{"id":198848,"date":"1985-08-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1985-08-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985"},"modified":"2017-06-21T12:40:06","modified_gmt":"2017-06-21T07:10:06","slug":"state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985","title":{"rendered":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalloo & Others on 13 August, 1985"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalloo & Others on 13 August, 1985<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 576, \t\t 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 543<\/div>\n
Author: A Varadarajan<\/div>\n
Bench: Varadarajan, A. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nLALLOO & OTHERS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/08\/1985\n\nBENCH:\nVARADARAJAN, A. (J)\nBENCH:\nVARADARAJAN, A. (J)\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\n\nCITATION:\n 1986 AIR  576\t\t  1985 SCR  Supl. (2) 543\n 1985 SCC  Supl.  379\t  1985 SCALE  (2)297\n\n\nACT:\n     A.\t Murder\t  trial\t -   Evidence  of   eye\t  witnesses,\nappreciation of - Probability of their presence at the scene\nof occurrence of the crime - Section 3 of the Evidence Act.\n     B. First Information Report - Can the authorship of the\nFirst Information Report be doubted, just because the report\nis long\t and contains all the details - Sections 144 and 145\nof the\tCode of\t Criminal Procedure  (Act II  of 1974), 1973\nread with Section 114 of the Evidence Act.\n     C. Conviction and sentence - Where two views leading to\nthe guilt  of the  accused, on\tthe  evidence  available  on\nrecord are  not possible,  conviction is justified - Even in\ncase of\t gruesome and  cold-blooded  murder  long  delay  in\nhearing an  appeal justifies  conversion of  death sentences\ninto one  of life  imprisonment Supreme\t Court\tRules,\t1966\nOrder XXII  read with  order XLVI  and Article 142(1) of the\nConstitution.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Respondent\t Laloo\t and  three   others  were  charged,\nconvicted, and\tsentenced to death for the commission of the\noffence of murder under section 302 IPC read with section 34\nIPC of\tthe  deceased  Babu  Jaleshwar\tSingh  under  bright\nmoonlight and  at about\t 8 p.m.\t On 24.9.1974,\twhile he was\naccompanied by\tthe three  eye witnesses,  Ram Surat (PW 1),\nSubhan Sain  (PW 2),  Bansidhar (PW 3). The prosecution case\nwas; (a)  that there  was a long standing enmity between the\naccused and  the deceased  Jaleshwar Singh who was a leading\nland owner  and agriculturist  of Mangalpura and the Pradhan\nof that\t village for  over 18 or 20 years before the date of\noccurrence;  (ii)  that\t the  deceased\thad  stated  in\t his\ncomplaint Ex. KA-13 dated 14.2.1973 that the accused and the\none Chandrika  Mallah were  planning  to  kill\thim  due  to\nelection and litigation enmity and were collecting money for\nthat purpose  amongst themselves; (iii) that the accused and\nothers had  moved two  complaints for  the  removal  of\t the\ndeceased as  Pradhan of\t Mangalpura; that  while  the  first\ncomplaint had  been rejected  by the Sub-divisional Officer,\nBallia on 10.5.1974, the second\n544\ncomplaint was  pending enquiry\tbefore that  Officer at\t the\ntime of\t his death and factually the deceased accompanied by\nPWs 1  to 3 was returning after attending the case posted on\nthat day; (iv) that while they were returning, at the end of\nthe Moonj  jungle situate  about 1-1\/2\tfurlongs  away\tfrom\nMangalpura village  the\t accused  respondents  attacked\t the\ndeceased with  the tamancha  (country-made pistol)  and daos\n(long heavy  knives used  for slaughtering goats and cutting\nwood); (v)  that it  was Lalloo\t who fired with his tamancha\nand the\t deceased fell\tdown after  receiving injury  on his\nchest and  on his  exhortion to\t severe his  neck the others\nGanga Dayal  Gond, Sri\tKishun Chamar and Jagan Nath Godaria\npounced upon  the deceased  and cut the neck; (vi) that when\nPWs 1 to 3 shouted in disapproval of what the respondents\n were  doing, Lalloo  pointed his  tamancha towards them and\nthreatened to  kill them  and getting  frightened  they\t ran\ntowards Gosainpur and after informing Ayodhaya and Sheo that\nthe respondents\t had attacked  the deceased  they rushed  to\nMangalpura where  they met  Kharag Bahadur (PW 6) and others\nand informed  them also\t about the attack on the deceased by\nthe respondents\t accused; (vii)\t that the  first information\nreport was written by Raghubans Tiwari (PW 16) of Mangalpura\nwith the  particulars furnished by PW 1 at the spot at about\n9 p.m.\tOn 24.9.74, and later handed over by PW 1 at Bansidh\nPolice Station,\t PW 15;\t (viii) that  PW 15  left the police\nstation along  with  PW\t 1  and\t others\t for  the  scene  of\noccurrence  at\t 1.30  a.m.   On  25.9.74   and\t began\t his\ninvestigation at  the spot at 4 a.m.; (ix) that the headless\nbody was  identified to\t be that  of the  deceased Jaleshwar\nSingh by  PWs 1,3,6  and 16  and Bachchalal  (PW 5) - all of\nwhom belonged to Mangalpura; (x) that autopsy on the body bf\nthe deceased  disclosed, incised  wound\t severing  the\tneck\ncompletely, multiple  gun shot\twounds on  the upper part of\nthe front  chest, and abraded contusions over the upper part\nof the\thip; and (xi) that the doctor opined that death\t was\ndue to\tseverence of  the neck\tby a  sharp-edged and  heavy\ncutting\t weapon\t  and  that  the  injury  to  the  neck\t was\nsufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.\n     For coming\t to the\t conclusion  as\t to  conviction\t and\nsentence, the  Trial Court accepted the evidence of PWs 1 to\n3 who were\n Examined as eye witnesses and also the evidence of PW 5 and\n6 and  relied upon  the First Information Report given by PW\n1. But\ton appeal,  the Learned\t Judges of  the\t High  Court\nsuspected the genuineness of the First Information Report as\nbeing that of PW 1 for the reason that it was quite long and\ncontained all the details, rejected the evidence of PWs 1 to\n3  about  the  occurrence  and\tacquitted  the\trespondents,\nalthough they found that the\n545\nfactum of  the occurrence of the crime, the prosecution case\nwith A\tregard to  its time  and the  weapons  used  in\t the\nassault fully  corroborated by\tmedical evidence  while\t the\nrecovery of  blood fixed  the venue  of the crime. Hence the\nappeal by the state.\n     Allowing  the   appeal  and   while  confirming   their\nconvictions, the  Court altered the sentence of death passed\non them to that of K imprisonment and\n^\nHELD: 1.1 A thorough and careful analysis of the evidence on\nrecord shows  that the\tevidence of  PWs 1 to 3 are true and\nreliable and  that they were present at the scene and at the\ntime of\t the commission\t of the\t offence. And  this is not a\ncase where two views of the evidence available on record are\npossible. [555 D-F]\n     1.2 It  cannot be\tsaid that if there are ten pieces of\ncircumstantial evidence\t in a  case, an\t inference that\t the\ninvestigating officer  did not\thave honest  belief  in\t the\ntruth of  the  proceedings  nine  pieces  of  circumstantial\nevidence, merely  because he  had brought on record even the\ntenth piece of circumstantial evidence. [551 E-F]\n     1.3 Exhibit  Ka-1 is  the only first information report\nin the\tcase and that it was scribed by PW 16 at the spot on\nthe basis  of particulars  furnished by P.W. 1 at 9 p.m. and\nhanded over  by P.W.1  at the  police station at about 11.30\np.m. On\t the same  day and  that only  after a case had been\nregistered on  the basis  of that  first information report,\nP.W.15 left  the police\t station along with P.W.1 and others\nat  1.30   a.m.\t On  25.9.1974\tand  reached  the  scene  of\noccurrence at  4 a.m. To contend that PW 1 is not the author\nof the\tfirst information  report and it was recorded at the\npolice station\tat 11  a.m. On\t25.9.1974 on the evidence of\nP.W.16 who  is a self-condemned witness who had been treated\nas hostile  to the prosecution will not only be inconsistent\nbut also  incorrect. If\t it had\t been recorded\tonly at that\ntime it\t is improbable\tthat copies  thereof would have been\ndelivered by  PW 14 to the higher authorities in the morning\nof 25.9.1974. [553 B,D]\n     1.4 No  adverse inference\tcan be drawn from the cross-\nexamination of\tPW 15 to the effect that the first parcha of\nthe case  diary which is dated 25.9.1974 bears the signature\nof the\tDeputy Superintendent  of police  and endorsement of\nhis office  has made  on 28.9.1974  and without\t the seal of\nthat office.  That there  was delay  in the  receipt of\t the\ncopies of relevant records from the\n546\npolice station in the office of the Superintendent of Police\nthough even  according to  the evidence\t of PW\t16 which  is\nunreliable the\tfirst information report was in existence at\nleast at 11 a.m. On 25.9.1974 is incorrect. [552 G-H, 553 A-\nB]\n     1.5 The  facts that  P.W.1 was  seen by PW 6 soon after\nthe occurrence,\t and he\t got the  first\t information  report\nscribed by  PW 16  at 9 p.m. On 24.9.74 itself and handed it\nover at the police station at 11.30 p.m. On the same day and\naccompanied PW\t15 from\t the police  station to the scene of\noccurrence at  1.30 a.m.  On 25.9.74 probablise the evidence\nof PW  1 that he had gone to Ballia on 24.9.74 and left that\nplace for  Mangalpura by a bus along with the deceased. [553\nG-H, 554 A B]\n     1.6 The  name of  PW 1 not finding a place in the order\nsheet of  the Trial  Court at  Ballia is not a sure base for\nholding that  he could not have gone to Ballia on 24.9.1974.\nEqually the  evidence of PW 2 to the effect that much jungle\nfalls in  the first  route and\ttherefore people  go by that\nroute only  during the day time while the second route which\nis plain  is normally taken by the commutors during night is\nconvincing. The\t High Court  failed to take note of the fact\nthat it\t was night  time and PW 2 would have had the company\nof the\tdeceased and PW8 1 and 3. Further the examination of\nPW 15  at Mangalpura  by PW  1 to 3 on 25.9.1974 itself also\nprobablises their  presence and witnessing the occurrence of\nthe crime.  PW 1 alone belongs to Mangalpura while PWs 2 and\n3 belongs to different villages. PWs 2 and 3 are independent\nwitnesses and  PW 1  is a  respectable witness\tas he  is  a\nmember of  the Gram  Sabha and President of the Co-operative\nSociety, though\t admittedly he\twas the\t pairokar    of\t the\ndeceased in  the case  for which  he had  gone to  Ballia on\n24.9.1974 which\t has a little importance. [554 B-G, 555 A,D-\nE]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION :\t Criminal Appeal No.
\n320 of 1977.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  27.10.1976 of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1411 of 1976.\n<\/p>\n
     Dalveer Bhandari  and Manoj  Prasad for the appellants.
\nR.K.Garg, L.R.\tSingh, N.M.  Popli and\tV.J. Francis for the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n547<\/span>
\n     VARADARAJAN, J.  This appeal by special is by the State
\nof   Uttar Pradesh  against the acquittal of the respondents
\nLalloo, Ganga  Dayal Gond,  Sri Kishun Chamar and Jagan Nath
\nGodaria by  the High  Court, reversing\tthe judgment  of the
\ntrial court which convicted them and sentenced them to death
\nunder section  302 IPC\tfor the murder of one Babu Jaleshwar
\nSingh at about 8 p.m. On 24.9.1974.\n<\/p>\n
     The case  of the  prosecution has\tbeen set  out in the
\njudgments  of\tthe  courts  below.  Therefore,\t it  is\t not
\nnecessary to set out in detail the facts of the case in this
\njudgment. Suffice  it to  say that  the prosecution  case is
\nthat there  was long standing enmity between the respondents
\nand the\t deceased Jaleshwar  Singh who\twas a  leading\tland
\nowner and  agriculturist of  Mangalpura and  the Pradhan  of
\nthat village  for 18  or 20  years before he was murdered at
\nabout 8\t p.m. On  24.9,1974 at\tthe end\t of the Moonj jungle
\nsituate about  1-1\/2 furlongs  away from  Mangalpura village
\nwhen he\t was coming  along the footpath running through that
\nmoonj jungle in the company of Ram Surat (PW 1), Subhan Sain
\n(PW 2),\t Bansidhar (PW\t3) by  the respondents attacking him
\nwith a\ttamancha (country-made\tpistol) and daos (long heavy
\nknives used  for slaughtering goats and cutting wood). There
\nwas bright  moonlight during  that night it being the day of
\nBhado Sudi  9 and  there were also torch-lights with P.Ws. 1
\nand 3.\tPWs. 1\tto 3 belongs respectively to Mangalpura, Ram
\nNagar and  Shankerpura which  is situate  about 1-1\/2  miles
\nnorth of  Mangalpura. P.W.1  is Adhyaksha (President) of the
\nCo-operative Society of Mangalpura besides being a member of
\nthe Gram  Sabha of  that village.  The respondent Jagan Nath
\nbelongs\t to  Gosainpur\twhich  being  a\t nearby\t village  is
\nincluded in  Mangalpura Gram  Sabha while  the\tother  three
\nrespondents belong  to Mangalpura  itself.  The\t respondent,
\nJagan Nath  is also  a member  of the same Gram Sabha. There
\nwas admittedly\tlong-standing enmity between the respondents
\nand the\t deceased  Jaleshwar  Singh  right  from  1959.\t The
\ndeceased  had\tstated\tin   his  complaint  Ex.Ka-13  dated
\n14.2.1973 that the respondents and one Chandrika Mallah were
\nplanning to  kill him  due to election and litigation enmity
\nand  were   collecting\tmoney\tfor  that   purpose  amongst
\nthemselves.  The   respondents\tand  others  had  moved\t two
\ncomplaints for\tthe removal  of the  deceased as  Pradhan of
\nMangalpura. m  e first of those complaints had been rejected
\nby the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ballia on 10.5.1974 while the
\nsecond was  pending enquiry  before that Officer at the time
\nof his\tdeath. The  deceased accompanied  by PWs  1 to 3 was
\nreturning on  24.9.1974 from  Ballia where  he had  gone  in
\nconnection with\t the enquiry into the second complaint which
\nhad been  posted on  that day.\tThe facts  relating  to\t the
\nadmitted enmity between the respondents and the deceased are
\nmentioned in para 10 of the trial court’s judgment.\n<\/p>\n
548<\/span><\/p>\n
     When the deceased was going a little ahead of PWs. 1 to
\n3 in  the eastern  end of  the moonj jungle, the respondents
\nemerged\t from\tthe  moonj  plants,  armed,  Lalloo  with  a
\ntamancha, Sri  Kishun and  Ganga Dayal\twith daos  and Jagan
\nNath with  a whip.  Lalloo fired  with his  tamancha and the
\ndeceased fell down after receiving
\n injury\t on his\t chest. Therefore, Lalloo exhorted the other
\nrespondents for\t cutting the  neck of the deceased whereupon
\nthe other respondents pounced upon the deceased for severing
\nhis neck.  When P.Ws  1 to  3 shouted in disapproval of what
\nthe respondents\t were doing,  Lalloo  pointed  his  tamancha
\ntowards them  and threatened  to kill them. They, therefore,
\ngot frightened and ran towards Gosainpur and after informing
\nAyodhaya and  Sheo that\t the respondents  had  attacked\t the
\ndeceased they  rushed to  Mangalpura where  they met  Kharag
\nBahadur (PW  6) and  others and informed them also about the
\nattack on  the deceased by the respondents. Subsequently all
\nof them\t went to  the scene  of\t occurrence  and  found\t the
\ndeceased’s headless body lying in a pool of blood.\n<\/p>\n
     The first\tinformation report  was written by Raghubans
\nTiwari (PW  16) of Mangalpura with the particulars furnished
\nby PW  1 at  the spot  at about\t 9 p.m. On 24.9.1974. It was
\nhanded over by P.W.1 at Bansidh police station at 11.30 p.m.
\nOn 24.9.1974  to the  Sub-Inspector of police P.W.15. P.W.15
\nleft the  police station along with P.W 1 and others for the
\nscene of  occurrence at\t 1.30 a.m. On 25.9.1974 and he began
\nhis investigation at the spot at 4 a.m.
\n     The headless  body was  identified to  be that  of\t the
\ndeceased Jaleshwar Singh by PWs. 1,3,6 and 16 and Bachchalal
\n(P.W 5)\t all of\t whom belong  to Mangalpura.  The trunk\t was
\nfurther identified  to be  that of  the\t deceased  Jaleshwar
\nSingh with  reference to  the towel(Ex.\t II), ganj (Ex.III),
\nkurta (Ex.IV),\tdhoti (Ex.V),  chhata (Ex.VI), hand-kerchief
\n(Ex.XI), letter\t (Ex.XII) addressed to the deceased on which
\nhe had written that he had given Rs. 10 to PW 1 for bringing
\nwitnesses and  thumb-impression of  the deceased  which\t had
\nbeen compared  with his undisputed thumb impression. Autopsy
\non the\tbody of\t the deceased  Jaleshwar Singh disclosed (1)
\nincised
\n wound\tsevering the  neck completely; (2) multiple gun shot
\nwounds on  the upper part of the front chest and (3) abraded
\ncontusions over the upper part of the hip. The doctor opined
\nthat death was due to severance of the neck by a sharp-edged
\nand heavy cutting weapon and that the injury to the neck was
\nsufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.\n<\/p>\n
     The entire\t prosecution case  against  the\t respondents
\nrests on  the evidence\tof PWs\t1 to  3 who were Examined as
\neye-witnesses and
\n549<\/span>
\nalso on\t the evidence  of PWs  5 and 6. The learned Sessions
\nJudge accepted\ttheir evidence\tand relied  upon  the  first
\ninformation report  given by  PW 1  and found  that all\t the
\nrespondents had\t committed the\tbrutal murder  of  Jaleshwar
\nSingh on  account of  the admitted enmity and he accordingly
\nconvicted and sentenced them to death under section 302 read
\nwith section  34 I.P.C.\t But on appeal the learned Judges of
\nthe High  Court\t suspected  the\t genuineness  of  the  first
\ninformation report  as being  that of  PW 1 and rejected the
\nevidence of  PWs 1  to 3  about the occurrence and acquitted
\nthe respondents although they found:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The medical\tevidence leaves no room for doubt as
\n\t  to  the   factum  of\t the  occurrence,   and\t the
\n\t  prosecution case  with regard\t to its time and the
\n\t  weapons used\tin the\tassault also  receives broad
\n\t  corroboration from  it. The  place  of  occurrence
\n\t  (near the  eastern end  of- the  jungle  of  moon;
\n\t  plants in  village Mangalpura) is also fixed up by
\n\t  the recovery of blood from there.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The case  of the prosecution is that the informant PW 1
\ngot the\t first information  report scribed  by PW  16 at the
\nspot at\t about 9  p.m. On  24.9.1974 and presented it at the
\npolice station\tat 11.30  p.m. On  the same  day to the Sub-
\nInspector of  police PW\t 15 and\t that PW  15 left the police
\nstation\t after\t registering  the   case  to  the  scene  of
\noccurrence along  with PW  1 and  others  at  1.30  a.m.  On
\n25.9.1974 and began his investigation at 4 a.m. The names of
\nthe respondents as the assailants of the deceased as well as
\nthe names  of PWs.  1 to  3 as\tthose of  eye-witnesses\t are
\nmentioned in  the first information report and all the three
\nwitnesses had  been examined  by PW  15 on  25.9.1974 itself
\nalthough,  as\tstated\tearlier,   PW  1  alone\t belongs  to
\nMangalpura and\tPWs. 2\tand 3  belong to Shankerpura and Ram
\nNagar respectively.  The prosecution  relied on the evidence
\nof PW  5 who  has stated  that he  saw all  the\t respondents
\nsitting and  talking under cover of the munjahani near about
\nthe scene  of occurrence at about nightfall on 24.9.1974 and
\nthat at\t about 8.30 or 8.45 p.m. On that day he heard shouts
\nthat the  respondents whose  names  he\thas  mentioned\twere
\nbeating Babu  Jaleshwar Singh.\tOn hearing those shouts PW 5
\nran and\t on the way he met PW 6 and others and he went along
\nwith them  to the  scene of  occurrence and saw the headless
\nbody of\t the  deceased\tJaleshwar  Singh  lying\t there.\t The
\nevidence of PW 6 is that when he was sitting at his house at
\nabout 8\t p.m. On  the day  of occurrence  he heard the alarm
\n“Run up\t people, I  am being  killed”. He  took up lathi and
\nlantern and asked his companions to proceed, and when all of
\nthem were about 50 yards
\n550<\/span>
\naway from  the out-skirts  of the village, PW 6 saw PW 1 and
\nothers coming  and PW  1 told  him that\t Lallo had  shot the
\ndeceased Jaleshwar  Singh with\tpistol, that  Sri Kishun and
\nGanga Dayal  armed with\t daos and Jagan Nath armed with Kora
\n(whip) were  sitting on the chest of the deceased and Lalloo
\nhad said  “cut the neck of salaPradhan” and that they (PWs 1
\nto 3)  ran away\t from the scene when Lalloo aimed and pistol
\nat them.  Thereafter PW\t 6 and\tothers went  to the scene of
\noccurrence and\tfound the  headless body  of Jaleshwar Singh
\nlying there, and subsequently PW 1 got the report written by
\nPW 16 and proceeded with it to the police station.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned Judges of the High Court rejected the first
\ninformation report of two grounds, namely, that it is quite
\nlong and  contains all\tthe details and that PW 1 is not the
\nauthor of  its contents. They rejected the evidence of PWs 1
\nto 3  as unreliable  but accepted the evidence of PW 16 that
\nhe wrote  the first information report at the police station
\nin the\tpresence  of  his  own\tfather\tand  others  to\t the
\ndictation of  PW 15.  They acquitted the respondents and set
\naside the conviction and the sentence awarded to them by the
\ntrial court.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Dalveer Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant
\nState of Uttar Pradesh took us through the evidence of PWs 1
\nto 3  and the  other witnesses as also through the judgments
\nof the courts below and submitted that the learned Judges of
\nthe High  Court were  not justified  in holding that PW 1 is
\nnot the author
\n of  the first information report and that it was written by
\nPW 16  at the  police station  to the dictation of PW 15. He
\nalso submitted\tthat the  learned Judges  of the  High Court
\nwere not  justified in\trejecting the  evidence of  the eye-
\nwitnesses. PWs.\t 1 to  3 also of PWs. 5 and 6 and acquitting
\nthe respondents.  On the  other hand, Mr. R.K. Garg, learned
\ncounsel\t for   the  respondents\t submitted  that  the  first
\ninformation report is not the “brain child” of PW 1 and that
\nit had been prepared at 11 a.m. on 25.9.1974 as stated by PW
\n16 after  PW 15 had visited the scene of occurrence and seen
\nthe injuries  found on\tthe headless  body of  the  deceased
\nJaleshwar Singh. He submitted that the evidence of PW 1 that
\nhe had\tgone to\t Ballia in  connection with the enquiry into
\nthe  complaint\t filed\tfor  the  removal  of  the  deceased
\nJaleshwar Singh\t from the  office of  Pradhan of  Mangalpura
\nvillage and that he was accompanying h m from Ballia and was
\npresent at  the time  of the occurrence is not believable at
\nall having  regard to the fact that although it is stated in
\nthe first  information report  that  PW\t 1  went  to  Ballia
\nalongwith the  deceased Jaleshwar  Singh he  has admitted in
\nhis evidence that he did not go with the
\n551<\/span>
\ndeceased to  Ballia  and  stated  that\the  went  to  Ballia
\nseparately and\treached the  office  of\t the  Sub-Divisional
\nOfficer only  at about\t1.30 p.m. On 24.9.1974 and also that
\nhis name  is not  mentioned in\tthe order  sheet relating to
\nthat case.  He further\tsubmitted that the learned Judges of
\nthe High  Court were  justified in rejecting the evidence of
\nnot only  PW 1\tbut also  of PWs.  2 and 3 as unreliable and
\nthat it\t would appear  from the\t fact that the investigating
\nofficer had gone in search of circumstantial evidence by way
\nof dress,  shoes, letter,  thumb-impression etc.,  mentioned
\nabove for  identifying the  headless trunk  as that  of\t the
\ndeceased  Jaleshwar  Singh  that  he  did  not\tbelieve\t the
\ntestimony of  PWs. 1  to 3  who\t are  put  forward  as\teye-
\nwitnesses in the case.\n<\/p>\n
     In our  opinion the  submission that  the investigating
\nofficer PW 15 had no faith or honest belief in the testimony
\nof PWs.\t 1 to 3 regarding the identity of the headless trunk
\nas that\t of the\t deceased Jaleshwar  Singh merely because he
\nhad looked  up for  other circumstantial evidence to connect
\nthe headless  trunk with the deceased Jaleshwar Singh has to
\nbe stated  only to be rejected, for it is impossible to hold
\nfrom the  fact that  the investigating officer looked up for
\nsome corroborative  circumstantial evidence  that he did not
\nhave faith  or belief  in the  testimony of  PWs. 1  to 3 as
\nregards the  identity and  therefore it\t is not\t possible to
\nrely upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 as regards the identity
\nand therefore  it is  not possible to rely upon the evidence
\nof PWs 1 to 3 that they witnessed the occurrence. It will be
\nunreasonable  to  hold\tchat  if  there\t are  10  pieces  of
\ncircumstantial evidence\t in a  case an\tinference  that\t the
\ninvestigating officer  did not\thave honest  belief  in\t the
\ntruth of  the preceding\t 9 pieces of circumstantial evidence
\nmerely because he had brought on record even the tenth piece
\nof circumstantial evidence.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned Judges of the High Court were not justified
\nin basing  their conclusion  that PW  1 is not the author of
\nthe first information report and that it was recorded at the
\npolice station at 11 a.m. On 25.9.1974 on the evidence of PW
\n16 who\tis a  selfcondemned witness  who had been treated as
\nhostile to the prosecution. It is not possible to accept the
\nevidence of  PW 16  who was admittedly present in the police
\nstation along  with his\t father and others and had consulted
\nhis father  before writing  the first information report and
\nwrote it  after his  father asked  him to  write it  that he
\nwrote it  to the  dictation of PW 15 at 11 a.m. On 25.9.1974
\nand dated  it as 24.9.1974 as desired by PW 15. The evidence
\nof PW 16 is highly discrepant, for he has stated in one
\n552<\/span>
\nportion of  his evidence  that along  with  his\t father\t and
\nothers he  reached the\tpolice station\tat about  10 a.m. On
\n25.9.1974 and  returned from  there at about 11 a.m. leaving
\nonly PW\t 1 at that place. In another portion of his evidence
\nhe has\tstated that PW 15 came to the scene of occurrence at
\n8 or  9 a.m.  On 25.9.1974 and that he (PW 16) started along
\nwith others to proceed to the
\n police\t station for the scene of occurrence only at about 9
\na.m. On\t that day  when PW 15 arrived. he has further stated
\nPW 15  started for  the scene of occurrence after he and the
\nother persons  reached the  police station and that too only
\nafter the  first information report was lodged at the police
\nstation. He  has also  stated that  he too accompanied PW 15
\nwhen he\t started from the police station at 10 or 10.30 a.m.
\nand that  he does  not know  at what  time PW 15 reached the
\nscene of  occurrence. Thus,  it is seen that PW 16 has given
\nhighly discrepant  evidence regarding  the time\t at which he
\nreached the  police station along with his father and others
\nincluding PW  1 as also about the time at which he claims to
\nhave written  the first\t information report to the dictation
\nof PW  15 after\t getting the  approval\tof  his\t father\t for
\nwriting the same.\n<\/p>\n
     The evidence  of Uma  Shankar Upadhya  (PW 10)  who was
\nHead Constable\tat Bansidh  police station is that PW l came
\nto the\tpolice station\tat 11.30  p.m. On 24.9.1974 with the
\nfirst information  report (Ex.Ka-1) and that on the basis of
\nthat report  he prepared the check report (Ex.KA-21). It has
\nbeen elicited  in his  cross-examination that  Constable Ram
\nNaresh Singh  (PW 14)  left the\t police station carrying the
\nspecial reports\t to his\t superior officers  at 6.05  a.m. On
\n25.9.1974. In  answer to  questions put\t to  him  in  cross-
\nexamination PW\t14 has\tstated that  he carried\t the special
\nreports to  his superior officers from the police station in
\nthe morning  of 25.9.1974. The investigating officer (PW 15)
\nhas stated  in his  evidence that after receipt of the first
\ninformation report  at the police station in his presence he
\ntook  up  investigation\t immediately  and  left\t the  police
\nstation to  the scene  of occurrence  along with  PW  1\t and
\nothers at about 1.30 a.m. On 25.9.1974 and reached the scene
\nof occurrence  at about 4 a.m. after some delay as he had to
\ncross a\t river on the way and wait for some time to call the
\nboats-men. No  doubt it\t has been elicited from PW 15 in the
\ncross-examination that\tthe first  parcha of  the case diary
\nwhich is  dated 25.9.1974  bears the signature of the Deputy
\nSuperintendent of  Police made on 28.9.1974 but not the seal
\nof that\t office. From  that  fact  alone  it  could  not  be
\ninferred that  there was  delay in the receipt of the copies
\nof relevant records from the police station in the
\n553<\/span>
\noffice of the Superintendent of Police though it may be that
\nthe A  endorsement in  that office  had been  made  only  on
\n28.9.1974, for even according to the evidence of PW 16 which
\nis unreliable  the first information report was in existence
\nat least at 11 a.m. On 25.9.1974. In these circumstances, we
\naccept the  evidence of\t PW 16\tand find that Ex.Ka-1 is the
\nonly first  information report\tin the\tcase and that it was
\nscribed by  PW 16  at the  spot on  the basis of particulars
\nfinished by  PW 1  at 9\t p.m. and handed over by PW 1 at the
\npolice station\tat about 11.30 p.m. On the same day and that
\nonly after  a case  had been registered on the basis of that
\nfirst information report PW 15 left the police station along
\nwith PW\t 1 and\tothers at 1.30 a.m. On 25.9.1974 and reached
\nthe scene  of occurrence at 4 a.m. The learned Judges of the
\nHigh Court,  in our  opinion, erred grievously in holding on
\nthe unreliable\tevidence of  PW\t 16  alone  that  the  first
\ninformation report  (Ex.Ka-1) was  recorded  at\t the  police
\nstation at  11. a.m.  On 25.9.1974.  If it had been recorded
\nonly at that time it is improbable that copies thereof would
\nhave been  delivered by\t PW 14\tto the higher authorities in
\nthe morning of 25.9.1974 itself.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  Judges of the High Court have rejected the
\nevidence of PW 1 for two reasons, namely (1) that whereas he
\nhad stated  in the  first information report that he went to
\nBallia along with the deceased on 24.9.1974 he has stated in
\nhis evidence that he went to Ballia only later at about 1.30
\np.m. On\t that day  and did  not accompany  the deceased from
\nMangalpura and (2) that the name of PW 1 is not mentioned in
\nthe  order-sheet   of  the  Sub-Divisional  Officer,  Ballia
\nrelating to  the case  in connection with which the deceased
\nhad  gone   to\tBallia\ton  that  day.\tNo  doubt  there  is
\ndiscrepancy between  the recital  in the  first\t information
\nreport and the evidence of PW i on the question whether PW 1
\nwent along  with the  deceased to Ballia on 24.9.1974 or had
\ngone to Ballia separately and met the deceased at that place
\nat about  1.30 p.m.  On that  day.  It\tis  not\t a  material
\ndiscrepancy. It\t would appear  from the\t fact  that  on\t the
\nletter (Ex.XII) an endorsement had been made by the deceased
\nto the\teffect that on 24.9.1974 he had given Rs. 10 to PW 1
\nfor bringing  witnesses that PW 1 who was his pairokar might
\nhave gone  to Ballia with or without witnesses on 24.9.1974.
\nIt he  had not\tgone to\t Ballia on  that  day  and  had\t not
\naccompanied the deceased from Ballia when he left that place
\nfor Mangalpura\tit is not probable that PW 1 would have been
\nseen by\t PW 6 soon after the occurrence or he could have got
\nthe first  information report  scribed by PW 16 at 9 p.m. On
\n24.9.1974 itself and handed it over at the police station at
\n11.30 p.m. on the same day and accompanied PW 15 from
\n554<\/span>
\nthe police  station to\tthe scene of occurrence at 1.30 a.m.
\nOn 25.9.1974. Therefore, we accept the evidence of PW 1 that
\nhe had\tgone to\t Ballia on 24.9.1974 and had left that place
\nfor Mangalpura\tby a  bus along\t with the  deceased and\t was
\npresent at  the time  of occurrence  and had  witnessed\t the
\nsame. The  learned Judges of the High Court had not rejected
\nthe evidence of PW 2 that on 24.9.1974 he had been to Ballia
\nto meet\t his ailing  relation Shamshuddin  Sain at Baheri in
\nBallia and  was in  his house  upto 4  or 4.30\tp.m. He\t has
\nstated that  he thereafter  boarded the\t bus  in  which\t the
\ndeceased and  PW 1 were seated for proceeding to his village
\nfor which he had to get down from the bus and cross a river.
\nThey have  rejected the evidence of PW 2 that he was present
\nalong with  the deceased  at the  time of the occurrence and
\nhad seen the occurrence merely because after one crosses the
\n‘dah’ (river) there are two routes to proceed to Shankerpura
\none of\tthem going from the ghat towards Shankerpura and the
\nsecond towards\tMangalpura on  the west\t and then  north  to
\nreach Shankerpura, and the learned Judges thought that it is
\nimprobable that\t PW 2  would have  taken the  route which is
\nlonger by  1 or\t 1-l\/2 miles  instead of  the shorter  route
\nproceedings from the ghat. The learned Judges have failed to
\ngive the  importance which it deserves to the evidence of PW
\n2 that\tmuch jungle  falls in  the first route and therefore
\npeople go  by that route only during day time and the second
\nroute is  plain and  therefore they  go through\t that  route
\nduring night. They have also failed to take note of the fact
\nthat it\t was night  time and PW 2 would have had the company
\nof the\tdeceased and  PWs. 1 and 3, if he went by the longer
\nroute and  would have  had to go all alone if he went by the
\nshorter route  running through\tthe ghat. The learned Judges
\nhave rejected  the evidence  of PW  3 who  is  a  trader  in
\nbullocks merely\t because he  has stated in his evidence that
\non 24.9.1974 he went to Ballia for purchasing a weak bullock
\nwhereas he  had purchased  a stronger  bullock for  Rs. 1200
\nfrom near  about his  village a\t few days  later. They\thave
\nobserved that  it is improbable that PW 3 would have gone to
\nBallia on  24.9.1974 for  purchasing  a\t weak  bullock\twhen
\nstrong bullocks were available in neighbourhood itself. PW 3
\nwho trades in bullocks might purchase weak as well as strong
\nbullocks depending upon the need as rightly submitted by Mr.
\nDalveer Bhandari.  The fact that PW 3 had gone to Ballia for
\npurchasing a  weak bullock  is not  a sufficient  reason for
\ndisbelieving his  evidence that\t he had\t gone to  Ballia  on
\n24.9.1974 for  purchasing a bullock and that he travelled by
\nthe bus\t in which  the\tdeceased  and  PWs.  1\tand  2\twere
\ntravelling on  their return  from Ballia  on  that  day.  As
\nstated earlier\tthe name of not only PW 2 but those of PWs.1
\nand 3 as eye-witnesses are mentioned
\n555<\/span>
\nin the first information report which has been found to have
\nbeen recorded  at 9 p.m. itself at the spot and to have been
\nhanded over  at Bansidh\t police station at 11.30 p.m. On the
\nsame day.  PWs 1  to 3\thave all  been examined\t by PW 15 at
\nMangalpura on 25.9.1974 itself. It is not probable that they
\nwould have been easily and readily available for examination
\non 25.9.1974 itself if they had not been present at the time
\nof the occurrence and had not witnessed the occurrence. PW 1
\nalone belongs  to Mangalpura  while PWs\t 2 and\t3 belong  to
\ndifferent villages  as\talready\t mentioned.  We,  therefore,
\naccept the  evidence of\t PWs 2 and 3 as well regarding their
\npresence at  the time  of the  occurrence and witnessing the
\nscene. PWs. 2 and 3 are independent witnesses, and PW 1 is a
\nrespectable witness  as he is a member of the Gram Sabha and
\nPresident of  the Co-operative\tSociety though admittedly he
\nwas the\t pairokar of  the deceased  in the case for which he
\nhad gone  to Ballia  on 24.9.1974.  The name  of  PW  1\t not
\nfinding a  place in  the order sheet is not a sure basis for
\nholding that  he could not have gone to Ballia on 24.9.1974.
\nPWs. 1\tto 3  have deposed about the occurrence as mentioned
\nabove, and we are of the opinion that there is no convincing
\nreason for  rejecting their  evidence as unreliable and that
\nthe learned  Judges of\tthe High Court were not justified at
\nall in\trejecting their\t evidence  for\tthe  flimsy  reasons
\nmentioned by  them. We\tare also  of the  opinion  that\t the
\nlearned trial Judge was absolutely justified in acceping the
\nevidence of  the prosecution  witnesses and  convicting\t the
\nrespondents for\t the offence  of murder and that the learned
\nJudges of  the High  Court had\tnot justification whatsoever
\nfor reversing  that judgment  and acquitting the respondents
\nThis is not a case where two views on the evidence available
\non record  are possible. We, therefore, allow the appeal and
\naffirm that  of\t the  learned  trial  Judge  convicting\t the
\nrespondents for\t the offence  of murder\t of Jaleshwar Singh.
\nBut though  the case  is of  gruesome and coldblooded murder
\nand the learned Sessions Judge was justified in awarding the
\nsentence of  death  having  regard  to\tthe  fact  that\t the
\noccurrence took\t place over  a decade  ago, we\tsentence the
\nrespondents to undergo imprisonment for life. The bail bonds
\nof the\trespondents who\t are on bail are cancelled, and they
\nshall be  taken into-  custody\tforthwith  for\tserving\t the
\nremaining part of the sentence.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n556<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalloo & Others on 13 August, 1985 Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 576, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 543 Author: A Varadarajan Bench: Varadarajan, A. (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: LALLOO & OTHERS. DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/08\/1985 BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) FAZALALI, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-198848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalloo & Others on 13 August, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalloo & Others on 13 August, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1985-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-21T07:10:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalloo & Others on 13 August, 1985\",\"datePublished\":\"1985-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-21T07:10:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985\"},\"wordCount\":4306,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985\",\"name\":\"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalloo & Others on 13 August, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1985-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-21T07:10:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalloo & Others on 13 August, 1985\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalloo & Others on 13 August, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalloo & Others on 13 August, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1985-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-21T07:10:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalloo & Others on 13 August, 1985","datePublished":"1985-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-21T07:10:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985"},"wordCount":4306,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985","name":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalloo & Others on 13 August, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1985-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-21T07:10:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-uttar-pradesh-vs-lalloo-others-on-13-august-1985#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Lalloo & Others on 13 August, 1985"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198848","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=198848"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198848\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198848"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198848"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198848"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}