Ram Chandra and others v. State of U.P on 28 Nov 2025

Judgment

1. Heard Sri Akhlaq Ali assisted by Sri Rajendra Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Balram 2 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the trial court record.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.1.1988 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in S.T. No. 398 of 1985 (State vs. Ram Chandra & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 17 of 1985, under Sections 147, 148, 506, 302, 404 IPC, P.S. Hyderabad, District- Kheri, by which all the surving accused-appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment and also under Section 148 IPC and awarded the sentence of 2 years’ R.I. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant has informed this Court that accused-appellants Ram Chandra, Ori Lal and Ganga have already passed away and their appeals have been abated by this Court vide order dated

22.2.2021. Further, accused-appellants Lalta and Shabbir @ Kalandar are also reported to have died and their appeals have been abated vide order dated 2.7.2021 and as such, now the appeal survives only for accused-appellant No. 4- Shri Krishna, accused-appellant No. 5- Naresh, accused- appellant No. 6- Bankey Pandit and accused-appellant No.7- 3 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 Satyabaran.

4. As per the prosecution case as unfolded in the first information report lodged by one Madan Lal (P.W.-1) vide written report Exbt. Ka-1 dated 10.2.1985, which was registered vide Case Crime No. 17 of 1985, under Sections 147, 148, 506, 302, 404 IPC, Police Station- Hyderabad, District- Lakhimpur Kheri vide G.D. Report No. 27 at 7:30 P.M. (Exbt. Ka-4) and the check FIR (Exbt. Ka-3) prepared by head constable on the relevant date and time.

5. The allegations made in the first information report are that on 10.2.2025 at about 4 p.m., Madan Lal the first informant alongwith his cousin Ramesh and pradhan Mishri Lal were going towards Gola for some work and when they were at a distance of 100 yards from the Pirai culvert, he saw his father Tokhan Lal and his son Ram Saran coming from the other direction riding a motor-cycle and when they reached on the culvert, Ram Chandra, Ori Lal armed with lathi, danda and Naresh armed with banka emerged and stopped their motor- cycle and dragged both of them from the motor-cycle. Meanwhile, Lalta Pasi, Satyabaran, Shabbeer @ Kalandar and Bankey Pandit, resident of village- Saukhiyan alongwith Sri Krishna Lohar and Ganga Arakh resident of his village armed 4 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 with banka and kanta also reached there and started assaulting his son and father with banka, kanta and lathi. Both, his father and son raised alarm and they also reached close to them and challenged them, in the meantime, Guru Prasad and his servant Itwari also reached there and challenged them. When Satyabaran, pulled out the revolver alongwith cover, held by his father and thereafter they left the place of incident extending death threats to them towards village-Saukhiyan. On account of fear, they did not dare to chase or apprehend them. Both, his father and son Ram Saran died instantaneously having several injuries on their head and face.

6. It is further alleged that the assailants are hardened criminals and members of the same gang and many of them had been arrested by the police and it was suspected that on account of complaint made by his father, they have been arrested.

7. It is further alleged that his father had got executed an agreement to sell of a six bigah plot, in his name, from one Kamla Devi and had taken its possession, which earlier was in possession of accused-appellant Ram Chandra, which was disliked by him, consequent thereto, he started bearing ill will 5 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 against him as his father had refused to leave the said land and in the backdrop of the said circumstance, present incident had occurred, in which his father and son has been done to death.

8. On the basis of written report, based on the said

allegations, a first information report was registered at 7:30 P.M in police station Hyderabad, in presence of Station Officer Hyderabad (P.W.-6), who was entrusted with the investigation of the said case. The I.O. recorded the statement of the first informant in the police station itself and thereafter proceeded to the place of incident in the night itself. Thereafter, on

11.2.1985 on his dictation, an inquest was conducted on the person of the two deceased by S.I. M.P. Tewari, who prepared the inquest reports and thereafter also prepared relevant documents namely, challan-nash, photo-nash, letter to C.M.O., letter to R.I., sample seal of the two deceased, which has been proved and marked as Exbt. Ka-7 to Ka-11 of deceased Tokhan Lal and Exbt. Ka-12 to Ka-16 of deceased Ram Saran.

9. After conducting the inquest, the corpse of the deceased were sealed after preparing the sample seal and thereafter, it was handed over to constable C.P.-345 Kunji Lal, who had 6 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 taken it to the mortuary. An autopsy was conducted on the person of the two deceased by Dr. S.M. Lal (P.W.-4), who noted the following injuries on the person of the deceased :- Injuries of Tokhan Lal “1-कटा हुआ घाव 16 से०मी० x3 से०मी० x ह(cid:15)ी तक कटा हुआ (cid:17)सर पर (cid:17)सर के बीच म(cid:22) सामने ललाट तक, म(cid:25)(cid:26)त(cid:27)क का भाग घाव से बाहर (cid:30)नकल रहा था। 2-कटा हुआ घाव 7 से०मी० x1 से०मी० x हड् डी तक कटा हुआ सर पर, बाय(cid:22) कान से 10 से०मी० ऊपर। 3-कटा हुआ घाव 5 से०मी० x1.5 से०मी० x हड् डी तक कटा हुआ (cid:17)सर के दा(cid:30)हनी तरफ, दा(cid:30)हने कान से 10 से०मी० उपर । इस चोट से म(cid:25)(cid:26)त(cid:27)क का भाग बाहर (cid:30)नकल रहा था । 4-तीन कटे हुये घाव जो (cid:30)क 5 से०मी० x3 से०मी० के +े, म(cid:22) थे और ललाट के दा(cid:30)हने (cid:30)ह(cid:26)से म(cid:22) थे। इन कटे हुये घाव. का आकार /कार 3 से०मी०×2 से०मी० × 1 से० मी० x हड् डी तक कटा हुआ था। 5-कटा हुआ घाव 5 से०मी०×2 से०मी० x ह(cid:15)ी तक कटा हुआ मु ंह के (cid:30),कोण के दा(cid:30)हनी तरफ था । 6-कटा हुआ घाव 3 से०मी०×2 से०मी० x हड् डी तक कटा हुआ बाय2 आँ ख के बाय2 तरफ । 7- कटा हुआ घाव 1 से०मी० x .5 से०मी० x ह(cid:15)ी तक गहरा ललाट के बाय2 तरफ । 8-कटा हुआ घाव 2 से०मी० x 1 से०मी० x ह(cid:15)ी हड् डी तक गहरा बाय(cid:22) कान के 7 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 3 से०मी० बाय2 तरफ । मृतक का कारण इन आयी हुई चोट. के कारण बेहोशी बताया गया है।" Injuries of Ram Saran "1-कटा हुआ घाव 7 से०मी० x.5 से०मी० x हड् डी तक गहरा (cid:17)सर के बाय2 तरफ, बाय(cid:22) कान से 9 से०मी० ऊपर। 2-कटा हुआ घाव 5 से०मी० x1 से०मी० x हड् डी तक गहरा (cid:17)सर पर, नाक से 11 से०मी० ऊपर। 3-कटा हुआ घाव 4 से०मी० x1.5 से०मी० x हड् डी तक गहरा (cid:17)सर के दाय2 तरफ, दा(cid:30)हने कान से (cid:30)ब9कु ल पीछे। 4-कटा हुआ घाव 2 से०मी० x1.5 से०मी० x हड् डी तक गहरा ऊपरी ओंठ के दा(cid:30)हने तरफ। 5-कटा हुआ घाव 12 से०मी० x2 से०मी० x ट= े>चकु आ, दा(cid:30)हने गले के बाहरी तरफ। 6-कटा हुआ घाव 8 से०मी० x2 से०मी० x ट= े>चकु आ, गले के दा(cid:30)हने ओर बाहर की तरफ। 7-कटा हुआ घाव 10 से०मी० x3 से०मी० x ट= े>चकु आ, गद@न के सामने की तरफ। है।" शरीर की सारी खून की Bशराय(cid:22) कटी हुई थ2। मृCयु का कारण चोट(cid:22) के कारण खून का बहाव और सदमा बताया गया 8 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 The postmortem reports have been proved and marked as Exbt. Ka-5 and Ka-6, the genuineness of which was admitted by the defence.

10. The Investigating Officer thereafter collected the blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of incident, kept it in a container and sealed it and prepared the recovery memo, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-17. The blood stained clothes, shoes and one tooth of Tokhan Lal was also taken in possession and its recovery memo was prepared, which has been proved and marked as Exbt. ka-18. A pair of slippers belonging to to the accused was also taken in custody and its recovery memo was also prepared. A motor- cycle belonging to Tokhan Lal was also recovered, which was also taken in possession and its recovery memo has been prepared, which has proved and marked as Exbt. Ka-2. Thereafter, the statement of witness Mishri Lal was recorded. Site plan was prepared, which has been proved and marked as Exbt. Ka-20. Thereafter statement of another witness Ramesh Chandra has been recorded. On 14.2.1985 accused Bankey Pandit and Shri Krishna were arrested and their statement were recorded. Thereafter, the investigation of the said case was transferred and the remaining investigation was done by Babu Ram, who after concluding the investigation, 9 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 submitted the charge sheet against the nine accused- appellants on 15.4.1985, which has been proved and marked as Exbt. Ka-21.

11. Upon charge sheet being submitted, learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence, however, since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, it was committed to the Court of Session, where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 398 of 1985 (State Vs. Ram Chandra and others), who made over the case to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri for trial.

12. The learned trial court thereafter framed the charges against the accused-appellants. Accused Ram Chandra and Ori Lal were charged under Sections 147 and 302 read with section 149 IPC, however against other accused Ganga, Shri Krishna, Naresh, Bankey Pandit, Satyabaran, Lalta and Shabbir @ Kalandar charges were framed under Section 148 IPC and also under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC vide order dated 4.7.1986. Accused Satyabaran was further charged under Section 404 IPC. The said charges were read out and explained to the accused, who abjured the said charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

13. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to 10 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 prove the guilt against the appellants, has examined as many as two witnesses of fact namely, Madan Lal (P.W.-1) and Mishri Lal (P.W.-2) while five other witnesses, namely, H.C.P. Pyare Lal (P.W.-3). Dr. S.M. Lal (P.W.-4), Kunji Lal (P.W.-5), Harchandra Singh (P.W.-6) and Mata Pher Tiwari (P.W.-7) were examined as formal witnesses. Their testimony in brief is enumerated hereinunder :-

14. P.W.-1- Madan Lal is the first informant and son of deceased Tokhan Lal and father of deceased Ram Saran. Accused Ram Chandra, Ori, Naresh, Shri Krishna, Ganga are the resident of village- Jamunha whereas accused Satyabaran, Shabbir, Lalta and Bandey are the resident of village- Saukhiya. He was well acquainted with all of them. Kamla is the sister of accused Ram Chandra, who prior to this incident, had executed an agreement to sell in favour of his father Tokhan, in respect of the said piece of land Kamla’s, sister Maya Devi and Jadurani had also executed an agreement to sell in his favour. Prior to said agreement to sell, the land in question was in possession of Ram Chandra, however after execution of the said agreement its posession was taken over by his father, which was disliked by Ram Chandra. The police had recovered a country made pistol from co-accused Naresh and he suspected that his father was 11 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 instrumental in getting the said recovery made, the accused persons were often arrested and released by the police and they suspected that his father Tokhan was instrumental in getting them apprehended.

15. It is further testified that about 15-16 months back, his father Tokhan and Ram Saran were murdered. On the date of incident, they had gone to attend the meeting of the Primeminister Rajiv Gandhi riding a motor-cycle and he was at his home. At about 4 p.m., he proceeded towards Gola boarding a tractor alongwith one Mishri Lal and Ramesh and when they reached near the field of Sobran Lal at the Pirai Culvert then he saw his father Tokhan and Ram Saran coming from other direction riding a motocycle and when they reached on the culvert then accused Ram Chandra, Ori and Naresh stopped his motor-cycle and dragged them from the motor- cycle. In the meantime, Satyabaran, Shabbir, Shri Krishna, Lalta, Bankey and Ganga also reached there, Ori was having a danda while Ram Chandra was having a lathi. Lalta was having a kanta while others were armed with banka. At the time of incident, Guru Prasad boarding a tractor alongwith Itwari also reached there. All the accused-persons started assaulting his father and Ram Saran after encircling and dragging them in a field towards the west of the road. The 12 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 incident occurred on 4:30 P.M. On raising alarm, assailants after assaulting them, made good their escape towards village- Saukhiya. Satyabaran while leaving, also snatched his father’s revolver alongwith cartridges. On reaching closer, Tokhan and Ram Saran were found dead. Blood was oozing out. After sometime other villagers and Watchman also reached there. Handing over their dead bodies to them, he alongwith the Watchman proceeded towards police station. Enroute to village-Mamri, on his dictation he got the first information report scribed by one Prem Chandra Gupta, which has been proved and marked as Exbt. Ka-1. The Investigating Officer reached the place of incident and made the necessary recoveries.

16. During cross examination, P.W.-1 Madan Lal testified that Prem Chandra Gupta is the resident of village Chitauniya, who met him on a shop at Mamri where he had come for some personal work.

17. P.W.-1 further testified that on the date of incident, he was proceeding to Gola for purchasing diesel, however, he does not recollect if this fact was disclosed to the I.O. The factum of proceeding to Gola for purchasing diesel was not mentioned in the FIR, since it was not very much relevant. Mishri Lal was also accompanying him to Gola for purchasing 13 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 diesel whereas Ramesh was going there to meet his brother in-law. After the incident, Ramesh and Mishri Lal stayed at the place of incident.

18. P.W.-1, further testified that when he witnessed the incident, he was boarding a tractor. When the motor-cycle was stopped, his tractor was at a distance of 125 yards. After alighting from the tractor, they proceeded towards the place of incident and when they reached at a distance of 40-45 paces, they raised alarm. His father and son were not assaulted by the assailants on the road but after stopping their motorcycles three of them dragged them in a field where all the assailants assaulted them. They reached the police station boarding the tractor and gave his report. When he first saw his father and son, they were encircled by Ramesh Chandra, Ori and Naresh, riding the motorcycle however, at the relevant time they were not assaulting him. When he was at a distance of 50-60 yards, other assailants also reached there and they all dragged his father and son in the field and then only they were assaulted. The place of incident of killing was at a distance of 10-15 paces, south of the culvert and at the relevant time of killing, they were present at a distance of 50-60 paces, raising alarm and both Mishri Lal and Ramesh were also with him. The other tractor also stopped at a distance of 50-60 paces 14 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 and thereafter the witnesses reached the place of incident and the assault lasted for 4-5 minutes. All the accused persons were assaulting the victims by encircling them.

19. The agreement to sell could not be registered. He further denied the suggestion that agreement to sell was subsequently forged. His statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer in the police station and the Investigating Officer reached the place of incident in the night and examined the dead bodies at about 9 p.m. The dead body was despatched from the place of incident at about 8-9 a.m. in the morning. He further denied the suggestion that during night hours only deliberation and consultation was made and on the next day FIR was lodged. Except Naresh, Ram Chandra and Ori, all other six accused persons were armed with banka. He further candidly denied the suggestion that after getting the information of the murder, he reached the place of incident. The report under Section 25 Arms Act against Naresh was not lodged by his father but the country made pistol was recovered by the police. Near the place of incident wheat and sugarcane crop was grown. The incident had occured at the border of two police stations, namely Mailani and Hyderabad. The place where the motor-cycle was lying fell in the jurisdiction of police station- Hyderabad and the place where 15 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 the dead body was lying fell in the jurisdiction of Mailani. At about 1 a.m., in the night, Superintendent of Police had also reached at the place of incident and had instructed that the proceeding of the instant case would be undertaken by the police of, police station- Hyderabad.

20. P.W.-1, Madan Lal candidly denied the suggestion that only after the S.P. had decided the question of jurisdiction then the first information report was lodged at police station- Hyderabad. The place where motor-cycle was lying, no blood was found. On the relevant date, meeting of Sri Rajiv Gandhi was scheduled at 10 a.m. and it is wrong to state that when his father left Gola and reached the place of incident, it was almost dark. He further denied the suggestion that on account of election rivalry, the accused appellants have been falsely implicated.

21. P.W.-2- Mishri Lal is another eye witness of the incident, who had accompanied the first informant (P.W.-1) Madan Lal boarding his tractor and had reached the place of incident and witnessed the same. He in his testimony has candidly stated that at the relevant time they were proceeding from Jamunaha towards Gola boarding a tractor and when they reached on the south of the Pirai culvert at a distance of 100 yards, they saw a motor-cycle coming from the other direction driven by 16 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 Ram Saran and Tokhan was at its pillion. When the motor- cycle crossed the culvert and reached 20 paces to the south, Ram Chandra, Ori and Naresh emerged, Ori, Ram Chandra were armed with lathi, danda whereas Naresh was armed with banka. The said assailants stopped the motor-cycle. In the meantime, Satyabaran, Shabbir, Shri Krishna, Lalta, Bankey and Ganga also reached there, Lalta was having a kanta whereas others were having banka and then all of them dragged Ram Saran and Tokhan Lal in the field where they started assaulting them. At the relevant time, Guru Prasad and Itwari also reached there from Gola and they also raised alarm. The assailants killed Tokhan Lal and Ram Saran and made good their escape towards Saukhiya. Accused Satyabaran while leaving had also snatched the revolver alongwith its cover from Tokhan Lal. On reaching closer, they found both of them to be dead and the victims were bleeding. The said incident was witnessed by them from a distance of 50 paces. On the relevant date, he was proceeding to fetch diesel for pumping set. The said tractor belonged to Madan Lal .

22. He further candidly testified that he would have taken diesel in a drum, after purchasing it from Gola, as he was not carrying any drum or jerrican at the relevant time. On the next 17 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 day of incident, the Investigating Officer had recorded his statement. The factum that at the relevant time, he was going to purchase diesel was not disclosed to the Investigating Officer as he was not questioned, though he had disclosed to the Investigating Officer that for some personal work he was proceeding to Gola.

23. At the relevant time, Madan Lal and Ramesh were passing through his village, boarding a tractor and he also joined them. The said witness further testified that when he first saw the motor-cycle it had already reached the culvert and he was at a distance of 100-125 yards from the culvert. The tractor further covered 15-20 paces ahead and halted. They alighted from the tractor and proceeded 50 paces further raising alarm.

24. He further testified that the deceased were assaulted by lathi, however, it cannot be stated if it hit the victims. Only two assailants were having lathi- danda. The assault lasted for about 2 - 2 ½ minutes. The assailants having lathi-danda were assaulting both the deceased. However, he cannot recollect if the factum of hitting of lathi-danda upon the victims was disclosed to the Investigating Officer and only after noting the antimortem injuries in the post-mortem report, the said factum was being disclosed, however, he is unaware if the victims 18 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 received any lathi-danda injuries.

25. P.W.-2 Mishri Lal, further testified that they remain standing at a distance of 50 paces from the two deceased and only when the accused persons left, they went close to the deceased. The assailants had dragged Tokhan and Ram Saran from the motor-cycle holding their hands. All the three assailants had dragged them from the motor-cycle, while dragging, the motor-cycle fell on the ground. While dragging the two deceased were not willing to alight from the motor- cycle. While the deceased remained on the road, no assailants had assaulted them, however, only after dragging them in the field, all the assailants assaulted the deceased, however, specific role of each of the accused-assailants cannot be pointed out by him. After 15-20 minutes of the incident, number of ladies from the house had reached the place of incident along with the villagers.

26. He further testified that in his presence, Madan Lal did not discuss anything regarding lodging of the report nor anyone instructed him to lodge the report, however, after half an hour of the incident Madan Lal alongwith watchman left, for lodging the report. On the next day, he reached the place of incident when the bodies were being sealed and then despatched through tractor at about 7:30 A.M. 19 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988

27. P.W.-2 Mishri Lal further candidly denied the suggestion that no such incident had taken place and subsequently, the appellants have been falsely implicated. He further denied the suggestion that on account of relationship with the first informant, he is falsely deposing. He further denied the suggestion that he did not witness the incident.

28. P.W.-3- Pyare Lal is the head constable. He, in his testimony, has testified that in February, 1985, he was posted as Head Moharrir in police station- Hyderabad. On 10.2.1985, a written report was handed over by Madan Lal, which has been proved and marked as Exbt. ka-1, on the basis of which, he had drawn the check FIR, which has been proved and marked as Exbt. Ka-3. At the time of lodging the FIR, its G.D. was also prepared vide G.D. Report No. 27 at 19:30 hours, which has been proved and marked as Exbt. Ka-4.

29. During cross examination, he testified that relevant parcha of case diary dated 10.2.1985 was signed by C.O. on

13.2.1985 and prior to it, the same has not been signed either by C.O. or S.P. The same is sent by making its entry in the daak-bahi. In G.D. No. 27 factum of watchman accompanying the first informant in the police station is mentioned. The factum that the first informant reached the police station by a tractor was also not mentioned. Check FIR is prepared in 20 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 three copies, Exbt. ka-3 is the first copy, which did not bear any signature of the first informant. He further denied the suggestion that the first informant did not reach the police station nor handed over any written report. He further denied the suggestion that first information report was subsequently prepared.

30. P.W.-4- Dr. S.M. Lal is the Medical Officer, who conducted an autopsy on the person of the two deceased. The defence lawyer admitted the genuineness of the two post- mortem reports, which is exhibited as Ka-5 and Ka-6.

31. During cross examination, P.W.-4 Dr. S.M. Lal testified that there is no injury caused by lathi, danda on the person of the two deceased. Duration of the injuries was noted to be one day, having a variance of 6 hours either way. The two dead bodies reached the mortuary at the Gola Hospital at 9 a.m., however, the papers reached there at 2:40 p.m.

32. P.W.-5- Kunji Lal is the Head constable, P.S. Hyderabad, who was handed over the two dead bodies for carrying it to the mortuary alongwith relevant police papers. He further testified that at about 9 a.m. he had handed over the two dead body to the doctor at Gola Hospital alongwith the police papers, however, their post-mortem was initiated after 2 p.m. 21 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 After the post-mortem report, both the dead bodies and papers were handed over to him. At the time of post-mortem, the dead bodies was identified by him.

33. During cross examination, he testified that the dead body was despatched at 7 a.m. in the morning. The distance between place of incident and Gola Hospital is 12 k.ms. and he reached the hospital in two hours. The dead bodies as well as its papers were handed over to the doctor in the morning at 9 a.m. and after the post-mortem, dead bodies and papers were handed over to him.

34. He further candidly denied the suggestion that though dead body reached the hospital at 9 a.m., however, the report was not available with the documents. He further denied the suggestion that relevant papers were provided to the doctor after 2 p.m. He futher candidly denied the suggestion that the report was not prepared till the time of despatch of the dead bodies and as such, there was delay in bringing the police papers.

35. P.W.-6- Harchand Singh is the Investigating Officer of the instant case. He, in his testimony, has testified that in February and March, 1985, he was posted there as Station Officer and the investigation of the said case was entrusted to 22 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 him. On 10.2.1985, he copied the check FIR and its relevant G.D. in the case diary and recorded the statement of Madan Lal in the police station itself and thereafter proceeded to the place of incident and reached there in the night itself. On

11.2.1985, examined the dead bodies of Ram Saran and Tokhan Lal and on his dictation the inquest was conducted through S.I. M.P. Tewari. Thereafter the relevant documents were also prepared by S.I. M.P. Tewari. The said relevant documents have been proved and marked as Exbt. Ka-7 to Ka-11 in respect of deceased Tokhan Lal and Exbt. Ka-12 to Ka-16 in respect of deceased Ram Saran. He collected the blood stained earth and plain earth from the place of incident and prepred its recovery memo. Blood stained clothes, shoes and tooth of Tokhan Lal was also recovered by him and its recovery memo was prepared, which has duly proved and exhibited. The motor-cycle belonging to deceased Tokhan Lal was also taken in possesison by him and its recovery memo were prepared, which has been proved and marked as Exbt. Ka-2. He also prepared the site-plan, which has been proved and marked as Exbt. Ka-20 and after collecting cogent evidence and material, on 15.4.1985 charge sheet was submitted by Babu Ram Bhaskar, the next I.O., which has been proved and marked as Exbt. Ka-21. 23 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988

36. In his cross examination, he has candidly testified that after registration of the first information report on the very day of incident, he proceeded to the place of incident at about 9 p.m. riding a bicycle and reached there at about 11 p.m. and tried to apprehend the accused but they could not be arrested. The inquest proceedings commenced at 7:30 A.M. in the morning.

37. He further denied the suggestion that till morning, the name of the accused assailants were not disclosed and who murdered the two deceased, was unknown. He further denied the suggestion that whole night, no G.D. entry was made and subsequently, in the morning the FIR was registered. Exhibit Ka-7 to Ka-16 were perused, in which, Crime No. 15 was corrected to Crime No. 17 bearing no signature. He further testified that case crime no. 15 was not repeatedly spoken out to S.I. M.P. Tewari, however, on checking the documents, it was immediately corrected as 17 after preparing the documents.

38. He further testified that the FIR is sent to the Court through C.O. on the next day. On the check FIR, date of forwarding the FIR to the Court has been mentioned as

13.2.1985, which bears the signature of Magistrate dated

19.2.1985. 24 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988

39. Mishri Lal, in his statement, has not testified that lathi, danda wielded by assailants did not hit the deceased. The police of police station Mailani had also reached the place of incident. He further denied the suggestion that there was any dispute between two police station- Mailani and Hyderabad regarding the lodging of the report or Jurisdiction of the police stations. The place of incident fell in his Jurisdiction but the place where dead bodies were lying, fell within the Jurisdiction of P.S. Mailani.

40. He further denied the suggestion that till the information being sent on wire-less, no report was lodged. He further admitted the fact that in the night itself, Superintendent of Police also reached the place of incident.

41. P.W.-7- Matapher is the S.I., police station- Hyderabad, who prepared the inquest on the dictation of P.W.-6 Investigating Officer Harchand Singh. He, in his testimony testified that check FIR of Case Crime No. 15 at police station- Hyderabad was registered on 5.2.1985 at 19:10 hours under Section 4/10 of Forest Act whereas chik FIR of Case Crime No. 16 is also dated 5.2.1985 registered under the same sections at 19:30 hours.

42. He further stated that on 11.2.1985 all documents 25 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 marked as Exbt. Ka-7 to Ka-16 were prepared by him on dictation and instructions of Harchand Singh, on which, Case Crime No. 17/85 is mentioned. In all relevant documents, Case Crime No. 15 has been struck off and instead 17 has been written. It is further stated that the S.O. dictated the crime number to be 15 or 17, is not clear, however, he heard case crime number to be 15 and transcribed it, in all relevant documents, however, when the Investigating Officer pointed out that case crime number should be 17 then he immediately struck off 15 and corrected it to be 17. The documents proved and marked as Exbt. Ka-7 to Ka-16 was prepared in two hours. The case crime number was spoken only once, which he noted in the documents, however, the correction in case crime number was not signed by him, however, since Crime No. 17 was confirmed, as such, it was not signed by him. In between 5.2.1985 and 10.2.1985, no other FIR of any cognizable case was registered. The documents marked as Exbt. Ka-7 and Ka-12, contained the name of six witnesses, however, name of one witness was later struck off. He further stated that in the said documents, name of Mishri Lal was earlier noted at Serial No. 2, however, later it was struck off and in its place name of Murari Lal was mentioned, which does not bear his signature. It is true that Mishri Lal is an eye 26 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 witness of the incident, however, since while conducting inquest, witness Mishri Lal was not present, as such, name of Murari Lal was noted. He further candidly denied the suggestion that since 3.2.1985 cognizable case register alongwith case diary was withheld. He further denied the suggestion that on 10.2.1985, the statement of Mishri Lal was not recorded, as such, his name was struck off and fake inquest was drawn.

43. After concluding the aforesaid prosecution evidence, the trial court recorded the statement of all the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting all the incriminating circumstances to them. All the appellants denied their involvements in the said crime, however, did not led any defence evidence.

44. The trial court after considering the entire evidence of the witnesses, defence plea and the material placed before it, found that the appellants had committed the murder of two deceased Tokhan Lal and Ram Saran. The trial court found that the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond all reasonable doubt, hence convicted all the appellants for the offence of murder of Tokhan Lal and Ram Saran and convicted them for the offence under Section 148 IPC and section 302 read with 27 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 Section 149 IPC.

45. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said impugned judgment and order, the instant criminal appeal has been preferred by all the appellants.

46. Further, during the pendency of the appeal, five appellants have already passed away and, as such their appeals were abated and now the instant appeal survives only for four accused-appellants Shri Krishna, Naresh, Bankey Pandit and Satyabaran, who all are said to be armed with banka.

47. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants challenging the impugned judgment and order has submitted that it is the specific case of the prosecution that two persons, namely Ori was having a danda whereas Ram Chandra was armed with lathi and as per the prosecution story, both are said to have wielded lathi/ danda upon the two deceased, yet the doctor conducting the post-mortem has not found any lathi/ danda injury on the person of the two deceased and only incised wound have been found on the person of both the deceased, as such, entire prosecution story becomes highly doubtful and is liable to be thrown over board, however, the trial court ignoring the said vital aspect of the matter has held both the 28 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 eye witnesses to be reliable witnesses and by placing implicit reliance upon their testimony has illegally recorded the finding of conviction and sentence against the accused-appellants, which is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

48. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has next submitted that even according to the prosecution own case, the incident is said to have been witnessed by the two witnesses, who have been examined as P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 from a distance of 100 yards, however, from such a wide distance, the entire incident would not have been clearly visible particularly when as many as nine assailants are said to have assaulted the two victims armed with different weapons, which lasted hardly for 4-5 minutes. He further submitted that even from such a distance it would not be possible for a man of ordinary prudence to exactly identify the actual assailants and only on account of past enmity with Ram Chandra regarding the execution of agreement to sell by Kamla Devi and his two sisters, on which, deceased Tokhan Lal had taken possession, they have been falsely implicated in the present case, however, the trial court completely over- looked this vital aspect of the matter and by placing implicit reliance upon the testimony of Madan Lal P.W.-1, who is the father and son of the two deceased and P.W.-2 being the co- 29 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 villagers and being highly partisan and interested witnesses, has recorded the finding of conviction and sentence against the appellant, which is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

49. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has next submitted that in the instant case though FIR is said to have been lodged on 10.2.1985 at 7;30 p.m., however, the said report has been forwarded by the C.O. under his signature on

13.2.1985, which has reached the Court and signed by the Magistrate on 19.2.1985. The inordinate delay in sending the report completely rules out the prosecution story and registration of the first information report on the relevant date and time, however, the trial court completely over-looked this vital aspect of the matter and has illegally recorded the finding of conviction and sentence against the acucsed-appellants, which is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

50. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has next submitted that at the time of preparing the inquest, case crime number on the relevant documents have been mentioned to be 15 of 1985, however, subsequently, 15 has been struck off and in its place, Case Crime No. 17 of 1985 has been mentioned in the relevant documents, which clearly suggests that at the time of conducting the inquest, the first information report was not in existence and subsequently prepared and 30 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 lodged by making it anti time as evident from the documents Exbt. Ka-6 to Ka-17, however, the trial court completely over- looked this vital aspect of the matter and has illegally recorded the finding of conviction and sentence against the appellant.

51. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has next submitted that both the eye witnesses P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are highly chance witnesses and the explanation tendered by them in reaching the place of incident at the relevant time has subsequently been developed as an after thought and stated to be “for the purpose of purchaing diesel”, however, in the first information report, the said purpose has not at all been mentioned in the FIR and has thus been subsequently cooked up and concocted, which renders the presence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 at the relevant time and place of incident highly doubtful, however, the trial court completely over-looked this vital aspect of the matter and recorded the finding of conviction against the appellants, which is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

52. Per contra, learned AGA has supported the impugned judgment and order and has submitted that the testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 completely corroborates the prosecution story. Both the witnesses are the natural eye witnesses and their testimony is relliable and trustworthy and the defence 31 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 has not been able to point out any material inconsistencies or contradictions in their statement, which goes to the root of the case and hence they have rightly been held to be reliable and trustworthy witnesses by the trial court on the basis of which conviction and sentence has been recorded. There is no illegality or error in the impugned judgment and order and is liable to be affirmed.

53. Learned AGA has further submitted that the injuries pionted out in post-mortem report completely corroborates the prosecution story. All the four surving accused-appellants are said to be armed with banka, a sharp edged and heavy cutting weapon and the doctor in his testimony has candidly pointed out that in the post-mortem report, all the injuries found on the person of the two deceased are incised wound, which could have been caused by a sharp object and thus, the post- mortem report completely corroborates the prosecution story.

54. Learned AGA has further submitted that both the eye witnesses are natural witnesses and they in their testimony have candidly supported the prosecution story and the defence has not been able to point out any material contradictions or inconsistencies in their statements and they fully corroborate the prosecution story. The time and place of the incident has been cogently and firmly established by the 32 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 prosecution and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or error and therefore is liable to be affirmed by dismissing the instant appeal.

55. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and recapitulating the entire evidence and material on record, we find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against all the surviving appellants. Both the eye witnesses P.W.-1 Madan Lal and P.W.-2 Mishri Lal are the natural eye witnesess and their presence at the time of incident cannot be doubted at all. They in their testimony have corrborated the entire prosecution story in a most natural and trustworthy manner and the defence has not been able to point out any material contradictions or any inconsistencies in their statements, which goes to the root of the case. We see no reason to entertain any doubt regarding their truthfulness. As a matter of fact the evidence of these witnesses is cogent and inspire confidence.

56. It is true that P.W.-1 is the father and son of the two deceased and is said to be partisan and interested witness, however, when we test and analyse his testimony on the anvil of truthfulness, we find that he has corroborated the 33 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 prosecution story in all material particulars and the defence has not been able to elicit any material contradictions or inconsistencies in his statement. He has firmly and cogently established his presence at the time and place of incident and has given a truthful and graphic narration of the incident, which is completely corroborated by the medical evidence. Merely on the ground that he is partisan and interested witnesses being the father and son of the two deceased, his otherwise reliable testimony cannot be thrown over board. Even the Hon’le Apex Court in several its decisions has held that merely on the ground of interested and partisan witnesses the otherwise reliable and truthful testimony of the witness cannnot be discarded. The only caveat is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution.

57. The above noted submission was considered by Supreme Court elaborately way back in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab7. The Court observed that ordinarily a close relative would not spare the real culprit who has caused the death and implicate an innocent person. His/her evidence can only be discarded when it is established that the witness has a cause, due to enmity to implicate him falsely. In Dalip Singh (supra) case also the testimonies of two women witnesses 34 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 was impeached on the ground that they were close relatives of the deceased. Following principles were enunciated in Dalip Singh (supra):- "26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth."

58. In Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452, same principles were reiterated:- "4. The central evidence against the appellant consisted of the three eye-witneses, namely, P.W. 3 Harbhajan Singh, P.W. 5 Chanan Kaur and P. W. 6 Kesar Kaur. It is true that the three witnesses were relations of the deceased and bore animus against the accused but as the occurrence had taken place near the door of the house of the deceased these persons were the natural witnesses and were in fact sitting in the court-yard when the occurrence took place. It may be difficult to get witnesses from the village when an assault of the type suddenly takes place in the house of the deceased. It is well settled that the evidence of interested or inimical witnesses is to be scrutinised with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being a partisan evidence. If on a perusal of the evidence the Court is satisfied that the evidence is creditworthy there is no bar in the Court relying on the said evidence. The High Court was fully alive to these principles and has in fact 35 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 found that the evidence of these three witnesses has a ring of truth. After having perused the evidence ourselves also we fully agree with the view taken by the High Court. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has not made any attempt to dwell into the intrinsic merits of the evidence of these witnesses but has rejected them mainly on general grounds most of which are either unsupportable in law or based on speculation. The evidence of the eye-witnesses is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 7 Kundan Singh to whom the whole occurrence was narrated immediately after the accused left the house. There is also the evidence of Balbir Singh, P. W. 17, who is a Sarpanch of the village and an independent witness and who proves that the appellant Piara Singh had made an extra judicial confession before him in which he admitted to have committed the murder of the deceased Surjit Singh along with his companions Kashmir Singh, Gian Singh and Joginder Singh. This witness also proves that Kashmir Singh on being narrated by the details made a disclosure which resulted in the recovery of the Kirpan from the sugar- cane field of Meja Singh for which a search list was prepared and the Kirpan was also found stained with human blood. According to the Investigating Officer an empty cartridge was also found at the spot and he sent the same to the Ballistic Expert along with the rifle recovered from Piara Singh who was a constable in the Border Security Force and the Ballistic- Expert found that the empty could have been shot from the rifle in question. These circumstances fully corroborate the evidence of the eye- witnesses. Finally, there is the medical evidence of Dr. Jatinder Singh who performed the postmortem examination on the deceased and he found as many as 7 incised wounds on the various parts of the body of the deceased and 7 incised punctured wounds on some vital parts of the body. Apart from these injuries the deceased had also sustained a gun shot injury with a wound of entry and exit on the left buttock, which according to Dr. Jatinder Singh could be; caused by a fire- arm including a rifle. The Doctor further deposed that the contusions and abrasions were caused by a blunt 36 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 weapon and the other incised wounds were caused by a sharp cutting instrument like the Gandasa. Another Doctor was examined by the Sessions Judge as Court Witness No. 1 who on seeing the post-mortem report of Dr. Jatinder Singh was of the view that Injury No. 11 could not have been caused by a rifle and much capital was made by the accused but of the evidence given by Dr. Paramjit Singh."

59. A three Judge Bench in Hari Obula Reddy Vs. State of A.P., (1981) 3 SCC 675 observed as under:- "13. ...it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon."

60. Again in S. Sudershan Reddy and others Vs. State of A.P, (2006) 10 SCC 163, the Supreme Court has held as under:- "12. We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more oftern than not that a relation would not conceal the 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 37 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.

15. We may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in Dilip Singh case in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that relatives were not independent witnesses."

61. In this context the reference may be made to the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Kamta Yadav vs. State of Bihar8: Nand Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh9.

62. Thus, we find unbroken line of authorities to the effect that evidence of eye witness, if found forceful, cannot be discarded simply because the witness was a relative of the deceased.

63. In view thereof, the reliable and trustworthy testimony of P.W.-1 cannot be discarded and he has rightly been relied upon by the trial court while holding the conviction.

64. Now, coming to the testimony of P.W.-2 Mishri Lal, we find that he too in his evidence has completely corroborated the prosecution story and given graphic details about the manner of incident.

65. It is further germane to point out here that the defence 38 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 has not been able to elicit any material contradictions or inconsistencies in his testimony and he too has corroborated the prosecution story in all material particulars. He is said to have accompanied P.W.-1, boarding his tractor for the purposes of purchasing diesel from Gola and enroute to the said place, he has witnessed the incident and has corroborated the prosecution story, which finds corrboration from the medical evidence and, therefore, the trial court has rightly held him to be a reliable and trustworthy witness and relying upon his testimony has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, which Judgment and Order in our opinion, does not suffer from any illegality or error and is liable to be affirmed.

66. Now we shall consider the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants in support of reversing the Judgment of trial court and acquitting the surviving appellants.

67. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants is that the aforesaid two witnesses are said to have witnessed the incident from a distance of 100 yards and thus it would be difficult for the witnesses to actually identify the appellants, who are nine in number armed with deadly weapons, moreso, when the incident lasted hardly for 4-5 minutes, however, when we go through the testimony of 39 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 said two witnesses, we find that as per their testimony, they had reached the place of incident boarding a tractor and from the distance of 100 yards, they had witnessed two deceased returning from Gola riding a motor-cycle and when they reached near the culvert, the accused-appellants emerged, armed with deadly weapons and assaulted two victims causing their death by dragging them in a field.

68. While narrating the eye version account of the incident, the said two witnesses have candidly stated that after witnessing the two deceased coming from the south direction riding a motor-cycle, three accused namely Ram Chand, Ori and Naresh emerged and stopped their motor-cycle dragged them in the field with an intention to kill them, while other six assailants joined them with deadly weapons and they all in furtherance of their common object assaulted both of them causing their instantaneous death. At the relevant time, both the eye witnesses P.W.-1 Madan Lal and P.W.-2 Mishri Lal boarding a tractor reached there and saw the appellants dragging them in the field. Consequently, the said two witnesses alighted from the tractor and started running towards the victims and it is the positive case of the prosecution that the incident of actual assault was witnessed by them from a distance of 50 yards only and not 100 yards as 40 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 submitted by the counsel for the appellants, which is wholly misplaced.

69. Admittedly, the incident is of 4 p.m. in broad day light and the assailants were well known to them and, therefore, there cannot be any doubt about the identity of the assailants, who killed the deceased by wielding banka injuries upon the deceased causing their instantaneous death.

70. Thus, from their testimony, there cannot be any doubt that it was not possible for the two witnesses to identify the assailants from a distance of 50 yards in broad day light. The contrary submissions made by the counsel for the appellants is wholly misplaced against the material on record and is liable to be discarded.

71. Thus, from the perusal of the testimony of two eye witnesses, it is evident that they have supported the prosecution story in all material particulars and despite lengthy cross examination made by the defence, nothing adverse could be elicited from their testimony and have rightly been held to be truthful and reliable witnesses by the trial court which we endorse.

72. The second arguments raised by the counsel for the appellants is regarding the motive. It is submitted that on 41 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 account of past enmity over a plot of land, they have been falsely implicated. It is well settled principle of law that enmity cuts both ways. Both the eye witnesses in their testimony has completely corrborated the prosecution story and there ocular testimony clearly establishes the prosecution story against the appellants and, therefore, only on the ground of enmity, the entire prosecution story cannot be thrown over board as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in several of its decisions.

73. We further find that the trial court rightly analysed the testimony of the two witnesses in a most critical manner and finding them to be credible and trustworthy, rightly relied upon their testimony and convicted the accused-appellants, which Judgment and order, in our opinion, is just, proper and legal and cannot be reversed only on account of the enmity. The contrary submission made by the counsel for the appellants is therefore not tenable and is liable to be discarded.

74. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that though the incident in question is said to have been taken place on 10.2.1985 at 4 p.m. and its FIR is said to have been lodged at 7:30 p.m. on the same day, yet the special report of the said case has been forwarded by the Circle Officer under his signature on 13.2.1985, which has reached the Court and signed by the Magistrate on 19.2.1985. 42 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 Thus, inordinate delay in sending the report completely rules out the reliability of the prosecution story and renders the impugned Judgment and order wholly illegal and erroneous, however, when we consider the said submissions of the learned counsel for the appelalnts in light of the occular testimony of the two witnesses, which clearly, firmly and cogently establishes the prosecution case against the appellants, as such merely, the slight delay in sending the special report, will not render the entire prosecution story doubtful to be thrown over board, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several of its decisions. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that mere delay in forwarding FIR to Magistrate by itself is not a ground to acquit the accused. In Jafel Biswas Vs. State of W.B. (2019) 12 SCC 560, the Court while noting the observation in State of Rajasthan Vs. Daud Khan (2016) 2 SCC 607 laid down that to raise the contention of delay, the accused must establish prejudice caused by the same. Likewise in Sarvajit Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2003 SCC online AII 1214 the trial court held that mere delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate does not have a deteriorating effect on the case of the prosecution, unless proven that the accused suffered severe prejudice when there was no dearth in the investigation, a mere delay unless prejudice is proven, 43 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 cannot destroy the prosecution case.

75. It is true that section 157 Cr.P.C. requires that the special report should be sent forthwith, however, merely on this ground, the entire prosecution story cannot be thrown over board.

76. It is well settled principle of law that unless proven that the accused suffered severe prejudice due to non compliance of Section 157(1) Cr.P.C., it cannot destroy the prosecution case. In the instant case, counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any prejudice being caused to the appellants for non compliance of section 157(1) Cr.P.C. as such, the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants also does not hold much water and is liable to be repelled.

77. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that at the time of preparing the inquest and the relevant documents, case crime number of the instant case has been mentioned to be 15 of 1985 whereas the first information report was infact lodged vide case crime number 17 of 1985, which subsequently has been corrected. Thus, from the said circumstance, it is evident that at the time of conducting the inquest and preparation of the relevant 44 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 documents, infact the FIR of the instant case was not in existence and has been subsequently manipulated by making it anti-time and that is why subsequently in the panchayatnama and all documents prepared at the time of inquest, Case Crime No. 15 of 1985 have been struck of and in its place Case Crime No. 17 of 1985 has been noted. In this respect when we go through the testimony of P.W.-7- Matapher, who prepared the inquest, the said discrepancies has been very succinctly and clearly explained, who testified that "(cid:30)दनाँक 11-2-85 को मDने /दश@ क -7 लगायत क 16 मDने SO Eी हरचFद Gसह के बोलने व (cid:30)हदायत करने पर तैयार की थी। इन सभी /द@शH म(cid:22) अपराध संKया 17/85 Lलखा है। सभी कागजात म(cid:22) 15 Lलख कर काट कर (cid:30)फर उस पर 17 संKया Lलखी हुई है। दरोगा जी ने अपराध संKया बोले थे पता नह2 की 15 की संKया बोले या 17 की परFतु मुझे 15 सुनाई पNा और मDने 15 की ही संKया सभी कागजात पर डाल दी। जब दरोगा जी ने कहा (cid:30)क यह संKया 17 होनी चा(cid:30)हए तब मDने यह संKया काट कर उस पर 17 कर दी।"

78. Thus from the said explaination, any ambiguity regarding case crime No. 15 of 1985 and 17 of 1985 has been clearly explained. Moreover, the submission made by the counsel for the appellants that at the time of preparing the inquest and the relevant documents, FIR was not in existence and has been subsequently manipulated by making it anti time 45 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 is further ruled out from the careful perusal of the inquest itself where in the relevant columns of the enclosures mentioned therein, “nakal chik” “nakal rapat”, “ek bark” is clearly mentioned.

79. Thus from the said circumstance, the submission made by the counsel for the appellants that at the relevant time of preparing the inquest and the relevant documents, chick FIR and G.D. was not in existence is completely ruled out and has no legs to stand, therefore, on this ground also the submission made by the counsel for the appellants that the FIR is anti time, has no force and is liable to be repelled.

80. Another arguments raised by the counsel for the appellants is that though it is the specific case of the prosecution that the two appellants, namely Ori was armed with danda, whereas Ram Chandra was armed with lathi and both assaulted the two deceased by their respective lathi, danda, however, in the post-mortem report, there is no injury caused to the deceased by lathi, danda, which further creates a serious dent in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and makes them unreliable. In this regard, it may be mentioned that according to the prosecution case as many as nine accused persons armed with banka, kanta, danda and lathi are said to have assaulted the deceased and incident of 46 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 wielding lathi, danda, banka and kanta lasted for about 4-5 minutes and as per the observations made by the witnesses, they had given the description of the incident, however, non finding of any blunt injury on the person of the decesed will not prejudice the prosecution case if testimony is found to be cogent and reliable as held by this Court in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and other reported in (2016) 4 SCC 357. “Also we believe that merely for the reason that no blunt injuries were present on the deceased, the whole evidence of PW 1 cannot be discarded as primacy has to be given to the ocular evidence, particularly in the case of minor discrepancies. This Court in Darbara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012 10 SCC 476, wherein this Court has held : (SCC pp. 480-81), para 10) “10…. So far as the question of inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence is concerned, the law is well settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence. It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved.”

81. Thus, merely on this minor discrepancy as held by the 47 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988 Apex Court the entire prosecution story cannot thrown over board.

82. Consequently, from the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and its corroboration by the medical evidence, we are satisfied about the commission of offence by the surviving appellants. We have also carefully gone through the judgment of trial court and we are satisfied that the trial court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any perversity in the findings of the trial court. Thus, we do not find any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the recorded conviction of the appellants and the sentence awarded to them by the impugned judgement and order 29.1.1988 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in S.T. No. 398 of 1985 (State vs. Ram Chandra & others), under Section 148 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

83. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

84. The surviving appellants Shri Krishna, Naresh, Bankey Pandit and Satyabaran are on bail. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheri is directed to take them in custody in the aforesaid case and send them to Jail to serve out the sentences awarded by the trial court and affirmed by us. 48 CRLA No. - 65 of 1988

85. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the court concerned alongwith the lower court record within two weeks for compliance. The compliance report shall be sent by the court concerned to this Court within a further period of fifteen days. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) November 28, 2025 KU/- KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench