Ranjeet Yadav vs State Of U.P.

A.F.R
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9263 of 2023
Ranjeet Yadav
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. …..Respondents(s)
Along with :
Criminal Appeal U/s 372 Cr.p.c. No. 439 of 2023:  
Neha Rai
1.
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 others
Criminal Appeal No. 9255 of 2023:  
Dan Singh Yadav
2.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 9555 of 2023:  
Devendra Yadav
3.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 9965 of 2023:  
Amit Kumar Rai
4.
Versus
State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Mishra, Girish
Kumar Singh, Rajrshi Gupta,
Rizwan Ahamad, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Amrendra Pratap Singh,
Ashok Kumar Yadav, G.A., Girish
Kumar Singh
Court No. – 42
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE PRASHANT MISHRA-I, J.

2
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
1. The Criminal Appeals No. 9263 of 2023, 9255 of 2023, 9555
of 2023 and 9965 of 2023 have been filed against the judgement
and order dated 10.8.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Court No. 4, Deoria,  in Sessions
Trial No. 19 of 2019 (State vs. Devendra Yadav and others), arising
out of Case Crime No. 144 of 2018, under Sections 302/34, 352,
504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act,
Police Station – Bankata, District – Deoria, whereby the trial court
convicted and sentenced the appellants, Devendra Yadav, Dan
Singh Yadav, Ranjeet Yadav and Amit Kumar Rai, as follows:
(i) under Section 302/34 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for
life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo two months’ additional
imprisonment;
(ii) under Section 352 IPC, to undergo one month’s rigorous
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 500/- each, and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo five days’
additional imprisonment;
(iii) under Section 504 IPC, to undergo six months’ rigorous
imprisonment, and in default thereof, to further undergo ten
days’ additional imprisonment;
(iv) under Section 506 IPC, to undergo one year’s rigorous
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo twenty days’
additional imprisonment; and
(v) under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, to
undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment along with a fine

3
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
of Rs. 100/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo one day’s additional imprisonment.
2. The Criminal Appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., being Criminal
Appeal No. 439 of 2023, has been filed against the judgment and
order dated 10.8.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Court No. 4, Deoria, whereby the
accused, Brahma Yadav and Rohit Yadav, were acquitted of the
charges under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149, 352, 504 and
506 IPC, as well as Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment)
Act.
3. Upon an incident which allegedly took place on 21.8.2018 at
19:00 hours (7:00PM), the first information report with regard to it
was lodged by the complainant Neha Rai, the daughter of the
deceased on 23.8.2018 at 13:29 hours(1:29PM). It was alleged in
the first information report that at the relevant point of time, the
first informant Neha Rai along with her mother Harikant Devi and
father Uma Shankar Rai was living in their house at Deoria. She
had stated that she had four brothers. The eldest brother was
living in Mumbai and was doing the work of contractor and the
second eldest brother Jitendra Rai was also living in Mumabi and
was doing his private business. Third brother Raghvendra Rai was
living in Bangalore and was working in a steel plant and the fourth
brother Narendra Kumar was doing a job in Ahemdabad. In the
first information report even before the incident was being
reported, the motive was given out that in the front of her Sahen,
one decimal of land of gaon sabha was there and with regard to
possession over it there was a dispute always raised by one Amit

4
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
Kumar Rai. In his support, Devendra Rai son of Subhash Yadav
always used to be there and had on many an occasion along with
his support in the past had beaten up Uma Shankar Rai the
deceased and that with regard to the beating which was done , the
father of the first informant had also got a case register in the
police station and that case was still pending. She had stated that
even though the Revenue Department had resolved the
controversy with regard to the land contiguous to the Sahen land
yet Devendra Yadav son of Subhash Yadav along with Amit Kumar
Rai was occasionally abusing the father of the complainant and was
also threatening him with dire consequences. Because of the
doings of Amit Rai and Devendra Yadav there was quite a bit of
fear prevailing in the village.
4. On 21.8.2018, it had been stated in the FIR that the Prasad
which was brought by the complainant and her father from the
Baijnath Dham was to be given to one Jai Prakash Tiwari and,
therefore, on 21.8.2018 at around 6:00PM both the father and the
daughter had gone to the house of Jai Prakash Tiwari and after
having met him they were returning to their house and at around
7:00PM at the Bhadsar crossing the accused Devendra Yadav
exhorted the other accused, in the presence of the first informant
and shouted pointing to her father that the enemy of Devendra
Yadav had reached and he had not to be spared. He had
specifically exhorted that he be killed. Thereafter, Devendra Yadav
and Dan Singh sons of Subhash Yadav; Rohit Yadav son of
Surendra Yadav; Ranjit Yadav son of Ram Chhabila Yadav; Amit
Kumar Rai son of Arvind Kumar Rai and Bharma Yadav son of
Suryabali Yadav, all residents of village – Chhitauni, Police Station

5
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
– Bankata District – Deoria came up to the father and the daughter
with lathies in their hands. They had come from the road which
came from the side of Chhituani and with a common object and
intention they started beating the deceased with their dandas. She
had then stated that she had started shouting and had started
raising a hue and cry that her father was being beaten and there
was an apprehension that he would be killed. However, because
Devendra Yadav was known as a strong man of the area, no
shopkeeper of the area came to save the father of the first
informant and the accused repeatedly beat up the father of the
first informant. However, upon the hue and cry being raised, the
mother of the first informant Harikanti Devi came running and
thereafter both the mother and daughter made an effort to save
the deceased. Upon this Devendra Yadav pulled out both Harikanti
Devi, the mother of the first informant and the first informant from
the place of the incident and chased them away. She had stated
that as her father was lying on the place of incident, she had
immediately, therefore, called at the telephone number “100” but
no police came. Thereupon she had stated that she informed the
police station and after a lot of delay the police came and took the
father of the first informant to the PHC, Bankata, where there was
absolutely no doctor available. Because of that the father of the
first informant was taken to the Sadar Hospital Deoria where he
was declared dead. About the incident, she had stated that she had
informed her brothers. Out of the four brothers, two came in the
night of 22/8/2018 and the other two brothers reached Deoria in
the morning of 23.8.2018. The post mortem had already been

6
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
done and even before the FIR was lodged the last rites were also
performed and thereafter she had gone to get the FIR lodged.
5. Upon the FIR being lodged, the police got into action and
recovered two lathies and also arrested two of the accused. The
memo which was prepared was numbered as exhibit ka-14 on
29.8.2018. Thereafter on 6.9.2018, again one lathi of bamboo was
recovered and one more accused was arrested. The memo as was
prepared on 6.9.2018 and was exhibited as exhibit ka-15. One
more lathi of bamboo and one more arrest was done on 7.9.2018
and the memo in regard to that was prepared and numbered as
exhibit ka-16.
6. After the death, a panchayatnama/inquest was undergone on
22.8.2018 at 1:00PM and was completed on the same day at
2:10PM. In the column, where it was stated that when the
information was given it had been given that it had been registered
on 22.8.2018 at 8:30am. The person who had given the
information with regard to the dead body was one ward boy Vishal
Yadav of the district hospital Deoria.
7. The panches were Jai Prakash Tiwari, Balram Rai, Jai
Prakash, Harikant Rai and Yogeshwar Rai. As no first information
report was yet lodged, the panchayatnama along with the death
certificate and other reports was sent for post mortem which was
conducted on the body on 22.8.2018 itself at 5:00PM and had got
completed at 5:50 PM. The body had reached the mortuary at
2:55PM. The anti-mortem injuries as were noted in the post
mortem report are being reproduced here as under:-
" 1- 3cm x 1cm scab
खरोंचबाँयेकलाईकेसामनेकेहिस्सेमें कागहरालाल
था।

7
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
2- Contusion 40 cm x 21 cm
काकमरकेपासएवंदोनोंचूतड़परमौजूद

था।रंगकालापनथा।
3. Contusion 26 cm x 24 cm
दायेंजांघकेपिछलेहिस्सेमेंमौजूदथा।रंग

कालापनथा।
4. Abraded contusion 4 cm x 2.5 cm
दाहिनेपैरकेपिछलेहिस्सेमें
Lateral malleolus 12 cm
मौजूदथा।जोकि के ऊपरथा।रंगकालापनथा।
5. Contusion 14 cm x 15 cm
बायेंजांघकेपिछलेहिस्सेमेंमौजूदथाजो
Popliteal fossa 18 cm
कि के ऊपरथा।रंगकालापनथा।
6. Multiple linear
खरोंचदाहिनेचूतड़परमौजूदथेजोकि सातथेएवंउनकी
4 cm 5cm x 0.2 cm Dark red stab
लम्बाई से थी। मौजूदथा।
7. Abraded contusion 12cm x 3.5 cm
कमरकेपासनिचलेहिस्सेमें

चूतड़केऊपरमौजूदथा।रंगकालापनथा।
8. Abraded 11 cm x 3.5 cm
घाव बायेतरफकमरकेनिचलेहिस्सेमेंचूतड़
6 cm
से ऊपरमौजूदथा।
9. Contusion 33 cm x 9 cm scapula
दाहिने केनीचेसेशुरूहोकरबायें
scapula
तकमौजूदथा।रंगकालापनथा।
10. 3cm x 2 cm
खरोंच दाहिनेहाथकेपिछलेहिस्सेमेंकोहनीकेठीकनीचे
था।
11. 4 cm x 1.5 cm scab
खरोंच बायेंकोहनीकेठीकपीछेथा।गहरालाल
था।
12. Contused swelling 3 cm x 3 cm
सरकेपिछलेहिस्सेमेंचोटथा।
scalp As noted. skull meninges lacerated "
आंतरिकपरीक्षण था।
8. The case, as per the prosecution, was that after the post
mortem, the cremation had taken place and thereafter the first
information report was got lodged on 23.8.2018 at 13:29 hours.
Thereafter, vis-a-vis Devendra Yadav, Dan Singh Yadav, Rohit
Yadav, Ranjit Yadav, Amit Kumar Rai and Brahma Yadav charges
were framed under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323/149, 352, 504 and
506 IPC and Section 3/7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act.
9. The P.W. -1, the first informant, Neha Rai, appeared in the
witness box and got her examination in chief recorded in the Court.
She had told herself as being in the occupation of education and
that she was staying with her mother Harikanti Devi and father late
Uma Shankar Rai. She had thereafter given out the motive because
of which the accused had killed her father. She had very
categorically stated that on 21.8.2018, she had, along with her
father, gone at 6:00PM with the prasad of Babadham to the house
of Jai Prakash Tiwari. After they had both sat at the house of Jai

8
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
Prakash Tiwari, they had proceeded towards their house at
7:00PM. On the Bhadsar crossing, Devendra Yadav was waiting
exactly in the manner as she had stated in the FIR and she had got
her statement-in-chief recorded as to how they had assaulted her
father. She had further stated that though it was a crowded
crossing and despite the fact that she was shouting for help, but
because of the terror created by Devendra Yadav, no one came
from the market to help her out. However, because of the hue and
cry she had raised, her mother came out of her house and reached
the spot. The mother and the daughter both tried to save the
deceased but Devendra Yadav held her by the shoulder and
separated her from her father. She was also threatened with dire
consequences if she intervened. She had thereafter also dialed
number “100” to call the police but no police personnel came and
therefore she rang up the Thana from where a Daroga came and
took the father of the First informant to the PHC Bankata where
there was no doctor available and, therefore, they went to Deoria
Hospital where the doctors declared the father of the complainant
dead and thereafter she started informing her brothers who came
on 22.8.2018 and 23.8.2018 and the father of the first informant
was thereafter cremated and she alone came to the police station
to get the FIR lodged. She had written the FIR in her own
handwriting at her house and proved the same. She had stated
that with regard to the incident, the Investigating Officer had
recorded her statement and she had also shown the Investigating
Officer the place of incident.
10. In the cross-examination, she had stated that her father
were three brothers. The names of other two brothers were Umesh

9
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
Rai and Ramesh Rai. Ramesh Rai was a bachelor. Umesh Rai used
to stay out of Deoria. Uma Shankar, the deceased, had four sons,
namely, Satendra Rai, Jitendra Rai, Raghvendra Rai and Narendra
Rai. Thereafter there was one more daughter known by the name
of Rekha Rai. She was not married. She had stated that her family
was not a joint family. She had then stated that the elder brothers
of the deceased were living separately from the deceased. She had
then stated that even though the house was one, there was
separation amongst the brothers. Her sister Rekha Rai was staying
at Bombay with her brothers. She had stated that her father was
not a journalist but was a leader of the Bhartiya Janata Party.
11. Upon a question being asked as to whether any interview of
her was taken before she had dialed the number ‘100’, she had
denied the interview. She had then stated that on the day which
followed the incident, some journalists had taken her interview.
She had also stated that she had dialed “100” thrice. First two
times, it was not picked up and on the third occasion it was picked
up. After half an hour the police had reached the place of incident.
She had stated that when the phone call had come from dial ‘100’
the Darogaji said that he would reach on the place of incident in 5
minutes. She denied the suggestion that she had not rung up at
the number ‘100’ and categorically she had stated that when she
had rung up the number 100 then, thereafter, within half an hour
the Darogaji had come. The police which was required to come
from the dialing of the number 100, reached the place of incident
around half an hour of the commission of the crime. But before
that the Darogaji had reached the place of incident. On the vehicle

10
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
which came upon dialing number 100, there were 5 to 6 police
personnel.
12. Upon a question being asked as to why she had not
mentioned about the fact that the police, upon dialing 100 number,
had reached half an hour late then she had answered that she had
not stated that as she had told the Darogaji with regard to the
incident orally immediately after the arrival of the police. The police
had taken her father to the Primary Health Centre at Bankata
where there was nothing done in writing. From there, upon the
suggestion of Daroga, she herself came back to her house to look
after her mother and the Darogaji took her father to Deoria
Hospital. She had stated in the cross-examination that when
exactly the body had reached the hospital, she did not know. What
the doctor said was also not known to her. She had then stated
that she drove herself to the Hospital at Deoria along with her
mother. There Darogaji was present. Upon declaring her father as
dead, the dead body was kept in hospital in the mortuary. She had
again stated that the fact that she had gone by private car was not
stated in the FIR. However, in the statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. she had stated so. If it was not stated in the
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., then she did not know the
reason for that.
13. Upon a specific question being asked as to why when the
police was there at the hospital, it had not got the FIR lodged she
had replied that because there was no matured person at her
house and because the accused had also given her dangerous
threats, therefore, she had also not got the FIR lodged. She had
stated that on the second day also she had not got the FIR lodged

11
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
because the post mortem had not been conducted and she shifted
the burden on the police by saying that because police had said
that till such time as the post mortem would not be done they
would not lodge the FIR. She had then stated that before the FIR
was lodged, the post mortem report was made available to her.
Then, she had stated that in the same paternal house, her uncle
Umesh Rai was also living but separately. Ramesh Rai was also her
uncle. She had also stated that Umesh Rai had two sons, namely,
Anurag Rai and Anuj Rai and they were all staying in the same
house. She had stated that it was correct to say that in the FIR and
in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she had not stated that
her sister was staying with her. She had also stated that she had
not given out in her statement in chief that her sister Rekha was
staying along with her brother. She had also stated that she knew
the names of the Pradhan of her village. She had also stated that
on her pointing, the site map was prepared. Upon questions being
asked as to who stayed in the neighbourhood she had given out all
the names. She had then given out the names of the shopkeepers
whose shops were in the neighbourhood of the site of occurrence.
She had given out the names as Uma Nai, Ramesh Panwala, Falak
Karim Panwala and Kapil Kharwar Chaiwala. She had stated that
Manorama the wife of one Heera Lal had lodged a criminal case
against her uncle Ramesh Rai for having teased her daughter. She
had stated that Brahma Yadav one of the accused was giving
evidence from the side of Manorama in the case which was got
registered against her uncle Ramesh Rai. The prasad which was
given to Jai Prakash Tiwari was given on that particular day to him
alone. She had stated that even though Jai Prakash Tiwari used to

12
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
write the title “Tiwari” but he was also of the same caste to which
the deceased and the first informant belonged.
14. She had stated that she did not remember as to how many
lathies were there as she was engrossed in saving her father. She
had also not seen the length of lathies and dandas. She had stated
again that when she had with her father proceeded towards the
Bhadsar Chauraha then she had seen the accused persons at the
crossing. Devendra at that point of time had stated that the
enemies had reached. Upon this the deceased i.e. the father of the
first informant and the first informant immediately turned towards
their house and started running. However, they were caught there
and were surrounded. The father of the deceased was taken off the
scooty which he was driving and was assaulted by lathies and
dandas. She had stated that the father, therefore, was stopping the
assault by bringing his hands in between the lathies and dandas.
The father therefore got injuries also on his head. However no
blood was coming out of his head. Whether there was any swelling
on the head, she did not know. The scooty, upon a question, being
asked whether was damaged she answered that it was in tact. She
had then stated that while the father and daughter were on the
scooty they were assailed and that the scooty was lying at the
place of incident. What was done with the scooty, thereafter, she
did not know. Darogaji had taken her father from the place of
incident himself. From where, the blood was coming out she did
not know. She had fallen on the body of her father to protect him
from the assaults which were being made. Her efforts to save her
father were thwarted by Devendra who pushed her aside. She had
stated that from the place of incident, her house was around 100

13
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
to 200 meters away. She had also stated that when they were
assaulting her father she had pleaded and implored that they may
not beat him but they did not listen to her at all. With regard to the
scooty, she had not mentioned anything in the FIR. She had stated
that her father could have escaped using the scooty but the
accused had surrounded him from all sides. She once again
reiterated that the Daroga had stated that the FIR would be lodged
only after the post mortem report would be made available. She
then had stated the reason for the delay in the lodging of the FIR
and had stated that when the 4 brothers had arrived then the FIR
was lodged. She had also stated that she had thought it proper to
first cremate her father and then lodge the FIR. This was done
after much deliberation. When the incident had occurred and she
had raised an alarm then apart from her mother many other
persons from the neighbourhood had come. The names of the
neighbours were not mentioned in the FIR. Whether the lands no.
3/7ka, 3/7kha and 318 were in the name of her father, she said
that only he knew about it all. She had stated that on the date of
incident, her statement were recorded by the police at her house
and also at the police station. She had stated very categorically
that on the date of incident while she was at the site, her mother
had come running from the house. She had stated that when she
had gone to the Deoria Hospital in her car then it was driven by
somebody who was sent by her brother Jitendra Rai from across
some river known as Bhat. That the brother had sent the driver
was neither mentioned to the police nor was it mentioned in the
FIR. She had stated that she had not brought the dead body of her
father from the hospital. In fact, it was brought by Jai Prakash

14
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
Tiwari by an ambulance. A police car was accompanying the
ambulance. She had stated that she did not remember if any
reporter had asked her name. She did not remember if she had
told to him her name Neha or Neha Rai. Then she had stated that
she had told them about her village Chhitauni. Upon the reporter
asking her as to how the incident had occurred, she had replied
that some boy had come to her house and had informed that her
father was being beaten by somebody and thereafter she had gone
running to the place of incident. Thereafter she had stated that this
statement she had given to the reporter as she was afraid of the
accused persons.
15. Upon the names being asked of the accused persons by the
reporter, she had stated that their names were Surendra,
Maqsoodan, Arun Kumar and Subhash and when the reporter had
asked as to where her residence was then she had stated that they
were of Chhitauni and she had then stated that her uncle Ramesh
Rai was a lunatic. She had emphatically stated that he had not
gone to the site or to Deoria. He had also run away from the house
on the date of incident and thereafter he was at times coming to
the house and was also at times going away from the house. At the
brahmabhoj which was held 12 days after the death he was there.
She had stated that she considered him a mad person. She had
stated that she had not mentioned about the reporter in the FIR.
16. P.W.-2, was the widow of the deceased. Her name was
Harikanti Devi. She had also stated about the family member in the
same manner as the P.W.-1 had stated. She has stated that on the
date of incident, she along with her husband and daughter were at
the house. She had then stated as to what was the motive for

15
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
which the murder had taken place and had mentioned about the
very same land which the daughter had mentioned. However, she
had stated that she had surrendered the possession of the land
after sometime. Two days before the incident, her husband had
gone to Baba Dham and had come back at 6:00PM. Her husband
had gone alongwith his daughter to the house of Jai Prakash Tiwari
to give Prasad on a scooty. When he was coming back from the
house of Jai Prakash Tiwari the six accused were hiding at the
Bhadsar Chauraha. When she came out of the house upon hearing
some noise then the boy living in the neighbourhood said that her
husband was being beaten up. She had also stated that she had
heard the voice of her daughter. She was crying and shouting.
Thereafter she reached the place of the incident and saw that four
people were beating him with lathies. Rohit Yadav and Brahma
Yadav had held him while 4 others were beating him. When she
reached the place of incident and asked the accused to leave her
husband then she was also pushed away and thereafter she
fainted. When the son was informed on the phone about the
incident, he had got a driver sent and then she reached Deoria at
around 9:00PM and found her husband lying dead. She came back
to her home at around 9:00am in the early morning. Her
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was got recorded about one
and a half months after the incident. She had in her cross-
examination stated that her husband was a simple person and no
one in the village was afraid of him. About Ramesh Rai, Dewar,
(brother-in-law) she stated that he was living in the same house
and she had been the surety for him when the bail was granted to
him in the molestation case. When she had again stated that when

16
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
she first saw the incident she had seen six persons assailing her
husband. She had stated that while her husband was in a standing
position he was being assaulted. She had stated that on the place
of incident her husband was lying down, face downwards. She had
not seen as to where the lathi had hit, whether it was on the head
or hand. As she had thereafter fainted she could not tell where the
scooty had gone. Till the date of the recording of the testimony in
the court, she did not know what had happened to the scooty. She
had then stated that the place of incident was around 200 to 500
yards away from her house. She had then upon cross-examination
stated that the place of incident was first visited by her daughter
and thereafter she had gone. The deceased was being hit by lathis.
She had seen the incident with her own eyes. She rarely went out
of the house. She denied the suggestion that the husband was
beaten and killed at some other place and that after three days
after a lot of discussion, the FIR was lodged and the accused were
nominated in the FIR. She had stated that since she was a
Pardanasin lady, she was not much aware of the incident between
the accused and her husband. She had then stated that her house
was around half a kilometer away from the site and that she could
hear the sounds from the site, sitting at her house. She had stated
that on the date of incident, the young boy living in the
neighbourhood had come and informed her about her husband
being beaten. Upon listening of the sounds of beating, first her
daughter Neha had gone and thereafter she had gone. She then
also stated that Anish son of Parmanand was the boy who had
come and informed her. In the further cross-examination, she had
given the details of the persons who were her relatives. But it had

17
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
been stated that none of them had come to her place upon hearing
about the death of her husband. She had stated that her daughter
had informed her that she had rung up Jai Prakash Tiwari after the
incident had occurred but he was not at home. She was also not
aware as to whether her driver Dhruv had come to the place of
incident. She had then stated that when Anish had informed about
the incident, she had gone there. She had stated that most of the
time, the vehicles were at home and were driven by her driver
Dhruv. However at times her dever (brother-in-law) also used to
drive but he was not a matured person (budbak). She had denied
the suggestions that she had not known about the assailants of her
husband till late in the night.
17. P.W.-3, Jai Prakash Tiwari was also a witness of the
panchayatanama. He had stated that he had given out the reason
for the death as assault by lathi and danda and also because of
throttling. He had stated that Uma Shankar Rai, the deceased, was
known to him because his daughter Vineeta and the daughter of
Uma Shankar Rai, Neha were friends and that he had met Uma
Shankar Rai around a week before the date of the incident. On the
whole of the body of the deceased, there were only injuries of lathi.
However strangulation was also there and he had stated that he
had, in fact, seen the strangulation on the throat himself.
18. P.W.- 4 was the Police personnel who had stated that on
22.8.2018, the ward boy of the district hospital had informed the
police station Kotwali by the Rojnamcha aam at around 8:30am.
He had stated that he had got the duty of getting the
panchayatnama done. The opinion given in the panchayatnama
was that he was hit by lathies and dandas. Upon being cross-

18
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
examined, he had stated that the exhibit ka9, (paper no. 18ka/1)
did not have a signature and that inadvertently probably it was left
out. He had admitted that there was over writing on 50 and upon
“50”, “55” had been written. Upon being asked whether there was
also overwriting on 21 and on “21”, “22” had been written, he had
said yes that there was overwriting. In other columns also 21 was
cut out and 22 was written. He admitted that overwriting had been
done.
19. P.W.-5, the Head Moharrir, had proved the FIR which was dated
23.7.2018.
20. P.W. – 6 again was a formal witness who had proved certain
computer entries.
21. P.W.-7 was, Devendra Singh Yadav, who was the Sub Inspector
who had done the investigation and was the investigating officer.
He had stated that on 23.8.2018 he was posted as Station House
Officer at Bankata Police Station. The first informant Neha Rai had
got the first information report lodged under Sections 143, 148,
149, 323, 352, 504, 506, 302/34 and that had given rise to Case
Crime No. 144 of 2018 against the accused, namely, 1. Devendra
Yadav, 2. Dan Singh Yadav, 3. Ranjeet Yadav, 4. Rohit Yadav, 5.
Amit Kumar Rai, and 6. Brahma Yadav. They were all said to be the
residents of village Chhitauli, Police Station – Bankata, District –
Deoria. After the first parcha was written on 23.8.2018, the
statement of the P.W.- 1 was recorded by him and on the pointing
of the P.W.-1 the site map was prepared on 23.8.2018 itself. On
24.8.2018, for the purpose of arresting the accused efforts were
made. On 25.8.2018, again all efforts were made. On the same
date i.e. on 25.8.2018 telephones of the accused were put on

19
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
surveillance. On 27.8.2018 and 28.8.2018, efforts were made to
arrest the accused. On 29.8.2018, the accused Devendra Yadav
son of Subhash Yadav and Ranjeet Yadav son of Ram Chhabila
were arrested and from them two bamboo lathis on their pointing
were recovered. On 2.9.2018 by the entries on parcha no. 9, he
had stated that Rohit Yadav was arrested. From his pointing also, a
certain bamboo lathi was recovered. Similarly, Dan Singh Yadav
was also arrested and on his pointing on 7.9.2018 a bamboo lathi
was recovered. In the same manner, from the accused Amit Kumar
Rai who was arrested, a bamboo lathi was recovered. With the help
of accused Dan Singh Yadav, Brahma Yadav was also arrested on
9.9.2018. From them also, weapons of the crime were recovered.
In the same manner, he had described about all the other arrests
and the other recoveries.
22. In his cross-examination, he had stated that he did not
remember as to with which official, the weapons which were
recovered were sent for further inspection. He also did not
remember if the weapons/lathies etc. were sent to any laboratory
for further tests. In fact, he admitted that there was no mention of
any sending of weapons/lathies to the laboratory. He had
submitted in his cross-examination that when recoveries were done
no independent witnesses were there. He had stated that during
investigation, he had not enquired as to how many brothers, the
deceased had and, in fact, he admitted that even on the date of
cross-examination, he was not knowing the number of brothers the
deceased had. Whether there was any case under Section 354 IPC
registered against Ramesh, the brother of the deceased, Uma
Shanker, he did not know. He also did not know if the brother

20
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
Ramesh was married. However, the deceased Uma Shanker, his
wife P.W.-2, were sureties for him in the case under section 354
I.P.C. He had stated that he had not recovered any scooty in its
proper or damaged form from the place of incident. He has stated
that he had not taken the scooty in his custody. When he had
reached the house of the deceased then a lot of family members
and relatives were present. None of them, however, gave any
written FIR despite the fact that the P.W.-7 had demanded one
from them. However, he gave reasons for not lodging the FIR and
that was that a few of the family members were still out of the
town and they were being waited for. With regard to there being
any journalist at the house of the deceased and whether any
photography was done he had replied that, he had no idea. Upon a
question being asked as to how the police authorities function vis-
a-vis dial “100”, he had replied that when the number “100” is
dialed then it reaches Lucknow, the main office. From there, it is
given to the Police Response Van (PRV) which is present at every
police station and is in the control of the Station House Officer
there. On the date of the incident, the control over the PRV was in
the hands of P.W.-7. He had stated that whether dial “100” was
dialed, he had no information but some police station had given
him the information. The Sub Inspector Ram Pratap Yadav had
given him the information that on Bhadsar Chauraha an incident
had taken place. He had stated that on the date of incident i.e.
21.8.2018, he had gone to attend on it. What the Sub Inspector
Ram Pratap Yadav had done on 21.8.2018, he had no idea.
However, P.W.-7 had not cared to investigate as to from which
number the dial “100” was dialed. He denied the fact that because

21
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
the telephone from which number “100” was dialed was of some
other people and not of P.W.-1 and, therefore, he had not
mentioned about it in the case diary. That the police had taken the
deceased to the primary health centre Bankata, he had not noted.
Obviously, he said that the police of police station must have been
taken along with the injured but with regard to this fact he had not
mentioned anything in the investigation. Whether at the time of
post mortem anyone from the police station was present, he had
no idea. Before the FIR was lodged and after the number “100”
was dialed, he had stated that he did not remember if he had gone
to the house of the deceased. No dangerous weapon was used in
the incident and no dangerous weapon was also recovered. He had
stated that he had not taken the statement of any of the
shopkeepers, namely, Kapil Kharwar, Brijesh Yadav, Suddu Lohar,
Sheshnath Tiwari during his investigation. In the case only eye-
witnesses were the mother of the first informant and the first
informant herself. In the map, he had not given the distance of the
place of the incident and the house of the informant. He had
stated that he had not prepared any site plan with regard to the
recovery of lathi from the pointing of Amit Kumar Rai. However, he
had stated that the place from which the lathi was recovered was
opposite the house of the informant. Since the recovery of
lathi/bamboo from Amit Kumar Rai was not stated in so many
words in the fard baramadgi, the P.W.-7 had stated, upon a
question being asked, that in fact, a lathi was recovered from the
house of Amit Kumar Rai. Upon further questioning, he had stated
that the site plan was prepared by him. He had stated that in the
map he had not given anything about the neighbourhood. He had

22
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
also not taken the statement of any of the shopkeepers who were
there in the neighbourhood. Even the statement of Sheshnath
Tiwari, the land-lord of the Katra was not recorded by him. In the
neighbourhood of the Katra, there was a milk dairy farm and the
statement of the owner of the milk dairy farm was also not taken
by him. He had upon questions being asked whether he had given
the distance between the various fixed points, he had stated that
he had not given them at all. Who had seen the incident and from
which place also he had not mentioned in the site plan. At the time
of the incident, where the first informant Neha was, also he had
not mentioned in the map. How the wife of the deceased, Harikanti
Devi came and from which direction, he had also not mentioned in
the map. He had again stated, upon a question being asked, as to
who lived in the neighbourhood, he had stated that he did not
know about it specifically. The Katra owner Sheshnath Tiwari was
living in the neighbourhood but he had not taken his statement at
all. Before the recoveries were made under Section 27, he had
stated that he had not taken any disclosure statement from any of
the accused persons. He had stated that the news of the incident
had reached him on the date when the incident had occurred i.e.
on 21.8.2018 but he had not taken any steps till such time as the
FIR was lodged. He had denied the allegations made by the P.W.-1
that the FIR was not lodged because he had asked for the post
mortem report first. He had categorically stated that from the site
in question he had not recovered any scooty. The place of recovery
from where the lathi/bamboo sticks of Ranjeet and Rohit were
found was an open place where any one could go easily. Where the
accused had escaped, after committing the murder, he had not

23
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
stated in the map. He had also not made any efforts to recover the
scooty. He, in so many words, had stated that he recorded the
statement of the widow of the deceased Harikanti Devi only after
36 days of the incident. The reason for the delay he did not know.
On 21.8.2018, also he categorically states that neither Neha nor
any of the family members was present in the house to tell as to
who was responsible for the murder of Uma Shanker. He had
categorically stated that there was no blood found on any of the
lathies recovered.
23. P.W.-8 is Doctor Bipin Ranjan had proved the post mortem
report. He had stated that the post mortem when was being
conducted, it was also photographed. The police constable who had
brought the dead body was Shailesh Kumar. The person who had
recognized the dead body was Jai Prakash Tiwari son of Ram Ghyan
Tiwari. The other person who had identified the dead body was one
Rama Shish. The injuries on the dead body were 12 in number
which were as follows:--
" 1- 3cm x 1cm scab
खरोंचबाँयेकलाईकेसामनेकेहिस्सेमें कागहरालाल
था।
2- Contusion 40 cm x 21 cm
काकमरकेपासएवंदोनोंचूतड़परमौजूद

था।रंगकालापनथा।
3. Contusion 26 cm x 24 cm
दायेंजांघकेपिछलेहिस्सेमेंमौजूदथा।रंग

कालापनथा।
4. Abraded contusion 4 cm x 2.5 cm
दाहिनेपैरकेपिछलेहिस्सेमें
Lateral malleolus 12 cm
मौजूदथा।जोकि के ऊपरथा।रंगकालापनथा।
5. Contusion 14 cm x 15 cm
बायेंजांघकेपिछलेहिस्सेमेंमौजूदथाजो
Popliteal fossa 18 cm
कि के ऊपरथा।रंगकालापनथा।
6. Multiple linear
खरोंचदाहिनेचूतड़परमौजूदथेजोकि सातथेएवंउनकी
4 cm 5cm x 0.2 cm Dark red stab
लम्बाई से थी। मौजूदथा।
7. Abraded contusion 12cm x 3.5 cm
कमरकेपासनिचलेहिस्सेमें

चूतड़केऊपरमौजूदथा।रंगकालापनथा।
8. Abraded 11 cm x 3.5 cm
घाव बायेतरफकमरकेनिचलेहिस्सेमेंचूतड़
6 cm
से ऊपरमौजूदथा।
9. Contusion 33 cm x 9 cm scapula
दाहिने केनीचेसेशुरूहोकरबायें
scapula
तकमौजूदथा।रंगकालापनथा।
10. 3cm x 2 cm
खरोंच दाहिनेहाथकेपिछलेहिस्सेमेंकोहनीकेठीकनीचे
था।

24
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
11. 4 cm x 1.5 cm scab
खरोंच बायेंकोहनीकेठीकपीछेथा।गहरालाल
था।
12. Contused swelling 3 cm x 3 cm
सरकेपिछलेहिस्सेमेंचोटथा।
scalp As noted. skull meninges lacerated "
आंतरिकपरीक्षण था।
24. In the cross-examination, amongst other things which he had
stated was that the lasceration in the brain could be because of the
incident. Then he had categorically stated that apart from the
injury no. 1, all the injuries were on the back side of the body. The
injury no. 2 could not be possible by a lathi as it was 40X21 CM in
size. Regarding injury no. 3, he had stated that it could be possible
by the assault by a single person.
25. On the cross-examination being done by the side of Rohit and
Ranjeet, he had stated that the death could have taken place on
21.8.2018 in between 11:00PM to 12:00 midnight.
26. Thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. They had all denied having committed the
crime and had stated that because they had highlighted the fact
that the deceased had encroached upon the gaon sabha land and
because of the that fine was imposed on the deceased, the accused
had been falsely implicated by the daughter of the deceased.
27. D.W.-1 was Rajneesh Kumar Bharti. He had stated that in the
interviews which he had taken of the P.W.-1. She had not
mentioned the names of Devendra Yadava, Dan Singh Yadav, Rohit
Yadav, Ranjeet Yadav and Verma Yadav. He had also denied the
suggestion that there was any interpolation in the video.
28. D.W.-2 had played the video which had recorded the interview.
29. After the trial was completed, judgment was delivered on
10.8.2023 whereby the accused Devendra Yadav, Dan Singh Yadav,
Rohit Yadav, Ranjeet Yadav, Ankit Kumar Rai were found guilty

25
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
under Section 302/34, 354, 504 and 506 IPC and were exonerated
for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149.
However, the accused Brahma Yadav, Rohit Yadav were given the
benefit of doubt and were acquitted.
30. Pursuant to the conviction, Ranjeet Yadav filed CRLA No. 9263
of 2023, Dan Singh Yadav filed CRLA No. 9255 of 2023, Devendra
Yadav filed CRLA No. 9555 of 2023 and Amit Kumar Rai filed CRLA
No. 9965 of 2023.
31. Learned counsel who appeared for the appellants Ranjeet
Yadav, Dan Singh Yadav, Devendra Yadav and Amit Kumar Rai, Sri
Rajrshi Gupta assisted by Sri Ashutosh Kumar Mishra made the
following submissions:-
I. There was a delay in the lodging of the FIR and that
was sufficient, he submitted, to come to the conclusion that
the accused were falsely implicated in the case and that too
after much deliberation. Learned counsel for the appellants
stated that the incident took place on 21.8.2018 as per the
FIR at 7:00PM. The FIR was lodged by the informant Neha
Rai, the P.W.-1, the daughter of the deceased on 23.8.2018
at 13:29 hours (1:29PM). Thus the delay was to the tune of
42 and a half hours. The prosecution had tried to explain the
delay by saying that the informant had 4 brothers who
resided in different parts of the country and only after they
had come back, the cremation was done and then the FIR
was lodged. She had stated in her statement at page 36 of
paper book that on 22.8.2018 two of her brothers had come
back and thereafter on 23.8.2018, the other two brothers
had also come back. They had thereafter done the cremation

26
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
and then she had gone to the police station to lodge the FIR.
The relevant portion of page 36 is being reproduced here as
under:-
“ 22.8.18
तोमैंनेबाहररहनेवालेभाइयोंकोसूचनादीतोदोभाईदिनांक केरात्रि
23.8.18
मेंआयेतथादोभाईदिनांक केसुबहआयेऔरपापाकाअन्ति मसंस्कार
0 0
किये।पापाकेअन्ति मसंस्कारकेबादथानेपरदर देनेगयी।मैंदर अपनेहाथसे
23.8.18 ”
लिखकरदिनांक कोथानेपरलेगयीथी।
Learned counsel for the appellants stated that when
two of her brothers had come on 22.8.2018 then at least on
22.8.2018 the FIR could have been lodged. Only on
23.8.2018 when the cremation was also done then the
written first information report was lodged for the first time
in the police station.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted
that the P.W.-7 at page 99 had stated that on receiving the
information about the incident, he had reached the place of
incident. Immediately thereafter he had reached the house of
the deceased wherein the family members, relatives and
others were present. He has stated that yet no complaint
regarding the incident was given by any of the family
members. He had stated that he had tried to ask the
complainant to lodge the FIR but she had stated that she was
waiting for her brothers to come. Learned counsel for the
appellant had taken the Court through the statement of the
investigating Officer at page 99 and, therefore, the same is
being reproduced here as under:-
“
पहलेमैंघटनास्थलपरगयाथा।घटनास्थलपरजानेकेकितनीदेरबाद

मृतककेघरगयाथायादनहींहै।जबमैंमृतककेघरपहुँचातोवहाँउनके

घरकेलोगथे रिश्तेदारथे गांवकेलोगथे।जबमैंमृतकउमाशंकरकेघर

पहुँचातोवहाँउनकेपरिवारकेलोगोंनेकोईलिखि ततहरीरघटनाकेसम्बन्ध

मेंनहींदिया था।मैंनेउनकेपरिवारसेलिखि ततहरीरमांगाथा।लेकिन

तहरीरइसलिएनहींदियाक्योंकि उनकेघरकेकुछलोगबाहरथे।घरके

27
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023

लोगजोबाहरथेउनकाइन्तजारकररहेथेलेकिनइससम्बन्धमेंकुछनहीं
”
कहाकि रपटकबदेंगे।
Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted
that the P.W.-1 had stated in her testimony that she had
made a call on number 100 and when the police had not
reached, she had made a call to the police station and
thereafter the SHO from the police station had come and had
taken her father to the PHC Bankata and after that to the
Deoria Hospital. This, learned counsel for the appellants
states, amounts to virtually an admission that the first
informant had till the death of her father not given any
information regarding the commission of any offence against
her father. The police official who had accompanied the father
i.e. the SHO to the Hospital had also not revealed the names
of the accused persons. With regard to this, the statement of
P.W.-1 at page 36 again becomes important.
“ 100
मैं नम्बरपरडायलकीलेकिनपुलिससमयपरनहींआयीतोथानेपर

फोनकी।फोनपरदरोगाजीआयेतोपापाकोपीएचसीबनकटालेगये
-2
लेकिनवहाँडाक्टरकेनरहनेकेकारणदेवरियाअस्पतालआते देवरिया

”
सदरअस्पतालकेडाक्टरनेमेरेपापाकोमृतघोषितकरदिया।
Learned counsel for the appellants while again
explaining as to how the accused were falsely implicated in
the delayed FIR had drawn the attention of the Court to the
page 40 of the paper book wherein he had brought to the
notice of the court as to what story the first informant had
come up with regard to the fact as to why she had delayed
the lodging of the FIR. The statement of the first informant
as was read out by the learned counsel for the appellants,
the same is being reproduced here as under:-

28
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
“ :–
प्रश्न जबदरोगाजीअस्पतालपरथेतोवहींपरघटनाकीलिखि तसूचना
?
क्योंनहींदी
–
उत्तर क्योंकि मेरेघरपरकोईगार्जियननहींथामेरेगांवमुझेभीजानसे

मारनेकीधमकीदियेथेइसलिएमैंनेतुरंततहरीरदरोगाजीकोनहींदियाथा।

दूसरेदिनभीमैंनेलिखि तसूचनाथानेपरनहींदियाथाक्योंकि पोस्टमार्टम

नहींहुआथा।दरोगाजी नेकहाथा कि पोस्टमार्टमरिपोर्टलाओतब
”
एफ०आई०आर०दर्जहोगी।
This very witness, learned counsel for the appellants
stated that, when was asked as to why she had not taken
the help of her uncle Ramesh who was also staying in the
same house, she had stated that he was of unsound mind
and that he had left the house at the time of the incident and
returned after 26 and 27 days. With regard to this
submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, the
statement of P.W.-1 at pages 50 and 51 of the paper book
becomes important and the same is being reproduced here
as under :-
S.P.
“ साहबकानम्बरमुझेयादनहींहै।मेरेचाचारमेशरायदिमागसे

पागलहै।घटनाकेदिनघटनास्थलपरनहीपहुंचेदेवरियाभीनहीगयेथे।

उसदिननहीबतायाथाकि रमेशमेरेचाचापागलहै।इसपरसाक्षीनेकहा

कि बोलनेकहादेतेहै।आप।आजसिखानेकेबादमैचाचाकोपागलबता

रहीहूँ।घटनाकेदिनमेरेचाचाघरसेभागगयेथेतबसेआतेहैजातेहै।
26, 27
घटनाकेदिनमेरेचाचाभागेथेउसके दिनबादलौटेथे।ब्रह्मभोज
12
मेथे।ब्रह्मभोज दिनपरहोताहै।मेरेचाचामेरेपिताकेसमयसेही

पागलहैं।उनकीदवाबहुतहुईथी।डा०कापर्चाहैयानहीमेरेकोनही

मालुम।कहाँकेडा०कीदवाहुईमैनहीजानती।मुल्जि मानसेमेरेचचारमेश

बातकरतेहै।इसीलिएहमसमझतेहैकि वहपागलहैमुझेयादनहीहैकि

जिससमयरिपोर्टरमेराइंटरव्यूलेरहाथाफोटोखींचरहाथाउससमयमेरे

चाचामौजूदथेयानहीं।मुझेनहीमालुमकि उसरिपोर्टिंगमेमेरावदरोगा
  ”
जीवमेरेचाचाकावअन्यलोगोकाफोटोहो।
With regard to the view of the P.W.-2 as to why the FIR
was not lodged immediately after the incident, she had also
given the story that she was waiting for her sons and her
brother-in-law (devar) Ramesh who was of no use
whatsoever.

29
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
Despite all this, the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have admitted to
the fact that Ramesh was an accused of a case of teasing in
which the appellant Brahma was a witness against him. The
P.W.-1 stated as follows:-
“
हीरालालचौहानकोजानतीहूँ।हीरालालकीपत्नीमनोरमानेलड़कीसे

छेड़खानीकामुकदमामेरेचाचारमेशरायपरलिखवायाहै।मुझेयादनहीहै

कि मेरेपितास्व०उमाशंकररायवमेरीमाँहरिकंतीदेवीनेमेरेचाचाकी

जमानतभीहो।मेरेपिताकेपासस्कूटरवचारपहियागाड़ीथी।यहसहीहै

कि दूरजानाहोताथातोचारपहियासेजातेथेछोटीदूरजानाहोताथातो
-2
स्कूटरसेजातेथे।मैहमेशाउनकेसाथनहीजातीथीकभी जातीथी।

स्कूटरपरयागाड़ीपरबैठकरजातीथी।ब्रम्हानामकामुल्जि ममनोरमा
”
द्वारालिखायेगयेमुकदमेमेमनोरमाकेतरफसेगवाहहै।
and the P.W.-2 had page 54 as stated as follows:
, , ,
“ जिरहद्वाराअभि०अधि०देवेन्द्रयादव दानयादव ब्रम्हा रणजीतवरोहित
–
मेरेपति सीधाव्यक्ति थेऔरगांवकेलोगडरतेनहींथे।रमेशरायमेरे

देवरहैं।शादीरमेशरायकीनहींहुयीहै।रमेशरायकेविरूद्धअभि०गणने
W/o
छेड़खानीकामुकदमालिखवायाहै।मनोरमा हीरालालनेलिखावाया

है।इसमुकदमेंकाअभि०ब्रम्हाउक्तछेड़खानीकेमुकदमेंकागवाहहै।

रमेशरायमेरेदेवरहमारसाथउसीमकानमेरहतेहैंजहाँमैंरहतीहूँ।उस

मुकदमेंमेंरमेशरायनेजमानतकरवालीहै।उनकेजमानतदारमैंवमेरेपति

हैं।छेड़खानीकामुकदमाइसमुकदमेंकेपहलेकाहै।जबलड़केनेआकर

बतायाकि मेरेपति कोमाररहेहैतोउससमयछःबजरहाथा।जबसेमेरे

पति कीहत्याहुयीऔरदरोगाजीसेपूछताछतकमैंघरपरहीरही।एक

मुकदमेंमेंब्रम्हाकेविरूद्धलिखवायाथा।अभि०देवेन्द्रअमितरायकेसाथ

मिलकरधमकीदेताथा।अभि०देवेन्द्रसेमेरीकोईदुश्मनीनहींथी। ”
Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, stated
that if Ramesh was having the sense to get involved in
teasing etc. and he had to be got released on bail then
definitely he was a person who was in his senses and could
not be written off absolutely. He submits that at least he
could have gone and got the FIR lodged. Thus, to say that
there was no grown up person at the relevant point of time is
again only an excuse which was being made by the P.W.- 1
and 2 and thus learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that definitely only an excuse was being made for the delay
in lodging of the FIR. He submits that the informant had no
idea with regard to the fact as to who had killed her father

30
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
and she was only trying to deliberate the issue with her
brothers as to whether the persons who were responsible for
getting the encroachment of her father removed from the
gaon sabha land should be implicated in the case which as
per the appellants counsel was only an accident.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari
vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1, as
per paragraph no. 93 of the judgment, the lodging of the FIR
at the earliest was essential as it firstly set into motion the
criminal process and secondly if the FIR was lodged at the
earliest then there is a minimum chance of embellishment.
Since paragraph no. 93 of the judgment was relied upon by
the counsel it is being reproduced here as under:-
“93. The object sought to be achieved by
registering the earliest information as FIR is inter
alia twofold; one, that the criminal process is set
into motion and is well documented from the very
start; and second that the earliest information
received in relation to the commission of a
cognizable offence is recorded so that there
cannot be any embellishment, etc. leater.”
Learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon this
very judgment and referred to paragraph no. 97 of it and
submitted the importance of lodging the FIR. The same is
being reproduced herein as under:-
“97. The Code contemplates two kinds of FIRs:
the duly signed FIR under Section 154(1) is by
the informant to the officer concerned at the
police station. The second kind of FIR could be
which is registered by the police itself on any
information received or other than by way of an
informant [Section 157(1)] and even this
information has to be duly recorded and the copy
should be sent to the Magistrate forthwith. The

31
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
registration of FIR either on the basis of the
information furnished by the informant under
Section 154(1) of the Code or otherwise under
Section 157(1) of the Code is obligatory. The
obligation to register FIR has inherent advantages
:
97.1. (a) It is the first step to “access to
justice” for a victim.
97.2. (b) It upholds the “rule of law” inasmuch
as the ordinary person brings forth the
commission of a cognizable crime in the
knowledge of the State.
97.3. (c) It also facilitates swift investigation
and sometimes even prevention of the crime. In
both cases, it only effectuates the regime of law..
97.4. (d) It leads to less manipulation in
criminal cases and lessens incidents of
“antedated” FIR or deliberately delayed FIR.”
Regarding the paragraph no. 120.4 of the judgment, he
stated that any police officer cannot avoid his duty from
registering the FIR, if cognizable offence is disclosed. In fact,
he submitted that if the FIR was not registered by the
officials with regard to the offence then they were liable to be
proceeded with .The paragraph 120.4 of the judgment of
Lalita Kumar is being reproduced here as Under:-
“120.4. The plice officer cannot avoid his duty
of registering offence if cognizable offence is
disclosed. Action must be taken against erring
officers who do not register the FIR if information
received by him discloses a cognizable offence.”
Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the
judgement of the Supreme Court Thulia Kali vs. State of
Tamil Nadu reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393 and relied upon
paragraph no. 12 of the judgment and submitted that the
delay in lodging the FIR results in miscarriage of justice. Any
after thought results is miscarriage of justice and thus, the
delay should be properly explained. A delay of 42 and a half
hours being only explained by the fact that the informant was

32
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
waiting for her brothers appears to be absolutely
unsatisfactorily.
Further learned counsel for the appellants relied upon
the judgement of Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi reported in
(2007) 12 SCC 641 and submitted that in absence of
satisfactory reasonings for causing the delay in reporting the
incident may prove to be fatal to the prosecution case. The
delay in the lodging of the FIR by PW1 and the non- filing of
the FIR by the police definitely also, he submitted, went to
show that the police did not lodge the FIR as it always
thought it was only an accident and not any offence
committed by anyone.
II. Learned counsel for the appellant has very categorically
from the record of the case pointed to certain contradictions
in the statements of the eye-witnesses and has submitted
that if those contradictions are seen then a doubt is created
as to whether the P.W.-1 and 2 were at all there at the place
of incident. While the P.W.-1 had stated that she had
accompanied the deceased and was also present at the
alleged time of assault her statements get questioned in the
following manner. First of all, she gave an interview to a
journalist, D.W-1, and stated that when the incident had take
place, she had received the information from some persons
while she was at her house. She had stated that though she
had given the interview, the things stated therein were
because she was very frightened at the relevant point of
time. Learned counsel states that what threat was worrying

33
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
her was never disclosed. However, he stated that it was an
admission that she did give the interview.
The fact that the P.W.-1 and 2 were not there at the
relevant place on the date when the incident had taken place
also gets corroborated by the testimony of the P.W.-2 i.e. the
mother of the P.W.-1 and wife of the deceased who had page
59 categorically stated that at the time when she had heard
the incident both she and Neha were at the house. The
relevant portion of her statement which was pointed out by
the learned counsel for the appellant is at page 59 wherein
she had stated:
“
मैशोरसुनकरघरसेबाहरनिकलीउसीसमयकोईलड़कारोतेहुयेआया

औरकहाकि चाचाकोलोगमाररहेहैं।जबमैंशोरसुनीतोमेरीलड़कीनेहा
”
औरमैंघरपरथी।
She had also stated at page 57 that initially the
daughter had reached the place of incident and she
thereafter had followed her. The relevant portion which
learned counsel for the appellant pointed out at page 57 is
being reproduced here as under:
“
घटनास्थलपरपहलेलड़कीगयीथी।फिरमैंगयीथी।लाठीसे

मारनामैंनेअपनेआँखसेदेखी।मैंबराबरघरमेंरहतीहूँ।बाहरकम

जातीहूँ।मैंनेबयानदियाहैकि लोगघटनादेखरहेथेलेकिनदेवेन्द्रके

डरकेमारेकोईछुड़ानेनहींआरहाथा।मैंबेहोशहोनेकेकारणनही
2 ”.
देखीथीकि घटनाकौन लोगदेखेहैं।
Thus the contradictions in the statements of P.W.- 1 and
2 were not only there to show that they were not stating the
correct facts but they also went to show that they were not
present at the place of incident when the alleged assault had
taken place. The PW2 was a highly tutored witness, which
broke down to state the truth which she was being cross-
examined.

34
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the
statement of P.W.- 1 and stated that she had stated that her
house from the place of incident was 100 to 200 meters away
( , 100 200 ).
जहामार्होरहीथीवहासेमेराघर से मीटरइसदुरीपरहै
P.W.-2, however, had stated that the distance between
the place of incident and her house was 200 to 500 yards.
Again P.W. -2 at page 61 had stated something which neither
the P.W.-1 nor the P.W.-2 had stated at the time of getting
there statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW.-2
stated for the first time stated that she got to know about the
incident from one Anish, the relevant portion at pages 61 and
62 of the paper book is being reproduced hereas under:-
“ ,
अनीसपुत्रपरमानन्दनेजबमुझेबतायाकि चाचाकोमारदियेहैं

उससमयमैंअनीसपहचानतीथीक्योकि वहमेरीपट्टीदारीकाहै।जब
, 15
अनीसनेमुझेबतायातोउससमयदिननहीहुआथा मिनटदिन

डूबनेमेंबाकीथा।अनीसकेबतानेकेबादमैंमौकेपरहिम्मतबाँधकर
,
गयीथी।अपनेघरसेमौकेपरमैंअकेलेगयीथी मेरेसाथऔरकोई
,
नहीगयाथा।अनीसनेमुझेमेरेघरआकरघटनाकेबारेमेंबतायाथा

यहबातमैंनेअपनीलड़कीनेहासेभीनहीबतायाथा।अनीसकानाम

मैंनेअपनेलड़कोकोबतायाथाऔरकिसीकोनहींबतायाथा।मैंने
,
सभीलड़कोकोबतायाथा।अनीसनेघटनाकेबारेमेंमुझेबतायाथा
”
यहबातमैंनेदरोगाजीकोनहीबतायीथी।
Learned counsel for the appellants stated that Anish
was never examined by the prosecution. Still further to prove
that P.W.1 and P.W. 2 were not present at the relevant place
at the time of occurrence and their statements were filled
with contradictions, learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the statement of the PW2 was recorded by
the Investigating Officer almost after 36 days of the incident
and no plausible explanation was brought forth by the

35
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
prosecution. This has been stated by the P.W. – 7 and also by
the P.W.-2.
III. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted
that no independent eye-witness was brought forth by the
prosecution P.W. –1 and 2. Both have stated that the incident
had taken place in a busy street. At pages 42 and 43, the
names of the shopkeepers whose shops were there at the
place of incident were mentioned by the P.W.-1 but strangely
no one came in the witness box to testify about the incident.
This fact has also been metnioned by the P.W.-7 at page 102
of the paper book. The relevant portion of which is being
reproduced here as under:-
“
इसकेसके बाबतचश्मदीदगवाहवादिनी मुकदमावउनकीमां

हरिकान्तीकेअलावाअन्यकिसीकानामचश्मदीदसाक्षीकेरूपमें
”
नहींहै।
IV. There are material contradictions in the medical evidence
from the occular testimonies of the P.W. 1 and 2. Learned
counsel for the appellants has submitted that there were in
fact 12 injuries on the person of the deceased and they were
all on non-vital parts and that too in the back portion of the
body. The P.W.-1 had stated that the assault was from the
front and in fact the deceased had tried to hold the lathi
blows. From the post mortem report this much was clear that
no assault was made from front. The injury no. 12 which is
laceration in the head was also a doubtful injury and in fact
the doctor at page 114 had gone to the extent of saying
“brain ka laceration motor vehicle accident se ana sambhav
hai”

36
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
V. If the statement of the P.W.-1 and the statement of P.W.-3
is seen then also there is a vital variation in the statements
of the two witnesses. In the FIR, the P.W.-1 had stated that
the father and the daughter had gone with some Prasad of
Bhaijnath Dham at around 6:00PM to the house of Jai
Prakash Tiwari and thereafter the father and the daughter
were coming back to their house and then the incident had
occurred whereas the P.W.-3, Jai Prakash Tiwari, had stated
in his testimony before the Court that he was not a relative of
Uma Shanker but he had met him because his daugther
Vineeta and the daughter of the deceased Neha were friend
and, therefore, he had known Uma Shanker Rai. He had met
Uma Shanker Rai, the last time around 1 week before the
incident had taken place, and thereafter, he had seen the
dead body of the deceased at the time of panchayatnama on
22.8.2018. He very categorically stated that in between he
had never met the deceased.
Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, states
that the story as was brought forth by the P.W.-1 with regard
to her going to Jai Prakash Tiwari’s house with her father
becomes falsified.
Learned counsel for the appellants further has
submitted that in the FIR itself the P.W.1 had stated that
there was some dispute between the accused and the
deceased and, therefore, her father was done to death. From
the various statements of the witnesses, learned counsel for
the appellants has demonstrated before the court that it was
the deceased who had made illegal encroachments over

37
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
certain gaon sabha land and since the accused side had
moved applications for the removal of the encraochment
there could not have been any reason for the accused to kill
the deceased. In fact, since the deceased was pushed out of
the encroachments on the complaint of the accused persons
there was a possibility that P.W.-1, because her father had
been dragged into a litigation where he had lost, had
implicated the accused persons falsely.
VI. Learned counsel for the appellants states that while
motive is a double edged weapon where murder could take
place because of a motive, the very same motive could be
used to implicate the accused falsely. Learned counsel for the
appellants while disclosing the motive aspect has further
stated that even though the prosecution witness had
presented the accused as notorious people having local
power/clout/terror in the area but no evidence in this regard
had been brought forth.
Learned counsel for the appellants states that the
P.W.-1 had categorically stated that her father was a BJP
leader and he, therefore, submits that if he was politically
strong then definitely some evidence ought to have been
brought forth to indicate as to whether the accused were
notorious people.
VII. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
demand made by the P.W.-1 with regard to the interview of
the journalist cannot be lightly brushed aside. In the
interview she had stated that she was at her house and
someone had informed her about the incident having taken

38
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
place and upon reaching there she had found Surendra,
Maqsudan, Arun Kumar and Subhas assaulting her father.
These persons whose names were taken in the interview
were not mentioned in the FIR. In this regard, learned
counsel for the appellants states that as per Section 58 of the
Evidence Act such facts which are admitted need not to be
proved. Since he relied upon Section 58 of the Evidence Act,
the same is being reproduced here as under:-
58. Facts admitted need not be proved.
No fact need be proved in any proceeding which
the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit
at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they
agree to admit by any writing under their hands,
or which by any rule or pleading in force at the
time they are deemed to have admitted by their
pleadings:Provided that the Court may, in its
discretion, require the facts admitted to be
proved otherwise than by such admissions.
Learned counsel, therefore, stated that if the factum of
interview had been admitted then what was stated in the
interview ought to be taken into consideration while deciding
the case.
VIII. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
investigation was made in the most faulty manner and any
lapse which was there in the investigation would go to benefit
the accused. He states that if the panchayatnama is seen and
the statement of P.W.4 S.I. Awadhesh Yadav, is seen then it
would be evident that in the panchayatnama there were
various interpolations which had not been explained.
Even in the panchayatnama, such opinions had been
given so as to subsequently treat the incident as murder.

39
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
Learned counsel for the appellants further states that even
the preparation of the site map was done in a most shoddy
manner. He relied upon Krishnedowda & Ors; Nanje Gowda
and another vs. State of Karnataka by Arkaloud Police,
reported in 2017 AIR SC 1657 and submitted that if there
were contradictions bewteen the medical and occular
evidence coupled with severe contradictions in the oral
evidence, then clearly latches in investigation would benefit
the case of the accused.
IX. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that
the recoveries as were made were erronously made. Before
the recoveries, no disclosure statements were prepared and
nothing as was essential as per the judgement of
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in AIR 2022 SC 5273 and
Subramanya vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR
2022 SC 5110 was done.
X. Still further learned counsel for the appellants has
submitted that if there was acquittal of two accused who
were made accused on the very same evidence on the basis
of which other accused were being convicted then it goes to
establish that the prosecution had come up with a concocted
case. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants relied
upon Yogarani Versus State by the Inspector of Police
reported in 2024 AIR SC 4641. Learned counsel for the
appellants has specifically relied upon paragrpah no. 10 of

40
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
the judgement and the same is being reproduced here as
under…….
“10. The Court cannot convict one accused and
acquit the other when there is similar or identical
evidence pitted against two accused persons. In
the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of
Gujarat reported in 2023 INSC 829, this court has
held that:
“15. When there is similar or identical
evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by
ascribing them the same or similar role, the
Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the
other. In such a case, the cases of both the
accused will be governed by the principle of
parity. This principle means that the Criminal
Court should decide like cases alike, and in such
cases, the Court cannot make a distinction
between the two accused, which will amount to
discrimination.”
In the case on hand, allegations against the
appellant being the same as made against
Accused No. 3 & 4, the Courts below could not
have convicted the Appellant while acquitting the
other two.”
He also relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court
in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs State of Gujarat reported in
2023 (9) SCC 164 and relied upon 15 of this judgement it is
being reproduced here as under :.
“15. When there is similar or identical evidence of
eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing
them the same or similar role, the court cannot
convict one accused and acquit the other. In such
a case, the cases of both the accused will be
governed by the principle of parity. This principle
means that the criminal court should decide like
cases alike, and in such cases, the court cannot
make a distinction between the two accused,
which will amount to discrimination.”
32. From the side of the first informant Sri Sri Amrendra Pratap
Singh, Sri Girish Kumar Singh and Sri Ashutosh Ganguli were

41
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
heard. The learned AGA Sri Amit Sinha were heard for the State.
They have submitted, that not always delay in FIR would be fatal
for the prosecution. They submitted, relying upon the judgment of
Apren Joseph @ Current Kunjukunju & ors vs. State of Kerala
reported in 1973 (3) SCC 114 that there are various circumstances
under which the delay can happen. So far as the inconsistency in
the testimony of witnesses are concerned, learned counsel for the
first informant relied upon the judgment in CRLA No. 1587 of 2002
(Birbal nath vs State of Rajasthan and ors.) which was decided
along with CRLA No. 1588 of 2002. Learned counsel for the first
informant has submitted that evidence as is there on record had to
be looked into with sagacity. In this, regard, he relied upon
paragraphs no. 20, 21 and 22 of the judgment and therefore they
are being reproduced here as under :
“20. The contradictions in the two statements
may or may not be sufficient to discredit a
witness. Section 145 read with Section 155 of the
Evidence Act, have to be carefully applied in a
given case. One cannot lose sight of the fact that
PW 2 Rami is an injured eyewitness, and being
the wife of the deceased her presence in their
agricultural field on the fateful day is natural. Her
statement in her examination-in-chief gives detail
of the incident and the precise role assigned to
each of the assailants. This witness was put to a
lengthy cross-examination by the defence. Some
discrepancies invariably occur in such cases when
we take into account the fact that this witness is
a woman who resides in a village and is the wife
of a farmer who tills his land and raises crops by
his own hands. In other words, they are not big
farmers. The rural setting, the degree of
articulation of such a witness in a court of law are
relevant considerations while evaluating the
credibility of such a witness. Moreover, the
lengthy cross-examination of a witness may
invariably result in contradictions. But these

42
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
contradictions are not always sufficient to
discredit a witness. In Rammi v. State of M.P.
[Rammi v. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 26] , this Court had held as
under:
“24. When an eyewitness is examined at length it
is quite possible for him to make some
discrepancies. No true witness can possibly
escape from making some discrepant details.
Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored
can successfully make his testimony totally non-
discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it
is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a
witness are so incompatible with the credibility of
his version that the court is justified in jettisoning
his evidence. But too serious a view to be
adopted on mere variations falling in the
narration of an incident (either as between the
evidence of two witnesses or as between two
statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic
approach for judicial scrutiny.”
In the same case, how far a contradiction in the
two statements can be used to discredit a witness
has also been discussed
“25. It is a common practice in trial courts to
make out contradictions from the previous
statement of a witness for confronting him during
cross-examination. Merely because there is
inconsistency in evidence it is not sufficient to
impair the credit of the witness. No doubt Section
155 of the Evidence Act provides scope for
impeaching the credit of a witness by proof of an
inconsistent former statement. But a reading of
the section would indicate that all inconsistent
statements are not sufficient to impeach the
credit of the witness. The material portion of the
section is extracted below:
‘155. Impeaching credit of witness.—The credit of
a witness may be impeached in the following
ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of
the court, by the party who calls him—
(1)-(2)*
(3) by proof of former statements inconsistent
with any part of his evidence which is liable to be
contradicted;’
26. A former statement though seemingly
inconsistent with the evidence need not
necessarily be sufficient to amount to

43
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
contradiction. Only such of the inconsistent
statement which is liable to be “contradicted”
would affect the credit of the witness. Section
145 of the Evidence Act also enables the cross-
examiner to use any former statement of the
witness, but it cautions that if it is intended to
“contradict” the witness the cross-examiner is
enjoined to comply with the formality prescribed
therein. Section 162 of the Code also permits the
cross-examiner to use the previous statement of
the witness (recorded under Section 161 of the
Code) for the only limited purpose i.e. to
“contradict” the witness.”
21. In Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1959
SC 1012, it was held that to contradict a witness
would mean to “discredit” a witness. Therefore,
unless and until the former statement of this
witness is capable of “discrediting” a witness, it
would have little relevance. A mere variation in
the two statements would not be enough to
discredit a witness. This has been followed
consistently by this Court in its later judgment,
including Rammi (Supra) . Moreover, in this case
the High Court lost sight of other more relevant
factors such as the witness being an injured
eyewitness.
22. The purpose of the cross-examination of a
witness in terms of Sections 145 and 155 of the
Evidence Act is to bring contradictions in the two
statements of the witness, in the case at hand,
one given to police under Section 161CrPC, and
the other given before the court. Even assuming
for the sake of argument that there is a
difference in the two statements of PW 2 as she
evidently does not disclose in her examination-in-
chief that Jethnath was also working in the
adjacent field and there was altercation between
the two, this may discredit the witness only so far
as the beginning of the incident; how it started.
The fact that the incident happened is not in
doubt. The offenders were the accused is also not
in doubt. There is no doubt that the incident took
place, which resulted in one death and grievous
injuries to another. It may not have happened
exactly as narrated by PW 2, yet for this
discrepancy the entire testimony of PW 2 cannot
be discarded.

44
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
33. He also relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court
wherein it was held that general denials in the statements under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. do not affect the prosecution. So far as the
issue of electronic evidence is concerned, he relied upon the
judgement Anvar P.V vs P.K. basheer and Ors. reported in 2014
(10) SCC 473 and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao
Gorantyal reported in AIR 2020 SC 4908 and submitted that in the
absence of the Section 65(B) certificate as was required to be
issued in the Evidence Act, electronic evidence cannot be
considered as admissible in a court of law.
34. Learned counsel for the first informant further has submitted
that if the delay of 42 hours was there then there was a definite
reason for that. The P.W.-1 was a common girl not having much
experience in life and she was also afraid of her surrounding where
she lived. She would definitely be afraid of lodging FIR against the
persons who were absolutely known to her and were living around
her house and, thus, the delay could not be in any manner
prejudicial to the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel for the
first informant further submitted that if there were minor
contradictions in the statements of P.W.- 1 and 2 then the case
could not be termed as doubtful. They were ladies who had little
knowledge as to what had to be stated at what time and,
therefore, if they had made certain statements which were
different from each others’ statements and also if they were
different from their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
then it could not be said that the whole case of the prosecution
would be brushed aside. Learned counsel for the informant has
submitted that it was a broad day light murder seen by the P.W. 1

45
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
and 2 and, therefore, if other witnesses of the area did not appear
then it mattered little.
35. So far as the motive part is concerned, learned counsel for the
first informant has submitted that definitely the accused were
aggrieved by the litigation between the parties and, therefore, the
deceased who was a brave man had ultimately lose his life at the
hands of the accused.
36. Learned counsel for the first informant further stated that two
accused, namely, Brahma Yadav and Rohit Yadav had wrongly been
acquitted. In this regard, a Criminal Appeal U/s 372 No. 439 of
2023 had been filed. He submitted that on the same evidence
which had led the trial court to convict Ranjeet Yadav, Devendra
Yadav, Dan Singh Yadav and Amit Kumar Rai, the two accused
Brahma Yadav and Rohit Yadav could not have been acquitted.
37. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned
counsel for the first informant and the learned AGA, we find that
the incident occurred on 21.8.2018 at 19:00 hours as has been
alleged in the FIR. Definitely there was a delay of 42 and a half
hours. This delay the prosecution has tried to explain through the
statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. The P.W.-1 as has been noted
above had stated that she had accompanied her father and was
present at the time of the incident. When the incident occurred,
she rung up the number “100” to call the PVR. When there was no
response from the PVR, she rung up to the police station and the
SHO of the police station came. He took the injured along with the
first informant to the primary health centre where they did not find
any doctor and therefore, they went to the hospital at Deoria
where the injured was declared dead. We also find that the first

46
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
informant had on the very same day informed her 4 brothers who
were staying in far off towns of the country and they took 24 and
48 hours respectively to come to Deoria. The P.W.-1 the first
informant had also stated that the uncle of hers, Ramesh, was of
an unsound mind and, therefore, she could not depend upon his
advice. The P.W. 1 further shifted the burden over to the police and
had stated that it had said that when she would get the post
mortem report only then the FIR would be lodged.
38. We have considered the rival arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the first
informant who had submitted that delays did occur at times,
specially when ladies are at home. However, upon the analysis of
the entire incident which had taken place, we find that the delay
was unexplained. The P.W. -1 had stated that upon the incident
having been taken place, the police was called and the doctors
were contacted. One fails to understand that even if the first
informant was hesitant in getting the FIR lodged, at least the police
personnel who had accompanied the injured and who had
subsequently died should have at least lodged the FIR. We find
substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellants that, in fact, the police had been throughout of the view
that it was an accidental death and therefore in all probability the
FIR for the commission of murder i.e. offence under Section 302
was not being lodged. It is another matter that since a person had
died the police had the responsibility to lodge the FIR. What inputs
the brothers who had come from outside could give also is not
known to anyone. If the P.W.-1 was an eye-witness and had seen
everything, especially the assault then she should have got the

47
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
matter reported at the earliest. This not having been done, we are
definitely of the view that the delay would become prejudicial to
the case and we are of the view that the names which were
brought in the FIR were a result of an afterthought. Further, we
find that P.W.-1 had stated that she had come to the house of Jai
Prakash Tiwari along with her father to give prasad. Thereafter she
had gone along with her father and had reached the place of
incident and had actually seen her father being getting beaten. The
story seems improbable. If the daughter had been there and if she
had tried to resist the assault, then she would have also got
injured. Not only this, from the post portem report, we find that all
the injuries were on the back side of the deceased. These injuries
could have very much been there if the body of the father was
dragged because of some accident. The eye-witness says that she
had seen the assailants coming from the front and her father was
trying to hold back the assailants but there is no injury on the front
portion of the body. Coupled with that, we find that even the doctor
had opined that it could be an accidental death. Not only that the
doctor had also opined that the timing as was given by the first
informant appeared to be a different timing. Whether Jai Prakash
Tiwari was the same Jai Prakash Tiwari who was there on the
panchayatnama has not been clarified by the prosecution in the
entire case. However, we find that P.W. 3 Jai Prakash Tiwari had
stated that he had not met the deceased for quite some time. We
would also like to comment on the working on the prosecution,
specially the police, which had not lodged any FIR immediately
after it came to know of the incident. If it had been a case of even

48
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
an accident then we are definitely of the view that an FIR was a
must.
39. The contradictions in the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are
also not such which could be ignored. P.W.-1 had throughout said
that she had accompanied the father but P.W.-2 had in so many
words stated that the daughter was throughout with her. This is
again not a simple contradiction. Further, the P.W.-2, the widow of
the deceased, had stated that she was informed by a boy of the
name “Anish” and Anish was never produced in the witnesses box
and thus who was speaking the correct facts, remains a big
mystery which went unsolved.
40. Also, the motive aspect seem to be absolutely weak. It was
the father of the P.W.-1, who should have been the aggrieved by
the acts of the accused and not vise versa. This compels us also to
give a thought to the fact that false acquisition might have been
there. And in the ultimate analysis we do find that it was a case of
false implication.
41. Furthermore, even the recovery as per the judgments of the
Supreme Court were faulty and the recoveries were also such
which could not be relied upon. Also, they having been found in the
open place no importance could be attached to them.
42. We are, however, definitely of the view that the recorded C.D.
containing the interview which was brought before the court by the
D.W.-1 could not be a substantial peace of evidence of which could
be considered as admissible.
43. This we say because there was no certificate from the relevant
authority under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act.

49
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
44. Be that as it may, we are of the view that some substance was
there in the case of the defence when they came forth with the fact
that the P.W.-1 had given an interview before some news agency.
This we say because she had virtually admitted the interview.
Whether there was any threat on the PW1 to give the interview
was never clarified. No evidence was led with regard to the threat.
45. However, in the ultimate analysis after considering the entire
evidence before us and the arguments made by the learned
counsel for the appellants, we are of the view that the conviction
was wrongly done by the judgement and order dated 10.8.2023
and, thus, the judgement and order dated 10.8.2023 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Court No. 4,
Deoria, is set aside. The appellants, Devendra Yadav, Dan Singh
Yadav, Ranjeet Yadav and Amit Kumar Rai are acquitted of all the
charges. They be released forthwith, if they are not required in any
other case.
46. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No. 9263 of 2023, Criminal
Appeal No. 9255 of 2023, Criminal Appeal No. 9555 of 2023 and
Criminal Appeal No. 9965 of 2023 are allowed.
47. So far as the Criminal Appeal U/s 372 Cr.P.C No. 439 of 2023
is concerned, we find that there is absolutely no evidence against
the accused which could be used to convict them. We are of the
view that the accused Rohit Yadav and Brahma Yadav were
acquitted in a fair manner and, therefore, no interference in the
appeal is required. All the reasons for which the Criminal Appeal
No. 9263 of 2023, Criminal Appeal No. 9255 of 2023, Criminal
Appeal No. 9555 of 2023 and Criminal Appeal No. 9965 of 2023

50
CRLA No. 9263 of 2023
were allowed, are also the reasons for which this criminal appeal
U/s 372 Cr.P.C. No. 439 of 2023 is being dismissed.
(Prashant Mishra-I,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
May 29, 2026
PK
Digitally signed by :-
PRAVEEN KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad