Jawahar Singh And Others vs State of U.P.

A.F.R
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 714 of 1986

Jawahar Singh And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sachin Mishra (Ac), Aniruddh Kumar,
Rajesh Kumar Singh, Sanjeev Ratan,
Vinay Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.
RESERVED ON: 29.09.2026
DELIVERED ON: 28.10.2026
Court No. - 88
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sachin Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae, and Sri Aniruddh
Kumar, learned counsel for Appellant No. 4; Sri Vinay Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for Appellant No. 5; and Mr. Shoeb Khan, learned A.G.A.
for the State.
2. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment
and order dated 22.02.1986 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Basti, in
Sessions Trial No. 172 of 1985, convicting and sentencing the appellant
Indra Jeet Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under
section 304 Part II I.P.C., appellant Jawahar Singh to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year under section 304 Part II read with section 109
I.P.C. and a rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 323 I.P.C.
Appellant Deo Narain Singh is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year under section 324 I.P.C. and appellant Sheo Murat Singh and
Moti Singh are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months
each under section 323 I.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Appellant Nos. 1, 2,
and 3 died during the pendency of the present criminal appeal. Hence, the
proceedings of the present appeal have already abated against them.

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
2
4. He has further submitted that as per the prosecution story, Indrajeet Singh
hit the deceased Udai Singh with a spear (bhala), and Deo Narain Singh hit
Vijay Singh with a spear. He has further submitted that no independent
witness was produced by the prosecution during the trial. He has also
submitted that initially, after the investigation, a final report was submitted,
but upon further investigation, a charge sheet was filed. He submitted that
P.W.-1 is the father of the deceased (Udai Singh) and is an interested
witness. There was no recovery of the spear. The age of the deceased at the
time of the incident was 20 years. Dr. P.N. Bansal conducted the post-
mortem of the deceased.
5. Learned counsel for appellant No. 5 (Deo Narain Singh) has submitted
that there was neither any motive nor any criminal history on the part of the
appellant. He has been assigned only a single blow. All the witnesses belong
to the same family and are not independent witnesses. Learned counsel for
Indrajeet Singh has also taken the plea of alibi.
6. On the other hand, the learned A.G.A. has submitted that the F.I.R. was
registered promptly. P.W.-1 is the father of the deceased, and the scribe of
the F.I.R. is Asharfi Singh. It is specifically mentioned that the deceased was
killed by a puncture wound caused by a spear. Dr. P.N. Bansal, who
conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, verified that there was a deep
puncture wound on the deceased, and that he died due to shock and
hemorrhage. He submitted that Vijay Bahadur and Chandrika Singh who are
injured witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The injured witnesses
are the best witnesses. Their testimony corroborates the statement of the
complainant as well as the injuries that formed the basis of the cause of
death. He further submitted that injured witnesses P.W.-4 (Vijay Bahadur
Singh) and P.W.-5 (Chandrika Singh) have supported the case of the
prosecution. The learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that there is neither
perversity nor illegality in the findings recorded by the learned trial court,
and therefore, the present criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. The genesis of the present case arose on the basis of Ext. Ka-1, which is
the written complaint/ tahrir dated 06.07.1984. The complainant is
Bhuneshwar Singh, and the scribe of the F.I.R. is Asharfi Singh. The F.I.R.
was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, and 302 IPC at Police
Station Golhaura. It was later registered as Case Crime No. 28, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, and 302 IPC at Police Station Golhaura,

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
3
District Basti. It has been stated in the complaint that on 06.07.1984 at
around 5:00 P.M., a quarrel took place among children while playing. Due to
that enmity, co-villagers Jawahar Singh, Shiv Murat Singh, and Moti Singh
(all sons of Ram Singh), Indrajit Singh (son of Moti Singh), and Deo
Narayan Singh gathered together, armed with lathis and spears, came to the
complainant's door at 6:00 P.M. and started hurling abuses. The
complainant's son Uday Singh came out of the house and tried to stop them
from hurling abuses. Meanwhile, Jawahar Singh exhorted them and said to
kill him. Hearing this, Indrajit Singh hit Uday Singh with a spear on his
chest, and he fell to the ground. Seeing this, the complainant's nephews
Vijay Bahadur Singh, Chandrika Singh, and Abhimanyu Singh ran to save
him, whereupon Deo Narayan Singh hit Vijay Bahadur Singh with a spear
on his armpit. The remaining accused, sheo Murat Singh, Moti Singh, and
Jawahar Singh started beating Chandrika Singh and Abhimanyu Singh with
lathis. Ramlagan Singh (son of Shamsher Singh), Jai Singh (son of
Shamsher Singh), Shri Krishna Singh (son of Pawan Sut Singh), and several
other villagers witnessed the incident and intervened. Uday Singh became
unconscious due to the injury. While the complainant was taking him and
the other injured persons to Bansi Hospital, after crossing Telaura Ghat, his
son Uday Singh died. The complainant then arrived at the police station with
the body of his son and the injured persons.
8. On the basis of this written complaint (Ext. Ka-1), the Check F.I.R. (Ext.
Ka-8) was registered. The incident occurred on 06.07.1984 at 18:00 hours.
The F.I.R. was registered on 06.07.1984 at 23:00 hours. The distance
between the place of occurrence and the police station is approximately 11
kilometers.
9. The injuries sustained by the injured persons, namely, Chandrika Singh,
Sri Abhimanyu Singh, and Vijay Bahadur Singh who were medically
examined (Ext. Ka-3, Ext. Ka-4, and Ext. Ka-5), are as follows:
Chandrika Singh was examined at 0-30 a.m. on 7.7.84 and on his person
following injuries were found:-
i. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp deep is on the right side of head
7 cm above right ear pinna, directing from anterior posterior, no mud or
foreign body was present.
ii-A lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm deep on the right ear
crescentic in shape.
iii. A red contusion 7 cm x 3 cm on the top of right shoulder, direction

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
4
transverse.
Remark: All injuries are simple. Caused by blunt object. Duration within
24 hours.
Examined Sri Abhimanyu Singh, aged about 24 hours. On his person
following injuries were found:
i. A red contusion with swelling 4 cm x 4 cm on the left side of temple x 1
am from lateral of left eye.
ii. A red contusion 4 cm x 4 cm on the left side of neck 15 on below
inferior angle of left scapula.
iii. A red contusion 4 cm x 4 cm on right side of back 28 cm below
inferior angle of right scapula.
All injuries are simple caused by blunt weapon. Duration within 24
hours.
Examined Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, aged about 24 years. On his person
the following injuries were found:
1. A stab wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm x 3.5 cm deep direction of depth oblique,
on the right side of chest at lateral aspect 12 cm from right nipple at 11
O'clock position in right axilla with clotted blood present.
Injury is simple. Caused by some sharp and pointed weapon. Duration
may be within 12 hours.
10. The inquest report of the deceased Udai Singh (Ext. Ka-13) was prepared
on 07.07.1984, starting at 6:30 A.M. and concluding at 7:45 A.M. The injury
sustained by the deceased was on the right side of his chest. The nature of
the wound was punctured, and red-and-white fluid was oozing from it.
11. The post-mortem report of the deceased is Ext. Ka-2. The ante-mortem
injuries on the body of the deceased are as follows:
Ante mortem injuries:
Punctured wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm. x chest cavity deep right side
chest, 2 cm below clavicle and 10 cm above the right nipple
directing forward right to left slightly downwards.
The pleura punctured on right side and the lungs punctured
through and through. Both chambers of heart were found empty.
Big blood vessels found punctured and chest cavity full of blood
clotted. Cause of death is shock and hemorrhage resulting from
ante mortem injury.
12. Learned trial court has held that there could be no occasion for a thought

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
5
of common object or common intention in the case as there was no enmity
from before and as it appears from the story of the prosecution as alleged
and proved that the situation was that Indra Jeet Singh and others had come
to the place of occurrence for some protest etc. and in the mean while the
things got flared up resulted in certain injures and the death of Udai Singh.
13. Learned trial court has further held that Indra Jeet Singh had given only
one blow and thereafter remained silent at the spot. He might have been
stunned though the witnesses could not put it properly. This sort of
behaviour simply shows that he was in no mind to cause death. The offence
of culpable homicide as defined in section 299 I.P.C. would there be as the
death has been caused by an act atleast with the knowledge that he was
likely to cause death by that act. The factor again will be as to whether it
amounts to murder or not? To my mind this will be a case covered by
exception 4 of section 300 I.P.C. According to it a culpable homicide is not a
murder it if is committed without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat
of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken
undue advantage or acted in a cruel or in unusual manner. In such cases,
according to explanation of this exception the party who offers provocation
is not material.
14. Learned trial court has further observed that it was Indra Jeet Singh and
others who had really provoked the feelings of others but it will be too hard
to presume that they had acted in an unusual manner. Human psychology at
the time of arguments or exchange of remarks or even abuses is
unpredictable and at times, even minor things give a heavy flare.
15. Learned trial court had further observed that the region in which the
injuries had been caused was risky in a very small zone. Lungs on the right
side are not vulnerable and the location of major blood vessels is not known
to persons on street. The intention is to be gathered from the resultant injury.
16. Learned trial court has observed that it was not culpable homicide but
would be unable to contribute to the suggestion of murder. Hence, the
learned trial court has held the offence committed by Indra Jeet Singh would
be a culpable homicide and amounting to murder punishable under section
304 Part II I.P.C. Learned trial court has further observed that Deo Narain
had caused spear injury to Vijai Bahadur Singh. There could be no intention
to commit murder and the injury was also not on a vital part. The offence

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
6
committed by him, therefore, would be one under section 304 I.P.C. Learned
trial court has further observed that the accused Jawahar Singh in view of the
observations made above in respect of Indra Jeet Singh and the affair of
abetement, should be found guilty of the offence under section 304/109
I.P.C. He would also be guilty of the offence under section 323 I.P.C. for
having caused injuries to other witnesses. The accused Sheo Murat Singh
and Moti Singh should be held guilty of the offence under section 323 I.P.C.
In view of my finding above on the point of common object, there should be
no liability for acts of others.
17. Appellant No. 1 (Jawahar Singh), Appellant No. 2 (Moti Singh), and
Appellant No. 3 (Sheo Murat Singh) died during the pendency of the present
criminal appeal, and the proceedings against them abated on 07.01.2026.
Now, only Appellant No. 4 (Indra Jeet Singh) and Appellant No. 5 (Deo
Narain Singh) are alive and contesting the appeal. Both are on bail.
18. Appellant No. 4, Indra Jeet Singh, was found guilty and convicted of the
offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for five years. Appellant No. 5, Deo Narain Singh, was
convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to one year of imprisonment
under Section 324 IPC.
19. In
Hardeep Singh and Others v. State of Haryana, (2009) 2 SCC
, the Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed the reliability of
(Criminal) 770
related witnesses. It is held that where the witnesses were the son and wife
of the deceased and their statements were found credible and sufficient to
establish the allegations, such evidence is reliable.
20. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan
Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 408 that where the
prosecution case is proved by direct evidence, motive takes a back seat.
21. It is held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Kilari Malakondiaah @
Malayadri & others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2009 (3) SCC (CRI)
, that where witnesses are injured and related, their credibility must be
974
examined. Where intensive cross-examination fails to shake the evidence of
related/injured witnesses, relationship is not a factor to discard the
prosecution version or render it suspect.
22. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Namdeo v. State of

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
7
Maharashtra, 2007 AIR SCW 1835 that close relatives cannot be
characterized as interested witness. It is a natural witness. His evidence must
be scrutinized carefully if it is probable and trustworthy, conviction can be
based on his sole witness.
23. Bhuneshwar Singh, the complainant and father of the deceased, was
examined as P.W.-1 on 03.10.1984, whereas the incident occurred on
06.07.1984. He testified that Udai Singh was his son, who had married one
year prior to his death. He stated his own age to be 58 years at that time. All
the accused persons were present in court. Vijay Bahadur Singh is his
nephew, and Chandrika Singh and Abhimanyu Singh are his pattidars. He
supported the prosecution story, stating that on the date of the incident
(06.07.1984), when he returned home at around 5:45 P.M. from his
agricultural field, Bablu and Baleshwar Singh were present at the house.
Both told him that while playing kabaddi, a quarrel took place among the
children. Thereafter, at around 6:00 P.M., Jawahar Singh, sheo Murat Singh,
and Moti Singh (armed with lathis), and Indrajeet Singh and Deo Narayan
Singh (armed with spears) came to his door and hurled abuses. Udai Singh
came out of the house and objected to their abusive language. Thereupon,
Jawahar Singh exhorted that he should be killed. Upon hearing this,
Indrajeet Singh struck Udai Singh on the chest with a spear, causing him to
fall to the ground. The witness shouted that they had killed Udai Singh.
Thereafter, Vijay, Chandrika, and Abhimanyu scolded the accused persons.
Then Deo Narain Singh hit Vijay Singh with a spear on the right
armpit/chest area. Abhimanyu was beaten with lathis by sheo Murat Singh
and Moti Singh, while Chandrika was hit with a lathi by Jawahar Singh. The
incident was witnessed by co-villagers Ramlagan Singh, Kishun Singh, Jai
Singh, and several other villagers.
24. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently submitted that none
of the independent witness had been proved by the prosecution. It is held by
the higher courts that it is the lacuna of the prosecution in these times that
the independent witnesses hardly comes to record their statements. The
criminal jurisprudence has been developed that the interested witness and
related witnesses are considered to be the natural witnesses where their
deposition has to be scrutinized carefully.
25. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted vehemently that no
independent witness was examined by the prosecution. However, higher

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
8
courts have held that it is a common reality in modern times that
independent witnesses rarely come forward to record their statements.
Criminal jurisprudence has evolved to recognize that interested and related
witnesses are natural witnesses, provided their depositions are scrutinized
carefully.
26. P.W.-1 further confirmed that Udai Singh became unconscious due to the
injury. They took Udai Singh towards the hospital, but upon crossing
Telaura Ghat, they realized he had died. They then arranged for conveyance,
met Asharfi Singh, and prepared the written complaint (Ext. Ka-1), which
was verified by this witness. He submitted the report at Police Station Bansi,
whereupon the case was registered, and the injured were sent for medical
examination. Thereafter, the inquest report was prepared, and they
proceeded to Basti with the body. He is a natural witness as well as an
interested eye-witness, being the father of the deceased. He observed the
incident continuously from its inception until the death of the deceased. It is
not expected of a father to falsely implicate innocent persons while letting
the real culprits go scot-free.
27. In his cross-examination, P.W.-1 stated that he went to the police station
with the written complaint, the injured persons, and the dead body. He
specifically deposed that Indrajeet Singh struck only once with the spear and
did not hit anyone else thereafter. It remains uncontroverted that Indrajit
Singh struck the deceased on the chest with a spear, resulting in his death,
which is corroborated by the ante-mortem injury and the cause of death
specified in the post-mortem report. It is also uncontroverted that Deo
Narain hit Vijay Bahadur Singh with a spear.
28. Dr. P.N. Bansal, who was examined as P.W.-2 on 04.10.1985, stated that
he was posted as Pathologist at Sadar Hospital, Basti, on 07.07.1984. On that
day, at around 5:00 P.M., he conducted the post-mortem examination on the
body of Udai Singh. The age of the deceased was about 20 years, and the
duration since death was approximately one day. On external examination,
he found the following ante-mortem injury:
Punctured wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm. x chest cavity deep right side chest, 2 cm
below clavicle and 10 cm above the right nipple directing forward right to
left slightly downwards.
The nature of injury is from front side towards right side to left side and

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
9
going towards below. There were no special things in head and neck.
29. The pleura was punctured on the right side, and the lung was punctured
through and through. Both chambers of the heart were found empty. The
major blood vessels were punctured, and the chest cavity was filled with
clotted blood. Teeth were 15/15. About 6 ounces of digested food were
present in the stomach, fecal matter was present in the intestines, and the
urinary bladder was empty. In his opinion, death was caused by shock and
hemorrhage resulting from the aforesaid injuries. He verified the post-
mortem report as Ext. Ka-2.
30. He opined that the death of the deceased occurred around 6:00 P.M. on
06.07.1984. The nature of the injuries, along with the state of digested food
and fecal matter, corroborates the ocular evidence. The time of death also
aligns with the alleged time of occurrence.
31. Asharfi Singh, who is the scribe of the F.I.R., was examined as P.W.-3.
He stated that the complainant, Bhuneshwar Singh, met him on 06.07.1984
at around 10:00 P.M. at the Bansi–Dumariyaganj crossing along with the
body of his son and the other injured persons. He testified that he prepared
the written complaint (Ext. Ka-1) as narrated to him by the complainant. The
same report was subsequently submitted by Bhuneshwar at Police Station
Bansi. The distance between the place where the written complaint was
prepared and the police station is approximately 200 meters. He further
verified that the inquest report was prepared in his presence. He is merely
the scribe of the F.I.R., having prepared the written complaint (tahrir) on the
dictation of the complainant, and he has duly verified the said complaint.
32. Vijay Bahadur Singh, who was injured by the spear, was examined as
P.W.-4. He deposed that on 06.07.1984, at around 6:00 P.M., he was present
at his home when Jawahar Singh, Moti Singh, sheo Murat Singh, Indrajit
Singh, and Deo Narain Singh arrived. Indrajeet Singh and Deo Narain Singh
carried spears, while Jawahar Singh, sheo Murat Singh, and Moti Singh
carried lathis. The accused persons came to his door and hurled abuses.
When his cousin Udai Singh objected, Jawahar Singh exhorted them to kill
him. Upon this exhortation, Indrajeet Singh struck Udai Singh on the chest
with a spear, causing him to fall to the ground. When the witness ran to save
him, Deo Narain Singh struck him with a spear, which hit him on the right
side near his axilla/chest. Jawahar Singh struck Chandrika Singh with a lathi,

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
10
causing injury, while sheo Murat Singh and Moti Singh inflicted lathi
injuries on Abhimanyu. Bhuneshwar Singh and several others raised an
alarm, whereupon many villagers gathered. The accused persons issued
threats and fled, saying that the victims were saved this time, otherwise they
would be killed.
33. P.W.-4 further stated that Udai Singh's condition deteriorated, so
Bhuneshwar and others proceeded towards Bansi Hospital. After crossing
Telaura Ghat, they realized Udai Singh had died. They then hired a rickshaw
from Bedauli village, placed the body on it, and proceeded until they met
Asharfi Singh at the Bansi–Dumariyaganj crossing. Bhuneshwar Singh
dictated the complaint to Asharfi Singh, who wrote it down and submitted it
at the police station. The medical examination of P.W.-4 took place at 1:00
A.M. during the night.
34. He was cross-examined by the defense. He stated that on the date of the
incident, the accused came near the well. At that time, he was sitting in the
veranda of his house, from where the well is visible. Bhuneshwar and Udai
Singh were inside their house. When the accused began hurling abuses, they
came outside. He did not go to the well immediately upon hearing the
abuses, nor did Bhuneshwar; only Udai Singh went toward the well. When
the accused reached the well, they were carrying the weapons mentioned
earlier. Udai Singh went empty-handed. Nobody stopped him from going to
the well. Heated arguments took place between Udai Singh and the accused
at the well. Thereupon, Indrajeet Singh struck Udai Singh with a spear as
soon as he reached the well. After inflicting one spear blow on Udai Singh,
no further blows were dealt to him. After receiving the spear injury, Udai
Singh fell down on the spot. The witnesses ran toward him empty-handed.
35. Upon being asked the specific question as to why he approached empty-
handed after hearing the assault on Udai Singh and knowing that the accused
persons were armed with spears, he replied that nothing adverse came their
minds at that moment, so he did not carry any weapon.
36. In response to another specific question regarding the location from
which he witnessed the spear strike Udai Singh, he replied that he saw it
from his doorway. As soon as he stepped down one step from his veranda,
the spear struck Udai Singh. At the time the spear injury was inflicted,
Chandrika Singh and Abhimanyu Singh were standing beside him, while

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
11
Bhuneshwar was standing outside his door. After Udai Singh fell upon
sustaining the spear injury, they rushed to the spot where he was lying.
37. When asked specifically why the accused attacked him even though they
had stopped striking Udai Singh after a single blow and the witness had
approached unarmed, he replied that he did not know why he was hit. He
stated that when they reached the spot, the accused persons surrounded
them. Bhuneshwar did not approach them; he remained standing at his door.
The accused surrounded and attacked them, causing injuries with spears and
lathis. He also sustained a spear injury, and no person other than Udai Singh
and himself suffered a spear wound. Among the three persons surrounded by
the accused, only he received a spear injury. Indrajeet Singh stood by
silently holding his spear and did not strike again after hitting Udai Singh.
He sustained a puncture wound from the spear, which hit his right abdomen
as he moved. No one struck him with a lathi, and he remained at the spot
even after being hit. Chandrika Singh and Abhimanyu sustained lathi
injuries. He continuously observed the accused who inflicted these injuries:
Jawahar struck Chandrika Singh, while sheo Murat and Moti struck
Abhimanyu. They also remained at the spot after being injured. Bhuneshwar
came near Udai Singh only after the accused fled.
38. They did not stayed longer near the well and left for Bansi around 7:00
P.M. Upon reaching Bansi, they first went to the police station and then to
the hospital. He also confirmed that they stopped at the Dumariyaganj
crossing in Bansi at around 10:30 P.M., where several tea, paan, and rice
shops were open. Asharfi Singh of their village met them at that crossing,
which is why they stopped there.
39. P.W.-4 has corroborated the incident as well as the preparation of the
F.I.R./written complaint. He has corroborated the nature of the injuries, the
weapons used, and the individual acts of the accused who caused injuries to
the deceased as well as to the injured persons.
40. P.W.-5 (Chandrika Singh) has stated in his examination-in-chief that the
incident occurred approximately 1 and ½ years ago in the evening at around
6:00 P.M. "I was present at my door. Some boys were playing kabaddi
towards the west side. I heard some noise of an altercation. Moti Singh,
Jawahar Singh, sheo Murat Singh, Indrajeet Singh, and Deo Narain came to
the door of Bhuneshwar Singh. At that time, Deo Narain and Indrajeet Singh

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
12
were carrying spears. Jawahar Singh, sheo Murat Singh, and Moti Singh
were carrying lathis. These persons reached in front of the house of
Bhuneshwar Singh and started hurling abuses at the members of his family.
The door of my house and Bhuneshwar's house is the same. Upon this, Udai
Singh came outside and objected to the accused persons hurling further
abuses. On that, Jawahar exhorted and stated, 'Kill him. We will see
whatever happens.' Indrajeet Singh hit Udai Singh in the chest with a spear,
and Udai Singh fell down due to the injury caused to him by the spear. Then
Bhuneshwar Singh raised an alarm. On his alarm, myself, my son
Abhimanyu, and Vijay Singh ran towards him. Then Deo Narain hit Vijay
Singh with a spear, and Jawahar Singh struck me with three lathis. sheo
Murat Singh and Moti Singh hit Abhimanyu with lathis. Several villagers
assembled there. The accused persons returned, saying, 'Due to the presence
of the villagers, we are leaving you; otherwise, we will kill you one by one.'
The condition of Udai Singh was very serious; hence, we moved towards
Bansi. After crossing the Teloura Ghat, we saw that Udai Singh had died
due to the said injuries. When we reached the Dumariya Ganj crossing at
Bansi with the dead body of Udai Singh, Asharfi Singh met us. Bhuneshwar
dictated the report, and he scribed it. Then we went to the Police Station.
The case was registered, and we were sent for medical examination."
41. There is consistency in the statements that Indrajeet Singh hit Udai Singh
in the chest with a spear, and due to the said injury, Udai Singh died. Deo
Narain also hit Vijay Singh with a spear, and the remaining accused persons
hit the victims with lathis. There is consistency in the statements of all the
witnesses. The witnesses are themselves injured persons; thus, the presence
of these injured witnesses at the spot cannot be ruled out. There are minor
contradictions in the statement of this witness, which have been raised by the
learned counsel for the appellants. These minor contradictions are natural. It
cannot be expected from a witness to tell the story verbatim like a script.
There is no contradiction in the statement of the witness that hits at the root
of the matter.
42. P.W.-5 (Chandrika Singh) has specifically stated in his cross-
examination that Indrajeet Singh did not hit any other person after causing
injury to Udai Singh. After hitting Udai Singh with the spear, Indrajeet
Singh remained standing still at the same spot and did not budge from the
place. He further stated, "When they hit me, I felt severe pain and trouble.
Thereafter, I could not see the scene of any other person being beaten. Udai

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
13
Singh and Vijay Singh had already suffered their injuries prior to my
injuries."
43. It is a very natural statement by this witness that when he sustained
injuries, he felt severe pain and distress, and therefore, thereafter, he did not
see who was beating whom. It is true and natural in the facts and
circumstances of the case where the injured person himself was beaten;
hence, his first priority was to save himself rather than watch the entire
incident. Furthermore, he has consistently confirmed that Udai Singh and
Vijay Singh sustained injuries prior to him being hit by the accused persons.
He has also verified the time of the incident as being in the evening.
44. Dr. V.K. Dubey, who deposed as P.W.-6 on 06.12.1985, verified the
injuries of Chandrika Singh, Abhimanyu Singh, and Vijay Bahadur Singh on
their bodies as follows:
at 12:30 A.M. on 07.07.1984,
Chandrika Singh was examined
and on his person, the following injuries were found:
i. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x scalp deep is on the right side
of head 7 cm above right ear pinna, directing from anterior
posterior, no musd or foreign body was present.
ii-A lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm deep on the right
ear crescentric in shape.
iii. A red contusion 7 cm x 3 cm on the top of right shoulder,
direction transverse.
Remark: All injuries are simple. Caused by blunt object.
Duration within 24 hours.
Examined Sri Abhimanyu Singh , aged about 24 hours. On his
person following injuries were found:
i. A red contusion with swelling 4 cm x 4 cm on the left side of
temple x 1 am from lateral of left eye.
ii. A red contusion 4 cm x 4 cm on the left side of neck 15 on
below inferior angle of left scapula.
iii. A red contusion 4 cm x 4 cm on right side of back 28 cm
below inferior angle of right scapula.
All injuries are simple caused by blunt weapon. Duration within
24 hours.
Examined Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh , aged about 24 years. On

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
14
his person the following injuries were found:
1. A stab wound 3 cm x 1/2 cm x 3.5 cm deep direction of depth
oblique, on the right side of chest at lateral aspect 12 cm from
right nipple at 11 O'clock position in right axilla with clotted
blood present.
Injury is simple. Caused by some sharp and pointed weapon.
Duration may be within 12 hours.
45. He has verified these injury reports as Ext. Ka-3, Ext. Ka-4, and Ext. Ka-
5. He also verified in his statement that all these injuries could have occurred
at around 6:00 P.M. on 06.07.1984. In his cross-examination, he specifically
stated that any injury caused within 6–7 hours is recorded as fresh. He
medically examined these injured persons on the night of 6/7 July. His
statement is natural and corroborates the incident and the medical
examination of the injured. The injured were brought to him by the constable
of the concerned police station.
46. Sri Nagendra Mishra deposed as P.W.-7 on 06.12.1985. He stated in his
examination-in-chief that he was posted as Station House Officer (In-charge)
at Police Station Golhaura in August 1984. Sri V.B. Pathak had conducted
the investigation of this case prior to him. The investigation was almost
complete when he received it on 28.07.1984. He studied and perused the
entire investigation conducted by the previous Investigating Officer (I.O.),
Sri Vidya Vinod Pathak, and completely agreed with it. The post-mortem
report had not yet been received at that time. When it was received, he
recorded the details of the post-mortem report and thereafter submitted the
charge sheet dated 02.08.1984 against the accused persons, which he
verified as Ext. Ka-6.
47. The said witness was further recalled and deposed further on 06.12.1985,
stating that previously, the case was registered at Bansi Police Station. All
papers related to the present case were received at Police Station Golhaura
on 07.07.1984. On that basis, the case was registered at Police Station
Golhaura, as referenced in the General Diary of the police station at Rapat
No. 10 by Head Constable Ravinder Singh, whose handwriting and signature
he knew very well. He filed a true copy thereof as Ext. Ka-7. The accused
persons did not cross-examine him thereafter.
48. S.I. K. Ram deposed as P.W.-8. He stated that he was posted as In-

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
15
charge Station Officer at Police Station Bansi on 06.07.1984. He verified
that upon the written complaint of the complainant submitted around 11:00
P.M., the written complaint Ext. Ka-1 was received at the police station. On
the basis of the said complaint, a check F.I.R. was prepared at Police Station
Bansi by Constable Moharrir Jagannath under his writing and signature,
bearing S.I. K. Ram's signature as well. It was verified as Ext. Ka-8. He
further verified General Diary (G.D.) Report No. 41 at 23:00 hours dated
06.07.1984 as Ext. Ka-9. He stated that he prepared the injury letters for the
injured persons (prepared through Constable Ram Das Yadav), marked as
Ext. Ka-10, Ka-11, and Ka-12. He verified the prosecution papers as Ext.
Ka-13 (the inquest report), the challan nash and photo nash as Ext. Ka-14
and Ext. Ka-15, and verified that the dead body was sealed and sent for post-
mortem to C.M.O. Basti (Ext. Ka-16 and Ext. Ka-17).
49. In his cross-examination, he stated that the case was registered at his
police station, which is why the inquest report was prepared there. The
complainant and witnesses were present, and he recorded their statements.
He verified that upon registration of the F.I.R. pertaining to another police
station, no crime number was registered there; instead, the investigation was
transferred to the concerned police station, which then commenced the
investigation.
50. S.I. Vidya Vinod Pathak, the first Investigating Officer of the case,
deposed as P.W.-9. He stated that he was posted as S.I. at Police Station
Golhaura in July 1984. He received the papers related to the case at 6:45
A.M. on 07.07.1984, which were entered in the General Diary (G.D.) of the
police station. He started the investigation after the case was registered. He
recorded the statement of the injured witness Abhimanyu, inspected the site
of the incident, and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-20). He collected plain
soil and blood-stained soil from the site (Ext. Ka-21). Thereafter, he raided
the houses of the accused persons but could not find them. He received
information on 18.07.1984 that the accused had surrendered before the court.
51. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not record the statement of
the widow of Udai Singh. His investigation established that Udai Singh
sustained a spear injury inflicted by Indrajeet Singh, to which he
subsequently succumbed.
52. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
16
Cr.P.C. They stated that the evidence recorded against them was false and
incorrect.
53. Udai Shankar Mishra deposed as D.W.-1, working as a Record Keeper at
the S.P. Office. He brought the F.I.R. and written complaint from Golhaura
Police Station dated 29.05.1982. On the written complaint of Drig Pal Singh,
Crime No. 19 under Section 302/201 I.P.C. was registered on 29.05.1982
against Udai Singh, his mother, and Pratap Singh.
54. In his cross-examination, he stated that a final report had been submitted
in both cases. He submitted the case diary as well as the final report. This
does not provide any benefit to the accused persons in the facts and
circumstances of the present case regarding their roles.
55. Prem Shankar deposed as D.W.-2 on 11.02.1986, stating that he is an
advocate practicing in Bansi since 1978. He stated that Indrajeet Singh, who
was present in court, had been his moharrir (clerk) since 1979 and resided at
his house. On 06.07.1984, the court at Bansi was open. On that day and the
preceding night, Indrajeet Singh was at his house. After the court closed on
06.07.1984, Indrajeet Singh accompanied him to his house and stayed there
through the night of 6/7.07.1984. On 07.07.1984, he and Indrajeet Singh
came to the court at Bansi. Upon reaching the court, they received
information that a murder had occurred and learned around 12:00 noon that
Indrajeet Singh was named as an accused. Thereafter, Indrajeet went from
his house. This witness was produced to establish an alibi; however,
Indrajeet Singh's presence at the scene of the crime was consistently verified
by eyewitnesses as well as injured witnesses who were duly cross-examined
by the defense. No inconsistency or contradiction was found regarding the
presence and role of Indrajeet Singh in the incident.
56. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that Indrajeet Singh was not
his registered munshi. The plea of alibi taken by the accused Indrajeet Singh
does not appear reasonable. His presence was verified and confirmed
throughout the investigation as well as in the statements of the injured
witnesses before the learned trial court. Even in cross-examination, nothing
to the contrary surfaced. It was never established or doubted that Indrajeet
Singh was absent at the time of the incident. The evidence clearly establishes
that he struck Udai Singh with a spear, resulting in fatal injuries. The
eyewitnesses and injured witnesses fully proved and verified the roles of

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
17
both Indrajeet Singh and Deo Narain Singh. There is consistency across the
statements of eyewitnesses, injured witnesses, and the overall prosecution
narrative.
57. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussainbhai Asgarali Lokhandwala v. State of
Gujarat and other connected appeals, 2024 INSC 609, where there was a
matrimonial dispute and due to matrimonial dispute he is younger brother-
in-law aged about 18 years. Being emotionally upset and hit his brother-in-
law and his father. That was a matrimonial dispute and cross cases have been
filed where the father of his brother-in-law died into the said incident. The
High Court dropped down the charge from section 304 part-I I.P.C. to
section 304 II I.P.C. and further modified to the period of incarceration
already gone by him by maintaining the conviction. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has altered the period of incarceration already undergone by him.
Whereas, in the present case, there is neither any matrimonial dispute nor
any cross cases. The facts and circumstances of both the case are entirely
different. Hence, in view of the present facts and circumstances of the case,
the appellant is not entitled to the period already undergone where as the
appellants were on bail during the trial. They were sentenced and convicted
on 22.02.1986 under section 304 Part-II I.P.C. and their bail was allowed on
03.03.1986 within a period of ten days.
58. Learned counsel for the appellants has further relied on the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srikrishna v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 35 where he has relied on para 6.1 which is as
follows:
"6.1 The appellant is more than 80 years of age at present. Since the
appellant is an old and aged person, and in the December of his life, it would
be harsh and inadvisable to send him behind the bars again at this stage. The
courts are not supposed to be insensitive. Therefore, in view of the advanced
age of the appellant and considering the totality of the facts and
circumstances, while upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section
304, Part II, IPC, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to what is already
undergone, to be substituted accordingly."
59. Whereas, in paragraph no. 6 of the case of (Srikrishna) supra, it is held
held as under:

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
18
"6. The appellant was arrested on 19.12.1992. The High Court granted
bail to him on 05.08.1998. He was then released on bail, after spending
five years, seven months and 17 days in jail at that point of time. He was
required to surrender, and he surrendered on 06.12.2010. This Court
granted bail to the appellant on 05.08.2011. Thus, from 06.12.2010 to
05.08.2011, the appellant underwent further imprisonment for eight
months. In view of the above details borne out from the record, the total
period of incarceration of the appellant comes to six years and three
months."
60. Whereas, in the present case, the facts and circumstances and evidences
are altogether entirely different which are already mentioned herein above in
detail. The appellants are not appeared to be entitled to get any benefit of the
said law in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
61. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Lalliram and Another v.
, that in the matter of
State of Madhya Pradesh, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 17
appreciation of evidence in a criminal case, the principle of precedent is not
applicable as the case is to be decided on facts.
62. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harbhajan Singh v. State of
Punjab, 2009 Cri LJ 449 (SC) , that each case must be decided on its own
facts.
63. In the present case, specific roles are assigned to both appellants, namely
Indrajeet Singh and Deo Narain Singh. Indrajeet Singh struck a spear into
the right side of the chest of the deceased, Udai Singh, who was a young
man at the time of the incident and succumbed to his injury on the way to the
hospital. The other appellant, Deo Narain Singh, also inflicted injuries on
another victim using a spear. The appellants arrived at the door of the
deceased, hurled abuses, and when he objected, he was stabbed in the chest
with a spear. The entire incident was witnessed by eyewitnesses and injured
witnesses who completely corroborated the prosecution story.
64. In view thereof, the finding of conviction as well as the sentence
recorded by the learned trial court is neither perverse nor illegal. No
interference is warranted. The present appeal lacks merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
65. The criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed.
66. Appellant No. 4 (Indra Jeet Singh) and Appellant No. 5 (Deo Narain

CRLA No. 714 of 1986
19
Singh) are directed to surrender before the learned trial court without any
delay. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled, and their sureties are
discharged. Both the sentenced appellants shall complete their period of
sentence, after adjusting their previous period of incarceration, in accordance
with law.
67. A copy of this order along with the trial court record shall be transmitted
immediately by the office to the learned District and Sessions Judge
concerned for necessary compliance.
October 28, 2026
K.K. Maurya
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad