Satya Prakash @ Satte Pandit vs State Of U.P.

Hon'Ble Abdul Shahid, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.05.1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 496/M/1985, convicting the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, as per the genesis of the incident, the alleged occurrence took place on 12.05.1985 at 11:30 A.M., whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 12.05.1985 at 18:50 hours. The allegation against the accused persons is that they caused a stab injury to the stomach of the complainant's brother below the ribs on the right side. The injured person is Ganga Charan. He further submitted that the eyewitnesses named in the F.I.R., Mumtaz and Om Prakash, were not produced by the prosecution. As per the injury report, the injured suffered a stab wound. The prosecution produced the injured Ganga Charan as P.W.-1 and his brother/complainant Tara Chandra as P.W.-2. Sri Amar Singh Yadav, who investigated the matter, was examined as P.W.-3. Dr. T.P. Singh, who examined the injured, testified as P.W.-4, and Head Constable Uday Bhan Dubey, who registered the F.I.R. and prepared the G.D. entry, deposed as P.W.-5. He submitted that there are major contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and that independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. On the other hand, the appellant/accused produced three defense witnesses, namely Devi Shankar (D.W.-1), Munna (D.W.-2), and Ashrafi Lal (D.W.-3), who clearly stated that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case.

All these submissions were not properly considered by the learned trial court. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside, and the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed. He lastly submitted that the appellant has suffered the litigation for more than 40 years.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the criminal appeal and submitted that the injury was caused on the vital part of the injured, namely the abdomen. There is a stab wound on the stomach of the injured. The injured is the best witness, who has fully supported the prosecution case and deposed against the appellant/accused. The complaint, as well as the injuries, are duly corroborated by the medical examination. There is complete corroboration between the oral evidence and the medical evidence. Hence, the criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed.

The F.I.R. was registered promptly under Section 307 I.P.C. on the same day of the incident, i.e., 12.05.1985. The F.I.R. was lodged at 18:50 hours, whereas the incident occurred at 11:30 A.M. The delay of a few hours has been plausibly explained by the complainant, who stated that priority was given to providing immediate medical aid to the injured. Therefore, the delay, if any, in registering the F.I.R. stands satisfactorily explained and is acceptable. The F.I.R. was registered specifically naming the appellant. The Check F.I.R. has been proved as Ext. Ka-1. The injury report of the injured, proved as Ext. Ka-5, is dated 12.05.1985 at 12:45 P.M. from the Government Hospital, District Kanpur, where he was brought by his brother, Tara Chandra, who is also the complainant.

As per the injury report, the injured sustained the following injury: A stab wound measuring 2.5 cm x 0.7 cm, depth not probed, on the right side of the upper abdomen. The aforesaid injury was kept under observation and was caused by a sharp-edged object, of fresh duration. The patient was admitted to the hospital and the police were informed. It is also noted in the report that one baniyan and one shirt were sealed and handed over to the pharmacist.

It is settled law that an injured witness is the best witness. An injured person is not expected to falsely implicate an innocent person while letting the real culprit go scot-free.

Ganga Charan, who was examined as P.W.-1 on 18.03.1986 before the learned trial court, specifically stated that the incident occurred approximately 10 months prior, on 12.05.1985. "My brother Tara Chandra had sent me to get wheat ground (gehun piswane) at the mill (chakki) at 11:00 A.M. When I was returning home, as soon as I reached near Khatikana Gali, there were three persons who were gambling. One of them was Satte, who is present in court, and the other two persons were Om Prakash and Mumtaz. Satte Pandit stopped me after calling out to me and said, 'Ganga Charan, come and join the gambling.' I refused. The accused Satte came over after stepping down from the platform (chabutara). He saw Rs. 500/- kept in the upper pocket of my shirt and demanded the said money. I refused to give it. Upon my refusal, he drew a knife from his side and stabbed me in my stomach. I snatched the knife, but he was carrying a country-made pistol in his leg. He pulled out the country-made pistol and said that today he would kill me. I then fled from there to save my life. I fled through Parasuram Gali, and after crossing it, I fell down on the road and became unconscious. I fled from the spot after leaving the knife at the place of the incident. My brother Tara Chandra took me to the hospital by rickshaw. I was lightly conscious. My brother admitted me to the hospital. I narrated the incident to my brother in the rickshaw and also narrated it when I regained consciousness at the hospital. I was admitted to the hospital for two months. An operation was conducted on my injuries. The incident was also witnessed by Om Prakash and Mumtaz. Om Prakash and Mumtaz are associates of the accused Satte and reside beside his house."

The injured specifically narrated the entire story of the prosecution and specifically stated the motive as well as the role of the appellant/accused who had stabbed him in his abdomen. Cross-examination was conducted by the learned counsel for the accused. In cross-examination, he specifically described the place of incident, stating that houses were constructed on both sides of the lane (Gali) where he was stabbed. A peepal tree is located approximately 20–25 paces away from that place. The police questioned him during the investigation. He told the inspector that the altercation took place in Khatikana Gali. Thereafter, he clarified that he was stabbed in Gudiyana Wali Gali. The place where the incident occurred was shown by his brother to the inspector. About 3–4 days after the incident, his brother told him in the hospital that he had shown the spot to the inspector where he was stabbed. He specifically stated that he told the inspector that he had completely narrated the entire story of the incident to his brother. Feeling dizzy after the incident, he had not narrated the entire story to anyone other than his brother. He specifically stated in his examination-in-chief that Satte stabbed him on the right side, and as soon as he was wounded, blood started oozing out. Being the best witness, he completely narrated the entire sequence of the incident.

If a person is stabbed, blood will inevitably ooze out, more particularly when the injury is to the abdomen, which is a vital part of the human body. He further stated that his clothes were blood-stained. He stated that he had no prior enmity with Satte before the incident. The sealed bundle was opened before the court, inside which the shirt and baniyan were found. The witness identified the shirt and baniyan as the clothes worn by him at the time of the incident. They were exhibited as Ext. Ka-1 and Ka-2. He clearly detailed the entire prosecution narrative, specifically identifying Satte/accused/appellant as the person who stabbed him. He identified the shirt and baniyan worn at the time of the incident, aligning with the prosecution story set out in the Check F.I.R. lodged by Tara Chandra (P.W.-2), the brother of the injured.

Tara Chandra deposed as P.W.-2. He stated: "Ganga Charan is my brother. The incident occurred at approximately 11:00 A.M. on 12.05.1985. I had sent my brother Ganga Charan to get wheat ground at the mill. At around 11:30 A.M., a boy came and informed me that my brother had been stabbed and was lying in Gudiyane Ki Gali. I reached there and saw my brother lying unconscious with blood oozing out. I took him to the hospital by rickshaw and admitted him at 12:30 P.M. during the day. Thereafter, my brother became light conscious and then become unconscious. When my brother regained consciousness, the Magistrate recorded his statement at 5:00 P.M., after which he narrated the entire incident to me. After learning the complete account of the incident, I went to the police station for registration of the F.I.R." He verified the F.I.R. as Ext. Ka-1. He stated that the medical examination of his brother took place at the hospital, and he received the report, which he handed over to the inspector.

At the time of lodging the F.I.R., he stated that when his brother regained consciousness, the Magistrate recorded his statement, after which his brother narrated the entire story to him. His brother told him that the accused Satte called him over and asked him to gamble, and upon his refusal, demanded the Rs. 500/- in his pocket. Upon his brother's refusal, the accused stabbed him and also drew a country-made pistol. He did not know the name of the boy who informed him.

S.I. Sri Amar Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case, deposed as P.W.-3. He investigated the case and verified that it was registered at the police station in his absence on 12.05.1985. He recorded the statements of the complainant Tara Chandra and the injured Ganga Charan in Emergency Ward No. 2 of the District Hospital on 13.05.1985. He obtained the injury report from the complainant and noted it in the General Diary (G.D.). He also recorded the statements of Mumtaz and Om Prakash on the same day. He prepared the site plan during the investigation in the presence of the complainant and the witnesses Mumtaz and Om Prakash, which was verified as Ext. Ka-2. On the same day, he collected the blood-stained clothes of the injured from the hospital and deposited them in the Malkhana at the police station. He recorded the statement of the accused Satya Prakash on 27.05.1985 in jail, and upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Satya Prakash @ Satte Pandit under Section 307 I.P.C. He verified the charge sheet as Ext. Ka-3. The Check F.I.R. is in the handwriting of Head Constable Udai Bhan, marked as Ext. Ka-1. Udai Bhan was posted with him, and he had seen him reading and writing. On the basis of the Check F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-1), Head Constable Udai Bhan registered Case Crime No. 85 of 1985 and detailed it in G.D. No. 41 at 18:50 hours on 12.05.1985. In his cross-examination, he confirmed that at the time of preparing the site plan, Tara Chandra was present at the place of incident.

Dr. T.P. Singh deposed as P.W.-4. He conducted the medical examination of the injured on 12.05.1985 while posted as Emergency Medical Officer at Ursula Hospital, Kanpur. He stated that he examined the injuries of Ganga Charan on the same day at 12:45 P.M. He verified that there was a stab wound measuring 2.5 cm x 0.7 cm x depth not probed on the upper right side of the abdomen. He corroborated the injuries as described by the injured (P.W.-1) and the complainant (P.W.-2). He further stated that the injury was kept under observation and was caused by an incised-wound like a knife. The duration of the injury was fresh, and it could have occurred around 11:30 A.M. on 12.05.1985. The injured was admitted to the hospital, and information was sent to the police. One baniyan and one shirt belonging to the injured were taken into possession, sealed, and handed over to the pharmacist. He stated: "I prepared the injury report of the injured. The medico-legal register was before me. The injury report of Ganga Charan is in my handwriting and signed by me. Both carbon copies are filed in the record. Today, I am submitting the original carbon copy, marked as Ext. Ka-5. The thumb impression of the injured is present on both the original injury report and the carbon copy provided to the injured."

The doctor specifically opined that the injury was on a vital part of the body. After perusing the bed head ticket filed after the examination, he stated that Dr. C.K. Singh operated on the same injury on the same day. In his opinion, the injury could have caused the death of the injured. Information was sent to the police by recording it in the police information register after preparing the injury report. He stated that he did not recall the exact time, as it is natural not to remember exact times after a long period.

The doctor clearly proved the nature of the injury, its potential consequences, the medical treatment provided, and the dispatch of information to the police.

Head Constable Udai Bhan Dubey deposed as P.W.-5, verifying the Check F.I.R. as Ext. Ka-1 and the G.D. as Ext. Ka-4. He is a formal witness.

Three defense witnesses were produced by the appellant: 1. Devi Shankar (D.W.-1) recorded his statement before the trial court on 03.04.1986. He stated: "I know the accused Satya Prakash. I submitted an application dated 30.04.1985 to the Superintendent of Police, Mahanagar, Kanpur. I wrote down whatever was dictated by him. I am submitting a carbon copy of the application bearing my signature, which was sent through the post office and stamped by it. The envelope is Ext. Kha-2 and the application is Ext. Kha-1." During cross-examination by the prosecution, he stated that he ran a betel (paan) shop at Usmanpur, approximately 1.5 to 2 miles from Khalasi Line. Usmanpur falls under Police Station Naubasta. He had known the accused for two years prior to that day and used to visit his house. He stated that he signed as the scribe on the original report, removing the carbon copy at the time of signing; hence, neither his signature nor the signature of Satya Prakash appears on Ext. Kha-1. He specifically admitted that he came to know about the case 15 days after the incident and learned that the accused had been falsely implicated, yet he made no complaint to higher authorities. It is denied to state that Ext. Kha-1 and Ext. Kha-2 were fabricated to safeguard the accused, or that he gave a false statement out of friendship with Satte. The incident occurred on 12.05.1985, and D.W.-1 recorded his statement on 03.04.1986, nearly a year later. By his own admission, despite knowing the accused for two years and learning within 15 days that he was falsely implicated, he never complained to any higher authority. Hence, his testimony does not inspire confidence. 2. Munna (D.W.-2) stated that House No. 10/208 belongs to Nigam Pandit and is situated at Khalasi Line. During cross-examination by the prosecution, he stated that adjacent to House No. 10/182 is his House No. 10/181, which belongs to Satya Prakash @ Satte. Mumtaz resides in the same house as a tenant of Satte. Om Prakash resides in the lane opposite Satte's house. He added that Om Prakash and Anil did not associate with Satte. 3. Ashrafi Lal (D.W.-3) was examined on 10.04.1986. He stated that he knew Ganga Charan and Ganga Charan sustained a stab wound 11 months prior. He stated: "I was standing on my platform (chabutara) when I saw Ganga Charan running while injured, saying that the people of Khatikana had injured him." During cross-examination, he admitted that he had never spoken to anyone about the incident prior to testifying. He learned 2–3 days after the incident that Satte Pandit was falsely implicated, yet he never informed any police officer or court until that day. He stated he was acquainted with Satte as they lived in the same neighborhood. It is belied to state that he was lying due to his friendship with Satte.

In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused/appellant denied the allegations, stating that he had given Ganga Charan Rs. 500/- for making shoes. When Ganga Charan failed to make the shoes, he demanded the money back, whereupon Ganga Charan threatened to falsely implicate him. He claimed to have submitted a report regarding that incident and alleged that he was falsely implicated due to that enmity.

It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy & Ors vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (1) SCC (CRI) 630 and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 (3) SCC(CRI) 211, where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in-guarantee of his presence of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate some one. “convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.”

In Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 (8) SCC 21, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has defined that ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. In the present case, the injured witness is within the category of ‘sterling witness’.

It is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haalesh @ Haleshi @ Kurubara Haleshi v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 475, that as per the evidence of the injured witness, only chopper was used as a weapon of crime. Considering the evidence of injured eye witness, suggestion or opinion of the doctor cannot prevail as the opinion based upon probability is a weak evidence in comparison to the ocular evidence of eyewitnesses.

In this case, the F.I.R. was lodged on the very same day of the incident against the named accused/appellant. The injured witness fully supported the prosecution story. The injury was examined by the doctor at the hospital on the same day, and surgery was performed on the same day as well. The injury of the victim is duly corroborated by both oral and medical evidence. An injured witness is the best witness, as an injured person is not expected to falsely implicate an innocent person while letting the real culprit go scot-free.

There is no ambiguity in the evidence of P.W.-1 (the injured) or P.W.-2 (the complainant). P.W.-4, Dr. T.P. Singh, who medically examined the injured initially, found a stab injury on a vital part of the abdomen, opined that the duration of the injury was fresh, and stated it could have been caused around 11:30 A.M. on 12.05.1985. Considering the nature of the injury, he opined that it was sufficient to cause death.

It is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yogesh Singh vs Mahabeer Singh & Ors, 2017 (11) SCC 195 and Prabhu Dayal vs The State Of Rajasthan, 2018 (8) SCC 127, that minor discrepancy should not be given undue importance that do not go to the root of the matter. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Iqbal Moosa Patel vs State Of Gujarat, (2011) 2 ALLCRIR 1897 that It is true that the prosecution is required to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but that does not mean that the degree of proof must be beyond a shadow of doubt.

In view thereof, there is not an iota of doubt regarding the role of the appellant/accused in the offence. The prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Kedia Versus Union of India, 2025 INSC 608, has held as follows:

The learned trial court correctly observed that the appellant/accused, Satya Prakash @ Satte, caused injuries to the victim, found him guilty, and convicted and sentenced him accordingly. However, considering that the matter is over 40 years old, this circumstance deserves consideration in light of the facts and circumstances of the case.

Hence, the period of incarceration is reduced from seven years' rigorous imprisonment to four years' rigorous imprisonment. The period of sentence already undergone by the appellant in jail shall be adjusted against his total sentence.

With these modifications, the present appeal is partly allowed.

The appellant is currently on bail. His bail bond and sureties are canceled, and the sureties stand discharged. The appellant is directed to surrender before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, forthwith.

A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, by email for compliance.

A copy of this judgment, along with the complete trial court record, shall be sent to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, for necessary compliance.