http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: LALLU RAM AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/09/1984

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) VARADARAJAN, A. (J)

CITATION:  1984 AIR 1886            1985 SCR  (1) 862  1984 SCC  Supl.  424     1984 SCALE  (2)593

ACT:      Administration of  Justice-When a  life convict appeals that he  was convicted  for a  murder that  never  was,  the Supreme Court can reconsider the question seriously and call for further  reports  for  done  fuller  justice-Acquittals- Attempts to  secure false acquittals by forging a fictitious documents deprecated-Constitution  of  India,  1950  Article 136.

HEADNOTE:      The appellants  were convicted  and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the murder of a person by the name of Kunwar  Bahadur in  the village of Bamori Kalan, District Jalaun on  July 18,  1971. Based on a news item carried by a Hindi daily  called ’Nav  Bharat’ on  June 3, 1983, that the dead body  of one  Kunwar Bahadur Singh was found in Vidisha in suspicious  circumstances and  that a letter purported to have been  written by one Kunwar Bahadur Singh was recovered from the  person of  the deceased,  the appellants  filed  a petition before  the High  Court of  Madhya Pradesh, praying for their  acquittals contending  that Kunwar  Bahadur Singh for whose  murder they  were convicted in 1971 was alive for twelve years thereafter and, therefore, their conviction was illegal. The  High Court  dismissed the  petition. Hence the appeal by Special Leave of the Court.      Dismissing the appeal, the Court, ^      HELD; 1:1. When a person convicted of murder raised the question that  he has material to show that he was convicted for a murder that had never taken place, as, for example, by showing that  the  person  who  was  alleged  to  have  been murdered  is  in  fact  alive  the  Supreme  Court  has  the jurisdiction, in appropriate cases, to call for further data from the  concerned authorities  in  order  to  examine  the contention of  the convict.  This jurisdiction  on which the Supreme Court  can exercise,  though with circumspection, is in order  to do  complete justice  in any  matter  which  is pending before  it or  which has  been disposed  of  by  it. [863G-H, 864A]      1: 2.  The instant case, however, is an example of what an incredible amount of ingenuity is exercised by the people

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

to secure  false acquittals. The two reports called for from the District Magistrate, Vidisha, and the two photographs of 863 the two  dead bodies  found in  1971 and  1983, respectively make it  clear that,  (1) Kunwar  Bahadur  Singh  for  whose murder the  appellants were  convicted thirteen years ago is not the  same person  whose dead  body was  found on June 2, 1983 in  Vidisha and  (2) The  letter which was found on the person of  the dead  body on  June 2,  1983 is  a forged and fictitious  document   manufactured  for   the  purpose   of obtaining false acquittals. [863D, 864E, 865E-F]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 476 of 1984.      Appeal by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated the  6th December, 1983 of the Allahabad High Court in Appeal No. 611 of 1976.      Dr.  N.   M.  Ghatate  and  C.K.  Ratnaparkhi  for  the Appellants.      Manoj Swarup  Dalveer Bhandari  and A.K. Sanghi for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHANDRACHUD, C.J.  It is necessary to record this short order so  that it  may be  known as  to what  an  incredible amount of  ingenuity is  exercised by  the people  to secure false acquittals.      A person  by the name of Kunwar Bahadur was murdered in the village  of Bamori  Kalan, District  Jalaun, on July 18, 1971. The appellants were convicted for that murder and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.      On June 2, 1983, dead body was found in Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh. A  letter purported  to have  been written  by  one Kunwar  Bahadur   was  recovered  from  the  person  of  the deceased. On  the next  day, June  3, 1983,  a  Hindi  daily called ’Nav  Bharat’ carried  a news item to the effect that the dead  body of  one Kunwar  Bahadur Singh  was  found  in Vidisha in  suspicious circumstances  and  that  the  letter which was  recovered from  the person of the deceased showed that he  was repentant.  This news  item is  alleged to have come to  the notice  of the relatives of the appellants, who contacted  the   Vidisha  police.   The  contention  of  the appellants is  that Kanwar  Bahadur,   for whose murder they were convicted in 1971 was alive for 12 years thereafter and that his  dead body  was found  on June  2,  1983.  By  this appeal, they  pray for an order of acquittal, or rather, for an order  setting aside  their 12 year old conviction on the ground that they were convicted for a murder that never was. 864 Since this  appeal raised  a question  of serious concern to the administration  of justice,  an order was passed by this Court on  April 11,  1984 directing the District Magistrate, Vidisha, to  hold an  inquiry  into  the  allegation  as  to whether the person called Kunwar Bahadur, who was alleged to have been  murdered in  1971,  was  found  alive  after  the alleged murder  and was  thereafter murdered  in some  other incident which  took place in 1983. The District Magistrate, Vidisha, Shri  O.P.  Dube,  has  submitted  a  report  which deserves high  praise. He  has  recorded  statements  of  18 persons and has examined documents leading to the conclusion that the  person whose body was found on June 2, 1983 is not the person who was murdered in 1971 and for whose murder the appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    It is  clear from the report of the District Magistrate that the  letter which  was found  on the person of the dead body on  June 2,  1983 is  a forged  and fictitious document manufactured for  the purpose  of  getting  over  the  order whereby the  appellants were  convicted for  the  murder  of Kunwar Bahadur  in 1971.  The age  of Kunwar Bahadur who was murdered in  1971 does  not tally with the age of the person alleged to  be Kunwar  Bahadur whose  dead body was found on June 2, 1983. The close relatives of the real Kunwar Bahadur who was  murdered in  1971, have  stated before the District Magistrate that  the handwriting  of the letter found on the person of the dead body which was discovered on June 2, 1983 is not that of Kunwar Bahadur who was murdered in 1971.      After the  receipt of the District Magistrate’s Report, this appeal  came up for hearing on August 13, 1984 when Dr. N.M. Ghatate,  appearing for  the appellants, asked that the District Magistrate  should be  directed further to show the photograph of  the dead body which was discovered on June 2, 1983, to  the close  relatives of Kunwar Bahadur in order to remove any  doubt on  the question  whether the person whose dead body  was found  in 1983 is the very Kunwar Bahadur for whose murder  the  appellants  were  convicted.  Seeing  the plausibility of  this submission,  a direction  was given by this Court  to the District Magistrate to do the needful and submit a further report to this Court.      In  accordance   with  the   aforesaid  direction,  the District Magistrate  showed the  photograph of the dead body which was 865 found on  June 2,  1983 to  Kaushilya Rani, Jamana Das Lodhi and Sughar Singh who are respectively the widow, brother and son of  Kunwar Bahadur who was murdered in 1971. The brother and son  of Kunwar Bahadur stated that the photograph of the dead body  which was  discovered on June 2, 1983 is not that of Kunwar Bahadur. Kaushilya Rani stated before the District Magistrate that  her husband  was tall and slim, that he was not fat  and that  his complexion  was fair. However she was unable to  say whether  the photograph shown to her was that of her  husband, since  the impression in the photograph was not clear.      On  the   basis  of   these  statements,  the  District Magistrate has  submitted a  Supplementary  Report  to  this Court stating  that the  photograph of  the dead body is not that  of  Kunwar  Bahadur.  We  had  directed  the  District Magistrate to  forward to  us, along  with his  report,  the photograph of  Kunwar Bahadur  who was  murdered in 1971 and the photograph  of the  dead body  which was  found in 1983. Having compared  these two  photographs, which are annexures and 10  to the  report of the District Magistrate, we are of the opinion  that  the  conclusion  to  which  the  District Magistrate has  come is  correct. There  is  no  resemblance between the two photographs.      The District Magistrate has stated that the officers of the Vidisha  Police Station are guilty of a serious lapse in not registering  the crime  of murder  when a  dead body was found in  their jurisdiction on June 2, 1983. As observed by him in this report which is drawn with commendable care, the entire case  is shrouded  in suspicion  and deserves  to  be inquired into by the higher Police authorities.      In the  result, we  are  of  the  opinion  that  Kunwar Bahadur for  whose murder  the appellants  were convicted 13 years ago,  is not the same person whose dead body was found on June  2, 1983  in  Vidisha.  The  appeal  is  accordingly dismissed. S.R.      Appeal dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

866