Ranjeet Singh And Another vs State Of U.P.
- Court
- Allahabad High Court
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:80146-DB
Reserved on: 30.09.2026
Delivered on: 05.11.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 232 of 1986
Ranjeet Singh and another
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : R.k. Singh, Nagendra Mohan,
Suresh Chandra Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Govt. Advocate,
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants and
Sri Arunendra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code (herein after referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) has been preferred
by the appellants Ranjeet Singh and Sarvajeet Singh against the
judgment and order dated 31.03.1986 passed by learned Session Judge,
Faizabad in S.T. No. 491 of 1985: State Vs. Ranjit Singh and another;
whereby the appellant-Ranjit Singh was convicted under Section 302 of
2
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and appellant-Sarvajeet
Singh was convicted under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 of
I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
3. Briefly stated prosecution story is that the informant/brother of the
deceased, namely, Narendra Singh was present in village Pratappur of
District of Sultanpur. Having received the information about the murder
of his brother he came to village Pariyaye, where the informant and his
brother (deceased) had settled because of the “Pahi” cultivation and
having come to know about the entire story from his brother’s wife and
the witnesses, the First Information Report (herein after referred to as
“FIR”) (Ext Ka-1) was prepared and the written report lodged at the
police station on 28.08.1994 at about 11.30 A.M. alleging therein that in
between the night of 27/28th August, 1984 at about mid-night in village
Pariyaye when the deceased Rajendra Prasad was sleeping in the outer
veranda of his house, the accused persons arrived at mid-night armed
with country-made pistols and Ranjit Singh fired at him with his weapon
which resulted in his death. Both the accused were armed with Katte and
had gone to commit the murder of the deceased on the said night. Upon
the alarm raised by the wife of the deceased who was sleeping on the
same cot, the witnesses Radhey Shyam and Indrajeet arrived on the spot.
They had seen the accused running away in the torchlight after
committing the murder. The wife of the deceased Smt. Malti had also
seen the accused in torchlight. The accused persons having reached the
spot, in a loud voice, had questioned as to who was sleeping there. Upon
their loud questioning Smt. Malti awoke and had seen both the accused
armed with Katta. She raised alarm but soon after Ranjit accused fired
with his country-made pistol at the deceased from a close range and ran
away.
4. On the basis of written report (Ext Ka-1), a Chik Report (Ext Ka-
3) was prepared and the investigation was handed over to Sub-Inspector
Arjun Prakash Srivastava (P.W-7). PW-6 Sub-Inspector Anil Kumar
Singh proved the Chik Report and on that basis the case was registered
3
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
at Police Station. He has proved the entry of General Diary dated
28.08.84 at Sl No. 9. This Officer visited the place of occurrence at
about 1.20 P.M. and found the dead body of the deceased lying on a cot
in the outer veranda of the house. He prepared the inquest report (Ext
Ka-5), Challan Lash (Ext Ka-6), Photo Lash (Ext Ka-7), report for
conducting the post-mortem examination (Ext Ka-8), collected blood
stained earth and plain earth, recorded the statements of complainant
Narendra Bahadur and the witnesses of the inquest report and sent the
dead body of the deceased for autopsy.
5. The Investigating Officer Arjun Prakash Srivastava (P.W-7) took
over the investigation from S.I. Anil Kumar Singh (PW-6) and
interrogated the complainant Narendra Bahadur (PW-1) and the
witnesses of the inquest report, recorded the statements of witnesses Smt
Malti Singh (PW-2), Indrajeet Singh (PW-5) and Radhey Shyam (PW-4),
prepared Supurdaginama (Ex ka-14), prepared site plan and the index
(Ex Ka-15).
6. During investigation, the accused persons had surrendered in
Court and their statements were recorded by Sub-Inspector Rana Bhanu
Pratap Singh. The investigation culminated into filing of charge sheet
(Ext Ka-16). Accused Ranjit Singh has been charged under Section 302
of I.P.C. whereas the other accused Sarvajeet Singh has been charged
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The accused persons
denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced ocular
evidence of informant/complainant PW-1 Narendra Bahadur Singh, PW-
2 Smt Malti, PW-3 Dr. A.H. Khan, PW-4 Radhey Shyam Singh, PW-5
Indrajeet Singh, PW-6 Sub-Inspector Anil Kumar Singh and PW-7 Sub-
Inspector Arjun Prakash.
4
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
8. The prosecution produced and proved the following documentary
evidence- written report (Ext Ka-1), a Chik Report (Ext Ka-3), inquest
report (Ext Ka-5), Challan Lash (Ext Ka-6), Photo Lash (Ext Ka-7),
report for conducting the post-mortem examination (Ext Ka-8), post-
mortem report (Ext ka-2), recovery memo (Ext Ka-10, Ka-11 and Ka-14)
and Site Plan Ext Ka-15).
9. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of
the accused person was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. The accused
denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. The defence has examined
no witness but have filed the certified copy of the statement of one
Suresh Singh given in Sessions Trial No. 63 of 1982 (Ext Kha-1).
10. Having heard the counsels for both the parties and perused the
evidence on record the learned trial court convicted appellant-Ranjit
Singh under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for
life and convicted appellant-Sarvajeet Singh under Section 302 of IPC
read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for
life.
11. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence the
appellants-accused have preferred this appeal.
12. Learned counsel for appellants submits that learned trial Court did
not consider the facts, evidences and circumstances in correct
perspective and passed the impugned judgment and order in arbitrary
and mechanical manner which is not consonance with the law.
13. He further submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
—including the three eyewitnesses, namely Smt. Malti (PW-2),
Radheyshyam (PW-4), and Indrajeet (PW-5)—does not inspire
confidence. As this was a shooting incident occurring in the intervening
5
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
night of August 28, 1984, it is implausible that these witnesses could
have awoken in time to witness the firing
14. He next submits that the FIR is highly delayed and no plausible
explanation has been offered. He next submits that the witnesses of fact
are inimical to the appellants. The motive, as alleged, is much more
compatible with the false implication of the appellants rather than
accounting for the happening of the incident. He further submits that the
investigation was conducted in a mechanical manner, which is tainted
and does not inspire confidence. There was no opportunity to recognize
the real assailants. The source of light was manipulated and
manufactured by the prosecution for the purpose of the case.
Furthermore, there are major discrepancies and inconsistencies in the
testimony of the witnesses; therefore, the witnesses are not of sterling
quality. The post-mortem of the deceased was not conducted within a
reasonable time. Consequently, the findings and observations given by
the learned Trial Court are perverse, which are liable to be set aside, and
the appeal is liable to be allowed. The convict-appellants are liable to be
acquitted of the charges leveled against them.
15. On the other hand, the learned A.G.A. submits that the learned
trial court passed the impugned order after considering the entire facts,
evidences and circumstances of the case. He further submits that since
the incident took place during the night in a village where the deceased
resided, it was not possible to rush to the police station immediately;
thus, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been properly explained. He
further submits that the motive for causing the death of the deceased has
been established by adducing cogent, clear, and convincing evidence. He
further submits that the minor discrepancies and inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the witnesses are of no significance as they do not corrode
the core of the prosecution's case. He next submits that the accused-
assailants were identified by the wife of the deceased in the light of a
torch. Therefore, there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned
6
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
judgment and order and the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be
dismissed.
16. Upon hearing the submissions of both parties, the following points
are formulated for determination of this appeal:
i) Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt.
ii) Whether the trial court's findings and observations are not in
consonance with the law, and whether the conviction and sentence
passed by the court are liable to be set aside.
Both points are interlinked; therefore, they are taken up for
consideration together.
17. On perusal of the FIR, it is revealed that the alleged incident
occurred on the intervening night of 27/28.08.1984 at about 12:00
midnight. However, the FIR was lodged at the police station on the next
day, i.e., 28.08.1984 at about 11:30 AM—a delay of almost 11 hours—
even though the distance between the police station and the place of
occurrence was stated to be only 2 miles. Now, the question arises as to
why the police were not informed immediately by the victim or the
informant.
18. A perusal of the record reveals that the FIR was lodged by
Narendra Bahadur Singh, the real brother of the deceased, Rajendra
Prasad. In the FIR, it is averred that the deceased was residing with his
family in village Pariyaye, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Bhiti,
District Faizabad, while the informant was then residing in village
Pratapur, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kurebhar, District
Sultanpur.
19. Smt. Malti (PW-2), wife of the deceased, stated that her family
comprised of her husband, herself, and her two children. The informant,
Narendra Bahadur—who is her brother-in-law ( devar )—resided in
Pratapur, Sultanpur. She explained that the FIR was not lodged that night
because no adult male member was present at home and only her two
7
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
children were with her. Consequently, on the following morning, when
her brother-in-law Narendra Bahadur arrived, she narrated the entire
incident to him, after which he lodged the FIR.
20. Narendra Bahadur (PW-1) also stated that after receiving
information about the incident from Amarjeet Singh at about 6:30 AM,
he reached Pariyaye village and saw that his brother's dead body was
lying on a cot in the verandah. The deceased's wife, Malti Singh, and
some other people informed him about the occurrence and the
involvement of the accused persons, after which he prepared the tehrir
(Exhibit Ka-1) and presented it to the police. He further stated that at the
police station, the Head Moharrir questioned him regarding the delay in
lodging the FIR. He replied that because he was not present at his native
place and arrived only after receiving the information, the delay had
occurred. He added that he reached the police station around 11:00 AM
and stayed there for about 3 to 4 hours. He also noted that Pratapur
village is 25 kilometers away from Pariyaye village and Amarjeet Singh
had traveled there by bicycle to inform him.
21. Sub-Inspector Anil Kumar Singh (PW-6 ) deposed that on the basis
of the written report (Exhibit Ka-1), the Chik FIR of the case was
prepared by Head Moharrir Ram Vishwakarma in his own handwriting
and signature. This witness also identified and testified to his
handwriting and signature, proving the Chik FIR as Exhibit Ka-3 and the
copy of the GD as Exhibit Ka-4. In the Chik FIR (Exhibit Ka-3), the
scribe of the Chik raised questions to the informant regarding the delay
in lodging the FIR, to which the informant replied that he was residing at
his current address when he received information about the incident in
the morning, after which he went to Village Pariyawan and subsequently
came to lodge the FIR.
22. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the FIR in a criminal
case is not a substantive piece of evidence, though it remains a valuable
one. It is a well-settled principle that an inordinate and unexplained
delay in lodging an FIR introduces the possibility of embellishment,
8
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
manipulation or a colored version of the prosecution’s case. Therefore,
whenever a delay occurs in lodging the FIR, a satisfactory explanation
must be offered by the prosecution.
23. In the case at hand, we find that the delay in lodging the FIR was
adequately explained from the very inception in the FIR itself.
Furthermore, during their depositions, both the informant and the wife of
the deceased fully explained why the FIR was not lodged immediately.
We find the explanation provided by the prosecution witnesses to be
satisfactory.
24. Now it has to be seen that whether as per averment made in FIR
such occurrence has occurred or not ?
25. Motive is not a sine qua non for the commission of a crime.
Moreover, it takes a backseat in a case where there is a direct ocular
account of the commission of the offence by a particular person. In a
case of direct evidence, the element of motive does not play such an
important role as to cast any doubt on the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses. Even if there is any doubt in this regard, provided the
eyewitnesses are trustworthy, the motive attributed for the commission
of the crime may not be of much relevance. Failure to prove motive or
absence of evidence on the point of motive cannot be fatal to the
prosecution's case when other reliable evidence available on record
unerringly establishes the guilt of the accused persons, as held in the
case of Shivraj Bapuray Jadhav versus State of Karnatka (2003) 6
SCC 392, Sanaullah Khan Vs. State of Bihar (2013) 3 SCC 52,
Brahm Swaroop and another versus State of UP (2011) 6 SCC 288.
26. In the case at hand, there was animosity between the deceased and
the accused persons, as averred in the FIR, owing to a case under Section
307 IPC in which the deceased had deposed against the accused.
27. Although PW-1, informant Narendra Bahadur Singh, is not an
eyewitness to the alleged incident—having admitted that he reached the
spot only after receiving information and lodged the FIR after gathering
facts—his testimony is hearsay only to that extent. For other relevant
9
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
facts, his evidence retains material value. He deposed that in 1988, a
criminal case under Section 307 IPC ( Paras Nath and Vijay Pratap
Singh v. Accused Persons and Others ) was initiated, in which his
deceased brother, Rajendra Prasad, was a witness. He further stated that
the deceased had informed him of a threat issued by the accused, Ranjeet
Singh, warning that Rajendra Prasad would be killed if he testified
against him. Approximately three to four months after the judgment in
that case was pronounced, the deceased was killed.
28. During his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that the FIR in the
earlier criminal case was lodged by Vijay Pratap Singh and the injured
person was Paras Nath Singh. However, he expressed unawareness as to
whether Suresh Singh was also a witness in that case alongside his
deceased brother. He further stated that Indrajeet, son of Suresh Singh, is
a witness in the present case, and that witness Radheshyam is the brother
of Vijay Pratap Singh (who had lodged the FIR in the IPC Section 307
case). He also admitted that Amarjeet Singh, son of Paras Nath Singh,
was the person who came to inform him about the occurrence of the
present case.
29. On the basis of the above facts, the appellants endeavoured to
prove that the informant deposed out of enmity and that the facts
mentioned in the FIR are incorrect and were narrated solely to implicate
the appellants falsely.
30. PW-2 Malti, the wife of the deceased who was examined as an
eyewitness, deposed that the accused persons, Indrajeet Singh and
Amarjeet Singh, are real brothers against whom her deceased husband
had given evidence in a criminal case. Due to this enmity, the accused
persons bore a grudge against him. Furthermore, Rajendra Prasad,
Parasnath, Vijay Pratap, and Suresh Singh had also given evidence
against them.
31. Thus, it is established that prior to the alleged incident, the
relationship between the deceased and the accused persons was not
cordial; they shared a strained relationship. Enmity is a double-edged
10
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
sword: while it raises the possibility that other miscreants committed the
offence and the accused were falsely implicated, it is equally possible
that the accused committed the crime and were rightly named in the FIR.
In view of such a possibility, the evidence available on record must be
scrutinized with utmost care and caution. Therefore, we shall examine
the ocular testimony very carefully and cautiously.
32. As previously discussed, upon receiving information regarding the
alleged incident, he arrived at the spot. He admitted that at the time of
the incident, he was present in Village Pragtappur, Sultanpur. Thus, he is
not an eyewitness to the alleged incident, and his testimony constitutes
hearsay, which carries no evidentiary value.
33. On perusal of the record, it transpires that PW3 Radheyshyam had
stated that on the day of the alleged incident at about 12:00 to 1:00 p.m.,
he was present in his verandah. His house is situated 30 to 35 paces
away from the house of the deceased. Upon hearing the alarm, he rushed
towards the spot, flashing his torch. When he was 20 to 22 paces away
from the deceased's house, he saw, in the flash of his torch, that accused
Ranjeet Singh and Sarvajeet Singh were present near the cot of the
deceased. Sarvajeet Singh was flashing his torch, and Ranjeet Singh shot
a firearm from close range. He also stated that Sarvajeet was holding a
torch in his left hand and a katta (country-made pistol) in his right hand.
He further deposed that at that time, witness Indrajeet Singh was also
approaching while flashing a torch and he too saw the accused persons.
He further stated that thereafter, he and witness Indrajeet Singh went to
the house of the deceased, Rajendra Prasad, where he saw that Rajendra
Prasad was lying in a pool of blood on his cot, while his wife was sitting
under the cot. He had heard the gunshot after he started running from his
house and had covered ten to fifteen paces. He further stated that when
he first saw the accused Ranjeet Singh, Ranjeet was standing towards the
western side, and accused Sarvajeet Singh was standing at a distance of
one pace from him. The deceased’s wife was sitting on the ground,
where her younger son was also lying, while her elder son was lying on
11
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
the cot. He further stated that witness Indrajeet met him at the doorstep
of the deceased's house.
34. Learned counsel emphasized that when this witness was on the
way, he heard the gunshot fire. This directly contradicts his earlier
statement, wherein he claimed that when he flashed the torch, the
accused, Ranjeet Singh, fired the gunshot at close range. Thus, his
testimony cannot be relied upon to prove that he saw the accused cause
the death of the deceased by gunshot fire. Furthermore, this witness's
testimony reveals that when he reached the spot, none of the accused
were present, suggesting he concocted the story to justify his presence at
the scene and fabricate the identification of the accused. His credibility
is also impeached on the grounds that he is an inimical witness; he
admitted that his elder brother had previously lodged an FIR against the
accused persons under Section 307 of the IPC, in which the accused
were ultimately acquitted. Although he has denied that he deposed
against the accused persons due to enmity, the fact that he is an inimical
witness cannot be ignored. Furthermore, his presence at the scene has
not been controverted by the accused, despite some discrepancies in his
statement.
35. Another witness, Indrajeet Singh (PW5), who also claims to be an
eyewitness to the alleged incident, deposed that between 12:00 and 1:00
a.m. he heard the victim's screams and rushed toward the deceased's
house. After walking 8 to 10 paces and flashing his torch, he saw that the
accused, Ranjeet Singh and Sarvajeet Singh, were standing near the cot
of the deceased, Rajendra Prasad, who was lying on it. He further
deposed that as he rushed to the scene, another witness, Radheshyam,
also arrived flashing his torch. Upon reaching the spot, they saw that
Rajendra Prasad had sustained a gunshot injury and within 1 to 2
minutes, succumbed to his injuries.
36. On cross-examination, he stated that on the night of the incident,
at about 9:00 p.m., he had gone to sleep. However, upon hearing the
alarm, he woke up, and after moving 8 to 10 paces from his house, he
12
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
heard gunshots being fired. He further stated that at that time, he was 15
to 20 paces away from the deceased's house.
37. It is undisputed that the house of both witnesses is situated within
25 to 30 paces of the deceased's house. Therefore, while not immediate
next-door neighbors, they live close enough to hear anyone screaming at
night.
38. Upon cross-examination, he stated that Surajbhan Singh—who is
his maternal uncle—resides in District Azamgarh, but added that he was
unaware if Vijay Pratap Singh is Surajbhan Singh's paternal uncle ( fufa ).
He further testified that he had no knowledge of his father, Suresh Singh,
having given evidence in a case under Section 307 IPC against the
accused persons. He categorically affirmed that there was no enmity
between his father and the accused persons.
39. Learned counsel made an endeavor to establish enmity between
the family of the witness and the accused persons, but no such facts
emerged from his testimony that would reveal any hostility. Therefore,
since these witnesses are neighbors of the deceased and reached the spot
upon hearing a hue and cry, their presence at the scene cannot be
discarded merely on the ground that PW-4 and PW-5 are inimical or
motivated by hostility.
40. Now, we scrutinize the testimony of the star witness, Malti (PW2),
the wife of the deceased. She deposed that between 12:00 AM and 1:00
AM, she was lying on a cot in the verandah alongside her husband and
younger child. The accused persons, Ranjeet Singh and Sarvajeet Singh,
approached the cot and loudly asked who was sleeping. Awakened by
their raised voices, she saw in the flash of a torch that both accused were
armed with kattas (country-made pistols), with Sarvajeet Singh holding
a torch in his left hand. She then raised an alarm, shouting, 'mar dala'
(they have killed him). Accused Ranjeet fired a gunshot at her husband.
She further stated that upon her screaming, witnesses Inderjit and
Radhey Shyam arrived, and upon seeing them, the accused persons fled.
13
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
She specifically asserted that witnesses Indrajeet and Radhey Shyam saw
the accused had shot the deceased.
41. On cross-examination, she stated that at the time of the alleged
incident, the weather was warm, and although it was raining, they were
sleeping in the verandah because of the heat.
42. Learned counsel tried to establish that it is not a natural practice to
sleep with one's husband in the verandah. To this, the witness stated that
while it is generally true that ladies do not sleep outdoors with their
husbands, it is not a universal rule. Learned counsel also tried to
establish that since three persons were lying on a single cot, it would not
be possible for the accused persons to target only the deceased. He
contended that firing 12-bore cartridges would naturally result in
scattered pellets injuring the other two individuals sleeping alongside.
However, we do not agree with this contention. The witness
categorically stated that upon hearing the loud voices of the accused, she
woke up and flashed her torch, identifying the accused. Furthermore,
PW-4 and PW-5 deposed that when they arrived at the scene, Malti (PW-
2) was sitting on the ground beneath the cot, and her younger son was
also lying on the ground. Thus, the contention raised by the counsel for
the appellants lacks merit.
43. Citing another piece of evidence regarding this witness, it is
emphasized that had she been present at the time of the incident, she
would have necessarily attempted to save her husband.
44. It is a well-settled principle of law that during an alleged incident,
every individual reacts differently—some may cry, some may retaliate,
while others may freeze. Each individual perceives and reacts to an
event in their own unique manner, as held in Rana Pratap and others v.
State of Haryana (1983) 3 SCC 327. Therefore, merely because this
witness did not physically intervene between the deceased and the
accused to shield against the gunfire does not mean she made no attempt
to save her husband. Upon seeing the accused, she immediately raised an
alarm. Her testimony is entirely natural and cannot be discarded solely
14
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
because she is the deceased's wife, nor because she previously testified
against the accused in a case under Section 307 of the IPC.
45. Now, we consider the injuries sustained by the deceased on his
body.
46. Dr. A.H.Khan PW-3 had conducted the autopsy of the dead body
of the deceased on 29.08.1984, who deposed that under external
examination:
Age of the deceased about 30 years and time to death was about
one and half day. Body was average build. Rigor mortis passed off all
over the body. Blisters were present all places of the body. Maggots
seen, smell present. Body swollen. Both eyes closed.
Ante-mortem injury
Gun Shot wound of entry 3cm x 3 cm x abdominal cavity deep on
right side lower ribs 7 Cm below right-nipple at 6.30 o'clock
position irregular shape, margin inverted, scorching, blackening
and tattooing present in area of 14 cm x 11 cm. Direction to left
slightly backward.
Right sixth rib found fractured. Liver was lacerated and few
pellets pierced the Diaphragm and right lung. Chest and
Abdominal cavity contains about 2 liter blood.
Internal examination
Digested food about 200 gm was present.
Fecal matter was found in large intestine. In the cavity 2 liter
blood was found.
Cause of Death: Due to hemorrhage and shock due to ante-
mortem injuries.
He also opined that death of the deceased may occur in the
intervening night 27/28.8.2024 at about 12 to 1 in the night and
the injuries found on the body of the deceased was sufficient to
cause his death. His death may occur due to gun shot injuries.
47. During his cross-examination, he stated that food usually digests
within 6 hours under ordinary circumstances. Since digested food was
found in the stomach, if the deceased had consumed a vegetarian meal,
15
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
his death likely occurred more than 6 hours after eating, possibly
between 3:00 AM and 4:00 AM. He also clarified that there is no distinct
difference between a wound caused by a standard firearm and one
caused by a country-made firearm; therefore, it is possible that the
injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by a standard gun
48. Upon being questioned by the learned court, he stated that food
digestion generally takes about six hours, though a variation of thirty
minutes to an hour may occur on either side.
49. From this evidence, it reveals that only one gunshot injury was
found on the body of the deceased which was on the vital part of
deceased and that same was sufficient to cause death.
50. According to the statements of PW-2, PW-4, and PW-5, the
accused, Ranjeet Singh, fired a single gunshot at the deceased.
Regarding the time of death, PW-1, PW-4, and PW-5 testified that the
incident occurred between 12:00 AM and 1:00 AM. This timeline is
further corroborated by the medical expert (PW-Doctor), who confirmed
that death likely occurred during the same window. However, during
cross-examination, learned counsel for the accused attempted to
establish that the death took place later, between 3:00 AM and 4:00 AM.
51. According to the statement of PW-2, the deceased is wife, her late
husband did not eat at 10:00 p.m. Instead, he had consumed a meal of
dal, roti, and milk two to four hours prior to the alleged incident.
Furthermore, the doctor opined that while a light vegetarian meal
typically takes six hours to digest, a variation of thirty minutes to an
hour is possible either way.
52. Here it is expedient to mention Modi's medical jurisprudence on
digestive capacity. In the case of Suresh Chandra Bahri versus State
of Bihar JT 1994 (4) Supreme Court 309 , Hon’ble Apex Court referred
to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 22nd edition, pages
246-247, which reads as under:
"Digestive condition vary in individuals up to 2.5 to 6 hours,
depending upon healthy state of body, consistency of food,
16
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
motility of the stomach, osmotic pressure of the stomach
contents, quantity of food in the duodenum, surroundings in
which food is taken, emotional factors and residual variations
and only very approximate time of death can be given."
53. In the case of Ram Swaroop versus State of UP (2000) 40 ACC
432 Supreme Court , Hon’ble Apex court held that it is well-settled that
doctor can never be absolutely certain on point of time of duration of
injuries.
54. Since injuries found on the body were caused by firearm and it is
corroborated by the evidence of PW-2, 4 and 5, there is no dispute with
regard that deceased was shot dead. The only question comes for
consideration is whether accused persons are responsible for causing
injuries or not and they had been seen by the witnesses.
55. As discussed earlier in detail, the accused persons were seen by
PW-4 and PW-5. Furthermore, PW-1, the wife of the deceased,
categorically stated that upon hearing the scolding voices of the accused,
she woke up and flashed a torch light, seeing them holding country-
made pistols. She added that upon her screaming, the accused Ranjeet
fired a gunshot at her deceased husband
56. Regarding the presence of PW-4 and PW-5, we have given our
careful consideration to their testimony. Upon close scrutiny and
analysis of their evidence, we find that they indeed witnessed the
incident. Although they were en route at the time, they flashed their
torches, spot-identified the accused persons, and witnessed the accused,
Ranjeet Singh, firing the shot that killed the deceased.
57. Learned counsel also emphasized that, according to the statement
of the Investigating Officer (IO), witness Indrajit Singh stated during the
investigation that he was 20 to 25 paces away when he heard the
gunshot, and that the IO failed to indicate Indrajeet's house in the site
plan. Counsel also relied upon the statement of Malti, recorded by the
IO, wherein she stated that her husband had taken his meal at around
10:00 p.m.; however, these matters have already been discussed in detail.
17
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
As witness Indrajeet clearly stated that he heard the gunshot after
rushing 8 to 10 paces, and since the deceased's wife, Malti, noted that
her husband had a meal 4 to 6 hours prior to the incident—consisting
only of dal , roti , and milk—complete digestion within 2.5 to 6 hours is
entirely plausible under medical jurisprudence by the time the incident
occurred. Consequently, the contention of the accused persons on this
point is untenable
58. Now we proceed to consider the non-recovery of the weapon.
59. It is contended that the Investigating Officer (IO) could not
recover the weapon used in the commission of the offence, which
slightly affects the prosecution case. However, we do not agree with this
contention. On a perusal of the record, IO SI Anil Kumar Singh (PW-6),
who initiated the investigation, prepared the inquest report and
dispatched the dead body for autopsy. In his cross-examination, he stated
that in the FIR (Ext. Ka-3), the distance from the place of occurrence to
the police station is listed as two miles, whereas in the inquest report, it
is recorded as three kilometers. He further clarified that he had
overwritten certain words in the crime number section of the inquest
report because they were initially written too lightly.
60. It must be made clear that the entire occurrence cannot be
disbelieved merely on the basis of this error. This is a procedural step; if
there is any error or fault in it, the testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be
discarded solely on that ground. Moreover, the distance recorded in the
FIR should be taken into consideration, as the purpose of an inquest
report is not to determine the distance between the place of occurrence
and the police station. The inquest is conducted on the spot, whereas the
FIR is lodged at the police station where the distance is already
available. Therefore, the proceedings of the inquest or the FIR cannot be
doubted on this basis. Furthermore, any overwriting of a few words in
the inquest report is of no significance.
61. Learned counsel also pressed the contention that a delay in
forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate creates doubt in the prosecution
18
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
version, as the FIR was received in the Court of the Magistrate on
10.09.1984, whereas the incident occurred on 28.08.1984.
62. We have given anxious consideration to this argument.
63. It is true that as per provision contained under Section 157 of the
Cr.P.C., information regarding commission received by officer-in-charge
of the police station, who is empowered to investigate under Section 156
of the Cr.P.C., shall forthwith send a report of the same to Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report.
However, merely on delay in sending the said report itself cannot lead to
a conclusion that trial is vitiated or accused is entitled to be acquitted as
held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jafar Biswas versus State of West
Bengal (2019) 12 SCC 560.
64. No consequence shall be attached to mere delay in lodging FIR
and the delay would not adversely affect the case of prosecution. Delay
caused in sending the copy of FIR to Magistrate would also be
immaterial if prosecution has been able to prove its case by its reliable
evidence as held in the case of Ashok Kumar Choudhary versus State
of Bihar 2008 (61) SCC 972 Supreme Court , Ravindra Mahto versus
State of Jharkhand 2006 (54) ACC 543 Supreme Court and Ravi
Kumar versus State of Punjab 2005 (2) SCJ 505 .
65. According to the statement of SI Anil Kumar Singh (P.W.-6), after
lodging the FIR, he proceeded to village Pariyawan, arriving there
between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM. Thereafter, he prepared the inquest
report and sent the dead body for autopsy. It is thus established that the
investigation in the case commenced immediately after the lodging of
the FIR; therefore, any delay in transmitting a copy of the FIR to the
Magistrate is of no consequence.
66. Now we proceed to consider the argument that tattooing and
scorching may occur only when the firing has taken place from a
distance.
67. According to the testimony of witnesses PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5,
the accused, Ranjeet Singh, fired a shotgun at close range.
19
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
68. Here it is expedient to mention that the effects produced by
shotgun vary according to the distance of the weapon from the body and
choking device. Where the wound was caused from gunfire, blackening
could be found when fire distance is about 3 to 4 feet as held in the case
of Buddh Singh versus State of M.P. AIR 2007 Supreme Court 267
and Swarn Singh versus State of Punjab AIR 2000 Supreme Court
2017. The tattooing and scorching also indicates the closeness of the
body of the deceased to firearm weapon.
69. It is not the case of prosecution that injury attributed to the
deceased was caused from long distance. The defence has also not put a
question as to what was the size of the alleged weapon. Therefore, we do
not find that any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the
appellant in this regard.
70. Now, we proceed to consider the role of the appellant Sarvjeet
Singh.
71. On perusal of the record, we note that the accused Sarandeep is
alleged to have been armed with a firearm in one hand and a torch in the
other. By flashing the torch, he facilitated the commission of the offence
while present at the spot, which indicates his common intention to cause
the death of the deceased.
72. So far as non-recovery of the weapon is concerned, it is not
significant as held in the case of Gopal Singh versus State of
Uttarakhand (2013) 7 SCC 545 and Anwar-ul-Haq versus State of
UP (2005) 10 SCC 581.
73. On the basis of the verdict given by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it
may safely be concluded that where the katta and knife used in causing
injuries to the deceased were not recovered by the Investigating Officer,
but the doctor's evidence was available to prove that the victim sustained
gunshot and knife injuries, the Hon’ble Court held that the non-recovery
of the weapon was not fatal to the prosecution's case.
74. Upon considering entire facts, circumstances and evidence of the
case, we rest our conclusion on the basis of following points:
20
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
(i) the alleged incident took place in the intervening night,
where except children of the deceased, no other male member
was present;
(ii) delay in lodging FIR has been properly explained by the
deceased’s wife and informant.
(iii) deceased’s wife is an eyewitness, as she was lying with the
deceased on the cot. She had seen the occurrence through her
naked eyes and had identified the accused persons on the spot,
when one of them was flashing the light.
(iv) accused persons are not unknown to her as are also
residents of the same village.
(v) both the accused persons were having firearm weapon, one
of them was having torch also in one hand.
(vi) witnesses PW-3, 4 and 5 are neighbours and who had
arrived on the spot after hearing the voice of deceased’s wife.
(vii) testimony of PW-4 and PW- 5 was found reliable;
(viii) injuries sustained on the body of the deceased are
corroborated with the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
(ix) enmity between the accused persons and deceased has been
established;
(x) no major discrepancies and inconsistencies were found in
the statements of the PW 2, 4 and 5.
(xi) time of the causing of death is also corroborated with the
medical evidence.
75. On taking into account the above points in their entirety, we find
that the prosecution has successfully proven its case against the accused
persons beyond reasonable doubt and that the findings and observations
made by the learned trial court in this regard are in consonance with
law. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and
order as a detailed reasoned discussion has been made by the learned
21
CRLA No. - 232 of 1986
trial court to conclude its findings. We find no merit. The appeal is
devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
76. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed.
77. The appellants are on bail. Their personal bonds and surety bonds
are cancelled and sureties are discharged. The appellants are directed to
surrender before the trial Court concerned immediately, so that they may
be sent to jail to serve out the remaining sentence awarded by the trial
Court and affirmed by us.
78. The trial Court is directed to ensure the presence of appellants by
issuing coercive measures.
79. Let the record of trial Court be sent back to trial court along with
copy of judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.
The compliance report shall be sent by the court concerned to this Court
within a further period of fifteen days.
(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.)
November 05, 2026
Arvind
Digitally signed by :-
ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench