Keshav Deo And Others vs State Of U.P

A.F.R.
RESERVED ON: 02.09.2026
DELIVERED ON: 06.11.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 271 of 1982
Keshav Deo and others
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Brijesh Sahai, D.s. Tiwari, Keshav
Sahai, Ram Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A., M.a.siddiqui
Court No. - 84
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ram Kumar, learned counsel for surviving appellant
nos. 4 & 6, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the
rd
judgment and order dated 28.01.1982 passed by the 3 Additional
Sessions Judge, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in
Sessions Trial No. 281 of 1978, State of U.P. v. Keshav Deo and others
(arising out of Criminal Case No. 517/IX/78 of 1978), under Sections
395/397 I.P.C., Police Station Raya, District Mathura.
3. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the present
criminal appeal has been preferred by seven appellants. However, during
the pendency of the appeal, appellant nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 passed away

2
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
and the appeal, insofar as it relates to the aforesaid appellants, stood
abated. Appropriate orders in this regard have already been passed by
this Court. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal now survives only in
respect of appellant no. 4, Jaswant and appellant no. 6, Chandrapal.
4. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is that the informant, Ram
Singh son of Khilari Jaat, resident of Doodhadhari, Mauja Deewan
Kalan, Police Station Raya, District Mathura, lodged an FIR on
05.03.1978 at about 12:35 a.m., alleging that on the intervening night of
04/05.03.1978, at about 10:15 p.m., almost all the male residents of the
village had gone to attend the marriage procession (barat) of the son of
Lal Singh. Only a few persons, namely, the informant, Gulab Singh son
of Heeralal, Mahavir Singh son of Ter Singh, Vijay Singh son of
Ramdas, Pooran son of Roshan Singh, Nekram son of Man Singh
Pradhan and Sohan Lal, brother of the Pradhan were sitting around a
bonfire in front of the informant’s house. In the meantime, 13 to 14
dacoits arrived at the house of Lal Singh. Upon noticing their presence,
the women of the house raised an alarm. The dacoits fired two or three
shots and began looting the house of Lal Singh. A lantern was burning at
the house of Lal Singh. Another lantern was illuminating the informant’s
doorway. The informant put Karab in the bonfire which increased the
illumination. After looting the house of Lal Singh, the dacoits proceeded
towards the house of the informant. Being frightened by the dacoits, the
informant and other persons took shelter in the cattle shed (Nauhara) of
Ram Das, the wall of which was only up to their waist height. The
informant and the accompanying witnesses hid themselves behind the
said wall and continued to observe the dacoits. The dacoits were 14 in
number. Thereafter, the dacoits looted the house of Roshan Lal.
5. According to the prosecution, the informant and the witnesses
accompanying him identified the dacoits as Keshav Dev, Resham Singh
both sons of Hukum Singh Jaat, Udal son of Charan Singh Jaat, Shriram
son of Kishan Lal Jaat, Jaswant son of Sookha Mehtar residents of
Deewana Kalan, Bachchu son of Bhagri Jatav, Hardayal son of Shyama

3
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
Jatav residents of Deewana Khurd, Chandrapal son of Parsaadi Jatav of
Nagla Vijai, Ramcharan son of Ninua Jatav of Siriya Nagariya, Khoota
son of Jeevaram Jaat of Bhootiya Valo and four other unidentified
dacoits. Shreeram was having a gun while Bachchu and Chandrapal
were armed with country-made pistols. The two dacoits who were shot
dead were also armed with country-made pistols. After committing
dacoity in the aforesaid three houses, the miscreants proceeded towards
out of the village. However, a police party arrived from the opposite
direction and challenged them. An exchange of fire ensued between the
police party and the dacoits, during which two miscreants sustained
pellet injuries. One of them died at the spot, while the other succumbed
to his injuries shortly thereafter, after disclosing his name as Suraj son of
Bhoodev and the name of other deceased miscreant as Rambharose.
Apart from having gun and country-made pistols, the dacoits were armed
with Lathi-Danda and axe.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid oral information, a case was
registered as Case Crime No. 44 under Sections 395 and 397 IPC and the
corresponding entry was made in General Diary at G.D. Rapat No. 2 at
the same time. The investigation was entrusted to the Investigating
Officer, Lal Singh Tyagi, the Station House Officer concerned.
7. It is also remarkable that at General Diary Report No. 3 at about
1:00 p.m. on 05.03.1978, the Station House Officer Lal Singh Tyagi
lodged seven accused persons (all the appellants) in the lock-up of the
Police Station. He also deposited the articles recovered from their
possession, namely, pistols, cartridges, a canister containing ghee, gold
rings, empty cartridges, three sticks, one danda and one axe.
8. It is further noteworthy that according to the prosecution case,
upon the arrest of seven accused persons at the spot, a sum of Rs. 300/-,
comprising three currency notes of Rs. 100 each, was recovered from the
possession of accused-appellant no. 7, Ramcharan; 4 kg of Desi Ghee
contained in a canister was recovered from accused-appellant no. 5; two
gold rings were recovered from accused-appellant no. 4; and three gold

4
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
rings were recovered from accused-appellant no. 3. Separate recovery
memos were prepared in respect of the said recoveries.
9. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer
visited the place of occurrence, took the ashes of the bonfire into his
possession and prepared a Supurdginama in respect of a lantern alleged
to have been spreading light at the time of the occurrence. The
statements of the informant and other witnesses were recorded and a site
plan was prepared at the instance of the informant. Thereafter, the
investigation was transferred to another Investigating Officer, namely,
Sri Om Prakash Saraswat, Station Officer, Sureer, who submitted
charge-sheet no. 28 on 26.04.1978.
10. After compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the
jurisdictional Magistrate, the offences being exclusively triable by the
Court of Session, committed the case to the Court of Session for trial,
whereupon charges were framed against the accused-appellants.
11. It is also remarkable that on the very date of lodging the FIR, three
separate lists of the articles allegedly looted from different houses were
submitted to the Station Officer. These lists contained huge amount of
gold and silver ornaments including the cash and other household items.
12. The charges framed against the accused persons were read over
and explained to them in the local language. The accused persons denied
the charges and claimed to be tried.
13. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Ram Singh,
PW-2 Mahaveer Singh, P.W.-3 Nekram, P.W.-4 Lal Singh Tyagi in oral
evidence. The prosecution also adduced documentary evidence and
proved the FIR as Exhibit Ka-1; the information regarding the lists of
looted articles as Exhibits Ka-2, Ka-11 and Ka-12; the General Diary
entry regarding information received from the informer as Exhibit Ka-3;
the General Diary entry regarding the departure of the police party as
Exhibit Ka-4; the search memo and recovery memo relating to Rs. 300/-
as Exhibit Ka-5; the search and recovery memo relating to Ghee as

5
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
Exhibit Ka-6; the search memo and recovery memo relating to golden
rings as Exhibits Ka-7 and Ka-8; the General Diary entry regarding the
lodging of the arrested appellants in the police station lock-up as Exhibit
Ka-9; the General Diary entry relating to the registration of the FIR as
Exhibit Ka-10; the site plan as Exhibit Ka-13; the recovery memo of
ashes as Exhibit Ka-14; the recovery memo and Supurdginama relating
to the lantern as Exhibit Ka-15 and the charge-sheet as Exhibit Ka-16, as
material exhibits, the recovered three notes of Rs. 100/- denomination,
the canister containing Ghee and the gold rings as Exhibits 1 to 9.
14. Upon the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements
of the accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The
surviving appellants denied their presence at the place of occurrence at
the relevant time and alleged that they have been falsely implicated on
account of political rivalry in the village. They also denied that any of
the articles in question had been recovered from their possession.
15. Accused-appellant no. 4, Jaswant, stated that he had been arrested
in the morning and subsequently charge-sheeted in the present case
despite having committed no offence. He alleged that he has been falsely
implicated by the Police due to collusion between the police and the
opposite parties.
16. Accused-appellant no. 6, Chandrapal, stated that the police had
called him from his village to the police station and thereafter falsely
implicated him in the present case.
17. In their defence, the accused-appellants examined two witnesses,
namely, DW-1 Jagdish and DW-2 Leeladhar.
18. After hearing the submissions advanced by the parties and
considering the evidence available on record, the Trial Court convicted
all seven accused-appellants. Accused-appellant no. 6, Chandrapal, was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years for the
offence punishable under Sections 395 read with 397 IPC, whereas
accused-appellant no. 4, Jaswant, was sentenced to undergo rigorous

6
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section
395 IPC.
19. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed by the Trial Court, the present criminal appeal has been
preferred on the grounds that the conviction and sentence awarded to the
appellants are contrary to the weight of evidence available on record;
that no offence is made out against them on the basis of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution; and that in any event, the sentence imposed
upon them is excessively severe.
20. PW-1, Ram Singh, supported the prosecution case in its entirety in
his examination-in-chief. He proved the Chick FIR by identifying his
signature thereon, which was marked as Exhibit Ka-1 and also proved
the list of articles allegedly looted from his house, which was marked as
Exhibit Ka-2. During his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he had no
knowledge of any factional rivalry (party-bandi) in the village. He
further expressed his ignorance regarding any case under Section 307
IPC against the accused persons. He also deposed that upon hearing that
two dacoits have been encountered by the police, he came out of the
cattle shed and saw two dacoits lying there. The police personnel were
also present at the spot. PW-1 further stated that the police had not
accompanied him to lodge the FIR. Rather, the informant, one Mahavir
and Gulab had gone to lodge the FIR. According to his testimony, they
left at about 11:30 p.m. and reached the police station at about 12:30
a.m. He also stated that he was unaware of the names of the fathers of
accused-appellant no. 4, Jaswant, and accused-appellant no. 6,
Chandrapal.
21. PW-1 further stated in his cross-examination that at the time of
lodging the FIR, he was unaware of the names of the fathers of accused-
appellants Chandrapal and Jaswant, as well as the names of two
absconding dacoits. He has not disclosed the names of the father of
bandit Giriraj. When confronted with the fact that the names of their
fathers had been mentioned in the FIR, he expressed his inability to

7
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
explain the same. He further deposed that accused Udal, Bhagwant and
Chandrapal had made no attempt to conceal their identities. He also
stated that he had mentioned in the FIR the numbers of the gun shot fired
by the accused Udal, Bhagwant and Chandrapal. According to him, the
police did not make any further inquiry from him after the lodging of the
FIR.
22. PW-1 further stated that the list of articles allegedly looted from
his house was already prepared in his mind and that he had dictated the
particulars thereof to the Head Moharrir of the police station, who
prepared the list.
23. PW-2, Mahaveer Singh also supported the prosecution case in its
entirety in his examination-in-chief. He stated that accused Udal,
Jaswant, Chandrapal and others would frequently visit his village and
did not make any attempt to hide themselves. He further stated that he
was unaware of the names of the fathers of accused Udal, Jaswant and
Chandrapal at the time of incident. According to his testimony, the police
opened fire during the commission of the dacoity. However, he admitted
that he had not witnessed the encounter. He stated that the Daroga, who
recorded the statement, arrived at about 12:30 a.m. and that he had
spoken to the police personnel involved in the encounter. Thereafter, the
witness (P.W.-2) and the informant, Ram Singh, requested the Daroga to
scribe the report, but the Daroga directed them to go to police station and
lodge the FIR. Accordingly, he, Ram Singh and another person
proceeded to the police station for that purpose. Upon reaching there at
the Police Station, they did not see the Daroga who participated in the
encounter.
24. During his cross-examination, PW-2 stated that when they reached
near the police personnel, four police personnels were present and two
miscreants were lying on the ground. He further admitted that he had
never seen any of the accused persons being apprehended by the police.
He had also not seen the accused persons while returning to his village.
However, the police personnel who had participated in the encounter

8
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
were present in the village when he returned from the police station, and
he continued to see them there until about 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. PW-2 further
stated in his cross-examination that before he left the village to lodge the
FIR, Ram Singh, Gulab, Vijay Singh, the witness Puran, Nek Ram,
Sohan and Ratan Singh had narrated the entire incident to him.
25. PW-3, Nekram also supported the prosecution case in its entirety
in his examination-in-chief. However, during his cross-examination, he
stated that except accused-appellant Chandrapal, all the accused persons
were residents of his Gram Sabha. The witness has no connection with
the village of accused Chandrapal. Although he used to visit his village.
He further stated that none of the accused persons had made any attempt
to hide their faces. PW-3 further deposed that on the very night of the
incident, at about 11:00 to 11:30 p.m., three Darogas visited the places
where the dacoity had been committed. The police officer made inquiries
from both the male and female residents. According to the witness, the
three Darogas continued making inquiries for approximately one and a
half hours. He further stated that after speaking to the three Darogas, he
did not discuss the incident of dacoity with anyone.
26. PW-4, Lal Singh Tyagi is a material witness in the present case.
He is stated to have been a member of the police party that engaged in an
encounter with two dacoits shortly after the incident of dacoity, at a
distance of approximately 100 to 150 yards from the place of
occurrence. In his examination-in-chief, PW-4 stated that he was posted
as the Station Officer at Police Station Raya from 04.03.1978 to
14.04.1978. On 04.03.1978, at about 9:30 p.m., he received information
from a police informer regarding the gathering of a gang of dacoits at
Daudayal Dharamshala, situated in Jungle Diwana. The information was
endorsed by the witness at G.D. No. 41 at about 21:30 o’clock and
proved the corresponding entry as Exhibit Ka-3. Thereafter, he prepared
a police force equipped with arms and ammunition and proceeded from
the police station after making its entry at General Diary Rapat No. 42.
He was accompanied by Sub-Inspector V.L. Yadav, K.L. Verma,

9
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
Lakshmi Chand and ten constables available at the police station. He
proved the said General Diary entry as Exhibit Ka-4.
27. Upon reaching the canal culvert via the Government Agricultural
Farm, he was joined by Head Constable Lakshmi Narayan and three
constables. In the presence of independent witnesses Bheesham Singh
and Bheemsain, he disclosed the purpose of the police operation and
conducted personal searches of the police personnel to ascertain that
they were carrying nothing other than their authorised arms and
ammunition and the necessary investigation equipment. PW-4 further
stated that he divided the police personnel into three groups. The first
group, comprising Head Constable Lakshmi Narayan and three
constables, was led by him. The second group was headed by Sub-
Inspector Lakshmi Chand, accompanied by Sub-Inspector B.L. Yadav
and four constables. The third group was headed by Sub-Inspector V.L.
Verma and comprised the remaining police personnel. According to his
testimony, independent witness Bheemsain accompanied the first group,
while the other independent witness, Bheesham Singh, accompanied the
second group. As the police parties were about to proceed, they heard
gunshots emanating from the direction of village Dudhadhari, followed
by sounds of people crying out. The police personnel accordingly took
positions as directed by PW-4. In the meantime, the dacoits were
committing dacoity in village Dudhadhari. After some time, 13 to 14
dacoits were observed approaching barefoot towards the witness through
the road of village Pali from the direction of the place of occurrence. The
police party challenged them, whereupon the dacoits opened fire,
resulting in a commotion. The police party retaliated in self-defence. As
a result of the exchange of fire, two dacoits were killed, while seven
others, namely, Keshav, Resham Singh, Udal, Jaswant, Bachchu,
Chandrapal and Ramcharan were apprehended by the police personnel.
28. PW-4 further deposed that upon conducting searches, three
currency notes of Rs. 100 each were recovered from the possession of
Ram Charan; a container of indigenous ghee was recovered from

10
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
accused Bachchu; two rings were recovered from accused Jaswant
(appellant no. 4); and three rings were recovered from accused Udal. The
recovery memos were prepared by Sub-Inspector Lakshmi Chand. He
identified the writing and signature of S.I. Lakshmi Chand and proved
these recovery memos as Exhibits Ka-5, Ka-6, Ka-7 and Ka-8,
respectively.
29. PW-4 further stated that all the recovered articles were duly
sealed. He identified the recovered articles in open Court and proved
them as Material Exhibits 1 to 9. He deposed that the arrested accused
persons, along with the recovered articles, were brought to the police
station, where the accused persons were lodged in the lock-up and the
recovered articles were deposited in the Malkhana. He proved the
relevant General Diary entry regarding the deposit of the articles as
Exhibit Ka-9.
30. PW-4 further stated that he took up the investigation of the case
the following morning. During the investigation, he visited the place of
occurrence and received the lists of looted articles, which had been
marked as Exhibits Ka-2, Ka-11 and Ka-12. He recorded the statements
of the informant, Ram Singh, Mahavir Singh, Nek Ram and other
witnesses. He also prepared the site plan and proved the site plan as
Exhibit Ka-13. He further deposed that he collected a sample of the
ashes from the bonfire, sealed the same and prepared a recovery memo
in that regard. He proved the recovery memo as Exhibit Ka-14 and the
recovered ashes as Material Exhibit 10.
31. He also stated that he found a lantern which was alleged to have
been burning at the time of the incident. He prepared a Supurdginama in
respect of the lantern and handed it over to its owner, Lal Singh. The
Supurdginama was proved as Exhibit Ka-15.
32. PW-4 further stated that on 09.03.1978, he searched for the
absconding accused persons. Thereafter, the investigation was
transferred to the Station Officer, Police Station Sureer, Shri Om Prakash

11
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
Saraswat. Investigating Officer, Om Prakash Saraswat submitted charge-
sheet no. 28. PW-4 identified the handwriting and signature of Sri Om
Prakash Saraswat on the charge-sheet and proved it as Exhibit Ka-16.
33. During his cross-examination, PW-4 admitted that no copies of the
recovery memos had been furnished to the accused persons and that their
signatures had not been obtained on the recovery memos. He further
stated that on 09.03.1978, the investigation was taken over by Om
Prakash Saraswat, the Station Officer of Police Station Sureer. Until that
date, PW-4 had no knowledge of the names of the persons in whose
houses the dacoities had been committed. He admitted that he had
neither visited nor inspected any of the houses where the dacoities had
allegedly taken place. PW-4 further stated that the distance between the
place where the accused persons were apprehended and the place of
occurrence was approximately 150 yards. He also deposed that empty
cartridges had been recovered from the place of occurrence, sealed and
deposited in the Malkhana. However, he was unable to explain the
precise location from which the cartridges had been recovered.
Furthermore, at page 54 of the paper book, he stated that he had not seen
any empty cartridges or pellets at the place of occurrence.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
34. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that according to the
testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, the alleged dacoity was
committed by fourteen persons, comprising ten known miscreants and
four unidentified persons. Although the identities of the known
miscreants were disclosed at the earliest stage in the FIR, the aforesaid
eyewitnesses were unaware of the identities of four miscreants,
including two deceased and two out of absconding accused persons. It
was contended that despite the witnesses claiming familiarity with ten of
the miscreants, the charge-sheet was submitted only against seven
accused persons, who are the appellants herein.

12
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
35. Learned counsel further submitted that there were material
inconsistencies in the statements of the eyewitnesses regarding the
weapons allegedly carried by the miscreants. According to PW-1,
accused Shriram was armed with a gun, accused Bachchu and
Chandrapal were carrying pistols and the remaining miscreants were
armed with lathis and torches. However, according to the examination-
in-chief of PW-2, although the weapons attributed to Shriram, Bachchu
and Chandrapal were the same, accused Jaswant was stated to be
carrying an axe, which is contrary to the statement of P.W.-1. The
testimony of PW-3, in this regard, was stated to be identical to that of
PW-2 concerning the weapons allegedly carried by Shriram, Bachchu,
Chandrapal and Jaswant.
36. It was further argued that none of the weapons allegedly carried by
the accused persons was produced before the Trial Court to establish that
such weapons had been recovered from their possession. Learned
counsel contended that since the accused persons were allegedly
apprehended by the police shortly after the incident, there was no
occasion for them to have thrown away their respective weapons before
their arrest.
37. Drawing attention to the testimony of PW-4, learned counsel
submitted that the accused persons were apprehended at a distance of
approximately 150 yards from the place of occurrence. In contrast, PW-2
stated that the police arrived in the village during the commission of the
dacoity and opened fire. According to learned counsel, this discrepancy
raises a serious doubt as to whether the police firing took place at the site
of the alleged dacoity or at the place where the seven accused persons
were apprehended and the two miscreants were killed in the encounter.
38. It is next submitted that according to PW-1, he had gone to the
police station to lodge the FIR and that the Daroga visited the village
only after the FIR had been lodged. It was further contended that the list
of looted articles was handed over to the Daroga after its particulars had
been scribed by Mahavir Singh. According to learned counsel, these

13
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
circumstances also cast doubt upon the prosecution’s account of the
preparation and submission of the list of looted articles.
39. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that
according to the testimony of PW-1, only two gold pendants, one chain
and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in cash were looted from his house. However,
the list of looted articles, marked as Exhibit Ka-2, contains as many as
21 articles of gold, including certain articles in pairs, each pair having
been counted as a single item, 22 articles of silver, Rs. 5,000/- in cash
and two items of clothing. It was contended that there is material
discrepancy between the oral testimony of PW-1 and the contents of
Exhibit Ka-2, which renders the prosecution version, regarding the
allegedly looted articles, highly doubtful and undermines the authenticity
and reliability of the said list.
40. Learned counsel further argued that Exhibit Ka-2 was neither
proved by its author nor by its signatory. Similarly, the other lists of
looted articles were not proved by their respective authors or signatories.
Instead, all three lists, namely, Exhibits Ka-2, Ka-11 and Ka-12, were
purportedly proved by PW-4, the Investigating Officer. It was further
contended that PW-4 himself had actively participated in the police
encounter with the alleged miscreants, which took place immediately
after the alleged dacoity and at a short distance from the place of
occurrence. Thus, according to learned counsel, PW-4 was not merely an
Investigating Officer but was also personally involved in a material part
of the occurrence forming the subject matter of the prosecution case,
albeit in his capacity as a police officer acting against the alleged
dacoits. In such circumstances, learned counsel questioned the propriety
and impartiality of the investigation conducted by PW-4 and submitted
that he ought not to have undertaken the investigation of the case.
41. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel
argued that mere exhibition of the lists of looted articles through PW-4,
without their contents being duly proved by competent witnesses, cannot
be treated as sufficient proof of the articles allegedly looted. It was,

14
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
therefore, urged that Exhibits Ka-2, Ka-11 and Ka-12 could not be relied
upon as legally proved evidence of the alleged looted property.
42. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that
according to the testimony of PW-1, the informant, Ram Singh, had gone
to the police station to lodge the FIR along with PW-2, Mahavir Singh,
and another person, namely, Gulab. It was pointed out that all these
persons were allegedly sitting together around the bonfire at the time of
the incident. However, PW-2 stated that he, Ram Singh and another
person had gone to the police station to lodge the FIR, without disclosing
the name of the third person. Learned counsel contended that this
discrepancy creates doubt regarding the identity of the persons who had
allegedly accompanied the informant to the police station to lodge the
FIR.
43. Learned counsel further submitted that, on the one hand, PW-1
stated that seven accused persons had been apprehended at the place of
the encounter and that the names of all seven persons had been disclosed
in the FIR. On the other hand, during his cross-examination, he stated
that the two dacoits apprehended by the police were unknown to him.
According to learned counsel, this contradiction in the testimony of
PW-1 undermines the prosecution’s assertion that the seven accused
persons, including the surviving appellants, had been apprehended at the
spot and identified by the witnesses.
44. Drawing attention to the statement of PW-2, occurring at page 37
of the paper book, learned counsel further submitted that upon reaching
the spot after hearing about the encounter involving two dacoits, the
witness found only four police personnel present there, along with two
bandits lying on the ground. It was argued that this testimony contradicts
the account given by PW-4 regarding the composition and presence of
the police party at the place of the encounter. According to learned
counsel, the testimony of PW-4 indicates that approximately eighteen
police personnel were involved in the operation, including the Station
House Officer, three Sub-Inspectors, one Head Constable and thirteen

15
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
constables. However, PW-2 found only four police personnel at the spot.
Learned counsel contended that this discrepancy casts serious doubt
upon the prosecution’s version of the police encounter and the
circumstances in which the accused persons were allegedly apprehended.
45. It was further argued that PW-2 found only two miscreants lying
on the ground and did not mention the presence of any of the seven
accused persons allegedly arrested at the spot. According to learned
counsel, this raises serious doubt regarding the alleged apprehension and
involvement of the appellants in the incident, particularly surviving
appellant nos. 4, Jaswant and 6, Chandrapal.
46. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that
according to the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, none of the
dacoits made any attempt to conceal their identities, despite being well
known to the ocular witnesses. It was contended that such conduct was
wholly improbable, as no person committing an offence of this nature
would ordinarily disclose his identity in the presence of persons known
to him.
47. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Nos. 4 and 6
further submitted that as is evident from page 39 of the paper book,
PW-2 neither saw any of the accused persons at the police station nor he
saw any of them while returning from the police station to his village.
Upon reaching the village, he found police personnel present there.
According to his testimony, he returned to the village at about 2:00 to
2:30 a.m., whereas the FIR in the alleged encounter case had already
been lodged at 1:00 a.m. by the informant, lodging the arrested accused
persons and depositing the recovered articles in the police Malkhana. It
was, therefore, contended that if the police personnel were still present in
the village until 2:00 to 2:30 a.m., the lodging of the FIR at 1:00 a.m. by
PW-4, as alleged, becomes highly doubtful.
48. Learned counsel further submitted that according to the statement
of PW-1, no police officer made any inquiry from him after the lodging

16
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
of the FIR. This circumstance raises a serious question as to the person at
whose instance the investigating officer prepared the site plan. The
preparation of the site plan, in such circumstances, was also assailed as
highly doubtful.
49. It was further contended that PW-4, who allegedly played a
pivotal role in the recovery of the looted articles, admitted that the
signatures of none of the accused persons were obtained on the
respective recovery memos. Nor were copies of the recovery memos
furnished to the accused persons concerned. According to learned
counsel, these serious lapses in the alleged recovery proceedings cast
substantial doubt on the genuineness and reliability of the recoveries
themselves.
50. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel contended
that the prosecution version regarding the arrest of the accused persons
at the alleged place and time, as well as the recovery of the purportedly
looted articles from them, could not safely be relied upon.
51. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that DW-1
and DW-2 had substantiated the defence version that the appellants has
been falsely implicated in the case on account of political rivalry. It has
been contended that PW-3, Nek Ram, was the village Pradhan at the
relevant time. It was, therefore, argued that the surviving appellants had
been falsely implicated owing to political animosity and had no active
role in the alleged incident.
52. Learned counsel further submitted that according to the
prosecution case, PW-4 had lodged FIR bearing Case Crime No. 45 of
1978 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 IPC, besides lodging three
separate cases under Section 25 of the Arms Act, alleging the arrest of
the accused persons and the deposit of the recovered articles in the
police Malkhana. However, the accused persons facing prosecution
under Section 25 of the Arms Act, as well as under Sections 147, 148,
149 and 307 IPC, has already been acquitted by judgment and order

17
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
dated 17.01.1979 passed in Sessions Trial No. 230 of 1978, State v.
Keshav and Others. Learned counsel submitted that a certified copy of
the aforesaid judgment is available on record and contended that the said
acquittal is a relevant circumstance warranting consideration while
assessing the reliability of the prosecution case in the present appeal.
53. It has, therefore, been submitted that the prosecution has failed to
establish the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and
that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is
liable to be set aside, with the appellants being acquitted of the charges
levelled against them.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
54. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the criminal
appeal and submitted that the contradictions pointed out by learned
counsel for the appellants are minor in nature and do not materially
affect the credibility of the prosecution case. It was contended that such
minor discrepancies ought to be disregarded in view of the consistent
testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4.
55. It was further submitted by the learned A.G.A. that PW-1, PW-2
and PW-3 were eyewitnesses to the incident of dacoity and were well
acquainted with the appellants. They had identified the appellants at the
spot and duly established their identities before the Court. These
witnesses had also testified regarding the arrest of the appellants,
including those who had survived. PW-4, on the other hand, was the
police officer leading the police party, whose action resulted in the death
of two bandits in the encounter and the apprehension of seven miscreants
along with the looted articles and weapons allegedly used in the
commission of the dacoity.
56. It was, therefore, submitted that the prosecution evidence is
sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellants and that the
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence does not
warrant any interference by this Court.

18
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
57. Accordingly, learned A.G.A. prayed for dismissal of the criminal
appeal and affirmance of the impugned judgment and order.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
58. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the
prosecution has miserably failed to establish the authenticity of the list of
looted articles, the genuineness of the recovery memos, the arrest of the
accused persons at the alleged place of occurrence, the presence of the
police personnel and the accused persons at the spot at the relevant time.
Therefore, the alleged recovery of the looted articles from the appellants
could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
59. It is further remarkable to note that the articles allegedly recovered
constitute only a small fraction of the articles stated to have been looted.
According to the list of looted articles, as many as 52 gold items
weighing about 425.59 gm and 72 silver items weighing more than two
kg, cash amounting to approximately Rs. 6,000/- and several other
articles were allegedly looted. However, the alleged recovery comprises
only five gold rings, without any specific description and cash
amounting to Rs. 300/-. The prosecution has failed to offer any
convincing explanation as to how such a substantial quantity of the
allegedly looted articles could have disappeared, particularly when,
according to its own case, the accused persons has been apprehended at
the spot.
60. In view of the aforesaid material deficiencies and inconsistencies
in the prosecution case, this Court is unable to place reliance upon the
prosecution version as presented before it. The alleged recoveries and
the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused persons do not
inspire confidence.
61. Moreover, according to P.W.-2, he along with informant and
another accompanying person left the village to Police Station Raya for
lodging the FIR after 12:30 am, while as per statement of P.W.-1 they

19
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
left the village at about 11:30 pm. As per statement of P.W.-2 when he
returned village after lodging the FIR, he found Police personnel
witnessed after the said encounter, they remained present there and
continued to remain there up to 7 to 8 am, which raises a serious
question regarding promptness of FIR under Section 307 I.P.C. along
with Section 25 Arms Act and also about lodging of appellants in lock-
up of police station at the said relevant time. Accordingly, the said FIR
reveals to be ante-time which shakes the foundation of prosecution story.
It is also remarkable that according to prosecution story two bandits
were shot dead in the incident but how these dead bodies were dealt with
could not be brought on record by the prosecution.
62. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the
appellants were arrested immediately after the incident of dacoity or that
any looted articles, including the weapons allegedly used in the
commission of the offence, were recovered from their possession.
Further, the prosecution has also failed to establish as to which specific
articles were allegedly looted, as no list of the looted articles could be
legally proved during the trial. These are not mere technical or
insignificant discrepancies but constitute serious lacunae in the
prosecution case, which go to the root of the matter and cannot be
ignored. In such circumstances, particularly when the alleged arrest and
recovery immediately after the commission of dacoity have not been
established, this Court finds it unsafe to place reliance upon the
truthfulness of the prosecution version regarding the commission of
dacoity and the alleged involvement of the appellants therein. Therefore,
the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond
reasonable doubt.
63. Accordingly, appellant Nos. 4 and 6 are entitled to the benefit of
doubt. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence,
insofar as it relates to appellant Nos. 4 and 6, cannot be sustained and is
hereby set aside. The criminal appeal, insofar as it relates to appellant

20
CRLA No. - 271 of 1982
No. 4 Jaswant and appellant no. 6 Chandrapal is allowed. They are
acquitted of the charges leveled against them by extending to them the
benefit of doubt.
64. Since the appellants are already on bail, their bail bonds are
cancelled and the sureties are discharged from their respective liabilities.
65. However, in compliance with the provisions of Section 437-A
Cr.P.C., the appellant nos. 4 and 6 are directed to furnish a personal bond
and two reliable sureties each in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the
satisfaction of the court concerned within two weeks from the date of
this judgment.
66. Let the Trial Court Record along with a copy of this judgment be
transmitted to the Trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary
action.
(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.)
November 06, 2026
Brijesh Maurya
Digitally signed by :-
BRIJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad