01Facts
The deceased, Uma Shankar Rai, was allegedly assaulted with lathis by six accused on August 21, 2018, at 7:00 PM near Bhadsar crossing.
p. 4The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by his daughter, Neha Rai (PW-1), on August 23, 2018—a delay of approximately 42.5 hours.
p. 5, 25The prosecution alleged the motive involved a dispute over Gaon Sabha land.
pp. 3-4The Trial Court (Special Judge, E.C. Act, Deoria) convicted four appellants (Devendra Yadav, Dan Singh Yadav, Ranjeet Yadav, and Amit Kumar Rai) under Section 302/34 IPC and other sections, while acquitting Brahma Yadav and Rohit Yadav.
pp. 2-3The convicted appellants challenged their sentence, while the complainant appealed the acquittal of the other two accused.
pp. 49-5002Issues
i.1. Whether the unexplained delay of 42.5 hours in lodging the FIR was fatal to the prosecution's case.
p. 25, 46ii.2. Whether the testimonies of the eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) were credible despite material contradictions and inconsistencies with medical evidence.
p. 32, 48iii.3. Whether the recovery of the alleged murder weapons (lathis) complied with the legal requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
p. 39, 4803Law Applied
Section 154 Cr.P.C. regarding the necessity of prompt FIRs to avoid embellishment, citing Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. and Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu.
p. 30, 31Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act for the validity of discoveries made pursuant to disclosure statements, as interpreted in Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of U.P.
p. 39The principle of parity in criminal trials as established in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, holding that identical evidence cannot lead to both conviction and acquittal of different accused.
p. 40Admissibility of electronic evidence was governed by Section 65B of the Evidence Act and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal.
p. 48Provisions in the judgment · 17 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 372Section 154Section 157Section 161Section 162Section 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860 11 provisions
Section 34Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 302Section 323Section 352Section 354Section 504Section 50604Reasoning
The Court found the 42.5-hour delay in lodging the FIR unexplained and fatal, noting that while PW-1 claimed to wait for her brothers, two had already arrived on August 22.
pp. 25-26, 46The Court observed that the police accompanied the deceased to the hospital but failed to lodge an FIR, suggesting they initially viewed the death as accidental.
p. 46, 47Material contradictions existed: PW-1 claimed to be at the scene, but PW-2 stated they were both at home when informed by a neighbor, Anish (who was never examined).
pp. 33-34, 48The medical evidence contradicted the ocular testimony; while PW-1 alleged a frontal assault, all 12 injuries were on the back of the deceased, leading the doctor to suggest a motor vehicle accident as a possible cause.
p. 35, 47The Court held the recoveries of lathis were legally flawed as they were found in open, accessible places without prior disclosure statements.
p. 39, 4805Holding
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to the unexplained delay, lack of credible independent witnesses, and medical contradictions.
pp. 47-48The Court Allowed the appeals of Ranjeet Yadav, Dan Singh Yadav, Devendra Yadav, and Amit Kumar Rai, setting aside their convictions and ordering their release. The Court Dismissed the complainant’s appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., upholding the acquittal of Rohit Yadav and Brahma Yadav.
pp. 49-50Original Court PDF
Ranjeet YadavvsState Of U.P.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
