# Anand Kumar Shukla v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 164
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-05
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Arvind Kumar Mishra-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anand-kumar-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-43998
- **Pages:** 17

## Text

_Characters 0–39,896 of 56,697. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39896 for what follows._

164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

along with 7% simple interest from the date of making of the application till the date of actual
payment.

21. The apportionment of the amount to be paid to the claimants under this order shall be
made in the same proportion as directed in the award passed by the Tribunal.

22. Accordingly, though the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company stands
dismissed but the award stands modified to the extent directed above.

23. The Registry is directed to remit the statutory deposit made before this Court to the
Tribunal, which shall be liable to be adjusted towards the deposit to be made by the appellant.

24. However, in the facts and circumstances, we do not make any order as to costs.
-----------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 6119 Of 2003
&
Connected With Other Cases

Anand Kumar Shukla ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for Appellant:
Shiv Nath Singh, Murtuza Ali, Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Ravesh Kumar Singh, Yogesh Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Present appeals have been preferred by three appellants, namely, Anand Kumar Shukla, Smt. Kusum Lata @
Baby and Smt. Sharda Devi against the judgment and order of conviction dated 18.11.2003 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, court no. VIII, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No.199 of 2001, State Vs. Anand
Kumar Shukla and others, arising out of Case Crime No.494 of 2000, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police
Station Kotwali, District Shahjananpur, whereby each of the appellants has been sentenced to life
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 302/34 IPC. Similarly appellants have been sentenced to
three years rigorous imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 201 IPC and, in case of
default, in the above two offences, the concerned convicts shall have to suffer additional rigorous
imprisonment for one year and one month, respectively. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
7 All. Anand Kumar Shukla Vs State Of U.P.

165
It has been claimed on behalf of the appellants that the entire case is outcome of shrewd handy work of the
police and there is no reasonable evidence, which may prove or indicate complicity of the appellants in the
commission of offence. One of the witness is a tutored witness and he was arranged deliberately by the police
in order to give thrust to its misdeeds and hollowness of the prosecution case stands exposed when it
deliberately refrained from producing Satish Verma as a witness of recovery of the dead body in order to
safeguard its position. This inaction on the part of prosecution is self speaking and needs no explanation. The
prosecution has tried to prove commission of murder by introducing child witness Alok Shukla P.W.6 and tried
its best to establish charge of murder against the appellants but his testimony on the whole is tutored one
and does not inspire confidence. His statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating
Officer is in gross contradiction to what he has deposed before the trial court. There are certain interpolations
in the signatures of witnesses in inquest report. Question put to accused Anand Kumar Shukla is in form of
judicial confession and it shows that trial court is biased and relying on it. This way, proceeding of trial court
becomes prejudiced. The motive assigned for committing offence is very weak. No strong and apparent
motive has been suggested for committing the crime. Whatever motive has been suggested by the
prosecution is not befitting in the circumstances of the case and there is no proof of any such motive for
committing the crime. Motive has been tried to be elicited from confession of accused.

Further, it was also claimed that a question mark is raised on the factum of recovery from the house in
question for various reasons. The house in question is not in exclusive possession of accused Anand Kumar
Shukla but also in possession of others. All doors of the house were opened when the police came to the
house. Similarly, the recovery made against accused Kusum Lata @ Baby cannot be brought under purview of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There was no animosity between husband and wife and therefore, Kusum
Lata @ Baby had no occasion to cause such ghastly murder of her own husband. Case of the prosecution is
false and reasonable doubtful in the prosecution case is pervading overwhelmingly.

Sri Rahul Mishra, amicus curiae for the appellant Smt. Sharda Dixit has adopted aforesaid arguments and has
further added that P.W.6 Alok Shukla is a tender child who is solitary eye-witness. His testimony alone would
suggest that the entire case is fabricated and handy work of police. The recovery is tainted and the FIR is
ante-timed. Under the circumstances, it is most unnatural that P.W.6-child witness, on the admonition of
Anand Kumar Shukla while he watched the incident, went to sleep in baramda. This conduct is highly
improbable and unnatural. His statements given before trial court are contradictory to the statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

The moot point involved for consideration primarily relates to the fact whether the prosecution
has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt or not?

Court observed that the prosecution has not been able to establish fact of recovery of weapon used in the
offence and after articles so recovered from the place of occurrence-house of Sharda Devi after considering
the facts and in view of absence of signatures of the accused persons on these recovery memos and signature
of the SHO Kotwali at remote corner of the pages of various recovery memos creates doubt and affects
adversely the authenticity of the same and as such the same legally not admissible under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act and cannot be read against the accused persons.

The prosecution case is full of hollowness and full of loopholes, facts coming out from prosecution testimony
and the attendant circumstances of this case generate doubt on the authenticity and veracity of the
prosecution case. There are so many inherent shortcomings in the prosecution case, which hit to the root of
charges framed against the appellants. The first informant has made his presence casual on the road when he
allegedly sighted the jeep on the high way. But no circulation, no order or authority was produced to confirm
the fact that the first informant was infact on VIP duty on 24.12.2000.
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

As per the Court, in the present case, the facts and circumstances are so roughly scattered that it is hard to
make a coherence of the same merely by putting one circumstance over the another. If one circumstance is
taken to be correct and acted upon then the same is confronted with certain reasonable queries, which
queries create substantial loophole in the prosecution case, which renders the prosecution case suspicious and
doubtful. It is a case which is based neither on circumstantial evidence nor on direct testimony and the
exercise done by the investigating agency creates eternal vacuum in prosecution story for which none but the
prosecution alone is to be blamed.

It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution is required to prove its charge beyond
reasonable doubt against the accused and in case, the prosecution fails to prove the charge beyond
reasonable doubt then the accused would be entitled to benefit of doubt and they are to be acquitted and no
conviction can be recorded on such testimony, which is not inspiring confidence and is tainted.

Court observed that Learned trial Judge adopted casual approach and could not appraise evidence on record
qua the circumstances of the case and misread the statement of various prosecution witnesses, therefore,
judgment and order of conviction dated 18.11.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court no. VIII,
Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No.199 of 2001, State Vs. Anand Kumar Shukla and others, under Sections
302/34, 201 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Shahjananpur arising out of Case Crime No.494 of 2000 is not
sustainable in the eye of law and is hereby set aside.

It is obvious that the aforesaid three appeals carry force and the same are allowed. The appellants are in
jail. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not wanted in connection with any other case after
complying provisions of Section 437-A Criminal Procedure Code.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.
&
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.)

1. The aforesaid appeals have been preferred by three appellants, namely, Anand Kumar
Shukla, Smt. Kusum Lata @ Baby and Smt. Sharda Devi against the judgment and order of
conviction dated 18.11.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, court no. VIII, Shahjahanpur in
Sessions Trial No.199 of 2001, State Vs. Anand Kumar Shukla and others, arising out of Case
Crime No.494 of 2000, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District
Shahjananpur, whereby each of the appellants has been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine
of Rs.5000/- under Section 302/34 IPC. Similarly appellants have been sentenced to three years
rigorous imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 201 IPC and, in case of
default, in the above two offences, the concerned convicts shall have to suffer additional rigorous
imprisonment for one year and one month, respectively. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Heard at length Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Sri Rahul Mishra learned Amicus Curie and J.K. Upadhayay, Km. Meena,
learned AGA for State and Mrs. Manju Thakur, Brief Holder for the State.

3. Facts of prosecution story has its genesis in the first information report lodged on
24.12.2000 at 4.30 p.m. at Kotwali, District Shahjananpur at Case Crime No.494 of 2000, under
Sections 302, 201 IPC. The first informant is S.H.O. Jitendra Nath Singh. The incident is stated to
7 All. Anand Kumar Shukla Vs State Of U.P.

167
have occurred in the morning at 4:00 a.m. on 24.12.2000. First information report proceeds to
allege facts to the effect that the informant in company of other police personnel was busy at
Jamuka tiraha (junction of three roads) in VIP duty. The reference of the same finds mention in
general diary rapat no.14, 11.30 hours. It was around 1:00 p.m., one Commander jeep bearing no.
UP 32 R-6711, being driven at high speed by its driver was coming from Shahjananpur side and
going to Sitapur. When the jeep crossed the first informant he noticed some blood dropping down
from the jeep. The first informant became apprehensive of the situation gave hot chase to the jeep
and tookover the commander jeep infront of 'Gurri' police outpost around 1.30 p.m. On inquiry
being made from its driver, he disclosed his name Anand Shukla son of Kamlesh Shukla, resident
of Village Baruwa, police station Azgain, District Unnao, (present address tenant of Sharda Devi,
Mohalla Sinjai, police station Kotwali, Shahjananpur) and apologized in the presence of witness
Satish Chandra Verma son of Lala Ram Verma R/o Barnai, P.S. Rowza, District Shahjananpur,
whereupon search was made in the Commander Jeep in the presence of Satish Chandra Verma. On
search being made one dead body, in two pieces, was recovered from rear side of jeep, the trunk
having been found in a gunny bag almost naked except an underwear and the head above neck was
kept in another small polythene bag somewhere under the seat in rear side of the jeep.

4. A memo of this recovery was prepared and inquiry was made from the driver Anand
Shukla, whereupon he told that this dead body is that of Anoop Shukla son of Ram Kumar Shukla,
resident of Bharkhani, police station Pali, district Hardoi. He also told that deceased (Anoop
Shukla) is son-in-law of Sharda Devi. He was not on good terms with Sharda Devi and Smt.
Kusum Lata @ Baby (wife of the deceased) on account of house of Sharda Devi. Relation of
deceased with Smt. Kusum Lata @ Baby and Sharda Devi were not normal on account of dispute
pertaining to house. The deceased had come over to Shahjananpur today at 3:00 a.m. Anand Kumar
Shukla told that deceased has been killed by me in association with Smt. Kusum Lata @ Baby and
Sharda Devi by chopping off his head with 'garasa' at 4:00 a.m. in the morning. He was going to
dispose of the dead body when the first informant caught him. Anand Kumar Shukla also told that
he can get the garasa recovered, which was used for chopping off head and the other blood stained
clothes kept at the house of Sharda Devi. When this information was furnished by accused Anand
Kumar Shukla, then, S.I. Mahendra Singh and Ravish Chandra Katiyar were left over the place to
take care of the jeep and to prepare the inquest report of the dead body on the spot and a wireless
message was sent to SHO Kotwali regarding the incident. Thereafter the first informant Jitendra
Nath Singh proceeded to locality Singai where house of Sharda Devi was located. The first
informant started for mohalla Singai with Anand Kumar Shukla. As soon as they reached near State
Bank Colony, they met with M.P. Kureel, the Incharge police station Kotwali who also
accompanied them to the house of Smt. Sharda Devi. When they reached house of Sharda Devi,
they found Sharda Devi and Kusum Lata @ Baby present in the house. Anand Shukla in the
presence of first informant and other police personnel, asked them (Kusum Lata @ Baby and
Sharda Devi) that secret has been unravelled. Blood stained clothes of Anoop Shukla, pillow cover
and mattress should be handed over to the police. Anand Kumar Shukla also stated to them that he
is handing over the garasa by which the neck was chopped off, while saying so, he proceeded
towards his rented room, he was followed by the police. After reaching to his room, he took out
'garasa' from taarnh (cemented shelf), which was containing blood staines. Similarly, Kusum Lata
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

@ Baby also made recovery of blood stained clothes kept in a kanister and one blood stained cloth
kept behind hand-pump. Likewise, Sharda Devi also gave one pillow cover, one bed-sheet and
mattress.

5. The memo of each recovery was separately prepared on the spot and it was stated that
Anand Shukla, Smt. Kusum Lata @ Baby and Smt. Sharda Devi have conjointly murdered Anoop
Shukla, therefore, report be lodged and appropriate action be ensured. This written report is Exhibit
Ka-2 on record.

6. Contents of written report were noted in the Check FIR No.412 of 2000 at police station
Kotwali, District Shahjananpur at 24.12.2000 at 4.30 P.M., at Case Crime No.494 of 2000, under
Sections 302, 201 IPC against the accused persons. Check FIR is Exhibit Ka-7 on record. On the
basis of entries made in the Check FIR case was registered against the appellants in the concerned
General Diary rapat no.31 at 16.30 hours under aforesaid section of IPC at the same police station.
This general diary entry is Exhibit Ka-8 on record.

7. It is noteworthy that in this case before lodging of the first information report, a recovery
memo of dead body of Anoop Shukla recovered from Commander Jeep was prepared by the first
informant Jitendra Nath Singh. This recovery memo is Exhibit Ka-1.

8. In the same sequence of development (that led to the lodging of first information report),
weapon - 'Garasa'- and other connected materials say clothes, piece of quilt, mattress, bed-sheet,
pillow etc. were recovered from the place of occurrence from house of Sharda Devi. Memo of
aforesaid weapon 'Garasa' is Exhibit Ka-3. Memo of blood stained clothes of deceased- one vest
and one jarsi and one piece of cloth- seeped with blood were recovered at the instance of accused
appellant Smt. Kusum Lata @ Baby. This recovery memo is Exhibit Ka-4. Similarily, recovery
memo of quilt, mattress, bed-sheet and pillow is Exhibit Ka-5 on record.

9. The Investigating Officer also collected blood stained cemented piece from the place of
occurrence (House of Sharda Devi) and he also took sample of cemented piece and prepared a
memo of the same, which is Exhibit Ka-6 on record. It is reflected from record that after recovery
of dead body from the Commander Jeep UP 32 R-6711, the inquest report was prepared by S.I.
Mahendra Singh. Its preparation commenced at 15.15 hours and it was completed at 16.30 hours on
24.12.2000. This inquest report is Exhibit Ka-11.

10. Mahendra Singh also prepared certain papers for sending the body for autopsy.
Photonash is Exhibit Ka-12. Police form-13 (challan dead body) is Exhibit ka-13, letter to C.M.O.
Shahjahanpur is Exhibit ka-14, specimen seal is Exhibit ka15. Relevant to note that preparation of
inquest report and the aforesaid exhibited papers Exhibit Ka-12 to ka-14 were prepared by S.I.
Mahendra Singh before lodging of the first information report at 16.30 hours on 24.12.2000 at P.S.
Kotwali, Shahjahanpur.
7 All. Anand Kumar Shukla Vs State Of U.P.

169
11. Record also discloses that autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Anoop Shukla son
of Ram Kumar Shukla was conducted at mortuary Shahjahanpur on 25.12.2000 at 4 P.M. It was
mentioned in the postmortem report that rigor mortis was passing over upper extremities and
present over lower extremities. The doctor found following ante-motem injuries on the dead body:-

(1) Wound of circumference 38 cm, length 12 cm x 11 cm x through and through
present over neck at the level of cervical 5th and 6th vertebra 2 cm above the suprasternal notch
margin of wound clean cut. Bone cut clean cut. Head separated from the rest of body.

(2) Multiple abraded contusion over area of 20 cm x 6 cm external from top of left
shoulder upto middle part of left arm of varying size 3 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm x 0.5 cm.

12. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was stated to be shock and haemorrhage
due to ante-mortem injuries. This postmortem examination report is Exhibit Ka-9 on record.

13. The recovered clothes and the weapon Garasha etc. were sent for chemical examination
at Vidhi Vigyan Progshala, Agra, whereupon a report dated 16.5.2001 endorsed on 21.6.2001 was
also obtained, which has also been kept on record.

14. Investigating Officer took various steps in completing the investigation and he also
recorded statement of various persons and filed charge sheet (Exhibit Ka-10) against the present
appellants under aforesaid sections of IPC at aforesaid crime number. Consequently, the case was
committed to the court of Sessions from where it was made over for trial to the court of concerned
Additional Sessions Judge, court no.VIII, Shahjahanpur.

15. Accused were heard on point of charge by the trial court and prima facie ground was
found existing for framing charges under Sections 302, 201 IPC. Accordingly, charges were framed
and explained to the accused, who denied the charges and opted for trial.

16. Consequently, the prosecution was asked to adduce its testimony whereupon the
prosecution produced in all 8 witnesses. Brief reference of the same is as hereunder.

17. P.W. 1 is Jitendra Nath Singh, he is the first informant and he was S.H.O. of police
station Rowza on 24.12.2000. He is said to have recovered the dead body and arrested appellant
Anand Shukla and on his information, he came to 'Mohalla Singai' from where he made certain
recovery of weapon and clothes and got prepared different recovery memos. He also effected arrest
of two lady accused from the house-the place of occurrence. He has proved written report Exhibit
Ka-2.

18. P.W.2 is M.P. Kureel, who has testified fact of recovery in his presence from the house
of Sharda Devi- one of the accused. He has also proved various material Exhibits-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10 and 11.
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. P.W.3 is S.I. Shafeeq Ahmad Khan. He has testified that he along with first informant
was present on the Jamuna Tri Crossing at the relevant point of time on 24.12.2000.

20. P.W.4 is Head Moharrir, who has proved Check FIR and the relevant GD entry as
Exhibit Ka-7 and Ka-8, respectively.

21. P.W.5 is V.P. Singh, Medical Officer who conducted postmortem examination on the
dead body of deceased Anoop Shukla on 25.12.2000 and has proved postmortem examination
report as Exhibit ka-9.

22. P.W. 6 is Alok Shukla, the child witness aged about 13 years. He is stated to be star
witness, who has seen the occurrence/commission of murder of his father Anoop Shukla.

23. S.S.I. Gambhir Singh is P.W.7. He is the Investigating Officer. He has described the
various steps taken by him for completing the investigation and he has proved, inter-alia,
preparation of site plan Exhibit Ka-9A besides, proving Charge sheet Exhibit Ka-10.

24. Mahendra Singh P.W.8 prepared inquest report Exhibit ka-11. Besides proving relevant
papers Exhibit ka-12, 13, 14 and 15.

25. All these witnesses have been cross-examined by the defence/accused. Thereafter
evidence for the prosecution was closed and the statement of the appellants recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. In their statement, accused persons have termed their implication false by the police
and it has been specifically stated by Anand Kumar Shukla that Satish Verma and he himself are
employed in the same firm. Satish Verma took him in the jeep for taking meal and took him to the
police station Rowza where police arrested him and he was wrongly challaned. The other
appellants Smt. Kusum Lata @ Baby and Smt. Sharda Devi have stated that they had gone outside
on the day of incident and came back around 5 p.m. Police came over there and took them to police
station Kotwali, from where they were sent to jail. The defence has not led any evidence,
whatsoever.

26. Learned trial court after hearing both the sides on merit passed the aforesaid judgment
and order of conviction dated 18.11.2003 against the appellants and sentenced all the accused to
life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and three years R.I. under Section 201 IPC coupled
with fine of Rs.5000/- and Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulation.

27. Consequently, this appeal.

28. It has been claimed on behalf of the appellants that the entire case is outcome of shrewd
handy work of the police and there is no reasonable evidence, which may prove or indicate
complicity of the appellants in the commission of offence. Satish Verma is a tutored witness and he
was arranged deliberately by the police in order to give thrust to its misdeeds and hollowness of the
prosecution case stands exposed when it deliberately refrained from producing Satish Verma as a
7 All. Anand Kumar Shukla Vs State Of U.P.

171
witness of recovery of the dead body in order to safeguard its position. This inaction on the part of
prosecution is self speaking and needs no explanation.

29. The prosecution has tried to prove commission of murder by introducing child witness
Alok Shukla P.W.6 and tried its best to establish charge of murder against the appellants but his
testimony on the whole is tutored one and does not inspire confidence. His statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer is in gross contradiction to what he has
deposed before the trial court. He is wholly unreliable witness and his conduct under circumstance
is most unnatural. The very commencement of the crime is deeply rooted in the recovery of
Commander Jeep No. UP 32 R-6711 and the prosecution has failed out and out, to prove the factum
of recovery of dead body from the aforesaid jeep. Factum of recovery of dead body is vitiated in
the absence of any independent witness of recovery, in the absence of non-preparation of site plan
of the place of recovery. Thus, it is still uncertain as to from where the police actually recovered the
dead body of deceased Anoop Shukla. No police personnel from police outpost 'Gurri' was present
on the spot although the alleged recovery place is stated in front of Gurri police outpost. Thus, the
very recovery of dead body itself becomes uncertain and suspicion.

30. The entire prosecution testimony is silent on point of VIP duty roster. There is no proof
of any such VIP duty or movement. Neither any circular nor any order issued by any administrative
authority pertaining to VIP duty in the area has been placed for reliance before the trial court.
Recovery of dead body is extremely improbable and doubtful on the highway. Every action was
taken by the police in a mechanical way, clandestinely, in utmost hurry which smacks of guess
work. The recovery memos pertaining to the three appellants whereby weapon and blood stained
clothes and other materials are stated to have been recovered do not bear signature of accused
persons and the signature of police officials concerned has been deliberately made on each page at
far below a place than the place from where the signature normally ought to have been made after
the write up was over. Place of signature of police officials on recovery memos is self speaking that
things have been done in perfunctory manner and things have been tried to be adjusted
mechanically.

31. There are certain interpolations in the signatures of witnesses in inquest report.
Question No.3 put to accused Anand Kumar Shukla is in form of judicial confession and it shows
that trial court is biased and relying on it. This way, proceeding of trial court becomes prejudiced.
Similar, questions have been put to other two appellants and question no.3 has been covertly as
judicial confession putting in garb of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the absence of any site
plan of the place of recovery of jeep and dead body, the connectivity of the jeep in the offence and
the place of recovery of dead body itself becomes doubtful.

32. The motive assigned for committing offence is very weak. No strong and apparent
motive has been suggested for committing the crime. Whatever motive has been suggested by the
prosecution is not befitting in the circumstances of the case and there is no proof of any such
motive for committing the crime. Motive has been tried to be elicited from confession of accused.
In this case motive is not established. There is no motive on the part of Anand Kumar Shukla to
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

commit the crime and so is the case with the other two ladies accused Smt. Kusum Lata @ Baby
and Smt. Sharda Dixit. In order to skip motive, the prosecution introduced child witness P.W.6 and
claimed him to be an eye-witness of the incident. Except that witness, there is no any other
independent witness. There is no corroborative testimony regarding Anand Kumar Shukla being
tenant of Smt. Sharda Devi. No proper chemical examination has been conducted. Blood stains
found have purposely not been tallied with the blood stained clothes of deceased. Non matching of
blood with blood group of deceased indicates planting of clothes and weapons. Prosecution
deliberately produced eye-witness account in order to fix time of death.

33. In the postmortem examination report, it has been suggested by the doctor that rigor
mortis was passing over upper extremities. As per Modi jurisprudence, in such circumstances,
duration of death would vary from 24 to 48 hours. Therefore, the time the death is also most
uncertain. Development of the case right from 1.30 p.m. on 24.12.2000 upto the lodging of first
information report indicates only fill in the blanks exercise done by the police. The distance from
the place of recovery of dead body to the police station is about 7-8 kms from the place where
police is stated to have chased the jeep. The place of occurrence also falls almost at the some
distance. Then as per respective distance of places the timings have been tried to be fixed in order
to plug loopholes, which is exposed under the circumstances of the case.

34. On seeing blood dripping down from the jeep, it was chased and stopped but accused
Anand Kumar Shukla was not under custody at that point of time. Therefore, recovery of dead
body cannot be brought within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There is no evidence
regarding dripping of blood from jeep. Even the jeep was not produced for inspection. Therefore,
search and recovery of jeep and dead body becomes illegal. This way, things have been tried to be
done in a mechanical way.

35. Further, a question mark is raised on the factum of recovery from the house in question
for various reasons. The house in question is not in exclusive possession of accused Anand Kumar
Shukla but also in possession of others. All doors of the house were opened when the police came
to the house. Similarly, the recovery made against accused Kusum Lata @ Baby cannot be brought
under purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There was no animosity between husband and
wife and therefore, Kusum Lata @ Baby had no occasion to cause such ghastly murder of her own
husband. Case of the prosecution is false and reasonable doubtful in the prosecution case is
pervading overwhelmingly.

36. Sri Rahul Mishra, amicus curiae for the appellant Smt. Sharda Dixit has adopted
aforesaid arguments and has further added that P.W.6 Alok Shukla is a tender child who is solitary
eye-witness. His testimony alone would suggest that the entire case is fabricated and handy work of
police. The recovery is tainted and the FIR is ante-timed. Fact that the deceased took food around 3
p.m. and thereafter he went for sleep stands belied by the postmortem report because small intestine
was vacant. Under the circumstances, it is most unnatural that P.W.6-child witness, on the
admonition of Anand Kumar Shukla while he watched the incident, went to sleep in baramda. This
conduct is highly improbable and unnatural. His statements given before trial court are
7 All. Anand Kumar Shukla Vs State Of U.P.

173
contradictory to the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Description regarding incident
that the leg of the deceased were caught by Sharda Devi, but no injury whatsoever was found on
legs.

37. Thus, medical evidence is not corroborated with the testimony of witnesses. In
presence of eyewitness, Section 106 of Evidence Act goes into oblivion and it cannot be resorted
to. In this context, confession of the co-accused cannot be relied on against other appellant- Sharda
Devi. Recovery as brought before the trial court is legally not admissible and there is no
explanation as to why Anand Kumar Shukla is assisting the other two ladies in the very
commission of the offence.

38. Kumari Meena and Narendra Singh Yadav, learned AGAs have in reply submitted that
the entire incident is self speaking right from the moment when the dead body was recovered and
recovery of weapon and blood stained clothes and other articles were made from the place of
occurrence (House of Sharda Devi). Recovery is consistent and within the ambit of Section 27 of
the Evidence Act. Police had no motive to falsely implicate the appellants. Injuries of garhasa is
very much on the dead body. In so far as motive is concerned, it is relegated to the background in
view of eyewitness account of the incident given by the prosecution witness P.W.6. He is a natural
witness. The place of occurrence i.e. the house of Smt. Sharda Devi has been proved by the
testimony of P.W.6-Alok Shukla. The prosecution has proved charges beyond reasonable doubt.

39. Also considered above rival submissions.

40. The moot point involved for consideration primarily relates to the fact whether the
prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt or not?

41. In order to ascertain veracity and authenticity of the prosecution case, it would be better
and convenient that holistic view of the case is taken and consistency of circumstances vis a vis
evidence of prosecution witnesses is also analyzed by us.

42. We may began with the first information report, Exhibit Ka-2. This first information
report was lodged by Jitendra Nath Singh, who happened to be SHO of police station Rowza,
district Shahjahanpur on 24.12.2000. As per contents of FIR, the first informant in company with
other police personnel at that point of time around 11.30 a.m. was on VIP duty. However, it is
profusely reflected from record that no such proof has been brought on record regarding any VIP
duty of first informant on such date i.e. 24.12.2000. In this regard, no worthy order of any authority
whatsoever has been brought on record and explanation given by all the prosecution witnesses on
this point including the first informant is sketchy and evasive. The content of FIR further reflects
that around 1:00 p.m., one Commander Jeep UP 32 R-6711 was seen coming from Shahjahanpur
side and going towards Sitapur and blood was dripping from the jeep. The first informant after
seeing blood dripping from jeep gave chase to the jeep and overtook the same in front of 'Gurri'
police outpost around 1.30 p.m. On inquiry being made, name from the driver it was disclosed that
he is Anand Kumar Shukla son of Kamlesh Shukla, resident of Village Barua, police station
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Azgain, District Unnao, (present address tenant of Sharda Devi in Mohalla Sinjai, police station
Kotwali, district Shahjananpur). He apologized in presence of witness Satish Chandra Verma son
of Lala Ram Verma R/o Bannai, P.S. Rowza, District Shahjananpur.

43. On search being made in the jeep, one headless almost necked dead body except an
underwear on body was recovered from a gunny bag kept in the rear side of jeep. In the same jeep,
head above neck of the dead body was recovered in a polythene bag, which was kept in a wallet.
The first informant prepared a recovery memo of dead body and inquired about the same,
whereupon, Anand Kumar Shukla told that this dead body is that of Anoop Shukla son of Ram
Kumar Shukla, resident of Bharkhani, police station Pali, district Hardoi and he is son-in-law of his
landlady Sharda Devi. It was stated that his relation with Smt. Kusum Lata @ Baby were strange
on account of some dispute regarding house of Sharda Devi. He came over to Shahjahanpur from
Delhi this morning around 3 a.m. He in the company with Smt. Kusum Lata @ Baby and Sharda
Devi committed murder of Anoop Shukla in a pre-planned manner around 4:00 a.m. today
(24.12.2000) and he was going to dispose of the dead body with this jeep. He also stated that he can
give him 'garhasa' by which neck of Anoop Shukla was chopped off.

44. Further, he stated that blood stained clothes of deceased can also be recovered from the
house of Sharda Devi and Kusum Lata @ Baby. Thereafter the first informant left the dead body
and the jeep in custody of S.I. Mahendra Singh and Constable Raveesh Chandra Katiyar and
instructed them to prepare inquest report and a wireless message was sent to SHO Kotwali
regarding the incident. He proceeded to the house of Sharda Devi situated in Mohalla Sinjai along
with police personnel and accused Anand Kumar Shukla. On way, near State Bank Colony, M.P.
Kureel, SHO Kotwali met him who also accompanied him along with police force to the house of
Sharda Devi. Both Kusum Lata @ Baby, Sharda Dixit and other co-accused were present in the
house. As soon as Anand Kumar Shukla arrived there, he asked them to handover the blood stained
clothes of deceased, bed sheet and mattress etc. as secrecy has been detected. He handed over
'garhasa' and thereafter recovery of garhasa was made from the 'taarnh' (cemented shelf upper side
in room) of the room inside the house and Kusum Lata @ Baby also got recovered blood stained
clothes of deceased from kanister and she also gave a piece of cloth from behind the hand-pump.
Sharda Devi also got recovered one bed sheet and mattress and recovery memos of all above
articles were prepared by the first informant.

45. In the backdrop of such scenario, a bare perusal of the recovery memos regarding the
weapon, clothes, bed sheets etc., Exhibit Ka-3, 4 and 5 respectively disclose fact that in all the three
recovery memos, the signatures of SHO Kotwali Shahjahanpur, M.P. Kureel have been marked at
extreme right place near at the bottom of the page of each recovery memo, whereas, some gap
exists in between the last line of the recovery memo and signature of M.P. Kureel P.W.2.
Obviously, Shiv Kishore Bajpayee is witness in all the three aforesaid recovery memos. He is
resident of Malkhana Moreh Kasba, police station Kotwali, Shahjahanpur and Manoj Mishra, the
another witness is resident of Anand Puram Colony Kasba and P.S. Kotwali, Shahjahanpur.
7 All. Anand Kumar Shukla Vs State Of U.P.

175
46. It is obvious that no person from the locality Sinjai was asked for being witness to the
fact of recovery. Although as per prosecution testimony, almost all the persons of the locality had
gathered on the spot during recovery. It is reflected from testimony of M.P. Kureel P.W.2 on page
34 of paper book, wherein he has stated that he did not call any person from near the house,
however, people of the locality had arrived on the spot. As stated by S.I. Shafeeq Ahmad Khan at
page 42 of the paper book. **ikl iM+ksl D;k iwjk eksgYyk vk x;k FkkA **

47. Moreover, all the recovery memos Exhibit Ka- 3, 4 and 5 are silent on the point as to
under what circumstances people of the locality, who had gathered on the spot were not asked to
become witness to fact of recovery.

48. Further, all the recovery memos (Ex. Ka-3, Ka-4 and Ka-5) do not bear signature or
thumb impression of the respective accused. Thus, the signature of the SHO Kotwali P.W.2 M.P.
Kureel on the recovery memo and particularly the place on which it has been made, generates
doubt on the genuineness and authenticity of these recovery memos- Exhibit Ka-3, 4 and 5. In the
absence of independent witness though available on the spot to the police they were not asked to be
witness to fact of recovery generates doubt. The entire recovery memos thus become doubtful when
these do not contain signature of the concerned accused from whom recovery was effected. The
recovery memo Exhibit Ka-5 does not contain any recital regarding arrest of the accused. It does
not spell the name of the accused from whom the recovery was made. Thus, this recovery memo is
hit directly by the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

49. For the reasons aforesaid and in view of absence of signatures of the accused persons
on these recovery memos and signature of the SHO Kotwali at remote corner of the pages of
various recovery memos creates doubt and affects adversely the authenticity of the same and as
such the same legally not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot be
read against the accused persons. Thus the prosecution has not been able to establish fact of
recovery of weapon used in the offence and after articles so recovered from the place of
occurrence-house of Sharda Devi.

50. Now, we may consider the meritorial aspect of the case. What a blunder the
prosecution has committed in this case particularly relating to recovery of jeep and the dead body
of Anoop Shukla. No doubt the statement and the testimony of P.W.1 would have inspired
confidence had he also prepared site plan of place of recovery of dead body and the jeep.