R. SINGH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2946 of 1985

R. Singh And Others
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P.
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : O.P. Singh, Om Prakash Singh, P.K.
                                 Singh, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : A.G.A.

                                                                  Reserved


Court No. - 89

                   HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against judgement and order
dated 31.10.1985, passed by learned Special Judge (D.A.A.), Kanpur
Dehat in S.T. No. 114 of 1984 (State Vs. Ram Jor Singh and Others),

under Section - 392 I.P.C., Police Station - Rura, District - Kanpur Dehat,

whereby the appellants, namely, Ramjor Singh, Ramesh Singh and

Narendra Singh have been convicted under Section - 392 I.P.C. and

sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.

500/-, each.


2. During pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 3 Narendra Singh has

passed away and thus, appeal on behalf of appellant No.3 was abated.

Now this appeal is confined only in respect of appellant No.1 Ramjor

Singh and appellant No.2 Ramesh Singh.


3. Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and

and learned A.G.A. for the State.


4. As per prosecution version, on 01.05.1980 at about 07:00 PM, while
                                                       CRLA No. 2946 of 1985
                               2


the informant along with his domestic help and grand mother was

bringing five bags of mustard in bullock-cart, in the way appellants and

co-accused met them and accused Amar Singh @ Munna took out a knife

and at point of knife they snatched five bags of mustard. The informant

has reported the matter to the police on 02.05.1980 vide Tehrir Ext Ka-1

and the first information report was registered on 02.05.1980 at 10:00

AM. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, site-

plat was prepared and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was

submitted against appellants for offence under Section - 392 I.P.C.


5. Learned Special Judge (D.A.A.), Kanput Dehat took cognizance.

Appellants / accused were charged for offence under Section 392 I.P.C.

vide order dated 30.03.1982. The appellants / accused pleaded not guilty

and claimed trial.


6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses.

P.W.-1 Ram Prakash Singh is informant, P.W.-2 Smt. Ram Dulari, P.W.-

3 Vijay Pal Singh and P.W.-4 Surendra Singh are alleged eye witnesses of

the incident.


7. After prosecution evidence, appellants / accused were examined under

Section - 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied prosecution evidence and

claimed that they were falsely implicated due to enmity, however no
evidence was led in defence.


8. After hearing and analyzing evidence on record, the accused-appellants

were convicted under Section - 392 I.P.C. and sentenced as stated in

paragraph No.1 of this judgment.


9. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred present appeal.
                                                        CRLA No. 2946 of 1985
                               3


10. Learned counsel for the appellant No. 1 and 3 argued that the trial

Court has failed to appreciate evidence in correct perspective. Both the

parties were residents of the same place and there was previous enmity

between the parties. The version of prosecution is wholly unreliable. It

was submitted that alleged incident has been shown of 01.05.1980 at

about 07:00 PM but first information report was lodged on 02.05.1980 at

10:00 AM and delay in lodging of the first information report has not

been explained. As per prosecution version, at the time of incident one Jia

Lal, domestic helper of informant, was also present but he has not been

examined and his testimony was withheld by the prosecution. P.W.-2

Smt. Ram Dulari, P.W.-3 Vijay Pal Singh, P.W.-4 Surendra Singh are

interested witness. It was submitted that there are material contradictions

in the statements of witnesses. Referring to facts of the matter, it was

submitted that incident in question is quite doubtful and the trial Court has

committed error by relying upon the testimony of prosecution witnesses.

It was submitted that impugned judgment is not sustainable and the same

is liable to be set aside.


11. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that there is no illegality or perversity

in the impugned judgment and order. The conviction of appellants is

based on evidence and that no case for interference in appeal is made out.


12. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material
available on record.


13. In evidence, informant / P.W.-1 Ram Prakash Singh has stated that on

day of incident he was carrying five bags of mustard in bullock-cart from

grainery and that his servant Jia Lal and grand mother Smt. Ram Dulari

were also with him. As they reached near house of Majbut Singh, all the
                                                        CRLA No. 2946 of 1985
                               4


four accused persons, namely, Amar Singh, Ramjor Singh, Ramesh Singh

and Narendra Singh stopped them and accused Amar Singh @ Munna put

knife at his waist and they committed robbery of five bags of mustard. It

was stated that due to night hours, he could not report the matter to the

police same day.


14. P.W.-2 Smt. Ram Dulari is grand mother of informant and she has

also reiterated nearly same version.


15. P.W.-3 Vijay Pal Singh has inter alia stated that on the day of incident

he was going to the tube-well of Mohar Singh and when he reached near

the house of Majbut Singh, he saw that Amar Singh @ Munna has put a

knife at waist of Ram Prakash Singh and accused persons have snatched

bags of mustard from informant. Similarly, P.W.-4 Surendra Singh has

stated that on the day of incident, while informant / P.W.-1 Ram Prakash

Singh was coming from grainery, he saw that accused Amar Singh @

Munna has put a knife at waist of informant and rest of the accused

persons took away bags of mustard.


16. Scrutiny of evidence shows that alleged incident has been shown of

01.05.1980 at 07:00 PM. In month of May there remains sufficient light at

07:00 PM. Alleged incident has been shown near the house of one Majbut

Singh and in his cross examination, informant has stated that the house of
one Puttan Singh is situated at the distance of 100 steps from the spot of

incident and that house of accused persons is situated at a distance of 150

steps thus, incident took place in 'abadi' area. It appears quite improbable

that in day light appellants / accused would have committed such an

incident in the 'abadi' area and none has objected them. The first

information report was lodged on the next day at 10:00 AM and thus,
                                                        CRLA No. 2946 of 1985
                               5


there appears undue delay on the part of informant in reporting the matter

to the police. In the alleged incident, neither the informant nor any other

person has sustained any injury. The informant has stated in his cross

examination that he did not raise any alarm. All these facts and

circumstances create a doubt about the authenticity of the version of

informant. Further, it is apparent that both the parties are residents of the

same village. There is nothing to show that informant or witness Jia Lal or

any other witness has tried to intervene in the incident. The conduct of

informant as well as of witnesses appear quite unnatural. P.W.-2 Smt.

Ram Dulari is grand mother of informant and thus, she is a highly

interested witness. In her cross examination, she has stated that after

hearing the noise, one Dadu and Pappu have reached at the spot but none

of them was produced by the prosecution during trial. Similarly, one Jia

Lal was accompanying the informant at the time of incident but he has

also not been examined during trial. Though, P.W.-3 Vijay Pal Singh and

P.W.-4 Surendra Singh appear independent witness but both of these

witnesses have made parrot like statements. There is nothing to show that

they have tried to intervene in the incident or raised any alarm. A

suggestion was made to P.W.-4 Surendra Singh that he was named in the

case of dacoity and murder of co-accused Munna Singh and he has stated

that he cannot say whether he was named in that case or not. He has also

admitted that his brother has lodged a case against accused Narendra
Singh under Section - 325 I.P.C.. In view of these facts and

circumstances, P.W.-4 Surendra Singh appears an inimical witness.


17. It would further be relevant to observe that in his cross examination,

the informant / P.W.-1 Ram Prakash Singh has stated that before this

incident he has lodged a case of theft against the appellants / accused and
                                                       CRLA No. 2946 of 1985
                               6


in that case they were acquitted. Similarly P.W.-2 Smt. Ram Dulari has

also admitted that before this incident they have lodged a case

against appellants / accused regarding theft of some trees. In view of

aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that parties are inimical and

the incident appears quite doubtful. As stated above, the incident took

place at 07:00 PM in month of May in the 'abadi' area and both the

parties were known to each other. In the incident, no one has sustained

any injury and neither informant nor any of the witness tried to intervene.

Merely, a parrot like statement has been made by the witnesses that

accused Amar Singh @ Munna has put a knife at waist of informant and

accused persons took away five bags of mustard. There is also no such

version that informant or any other witness has raised any alarm or tried

to apprehend the accused persons. Both the parties have enmity as earlier

informant has lodged a case of theft against appellants / accused and in

that case they were acquitted. There is undue delay in lodging of the first

information report. In view of all these facts and circumstances, the

prosecution version suffers from vice of improbability. It is well settled

that prosecution has to prove its case beyond doubt. In the instant matter,

after considering entire evidence on record, it appears that incident in

question is quite doubtful and appellants deserve benefit of doubt. The

trial Court has not appreciated evidence in correct perspective and

committed error by convicting the appellants.

18. In view of aforesaid, conviction and sentence of appellant No.1 -

Ramjor Singh and appellant No.2 - Ramesh Singh, is set aside and they

are acquitted of charge under Section - 392 I.P.C.. The appellants-accused

are on bail and thus, they do not need to surrender. Their personal bonds

are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
                                                                                       CRLA No. 2946 of 1985
                                                                   7


                                    19. Appeal is allowed in above terms.


                                    20. The record of trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent

                                    back to the trial Court concerned.



                                                                                       (Raj Beer Singh,J.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    S Rawat




Digitally signed by :-
SHOBHIT RAWAT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad