the
court after forming their group. The fact is
that the accused himself was shot at by
another constable and in order to avoid
danger and in self defense, the appellant fired,
but the bullet missed its target and hit Rama
Shanker. The statement given to the Tehsildar
was not correctly recorded and the Tehsildar
has sided with the informant side. The
circumstances show that no one saw the
actual occurrence as to when Rama Shanker,
the deceased was hit by bullet/pellet fired by
the appellant. The origin of the incident is
shrouded in mystery.

18. Learned A.A.G. has claimed that all
the prosecution witnesses were present on the
spot at the time of occurrence and the incident
took place around 01:30 a.m. in the night
intervening 22/23.06.1984, when a fire was
shot by the appellant and due to the sound of
the fire all those sleeping over there got
awakened and the accused was at that point of
time seen rushing towards the office of the
police station with a rifle in his hand and after
reaching on the verandah of the police station,
he pointed out his rifle towards the informant
and the other personnel of the force and fired
two shots, thought it did not cause any harm to
anyone. Thereafter, the accused locked himself
in the male lock up and tried to commit suicide
by shooting himself on his abdomen with his
rifle. Each and every detail of the occurrence
has been proved reasonably beyond any
shadow of doubt. P.W.6 Tej Pal Singh is the
Tehsildar of Etawah, who recorded statement
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the victim as well as the accused, wherein
also, the victim has categorically stated that the
shot, which hit on his abdomen, was shot by
Vijai Pal Singh - the accused. There is no
reason to falsely implicate the accused.

19. In the light of the rival submissions,
the moot point that arises for adjudication of
this appeal relates to fact, whether the
prosecution has been able to establish the
charge beyond all reasonable doubt ?

20. It can be conveniently observed that
the incident in question is admitted to the
defense but with difference (he was Constable
Kashi Prasad, who shot at the accused first) that
the fire shot by the accused in self-defense
though aimed at Constable Kashi Prasad,
because he had shot at the accused first, but it
missed him and instead hit the deceased Rama
Shanker. Now, we have to contemplate on this
set-up, whether the same is gathered in the
attendant facts and circumstances and the same
is probable or not ?

21. After arduous scrutiny of the record
and the wholesome scrutiny of the five
prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Chhotey
Singh - the informant, P.W.2 Bhai Lal Yadav -
the injured witness, who was hit on his back by
the bannet of the rifle by accused, P.W.3
Shanker Bux Singh, P.W.4 Siddh Nath Rai,
P.W.5 Ramesh Singh, it trickles out that in the
night intervening 22/23.06.1984, the accused
was on patrolling/guard duty at Police Station -
Barhpura from 11:00 p.m. in the night
(intervening 22.23.06.1984) up to 1:00 a.m. It
so happened around 01:30 a.m. (in the night
intervening 22/23.06.1984), that a sound of fire
awakened these witnesses and the injured -
Rama Shanker, when they saw the accused
running away towards the office of the police
station with rifle in his hand. A number of
constables present over there tried to overpower
him and in the process, P.W.2 Bhai Lal Yadav,
when moved ahead to take him in his grip, the
accused gave blow with his bannet of the rifle
on his back, which caused injury on his back.
The injury of P.W.2 Bhai Lal Yadav has been
proved as incised wound 2 cm x 0.8 cm x
Muscle deep on left scapular region 14 cm
below top of left shoulder tailing present
downwards. Wound was longitudinal and it
was rated simple and caused by sharp edged
weapon. Duration was the fresh. This medical
examination was done by P.W.7 Dr. Diwakar
Sharma at District Hospital at 06:15 a.m. on
23.06.1984 and the injury report is Ext. Ka.8.
Apart from that, the accused also tried to
commit suicide by locking up himself in the
male lockup of the police station and self
suffered one rifle shot on his abdomen. His
injuries have also been examined by the same
doctor P.W.7 Dr. Diwakar Sharma and has
been proved as Ext. Ka.6. In his medical
examination, one gun shot wound of entry and
one gun shot wound of exit have been noted
and the same has been proved as Ext.Ka.6. The
testimony of all the witnesses of fact
commensurates
with
the
medical
documents/evidence and there is no glaring or
material inconsistency of any sort, which may
reflect anything adverse than the consistent
version of the prosecution witnesses regarding
the occurrence on the whole and the nature of
the injuries caused both on the informant side as
well as the accused and the same cannot be
doubted by any stretch of imagination. Thus,
the statement of the accused as submitted under
Section - 313 Cr.P.C. becomes a hollow claim
not supported by any evidence or circumstances
of the this case.

22. It is important to note that we
have, before us, particular testimony of the
then Tehsildar, Etawah, who recorded
statement of the victim Rama Shanker on
23.06.1984 around 05:00 a.m. and a
certification of fitness was previously
obtained by him, which was given by Dr.
3-5 All. Vijai Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
373
Diwakar Sharma, who certified that the
injured Rama Shanker was, at that point of
time, in fit mental/physical condition to
give statement. The certification given by
the doctor has been proved as Exts.Ka.9
and Ext.Ka.10. Apart from that, the same
fact has been fortified by P.W.6, the then
Tehsildar, Etawah- Tej Pal Singh. As per
testimony of P.W.6-Tej Pal Singh, he
himself recorded statement of Rama
Shanker Singh on 23.06.1984 in the
morning, after obtaining certification from
Dr. Diwakar Sharma. He has categorically
stated that whatever was stated by the
injured-Rama Shanker, was noted by him
and after recording the statement, he also
obtained signature of Rama Shanker on the
statement. On perusal of the statement
marked Ext.Ka.5, it is found that Rama
Shanker has stated that he had some
altercation with the accused on 21.06.1984.
In the night intervening 22/23.06.1984, at
around 12.30 a.m., while he was sleeping,
Constable Vijai Pal was on duty. Vijial Pal
shot him, whereupon he got up and in
squatting position saw the accused. This
piece
of
testimony
is
virtually
unimpeachable, relevant and admissible
under the provisions of The Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. The fact of injury
being caused to the victim by the accused
thus stands proved by the victim by the
accused thus stands proved himself and the
claim of the appellant, as submitted in his
statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C., that he was first shot at by Kashi
Prasad and then he fired on Kashi Prasad,
but the fire missed its target and hit Rama
Shanker)
is
not
supported
by
any
corroborating attendant circumstances or
facts and not even a whisper is gathered by
us after careful scrutiny of the entire record
that it in fact so happened. A wholesome
and cumulative reading of the testimony of
all the five prosecution witnesses of fact
has
elaborately
detailed
about
the
occurrence and their testimony is natural
and consistent on point of occurrence. They
are worthy of credit. There is no doubt that
apart from Rama Shanker (the deceased),
no one else saw the shot being fired by the
accused and hitting the deceased (Rama
Shanker), while he was asleep in the fateful
night at the well of the police station.
However,
the
site-plan
Ext.
Ka.15
indicates,
in
all
niceties,
the
very
topography of the place of occurrence and
gives a pictorial sketch of the incident as it
originated and ended. Thus, the place of
occurrence is also proved by the P.W.8 The
Investigating Officer Chandra Shekhar.

23. To claim that the patient/deceased
was not in fit mental and physical condition
to give any statement, would not, in the
absence of any supporting material, give
advantage to the accused because fitness
certificate prior to and subsequently to the
recording of the statement by P.W.6
Tehsildar Tej Pal singh was given by P.W.7
Dr. Diwakar Sharma and who remained
present throughout the period when the
statement was being recorded. Recording
of the statement commenced at 05:00 a.m.
on 23.06.1984 and the process was
completed by 05:07 a.m. i.e. within seven
minutes. The extract of statement proved as
Ext.
Kha.1
and
Ext.
Kha.2
loses
significance in view of the statement of the
deceased himself as to how it all occurred.
Assuming it to be that the version of the
appellant is correct on point that he was
shot by Head Constable Kashi Prasad,
when he had gone to the 'chabutra' to wake
up Constable Arun Kumar, had it been so,
then the theory of sound of one fire being
made around 01:30 in the night intervening
22/23.06.1984 goes into oblivion, for the
reason that no two shots have been fired at
that point of time and sound of one and
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
only one fire was heard by the witnesses. It
being so, the claim of the accused that he
was shot by Head Constable Kashi Prasad,
itself stands falsified and cannot be
accepted by us.

24. In view of above scrutiny of evidence
and analogy of facts and circumstances of this
case, obviously it cannot be said that the
charges have not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt against the accused and that
the trial court erred while it recorded finding of
conviction against the accused under Sections -
302, 324 and 309 I.P.C. and imposed the
sentence on him.

25. We do not find any infirmity in the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No.
255 of 1984 (State vs Vijai Pal Singh), arising
out of Case Crime No. 45 of 1984, under
Sections - 302, 307, 324 and 309 I.P.C., Police
Station - Barhpura, District - Etawah.

26. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

27. Let a copy of this order be certified to
the court below for its intimation and necessary
compliance. The lower court record is directed
to be remitted to the court concerned.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A374
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.
THE HON'BLE ALI ZAMIN, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1164 of 2002

Devendra Singh & Ors.
 ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Arimardan Yadav, Sri Jadu Nandan
Yadav, Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, Sri
Ravindra Singh, Sri Rajendra Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri Aklank Jain

A. Criminal law- Indian Penal Code-
Section 302/201-The delay in recording
the statement of the witness by the
Investigating Officer and the witness not
telling
about
the
incident
to
the
Investigating Officer casts a serious doubt
about his being an eyewitness of the
occurrence which may suggest that the
Investigating
Officer
was
deliberately
marking time with a view to decide about
shape to be given to the case and
eyewitnesses
to
be
introduced.-
Contradictions between statements of
witnesses on all material points.

Indian Evidence Act- Section3, Section
155- Credibility of Witnesses - Where there
is an inordinate delay in recording the statement
of the eye witness, the testimonies of the
witnesses of fact are contradictory on material
points and there is absence of corroboration of
the ocular evidence from other evidence, the
conviction of the accused cannot stand. .
(Para 13, 14, 17, 18)

Criminal Appeal allowed (E-3)

List of case cited:

Shahid Khan Vs. St. of Raj. AIR 2016 SCC 1178

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ali Zamin, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Yadav,
learned counsel for the appellant nos.1 and
2, Sri J.N Yadav, learned counsel for the
appellant no.3 and learned A.G.A for the
State.

2. This appeal has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated
12.02.2002, passed in S.T. No.160 of 1991