Dhanushdhari Singh vs State Of U.P.

AFR
Reserved
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3794 of 2010
Dhanushdhari Singh …..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. …..Respondents(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Amit Kumar, Kameshwar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Debee Shanker Pandey, Govt.
Advocate, S.K.Shukla, S.K.Singh
Along with
Criminal Appeal No. 3925 of 2010
Yashwant Singh Versus State of U.P.
Court No. - 43
HON’BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
HON’BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
(Delivered by Hon’ble Vinai Kumar Dwivedi,J.)
1. Heard Sri Kameshwar Singh and Sri Amit Kumar, learned counsel
for the appellant; Sri Debee Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the
informant; Mohd. Shoeb Khan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and
perused the Trial Court record as well as the judgment.
2. Present Criminal Appeal No. 3794 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal
No. 3925 of 2010, have been preferred by convict appellant-
Dhanushdhari Singh, and Yashwant Singh respectively against the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the learned Trial Court

2
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
dated 04.06.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No. 173 of 2008, State of U.P.
Vs. Dhanushdhari Singh, Sessions Trial No. 145 of 2009 State of U.P.
Vs. Ankur Singh @ Sheru Singh and others arising out of Case Crime
No. 42 of 2008 under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 504, 506, and 427 I.P.C.
3. Prosecution story as has been narrated in the written report
Exhibit-Ka-1 is as follows; informant Digvijay Singh, has got ascribed
written report Exhibit Ka-1 from Dwarika Singh son of late Ram
Bhushan Singh and filed Exhibit Ka-1 at police station Rasda, District
Ballia. In written report Exhibit Ka-1, PW-1 has stated that informant
Digvijay Singh son of Shiv Ji Singh is a resident of Village Sului, Police
Station Rasda, district Ballia. Yesterday on 12.03.2008, at the evening
time my brother Ved Prakash Singh, told me that today in day, a dispute
has arisen between him and Ankur Singh @ Sheru Singh (since
deceased) son of Tej Bahadur Singh, resident of Village Rasda, Yashwant
Singh son of Shivnath Singh, resident of Village Rasda and Agnivesh
Singh @ Maan Singh Son of Iqbal Singh, Uttar Patti, Village Rasda,
Police Station Rasda, District Ballia and Dhanushdhari Singh, son of
Keshav Singh Azad, Village Kasme, Police Station Haldhar, District
Mau, on the point of demanding of money previously given by me and
they said that they will see him. There is a possibility that today they can
quarrel with him or cause any mis-happening. After listening these
things, I said that I will proceed with you, you do not make any dispute
or quarrel. I by one motorcycle and my brother Ved Prakash Singh,
Mayank Singh @ Nikku Singh and Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta on
another motorcycle proceeded to appear in the B.A. First year
Examination. Today on 13.03.2008, early in the morning at 06:30, we
reached at Sului turn, there in a Bolero Car of red colour, the above
Mayank Singh @ Nikku Singh and other people were sitting and saw the
motorcycle of my brother. Ankur Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased)
and all the above friends of him exhorted that today they will kill him so
that matter with regard to money will be finished. In this way, hearing
and saying of this, we became surprised. My brother Ved Prakash Singh
and both his friends ran away by the above motorcycle then Ankur

3
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) with his friends driving
the Bolero Car himself trying to chase the vehicle behind them and
coming near the pond of Hita Ka Pura with intention to kill colluded
with Bolero Car. Due to this, my brother Ved Prakash Singh has died on
the spot and Mayank Singh @ Nikku Singh, Rahul Gupta @ Guddu
Gupta become seriously injured. On making hue and cry by me, nearby
people rushed, then Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since
deceased) and his friends gave intimidation to kill and firing with
firearms have ran away. I have taken the dead body of my brother to the
Police Station and injured have been sent to the hospital at Rasda for
treatment. I have taken the dead body from the hospital and have came
to the police station.
4. On the basis of written report Exhibit Ka-1, Constable Chote Lal
Yadav PW-6 has registered the FIR Exhibit Ka-8 against the named
accused persons Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased),
Dhanushdhari Singh, Yashwant Singh, at Case Crime No. 42 of 2008
under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C. After the
registration of the F.I.R., investigation of the case was taken by Sub-
Inspector Ramashray Prasad-P.W-7, into his hands. The Investigating
Officer Ramashray Prasad-P.W.-7 prepared the panchayatnama-Exhibit
Ka-10 of the dead body of the deceased Ved Prakash Singh. Thereafter
he visited at the place of occurrence and prepared other necessary police
papers, such as letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O., again letter to C.M.O.,
photolash and sample (Namuna) and seal and sample of the stamp and
police papers in his handwriting as Exhibit Ka-11 to Exhibit Ka-16. The
Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the informant and
other prosecution witnesses and on the pointing out of the informant
Digvijay Singh and Kripa Shankar Pandey, prepared the site plan Exhibit
Ka-17. The Investigating Officer also took the sample of plain soil and
bloodstained soil from the place of occurrence and prepared a fard memo
Exhibit Ka-4. He also recovered a pulsar motorcycle and one Bajaj
Scooter from the place of occurrence and taken them into his possession
and prepared the fard memo as Exhibit Ka-3. The Investigating Officer

4
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
has recorded the statement of the other prosecution witnesses under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., and he tried to arrest the accused persons. However,
the accused persons could not be arrested, due to this reason, he prayed
for issuance of process of Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. The Investigating
Officer also sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem
examination. The Investigating Officer also recovered an admit card
from the pocket of the deceased and prepared fard memo as Exhibit Ka-
2. In the mid of the investigation, the Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector
Ramashray Prasad-P.W-7 has been transferred and the investigation of
this case was handed over to Inspector Surya Bhan Singh PW-
8. Inspector Surya Bhan Singh PW-8, however, could not complete the
work of the investigation. He took the judicial remand of accused
Dhanushdhari Singh on 19.06.2008. He was also transferred to other
place. Thereafter Circle Officer, Anil Prakash Mishra PW-10, has taken
the investigation into his hands. Anil Prakash Mishra PW-10 has again
recorded the statement of the informant and other prosecution witnesses
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Anil Prakash Mishra PW-10 has also recorded
the statement of other formal witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Anil
Prakash Mishra PW-10 has also visited the place of occurrence and
prepared the site plan of the occurrence Exhibit Ka-19. He also
requested for process of Section 82/83 against the accused persons in the
Court of the CJM, Ballia. After completing all the formalities of the
investigation, last I.O. Anil Prakash Mishra PW-10 submitted a charge-
sheet Exhibit Ka-21 against the accused persons in the Court concerned.
Against accused Dhanushdhari Singh, a charge-sheet was also submitted
by the then Inspector Rasda, Hari Prasad Gautam.
5. Dr. Roshan Singh Patel PW-5, has prepared the injury report of
Chandan Gupta, Mayank Kumar Singh, Guddu Gupta as Exhibit Ka-5,
Exhibit Ka-6, and Exhibit Ka-7 of the injured persons respectively.
Dr. Roshan Singh Patel PW-5, has prepared the injury report of injured
Chandan Gupta, as Exhibit Ka-5 and found the following injuries on the
body of Chandan Gupta:

5
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
(1) Lacerated wound approx 5 cm. in length & .5 cm in depth
present left to right eye.
(2) A Traumatic swelling with CLW approx 2.5 cm x .5 cm x .5
cm present over occipital region.
(3) A Traumatic swelling with deformity present Rt. leg upper &
middle 1/3rd - Adv. X-Ray Rt. leg
Opinion (1) & (2) simple blunt object of fresh abrasion (3)
K.U.O."
Dr. Roshan Singh Patel PW-5, has also prepared the injury report Exhibit
Ka-6 of Mayank Kumar Singh and he found the following injuries on his
body:
(1) Lacerated abrasion present over whole of Rt. scapular region
and Rt. shoulder post.
(2) Abrasion & lacerated wound present over post aspect of Rt.
elbow joint.
(3) Lacerated wound & abrasion present over Rt. hand palmar
aspect.
(4) Multiple abrasion present Rt. foot and ankle Jt. lateral aspect
and Lt. Knee Jt.
(5) Abrasion present over Lt. Forearm and Lt. Knee Jt.
On the same date, on 13.03.2008, Dr. Roshan Singh Patel PW-5, has also
examined the injured Guddu Gupta, and prepared the injury report as
Exhibit Ka-7. The following injuries were found by Dr. Roshan Singh
Patel PW-5, on the body of Guddu Gupta :
(1). CLW approx.8 cm x 1 cm x bone deep over Rt.
occipitoparietal region.
(2). CLW approx 5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. over Lt. temporal
region.
(3). CLW approx 4.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over Lt. temporal
region.

6
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
(4). Abrasion c traumatic swelling over Rt. side face.
(5) Abrasion traumatic swelling over Rt. wrist & Lt. Palm CLW
(6) L.W aprox. 4cm x 0.5 cm x upto muscle deep. Adv. X-Ray Rt.
F.A. wrist Jt. swelling over mid part of it. Middle finger on post
aspect, oozing front Adv. X-Ray Lt Hand & wrist.
(7) LW- aprox 3 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on mid part of lt. middle
finger on post aspect, oozing front Adv. X-Ray. Lt. hand & wrist.
(8) L.W. aprox. 8 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over Lt Elbow jt. post
aspect.
(9) Ab. L.W. aprox 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep over occipital
region."
6. Dr. Jameel Ahmad PW-9 has conducted the postmortem examination
of the dead body of deceased Ved Prakash Singh and prepared
postmortem report Exhibit Ka-18. Dr. Jameel Ahmad, PW-9 found the
following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased Ved
Prakash Singh.
External Injuries :
1. A lacerated wound measuring 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, situated
on the left side of the forehead.
2. A lacerated wound measuring 1 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, situated
on the eyebrow of the left eye.
3. A lacerated wound measuring 20 cm x 6 cm x bone deep,
situated on the left side of the head.
4. Contused abrasion (bruise with scratch) measuring 6 cm x 4 cm,
on the outer side of the left arm, just above the elbow joint.
5. Contused abrasion measuring 10 cm x 5 cm, behind the elbow,
just below the elbow joint.
6. Multiple abrasions within an area of 12 cm x 8 cm, on the back
of the left side.

7
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
7. Contused abrasion within an area of 10 cm x 12 cm, on the right
side of the chest.
8. A lacerated wound measuring 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, situated
below the chin.
9. Abrasion measuring 8 cm x 4 cm, on the left knee joint.
10. Abrasion measuring 20 cm x 10 cm, situated on the front side
of the right thigh.
Internal examination :
The skull bone was fractured extending from the left parietal bone to the
right parietal bone, and from the left ear bone to the right ear bone. The
brain and meninges (brain membranes) were torn. A blood clot of about
half a liter was present in the brain. The chambers of the heart were
empty.
In the opinion of Dr. Jameel Ahmad PW-9, the cause of death was ante
mortem injury that was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature.
7. After the submission of the charge-sheet against the accused
persons in the concerned Magistrate Court, case was committed to the
Court of Session for trial. The learned Trial Court has framed charge
against accused Dhanushdhari Singh on 15.10.2008 under Section
302/34 IPC, 307, 504, 506 and 427 IPC. Accused Dhanushdhari Singh
denied from the charge and demanded trial. Charges were also framed
against Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) by the Trial
Court on 22.08.2009 under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506 and 427 IPC,
accused Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) denied
from the charge levelled against him and demanded trial. Charges were
also framed by the Trial Court against accused Yashwant Singh,
Agnivesh Singh @ Maan Singh, on 22.08.2009 under Section 302, 307
read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 504, 506 and 427 IPC. Both the
accused persons have also denied from the charge levelled against them
and demanded trial.

8
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
8. To substantiate its case, prosecution has adduced informant
Digvijay Singh PW-1, Kripa Shanker Pandey PW-2, Madan Singh PW-3,
Chandra Sen Singh PW-4, as witnesses of the fact and Dr. Roshan Singh
Patel PW-5, Chote Lal Yadav PW-6, Ramashray Prasad PW-7, Surya
Bhan Singh PW-8, Dr. Jameel Ahmad PW-9, Anil Prakash Mishra PW-
10, as formal witnesses of the prosecution. Apart from the above ocular
evidence, the prosecution has also relied on documentary evidence from
Exhibit Ka-1 to Exhibit Ka-22 in support of its case.
9. After recording of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused
persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by the Trial Court.
All accused persons expressed ignorance about the questions put to them
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have also stated that police has wrongly
and falsely investigated the case and prepared false and illegal
documents against them and falsely implicated them and charge-sheeted
them in the Court without any evidence. The accused persons have also
stated that they are innocent and they are falsely implicated by the
informant with the collusion of the police due to enmity and rivalry in
the village and locality. They have also stated that they have not
committed the crime as alleged against them. They were not present at
the place of occurrence or near the place of occurrence. Police has
falsely implicate them in collusion with the prosecution due to enmity
against them. They have also stated that they will adduce evidence in
their defence. They adduced Vijay Bahadur as DW-1 and Virendra
Pratap Singh as DW-2. They have also filed documentary evidence as
Exhibit Kha-2 to Kha-5 in their defence.
10. After recording the proceedings of evidence of prosecution and
defence and hearing of the arguments of both sides, learned Trial Court
delivered the judgment and order dated 04.06.2010 in which accused
Agnivesh Singh @ Maan Singh was found innocent and he was
acquitted by the Trial Court. However, the learned Trial Court has found
guilty to accused Yashwant Singh, Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh,
(since deceased) Dhanushdhari Singh in respect of the charge as levelled
against them. The learned Trial Court has held guilty and convicted the

9
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
accused-appellant Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased)
under Section 302, 307, 504, 506 and 427 IPC. The accused-appellant
Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) was convicted for
life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. He
was convicted for ten year rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC
and by a fine of Rs. 2500/-, for charge under Section 504 IPC, he was
convicted by one year rigorous imprisonment. Under Sections 506 and
427 IPC, he was sentenced for each offence by one year rigorous
imprisonment. Accused appellant Dhanushdhari Singh and Yashwant
Singh were also held guilty and were convicted under Section 302/34
IPC, 307/34, 504, 506 and 427 IPC and each were convicted for life
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under Section 302/34 and
each were also convicted under Section 307/34 IPC by ten years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2500/- each. For the offence under
Section 504 IPC, each were convicted by one year rigorous
imprisonment and also for the offence under Section 506 IPC, each were
convicted by one year rigorous imprisonment and for the charge under
Section 427 IPC, each were sentenced by one year rigorous
imprisonment. In case of default of payment of fine, each accused
appellant were directed to serve six months additional imprisonment. All
the sentences were directed to run concurrently for each accused person.
Aggrieved by the above judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 04.06.2010, passed by the learned Trial Court, accused-Ankur
Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased), Dhanushdhari Singh,
Yashwant Singh have preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.3793 of 2010,
3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010, respectively. Since the above three
criminal appeals have arises from the same judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 04.06.2010, passed by the learned Trial
Court, hence all the three criminal appeals are being disposed off by a
common judgment of this Court.
11. It transpires from the record that, accused Ankur Kumar Singh @
Sheru Singh has died during the pendency of the appeal. Due to this
reason, Criminal Appeal No. 3793 of 2010 (Ankur Kumar Singh @

10
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
Sheru Singh Vs. State of U.P.) has become abated by order of this Court
dated 11.01.2023, therefore, we are adjudicating the present Criminal
Appeals only in respect of surviving accused-appellants Yashwant Singh
and Dhanushdhari Singh respectively.
12. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants have submitted that in
the present case, three persons namely Mayank Singh @ Nikku Singh,
Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta and Chandan Gupta, who received injuries
in the incident have not been examined and in this view of the fact,
adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution and as such,
conviction is bad in law. There is a conflict between eye-witness account
and medical evidence. None of the injuries are grievous injury. The
prosecution case is that after the deceased fell down, Ankur Kumar
Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) ran his vehicle on the body of the
deceased with to and fro motion. Allegations did not find corroboration
from medical evidence and as such, conviction is bad in law. It is also
submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants, that two
prosecution witnesses Madan Singh and Chandra Sen Singh have not
been mentioned in the FIR and their statements were recorded after eight
months from the date of incident that is to say, on 09.11.2008 and the
learned Sessions Judge committed a manifest error in placing reliance
upon the testimony of Madan Singh and Chandra Sen Singh. Learned
counsel for the accused-appellants have also submitted that a memo was
sent from the hospital to police station Rasda, District Ballia, which
contains a recital to the effect that three injured and deceased have
received injuries in the accident. The memo further continued a recital to
the effect that the body of the deceased is handed over to police station,
Rasda, Kotwali, later on, on the aforesaid words were scored out and it
was mentioned that the body was handed over to relatives. These
important aspects of the matter were never considered by the learned
Sessions Judge. It is also submitted on behalf of the accused-appellant
that the incident that happened in this case is purely an accidental case.
However, with consideration and afterthought and collusion of other
persons, the police has falsely implicated the accused-appellants in this

11
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
case. All the prosecution witnesses of the fact were not present at the
place of occurrence when accident happened. From a perusal of the
evidence of the prosecution witness of the fact, it is apparent that all
prosecution witnesses of the fact are projected eye-witnesses of the
prosecution to support the prosecution case. The learned Trial Court has
not appreciated the evidence in this respect as available on the record
and without any evidence against the accused-persons wrongly believed
on the unreliable and false evidence of the prosecution witnesses of the
fact, and held guilty to accused-appellant for the commission of the
crime. The finding and reasoning as recorded by the Trial Court is
without any evidence on the record and is against the settled principles
of law. Therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as
passed by the learned Trial Court dated 04.06.2010 is perverse and bad
in law, hence liable to be set aside and the criminal appeals of the
appellants deserves to be allowed.
13. Per contra, learned AGA-I for the State and learned private
counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the above arguments
and submissions of the appellants. The learned AGA-I on behalf of the
State and learned private counsel for the informant, have submitted that
accused persons with a pre-plan, premeditation and pre-concert, with
intention to kill the deceased Ved Prakash Singh and other injured
persons used four wheeler Bolero Vehicle in commission of the crime.
The accused persons intentionally colluded the Bolero with high speed
against motorcycle on which injured persons and deceased Ved Prakash
Singh were sitting, thereby causing a very grievous and fatal injury by
which Ved Prakash Singh died and other persons were injured seriously.
The learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence available on record
in a proper perspective. The Trial Court by appreciating the evidence has
found the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as reliable and
trustworthy. Since the Trial Court found the prosecution case proved by
evidence of prosecution behind reasonable doubt, hence held guilty and
convicted the accused-appellants in legal way and in accordance with
evidence available against them on the record. There is no illegality,

12
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
perversity in the finding and reasoning of the Trial Court. The Trial
Court has appreciated the evidence in accordance with the settled
principles of law and delivered cogent finding which is based on
evidence and, therefore, held guilty and convicted the accused persons
for the alleged crime. Therefore, there is no merit and substance in the
criminal appeals as preferred by the accused-appellant persons. Hence,
the criminal appeals as preferred by the accused-appellants are devoid of
merit and are liable to be dismissed.
14. In the light of the above submission and counter submissions
advanced on behalf of both parties, from the perusal of the written report
Exhibit Ka-1, it is clear that informant Digvijay Singh PW-1 has lodged
a written report naming all accused persons liable for commission of the
crime. In written report Exhibit Ka-1, the informant Digvijay Singh PW-
1 shows and projected himself as an eye-witness of the incident.
15. From a perusal of the evidence of informant Digvijay Singh PW-1,
we find that informant PW-1 has stated in his examination-in-chief, the
same things and facts as have been stated by him in written report
Exhibit Ka-1, which has been repeated by PW-1 in his evidence, in his
examination-in-chief which is covering in four pages. He tried to support
the prosecution story. From a perusal of the cross examination, we find
that according to this witness, on the date of incident i.e. 13.03.2008,
when brother of PW-1 Ved Prakash Singh, who was going to appear in
B.A. Part-I Examination at Mathura Degree College, Rasda, Ballia and
with him, injured Mayank Kumar Singh and Rahul Gupta were also
present. It was time about 06:30 early in the morning. Injured Mayank
Kumar Singh was driving the motorcycle and the injured Rahul Gupta
was sitting behind Mayank Kumar Singh and deceased Ved Prakash
Singh was sitting on the same motorcycle behind Rahul Gupta.
Informant was also following them by another motorcycle. According to
this witness, Bolero vehicle of the accused persons was standing near
village of the informant on the right turn of the Sului village, then this
witness had seen that accused Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since
deceased) was sitting on the driver seat and accused Yashwant Singh was

13
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
sitting on the other side of the driver. Another accused persons were
sitting in the Bolero vehicle in middle and back sides. According to this
witness, this witness heard accused Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh
(since deceased) saying that today finish Ved Prakash Singh because by
finishing Ved Prakash Singh the issue about money will also be finished.
According to this witness, informant PW-1, accused Ankur Kumar Singh
@ Sheru Singh (since deceased) moved the Bolero vehicle with high
speed and reaching near the village Bheeta Ka Pura and overtakes the
motorcycle of Mayank Singh and after overtaking the motorcycle of
Mayank Singh, Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased)
turned his vehicle again in the direction from which direction Mayank
Singh was coming driving his motorcycle with Rahul Gupta and
deceased Ved Prakash Singh. After turning his vehicle with intention to
kill, Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) colluded his
Bolero vehicle with high speed at the headside of motorcycle of Mayank
Singh. Due to this collusion, Mayank Singh, Rahul Gupta have fallen
down towards north direction and Ved Prakash Singh fell down towards
southern direction. Ved Prakash Singh tried to stand up, then Ankur
Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) with his Bolero vehicle
again colluded against Ved Prakash Singh and he moved the Bolero
vehicle over the body of Ved Prakash Singh, thereby crushed Ved
Prakash Singh. Thereafter, accused Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh
(since deceased) by turning his Bolero vehicle proceeded towards Rasda.
He also colluded on the scooter of Chandan Gupta. According to this
witness, Kripa Shankar Pandey and Madan Singh, Chandra Sen Singh of
the village have also witnessed the incident. Number of Bolero vehicle
of accused Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) is UP
54 F 9594.
16. From the evidence of informant Digvijay Singh PW-1, it is
revealed that according to this witness motive for the crime was
Rs.25,000/- which has been given by deceased Ved Prakash Singh to
accused Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) for the
purchase of a motorcycle. However, inspite of receiving Rs.25,000/- in

14
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
cash, accused Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) has
not delivered a motorcycle as had been agreed upon between Ankur
Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) and deceased Ved Prakash
Singh since Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) was
holding and running a motorcycle agency and selling motorcycle.
However, Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) has not
delivered a new motorcycle to deceased Ved Prakash Singh, then, Ved
Prakash Singh began to demand Rs.25,000/- which were given in
advance for the motorcycle. However, accused Ankur Kumar Singh @
Sheru Singh (since deceased) was not willing to give new motorcycle or
return the money to the sum of Rs. 25,000/- as given in advance by Ved
Prakash Singh. Due to continuous demand of Rs.25,000/- by deceased
Ved Prakash Singh, accused Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since
deceased) has caused the alleged crime by his Bolero vehicle when
deceased Ved Prakash Singh was going to appear in B.A. Part-I
examination with the injured Rahul Gupta and Mayank Kumar Singh.
17. Thus, from the perusal of the evidence of informant PW-1, it is
clear that target for the purpose of killing was deceased Ved Prakash
Singh. The deceased Ved Prakash Singh was sitting as third person
behind the injured Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta and Mayank Kumar
Singh. Mayank Kumar Singh was driving the motorcycle. The
motorcycle on which deceased Ved Prakash Singh was sitting was going
forward and Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) was
behind them with his Bolero vehicle. In this way, deceased Ved Prakash
Singh was on the motorcycle in front of the Bolero vehicle of the
accused appellant Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased),
in this condition it is very easy and convenient to collude his Bolero
vehicle from the back side for hitting against the deceased Ved Prakash
Singh who was sitting behind Rahul Gupta on the motorcycle, but
surprisingly according to this witness, PW-1, accused appellant Ankur
Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) has not hit and colluded
his Bolero from the back side but overtakes the motorcycle of Mayank
Singh and from the front side turned his Bolero vehicle and colluded on

15
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
the front side of the motorcycle when Mayank Singh was driving the
motorcycle and cause the accident thereby injuring Mayank Kumar
Singh, Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta, Chandan Gupta and causing death
of Ved Prakash Singh. The mode and manner of commission of the
crime which is in the form of motor vehicle accident, as has been stated
by informant Digvijay Singh PW-1 in this respect, appears to be highly
doubtful and suspicious. A number of questions at this stage arises as to
why accused-appellant Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since
deceased) has not hit and colluded the motorcycle from the back side
where the deceased Ved Prakash Singh was sitting. Accused-appellant
Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) overtakes the
motorcycle of Mayank Singh and from the front side of the motorcycle
and turned his Bolero vehicle colluded and hit the motorcycle, which
was driven by Mayank Kumar Singh, where accused-appellant Ankur
Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) overtakes the motorcycle
of Mayank Kumar Singh, turned back and colluded against the front side
of motorcycle of Mayank Kumar Singh so that Mayank Kumar Singh
who was driving the motorcycle and Rahul Gupta, who was sitting
behind Mayank Kumar Singh on the motorcycle could easily identify the
accused-appellant Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased)
and other persons who were sitting in the Bolero vehicle. The manner
and mode in which informant Digvijay Singh PW-1 has narrated the
prosecution story creates a reasonable doubt about presence of this
witness Digvijay Singh PW-1 at the place of occurrence and also on this
fact that this witness has not seen the happening of the incident/accident
with his own eyes.
18. From the perusal of the whole evidence of informant Digvijay Singh
PW-1, we find that this witness has not stated true facts and story about
happening of the incident. It is clear from the evidence of this witness
that prosecution with a view to involve and implicate falsely the
accused-persons narrated a false story with consideration, deliberation
and with afterthought and thereby falsely implicated the accused persons
in this case. The evidence of informant Digvijay Singh PW-1 is contrary

16
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
and creates doubt and suspicion about his veracity and truthfulness.
From the perusal and appreciation of the evidence of informant Digvijay
Singh PW-1, it is evident and clear that this witness has been stating
artificially false, imaginary and concocted story with a view to falsely
implicate and prosecute the accused-persons. From the evidence of this
witness Digvijay Singh PW-1, we find that the presence of this witness is
highly doubtful, suspicious at the place of occurrence. Due to this
reason, whole evidence of this witness appears to be concocted and
artificially narrating a false and fabricated story against the accused-
appellant persons. Thus, we are of the considered view that the evidence
of the informant Digvijay Singh PW-1 does not inspires any confidence,
therefore, we find the testimony of this witness as unreliable.
19. It is also a fact apparent from the evidence of informant Digvijay
Singh PW-1 that even after intimidation given by accused-appellant
Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) before a day of
incident on 12.03.2008, we find that he has not given any information or
lodged any report about intimidation against the accused-appellant
Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) at police station.
This fact also creates a suspicion about the prosecution story as written
in Exhibit Ka-1 and stated by informant Digvijay Singh PW-1 in his
evidence.
20. The prosecution has also adduced Kripa Shankar Pandey as PW-2,
Madan Singh as PW- 3 and Chandra Sen Singh as PW-4. According to
the prosecution, all the above prosecution witnesses are eye-witness of
the incident, who had seen the happening of the incident with their own
eyes. From the perusal of the evidence of Kripa Shankar Pandey - PW-2,
Madan Singh-PW- 3 and Chandra Sen Singh-PW-4, we find that above
prosecution witnesses have also stated in their evidence same statements
as have been stated by informant Digvijay Singh PW-1 in his evidence.
From the perusal of the evidence of the above witnesses it is amply clear
that the above witnesses of the prosecution have also unsuccessfully
tried to support and prove the prosecution story. However, inspite of
their best attempt, the above prosecution witnesses have miserably failed

17
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
in their attempt to prove the prosecution story by their evidence. From a
perusal of the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses, it is also
clear that prosecution witnesses Kripa Shankar Pandey PW-2, Madan
Singh PW- 3 and Chandra Sen Singh PW-4 have also been produced by
the prosecution as projected witnesses, who had not seen any happening
of the incident with their own eyes. The evidence of the above
prosecution witnesses itself indicate this fact in clear-cut manner that
prosecution witnesses Kripa Shankar Pandey PW-2, Madan Singh PW-
3 and Chandra Sen Singh PW-4 have also stated the prosecution in
artificial and concocted manner narrating an imaginary and afterthought
way, which was prepared with full consideration and deliberation. The
prosecution projected the above prosecution witnesses as an eye-witness
of the incident with a view to strengthen and support the prosecution
story and also with a view to corroborate the evidence of informant
Digvijay Singh PW-1. However, even by adducing Kripa Shankar
Pandey PW-2, Madan Singh PW- 3 and Chandra Sen Singh PW-4 as an
eyewitness of the incident for proving the prosecution story, the
prosecution has itself created a deep and reasonable doubt and suspicion
about the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the evidence of the above
prosecution witness.
21. In this way, the prosecution adduced PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-
4 as eye-witnesses of the incident, however, from the perusal and
appreciation of the whole evidence of the above prosecution witnesses,
PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, we find that their evidence and
statements does not inspire any confidence about the truthfulness of the
prosecution story. All these prosecution witnesses tried to strengthen the
case of the prosecution, but from the perusal of the evidence of the
above prosecution witnesses, it is clearly revealed from their evidence
itself that the above prosecution witnesses have narrated a concocted and
false, unbelievable and doubtful story. Due to this reason, we find the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses Digvijay Singh PW-1, Kripa
Shankar Pandey PW-2, Madan Singh PW- 3 and Chandra Sen Singh
PW-4 as unreliable and unworthy of the credit.

18
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
22. From the perusal of the evidence of Madan Singh PW-3, it is
revealed that Madan Singh PW-3 and Chandra Sen Singh PW-4 have
stated in their evidence that accused appellant Ankur Kumar Singh @
Sheru Singh (since deceased) after causing the incident has also fired
from his firearm. They have also stated that they have given this type of
statement to the Investigating Officer in their statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C. However, last I.O. Anil Kumar Mishra PW-10, though in the
course of the cross-examination by defence, has accepted this fact that
the prosecution witnesses have not given any statement to him that
accused-appellant Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased)
has fired from the firearms after committing the incident. From this fact,
it is revealed that the above prosecution witnesses have narrated and
made a false statement in the evidence in the Court only with a view to
make the prosecution story more serious and heinous. From the
statement of this witness itself and from the evidence of last
Investigating Officer Anil Kumar Mishra PW-10, statement of the above
witnesses about firing from firearms by accused-appellant Ankur Kumar
Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) proved to be false and
exaggerated. This fact also makes prosecution story to be highly
doubtful. This fact also revealed that above prosecution witnesses have
given artificial and concocted evidence in the Court against the accused
person Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased) with
consideration and afterthought only with a view to falsely implicate the
accused persons in the alleged crime.
23. In this respect, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Badam Singh Vs. State
of M.P. (2003) 12 SCC 792 held in paragraph 16 as follows:
“ 16. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the
evidence on record and accepting the evidence of the eye witnesses
found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and
sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The High Court by its
impugned judgment dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant.
We have perused the impugned judgment of the High Court. The High
Court which was the first Court of Appeal did not even carefully
appreciate the facts of the case. It mentions that the FIR was lodged
by PWs-5 and 6 whereas the fact is that the FIR was lodged by PW-4,
the Forest Officer. Without subjecting the evidence on record to a
critical scrutiny, the High Court was content with saying that the

19
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
three eye witnesses having deposed against the appellant, the
prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our view,
the High Court has not approached the evidence in the manner it
should have done being the first Court of Appeal. The mere fact that
the witnesses are consistent in what they say is not a sure guarantee
of their truthfulness. The witnesses are subjected to cross-examination
to bring out facts which may persuade a Court to hold, that though
consistent, their evidence is not acceptable for any other reason. If the
Court comes to the conclusion that the conduct of the witnesses is
such that it renders the case of the prosecution doubtful or incredible,
or that their presence at the place of occurrence as eye witnesses is
suspect, the Court may reject their evidence. That is why it is
necessary for the High Court to critically scrutinize the evidence in
some detail, it being the final court of fact. We have therefore gone
through the entire evidence on record with the assistance of counsel
for the parties.”
24. In the light of the legal principles as annunciated by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Badam Singh (supra), it is clear that only from this
fact that witnesses are consistent in what they say is not a sure guarantee
of their truthfulness. If after appreciating the evidence of prosecution
witnesses, it transpires that case of prosecution is doubtful, incredible
and it is found that their presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful,
then the Court may reject their evidence in the light of the above law.
The legal principles of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and from the
discussions of evidence in the present case, it is clear that presence of the
prosecution witnesses Digvijay Singh PW-1, Kripa Shanker Pandey PW-
2, Madan Singh PW-3, Chandra Sen Singh PW-4, at the place of
occurrence, at the time of happening of the incident, is highly doubtful,
If the presence of the prosecution witnesses Digvijay Singh PW-1, Kripa
Shanker Pandey PW-2, Madan Singh PW-3, Chandra Sen Singh PW-4,
found to be doubtful at the place of occurrence, then their evidence in
respect of prosecution story, as narrated by them in the Court, would
automatically be highly doubtful and unreliable. From the appreciation
of evidence of prosecution witnesses, Digvijay Singh PW-1 and Kripa
Shanker Pandey PW-2, Madan Singh PW-3, Chandra Sen Singh PW-4,
we find that evidence of these witnesses indicate that they were not
present at the place of occurrence when incident happened. Due to this
reason and in the light of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Badam Singh (Supra), we find that evidence of prosecution
witnesses informant Digvijay Singh PW-1, Kripa Shanker Pandey PW-2,

20
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
Madan Singh PW-3, Chandra Sen Singh PW-4, are found to be
unreliable and unworthy of credit.
25. According to the prosecution story itself, from the written report
Exhibit Ka-1 and also from the evidence of Digvijay Singh PW-1, Kripa
Shanker Pandey PW-2, Madan Singh PW-3, Chandra Sen Singh PW-4,
this is clearly established fact that in this so-called incident, Mayank
Kumar Singh, Rahul Gupta and Chandra Sen Singh have also received
fatal injuries. From the record of the file, the injury report of Chandan
Gupta Exhibit Ka-5, injury report of Mayank Kumar Singh Exhibit Ka-6
and injury report of Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta Exhibit Ka-7 are
available and Dr. Roshan Singh Patel PW-5, who examined the body of
above injured persons and prepared their injury reports, as Exhibit Ka-5,
6 and 7. At the time of the incident, injured Mayank Kumar Singh was
driving the motorcycle and injured Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta was
sitting on the motorcycle behind Mayank Kumar Singh and behind
Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta, deceased Ved Prakash Singh was sitting
on the motorcycle. In this way, those injured witnesses Mayank Kumar
Singh and Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta are best witness of the
prosecution for supporting the prosecution case. However, surprisingly
the prosecution has not adduced the injured witness Mayank Kumar
Singh, who was driving the motorcycle on the date of the incident and
also not produced Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta, who was also sitting
behind Mayank Kumar Singh on the motorcycle. Both Mayank Kumar
Singh and Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta being an injured in the said
incident, are natural, real and best witnesses of the case. However, the
prosecution has not produced Mayank Kumar Singh and Rahul Gupta @
Guddu Gupta as prosecution witnesses in support of its case. The
prosecution was duty bound to produce the injured witnesses Mayank
Kumar Singh and Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta in support of its case.
However, surprisingly the prosecution withheld the evidence of Mayank
Kumar Singh and Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta by not producing them
in the Court. If the prosecution would have produced Mayank Kumar
Singh and Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta, who are injured witnesses in

21
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
respect of this case, then in this condition prosecution story would easily
be proved behind reasonable doubt against the accused person Ankur
Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased). There is no answer to
this question for prosecution that why and under what circumstances,
prosecution has not adduced the injured Mayank Kumar Singh and
Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta as prosecution witnesses. It is apparent
from the above facts and circumstances that prosecution with a plan and
purpose with consideration, afterthought, withheld the valuable evidence
of injured Mayank Kumar Singh and Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta from
coming into Court. The prosecution on one side withheld the evidence of
injured Mayank Kumar Singh and Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta and on
the other side tried to project Digvijay Singh PW-1, Kripa Shanker
Pandey PW-2, Madan Singh PW-3, Chandra Sen Singh PW-4 as an
eyewitness with a purpose to falsely, concocted, with consideration and
afterthought to implicate the accused persons falsely on their evidence in
this case. In this way, prosecution withheld natural witnesses injured
Mayank Kumar Singh and Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta for giving their
evidence and produced concocted and artificial evidence of Digvijay
Singh PW-1, Kripa Shanker Pandey PW-2, Madan Singh PW-3, Chandra
Sen Singh PW-4, of the prosecution witness in support of its case.
However, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses Digvijay Singh
PW-1, Kripa Shanker Pandey PW-2, Madan Singh PW-3, Chandra Sen
Singh PW-4, prosecution story itself becomes highly doubtful and
suspicious, creating doubt about the veracity and truthfulness of the
prosecution story. From the perusal of the evidence of Dr. Roshan Singh
Patel PW-5 who prepared the injury report of injured Mayank Kumar
Singh and Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta Exhibit Ka-5 and Exhibit Ka-6
and Chandra Sen Singh Exhibit Ka-7, respectively, it is stated by this
witness during the course of cross-examination, that paper No.8, which
has signature of CHC Superintendent Dr. Kailash Singh addressed to the
in-charge Inspector P.S. Kotwali Rasda and handwritten has contained an
information that after receiving injuries in an accident, Mayank Kumar
Singh and Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta and one other dead person have

22
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
been brought by some people at the CHC. Name of the deceased person
has been mentioned as Ved Prakash Singh. Paper No.8-Ka, which has
endorsed the signatures of CHC Superintendent Dr. Kailash Singh has
been proved by Dr. Roshan Singh Patel PW-5 as Exhibit Kha-1. Dr.
Roshan Singh Patel PW-5 has stated that I have entered the injuries of
the three injured persons in the accidental register. The above evidence
and facts as stated by Dr. Roshan Singh Patel PW-5, revealed that
injured Mayank Kumar Singh, Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta and
deceased Ved Prakash Singh, who has received injuries in motorvehicle
accident, due to this reason the injuries of the injured persons were
entered by this witness in accidental register and intimation has also
been sent by paper No.8 Ka, which is Exhibit Kha-1 addressed to the In-
charge Inspector, P.S. Kotwali Rasda, district Ballia. This fact also
makes the prosecution story suspicious and unreliable.
26. Illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act (Act No.
1 of 1872) provides that ‘that evidence which could be and is not
produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who
withholds it.’ In the present case, according to the prosecution itself, on
the date, time of incident, Mayank Kumar Singh driving the motorcycle
on which deceased Ved Prakash Singh was sitting. According to the
prosecution itself, Mayank Kumar Singh driving the motorcycle and
behind Mayank Kumar Singh, Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta was sitting
and behind Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta deceased Ved Prakash Singh
was sitting. Accused Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh (since
deceased) driving his Bolero vehicle overtakes Mayank Kumar Singh
and returned after turning his Bolero vehicle and with high speed
colluded his Bolero vehicle on the front side of the motorcycle, which
was being driven by Mayank Kumar Singh. Mayank Kumar Singh,
Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta have also received injuries and they were
injured persons. Apart from that, it is said that one Chandan Gupta has
also received injuries by the Bolero vehicle of accused Ankur Kumar
Singh @ Sheru Singh (since deceased). In this way, injured Mayank
Kumar Singh, Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta and Chandan Gupta were

23
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
best witnesses of the prosecution, since they have also become injured in
this accident. However, prosecution withhold the evidence of injured
persons Mayank Kumar Singh, Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta and
Chandan Gupta. Prosecution has not adduced any injured person
amongst Mayank Kumar Singh, Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta and
Chandan Gupta. This is a case of motor-vehicle incident or accident and
it is prosecution story that accused Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh
(since deceased), has used his Bolero vehicle as a weapon in killing the
deceased Ved Prakash Singh by colluding his Bolero vehicle on the front
side of the motorcycle, which was driven by Mayank Kumar Singh. This
conduct of the prosecution in not adducing and examining any of the
injured person, creates a reasonable doubt about the veracity of the
prosecution story, as narrated by informant Digvijay Singh PW-1 and
other prosecution witnesses such as Kripa Shanker Pandey PW-2, Madan
Singh PW-3, Chandra Sen Singh PW-4.
27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs. Union
of India and Another 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271, has held in paragraph 10
as follows :
“ 10. It is a cardinal rule in the law of evidence that
the best available evidence should be brought before the
Court to prove a fact or the points in issue. But it is left
either for the prosecution or for the defence to establish its
respective case by adducing the best available evidence and
the Court is not empowered under the provisions of the
Code to compel either the prosecution or the defence to
examine any particular witness or witnesses on their sides.
Nonetheless if either of the parties with-holds any evidence
which could be produced and which, if produced, be
unfavourable to the party withholding such evidence, the
court can draw a presumption under illustration (g) to
Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In such a situation a
question that arises for consideration is whether the
presiding officer of a Court should simply sit as a mere
umpire at a contest between two parties and declare at the
end of the combat who has won and who has lost or is there
not any legal duty of his own, independent of the parties, to
take an active role in the proceedings in finding the truth
and administering justice? It is a well accepted and settled
principle that a Court must discharge its statutory
functions-whether discretionary or obligatory-according to

24
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
law in dispensing justice because it is the duty of a Court
not only to do justice but also to ensure that justice is being
done. In order to enable the Court to find out the truth and
render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section
540 of the Code (Section 311 of the New Code) are enacted
whereunder any Court by exercising its discretionary
authority at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceeding
can summon any person as a witness or examine any person
in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall
or re-examine any person in attendance though not
summoned as a witness or recall and re-examine any person
already examined who are expected to be able to throw light
upon the matter in dispute; because if judgments happen to
be rendered on inchoate,, inconclusive and speculative
presentation of facts, the ends of justice would be defeated.”
28. In the light of the legal principles, as laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni (supra), we find that learned
Trial Court has not tried to summon the injured prosecution witnesses,
Mayank Kumar Singh, Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta and Chandan
Gupta under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court has full power to
summon any person as a witness for doing the full and complete justice.
On the other side, the Trial Court has not performed its legal duty by
summoning as witness the injured persons Mayank Kumar Singh, Rahul
Gupta @ Guddu Gupta and Chandan Gupta under Section 311 Cr.P.C.,
and on the other side, the Trial Court has also not drawn an adverse
inference against the prosecution. In the light of Illustration (g) of
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, by not adducing injured
witnesses Mayank Kumar Singh, Rahul Gupta @ Guddu Gupta and
Chandan Gupta as a witness in Court and also not summoning the above
witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Trial Court committed an error
and by misappreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the
settled principles of law, wrongly held guilty to the accused appellants
for the commission of the crime. It is also settled principles of law that
heinous the crime heavier the burden of proof upon the prosecution. In
any criminal case, prosecution can prove its case either by direct
evidence or by circumstantial evidence. If prosecution completely fails
to prove its case by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence, then
in this condition, prosecution story would be automatically fall on the

25
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
ground as suspicious and doubtful story. It is also settled principles of
law that no accused person could be convicted on doubtful evidence of
prosecution. For conviction in a criminal case like murder, prosecution
in every circumstances, is liable and bound to prove its case behind all
reasonable doubts either by direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence. Hence, in the light of the above observations, prosecution
story also becomes suspicious and thereby unbelievable.
29. From the perusal of the evidence of Dr. Jameel Ahmad PW-9,
who conducted the postmortem examination of dead body of deceased
Ved Prakash Singh and prepared postmortem report as Exhibit Ka-18, it
is revealed from the statement, as given in his cross-examination, that
this witness has accepted in clear-cut words that there was no marks or
sign of grouting on the body of the deceased. This witness has also
accepted that there was no mark of tyre of motor-vehicle on the body of
the deceased. However, the prosecution witnesses are stating in their
evidence that accused-appellant Ankur Kumar Singh @ Sheru Singh
(since deceased) ran his Bolero vehicle over the body of the deceased
Ved Prakash Singh and thereby crushed the body of the deceased.
However, statement of Dr. Jameel Ahmad PW-9 clearly refuted the
evidence of prosecution witnesses, such as informant Digvijay Singh
PW-1, Kripa Shanker Pandey PW-2, Madan Singh PW-3, Chandra Sen
Singh PW-4, in this respect. Therefore, the evidence of the so-called
eyewitnesses and medical evidence does not corroborate to each other.
The evidence of witnesses of facts does not find support and
corroboration from the evidence of Dr. Jameel Ahmad PW-9. This fact
also creates a reasonable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution
story and reliability of the evidence of prosecution witness. Hence, we
are of the considered view in the above facts and circumstances of the
case, that this is also a strong ground which throw a cloud of shadow on
the truthfulness of the prosecution story.
30. We have also perused and gone through the finding and reasoning
as delivered by learned Trial Court in its judgment and order dated
04.06.2010, and find from the perusal of the same that the learned Trial

26
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
Court has not kept in mind and considered the evidence in this regard in
the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Trial Court in
cursory and casual manner wholly believing and relying on the evidence
of informant Digvijay Singh PW-1, Kripa Shanker Pandey PW-2, Madan
Singh PW-3, Chandra Sen Singh PW-4, delivered a finding of conviction
without any cogent and reliable evidence available on the record and
also against the settled principles of law. The learned Trial Court has not
meticulously analysed and appreciated the prosecution evidence, which
are highly doubtful and unreliable and unworthy of credit. In heinous
case like a murder in which three persons are convicted for murder, the
learned Trial Court has great responsibility and duty to analyse and
appreciate, the prosecution evidence very meticulously and on every
point and aspect. If on careful and proper appreciation of evidence the
learned Trial Court finds that by its evidence, if prosecution is able to
prove the prosecution story behind reasonable doubt, only in that
condition a finding about guilt should be recorded by the Trial Court.
However, in the present case, the Trial Court has not performed his duty
as imposed by the provisions of law in this regard. In view of the above
facts and legal aspects, we are of the considered view that the judgment
of conviction and sentence dated 04.06.2010, as passed by the learned
Trial Court is perverse and without any evidence in this regard and also
against the settled principles of law in this respect. Due to this reason,
judgment of conviction and sentence of the learned Trial Court dated
04.06.2010 is not found sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, we set
aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.06.2010 as
passed by the learned Trial Court.
31. In the light of the above discussions, we find force in the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants in this
respect.
32. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal No. 3794 of 2010 and
Criminal Appeal No. 3925 of 2010, preferred by convict appellant-
Dhanushdhari Singh and Yashwant Singh, respectively against the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the learned Trial Court

27
CRLA Nos.- 3794 of 2010 and 3925 of 2010
dated 04.06.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No. 173 of 2008 State of U.P.
Vs. Dhanushdhari Singh, Sessions Trial No. 145 of 2009 State of U.P.
Vs. Ankur Singh @ Sheru Singh and others arising out of Crime No. 42
of 2008 under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 504, 506, and 427 I.P.C. are
hereby allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence of
the learned Trial Court dated 04.06.2010 is hereby set aside.
33. The appellants Dhanushdhari Singh and Yashwant Singh,
respectively are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are
discharged from their liabilities.
34. Let this judgment and order be sent with Trial Court record to the
Trial Court for necessary compliance, forthwith.
(Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, J) (Siddharth, J.)
July ,2026
NSC
Digitally signed by :-
NARENDRA SINGH CHAUDHARY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad