Munna Alias Nitij vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2090 of 2018
A.F.R.
Judgment reserved on 19.08.2026
Judgment delivered on 16.10.2026
Munna Alias Nitij
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : A.C.Srivastava, Ajay Kumar, Manish Chand
Umrao
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Harish Chandra Pratap
With
1. Government Appeal No. 329 of 2025
State of U.P. Versus Munna @ Nitij and 7 Ors.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 1685 of 2018
Ketan Alias Monu Upadhyay Versus State of U.P.
3. Criminal Appeal No. 1752 of 2018
Pushpendra Yadav and another Versus State of U.P.
4. Criminal Appeal No. 2205 of 2018
Abran Singh Alias Ahivaran Singh Versus State of U.P.
5. Criminal Appeal No. 1998 of 2018
Yogesh @ Yogesh Babu Versus State of U.P.
6. Government Appeal No. 330 of 2025
State of U.P. Versus Munna @ Nitij and 11 Ors.
7. Criminal Appeal No. 3271 of 2019
Satyaveer Singh Versus State of U.P.
8. Criminal Misc. Application U/s 372 Cr.P.C. (Leave To Appeal) No. 142 of 2018
Madhu Yadav Versus State of U.P. and 5 Ors.
9. Criminal Appeal No. 2886 of 2018
Bhuvnesh Alias Lakkhi Versus State of U.P.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
1. Since these appeals (criminal appeal, government appeal and Application
U/S 372 CrPC (Leave to Appeal) arise out of same case crime number, they

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
2
have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment and
order. Criminal Appeal No. 2090 of 2018 is being treated as a leading case.
2. Heard Sri Manish Chand Umrao, learned counsel for the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No. 2090 of 2018, Sri Apul Misra for the appellant /
applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 142 of 2018 under Section 372
Cr.P.C. (Leave to Appeal), Sri Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun in Criminal
Appeal No. 1685 of 2018, Sri Akhilesh Singh for the appellant in Criminal
Appeal No. 1752 of 2018, Sri Rajarshi Gupta for the appellant in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 1998 of 2018, 2886 of 2018, Sri Ziya Uddin for the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No. 2205 of 2018, Sri Noor Mohammad for the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No. 3271 of 2019, Sri Harish Chandra Pratap, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
3. The instant Criminal Appeals have been filed by the appellants against the
judgment and order dated 22.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 2, Firozabad in Session Trial No. 374 of 2013 arising out
of Case Crime No. 333 of 2012, Police Station – Sikohabad, District –
Firozabad, S.T. No. 374A/2013 under Sections 147, 148, 149. 435, 307, 302
IPC read with Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 27 of
the Arms Act, ST No. 375 of 2013 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, arising
out of Case Crime No. 339 of 2012, ST No. 376 of 2013 under Section 25 of
the Arms Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 340 of 2012, ST No. 377 of
2013 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 341
of 2012, ST No. 378/2013 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, arising out of
Case Crime No. 366 of 2012, ST No. 379/2013 under Section 25 of the
Arms Act, arsing out of Case Crime No. 391 of 2012, ST No. 380 of 2013
under Section 25 of the Arms Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 392 of
2012, ST No. 381 of 2013 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, arising out of
Case Crime No. 409 of 2012, ST No. 382 of 2013 under Section 25 of the
Arms Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 411 of 2012, ST No. 384 of 2013
under Section 25 of the Arms Act, arising out of Case Crime No. 413 of
2012 and ST No. 385 of 2013 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, arising out
of Case Crime No. 427 of 2012, all police station – Shikohabad, District –
Firozabad.
4. In the First Information Report lodged on 3.7.2012, which had given rise
to Case Crime No. 333 of 2012 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC
read with Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, it was stated that for
the trial of a criminal case initiated after some incident had occurred on
01.08.2005 wherein Vasudev Singh was the informant, Dashmesh was the
deceased and the accused were Ravi Kumar, behnoi Shashi Kumar,
Abhishek Kumar (informant in the Case Trial No. 333 of 2012) and six other

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
3
persons, sessions trial was going on in the court of Additional District Judge,
Firozabad and a date was fixed on 3.7.2012. It was further alleged in the FIR
of 2012 that another case under Section 307, which was initiated by Shashi
Kumar against Bhuvnesh and others, was also listed on the same day before
the Sessions Court in Firozabad and, therefore, the cases which were listed
on the 03.07.2012 were to be attended by Shashi Kumar whose evidence was
being recorded. The brother-in-law Ravi Kumar (Bahnoi) of the first
informant Abhishek Kumar and also his own brother Shashi Kumar, son of
Raghuveer Singh along with their maternal uncle (mausera chacha), Ramesh
Chandra, son of Subedar Singh, were all going to the Sessions Court to
attend to the case of 2005. They were also accompanied by one Ram Rishi,
S/o Daya Kishan. They were going in an Indica car which had a registration
number UP-83-M 431. In the FIR, it was stated that Ravi Kumar was driving
the car, whereas Shashi Kumar, Ram Rishi and Ramesh Chandra were
sitting in it. While the car was going towards Firozabad, another vehicle of
the make of Bolero in which Munna alias Nitin, S/o Ram Sewak, Vikas, S/o
Ram Ratan, Monu, S/o Avadhesh Upadhyay, Satyaveer Singh, S/o Shripal
Singh and two others were seated and were carrying unlicensed firearms
came from the opposite direction. The first informant Abhishek Kumar had
stated that he was following the Indica car in his own car which had a
number UP-82-F 4660, and along with him, Ram Niwas, S/o Ramdas, was
also sitting in that car. It was further stated that the third passenger was one
Udayveer Singh, S/o Janak Singh. The Indica car had crossed them and was
much ahead of them, and while the Indica car reached the village
Mohabbatpur Madai, a Bolero with Registration No.UP-83-W-8238, came in
front of the Indica car and from it, Yogesh, S/o Everan Singh, Bhuvnesh
alias Lakkhy, S/o Everan Singh, and Everan Singh himself, who was the son
of Shri Chandra, along with Bhola, S/o Ram Lakhan, came out. The time
when the Bolero came in front of the Indica car was 10:30 AM and it was
then that the Bolero car UP-83-W-8238 rammed into the Indica car because
of which the car driven by Ravi Kumar stopped. Ram Rishi and Shashi
Kumar came out of their car and ran in different directions. Upon this, the
persons who had come in the two Bolero cars, from their firearms, started
firing on Shashi Kumar, Ravi Kumar and Ramesh Chandra. They were hit
by the bullets and they died. Ram Rishi, however, managed to save himself.
Thereafter, the car of Ravi Kumar (Bahnoi), was sprinkled with petrol and
was set on fire and the persons sitting inside, i.e. Ravi Kumar and Ramesh
Chandra, along with the car, got totally burnt. The Car Bolero which was
numbered as UP-83-W 8238 was left at the site, and the accused got into the
other Bolero car and escaped from the place of incident. Because of the
incident, the Mainpuri road traffic came to a standstill. People left their cars
on the road and ran for safe shelters. All the shops in the area were closed. In

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
4
the FIR itself, it was further stated that these very people had earlier also, on
the Shikohabad-Mainpuri crossing, fired upon them, and in that, they were
all saved, whereas side passengers who were sitting in the neighboring
roadways bus had got injured. It was further stated that it was because of
these rivalries that the incident had occurred on the 03.07.2012. The first
informant had very categorically stated that the incident was witnessed by
Abhishek Kumar and other persons who were there at the spot. He had stated
that the accused were a well-organized gang, and they also indulged in
murder and loot, and thereafter prayed for action to be taken against them.
The FIR was scribed by one Shri Kripa Shankar Singh, S/o Lokpal Singh.
Upon the FIR having been lodged, the police got into action.
On 03.07.2012, burnt pistols and cartridges were also recovered from the
5.
Indica car and from outside it. Also on 03.07.2012, a recovery memo with
regard to blood-stained and plain soil was made. Along with the blood-
stained soil and plain soil, a recovery of Rs. 5500/- was made. With regard
to these recoveries, specially with regard to the firearms, FIRs were lodged
under relevant sections of the Arms Act.
6. On 03.07.2012, by exhibit Ka-4, the recovery memo of the ash of the
burnt car and plain concrete road was made. Again on 03.07.2012, recovery
memo of the revolver, cartridges, watch, PAN card, Rs. 1610/-, driving
license, and 21 passport photographs were recovered from the car were
prepared. On the same day, by exhibit Ka-6, the memo of the recovered
Bolero car No. UP-83 W-8238 along with a belt of cartridges and an empty
Can of 5 liters was prepared. This recovery memo, i.e. exhibit Ka-2, Ka-3,
Ka-4, Ka-5, and Ka-6, were witnessed by Ram Rishi and Nandlal.
On 05.08.2012, the S.S.I. Satyapal Singh, along with Constable Rishi
7.
Kumar, Rajeev, Sharad, and Umesh Chandra, arrested Yogesh Yadav,
Kuldeep, Nitij, and with their assistance, recovered certain firearms. Yogesh
Yadav got a country made pistol of 315 bore recovered. Kuldeep alias
Bhola, from the same place, again got a 315 bore country made pistol
recovered. Nitij also got a country made pistol recovered from the same
place. They all had got their statements recorded that by these weapons, they
had committed the crime. The recovery memo of these three weapons was
exhibited as Exhibit Ka-9.
On 10.07.2012, again on the pointing of the accused Ketan Upadhyay,
8.
another country-made pistol of 315 bore was got recovered. Thereafter, on
11.07.2012, two other country-made pistols of 315 bore and 10 bullets of
315 bore and one Mahindra Verito car were got recovered. This recovery
was got done with the help of the accused Uma Shankar and Pushpendra
Yadav. From Brijesh Bhadaria, the live bullets were recovered.

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
5
9. Then on 26.07.2012, on the pointing of Bhuvanesh, another accused, a
country-made pistol of 315 bore was recovered. A recovery memo was
prepared of it and was exhibited as Ex-Ka-78.
10. Similarly, on 27.07.2012, again on the pointing of accused Bhuvanesh, a
licensed rifle and live cartridges were recovered.
11. Thereafter, again on 27.07.2012, the accused Yogesh had got recovered
another country made pistol of 315 bore. Further, Yogesh Yadav, the same
person, had from the Kali temple which was under construction, got
recovered another 315 bore country made pistol which was in a polythene
bag.
12. Thereafter, again on 30.07.2012, two country-made pistols of 315 bore
were recovered by the help of the accused Pushpendra and Anand Yadav.
13. On 05.08.2012, again on the pointing of the accused Ketan alias Monu
Upadhyay, another country made pistol of 315 bore was got recovered.
14. On 10.08.2012, on the pointing of the accused Vinay, another country-
made pistol of 315 bore along with an empty cartridge of 315 bore was
recovered.
15. With regard to all the recoveries, first information reports were also
lodged on the very same day the recoveries were made.
With regard to the recovery of a Bolero which did not have a number on
16.
its number plate, a recovery memo was prepared which was exhibited as
Exhibit Ka-80. This was prepared on the pointing of accused Bhola.
On 15.09.2012, 13 registers were taken by the police into custody and
17.
thereafter they were given in their " supurdagi" for the safe keeping, and a
memo of it was prepared as Ex-Ka-83. Similarly, the police also took into
custody a Dak Bahi and the memo by which it was taken into custody was
displayed as Ex-Ka-91. This was done on 20.10.2012.
18. An inspection report also prepared with regard to the Bolero car
numbered as UP-83-W-8238 and with regard to the Indica car, the number
plate and their memos were exhibited as Ka-44 and Ka-45.
19. Thereafter, the panchayatnamas which were conducted of the dead
bodies of Ramesh Chand, Ravi Kumar, and Shashi Kumar were exhibited as
Ex-Ka-17, Ka-18, and Ka-19. Thereafter, the post-mortems of these persons
were also conducted on 4th of July 2012, and the post-mortem reports were
exhibited for Ramesh as exhibit Ka-12, viz-a-viz Ravi exhibit Ka-11, and
viz-a-viz Shashi exhibit Ka-10.

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
6
20. On 06.12.2013 and on 12.12.2013, the reports of the Forensic Science
Laboratories were also sent to the investigating agencies. However, before
that the police reports in the main case and in the cases under the Arms Act
were sent over to the court.
21. The police had charge-sheeted 14 accused persons. For the continuation
of the prosecution under the Arms Act, sanctions of the District Magistrate
were also issued and they are also on the record.
22. Upon the receipt of the police report, the court on 07.09.2013 framed
charges. Thereafter, charges were framed by the Sessions Judge on
9.10.2013 in the following manner:
(i) On 07.09.2013, charges were framed against Munna alias Nitij,
Vinay alias Tunna, Yogesh alias Yogesh Babu, Bhuvnesh alias
Luckhy, Evran Singh alias Ahivaran Singh, Yogesh Yadav, Ketan
alias Monu Upadhyay, Kuldeep alias Bhola alias Bholu, Pushpendra
Yadav, Uma Shankar, Brijesh Katheria, Pushpendra Yadav, S/o
Jagdish Singh, Anand Yadav alias Luchky, S/o of Jagdish Yadav
under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302, 435/149, Section 7 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, and under Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
(ii) On 09.10.2013, charge was framed against Satyaveer Singh under
Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149, 435/149 and under Section 7 of
the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
(iii) Charge was framed on 07.09.2013 against Uma Shankar,
Pushpendra Yadav, Brijesh Katheria, Yogesh Yadav, Pushpendra,
Anand alias Jagdish Yadav, Ketan, Yogesh Yadav, Vinay and Nitih
alias Munna under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
23. When the accused denied the charges, the cases were put to trial.
From the side of the prosecution, as many as 18 prosecution witnesses
24.
were produced.
25. PW-1 was Abhishek Kumar, who was the Brother-in-law (Sala) of the
deceased Ravi. He had in his statement-in-chief stated that on 03.07.2012, in
Fast Track Court No. 7, with regard to a case which was already pending,
Shashi was going to the court and along with him, Ravi, his brother Ram
Rishi and maternal uncle (mausera chacha) Ramesh Chand were also going.
They were all in an Indica Car with Registration No. UP-83-M-4311 and
they were going for the trial with regard to the case which had been initiated
by Vasudev. Ram Rishi and Ravi were going in the car which was being

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
7
driven by Ravi. Ramesh Chandra was also sitting in the car. The accused
came from the side of Shikohabad and in that vehicle Yogesh, Bhuvnesh,
Everan and Bhola were sitting. PW-1 had stated that this car was numbered
as UP 83 W - 8238. Bhola who was in the vehicle No. UP 83 W 8238 was
not known to PW-1. The witness Ram Rishi had told him about the accused
Bhola. He had stated that the Indica car was coming from the side of
Mainpuri and was going towards Shikohabad. The vehicle in which PW-1
was sitting had a number plate with the number UP 82 F 4660, and in that
car, Ram Nivas and Udayveer were also sitting. The distance between the
Indica car in which Shashi was sitting and the car in which the prosecution
witnesses were sitting was around 200 to 250 meters. The car in which PW-1
was sitting was going ahead of the car of Shashi by 200 to 250 meters and as
Shashi's car reached Mardai Mohammadpur near a bhatta, then the cars of
Shashi and PW-1 were overtaken by a Mahindra Bolero car. In that Bolero
Monu, Munna and Vikas along with one more person, whose name PW-1
did not remember, were present. The car which had come from the side of
Shikohabad had collided with the car in which the deceased Shashi was
sitting. The time was around 10:30 AM. After the Bolero car collided with
the Indica car, Yogesh, Bhuvnesh and Ahibaran came out of it. All these
persons were carrying licensed rifles along with country-made firearms in
their hands and these persons started firing indiscriminately. This firing was
directed at Ravi, Shashi, Ram Rishi and Ramesh. Upon seeing this
happening, Ram Rishi and Shashi, who were sitting on the back seat,
escaped from the Indica car. They fired upon Shashi from behind and
thereafter they fled. Shashi, because of the injuries he received from the
firing, died near the bhatta. Ravi and Ramesh, who were sitting in the car,
were set on fire by sprinkling petrol over the Indica car.
26. Thereafter, when the occupants of the car that had collided with the
Indica car fled, the car which was left on the spot was UP 83 W 8238. He
categorically stated that the accused persons had come in two vehicles.
Thereafter, the villagers arrived at the spot. He had stated that he had got the
FIR lodged after getting it scribed by his brother Shiv Kendra Singh. He
categorically had stated that the accused had killed the brother of the bahnoi
and their chacha as they were going for the trial in the Dashrath murder case.
He had also stated that he was not on good terms with the accused as he was
implicated in certain cases regarding the Pradhani of the village. This
prosecution witness was cross-examined and in the cross-examination, he
had stated that his brother Shiv Kendra Singh, who had scribed the FIR, was
a resident of Shikohriya and was serving in the police. He had stated that his
village was around 17 kilometers away from the place of incident. Abhishek
Kumar was answering various questions which were put in the cross-
examination and he had stated that in fact his village was 70 kilometers

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
8
away from the place of incident and if it was written as 17 kilometers
earlier then it was wrong. He had also tried to correct the narration with
regard to the smaller car of the Mahindra Company and had stated that its
make was Varito and not Vento and, therefore, the earlier statement of his,
he prayed, be accordingly corrected. He had stated that the occupants of the
two vehicles in which the complainant's side was there, he had not
mentioned the name of Shiv Kendra and he had then further stated that Shiv
Kendra was an employee of the police department and was working at the
Vidhuna police station and that he had come on that particular date to his
bahnoi's house which was in village Vahmai. PW-I was not aware whether
he had come on leave and whether Shiv Kendra had come to the place of
incident upon getting the information. He has further clarified that the name
of the son of Ram Rishi was Nandlal and both Ram Rishi and Nandlal were
residents of Nagla Lekhraj, Police Station Sirsaganj, District Firozabad. On
the date of the incident, in none of the vehicles Nandlal son of Ram Rishi
was there and also Nandlal was not present at the time of the incident. When
Nandlal had arrived, the first informant along with others had reached the
Kotwali Shikohabad and the time was around 12.00 noon and at that point of
time Ram Rishi, the PW-2 was there along with PW-1. In fact he has stated
that the police had asked him as to who all had come with him and in reply
the PW-1 had stated that Ram Rishi had accompanied him to the Thana.
Apart from Ram Rishi, Ram Niwas; Udayveer and Shiv Kendra had also
come. He had stated that certain other persons were also there. He has stated
that it was wrong to say that he had not got himself marked as present in the
Thana. He had denied the suggestion that at that particular point of time, he
was not there at the place of incident but was in the village. He had also
denied the suggestion that he had actually gone to his village Chikuria where
he received the news of the incident and thereafter he had gone with Shiv
Kendra and a brother to his and had got the FIR scribed. He had also denied
the suggestion that Ram Rishi along with the son Nandlal had come at the
place of incident subsequently to the incident having occurred. Similarly, he
had denied the suggestion that Udayveer had also come later on. He had
stated that such names as were known to him, he had got them mentioned in
the FIR and the names of the others whose names he had not known, were so
written in the FIR after the persons present at the spot had told him about
them. Munna @ Nitin son of Ram Sewak was known to him and therefore
he had got his name entered in the FIR. Similar, was the case of Vikas. Also
he had stated that he had known Vikas son of Ram Ratan from before. He
had then mentioned about the two cases with regard to which they were all
going to Shikohabad. He had further stated that in that case he was an
accused. Vasudev, Bhuvnesh and Ram Ratan had already got their evidence
recorded. Bhuvnesh's father's name was and he was an accused in
Evaran

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
9
the instant case. Yogesh was the son of Evaran and he was also present in
the Court. Father of Yogesh and Bhuvnesh i.e. Evaran was also present in
the Court and he was an accused in the case. He had stated that it was wrong
to say that since he was an accused in the murder case of Dashmesh,
therefore, he and other persons who were close to Dashmesh were embroiled
in the case. He had further stated that Ram Ratan was the uncle of
Dashmesh and therefore to create a pressure on Ram Ratan , his son had
been falsely implicated in the case. He had then stated that he was being
tried as a juvenile in the murder case of Dashmesh and on that date his
hearing was not there in the Juvenile Justice Board. He was also not
summoned to be a witness in any case. He had then stated that he had no
knowledge of the pendency of the criminal cases in the Fast Track Court. He
denied the suggestion that he was not there in the car which was following
the Indica car. He then had stated that in the Varito car,
Bhuvnesh Kumar,
Umashankar and Brijesh Katheriya were sitting. He then goes on to say
that in all there were three cars and that the three cars had found mention in
the FIR and thus he says that the accused side had three cars whereas his
side had two cars and therefore in toto there were five cars. When upon
showing the FIR it was brought to his notice that he had not mentioned about
the Varito car and about the accused persons who were allegedly sitting in
that car then he had stated that this aspect of the matter had probably slipped
from his mind. He had stated that it was correct to say that even in his
examination-in-chief he had not mentioned about the third car. He had also
admitted that he had not mentioned in any application whatsoever about the
fact that he had missed out the third car in the FIR. On 23.9.2013 he had
stated that Shashi's car which he had earlier by mistake called Velto, was in
fact Varito. He had stated that it was correct to say that he had not mentioned
about any accused by the name of Vinay Kumar @ Tunna. He had stated
that he had also not mentioned about Vinay Kumar @ Tunna even in the
statement given under section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police. He had stated
that after 12.00 noon he had reached the police station and thereafter he
remained there for 2-3 hours. The statement he had given with regard to the
lodging of the FIR was : "
रिपोर्ट करने हेतु 12.00 बजे थाने गए थे और दो-तीन घंटे रहे थे।
दो-तीन घंटे बाद फिर अस्पताल पहुँच गया था जहाँ पोस्टमार्टम होना था। स्वयं कहा कि ड़़़ेड़़़बॉडी
पहले ही अस्पताल पहुँच गई थी। मैं तीन बजे अस्पताल पहुँचा। मुझसे पहले ड़़़ेड़़़बॉडी अस्पताल
" He had then
पहुँच गई थी। ड़़़ेड़़़बॉडी 11.30 बजे घटना वाले दिन अस्पताल पहुँच गई थी।
stated that the panchayatnama etc. was done at the hospital itself where the
dead body was lying. He had then stated that after the Station House Officer
had sent the dead body at around 11.30 AM to the hospital, thereafter he had
accompanied the Station House Officer to the Police Station and thereafter
he had stayed at the police station for around three hours with the Station
House Officer and at that point of time at the police station when the Tehrir

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
10
was to be scribed, Shiv Kendra was present and round about this time Ram
Rishi and his son Nandlal had also reached the police station. The post
mortem of the three bodies were done on the next day. He had stated that on
3.7.2012 no signature was got done by Ram Rishi and Nandlal in their
presence. He had then, upon a specific question being put as to who was
driving the Indica car, stated that the car was being driven by Ravi and by
the side of the driver seat, Ramesh was sitting. Shashi was sitting on the
back seat along with Ram Rishi and this seating arrangement he had seen by
his own eyes. They had sat in the car in this manner while they had started
and the car had not stopped anywhere in between. He specifically denied the
question put to him as to whether while Ravi was driving the car, Ramesh
Chandra and Ram Rishi were sitting in the back seat. He has stated that this
seating arrangement he had also stated to the Investigating Officer while
getting his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and if this fact was
not mentioned in it, then he did not know the reason why it was not so
mentioned. He had stated that a lot many Press Reporters had come on the
spot and the Indica car had been abundantly photographed by the public and
the police and the photographs had also appeared in various newspapers like
Hindustan, Dainik Jagran and Ankinchan Bharat etc. on 4.7.2012. The
annexures which were there in the NSA Case were of the newspaper
reporting which was done on the next date of the incident. The car which
had collided with the Indica car was left by the accused persons at the place
of incident itself. He admitted upon seeing the photographs which were
annexed as Annexures 48 to 53 that the Bolero car though was there and was
damaged, was not appearing to have really collided with the Indica car.
Whether the Indica car and Bolero were taken into custody by the police, he
stated, he did not know. He had specifically stated, to a question as to how
Ram Rishi and Shashi were running. He had stated that they were running
away from the place of incident and from behind the firing was being done.
Ram Rishi while had gone unhurt as he had hidden himself behind a 'patel',
Ravi had got injured and had died. He had stated that it was correct to say
that he had mentioned in the FIR that Ram Rishi and Shashi had got down of
the car and ran in different directions and the accused from the vehicles had
got down and shot at Shashi Kumar, Ravi Kumar and Ramesh. He had stated
that the car was travelling from Mainpuri to Shikohabad and that it was
coming from east to west. The two doors of the car opened in the northern
and southern side. However, Ram Rishi (PW-2) and Shashi (deceased) who
were sitting on the backseat had got down from the northern side. They had
not come out from the different doors opening on the two sides i.e. southern
and northern side. He had stated that in the FIR he had wrongly mentioned
that the two, Ram Rishi and Shashi had escaped from the car in two different
directions. This portion of the statement of PW-2 is being reproduced here as

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
11
under :-
"
यह सड़क पूरब से पश्चिम को मैनपुरी की ओर से शिकोहाबाद की ओर जाती है।
हमारी गाड़ी इंडिका का मुँह शिकोहाबाद की ओर था इसलिए इंडिका की पिछली
सीट के दरवाजे एक उत्तर की और एक दक्षिण की ओर खुलता था तथा गवाह
रामऋषि और मृतक शशी दोनों एक ही उत्तर की दिशा में भागे अलग अलग
दिशाओं में नहीं भागे। मेरे आज के बयान की बात सही है। प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट में
"
यह गलत लिखा है कि रामऋषि व शशी दोनों अलग अलग दिशाओं में भागे थे।
27. He emphatically thereafter had stated that Ram Rishi and Shashi had
escaped from the northern side and to say that they had tried to escape from
the southern side would be a wrong fact to state. He had stated that he had
parked his car around 30-40 feet behind the Indica car. However, this
position of parking was not shown when the site plan was being prepared.
He denied the fact that he had not been at the place of incident at all and,
therefore, he had not told the Investigating Officer about the place of parking
his car. The Indica car, he had stated, was on fire and had burnt for about
half an hour. All the tyres had got burnt and the inside of the car had also got
burnt. The car had oil which assisted the car in getting further burnt. The
people who had collected around the place of incident tried to extinguish the
fire and thereafter only when the fire-brigade came after around 40 minutes,
the fire extinguished. In between the initiation of burning of the car and the
extinguishing of the fire, the two cars i.e. Indica and Bolero were in the same
position as they were, when they collided with each other. He had stated that
because of the burning of the Indica car, the paint of Bolero had become
spoiled at places. Further there was a bumper which separated the two cars
and, therefore, the Bolero car had not caught fire. There was no rain etc. on
that day and that it was a hot july month. Upon a question being put that
after he had come on the place of incident, he had remained in the hospital
and thereafter in the village Bahmai on 4.7.2012, then how he had gone to
get the site map prepared, he had answered that he had forgotten about this
aspect of the matter that on 4.7.2012 he had also gone to get the sitemap
prepared. He had stated that he had somehow missed to mention that the fire
was extinguished with the help of fire brigade. Even in the statement under
section 161 Cr.P.C. he had not mentioned about the fire brigade coming to
the place of incident. He had further stated to a question as to what was the
distance between the assailants and Ram Rishi and Shashi, he had answered
that Ram Rishi and Shashi were being chased by the accused persons and
there was a distance of around 30 feet and from that distance the accused
were firing on Ram Rishi and Shashi. The exact statement which he had
made, is reproduced here as under :-
" - -
रामऋषि व शशी आगे आगे भाग रहे थे और मुल्जिमान पीछे पीछे भाग रहे थे।
30
अंदाज से मुल्जिमान शशी से फीट पीछे रह गए थे जहाँ से शशी पर फायर
किए थे। मौके पर एक ही भट्टा है दो भट्टे नहीं हैं। सड़क से भट्टे के बीच लगभग

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
12
"
आधी दूरी का मुल्जिमान पहुँच गए थे।
Thereafter the PW-1 was examined by the defence counsel of Monu and
28.
Bhola. He had stated upon a question being asked as to whether he had
identified Bhola since Bhola's name was not mentioned in the FIR, then the
PW-1 had stated that he had seen him for the first time in the Court. He had
then introduced the story that a few of the accused persons were also not
identifiable as they had covered their faces with a cloth "danta". He had then
stated that none of the deceased could use the firearms which they were
carrying. Still further he had stated that at the time of accident, one car was
running at a speed of 50-60 kilometers whereas the Bolero car was running
with a speed of around 80 kilometers. This portion of his statement is being
reproduced here as under :-
"
किसी मृतक ने कोई फायर नहीं किया था। कोई मृतक अपने असलाह प्रयोग
नहीं कर पाये। जिस समय दोनों गाड़ियाँ टकराईं, उस समय एक गाड़ी 50-60
किलोमीटर की स्पीड़़़ पर थी और बोलेरो करीब 80 किलोमीटर की स्पीड़़़ पर रही
"
होगी।
29. The PW-2 was Ram Rishi and it was alleged that he was also
accompanied by Ravi, Shashi, Ram Chandra while were in the Indica car
when they were going to attend their case at Firozabad. He had also stated
that against him and his brothers Ravi and Shashi along with Brijesh, a case
had been registered for the murder of Dashmesh. This was initiated by the
uncle of Dashmesh who was known by the name of Vasudeo and the hearing
of the case was on that date. He had stated that there was rivalry between the
family of Shashi, Ravi Kumar, his family and that of Yogesh etc. He had
also narrated the case in the same way as the PW-1 had done. He had,
however, stated that the moment the two cars collided with each other,
Ahivaran Singh, Yogesh, Lakkhi @ Bhuvnesh, Kuldeep @ Bhola had
started firing on the Indica car. Shashi Kumar had opened the window of the
car and PW-2 and Shashi Kumar ran on the eastern side towards the 'bhatta'
and on the place of incident, another Bolaro car had come and from it Monu
Upadhyay, Satyaveer, Munna @ Nitin, Vikas @ Vinay @ Tinna,
Pushpendra and Anand had alighted and they had all started firing towards
Shashi. Because of the firing done by the accused persons, Ravi and Ramesh
had died in the car itself. Shashi Kumar had run about 135 to 140 steps
towards the 'bhatta' where the accused killed him and thereafter the accused
had put the car on fire by pouring petrol on it and Ravi and Ramesh, who
were inside the car, had got burnt. He had also stated that the accused had
come on three cars. Out of those cars, two were Bolero and one was a
smaller car. In the smaller car, Yogesh, Brijesh Katharia, Umashankar and
Pushpendra had also come. These persons were also involved in the incident
and they had also fired. After the incident had occurred, the police had

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
13
reached the place of incident and had also recovered certain firearms from
the burnt car. He had also proved various recovery memos by which the
recoveries were made and he had signed on them. In the cross-examination,
he had stated that Ravi was the driver in the car and immediately behind
him, he i.e. PW-2 was sitting and that Shashi was sitting on his left side
behind Ramesh Chandra. He had also stated that it was wrong to say that
Shashi was sitting in the front seat beside the driver. He thereafter had stated
that if any of his statement had been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.
otherwise then it was erroneous. He had stated that the Tehrir, i.e. the written
report, which was exhibited as Ka-1 was that of the first informant and that
the PW-2 and the PW-1 had after discussing amongst themselves got the FIR
scribed. He had stated that he did not remember as to how many names he
had suggested. Similarly he also did not remember how many names
Abhishek had suggested. He also did not remember as to how many names
the people in the crowd had suggested. However, the Station House Officer
of P.S. Shikohabad was present at that point of time. Half of the Tehrir was
got written while they were sitting at the police station Shikohabad and
thereafter the Station House Officer had taken them to the place of incident
and thereafter the other half of the FIR was got written. He had stated that
when the Tehrir had got completed then it was almost 5.00 to 5.30 in the
evening. He had stated that the scribe of the FIR was Shiv Kendra, the
brother of Abhishek and Abhishek was made to sign on the FIR. Thereafter
the Station House Officer had taken the PW-2, Abhishek and Nandlal, the
son of PW-2 to the Shikohabad hospital. The relevant portion of the
statement made by the PW-2 is being reproduced here as under :
"
यह बात सही है कि तहरीर वादी प्रदर्श क-1 मैंने व अभिषेक ने आपस में सलाह
मशविरा करके लिखायी थी। मैं नहीं बता सकता कि कितने नाम मैंने लिखाये,
कितने अभिषेक ने लिखाये व कितने नाम भीड़ में मौजूद लोगों ने लिखाये। थाना
अध्यक्ष थाना शिकोहाबाद तहरीर लिखाते समय मौजूद थे। आधी तहरीर थाना
शिकोहाबाद में बैठकर लिखी गयी फिर थाना अध्यक्ष शिकोहाबाद हमें मौके पर ले
गये और मौका मुआयना किया फिर तहरीर पूरी करायी। जब तहरीर थाना अध्यक्ष
ने पूरी करायी तब शाम का पाँच साढ़े पाँच बजे का समय रहा होगा। यह तहरीर
वादी अभिषेक के भाई शिवकेंद्र ने लिखी थी व अभिषेक के दस्तखत करा लिये
थे। उसके बाद थाना इंचार्ज हमें मौके से मुझे व अभिषेक व मेरे पुत्र नंदलाल को
फिरोजाबाद अस्पताल ले गये थे। मुझे व अभिषेक को थाना शिकोहाबाद नहीं ले
"
गये थे।
30. Upon asking as to how the police had reached the place of incident, he
had stated that some Master (teacher) had rung up the police and therefore
they had come on the spot. He had stated that neither he himself nor his
companions had rung up the police. He denied the suggestion that they had
not rung up the police because they were not there. He had stated that it
would be correct to say that when the Bolero car had collided with the Indica
car then Shashi and he himself had come out of the car from two different

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
14
doors and had run in two different directions. He had stated that he ran in
sourthern direction while Shashi had run in the northern direction and the
road was running east to west. This portion of the statement of PW-2 is
being reproduced here as under:-
"
यह कहना सही होगा कि बुलैरो द्वारा सामने से इंडिका कार में टक्कर मारने के
बाद मैं शशी दोनों अलग-अलग दिशाओं में भागे। मैं दक्षिण दिशा में व शशी उत्तर
"
दिशा में भागे थे। सड़क पूर्व पश्चिम जाती है।
He had further stated that after the collision, the Bolero car had moved
31.
around 3-4 steps backwards and after the collision, the firing etc. had started.
He denied the suggestion that the mention of the smaller car was not made
earlier and that it was being now made in the statement of witnesses on legal
advise. He had very categorically stated that with regard to the two unknown
accused persons, as had been mentioned in the FIR, no test identification
parade had been got done by the police. He was also not aware as to how
and when the names of the two unknown persons were revealed. The
recovery memos, which were Ka-2, Ka-3, Ka-4, Ka-5 and Ka-6, were not
prepared in his presence but were got signed on the next day. This particular
paragraph in which he had mentioned that the recovery memo was not
prepared in his presence and that his signatures were taken on the next day,
is being reproduced here as under :-
"
फर्दे जो दरोगा जी ने प्रदर्श क-2, 3, 4, 5 व 6 बनाई थी वह मेरे सामने नहीं
बनाई थी मुझसे बाद में दूसरे दिन दस्तखत कराये थे और सामान दिखाया था।
सामान पहले दिखाया था तब जब लाशें वामई गांव में जल गयी थी उसके बाद
फर्दों पर दस्तखत कराये थे। मुझे जो सामान दरोगा जी ने दिखाया उसमें एक जला
हुआ तमंचा व 500/- का नोट एवं जली हुई आठ गोलियां दिखाये थे। रिवाल्वर व
7 गोलियां तथा गोलियों की बैल्ट व ड्राइवरी लाइसेंस, पैनकार्ड व कई फोटो
दिखाये थे। फोटो शशी के व उनकी पत्नी के थे। और किसी के फोटो थे या नहीं मैं
"
नहीं बता सकता क्योंकि मैंने फोटो देखे नहीं थे।
He has further upon a question being asked as to whether the other
32.
witnesses of the public were there, he denied the same. Also, he denied the
presence of Nandlal, the son of Ram Rishi, at the place of incident and that
he was called on phone. He had stated that it was wrong to say that he
himself and his son had not visited the site and therefore their signatures
were got at village Vahmai. It has further been stated by the PW-2 that he
had stayed at the place of incident till 3.00 PM despite the fact that the police
had reached the place of incident by 11.00 AM. He had thereafter stated that
he had remained at the police station till 5.00 to 5.30 PM and there itself the
report was scribed. At the police station, Abhishek and Shiv Kendra had also
reached from before. This portion of the statement of the witness is being
reproduced here as under :-
"
इस ड़़़र व भय के माहौल में कौन पुलिस वाला क्या कार्यवाही करता रहा यह

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
15
मुझे नहीं मालूम। तीन सवा तीन बजे पुलिस की सभी गाड़ियां चली गई थी और
पुलिस मुझे वगर्ज सुरक्षा शिकोहाबाद थाना ले गई थी। पांच साढ़े पांच बजे तक मैं
थाना में बैठा रहा था रिपोर्ट लिखी गई थी। थाना में अभिषेक व शिवकेंद्र पहले ही
"
पहुंच गए थे।
33. He had further stated that after the collision had taken place, Shashi
Kumar had escaped from the Southern direction and had run for around 125
to 130 paces and thereafter he had died. In the 125 paces, Shashi Kumar
could not take out the revolver and that all the firing had taken place from
behind and that there was a trail of blood for the entire distance he had run.
This trail was also shown to the police officials. He had stated that at the
place of incident no one had appeared from the family which was inimical to
the PW-1 and PW-2 and this was something which the prosecution side felt
bad about. He had further, upon a certain question being asked, stated that
the police officials had tried to find out the true story and therefore they had
got into action and upon enquiries made by them by the evening, it was
discovered that 8 persons were involved in the case and after naming them,
the FIR was lodged and at that point of time he had stated that two vehicles
were shown in the FIR. However, there were in fact three vehicles. This
relevant portion of the statement is being reproduced here as under:
"
पुलिस के बड़े अधिकारियों ने दरोगा जी से कहा कि इस कांड़़़ की सही जानकारी
चाहिए। पुलिस काम में जुट गई। पता करने के लिए कि किस-किस ने घटना की
है। शाम तक मुन्ना आदि के आठ नाम सामने आ गए। उन आठ को नामित करते
हुए रिपोर्ट की गई। उस समय रिपोर्ट में बदमाशों की दो गाड़ियों को दिखाया गया
लेकिन तीन गाड़ियाँ थीं। किसी गाड़ी का नंबर मैं नहीं देख पाया था, कलर देखा
था। उन गाड़ियों के कलर वाली बात दरोगा जी ने नहीं पूछी इसलिए नहीं बताई
थी।"
He had stated that he had not got the knowledge as to whether there were
34.
14 persons involved in the case and about there being the involvement of the
14 persons, the police had told him. When the accused had been
apprehended then the police had called PW-2 and then he had come to know
that there were not just 8 accused involved in the case but there were 14
persons who were involved in the case and those 14 persons were also
shown to PW-2 in the jail. He had stated that police had told him that it was
very difficult for the 14 persons to fit into two vehicles and therefore the
police had suggested that a case had to be established by the prosecution
showing three vehicles and therefore he had stated in the court on that day
that he was stating that there were three vehicles. The relevant portion of the
paragraph is being reproduced here as under:
"
जब मुल्जिमान पकड़े गए तब पुलिस ने मुझे बुलाया तब पता लगा कि घटना 8
ने नहीं 14 ने की है और मुल्जिमान पुलिस ने मुझे थाने में बंद दिखाए। पुलिस ने
कहा 14 बदमाश दो गाड़ियों में नहीं आ सकते, गाड़ियां तीन रखनी पड़ेंगी। उसी
हिसाब से मैंने आज तीन गाड़ियां बताई है।"

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
16
35. In the jail before the accused were shown to the PW-2, no test
identification parade was done and only on the basis of information provided
by the police, 14 persons were now being introduced as accused persons in
the case. He had further stated that he did not have all the ten fingers in his
both hands and therefore he was not in a position to hold anything in the car
in which he was sitting, yet he had not received any injury from which
bleeding might have happened. The moment the collision had taken place
firing had started. He had stated that he had not stated anything as to in what
manner firing etc. had taken place and at the moment the collision had taken
place he had got out of the car and had run away to save his life and that
after running on the Southern side of the road he had fallen inside an unused
bhatta (brick kiln). He had stated that after he had come out of the bhatta, he
had seen Shashi Kumar lying dead. He had further stated that he was a
military man and that he had correctly guessed that Shashi Kumar had died
in the firing which had taken place and thereafter he had stated that
immediately he had telephoned while he was sitting near the dead-body (it
was in contradiction to the statement of PW-1 who had stated that Ram Rishi
had hidden himself in a 'patel') . He had stated that the crowed which had
accumulated at the place of incident had extinguished the fire by pouring
water mud. How much time was taken to extinguish the fire, he did not
remember. He further stated that after the fire was extinguished, he peeped
into the car and found that two of his own acquaintances had got charred and
they were Ravi Kumar and Ramesh.
36. PW-3 was Udayveer Singh and he was also the brother-in-law (sala) of
the deceased Shashi Kumar. He had also narrated the facts in a similar
manner which was that because of the case which was to be taken up in the
Sessions Court, the four persons i.e. Ravi Kumar, Ramesh Chandra, Shashi
Kumar and Rishi Ram were going in the Indica car and that he himself i.e.
Udayveer Singh was coming from behind in another Maruti car of which the
owner was one Ram Niwas and in that car the PW-3 himself, Abhishek the
PW-1, the first informant and Ram Niwas were there. Ram Niwas was the
person who was driving the car. He had stated that his Maruti car was taken
over by a vehicle called Bolero in which according to him there were six
persons sitting in the car i.e. Satyaveer Singh, Monu, Munna, Vikas,
Pushpendra and Anand and that when the Indica car reached somewhere
near the bhatta (brick klin) then another Bolero car coming from Sikohabad
collided with the Indica car. The time of the incident was 10:30 AM. From
the vehicle called Bolero which had hit the Indica car Bhuvnesh, Yogesh,
Evaran and Bhola the four persons had come out. They had all jumped out
from the vehicle and started firing on Ravi, Ramesh, Shashi and Ram Rishi
i.e. on all the four who were in the Indica car. When the firing started, it hit
Ravi and Ramesh. Shashi and Ram Rishi got out from the car and started to

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
17
run away. The persons who were there in the Bolero which had hit the Indica
car and the persons who had come out of the Bolero which came from
behind the car of the PW-3, all of them had started shooting at the persons
who were there in the Indica car. The third car Verito contained four persons
namely Pushpendra, Uma Shanker and Brijesh Kathariya. Name of the
fourth person he did not remember. They also were having country made
pistols. After the firing etc. was done, petrol was poured over the Indica car
and it was put on fire, wherein Ravi and Ramesh got burnt. Shashi Kumar
and Ram Rishi both got down from the Northern side and started to run.
bhatta
Ram Rishi hid somewhere while Shashi Kumar ran towards the (brick
kiln). Ram Rishi was also shot at but Shashi was the one who got injured
with the bullets which were fired and he died. He has also stated that to
extinguish the fire, fire brigade had come. Only one vehicle had remained at
the place of incident while the two others i.e. the Bolero which was coming
from behind and Verito car escaped with all the accused.
In the cross-examination, the accused had stated that only 8 persons were
37.
named in the FIR lodged by Abhishek but there were, in fact, 14 persons.
The others who were not named in the FIR were Pushpendra son of Pheru
Singh, Pushpendra son of Jagdish, Uma Shanker, Brijesh Kateriya and
Anand and one name, he did not remember. At the place where the FIR was
being scribed, Ram Rishi was very much present. At that point of time the
PW-3 and Ram Rishi had not told the names of any of the accused who were
not named in the FIR. He had stated that Shiv Kendra had scribed the F.I.R.
while he was sitting in the Thana Kotwali, Sikohabad. The FIR was scribed
at around 12:00 Noon to 12:30 PM. He had then stated that he had already
met the police officials before the F.I.R. was scribed and the police
personnel had asked him to proceed towards the Thana where he would tell
him how the F.I.R. was to be scribed. The relevant portion of the statement
is being reproduced here as under :-
"
जिन लोगों को अभिषेक ने प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट में नामजद नहीं किया था उनके
नाम पुष्पेंद्र पुत्र फेरू सिंह, पुष्पेंद्र पुत्र जगदीश, उमाशंकर, बृजेश कठेरिया, आनंद
है एक का नाम ध्यान नहीं है। जहाँ तहरीर लिखायी जा रही थी वहाँ पर रामऋषि
मौजूद थे। उस समय मैंने व रामऋषि ने आठ मुल्जिमान के अलावा अन्य के नाम
नहीं बताए थे। मैं मृतक शशी का खास साला हूँ। दशमेश के कत्ल के तीन साल
बाद मैंने हाजिर अदालत मुल्जिमान योगेश आदि के खिलाफ 307 आई पी सी का
मुकदमा लिखाया था। शिवकेंद्र द्वारा तहरीर वादी थाना शिकोहाबाद कोतवाली में
बैठकर लिखी गई थी। तहरीर वादी लगभग बारह साढ़े बारह बजे लिखी गई थी।
उससे पहले मेरी थाना अध्यक्ष शिकोहाबाद व अन्य पुलिस कर्मियों से मुलाकात हो
चुकी थी। थाना अध्यक्ष ने कहा था कि थाना चलो हम बताते हैं रिपोर्ट कैसे लिखी
जाती है।"
38. He had stated that after the fire was extinguished he and other persons
had gone to the police station. He had stated that he had parked his car on
the opposite side of the road where the incident had taken place. He had also

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
18
stated that Ram Rishi when had escaped from the car had hidden himself
behind a patel . He had stated that he had stayed at the Thana till 03:00 PM.
He had also stated, upon a question being put as to when the firing had
started, that even before he had reached, the firing had started. The relevant
portion of the statement is being reproduced here as under:
"
मेरे घटना स्थल पर पहुँचने से पहले फायरिंग शुरू हो चुकी थी। मुझे नहीं मालूम
इस घटना में कितने फायर हुए थे।"
39. He had stated that in the Verito car he had not recognized the accused
sitting therein and also no test identification parade was done with regard to
those accused persons. The names of those accused were told to him by Ram
Rishi. He had stated that when he had come out of his car, Shashi had
already escaped from the Indica Car and had run towards the bhatta (brick
kiln). When the firing was being done he had not seen Shashi inside the car.
Instead he had seen him running away from the car. He had however seen
patel
that Ram Rishi was hiding behind a . The relevant portion of the
statement is being reproduced here as under :-
"
मैं गाड़ी से उतरा तब तक शशी अपनी गाड़ी से उतरकर भट्टा की ओर भागने लगे
थे। जब मैंने उतरकर देखा तो शशी भट्टे तक पहुँच गए थे। गोली चलते समय मैंने
शशी को कार में नहीं देखा बल्कि भागते देखा। मैंने पहली बार देखा। तब शशी
भट्टे के नजदीक थे। कितना नजदीक थे यह नहीं बता सकता। यह भी नहीं बता
सकता कि कार से कितनी दूर थे। मैं नहीं बता सकता कि जब मैंने देखा तब शशी
खारजा भट्टा से कितनी दूर थे। मैं यह भी नहीं बता सकता कि वह दूसरे भट्टे से
कितने दूर थे।"
40. He had stated that on the date of incident, he had gone at the place of
incident, thana and the hospital but he had not made his signature on any of
the documents, whatsoever. In the cross-examination he had clearly stated
that he was the sala (brother-in-law) of Shashi Kumar and therefore he used
to respect Shashi Kumar a lot. The relevant portion of the statement is being
reproduced here as under :-
"
घटना वाले दिन मैं घटना स्थल पर रहा, थाना गया व अस्पताल गया लेकिन
किसी भी कार्यवाही पर मेरे हस्ताक्षर नहीं हुए।
……………….
शशी कुमार को मेरी सगी बहन ब्याही है। बहन से मेरे अच्छे संबंध है। भाई के नाते
दुखद थे उसकी मदद करता था। बहनोई शशी कुमार भी मेरा बहुत सम्मान करते
थे।"
41. PW-4 was the Constable (Clerk) Udayveer Singh who had proven the
G.D. and the chik and he had stated that the police report was sent after two
days. He had stated that he was not aware as to where the F.I.R. was kept
since 03.07.2012 to 05.07.2012. He had also stated that the Magistrate had
seen the report on 05.07.2012 only.

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
19
42. PW-5 is Dr. Ram Asre Sudhakar and he had done the post-mortem of
Shashi Kumar. The injuries as were found on the dead-body are being
reproduced here as under and they had found mentioned in the postmortem
report:
" -
मृत्यु पूर्व चोटे
1. 1½ x ½ cm X (Through &
आग्नेय अस्त्र प्रवेश घाव आर पार
Through)
जो कि बांये जबड़े के नीचे था कालिमा मौजूद थी किनारे फटे हुये एवं
अन्दर की तरफ घुसे हुये थे।
2. 0 1 6 X 6 cm X (Through & Through)
चोट नं का निकासी घाव आर
पार जो कि दांयी कनपटी पर था इसके किनारे बाहर की तरफ मुड़े हुये थे।
3. 1.50 X 1.50 cm X (Through &
आग्नेय अस्त्र का प्रवेश घाव आर पार
Through)
जो कि मुंह के बांयी तरफ था इसके किनारे भरे हुये एवं अन्दर की
(Blacking)
तरफ मुड़े हुये थे कालिमा मौजूद थी।
4. 3 0 2
घाव नम्बर का निकासी घाव नं से कनैक्टेड़़़ था।
5. 1.50 X 1.50 cm cavity deep
आग्नेयअस्त्र का प्रवेश घाव जो कि बांयी
5 cm 9 O, clock
छाती में निप्पल से अन्दर की तरफ पोजीशन पर था
ब्लैकनिंग मौजूद थी।
6. 1.50 X 1.50 cm X (Through &
आग्नेयअस्त्र का प्रवेश घाव आर पार
Through)
जो कि पेट के निचले हिस्से में हड्डी के ऊपर था इसके किनारे फटे
एवं आन्तरिक मुड़ हुये थी कालिमा मौजूद थी।
7.
घाव नं० छः निकासी घाव पेट के दांयी तरफ बीच में मौजूद था।
8. 1.50 X 1.50 cm X (Through &
आग्नेयअस्त्र का प्रवेश घाव आर पार
Through) 6 cm
जो बांयी छाती के निप्पिल के नीचे था। इसके किनारे अन्दर
की तरफ मुड़े हुये व फटे हुये थे कालिमा मौजूद थी।
9. 4 X 4 cm X (Through & Through)
आग्नेय अस्त्र घाव आर पार जो
कि दांये कन्धे के ऊपरी तरफ था। जो कि ऊपर वाली बांयी चोट से कनैक्टैंड़़़ थी।
10. 1.50 X 1.50cm X (Through &
आग्नेय अस्त्र का प्रवेश घाव आर पार
Through) 7
जो कि पेट के निचले हिस्से में टुन्डी से से० मी० नीचे था इसके
किनारे अन्दर की तरफ मुड़े हुये थे। कालिमा मौजूद थी।
11. 4 X 4cm X (Through &
उक्त चोट का निकासी घाव आर पार
Through)
जो कि पीठ के मध्य में था।"
Similarly, he had also done the post-mortem of Ravi Kumar and his
43.
injuries were also proven by him. The injuries are being reproduced here as
under:
"
उसीदिन मेरे द्वारा शाम ड़़़ेढ़ बजे दिनांक 04.07.12 के मृतक रवि कुमार उम्र
लगभग 37 साल पुत्र श्री रघुवीर सिंह निवासी नगला लेखराज थाना सिरसागंज
फिरोजाबाद जिसके शव को कान्सटेबिल 904 उदयवीर सिंह 934 सूरजपाल
(कां0 904 उदय वीर सिंह कां0 934 सूरजपाल) थाना शिकोहाबाद शव लेकर
आये थे जिसके शव का मेरे द्वारा पोस्टमार्टम किया गया था। शव विच्छेदन के
समय शव की निम्न स्थित पायी गई।

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
20
वाह्य परीक्षण -
मृतक का शव बुरी तरह से जला हुआ था तथा खोपड़ी पेट एवं छाती खुल गये थे
जलने से । दोनों आँखे बन्द थी जीव वाहर की तरफ निकली हुई थी कान, नाक,
मुँह गुदा बुरी तरह से जले हुये थे।
आन्तरिक परीक्षण -
खोपड़ी की हड्डियां टूटी हुई थी खोपड़ी का बाहरी हिस्सा बुरी तरह जला हुआ था
Soot Particals (
छाती जली हुई थी शूट कप) श्वास नली में मौजूद थे दोनों
फेफड़े बुरी तरह जले हुये थे। हृदय की झिल्ली जमी हुई थी दोनों चैम्बर खाली थे
और जले हुये थे। पेट की भित्तियां जली हुई एवं पेट की केविटी खुली हुई थी। दाँत
by 14
12 थे आमाशय छोटी आंत, बड़ी आंत, लीवर, तिल्ली दोनों गुर्दे जले हुये
थे और मूत्राशय खाली था जनन क अंग बुरी तरह जले हुये थे।
-
कपड़़़े रिस्ट वाच एक, मोबाइल एक,
X Ray Plat no. R-6010
मृतक के शव का कराया गया था ( जिसके अनुसार
कई एक मिटेलिक (माइनर) शैड़़़ोज थी। अत्यधिक प्रयास करने के बावजूद कोई
भी मिटेलिक वस्तु रिकवर्ड नहीं की जा सकी।
-
संलग्नक संलग्नक दस थे जिनको देखकर पुलिस को सौंप दिया था।
मेरी राय में मृतक की मृत्यु मृत्यु पूर्व जलने से शोक में जाने से होना सम्भव है।
पत्रावली में कागज संख्या 7 अ/2 पी एम आर मेरे लेख व हस्ताक्षर में है जिसकी
मैं शिनाख्त करता हूँ। जिस पर ईक्ज क-11 ड़़़ाला गया।"
He had also done the post-mortem of Ram Rishi and his injuries were
44.
also proven by him and they are being reproduced here as under :
"
उसी दिनाँक 04.07.12 समय 2:10 बजे शाम को उसी दिन मैंने मृतक रमेश
उम्र लगभग 55 साल पुत्र श्री सूबेदार सिंह निवासी नगला जोखार थाना घिरोर के
जिला मैनपुरी के शव को कां0 904 उदयवीर सिंह एवं कां0 934 सूरजपाल
थाना शिकोहाबाद अनशील्ड अवस्था में लेकर आये थे। मृतक के शव का शव
विच्छेदन करके मैंने निम्नवत रिपोर्ट तैयार की थी।
-
वाह्य परीक्षण दोनों आंखे अपशेन्ट थी कान, नथने मुख गुदा बुरी तरह से जले हुये
थे। मृतक का शरीर बुरी तरह से जला हुआ था एड़़़विनल केविटी एवं चेस्ट केविटी
खुली हुई थी। खोपड़ी की सारी हड्डियां जलने से टूट गई थी दिमाक की झिल्लियाँ
एवं दिमाक जला हुआ था दोनों फेफड़े एवं उनकी झिल्लियाँ जले हुये थे हृदय एवं
हृदय की झिल्ली जली हुई थी खास नली में शूट पार्टीकिल्स मौजूद थे। उदर की
भित्तियाँ जली हुई थी। एवं उदर गुहा खुली हुई थी दाँत मौजूद नहीं थे आमाशय,
छोटी आंत, बड़ी आंत, लीवर, तितली एवं दोनों गुर्दे जले हुये थे मूत्राशय खाली थे
जनन अंग जले हुये थे।
मृतक के शरीर का एक्स रे कराया गया था जिसकी प्लेट नम्बर 6009 मिटेलिक
सैड़़़ोज दर्शायी गई है अत्यधिक प्रयास करने के बावजूद भी मृतक के शरीर से
कोई भी मैटेलिक वस्तु नहीं प्राप्त की जिसकी। रेडियोलोजिस्ट की रिपोर्ट एवं
एक्स रे रिपोर्ट पुलिस को हैण्ड ओवर कर दिये गये थे।
-
कपड़े कपड़े निल थे। कोई कपड़ा मृतक के शरीर पर मौजूद नहीं था
-
संलग्नक संलग्नक दस थे जिनको देख कर पुलिस को सौंप दिये गये थे। मेरी
राय में मृतक की मृत्यु मृत्यु पूर्व जलने के द्वारा शॉक (सदमा) जाने से हुई संभव
है। समय लगभग एक दिन पूर्व

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
21
पत्रावली में कागज संख्या 7 अ/1 पी एम आर मेरे लेख व हस्ताक्षर में है। जिसकी
मैं शिनाख्त करता हूँ। जिस पर इक्ज क- 12 ड़़़ाला गया।"
was the Police Personnel (Clerk) Deepak who had proven the
45. PW-6
chik etc. of the Arms Act.
was S.H.O. Sri Satya Pal Singh in whose presence the
46. PW-7
panchayatnama was drawn. He had stated that the panchayatnama had taken
place at the place of incident.
, Dr. Santosh Kumar Gupta, is the radiologist and he stated the
47. PW-8
manner in which he had done the ex-ray.
48. PW-9 , Ramesh Chandra Arya, is the constable, who scribed the FIR
with regard to the Arms Act.
49. PW-10 , Sri Ranvir Singh, was the Head Constable who had done the
technical inspection of the two vehicles, namely, the Bolero having number
U.P.83 W 8238 and the Indica Car having number 83 M 4311 ( there is no
number of Indica car in the statement of P.W.-10) . He had very confidently
stated that in the Bolero Car, there was no damage. Only the bumper and the
show grill placed in front of the bumper were slighgly compressed. Light
and the indicator were damaged. There was no sign of any smoke in the
Bolero. Also, the bumper and the grill were not burnt. Also, the tyres of the
Bolero U.P. 83 W 8386 was not deflated. There was no damage whatsoever
to the tyres.
, Sri Jaivir Singh, is the police official who had made the
50. PW-11
recovery under the Arms Act.
51. PW-12 , Sri Dalvir Singh, is the Head Constable. He was also the person
who had proven the chick of the Arms Act.
52. PW-13 , Sri Ram Babu Pathak, is the Sub Inspector. He was also the
Investigating Officer under the Arms Act.
, Sri R.P. Chaudhary, was also the Investigating Officer with
53. PW-14
regard to the Arms Act.
54. PW-15 , Mohd. Abid Khan was the Investigating Officer who had
arrested Uma Shankar, Pushpendra, Brijesh Katariya and Yogesh and had
also remained the Investigating Officer in one of the cases under the Arms
Act.
55. PW-16 , Constable Rajeev Kumar, was also a police official who had
done the Investigation with regard to one of the country made pistol.

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
22
56. PW-17 , Suresh Veer Singh, is the Investigating Officer in the Case
Crime No. 333 of 2012 and had stated the manner in which he had got the
information i.e. when the village pradhan Dharmendra Yadav from his
mobile phone no. 9837500154 had rung up on his mobile number, he had
stated that he was the one who had rung up the fire brigade and had upon
reaching the place of incident found that there was one person burning in the
front seat of the car i.e. on the driving seat and one person was on fire in the
back seat. The relevant portion of the statement in chief of the Investigating
Officer is being reproduced :-
"
मैं तत्काल जीप से सायरन व हूटर का इस्तेमाल करता हुआ सीकोहाबाद मैनपुरी रोड़़़ पर ग्राम
माढ़ई से आगे घटना स्थल पर पहुँचा तो एक इंडिका कार सिलेटी रंग की, जिसका मुँह सीकोहाबाद
की तरफ था, में आग जल रही थी और उक्त गाड़ी को एक आदमी ड्राइविंग सीट पर तथा दूसरा
आदमी पीछे की सीट पर जल रहे थे।"
57. He had also noted the presence of the Bolero car which had collided with
the Indica Car and had found that it was stationed opposite the Indica Car in
which only the main shaft was broken. In the rest of his examination-in-chief
and in the cross-examination, he had only narrated the manner in which the
investigation had taken place. In the cross-examination, he had tried to be
consistent with what he had stated in the examination-in-chief. At page 342,
however, he had stated about the ownerships of the vehicles which were
recovered. With regard to U.P. 83 W 8238 Bolero car, he had stated that it
belonged to Bhuvnesh Kumar. The other Bolero car which had come from
behind the Indica car and Maruti car and was having registration number as
U.P. 83 V 8981 belonged to Kuldeep @ Bhola, U.P. 83 M 4311, the indica
car, belonged to the deceased Ravi Kumar and the Verito car with
registration number U.P. 84 L 5006 belonged to the accused Uma Shankar.
58. The PW-18 is the Head Constable Dalveer Singh. He was also an
Investigating Officer in the case which was registered under the Arms Act.
59. Thereafter the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were
recorded. The testimonies of certain defence witnesses were also recorded
during the course of the trial.
60. DW-1, Dharmendra Pradhan, who, as per his own statement and that of
P.W.-17 was the person who had informed the police with regard to the
incident. he had stated in his examination-in-chief that when he was present
at the place of incident at around 10:30 P.M., no relative of the deceased was
present. He also had stated that the Bolero vehicle was not present and that
only the burning Indica car was present; no vehicle was parked opposite it.
61. D.W.-2, D.W.-3, D.W.-4 and D.W.-5 have tried to prove the alibi of

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
23
Yogesh, who was also a police personnel. The defence witnesses were also
police personnel. They had tried to establish that Yogesh was posted at
Mathura and, therefore, it was not possible for him to be present at the place
of incident.
62. Thereafter, upon the completion of the trial and the recording of the
evidence, the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Firozabad, on
22.2.2018, found the appellants guilty under Sections 147, 148, 307/149,
302/149 and 435 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Various criminal appeals were thereafter filed. The Criminal Appeal No.
63.
1685 of 2018 was filed by Ketan @ Monu Upadhyay and was argued by Sri
S.D.S. Jadaun; Criminal Appeal No. 2205 of 2018 was filed by Abran Singh
@ Ahivaran Singh and was argued by Sri Ziya Uddin; Criminal appeal No.
3271 of 2019 was filed by Satyaveer Singh and was argued by Sri Yogesh
Kumar Srivastava and Sri Noor Mohammad; Criminal Appeal No. 1752 of
2018 was filed by Pushpendra Yadav and Anand and was argued by Sri
Shivam Yadav and Sri Akhilesh Singh; Criminal Appeal No. 1998 of 2018
was filed by Yogesh @ Yogesh Babu and was argued by Sri Rajrshi Gupta;
Criminal Appeal No. 2090 of 2018 was filed by Munna @ Nitij and was
argued by A.C.Srivastava, Ajay Kumar,Manish Chand Umrao ; Criminal
Appeal No. 2886 of 2018 was filed by Bhuvnesh @ Lakkhi and was argued
by Rajrshi Gupta ; Government Appeals No. 330 of 2025 and 329 of 2025
were filed by the State of U.P. and a Criminal Misc. Application U/s 372
Cr.P.C. (Leave to Appeal) No. 142 of 2018 was filed by Madhu Yadav and
was argued by Apul Mishra, learned Senior Counsel and was assisted by Sri
Harish Chandra Pratap.
64. Learned counsel for the appellants in the various appeals have argued
that the incident which had taken place on 3.7.2012 was such an incident
which could have been proved only by independent eye witnesses. This the
prosecution was very well aware of.
65. Under such circumstances, they produced, as witnesses of fact, three
witnesses. P.W.-1, Abhishek Kumar, was the first informant and he had got
the FIR lodged. Ram Rishi, the P.W.-2, was also a witness of fact and it was
the case of the prosecution that he was sitting in the Indica Car in which the
deceased Ravi, Shashi and Ramesh Chandra were also traveling. The case of
the prosecution was that there was a murder case in which the persons sitting
in the Indica Car, namely, Ravi and Shashi were the accused and, therefore,
to attend that case at Farrukhabad they started from Mainpuri and were
heading towards Farrukhabad. At around 10:00AM, while the car was in
village Mohabbatpur Madhai, a Bolero Car with a registration number UP 83

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
24
W 8238 came from the side of Farrukhabad and collided with the Indica Car
in which Ravi, Shashi, Ramesh Chandra and Ram Rishi were travelling. The
further case of the prosecution was that all the accused - appellants after
having managed to stop the Indica Car came out of their Bolero vehicle and
started shooting the occupants with firearms they were carrying. While the
person sitting in the front i.e Ravi and Ramesh Chandra could not escape,
Ram Rishi and Shashi escaped from the car. However, while escaping,
Shashi was shot at in a manner wherein the injuries were such that he died.
Now, to prove that the accused had, in fact, attacked on the deceased, the
prosecution witnesses had come forward with their version. Learned counsel
to establish that the witnesses of fact were not there at teh spot had come up
with the instances to indicate how there were contradictions in the
statements of teh witnesses. He had stated that the P.W.-2 had stated that the
two occupants of the back seat i.e. Shashi and Ram Rishi had escaped on
two different directions. As per him i.e. PW-2 while Shashi had escaped
after opening the door on the northern side, P.W.-2 had escaped after
opening the door on the southern side. Learned counsel had stated that this
was in contradistinction to the statement made by the PW1 who had very
categorically stated that he had seen, from the car parked behind the Indica
car, that both P.W.-2 Ram Rishi and Shashi had escaped from the same side
i.e. the northern side.
66. The PW-1, in his evidence had stated that he was coming in another
Maruti Car which was following the Indica Car in which the three deceased
and Ram Rishi were seated. From behind, the Indica Car and Maruti Car,
another Bolero had come and this Bolero was carrying Monu, Munna, Vikas
and one more person and the Bolero which had hit the Indica Car was
carrying Yogesh, Bhunesh, Ahirvan and Bhola. After having managed to
stop the Indica car, the prosecution had come up with a story that all 8
persons had come out of their two Bolero car and had started shooting at the
occupants of the Indica car. To prove that the prosecution case was
concocted and false, learned counsel argued that, in fact, the witnesses of
fact PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were not present at the place of incident at all.
To establish this fact, learned counsel for the appellants further tried to point
out various discrepancies in the evidence led by the PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3.
The PW-1 had stated that Ravi was the driver of the Indica car and Ramesh
Chandra was sitting beside him in the front seat while PW-2 was sitting
behind Ramesh Chandar and Shashi was sitting behind the drivers seat. This
was a story which is very different from the one which was narrated by the
PW-2 who had stated that it was Ravi who was driving car and Ramesh
Chandra was sitting beside and at the back seat Shashi was sitting behind
Ramesh Chandra and PW-2 was sitting behind Ravi.

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
25
67. What is more, learned counsel for the appellants further stated that even
in the statement with regard as to how the fire was extinguished, there were
discrepancies. The PW-1 stated that a fire brigade had come at the site to
extinguish the fire. The PW-2 had stated that the crowd which had collected
had extinguished the fire by mud and water.
68. Still further, to bring to the fore the discrepancies, learned counsel for the
appellant had stated that PW-1 had stated that both the occupants of the back
seat of the Indica car i.e. Shashi and PW-2 had come out of the car from the
door of the car on the northern side while the PW-2 had stated that while
Ravi had got out on the northern side, the PW-2 had got down from southern
side. To add to the confusion, the Investigating Officer had stated that when
he had gone to the site he had found that one burnt dead body was there on
the back seat and one dead body which was again totally burnt was on the
driver's seat. This was an absolutely different story from what the PW-1,
PW-2 and PW -3 had told. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore,
states that in fact the PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were not there on the spot and
they had only created evidence by saying that they were there and had tried
to come up with a case that they were eye-witnesses.
Still further learned counsel for the appellants had stated that the DW-1
69.
had stated that when he had gone on the site then no person of the family of
the deceased was there at the site and, therefore, he was the person who had
actually rung up the police and this fact was also corroborated by the PW-17
who had stated that it was the DW-1 who had actually informed the police.
Learned counsel had stated that had a discrepency of this sort been
committed by just one of them then the implication would have been
different but when three eye witnesses were coming up with three different
stories and when none of them matached with what the Investigating Officer
had seen, then definitely the contradiction had to be taken seriously.
70. The next argument which the learned counsel for the appellants have
submitted is that the FIR was ante-timed. Learned counsel for the appellants
has stated that the chick if is seen it would be evident that the FIR was
lodged on 3.7.2012 at 12:25 PM. However, if the statements of the various
witnesses of fact are seen then we find that at page 152 of the paper book,
the P.W.-1 had stated that after 12:00 noon, he had remained at the police
station for 2 to 3 hours more. Learned counsel for the appellants states that
there was absolutely no requirement for the PW-1 to have stayed at the
police station for 2 to 3 hours more after the actual lodging of the FIR at
12:25 PM. To corroborate the statement of the PW-1, the PW-2, at page 171
of the paper book, had stated that the Tehrir was scribed in two stages. First,
it was written at the Shikohabad police station and, thereafter, the Station

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
26
House Officer had taken the PW-1 and PW-2 to the place of incident and
thereafter the entire Tehrir was scribed. Further the PW-2 had stated that
when the Tehrir was actually completed, the time could be anything from
5:00 PM to 5:30 PM. This fact also gets corroborated by the statement of the
PW-1 who had stated that he had stayed at the police station for 3 more
hours after the lodging of the FIR.
71. Still further, at page 180 of the paper book, the PW-2 had stated that he
had sat at the police station till 5:00PM to 5:30 PM and that Abhishek
Kumar and Shiv Kendra (scribe) and the brother of PW-1 were also there at
the police station. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, states that,
in fact, the PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were not aware as to who was the actual
accused and after much thinking and application of mind the persons who
were inimical to them and against whom criminal cases were being fought in
the criminal court at Farrukhabad were named as accused in the case.
72. Learned counsel for the appellants further states that as per the FIR the
Bolero vehicle which had come from the side of Farrukhabad had collided
with the Indica car which was carrying Yogesh, Bhuvnesh, Evaran and
Bhola and the Bolero vehicle which had come from behind the Indica and
Maruti and the number of which had never been disclosed was carrying 6
persons, namely, Monu @ Ketan, Munna @ Nitin, Satyaveer, Vikas and 2
other persons whose names the first informant was not knowing but later on
he came to know that they were Pushpendra Yadav and Anand. Learned
counsel for the appellants states that even though in the FIR, there was
mention only of two vehicles from which various persons came out, PW-1
and PW-2 had further improved their case and had stated that one more car
of the make of Verito had come at the place of incident and from it Yogesh,
Brijesh Katiyar, Uma Shankar, Pushpendra Yadav son of Feru Singh had
emerged.
73. Learned counsel for the appellants states that initially 8 persons were
named in the FIR and it was stated that the names of two were not known.
However, subsequently the prosecution itself had stated that the arrested
accused persons were shown to them in jail and, therefore, they had come to
know about them and were mentioning their names in the court for the first
time. He states that no test identification parade was ever done and,
therefore, the entire prosecution vis-a-vis at least the two unnamed persons
became false.
Learned counsel for the appellants further has stated that the medical
74.
evidence was, in fact, very different from what the ocular evidence had
suggested. All the witnesses had stated that Shashi was shot at from behind

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
27
but the post mortem report which had been proven by the Prosecution
Witness-8, Dr. Santosh Kumar Gupta indicated that all the bullets which had
entered the deceased Shashi were from the front. What is more, it was
always stated that while Shashi was running out from the northern side and
was trying to save his life, the shooting vis-a-vis Shashi had taken from a
distance of 30 to 35 feet but, in fact, all the injuries which were to be found
on the front side of the body of Shashi were all having blackening and
tattooing, suggesting that it was fired from a very close range.
What is more, learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that
75.
if the evidence is weighed in the manner it was brought then also the
prosecution case gets falsified. If the accident inspection reports which are
exhibited as Exhibit - Ka-44 and Ka-45, are seen then learned counsel
submits that it can be found that the Indica car was travelling at around a
speed of 60 kms. and Bolero was speeding at a velocity of almost 80 kms per
hour. He states that if that had been the case and if both the cars had collided
and if there was only an intention of the occupants of Bolero to only stop the
car without applying brake then there would have been actual damage to the
Bolero car. In the instant case, he states that there was no damage caused to
the Bolero car other than the breaking of the shaft which can happen even
without an accident. There was absolutely no other damage of any
importance. Still further, he has argued that if the Indica car was burning in
the manner it had been shown to have been burnt at the place then definitely
there would have been marks of burn also on the Bolero vehicle. The Bolero
vehicle also ran on inflammable fuel and if a car which had rammed into, it
had burnt then definitely the fire would have got transferred to the Bolero
vehicle as well and it would have also started burning. In the instant case, he
states that there was absolutely no burn marks on the Bolero. What is more,
he states that the headlight etc. which was broken could have been so broken
by the prosecution itself so that it could come out with a false / planted case.
76. Learned counsel for the appellants states that in the instant case the cars
as per the RTO reports which was mentioned by the P.W.17 in his statement
in the Court belong to the accused. The car UP 83 W 8238 Bolero car
belonged to Bhuvnesh Kumar. This was the car which had met with an
accident with the Indica car U.P. 83 V 8981 which had come from behind
the Bolero car was of the accused Kuldeep and U.P. 84 L 5006 the Verito
car belonged to the accused Uma Shankar. He, therefore, stated that a
question arose as to how when the cars of the accused were, involved, the
accused could wriggle out of the case. He submitted that when the cars were
being used by the accused persons then definitely it was their responsibility
to explain as to how the cars reached there. To explain this, learned counsel

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
28
for the appellants stated that the fact of the matter was that all the three cars
were planted. The Verito car and the car which came from behind were used
to escape and, therefore, it was not certain whether they were there at all and
that they might have been later on captured and made case property.
However, so far as the vehicle number U.P. 83 W 8238 was concerned,
learned counsel submitted it was also somehow planted. Learned counsel
submitted that the recovery memo of these cars was exhibit as ka-6 and this
was signed by the PW-2 Ram Rishi and his son Nandlal. The PW-2 in his
statement before the Court had stated at page 177 that he had not signed the
recovery memos, exhibit ka-2 to ka-6 and that he was made to sign on them
on the next date. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, states that the
recovery of the Bolero car which was apparent through the recovery memo
exhibited as ka-6 became an absolutely sham recovery. He stated that the
recovery definitely did not take place from the place of incident and,
therefore, no explanation was required from the side of the appellants to
explain as to how their cars had reached there. Normally, he states what
happens is that after a person is arrested his entire house becomes open for
the police to ransack and if the Bolero of the accused persons was taken
away from the house and planted at the place of incident then the accused
had absolutely no connection with the planted car, even if the same was
theirs.
77. Still further learned counsel for the appellants states that the signature on
the police report of the Magistrate when he had received the same on
5.7.2012 which was with regard to the FIR lodged on 3.7.2012, then there
was definitely a delay of 48 hours. This also, he submitted, showed that the
FIR was ante-timed. The police and the informant side had much thought
over the entire case and had placed the accused in the FIR after having
concocted the entire case against them.
78. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate supporting
the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial
court submitted that :
(i) The prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the appellants
beyond all reasonable doubt through a cogent, continuous and unassailable
chain of direct ocular, medical, and documentary evidence. He contended
that the learned trial court has meticulously analyzed the entire record,
properly appreciated the statements of the eyewitnesses, and arrived at a
well-reasoned conclusion which calls for no interference by this Court in the
present appeals.
(ii) Abhishek Kumar (PW-1), Ram Rishi (PW-2), and Udayveer Singh (PW-
3) are natural and truthful eyewitnesses, whose presence at the scene of the

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
29
occurrence at the time of incident is fully established. He argued that the
minor variations regarding seating arrangements inside the Indica car or the
exact direction taken while fleeing under a rain of bullets are natural, given
the terror and panic created by an armed ambush involving fourteen
assailants. He submitted that a person fleeing for his life cannot be expected
to remember exact details. He further submitted that PW-2 himself sustained
injuries during the incident, and under the settled law, an injured witness
stands on a higher footing of credibility, whose presence cannot be doubted.
The testimony of Village Pradhan (DW-1) is merely a defence - sponsored
attempt to dilute the prosecution case and cannot override the sworn
testimony of eye-witnesses, who survived a deadly assault.
(iii) Medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular narrative. He argued that
when assailants surround a victim and fired indiscriminately while the victim
was trying to escape, gunshot entry wounds can naturally occur on the front
as well as the side of the body, along with blackening and tattooing (kalima).
He submitted that the eyewitnesses clearly deposed that the assailants chased
Shashi Kumar and fired upon him at close range when he was cornered near
the brick kiln (bhatta). Therefore, the presence of close-range entry wounds
on the face and chest is in total harmony with the ocular account, and the
medical opinion of Dr. PW-5 does not contradict the core sequence of
events.
(iv) FIR was not ante-timed or deliberated upon. He submitted that the
incident took place around 10:30 AM, and the FIR was promptly lodged at
12:25 PM on the very same day at Police Station Shikohabad, which was
situated at a distance from the remote spot.
(v) Mention of eight named accused and two unknown persons in the initial
FIR was based on the immediate observation of the informant in a state of
extreme shock. During investigation, as the full extent of the conspiracy
unfolded, the involvement of fourteen accused persons and three vehicles
including the Verito car came to light. He argued that the law does not
require every detail or vehicle number to be recorded in the initial FIR.
Regarding the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP), he submitted
that the appellants were well known to the witnesses prior to the incident due
to ongoing litigation and regional acquaintance. Therefore, a formal TIP was
unnecessary in law, and the substantive identification of the accused made
by the eyewitnesses before the trial court is completely valid, legal, and
binding.
(vi) The Bolero was used by the assailants to ram into the Indica car and
block its path. Once the Indica car was brought to a halt and set on fire by
pouring petrol, the assailants abandoned their vehicle at a safe distance on

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
30
the side of the road to avoid damage from the fire. He submitted that Head
Constable Ranvir Singh (PW-10) noted mechanical damage to the front
bumper, show grill, and radiator shaft, which clearly proves a high-impact
collision. The fact that the tires of the Bolero did not catch fire merely shows
that the vehicle was standing away from the direct flames of the burning
Indica, and this physical fact completely supports the prosecution narrative
rather than disproving it.
(vii) The search and recovery memos (Exhibits Ka-2 to Ka-6) were prepared
in strict compliance with procedural requirements. He argued that the
recovery of burnt ash, cartridges, weapons, driving licenses, and the Bolero
vehicle were made directly from the spot and in pursuance of the disclosure
statements of the accused. He submitted that the signature of Ram Rishi
(PW-2) on the recovery memos is admitted. The contention that signatures
were obtained subsequently is merely a result of pressure or confusion
during cross-examination which was conducted after a lapse of several
months after the incident. He urged that minor procedural irregularities
committed by the investigating agency during seizure cannot wash away the
hard physical recoveries made from the spot, and the recovery memos fully
satisfy the statutory mandate under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
(viii) The trial court committed no error of law or fact in convicting and
sentencing the appellants. He prayed that all the criminal appeals filed by the
accused be dismissed and their convictions be upheld, while the Government
Appeals may be allowed.
79. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the
impugned judgment and order and the case laws relied upon by the parties
carefully. After meticulously evaluating the oral as well as documentary
evidence brought on record, we are of the view that for a comprehensive and
just adjudication of the case, the core issues to be determined are :
(1). Whether the prosecution eyewitnesses, Abhishek Kumar (PW-1), Ram
Rishi (PW-2), and Udayveer Singh (PW-3) are natural, sterling witnesses
whose presence at the scene of crime at the time of incident is established
beyond resonable doubt, or whether their testimonies are vitiated by fatal
material contradictions, unnatural conduct, and station-house tutoring ?
(2). Whether the ocular version regarding the manner, direction, and range
of the gunshot assault upon deceased Shashi Kumar is completely falsified
by, and irreconcilable with, the medical and post-mortem findings (Ex. Ka-
10) proven by Dr. Ram Asre Sudhakar (PW-5) ?

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
31
Whether the First Information Report was ante-timed and lodged after
(3).
post-event consultations, and whether the unexplained 48-hour delay in its
transmission to the jurisdictional Magistrate is fatal to the prosecution
case?
(4) . Whether the material embellishments and improvements from the initial
FIR, specifically the introduction of a third vehicle (Verito car) and an
inflated array of 14 accused instead of 8 named and 2 unknowns, coupled
with the total absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP), vitiate the
conviction of the appellants ?
(5). Whether the physical, mechanical and forensic condition of the
recovered Bolero car (UP-83-W 8238), showing zero burn damage, unburnt
bumpers, and fully inflated tires despite a claimed head-on collision
scientifically proves that the collision narrative and vehicle recovery were
fabricated and planted ? and
. Whether the search and recovery memos (Exhibits Ka-2 to Ka-6) under
(6)
Section 25/27 of the Arms Act can be legally relied upon in light of the
unequivocal admission by prosecution witness PW-2 that his signatures
were extracted ex-post-facto on the following day without contemporaneous
execution on the spot ?
Now we proceed to analyze the aforesaid issues sequentially on the
80.
touchstone of facts, evidence, established law and binding precedents.
81. So far as the ISSUE NO.1 is concerned, we have given our profound
consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate representing
the State, while closely evaluating the depositions of the prosecution
witnesses of fact on record. The foundational premise of any criminal
prosecution resting upon charges of murder requires that the ocular
witnesses produced by the prosecution must pass the rigorous test of sterling
quality, unblemished creditworthiness and absolute consistency. In the
instant case, the prosecution heavily relied upon the testimonies of Abhishek
Kumar (PW-1), who claims to have been following the victims / deceased
vehicle in a separate Maruti car, Ram Rishi (PW-2), who claims to have
been an occupant sitting inside the Indica car bearing registration number
UP-83-M-4311 and Udayveer Singh (PW-3), who similarly asserts his
presence in the trailing vehicle. However, upon subjecting their depositions
to a judicial scrutiny, we find that their claimed ocular presence is
undermined by a series of irreconcilable contradictions, discrepancies and
fatal admissions of police tutoring that strike at the very root of the
prosecution's case.

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
32
The legal benchmark governing the appreciation of eyewitness
82.
testimony, particularly in cases involving pre-existing enmity and multiple
accused, has been authoritatively delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the landmark ruling of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2012) 8 SCC 21 , wherein the Apex Court propounded the doctrine of a
"sterling witness" in paragraph 22 of the report, observing as under:
22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a
"
very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be
unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness
should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any
hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the
witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the
truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be
more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the
starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes
the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be
natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the
accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such
a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-
examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and
under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the
factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the
sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and
every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made,
the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific
evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently
match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated
that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial
evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of
circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against
him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as
well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that
such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness" whose version can
be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on
which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of
the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain
intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary
and material objects should match the said version in material
particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on
the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding
the offender guilty of the charge alleged."

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
33
This principle was further reinforced in
83. Amar Singh v. State (NCT of
, wherein the Supreme Court emphatically ruled
Delhi), (2020) 19 SCC 165
that variations relating to the prosecution narrative cannot be brushed aside
as inconsequential minor discrepancies. The Apex Court held that where
witnesses exhibit unnatural conduct during a sudden violent incident without
taking any steps to protect the victims or save themselves as well as give
contradictory account of the incident, their claimed presence becomes
gravely suspect and cannot be accepted at face value.
84. The necessity for absolute harmony in ocular accounts has been again
reiterated in recent jurisprudence. In
Kannaiya v. State of Madhya
, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside
Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine 2270
convictions holding that when the genesis and the manner of the incident are
rendered doubtful by conflicting versions given by eyewitnesses regarding
who was present, where they stood, and how they escaped, such versions
cannot co-exist within a credible judicial narrative, thereby mandating the
extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused.
85. Similarly, in the recent pronouncement of Ashok Upadhyay and Anr.
v. The State of Bihar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1804 , the Apex Court held
that where related eyewitnesses exhibit a "ring of falsity," major omissions
from police statements under Section 161 CrPC and evidence of
premeditation to falsely implicate adversaries due to pre-existing village and
political rivalry, their testimonies must be evaluated with extreme judicial
caution and treated with absolute distrust.
When we examine the factual matrix of the present case in the light of
86.
these binding judicial precedents, the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3
disintegrate due internal contradictions. The first major contradiction
appears in the irreconcilable descriptions of the seating arrangements inside
the Indica car. Abhishek Kumar (PW-1) deposed in his examination-in-chief
that Ravi Kumar was driving the Indica car, Ramesh Chandra was sitting
beside him on the front passenger seat, and Shashi Kumar was sitting on the
rear seat behind the driver. However, Ram Rishi (PW-2), who claims to have
been seated inside the very same vehicle, gave a different and incompatible
seating arrangement, testifying that while Ravi drove and Ramesh Chandra
sat beside him in front, Shashi Kumar was sitting on the back seat behind
Ramesh Chandra, and PW-2 himself was sitting behind the driver. Such a
fundamental variance in describing the seating configuration of a small
vehicle carrying four people demonstrates that these witnesses were not
actually present in the vehicle at the time of the occurrence.
This inherent falsity is further compounded by their accounts regarding
87.

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
34
the escape of the survivors from the vehicle. In the initial First Information
Report, it was categorically asserted that upon the Bolero ramming into the
Indica car, Ram Rishi (PW-2) and Shashi Kumar managed to get out of the
car and ran away in different directions but in cross-examination, PW-2,
admitting on record that both he and deceased Shashi actually escaped from
the same northern door and did not run in separate directions. An ocular
narrative that contradicts its own foundational First Information Report on
vital operational details loses all semblance of truth.
88. Most important is the explicit confession of Ram Rishi (PW-2) regarding
police tutoring and fabrication. PW-2 admitted during his cross-examination
that after the accused persons were apprehended, the police called him to the
police station and informed him that 14 accused persons could not possibly
be accommodated within two vehicles, and therefore instructed him that the
prosecution case had to be structured around three vehicles. PW-2 expressly
stated:
"
जब मुल्जिमान पकड़े गए तब पुलिस ने मुझे बुलाया तब पता लगा कि घटना 8 ने नहीं 14 ने की
है... पुलिस ने कहा 14 बदमाश दो गाड़ियों में नहीं आ सकते, गाड़ियां तीन रखनी पड़ेंगी। उसी
हिसाब से मैंने आज तीन गाड़ियां बताई है।"
This admission lays down the manufacturing of the prosecution case,
wherein the entire framework of vehicles and accused numbers was staged
by the investigating agency.
89. The fabrication of the eyewitnesses' presence is further sealed by the
independent and official testimony on record. Dharmendra Pradhan (DW-1),
the Village Pradhan of Mohabbatpur Madhai, who made the initial
emergency call to the police and fire brigade, categorically deposed that
when he reached the spot immediately after the incident at 10:30 AM, no
relatives or family members of the deceased were present at the scene. This
crucial circumstance is corroborated by the main Investigating Officer,
Suresh Veer Singh (PW-17), who confirmed that upon receiving the
telephonic information from the Pradhan and arriving at the burning car, no
eyewitness relatives were found at the site.Thus, the presence of PW-1, PW-
2, and PW-3 at the time of the incident is shrouded in doubt, their
testimonies are riddled with fatal contradictions and their claims stand
utterly discredited by independent official testimony. Consequently, Issue
No. 1 is answered in the negative.
90. As regards ISSUE NO. 2 is concerned, from a perusal of the record it is
clear that what the eyewitnesses said in court completely contradicts the
actual medical evidence. It is a foundational principle of criminal law that
while witness testimony is the main basis for establishing guilt, it must align

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
35
with physical and scientific facts most notably, the medical evidence. Where
testimony comes from biased or interested witnesses, the post-mortem report
serves as a vital benchmark to test whether the prosecution's version of
events is truthful. In this case, key prosecution witnesses Abhishek Kumar
(PW-1), Ram Rishi (PW-2) and Udayveer Singh (PW-3) gave a detailed,
consistent account of the event. They claimed that after the Bolero rammed
into the Indica car, the victim Shashi Kumar, managed to step out, ran 135 to
140 paces toward an unused brick kiln, and was chased and shot from behind
from a distance of about 30 to 35 feet. However, when this version of events
is examined against the expert medical findings, it completely falls apart due
to clear scientific impossibility. The legal parameters governing the
evaluation of medical evidence vis-à-vis ocular testimony have been
authoritatively formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark
ruling of Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 2 SCC
, wherein the Apex Court delineated the exact evidentiary value of
174
medical reports, holding that the use which the defence can make of the
medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been
caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses.
Unless, however, the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it
completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in
the manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eye-witnesses
cannot be thrown out. But where medical evidence proves the oral version
completely impossible the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.
This salutary principle was further reinforced in Thaman Kumar v. State
91.
, where the Supreme
of Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2003) 6 SCC 380
Court formulated different categories in which the medical and ocular
evidence may contradict with each other and unequivocally ruled that where
the eyewitness account is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence on
material particulars the foundational pillars of the prosecution case crumble,
making it wholly unsafe to base a conviction thereon.
92. The necessity for strict alignment between oral assertions and medical
findings has been reiterated in recent pronouncements. In the recent case of
Ram Singh v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1536 ,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that where the oral testimony of
witnesses regarding injuries and physical facts is directly contradicted by
medical and forensic examination, the prosecution fails to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt, and exculpatory medical findings that negate the
core narrative cannot be brushed aside. Similarly, in Punimati v. State of
, the Apex Court held that when
Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2866
ocular testimonies fail to match medical evidence and recovery findings, the
cumulative effect creates an unbridgeable lacuna in the prosecution case,

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
36
mandating the extension of the benefit of doubt to the accused.
When these established principles are applied to the witness testimony
93.
and medical evidence in this appeal, an unbridgeable conflict emerges
between what the eyewitnesses stated and what the medical findings
scientifically prove. Prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 explicitly
testified that Shashi Kumar was fleeing for his life, chased from behind by
assailants 30 to 35 feet away. Given this account, a person actively running
away with his back to his pursuers any gunshot fired from behind would
naturally hit the back of his body, such as his back, the rear of his thighs, or
the back of his head. However, the post-mortem report of the deceased
(Exhibit Ka-10), submitted and confirmed by Dr. Ram Asre Sudhakar (PW-
5), reveals a completely contradictory and decisive reality.A careful
examination of the injuries detailed in the post-mortem report (Exhibit Ka-
10) shows that several firearm entry wounds were located directly on the
front of his body: Injury No. 1 was an entry wound below the left jaw; Injury
No. 3 was an entry wound on the left side of the mouth; Injury No. 5 was an
entry wound on the left chest near the nipple; Injury No. 8 was an entry
wound below the left nipple and Injury No. 10 was an entry wound on the
lower abdomen below the navel. Most decisively for the prosecution's case,
blackening and tattooing ( kalima ) were clearly present around these entry
wounds. Under established principles of forensic science and criminal law,
the presence of blackening, scorching and tattooing around an entry wound
scientifically proves that the firearm was discharged at point-blank range
(typically within 1 to 6 feet) while directly facing the victim.
Consequently, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, claiming that the
94.
assailants fired from a distance of 30 to 35 feet from behind a fleeing victim,
is completely contradicted by the medical evidence showing close-range
firing from the front. It is physically and scientifically impossible for a
person running away from pursuers to sustain multiple close-range gunshot
wounds on the front of his face, chest, and abdomen containing gunpowder
burns. This direct conflict between the witness accounts and the medical
evidence establishes beyond doubt that the eyewitnesses were not present at
the scene, and that the story of the chase was fabricated after the bodies were
found. Therefore, when evaluated against precedents such as Solanki
Chimanbhai Ukabhai (supra) , Thaman Kumar (supra) , Ram Singh (supra)
and Punimati (supra) cases, the medical findings entirely destroy the
credibility of the prosecution's witness narrative. Thus, Issue No. 2 is
resolved in favor of the appellants, confirming that the medical evidence
fundamentally disproves the prosecution's case.
In regard to which assails the very genesis and lodging of
95. ISSUE NO. 3

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
37
the First Information Report, it is a foundational and time-tested canon of
criminal jurisprudence that the First Information Report is a vital
contemporaneous record providing the earliest account of an occurrence,
thereby acting as an indispensable shield against subsequent embellishment,
deliberation, or false implication of rivals. When the promptness and
genuineness of an FIR are rendered gravely suspicious by explicit
admissions of prosecution witnesses revealing that the written complaint
(Tehrir) was compiled in stages until late evening after site visits and
consultations at the police station, the sacred authenticity of the FIR is
destroyed, casting an insurmountable shadow of doubt over the entire
prosecution superstructure.
96. The legal principles governing the necessity of a prompt FIR and the
fatal impact of antedating have been authoritatively articulated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark ruling of Thulia Kali v. State of
wherein the Apex Court emphasized the
Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393,
grave peril of delayed and deliberated reporting:
" 12. ….. First information report in a criminal case is an
extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the
purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at
the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly
be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The
object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to
the police in respect of commission of an offence is to
obtain early information regarding the circumstances in
which the crime was committed, the names of the actual
culprits and the part played by them as well as the
names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of
occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report
quite often results in embellishment which is a creature
of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only
gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger
creeps in of the introduction of coloured version,
exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of
deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential
that the delay in the lodging of the first information
report should be satisfactorily explained…………..."
97. This salutary doctrine was further amplified in Meharaj Singh and
Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1994) 5 SCC 188 , wherein
the Supreme Court held that statutory provisions mandating prompt
recording and dispatch of the FIR to the Magistrate serve as a vital check

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
38
against antedating and post-event consultation. The Apex Court explicitly
ruled that where the FIR is shown to have been recorded later after
prolonged deliberations, the entire prosecution case becomes tainted :
" 12. FIR in a criminal case and
particularly in a murder case is a vital and
valuable piece of evidence for the purpose
of appreciating the evidence led at the trial.
The object of insisting upon prompt
lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest
information regarding the circumstance in
which the crime was committed, including
the names of the actual culprits and the
parts played by them, the weapons, if any,
used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses,
if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often
results in embellishment, which is a
creature of an afterthought. On account of
delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the
advantage of spontaneity, danger also
creeps in of the introduction of a coloured
version or exaggerated story. With a view
to determine whether the FIR was lodged
at the time it is alleged to have been
recorded, the courts generally look for
certain external checks. One of the checks
is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called
a special report in a murder case, by the
local Magistrate. If this report is received
by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an
inference that the FIR was not lodged at
the time it is alleged to have been recorded,
unless, of course the prosecution can offer
a satisfactory explanation for the delay in
despatching or receipt of the copy of the
FIR by the local Magistrate. Prosecution
has led no evidence at all in this behalf.
The second external check equally
important is the sending of the copy of the
FIR along with the dead body and its
reference in the inquest report. Even
though the inquest report, prepared under

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
39
Section 174 CrPC, is aimed at serving a
statutory function, to lend credence to the
prosecution case, the details of the FIR and
the gist of statements recorded during
inquest proceedings get reflected in the
report. The absence of those details is
indicative of the fact that the prosecution
story was still in an embryo state and had
not been given any shape and that the FIR
came to be recorded later on after due
deliberations and consultations and was
then ante-timed to give it the colour of a
promptly lodged FIR. In our opinion, on
account of the infirmities as noticed above,
the FIR has lost its value and authenticity
and it appears to us that the same has been
ante-timed and had not been recorded till
the inquest proceedings were over at the
spot by PW 8"
These principles have been steadfastly reaffirmed in recent legal
98.
precedents. In , the
Rama Devi v. The State of Bihar, 2024 (10) SCC 462
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the lodging and dispatch of the FIR
are shrouded in suspicious, unexplained delays an adverse inference arises
that the report was antedated.
When we evaluate the factual matrix and trial court record of the present
99.
case against these established legal standards, the plea of ante-timing
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants stands fully substantiated.
According to the official prosecution record and the chick FIR, the incident
allegedly occurred at 10:30 AM on 03.07.2012, and the FIR was recorded as
lodged at 12:25 PM on the same day. However, a close examination of the
depositions of the witnesses of fact completely demolishes this official
timestamp. At page 152 of the paper book, Abhishek Kumar (PW-1)
categorically admitted during cross-examination that after 12:00 noon, he
remained continuously present at the police station for another 2 to 3 hours.
As forcefully submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, there was
absolutely no legitimate requirement or justification for PW-1 to have
remained detained at the police station for 2 to 3 hours further if the FIR had
already been formally lodged at 12:25 PM. This discrepancy is conclusively
corroborated by Ram Rishi (PW-2) at page 171 of the paper book. PW-2
explicitly disclosed under oath that the Tehrir was scribed in two distinct,
separated stages. First, a portion was written at the Shikohabad police

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
40
station. Thereafter, the Station House Officer took PW-1 and PW-2 from the
police station to the place of incident. It was only after inspecting the crime
scene that the remaining and entire Tehrir was finally scribed. PW-2
unambiguously admitted that when the Tehrir was actually completed, the
time was anywhere between 5:00 PM and 5:30 PM. This fact finds further
corroboration at page 180 of the paper book, where PW-2 reaffirmed sitting
at the police station till 5:00 PM to 5:30 PM along with Abhishek Kumar
(PW-1), Shiv Kendra (the scribe), and the brother of PW-1. The admitted
timeline proving that the Tehrir was finalized only between 5:00 PM and
5:30 PM after site visits and extended deliberations, exposes the true nature
of the FIR. As submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, PW-1,
PW-2, and PW-3 were initially completely unaware as to who the actual
assailants were. During their prolonged stay at the police station until late
evening, after much calculation, application of mind and consultation, they
selected and named persons who were pre-existing inimical adversaries
against whom criminal litigations were actively being fought in the criminal
courts at Farrukhabad. Compounding this fatal infirmity is the gross,
unexplained delay of approximately 48 hours in transmitting the FIR to the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, before whom it was produced only on 05.07.2012.
This prolonged delay in judicial dispatch of documents leads to lost their
official protection against tampering. This gave the police an easy
opportunity to make up names and vehicles.
100. Therefore, tested on the touchstone of Thulia Kali case (supra),
Meharaj Singh case (supra) and Rama Devi case (supra) , the sworn
admissions of PW-1 and PW-2 proving that the Tehrir was finalized only by
5:30 PM after site visits, combined with the consultation to frame
Farrukhabad litigation adversaries and the 48 hour delay in transmission to
the Court of concerned C.J.M., lead to the inescapable judicial conclusion
that the FIR was ante-timed and engineered as an afterthought. Issue No. 3 is
accordingly answered in the affirmative in favour of the appellants.
101. The ISSUE NO. 4 is regarding the major changes, additions, and
structural expansions made to the story set-up in the First Information
Report as well as the complete failure of the police to properly identify the
accused persons. It is a well-settled principle of criminal law that a criminal
trial must stand firmly on the facts stated in the original First Information
Report. Minor natural variations or minor clarifications do not harm a case.
However, when the prosecution makes major structural changes to its story,
adds entirely new vehicles, and brings in unknown accused persons without
conducting a Test Identification Parade, the core truth of the prosecution
case is destroyed, leaving the entire case unreliable.

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
41
The law regarding the legal value of identifying unknown accused
102.
persons for the first time in court without a prior Test Identification Parade
was clearly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanan & Ors. v.
State of Kerala, (1979) 3 SCC 319 wherein the Apex Court held that when
accused persons are not known to the witnesses beforehand, identifying
them for the first time inside the courtroom without a Test Identification
Parade has almost no legal value and cannot be used to convict anyone.
This strict requirement for proper identification and the rejection of later
improvements has been repeatedly upheld in recent judgments. In Wahid v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2025) 2 SCC (Cri) 99 , the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that when accused persons are not named in the FIR and are
not previously known to the witnesses, and no Test Identification Parade is
conducted during investigation, identifying them months later in court is
unsafe and unreliable, so the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
When we apply these binding legal rules to the facts of the present case,
103.
we see a complete and impermissible change in the prosecution case from
the time of lodging the FIR to the time the witnesses testified in court. In the
original First Information Report, the informant named only 8 specific
individuals and clearly stated that the names of 2 persons were unknown. In
addition, the FIR specifically stated that only two vehicles were involved in
the incident, one Bolero coming from the side of Farrukhabad carrying
Yogesh, Bhuvnesh, Evaran, and Bhola, and another Bolero coming from
behind carrying 6 persons, including Monu @ Ketan, Munna @ Nitin,
Satyaveer, Vikas, and 2 unknown persons. The FIR made no mention
whatsoever of any third vehicle. Further, during the trial, the prosecution
witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 made a major addition to their story by
introducing a completely new third car, a Mahindra Verito. They claimed for
the first time in court that four additional accused persons, Yogesh, Brijesh
Katiyar, Uma Shankar, and Pushpendra Yadav came out of this third Verito
car. Thus, this addition of a third vehicle and extra accused persons is a clear
result of police tutoring and police station (house) fabrication. As disclosed
in the testimony of PW-2, after the police arrested the accused persons, they
showed them to the witnesses in police custody and in jail. The witness Ram
Rishi (PW-2) specifically admitted in his cross-examination that:
"
जब मुल्जिमान पकड़े गए तब पुलिस ने मुझे बुलाया तब पता लगा कि घटना 8 ने नहीं 14 ने की
है और मुल्जिमान पुलिस ने मुझे थाने में बंद दिखाए। पुलिस ने कहा 14 बदमाश दो गाड़ियों में नहीं
आ सकते, गाड़ियां तीन रखनी पड़ेंगी। उसी हिसाब से मैंने आज तीन गाड़ियां बताई है।"
As emphasized by the learned counsel for the appellants, the police
104.
never conducted any Test Identification Parade (TIP) for the unnamed

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
42
accused persons. Identifying unknown accused persons in court for the first
time after seeing them in police custody and jail and without any formal
identification parade makes the prosecution case against the unnamed
persons completely false and legally invalid. Therefore, in view of the
settled law in the cases of Kanan (supra) and Wahid (supra), these major
improvements i.e. addition of a third vehicle and accused persons and the
complete failure to hold a Test Identification Parade destroy the credibility
of the prosecution case. Accordingly, Issue No. 4 is answered in favour of
the appellants.
As far as is concerned, it is a well-settled rule of criminal
105. ISSUE NO. 5
law that oral statements made by witnesses, no matter how strongly asserted,
must align with physical reality, scientific facts and expert inspection
reports. The legal principles regarding the value of physical and mechanical
evidence over oral claims are well settled. When the physical or mechanical
evidence makes the oral testimony impossible or highly improbable, the
court is legally bound to reject the oral narrative. Similarly, in the present
case as the physical condition of the car at the crime scene verified by
technical inspection completely contradicts the oral claim of a violent
vehicle crash and a long, intense fire, oral account cannot be accepted.
Where the physical layout, vehicle conditions and scene records are
completely inconsistent with natural laws, the entire narrative of prosecution
becomes highly doubtful and scene of crime must be treated as a staged and
fabricated police setup.
The importance of technical and scientific reports over oral claims has
106.
been repeatedly upheld catena of authoritative judgments. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has times and again reiterated that objective technical and
scene-inspection evidence is a vital protection against false implication, and
where technical reports contradict the basic physical facts of a crime, the
prosecution case fails. Where material objects such as vehicles are shown to
have been manipulated or planted, no criminal liability can be fixed on the
accused.
107. When we apply these legal principles to the physical and technical
evidence recorded in the present case, the prosecution story of a high-speed
collision and a 40-minute fire completely falls apart. The prosecution
claimed that a Mahindra Bolero (UP-83-W 8238) travelling at a high speed
of about 80 km/h rammed head-on into the Indica car (UP-83-M 4311)
running at 50–60 km/h. They further claimed that right after the impact,
petrol was poured on the Indica car, setting it on fire, and that it burned
fiercely for 30 to 40 minutes until its metal body, interior, and tires were
completely charred. The technical inspection of the Mahindra Bolero (UP-

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
43
83-W 8238) conducted by Head Constable Ranvir Singh (PW-10) exposes
the complete falsity of this claim. PW-10 deposed clearly that:
"
बोलेरो गाड़ी के निरीक्षण से गाड़ी में जलने का कोई निशान नहीं था। बम्पर व शो ग्रिल पर जलने
का कोई निशान नहीं पाया गया। बोलेरो गाड़ी के चारों टायर सही सलामत व हवा भरी हालत में थे,
वे बिल्कुल नहीं जले थे।"
PW-10 specifically confirmed that the Bolero suffered no burn damage, its
front bumper and show grill had no fire or smoke marks, and all four tires
were completely intact and fully inflated. Further, the Investigating Officer,
Suresh Veer Singh (PW-17), admitted that when he reached the spot, the
Bolero was present near the Indica Car with only a broken main shaft and
the informant Abhishek Kumar (PW-1) was also agreed upon seeing the
crime scene photographs that the Bolero did not look like it had collided
with the Indica car. Thus, under the simple laws of physics and common
sense, this technical finding makes the prosecution story physically
impossible. If a vehicle (Bolero) is stationed immediately next to or locked
in a head-on collision with another car (Indica) that burns fiercely for 30 to
40 minutes hot enough to melt metal and reduce human bodies to ashes the
adjacent Bolero (made of plastic grilles, rubber tires, and painted metal)
would naturally suffer heavy fire damage, melted plastic, smoke soot, and
burnt tires. The complete absence of any burn marks, unburnt bumpers and
fully inflated tires scientifically proves that the Bolero was never present
during the fire and was later planted there. Therefore, keeping in view the
settled law in the cases of Mahavir Singh (supra) , Bhajan Singh (supra) ,
Ram Singh (supra) and Punimati (supra) , the official technical report and
physical facts completely disprove the collision and fire story, proving that
the vehicle recovery was a staged police fabrication. Accordingly, Issue No.
5 is answered in favour of the appellants.
Finally, the which challenges the legality, genuine
108. ISSUE NO. 6
execution and evidentiary value of the recovery memos and weapon seizures
under the Arms Act, is concerned, it is a fundamental rule of criminal law
that any recovery of incriminating weapons, ammunition, personal items or
vehicles made during a police investigation must strictly follow statutory
safeguards under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such recoveries
must be proved by clear, reliable and contemporaneous documentation
created on the spot in the presence of independent witnesses. Where the
seizure memos which form the very foundation of the weapon charges are
proved to have been drafted post-facto, signed the next day away from the
scene and prepared without actual recovery in the witness's presence, those
seizure memos lose all legal value and cannot be used to convict anyone.
The legal position regarding recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
44
Act has been authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
landmark ruling of
Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 1400 . In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court laid down strict
operational guidelines for proving recoveries under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act holding that the mere production of a recovery memo signed
by witnesses is not enough. The Apex Court held that the prosecution must
prove that the disclosure statement was recorded voluntarily before the
recovery was made, contemporaneously and that the physical recovery was
witnessed on the spot in real time.
This core principle laid down in the case of Subramanya (supra) aligns
109.
with established Apex Court jurisprudence. In
Mohd. Aman v. State of
Rajasthan, (1997) 10 SCC 44 , the Supreme Court ruled that when the
police recover evidence in a way that violates legal procedures, it raises
serious doubts about whether the items were tampered with or fabricated.
Without a secure and verifiable chain of custody, courts cannot trust the
integrity of the seized items.
110. When we apply the aforesaid settled proposition of law to the facts of
the present case as recorded in the trial court paper book, the recovery
proceedings are exposed as completely invalid in law. The prosecution relied
heavily upon recovery memos marked as Exhibits Ka-2 to Ka-6. These
memos related to the ash of the burnt car, plain concrete, a burnt pistol,
cartridges, a watch, a PAN card, currency notes of Rs. 1,610/-, driving
licenses, passport-size photographs, and the Bolero car (UP-83-W 8238)
along with a cartridge belt and a 5-liter empty can. These recovery memos
were said to be prepared on the spot before Ram Rishi (PW-2) and Nandlal
but during cross-examination at page 177 of the paper book, Ram Rishi
(PW-2), made a fatal admission that completely demolished these exhibits.
He admitted under oath that :
"
फर्दे जो दरोगा जी ने प्रदर्श क-2, 3, 4, 5 व 6 बनाई थी वह मेरे सामने नहीं बनाई थी मुझसे बाद
में दूसरे दिन दस्तखत कराये थे और सामान दिखाया था। सामान पहले दिखाया था तब जब लाशें
वामई गांव में जल गयी थी उसके बाद फर्दों पर दस्तखत कराये थे।"
Thus, this explicit admission of PW-2 proves beyond any doubt that Exhibits
Ka-2 to Ka-6 were never prepared on the spot at the scene of the incident in
the presence of PW-2 rather the recovered items were shown to this witness
next day at village Vahmai, long after the dead bodies had already been
cremated and his signatures were obtained on the memos post-facto. Hence,
under the law settled by Apex Court, such ex-post-facto signature collection
without contemporaneous spot preparation renders the recovery memos
completely void and inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
45
Since the recovery memos themselves are invalid, the prosecution has failed
to establish any legal link between the appellants and the alleged firearms,
ammunition, or recovered articles. Therefore, the admitted post-facto signing
of Exhibits Ka-2 to Ka-6 destroys all recoveries. The charges against the
appellants under Section 25 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, as well as the
corroborative link for the main offences, completely fail. Accordingly, Issue
No. 6 is answered in favour of the appellants.
111. In view of the aforesaid consideration and appreciation of the facts,
evidence and law, we now proceed to evaluate the cumulative impact of
these findings upon the overall fabric of the prosecution case.
The criminal jurisprudence mandates that a conviction for such
112.
offences cannot be founded upon isolated fragments of suspicion or
disjointed claims. The prosecution must construct an unbroken chain of
reliable evidence that proves guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. In
the present matter, from the aforesaid discussions, it is evident that there was
a comprehensive, multi-layered collapse of the prosecution's entire narrative
from its very inception. The collapse begins at the foundational level with
Issue 1 and Issue 3, where the genesis of the incident and the presence of
eye-witnesses are rendered deeply suspect. The admissions by Ram Rishi
(PW-2) that the Tehrir was completed only by 5:30 PM after visiting the site,
coupled with the unexplained 48-hour delay in placing the FIR before the
Magistrate, conclusively establish that the FIR was ante-timed and
engineered after post-event consultation. The contradictory accounts of
seating arrangements and escape routes by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3,
combined with the independent testimony of Village Pradhan (DW-1) and
I.O. (PW-17) proving that no family members were present at the scene,
further shakes the root of the prosecution. The narrative crumbles further
when tested against physical and medical science under Issue 2 and Issue 5.
The ocular claim that deceased Shashi Kumar was shot from behind from a
distance of 30 to 35 feet while fleeing is flatly contradicted by the post-
mortem report (Ex. Ka-10) and Dr. PW-5, which revealed multiple close-
range (1 to 6 feet) frontal entry wounds with blackening and tattooing
(kalima). Equally fatal is the mechanical impossibility revealed by PW-10
and PW-17; the Mahindra Bolero (UP-83-W 8238), which allegedly rammed
head-on into the Indica car at high speed and sat adjacent to a 40-minute
thermal inferno, exhibited zero burn marks, unblemished bumpers, and fully
inflated tires. Under the laws of physics, this scientific impossibility proves
that the collision story was fabricated and the Bolero was planted post-facto.
Finally, Issue No. 4 and Issue No. 6 expose the systemic fabrication and
procedural irregularity that pervaded the police investigation. The
prosecution case went from naming 8 accused and 2 vehicles in the FIR to

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
46
14 accused and 3 vehicles at trial, backed by PW-2's confession that the
police explicitly instructed him to introduce a third vehicle (Verito) because
14 men could not fit into two cars. This tutored dock identification, executed
without any Test Identification Parade (TIP), is completely neutralized by
PW-2's further admission under Issue No. 6 that all recovery memos
(Exhibits Ka-2 to Ka-6) were signed ex-post-facto on the following day at
village Vahmai without contemporaneous execution. Thus, the prosecution
has failed to establish a single reliable link in its chain of proof. The
presence of eyewitnesses at the scene of crime at the time of incident is
doubtful, the medical evidence refutes the ocular account, the FIR is ante-
timed, the scene of crime is mechanically impossible, the array of accused is
tutored and the recovery memos are legally void.
113. Hence, upon careful analysis and consideration of the settled legal
position in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the present case,
we are of the opinion that the conclusion taken by the Trial Court in the
impugned judgment and order is not in accordance with law and the
evidence available on record. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that
the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused
appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Court is inclined to grant
benefit of doubt to the accused appellants on the ground of rule of caution.
In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the
114.
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused appellants for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149,
435/149 IPC, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and Section
25/27 of the Arms Act beyond reasonable doubt and to the satisfaction of the
judicial conscience of the Court. So, the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 22.2.2018, which has been sought to be
assailed, calls for and deserves, interference. The criminal appeals are liable
to be allowed.
Accordingly, criminal appeals are and the conviction and
115. allowed
sentence imposed upon the accused appellants is set-aside, as the accused
appellants are found not guilty for the aforesaid offences. They are
honourably acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Accused
appellants are in jail. They be set at liberty. They shall be released forthwith,
if not wanted in any other case.
116. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order and the evidence
available on record, we are of the view that the trial court has rightly
acquitted the other accused persons, against whom the aforesaid Government
Appeal Nos. 329 of 2025, 330 of 2025 and Criminal Misc. Application U/S

CRLA No. 2090 of 2018
47
372 Cr.P.C. (Leave To Appeal) No. 142 of 2018 and have been moved
before this court. Hence, the said government appeals filed on behalf of the
State and application U/S 372 CrPC (Leave to Appeal) filed on behalf of the
informant are dismissed .
Copy of this order be also placed on the records of Criminal Appeal
117.
Nos. 1685 of 2018, 1752 of 2018, 1998 of 2018, 2205 of 2018, 3271 of
2019,2886 of 2018, Government Appeal Nos. 329 of 2025, 330 of 2025 and
application U/S 372 CrPC (Leave to Appeal) No. 142 of 2018.
118. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned
forthwith for compliance and also to send back the trial court record.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
119.
120. The Court would like to record its appreciation of the assistance
rendered by Ms. Anjali Singh, Research Associate.
October 16, 2026
GS / PK / safi
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MAHBOOB SAFI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad