IMPUGNED ORDER

FIR @ Pg. 4

 Accordingly, conclusion arrives that after occurrence which took place at 7.15 a.m.,
complainant moved from the place of occurrence by 8.00 a.m. for lodging F.I.R. It
took one hour reach at police station- Sikandrarau and in the meantime, few 12 to 20
minutes would have been consumed in drafting of application (tahrir). As it has been
stated by witness Pw- 1 in his evidence. Hence, if the F.I.R. of the occurrence has
been lodged at 9.30 a.m. then in that case, it cannot be said that F.I.R. has been lodged
with any inordinate delay. (@5)

Whether F.I.R. was Anti-Timed @ 5

 According to law it is not necessary to mention Crime No., Sections, name of

accused persons and weapons used in offence in the inquest report. The language
used by legislation in Section 174 of Cr.P.C. clearly indicates the scope of inquest
report. There is printed proforma for preparation of inquest report which contains no
column for the said entries. (@7)
 It appears that learned counsel for appellants could not inspect the inquest report Ex.
Ka- 4, properly, as Page No.- 3 of inquest report contains the entry that copy of
F.I.R. has also been sent to mortuary along with dead body of deceased. Police
Form No.- 13 (Ex. Ka- 5) also shows the entry of Doctor, wherein it has been
mentioned that post-mortem papers has been received at 8.00 a.m. Witness PW- 4
has deposed that the concerning papers have been delivered in police line by
constable- S.P. Dubey and he had carried the papers from police line to mortuary,
further he has denied the suggestion that all the papers were not available at the time
of post-mortem, hence, the argument has no substance that the copy of F.I.R. was
not annexed with inquest report. (@13)

Place of Occurrence @ pg. 13

 So far as the point of argument of learned counsel for appellants, regarding death of
deceased during his defecation in forest, is concerned, the temple of Goddess has been
shown in the abadi area of village. Appellants could not produce a single witness
which may indicate that deceased- Satish was murdered in forest and his body was
carried by complainant in temple. Blood-stained soil has also been recovered from
place of occurrence i.e. from temple only.
Credibility of Witness @ Pg.15

 The occurrence of firing took place within few seconds, he had seen accused persons
from the distance 10 to 12 steps away from chabutra of temple, immediately accused
persons opened the firing on his son as they reached on chabutra. Therefore, there was
no occasion for witness PW- 1 to save his son. (@16)
 Considering the entire evidence of witness PW- 1, there seems consistency regarding
the occurrence and circumstances. Witness Pw- 1 has been cross-examined in length
but no fact came in the light otherwise. (@17)
 Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the witness PW- 2 has been
planted by complainant. He was never eye-witness of occurrence. It reveals from
perusal of F.I.R. that the informant has mentioned his name as eye-witness. He has
mentioned the name of another eye-witnesses Rameshwer with his parentage and
Ghanshyam Sharma but he has not mentioned the parentage of Ghanshyam Sharma. If
witness PW- 2 would have been the witness of complainant’s pocket his father’s
name would have also been mentioned in F.I.R. There is nothing on record which
could show that witness PW- 2 was having any enmity with accused persons. He was
also not a resident of village Akhtiarpur. Therefore, no reason comes in the light for
witness Pw- 2 to give false evidence against accused persons. (@19)
 There is no evidence on record which may indicate the reason that witness Pw- 2 was
falsely planted by complainant as eye-witness, particularly when he has been named
in F.I.R. and as his presence has been shown at the time of preparation of inquest
report. Therefore, it appears that witness PW- 6 has explained properly the reason for
non-recording the statement of PW- 2 on the date of occurrence. The reason so given
by I.O. is supported by the evidence of witness PW- 2 itself. (@23)
 It has to be noticed that witness Rameshwer whose name has been mentioned in F.I.R.
as one of the eye-witness, is the resident of same village. Accused persons also belong
to same village. They have committed the offence of murder in day light in present
case. They had also caused murder of one Ram Singh earlier in which, deceased was
named as witness. Therefore, by any threat or fear of accused persons, if aforesaid
named witness Rameshwer did not prefer to give his evidence then in that case, it
cannot be said that prosecution has wilfully withhold such witness to be examined.
According to law, number of witness is not material rather quality of evidence
matters. Even a single witness is sufficient to establish the case if he is trustworthy
and according to legal norms, proves the case. (@25)
 Considering the evidence of PW- 1 and PW- 2 in totality, no substantial variation or
discrepancy is found regarding happening of occurrence or place of occurrence. Both
the witnesses have named accused persons in their evidence for firing on deceased.
Witness Pw- 2 has stated in his cross-examination that the distance of his village from
Akhtiyarpur is 1 km. and as village relation he recognizes to complainant and his son
as well as accused persons. The statements of witnesses Pw- 1 & Pw- 2 are supported
and corroborated by post-mortem report and other prosecution papers. (@27)