Allahabad High Court
Nawab Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 10 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:78933
RESERVED ON : 03.03.2026
DELIVERED ON: 10.04.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 992 of 1986
Nawab Singh And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Dhirendra Kumar Pal, Y.K. Saxena
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
A.G.A., Rajesh Kumar Patel
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard Sri Direndra Kumar Pal, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present Criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.03.1986 passed by VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in Session Trial No. 32 of 1986 convicting the appellants under section 376 I.P.C. and sentencing to R.I. for 5 years, one and half years imprisonment under section 456 I.P.C. and 6 months imprisonment under section 323.
3. The prosecution case commenced on the basis of the application/tehrir (Ext. Ka-1) of Ahibaran Singh dated 10.09.1985. In his complaint, he stated that on 05.09.1985, he had gone to his sister's house to bring his mother, leaving his wife (the victim) alone at his house. On the same day, at about 11:00 P.M., his co-villagers, Nawab Singh and Veer Sahay, allegedly entered his house and attempted to commit a wrongful act with his wife after inserting cloth in her mouth. When it was opposed by the victim then they have beaten her and forcefully committed rape on her by both of them. As soon as the cloth had been evicted from mouth of the victim she screamed. On the voice of her screaming Rooplal and Ramesh Chandra who are his neighbours arrived. Both the accused persons fled away. His wife (victim) could not reach to the police station due to fear and did not able to get registered her report. Today, he return from the house of his sister. His wife is having several injuries. The report be registered and the proceedings be initiated in accordance with law. The check F.I.R. Ext. Ka-2 had been registered on the said written complaint/tehrir on 10.09.1985 at 13.00 hours before the concerned police station against Nawab Singh and Veer Sahai under sections 456, 323, 376 I.P.C.
4. The injury report of the victim had been prepared on the very same day i.e. 10.09.1985 by Dr. Manju Lata Gupta. The victim on 10.09.1985 at 5.45 P.M. was brought by constable Mahila 687 Smt. Kusumlata, Police Station Bhogaon District Mainpuri. The injury report is as follows: "Mark of Identification- black mole on left side of clavicle 2.0 cm outer to the medial end of clavicle. Height-4ft-10.5 inch, weight- weighing machine is not in working order. Teeth 15/14. Breast- well developed axillary and pubic hairs well developed. Injuries: No external injury seen on the body except care of pain in back and abdomen. Old healed tear of hymen present. Vagina admits two fingers easily, uterus normal size. Rx clear, vaginal smear thicken and sent to the pathologist district hospital Mainpuri for examination of sperms. No local injury seen. Advised-X-ray of right wrist and elbow joint to ascertain the age of the lady. Opinion- The lady is habitual of sexual intercourse. For C/o pain, she kept under observation. No opinion about rape can be given."
5. After the complete investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused/Nawab Singh and Veer Sahay under section 456, 323 and 376 I.P.C. The charges has been framed against both accused persons/appellants on 29.01.1986 where the date of the offence is mentioned as 09.09.1985 at 11.00 P.M. in village Nagla Kharha within the circle of police station Bhongaon, district Mainpuri.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that no offence has been committed by the appellants. They had been falsely implicated due to enmity of the village. The F.I.R. has been lodged with a huge delay of five days. There is no explanation submitted by the complainant for the delay of the F.I.R. There has been no injury either external or internal on the body of the alleged victim. The injury report is dated 10.09.1985 where no injury has been found either external or internal on the body of the victim.
7. As per tehrir/written complaint and check F.I.R. which is dated 10.09.1985 it has been mentioned by the complainant /husband of the victim that his wife is having several injuries. The said F.I.R. has been registered on 10.09.1985 at 13.00 hours, whereas, the injury report has been prepared on the same day i.e. 10.09.1985 at 5.45 P.M. and no injury either external or internal injury has been found on the body of the victim which proves that the alleged victim is not having any injury.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the medical injury report has not been examined and verified by Dr. Manjulata Gupta, as she was not produced by the prosecution before the learned trial court. The charge sheet has also been admitted; only the execution of the charge sheet has been admitted by the accused/appellants, and formal proof was dispensed with. The charge sheet is also not properly verified, and no opportunity was provided for cross-examination, either of the doctor or of the person who filed the charge sheet, which has caused prejudice to the appellants. There was no fair trial conducted by the learned trial court.
9. Learned trial court had framed the charge for the offence dated 09.09.1985 at 11.00 P.M.. Whereas, as per the check F.I.R. as well as written complaint/tehrir Ext. Ka-1 and Ka-2, respectively, the alleged offence, if any it was alleged to be took place by the complainant on 05.09.1985 at 11.00 P.M. No offence was ever occurred on 09.09.1985 at 11.00 P.M., hence, there is no fair trial and even no proper charge has been framed against the appellants. In view there of, the entire trial vitiates.
10. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the prosecution has produced the witnesses of fact. The F.I.R. has been properly explained. Any technical error in the charges framed does not affect the merit of the case because no prejudice is caused to the appellants. The appellants have got all the opportunity of the cross examination with the witnesses and submitted their case. The medical examination report as well as the charge sheet has been admitted by the appellants before the learned trial court, hence no prejudice has been caused to the appellants. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment and order dated 22.03.1986 is liable to be upheld. The criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. Ahibaran Singh, who has deposed as P.W.-1 and is the husband of the victim, stated that the victim is a major and married woman. He further stated that his marriage with the victim was solemnized four to five years ago. After the marriage, they have been living together at his house as husband and wife. The alleged incident involving a wrongful act against his wife occurred three to four months ago. On the day of the incident, he had gone to call his mother, leaving his wife alone at his residence and returned after 4-5 days. When he returned then his wife told him about the incident that Nawab Singh and Veer Sahai had entered into his house at 11.00 P.M. in the night and had committed bad act with her. She also told that on the screaming of his wife Rooplal and Ramesh came at the spot and saw the accused persons. He had submitted the report of that act at the police station. The report was written by by Rooplal. He has verified the said report as Ext. Ka-1. The said witness is not an eye witness. He is a hearsay witness. Whatever told by her wife to him he has narrated that incident and got registered the F.I.R. He further deposed that on the date of incident he had gone to call his mother and his wife was absolutely alone at the house and the appellants/accused persons entered into the house at 11.00 P.M. in the night.
12. In the context of U.P., District Mainpuri, in the year 1985, it is highly improbable that any lady, whether married or unmarried, would have been left alone at home by the members of her family. The witnesses also reportedly came only after the wife of the complainant screamed, as alleged by him. Hence, it is clear that other persons had also received the information. Even thereafter, neither any medical examination took place nor was any F.I.R. registered. It is neither natural nor reasonable.
13. The P.W.-1 has been duly cross examined by the appellants. In the cross examination, he deposed that the scribe of the report, Rooplal/ witness, he is the son of his uncle (Rustam), hence he is an interested and related witness. Another witness Ramesh is also my relative, the sister of my brother Rooplal is married to the nephew of Ramesh, i.e. Badam Singh. The house of Rooplal is towards west side (after two houses of complainant's home). These two houses belong to Banwari Lal and Ram Chandra. The house towards west adjacent to his house are not the houses of Baburam and Sarnam Singh. He has further stated that the adjacent house to my house towards west side are the house of Baburam and Sarnam Singh and they are vacant and these people are not residing in them. The adjacent house to his house towards east side belong to Bhikhari Das and towards south side the houses is of Bhikhari Das. There is road towards north side. After the road towards north it is the sitting place of Sarnam Singh. He had not enquired anything about with them who are his neighbours Sarnam, Baburam and Bhikhari Das. None of them are even witnesses. The population of his village is approximately 1000. There is approximately 80 houses in his village. He is himself an interested witness and hearsay witness. He is naming the witnesses who are his related and interested witnesses.
14. P.W.-1 further deposed that he has three brothers: Ahibaran, Jai Sharan, and Ram Sharan. All three brothers reside with their father, Meghnad, who is alive and also living in the same house. He stated that he had gone to call his mother, and at the time of the incident, his father and brothers were not present. His brother Ram Sharan is employed in Delhi, and his father was with him there. His second brother, Jai Sharan, was in the village Devamai at the house of their younger sister. He admitted that he had not mentioned these facts in his report that his father was in Delhi and that his brother Jai Sharan had gone to his sister's house.
15. It is belied to state that my father and brother were present at the time of the alleged incident. It is also incorrect to state that my father and brother were not convinced to support my concocted story. He further deposed that his mother, whom he had gone to call, returned with him. He had to stay in that village for four to five days because the purpose for which his mother had visited that place had not been completed.
16. Dannahar is approximately 8-9 kos from my village. It is needless to mention that one kos is approximately 3 kilometers. I had gone by bus hence I could not able to return immediately. When I returned alongwith my mother then my brother met me at my house. I had also enquired with my brother after my returning to the house. My brother also reached on the same day at the village on which day I had reached to my village. My wife was alone hence she did not visit the police station for the registration of the F.I.R. When I returned, I had seen injuries of my wife. There were bluish marks on the neck, breast and legs of my wife. On the very same day when I saw the marks of injuries then I had got registered the report and medically examined her. Whereas, as per medical injury report no external or internal injury has been found on the body of the alleged victim. The context mentioned in the tehrir/written complaint as well as the statement of this hearsay witness and the medical report all are not corroborating to each other. They are contradictory to each other. It is belied to state that I had falsely manipulated the incident. No alleged incident ever took place. I know Veer Sahai and his father Kharge who belongs to my village and there is no other Kharge. It is belied to state that Kharge had died on 05.09.1985.
17. He further deposed that the accused Nawab Singh was not limping but now he limps, whereas, he has admitted that his leg was in bad condition since beginning. He is the hearsay witness. Neither he is able to explain the delay in the F.I.R. nor he is able to corroborate the incident with the medical examination of the injured. This witness has also not been able to explain with reasonable doubt that her wife was alone on the alleged day of incident at 11.00 P.M. Normally, it is highly improbable that any lady has been ever left by the member of his family alone in the night. Whereas, he has admitted that he is three brothers and residing in the same house alongwith his father.
18. Ramesh, who deposed as P.W.-2, stated that he knows Nawab Singh and Veer Sahai, as well as Ahibaran Singh, the complainant in this case. He further deposed that his house and that of Ahibaran Singh are within a distance of 10?12 yards. He stated that the incident occurred approximately five to six months ago. He deposed that when the accused persons present in the court committed a wrongful act against the victim at her house, it was around 11:00 P.M. He was sitting at the chaupal when he heard her screaming and immediately went to the house of Ahibaran Singh.
19. He is an interested witness and related witness. When he had heard the entire voice and also reached the house of the victim then it was the high time that the victim has to be medically examined as well as the intimation has to be given to the police station or any competent authority but none of it was done by him, which is expected from a prudent man, particularly when the incident of this type was occurred with close relatives of the person. Roop Lal was also alongwith house of Ahibaran Singh. He was having torch and a lathi when he reached then saw that both the accused persons were evicting from the house of Ahibaran and they ran away towards north side from infront of his house. At that time he had identified them in the light of torch. He had not chased the accused persons because there was appearance of an unknown type of apparatus in the hand of them. Hence, due to fear, he had not chased them.
20. All these statements are not appeared to be reasonable and plausible. On the day of incident Ahibaran Singh was not present in his house in that night. His wife was alone at his house. He deposed that he slept at 12.30 on the same night and then rise in the early morning. He had no feeling about any kind of attachment with the victim. No man was present in the house of the victim, hence he had not registered the report. He had enquired with the victim at the time of incident. At that time, the victim was conscious. She did not reply rightly any thing. He does not having any knowledge of the committal of rape on the same night. He came to the knowledge of the rape on the arrival of her husband and her mother-in-law. He has told that his house is 10-12 yards from the house of the victim. On the night of incident, he was sitting in chaupal in the night alongwith torch and lathi. After hearing the screaming, he came to the house of the victim and also enquired with the victim but he did not got any information about the committal of rape and he did not lodged any F.I.R. He also submitted that he has no attachment with the victim. He was failed to identify any apparatus in the hand of the accused persons. He did not try to chase them. Thereafter, he went to his house and slept at around 12:00 or 12:30 A.M., and woke up early in the morning.
21. All these statements of the witness are neither natural nor plausible. They are neither corroborative nor cogent or convincing on the part of the prosecution. He also failed to mention whether the night of the incident was dark or light. It is highly improbable that any villager would fail to distinguish whether the night was dark or light. It is normal in the village to identify whether the night is dark or light. He recorded his statement before the Inspector, stating that he had seen the accused persons when they exited from the house of Ahibaran. If these statements were not recorded in his statement by the Inspector, he is unable to give any reason for it. There is a contradiction between his statement before the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and his deposition before the Court. These contradictions amount to improvements.
22. He further deposed that he knows Kharge, the father of Veer Sahai, who has died. It is incorrect to state that Kharge died on the day of the incident. He further stated that Kharge died around one month before the incident. On the date of the incident, Ahibaran Singh's brothers, Jai Sharan and Ram Sharan, were not in the village, and his father was also absent. He stated that he does not remember when Ram Sharan and Jai Sharan returned after the incident. Thereafter, he deposed that Ram Sharan returned 20?25 days after the incident. He also stated that it is not true that Ram Sharan had gone for the registration of the report.
23. He further deposed in his cross-examination that he had not seen any injuries on the victim on the date of the incident. No injuries were found even on the date when the F.I.R. was registered on 10.09.1985, and neither any external nor internal injuries were observed on the body of the victim. However, in the written complaint as well as in the check F.I.R., which was lodged by the husband of the victim, it was mentioned that she had sustained serious injuries. Whereas, the eye witness P.W.-2 Ramesh Chandra Pal has deposed that he did not see any injuries on the body of the victim even on the date of incident.
24. Hence, there is a consistent contradiction in the contents of the written complaint/check F.I.R., as well as in the statement of P.W.-1, Ahibaran Singh, the injury report of the victim, and the statement of the eyewitness P.W.-2, Ramesh Chandra Pal. It is absolutely strange that when this witness has no connection with the victim or his family, he was able to provide all this information?that on the day of the incident, Ahibaran was not present in the village, his brothers Ram Sharan and Jai Sharan were not in the village, and their father Meghnad was also absent. All these depositions of the witness neither appear to be convincing nor cogent.
25. The victim, who deposed as P.W.-3, stated that the incident occurred approximately five months ago. Her statement was recorded on 01.03.1986. The incident took place at around 11:00 P.M. at night. She deposed that she was lying at home and no one else was present. Her father-in-law and husband had gone to bring her mother-in-law. The dibri (lamp) was lit for light. Nawab Singh and Veer Sahay, who are present in the court, entered her house. She heard the sound of their footsteps. She was lying on the cot when both of them pressed her down and inserted a cloth into her mouth. Thereafter, they committed a wrongful act against her and took her into a room, where the act continued. First, Nawab Singh committed the act, followed by Veer Sahay. As soon as the cloth was removed from her mouth, she screamed. Upon hearing her screams, her neighbours, Roop Lal and Ramesh, came. The accused then exited through the door and fled towards the north. She reiterated that both persons had entered her house and subsequently fled through the door towards the north.
26. Whereas P.W.-2, Ramesh Chandra Pal, deposed that he saw the accused persons exiting from the house of the victim and running towards the north side, in front of his house. Both statements are contradictory and do not corroborate each other.
27. P.W.-3, the victim, deposed that she had not reported the incident to anyone. She stated that she did not report the incident earlier because her husband was not at home. When her husband returned, she narrated the entire incident to him. Then both of them went to the police station and got the report registered; thereafter, her medical examination took place.
28. She deposed in her cross-examination that Roop Lal and Ramesh are related to her as Dada and Chacha. She further stated that after the incident, she was not totally unconscious. Whereas, P.W.-2 deposed that she was fully conscious. Both statements are contradictory and do not corroborate each other. She also deposed that the accused persons had beaten her with fists and had not used a danda. There were no bluish marks on her body. However, her husband stated that she had injuries as well as bluish marks on her body.
29. Thereafter, she deposed that both accused persons had shown her a tamancha (country-made pistol). However, she later deposed that they had not hit her with the country-made pistol; they had only shown it to her. This constitutes a further improvement in the deposition of the victim. The act of showing or beating with a country-made pistol has no basis in reality, as it is not mentioned in the written complaint or in the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. She further deposed that there are door leaves (kiwad) on every door of her house. Her house has door leaves on all the doors.
30. The door situated in my courtyard, which opens onto the khadanja (road), has no door leaf. Whereas, the other doors of the courtyard have door leaves. It is absolutely unbelievable that the house has doors with door leaves in the various rooms and courtyard, but the main door in the courtyard, which opens onto the khadanja/road, at 11.00 P.M. in night, especially when no one is present in the house except a lady, is completely open and has no door leaf on the road side. It is neither natural nor plausible that the main door, which opens towards the road, would have no door leaf. Any person would first install a door and lock on the main entrance. While it is possible that other rooms may or may not have doors, the main entrance, which serves as the entry and exit of the house towards the road, would always have a door.
31. P.W.-3, the victim, deposed that she always lights a dibri (diya) in her house. At the time of the incident, neither the diya nor dibri was lit in her house. The Inspector enquired with her about the incident on the day the report was registered, which was five days after the incident. She stated that she informed the Inspector about the lighting of the dibri in the house on the day of the incident. She had not initially stated that the diya was lit in the courtyard; later, she clarified that the diya and dibri are the same thing.
32. P.W.-3/victim deposed that the accused persons committed the wrongful act after taking her inside the room. She tried her best to free herself from the accused persons. There were no signs of any abrasions on her body. The act was committed on the floor, not on any mattress (gadda). There was only pain in her chest and breast. Her bangles were broken, and there was only abrasion on her wrist, without any oozing of blood. However, no injuries were found during her medical examination.
33. The accused persons had inserted an agonchha (towel/wrap) in her mouth. When the accused persons fled, they took the agonchha (towel wrap) with them. As soon as she tilted, the accused persons removed the agonchha (towel/wrap) and fled. She had previously screamed, but nobody heard her because of the cloth in her mouth. After the accused persons fled and the cloth was removed, she screamed loudly.
34. After her screaming, her Dada and Chacha arrived within a minute. They asked her about the incident, but she did not tell them anything because no male members of the family were present at the house. Ramesh and Roop Lal did not ask her anything upon arrival. No one else except them, who reside nearby, came. On the next day, only female relatives came, and she did not narrate the incident to them either.
35. She specifically deposed that she did not suffer any injuries. She was not worried about injuries but was concerned about the pain in her breast. She informed the Inspector that she was worried about that pain. Her husband's brothers did not return the next day; Jai Sharan came later, and Ram Sharan returned after several days. She stated that semen of the accused persons was on her clothes after the act, but she had not shown her clothes or petticoat to the Inspector. She deposed that both accused committed the wrongful act against her and that they remained in her house for about 2?3 hours. During that time, no neighbors came to her house. She stated that the accused fled at around 2:00 A.M.
36. It is highly improbable that the accused could have committed the act in her house in the light while keeping a cloth in her mouth for 2?3 hours. It is equally improbable that any person could survive such an ordeal without serious harm. In such incidents, there would certainly be very serious injuries, and the victim's clothes would likely be torn extensively.
37. The victim specifically deposed that the accused committed the wrongful act at 11:00 P.M. and fled from her house at 2:00 A.M., whereas P.W.-2, who claims to be an eyewitness, deposed that he saw the accused persons running from the house of the victim at around 11:00?11:30 P.M. He has no connection with the victim, and no part of the incident was ever narrated to him by her. He returned to his house and slept at around 12:00?12:30 A.M., and woke up the next morning.
38. Hence, the statements of the victim and P.W.-2 regarding the time when the accused fled are absolutely contradictory and do not corroborate each other. According to the victim, the accused fled around 2:00 A.M. on the said night; it is therefore impossible for P.W.-2, the eyewitness, to have seen the accused at 11:00?11:30 P.M. on the same night. Further, as per the deposition of P.W.-2, he slept at 12:00?12:30 A.M., which makes it impossible for him to have seen the accused at 2:00 A.M., as stated by the victim in her cross-examination.
39. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma vs State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2011 SC 200, that the burden of poof in the criminal trial is on the prosecution. More serious offenses require a stricter, higher degree of assurance for conviction.
40. P.W.-4, Jaipal Singh, who is a Head Constable, prepared the check F.I.R. and the G.D. He deposed in his cross-examination that Ahibaran, the husband, and Ram Sharan, his brother, came with the victim to the police station for the registration of the F.I.R. He also stated that he had mentioned the entry in his case diary and that Ahibaran himself brought the vehicle. Hence, the statement of the prosecution witness that Ahibaran, the husband of the victim, came alone to the police station for the registration of the F.I.R., without his brother Ram Sharan, is contradictory to the statement of the scribe of the F.I.R., P.W.-4. He specifically deposed that there were no apparent injuries, such as bluish marks or other signs, on the body of the victim. He further stated that the body of the victim showed edema, but he was not aware of its exact location.
41. Ayodhya Prasad, who deposed as P.W.-5, stated that he was posted as a Sub-Inspector (S.I.) at Police Station Bhogaon. On 10.05.1985, he received information about the incident on the same day. He recorded the statements of the victim, her husband Ahibaran Singh, Roop Lal, Radhey Shyam, and others. He also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan, which is true and correct and exhibited as Ka-5. At the spot, the witnesses Roop Lal and Ramesh Chandra showed their torches on his summoning and stated that they had seen the accused persons in the light. However, the accounts of seeing the accused persons by the eyewitnesses P.W.-2 and the victim P.W.-3 are contradictory.
42. According to P.W.-3, the victim, the accused persons fled around 2:00 A.M. on the night of the incident, whereas P.W.-2 stated that he arrived at 11:00?11:30 P.M., slept at 12:00?12:30 A.M., and woke the next morning. Further, when the victim was sleeping, it is a normal habit in villages to turn off lights, particularly a dibri (diya), which provides light using kerosene oil. Leaving it lit throughout the night may cause fire, so villagers normally do not keep a dibri burning all night. P.W.-5, Investigating Officer, deposed that he reached the spot on 10.09.1985. The house of the complainant is attached to the houses of Bhikhari Das and Baburam. He did not record the statements of Baburam, Bhikhari Das, or the complainant's brother, Ram Sharan.
43. He stated that the witnesses initially showed the way of their approach from the west side of the complainant's house, but later indicated it was from the north side. He was not fully certain about the direction. The house of Ramesh is situated to the east of the complainant's house. He deposed that he recorded the statement of the complainant on the same day at the police station, on the day the F.I.R. was registered. He also examined the injuries on the body of the victim. He further stated that Ramesh did not record in his statement that he saw the accused persons fleeing from the house of Ahibaran; rather, he stated that he saw the accused persons running away toward the side of Ahibaran's house and near his own house, toward the north. He specifically deposed that the dibri, which he had taken into possession on that day, is not produced before him in court today.
44. It is belied to state that he had challaned the accused persons on the basis of enmity between the parties. The statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of Nawab Singh and Vir Sahay were recorded, and both denied the incident, stating that the F.I.R. had been lodged against them due to the party rivalry in the village.
45. Nawab Singh stated that his legs have been in bad condition since birth and that he could not run away. Vir Sahai denied all the allegations and the evidence produced by the prosecution, deposing that a wrong charge sheet had been filed against him. He stated that the case was filed against him due to party rivalry in the village. Specifically, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that his father died on 05.09.1985 and that he was at home on that day. It is to be noted that 05.09.1985 is the date, alleged to be the day of the incident.
46. Bheekham Singh, who deposed as D.W.-1, stated that his house is situated to the south of Ahibaran's house and that he knows both the accused persons, Nawab Singh and Vir Sahai. He further stated that the father of Vir Sahai, Kharge, had died on 05.09.1985, and he had gone to Kharge's house due to his death. Kharge died at around 6?7 P.M. on the same day. He stated that he reached there and saw Nawab Singh and Vir Sahai present. He also saw Ahibaran Singh, a co-villager, on the same day.
47. He further stated that there are two factions in the village: one belonging to the accused persons and the other to the victim. He confirmed that the name of Vir Sahai's father was Kharge and that there is only one person named Kharge residing in the village.
48. The entire prosecution story has been doubtful from the initial stage. There are a series of contradictions between the statements of P.W.-2, the husband of the victim, and the statement of the victim, P.W.-3, herself. The victim is a married woman. There are numerous contradictions between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. There has been no consistency or corroboration in the prosecution's story, the statements of the witnesses, or the evidence. It is the foremost burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused persons. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused persons/appellants..
49. In view of the facts, circumstances, and evidence of the case, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
50. The appellants/accused persons, Nawab Singh and Veer Sahay, are entitled to be acquitted.
51. The judgment and order dated 22.03.1986 passed by the learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in Session Trial No. 32 of 1986 (State versus Nawab Singh and another), is hereby set aside. The appellants are hereby acquitted. The bail bonds filed by the appellants are hereby cancelled, and the sureties are hereby discharged..
52. The criminal appeal is allowed accordingly.
(Abdul Shahid,J.) April 10, 2026 K.K. Maurya