Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2236 (ALL)

Satya Narain Yadava v. State of U. P.

2023-10-03

NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Shoeb Khan, learned AGA for the State and Shri Sanjay Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the son of the deceased. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 05.10.1985 in Sessions Trial No. 262 of 1982 (State vs. Satya Narain Yadava and Others) under Sections 148, 302/149 and 201 I.P.C. and P.S. Gola, District-Gorakhpur arising out of Case Crime No. 194 of 1980 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 201 I.P.C. and P.S. Gola, District-Gorakhpur. By the impugned judgment, all the accused-appellants have been convicted with life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. two years R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. and three years R.I. for the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 3. The appeal of the appellant no. 1-Satya Narain Yadava, appellant no. 4-Jagat Narain and appellant no. 7-Phool Chand was abated vide order of this Court dated 05.12.2018 and the appeal of the appellant no. 2-Dhanush Dhari was abated vide order of this Court dated 17.07.2019. Now, this appeal survives only in respect of the appellant nos. 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10, namely, Chakradhari, Ram Singh, Vijai Shanker, Ram Karan, Pabbar and Nav Ratan respectively. Facts: 4. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that an F.I.R. No. 171 being Case Crime No. 194/1980 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 201 I.P.C. and P.S. Gola, District- Gorakhpur was lodged by one Ghisiyawan alleging that when he alongwith the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla and one Markandey Chaubey son of Kamta Prasad Chaubey were returning from Gopalpur, near the house of the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla at about 10 P.M. in the night, when they reached at the house of Jokhai, he saw in the light of his torch three accused persons, namely, Satya Narain Yadava armed with Farsa, his son Chakradhari @ Laldhari armed with a gun and Jagat Narain son of Tapai Yadav armed with Katta and on exhortation of Satya Narain Yadava, Chakradhari @ Laldhari and Jagat Narain fired at the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla due to which he fell on the ground on receiving the gun shot injury. Thereafter, Dhanush Dhari, Phoolchanda, Navratan and Ram Singh armed with Ballam and Vijay Shankar, Ram Karan and Pabbar and two other persons armed with Farsa came and started beating the aforesaid Sant Prasad Shukla. On hearing the cry and sound of fire, the wife of deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla and his daughter Vimla Kumari came on the spot having torch in their hands, whose house was near to the place of incident. Despite persuasion by the wife and daughter of the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla, the accused persons mercilessly caused injuries to the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla resulting in his death. Thereafter, the accused persons dragged the body of the deceased to the south side of the village towards Saryu river, which was about four furlong from the place of incident but due to fear, she (wife of the deceased) could not chase them. It was apprehended that either the accused persons would have hidden the dead body somewhere or would have thrown it in the river Saryu. 5. The aforesaid F.I.R. was registered in the night of 28/29.09.1980 at 00:30 hours. The Investigating Officer reached on the spot and prepared the recovery memo, recovering one torch from the eye witness Markandey Chaubey, one torch from the informant-Ghisiyawan and one torch from the eye witness Vimla Kumari (daughter of the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla). The aforesaid recovery memo is of 29.09.1980 (Exhibit Ka-6), which bears the signature of five witnesses, namely, Ghisiyawan, Komal, Ram Charan, Vimla Kumari and Markandey Chaubey. Another recovery memo dated 29.09.1980 was prepared by the Investigating Officer in presence of the witnesses, namely, Komal and Ram Charan recovering plain earth and blood stained earth from the spot in two separate containers. 6. Another recovery memo dated 04.10.1980 was prepared by the Investigation Officer showing Badri Prasad Shukla (PW-4) and Krishna Mohan Pandey as witnesses of the recovery memo, under which recovery of a wrist watch allegedly of the deceased and an axe (allegedly used in the commission of the offence to cut the body of the deceased-Sant Prasad in pieces), were shown. As per recovery memo, the aforesaid wrist watch and the axe both contained blood stains. This recovery memo was not signed by the accused-Jagat Narain on whose pointing out these articles were recovered. 7. The plain and the blood stained earth, the wrist watch and the axe were sent for chemical examination. As per recovery memo, the aforesaid wrist watch and the axe both contained blood stains. This recovery memo was not signed by the accused-Jagat Narain on whose pointing out these articles were recovered. 7. The plain and the blood stained earth, the wrist watch and the axe were sent for chemical examination. As per report of the chemical examiner dated 25.09.1981, human blood was found in the sample of the blood stained earth and on the wrist watch but no human blood was found on the axe. 8. The charge-sheet was prepared on 29.12.1980 and was filed against all the accused persons. Charges were framed by the learned Trial Court on 28.07.1982. The prosecution examined four witnesses, namely, PW-1 eye witness-Markandey Chaubey, PW-2 eye witness-Chandrawati wife of the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla, PW-3 Constable Moharrir-Daya Shankar Dubey, who registered the chik F.I.R. and the PW-4 Badri Prasad Shukla (munsi of the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla), who is one of the witnesses of the aforesaid recovery memo dated 04.10.1980. 9. Eye witness PW-1 (Markandey Chaubey) turned hostile. The informant/eye witness-Ghisiyawan was not examined by the prosecution. The third eye witness Vimla Kumari (daughter of the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla) was also not examined by the prosecution. The Investigation Officer, who investigated the case and prepared the recovery memos, was also not examined by the prosecution. The statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they denied all the allegations levelled against them. 10. The learned Trial Court convicted all the accused persons mainly on the basis of recovery memo dated 04.10.1980 (Exhibit ka-4) and the evidence of PW-2. Aggrieved, all the accused-appellants have filed the present appeal. Submissions: 11. Shri Gopal Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate submits as under: (i) The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court for convicting the accused-appellants is perverse and based on no evidence. The evidence of PW-2 is wholly unreliable and totally inconsistent. (ii) The eye witness/informant-Ghisiyawan was not examined by the prosecution. The other alleged eye witness Vimla (daughter of the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla) was also not examined by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer was also not examined. The recovery memos could not be proved by the Investigating Officer, who prepared them. (iii) There is no whisper about use of the axe either in the First Information Report or in the evidence of the alleged eye witness PW-2. The Investigating Officer was also not examined. The recovery memos could not be proved by the Investigating Officer, who prepared them. (iii) There is no whisper about use of the axe either in the First Information Report or in the evidence of the alleged eye witness PW-2. There is no allegation or evidence that any of the accused persons were armed with axe. As per forensic report, no human blood was found on the allegedly recovered axe. The evidence of PW-4 regarding recovery is totally unreliable, as he has not seen the alleged axe and the watch but he saw it in the hands of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has not been examined to prove the recovery. Therefore, neither it could be proved that the allegedly recovered axe is connected with the offence nor the recovery of the axe could be proved. The recovery of wrist watch could not be proved and it was also not even produced during trial and particularly before the PW-4 when he was being examined. Even, the eye witness PW-2 has not stated that the allegedly recovered watch is the watch of her deceased husband. (iv) As per evidence of PW-2, she received blood stains of the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla on her clothes but her clothes were not recovered and were not sent for forensic examination to find out the truth and for corroboration of her evidence. (v) The conduct of alleged eye witness PW-2 is totally unnatural inasmuch as, as per her version she chased the accused persons to a short distance but thereafter she returned. She had not chased the body of her husband being allegedly dragged by the accused persons. (vi) No evidence could be led by the prosecution that the accused persons have killed the deceased, cut his body into pieces and thrown it in river Saryu. It is merely an apprehension, which has been expressed in the First Information Report. Therefore, merely on apprehension, the accused persons cannot be held guilty. 12. Learned AGA submits as under: (i) The First Information Report is prompt inasmuch as the time of incident is 10 P.M. and the First Information Report was lodged at 00:30 hours in the night of 28/29.09.1980. Therefore, merely on apprehension, the accused persons cannot be held guilty. 12. Learned AGA submits as under: (i) The First Information Report is prompt inasmuch as the time of incident is 10 P.M. and the First Information Report was lodged at 00:30 hours in the night of 28/29.09.1980. The motive is proved because of the incident of 2nd of March, 1980 and in respect of which the aforesaid Ghisiyawan has lodged an F.I.R. No. 38 being Case Crime No. 49/1980 dated 02.03.1980 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452 and 427 I.P.C. and P.S. Gola, District- Gorakhpur. Since the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla had helped the aforesaid informant- Ghisiyawan in pairvi of the aforesaid case crime, therefore, the accused persons have killed the deceased. (ii) The deceased has sent a complaint by telegram dated 03.07.1980 to the Senior Police Officers expressing threat of his life from the accused-Satya Narain Yadava and a photocopy of the aforesaid telegram being Paper No. 50 Kha was also filed by the prosecution during trial. The prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused-persons beyond reasonable doubt as is evident from the evidence of eye witness PW-2 and witness of recovery memo dated 04.10.1980 i.e. PW-4. Thus, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused-persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused-persons have been lawfully and correctly convicted by the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.1985. 13. Shri Sanjay Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the son of the deceased submits that direct evidence being evidence of eye witness PW-2, telegram indicating motive/rivalry being Paper No. 50 Kha dated 03.07.1980 and evidence of PW-4 (witness of recovery memo dated 04.10.1980) proving recovery of watch and the axe are sufficient evidences to hold the accused persons guilty of commission of offence under which they have been charged. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has not committed any manifest error of law and there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be interfered with. Discussion and Findings: 14. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 15. We find that the informant-Ghisiyawan was not in comfortable terms with the accused persons. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be interfered with. Discussion and Findings: 14. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 15. We find that the informant-Ghisiyawan was not in comfortable terms with the accused persons. Against some of the accused persons, he had lodged the aforesaid F.I.R. No. 38 of 1980 being Case Crime No. 49 of 1980 dated 02.03.1980, P.S. and Gola, District- Gorakhpur under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452 and 427 I.P.C. making allegations of beating. The informant of the F.I.R. in question being F.I.R. No. 171 of 1980 (Case Crime No. 194 of 1980) dated 29.09.1980 is also the aforesaid Ghisiyawan, who also alleged himself to be the eye witness. He was not examined by the prosecution. Even in the aforesaid F.I.R. he has alleged the accused persons armed with specific weapons, which does not include axe. He has not proved the aforesaid F.I.R. In the F.I.R. he has merely expressed apprehension that the dead body of the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla either would have been hidden by the accused persons or would have been disposed of in the river Saryu. Even the torch used by him to see the accused persons was not proved by the prosecution. 16. The PW-1, Markandey Chaubey, who was allegedly accompanying the deceased at the date, time and place of incident, was examined by the prosecution as PW-1 but he has not supported the prosecution story. Therefore, he was declared hostile. 17. Eye witness PW-2, who is the wife of the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla, in her examination-in-chief has stated that she came on the place of incident alongwith her daughter Vimla Kumari on hearing the sound of fire and cry of Ghisiyawan and her husband. She further stated that she was having a torch and her daughter was also having a torch and in the light of the torch, they saw the accused persons from behind the house of one Jokhai. She stated that she saw that the accused-persons were beating her husband. She further stated that she was having a torch and her daughter was also having a torch and in the light of the torch, they saw the accused persons from behind the house of one Jokhai. She stated that she saw that the accused-persons were beating her husband. She further stated that the accused persons, namely, Satya Narain, Vijai, Ram Karan and Babbar were armed with Farsa, accused persons, namely, Chakradhari, Ram Singh, Phool Chand and Navratan were armed with Bhala, the accused-Chakradhari was armed with gun and the accused-Jagat was armed with Katta and the accused persons armed with gun and Katta were guarding while other accused persons were beating her husband. She stated that the moment she reached at the place of incident, she covered the body of her husband but the accused persons removed her and took away her husband towards south side of the Madai of Dhuniram and she chased the accused persons to some distance but thereafter returned and she could not find the body of her husband. She stated that her daughter Vimla Kumari, Markandey Chaubey and Ghisiyawan have seen the incident. 18. During her cross examination, the PW-1 admitted that the accused-Satya Narain Yadava is the village Pradhan. She stated that when she reached at the place of incident, her husband was lying on the earth and the accused persons were beating him, then she threw away the torch and covered the body of her husband due to which her clothes also received blood stains of blood of her husband. During her further cross examination, she changed her version and stated that when she reached at the spot, she found that the accused persons were dragging her husband. On further cross examination, she again changed her version and stated that when she reached at the place of incident, she saw that accused persons were dragging her husband to the south side till the door of the house of one Phool Chand. She showed her total unawareness about any talk with the alleged eye witnesses Ghisiyawan and Markandey or the lodging of the F.I.R. but she admitted that the Investigation Officer came to her village on the date of incident at about 12:00 in the night and was sitting at her house door and when the Investigating Officer came, she, her daughter and eye witnesses Markandey and Ghisiyawan were present. She stated that she was weeping at her house door. She further stated that the Investigating Officer has not made any queries or enquiry from her and she has not met with the Investigating Officer after the night of the day of incident. On a query by Court, she stated that Investigating Officer has taken her statement on the next day. On further cross examination, she stated that she has told the Investigating Officer that she was having a torch but if it is not written in her statement, then she cannot give any reason for that. 19. Perusal of the evidence of eye witness PW-2 shows that she has changed her version thrice about the scene at the time of commission of offence. Firstly, she stated that when she reached the place of incident on hearing the sound of fire and cry of her husband and Ghisiyawan, she saw the accused persons from behind the house of one Jokhai and described the weapons with which the accused persons were armed and, thereafter, she covered her husband but the accused persons removed her. When cross examined, she stated that when she reached at the place of incident, she found that her husband was lying on the south-west corner of the pond situated on the west side of the house of Jokhai and the accused persons were beating him. Then she thrown her torch and covered her husband due to which she received blood stains of the blood of her husband on her clothes. The third version, which came in her cross examination is that when she reached at the place of incident, she saw that the accused persons were dragging her husband towards south side and they brought her husband beating and dragging to the door of the house of Phool Chand. Thus, the evidence of PW-2 is not consistent. Her blood stained clothes could neither be recovered nor could be sent for forensic examination so as to corroborate with her evidence and particularly with respect to her presence on the spot as an eye witness. The torch, in the light of which she allegedly saw the accused persons, was also neither produced by her nor could be recovered by the Investigating Officer. The torch, in the light of which she allegedly saw the accused persons, was also neither produced by her nor could be recovered by the Investigating Officer. In her cross examination, she stated that the Investigating Officer came at about 12:00 (zero hours) in the night while F.I.R. was registered at 00:30 hours in the night. In her cross examination, she admitted that the Investigating Officer was sitting at her house door but she had not met him while at the same time, she admitted that she herself was sitting at her house door. The inconsistent evidence of PW-2 renders her to be an interested witness instead of an eye witness. These inconsistencies leads her to be an unreliable and untrustworthy witness. 20. In Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 (Paras 11, 12 and 13), Hon’ble Supreme Court has classified oral testimony into three categories as (i) wholly reliable (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable; and held as under: “11. In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, has categorically laid it down that “no particular number of witnesses shall in any case, be required for the proof of any fact.” Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way-it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution. (13)..............If the court is convinced about the truth of the prosecution story, conviction has to follow. The question of sentence has to be determined, not with reference to the volume or character of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of the prosecution case, but with reference to the fact whether there are any extenuating circumstances which can be said to mitigate the enormity of the crime. If the court is satisfied that there are such mitigating circumstances, only then, it would be justified in imposing the lesser of the two sentences provided by law..........” 21. In Rajesh Yadav and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 12 SCC 200 (Para 20), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the aspects of appreciation of evidence, classified them in three categories i.e. (i) wholly reliable (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and held as under: “20. We have already indicated different classification of evidence. In Rajesh Yadav and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 12 SCC 200 (Para 20), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the aspects of appreciation of evidence, classified them in three categories i.e. (i) wholly reliable (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and held as under: “20. We have already indicated different classification of evidence. While appreciating the evidence as aforesaid along with the matters attached to it, evidence can be divided into three categories broadly namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. If evidence, along with matters surrounding it, makes the court believe it is wholly reliable qua an issue, it can decide its existence on a degree of probability. Similar is the case where evidence is not believable. When evidence produced is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, it might require corroboration, and in such a case, court can also take note of the contradictions available in other matters.” 22. Thus, oral testimony may be classified into three categories, firstly, wholly reliable, secondly, wholly unreliable, and, thirdly, neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way — it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. 23. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments aforenoted, on facts of the present case, we find that the testimony of PW-2 is unreliable, untrustworthy and she is an interested witness. 24. In the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has conveniently left the important portions of the evidence of PW-2, which renders her to be an unreliable witness. The learned Trial Court also ignored other important evidences and important circumstances and facts, namely, non-production/recovery of alleged torch, unproved recovery memos, non-use of the recovered axe in the alleged commission of offence, own rivalry of the informant with the accused persons, non-examination of the informant witness, denial of the accused-Jagat in reply to question no. 16 of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the Investigating Officer had carried him from jail and had shown false recovery and neither recovery memo was prepared in his presence nor he has given any statement, no evidence of the prosecution that the alleged recovered watch was of the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla which could neither be produced before the PW-4 during his examination nor its recovery was proved. All these facts render findings of the learned Trial Court to be perverse on the point of holding the accused persons guilty of commission of the alleged offence. 25. The informant Ghisiyawan, although an alleged eye witness; was not examined by the prosecution. He has not proved the First Information Report. The Investigating Officer has neither proved the recovery memos nor proved the recovery of the alleged articles. As per recovery memo, blood stains were found on the alleged recovered axe, but in the forensic examination, no human blood was found on it. He has not proved the First Information Report. The Investigating Officer has neither proved the recovery memos nor proved the recovery of the alleged articles. As per recovery memo, blood stains were found on the alleged recovered axe, but in the forensic examination, no human blood was found on it. No evidence could be led by the prosecution to prove that the recovered watch was of the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla. 26. Even, the PW-4, who is the Munshi of the deceased and witness of the recovery memo dated 04.10.1980, has stated in his cross examination that he has not seen the accused-Jagat Narain picking up the watch and the axe from the place of recovery but he has seen it in the hands of the Investigating Officer. The PW-4 has stated in his cross examination that the recovered axe and the wrist watch were burried under the earth in the sugarcane field but these two articles did not contain any mud rather both allegedly contained blood stains. The evidence of PW-4 regarding recovery and particularly when the recovered articles were not produced during examination of PW-4, renders the evidence of PW-4 to be totally doubtful and unreliable inasmuch as it does not conceive to reasons that the watch and the axe burried under the earth in sugarcane field would not contain any mud particularly when the recovery was made after six days. No human blood was found on the axe. It could not be proved by the prosecution that the recovered watch was of the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla. 27. For all the reasons aforestated, we are of the considered view that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 28. We further find that the entire analysis of the evidences made by the learned Trial Court is in paragraph nos. 8 to 10 of the impugned judgment, which is heavily based on the recovery memo dated 04.10.1980 (Exhibit Ka-4) and the built up story that the body of the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla was cut into pieces by the recovered axe. The recovery itself is totally unproved. No human blood was found on the recovered axe. Thus, the ocular evidence does not corroborate with the scientific evidence. 29. The recovery itself is totally unproved. No human blood was found on the recovered axe. Thus, the ocular evidence does not corroborate with the scientific evidence. 29. We further find that the alleged telegram dated 03.07.1980, heavily relied and made basis for imputing motive; is totally unproved and inadmissible piece of paper inasmuch as the said paper is allegedly a photocopy of an alleged telegram being Paper No. 50 Kha, which was neither admitted in evidence by the learned Trial Court nor it could be proved by the prosecution. 30. No witness has stated that the body of the deceased-Sant Prasad Shukla was cut into pieces by the accused persons with the use of the alleged recovered axe under the recovery memo dated 04.10.1980. The recovery memo dated 04.10.1980 was also not proved by the Investigating Officer. In fact, Investigating Officer was not even examined by the prosecution. The evidence of PW-2 has been found to be unreliable and untrustworthy. Under the circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment so as to hold the accused persons guilty; are perverse. 31. For all the reasons aforestated, the impugned judgment and order dated 05.10.1985 in Sessions Trial No. 262 of 1982 (State vs. Satya Narain Yadava and Others) convicting and sentencing the accused persons under Sections 302, 148, 149 and 201 I.P.C. cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside. All the accused-appellants are held not guilty of the charges levelled against them. The surviving accused-appellants i.e. accused-appellant nos. 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 need not to surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged. The present criminal appeal is allowed in respect of accused-appellant nos. 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10. 32. Let a copy of this judgment be send to the learned Trial Court. 33. Trial Court record be also returned forthwith.