STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus LALLOO & OTHERS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 543 · Decided: 13-08-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' , 
) 
543 
STATE OF ll1TAR PRADESH 
v. 
LALLOO & OTHERS. 
AUGUST 13, 1985 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ ·] 
A. Murder trial - Evidence of eye witnesses, appreciation of 
- Probability of their presence at the scerie of occurrence of the 
crime - Section 3 of the Evidence Act. 
B. First Information Report -
Gan the authoriship of the 
First Information Report be doubted, just because the report is 
long and contains all the details - Sections 144 and 145 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act II of 1974), .1973 read with 
Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 
c. Conviction and sentence - Where two view~ leading to the 
guilt of the accused, on the evidence available on record are not 
possible, conviction is justified - Even in case of gruesome and 
cold-blooded orurder long delay in hearing an appeal justifies 
conversion of death sentences into one of life imprisonment -
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 .Order XXII read· with order XI.VI and 
A 
ll 
c 
D 
Article l42tl) of the Constitution. 
E 
Respondent Laloo and three others were charged, convicted, 
and sentenced to death for the cOlllDiasion of the off~e of 
orurder under section 302 IPC read with section 34 IPC of the 
deceased Babu Jaleshwar Singh under bright moonlight and at about 
8 p.m. on 24.9.1974, while he was accompanied by the three eye 
witnesses, Ram Surat (PW 1), Subhan Sain (PW 2), Bansidhar (PW 
3). The prosecution case was;_ (a) that there was a long standing 
enmity between the accused and the deceased Jaleshwar Singh who 
was a leading l.aild owner and agriculturist of Mangalpura and the 
Pradhan of that village for over 18 or 20 years before the date 
of occurrence; (ii) that the deceased had stated in his complaint 
Ex. KA-13 dated 14.2.1973 that the accused and the one Chandrika 
Mall.ah were planning to kill him due to election and litigation. 
enmity and were collecting money for that purpose amongst 
themselves; (iii) that the accused· and others had moved two 
Complaints for the removal of the deceased as Pradhan of 
Mangalpura; that while the first complaint had been rejected by 
the Sub-divisional Officer, Ballia on 10.5.1974, the second 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
544 
SUPfili.ME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. 
complaint was pending enquiry before that officer at the time of 
his death and factually the deceased accompanied by PWs 1 to 3 
was returning after attending the case posted on that day; (iv) 
that while they were returning, at the end of the Moonj jungle 
situate about 1-1/2 furlongs away 
from Mangalpura village the 
accused respondents attacked the deceased with the tamancha 
(country-made pistol) and daos (long heavy knives used for 
slaughtering goats and cutting wood); (v) that it was Lalloo who 
fired with his tamancha and the deceased fell down after recei-
ving _injury on his chfst and on his exhortion to_ severe his neck 
the others Ganga 
Da:.;al Gond, Sri Kishun. Chamar and Jagan Nath 
Godaria pounced upon the deceased and cut the neck; (vi) that 
when PWs 1 _to 3 shou~ed in disapproval of what the respondents 
were 
doing, 
Lalloo . pointed his tamancha 
towards 
them and 
threatened to kill them and getting frightened they ran towards 
I 
Gosainpur and after itiforming Ayodhaya and Sheo ·that the respon-
dents had attacked the deceased they rushed to Mangalpura where 
they met Kharag Bahad~r (PW 6) and others and informed them also 
about the attack on : the deceased by the respondents accused; 
(vii) that the first information report was written by Raghubana 
Tiwari (PW 16) of Mangalpura with the particulars furnished by PW 
1 at the spot at abo4t 9 p.m. on 24.9.74, and later handed over 
by PW 1 at Bansidh Police Station, PW 15; (viii) that PW 15 left 
the police station along with PW l and others for the scene of 
occurrence at 1.30 a.m .• on 25.9.74 and began his investigation at 
the spot at 4 a.m.; (ix) that the headless body was identified to 
be that of the deceased Jaleshwar Singh by PWo 1,3,6 and 16 and 
Bachchalal (PW 5) - ail of whom belonged to Mangalpura; (x) that 
autopsy on the body :of the deceased disclosed, incised wound 
severing the neck completely, multiple gun shot wounds on the 
I 
• 
upper part of the frqnt chest, and abraded contusiona over the 
upper part of the hip;: and (xi) that the doctor opined that death 
was due to severence' of the neck by a sharp-edged and heavy 
cutting weapon and that the injury to the neck was sufficient in 
the ordinary course of nature t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.