Jawahar Singh & Ors. vs State Of U.P.

Hon'Ble Abdul Shahid, J.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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:

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.

The post-mortem report of the deceased is Ext. Ka-2. The ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased are as follows:

Learned trial court has held that there could be no occasion for a thought 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

In Hardeep Singh and Others v. State of Haryana, (2009) 2 SCC (Criminal) 770, the Hon'ble Supreme Court addressed the reliability of 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.

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.

It is held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Kilari Malakondiaah @ Malayadri & others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2009 (3) SCC (CRI) 974, that where witnesses are injured and related, their credibility must be 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.

It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Namdeo v. State of 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.

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.

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.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted vehemently that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. However, higher 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.

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.

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.

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 going towards below. There were no special things in head and neck.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Bhuneshwar was standing outside his door. After Udai Singh fell upon sustaining the spear injury, they rushed to the spot where he was lying.

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.

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.

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.

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 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."

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.

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 Singh and Vijay Singh had already suffered their injuries prior to my injuries."

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

S.I. K. Ram deposed as P.W.-8. He stated that he was posted as In-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).

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.

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.

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.

The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They stated that the evidence recorded against them was false and incorrect.

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.

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.

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.

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 both Indrajeet Singh and Deo Narain Singh. There is consistency across the statements of eyewitnesses, injured witnesses, and the overall prosecution narrative.

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.

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:

Whereas, in paragraph no. 6 of the case of (Srikrishna) supra, it is held held as under:

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.

It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalliram and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 17, that in the matter of appreciation of evidence in a criminal case, the principle of precedent is not applicable as the case is to be decided on facts.

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.

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.

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.

The criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Appellant No. 4 (Indra Jeet Singh) and Appellant No. 5 (Deo Narain 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.

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.