# Anil v. State Of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 987
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1079 of 2016
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Pramod Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-v-state-of-u-p-54229
- **Pages:** 12

## Text

2 All. Anil Vs. State Of U.P.
987
true statement. In the cases of rape, ordinarily there is no direct evidence except that of the
prosecutrix. In catena of judgments, the Apex Court has held that the conviction in the cases of rape
can be upheld if the deposition of the prosecutrix is uncontroverted and inspires the confidence of
the court.

29. In the instant case, there is nothing on record which can create any shadow of doubt on the
statement made by the prosecutrix, which has given each and every minute detail with regard to the
incident as has been committed by the accused persons, which inspires the confidence of the court.
In such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the conviction and sentence
awarded to the appellants herein. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.

30. Appellants have already been apprehended in terms of the last order passed by this Court
issuing non-bailable warrants against the appellants and are stated to be confined in jail from 17th
January 2026. Let them undergo the remaining part of the sentence in accordance with law.

31. The original Trial Court record along with the copy of the instant judgment be sent back to
the trial court to be consigned.
---------
(2026) 2 ILRA 987
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1079 of 2016
Alongwith other cases

Anil ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to "whether the trial court has erred in its compliance with S. 313 of the CrPC during the trial
procedure." (Para 19)
Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 313 - Examination of the accused - Non-compliance -
Effect of failure to put material incriminating circumstances to the accused - It is the duty of the
trial court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused
specifically, distinctively, and separately. (Para 23)
Fair Trial - Constitutional Guarantee - A fair trial is a guarantee under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, requiring the accused be given an opportunity to dispel prosecution claims
in their own words. (Para 20)
Criminal Trial - S. 313 Cr.P.C. - Non-compliance - "primary contention rests on non-compliance
with S. 313 of the CrPC." (Para 19)
988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Object of S. 313 Cr.P.C. - "to put all incriminating evidence to the accused so as to provide him
an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances" (Para 22)
Effect of non-compliance - "failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a
serious irregularity." (Para 23.4)
Prejudice to accused - "Any circumstance not put to the accused cannot be used against him."
(Para 25)
Present case - Omission by Trial Court - "failed to put specific and material incriminating
circumstances to the accused" (Para 30)
Conviction based on unput circumstances - "resulted in prejudice to the appellants." (Para 32)
Indian Evidence Act,1872 - S.106 - Applicability - "can arise only after the prosecution
discharges its primary burden" (Para 33)
Remedy - Remand - "the same is curable remanding the matter to the trial court" (Para 34)
Held: All the accused persons were asked general questions omnibus denial - cannot be expected to make
any statement of defense against the grounds they are unaware of - trial court failed to put specific and
material incriminating circumstances particularly: (i) administration of poison (ii) post-mortem finding of
ligature mark - mandatory for the trial court to confront the accused - relied upon the aforesaid circumstances
to record conviction resulted in prejudice - burden on the accused can arise only after the prosecution
discharges its primary burden - defect curable remanding the matter to the trial court - judgment and order
are set aside - Directions:
•
"Record fresh statements specifically putting all incriminating circumstances"
•
"Afforded an opportunity to lead defence evidence"
•
"Decide the matter afresh in accordance with law" (Para 29 - 36) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
State of Orissa v. Babaji Charan Mohanti (2003) 10 SCC 57; Nagendra Shah v. State of Bihar (2021) 10
SCC 725; Anil v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 812; Indira Kunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1364; Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1534; Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406; Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020)
10 SCC 108; Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B (2010) 8 SCC 249; Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2023) 17 SCC 95; Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 913; Sovaran Singh
Prajapati v State of U.P 2025 SCC OnLine SC 351; Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v State of Gujarat (2006) 3
SCC 374.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code,1860; Code of Criminal Procedure,1973; Indian Evidence Act,1872; Dowry Prohibition
Act,1961; Constitution of India

List of Keywords
fair trial; S. 313 CrPC; incriminating circumstances; prejudice; circumstantial evidence; ligature mark;
poisoning; burden of proof; remand; trial court; compliance; Article 21; defence opportunity; evidence;
irregularity.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Appeal against "judgment and order dated 08.09.2015 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, in Sessions Trial No. 179/2008"

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shri Anand Dubey
Advs. for the Respondents:
Shri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, learned AGA
2 All. Anil Vs. State Of U.P.
989
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. )

1. Heard, Shri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri Vijay Prakash
Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated
08.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, in Sessions Trial
No. 179/2008, State Versus Anil & others, whereby the appellants namely Anil, Nand Lal,
Govardhan, Gena, and Sheela were convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of ₹50,000; in default of payment of the fine,
they are to undergo a further six months' imprisonment. Additionally, under Sections 201/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, they were sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000,
and in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment, with
all sentences running concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased Bhuila @ Sushila wife of appellantaccused Anil, died an unnatural death inside her matrimonial home. She was married about ten
years prior to her death (aged 21 at the time of death) to the accused and a year before her death,
her Gauna ceremony was performed by her parents. Allegedly during the Gauna ceremony the
appellants accused Anil, Nand Lal and Govardhan had demanded Hero Honda motorcycle and had
refused to perform the ceremony but the informant Ram Rajbhar, father of the deceased requested
the accused persons and somehow completed the vidai ceremony. When the deceased used to visit
her paternal home, she had informed her parents of the cruelty and dowry demand meted to her
however her parents would console her and send her back to her matrimonial home. On 11.06.
2008, the informant was informed by telephone that his daughter was killed by the accused persons
Anil- husband of the deceased, Nand Lal- brother in law of the deceased, Govardhan- brother in
law of the deceased, Gena- mother in law of the deceased and Sheela- sister in law of the deceased
by strangulating her. When the informant and his wife along with their son reached the place of
incident, the dead body of the deceased was lying on the cot. The inquest of the deceased was done
on 11.06.2008 at 10:30 A.M. and the same concluded on 12:30 P.M. According to the inquest
report, no injury mark was observed except a mark on the neck of the deceased. According to the
opinion of the panch, the deceased was killed by the accused persons for demand of dowry. The
post mortem of the deceased was done on 11.06.2008 at about 4:00 P.M. According to the post
mortem report in the internal examination a red contusion mark was observed on the side of the left
eye and a post mortem horizontal ligature mark was observed on the neck of the deceased but
thyroid bone and trachea were found intact. No definite opinion regarding death was given and
viscera was preserved.

4. On the basis of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer (here-in-after referred as
IO) and the complaint of the informant a charge-sheet was filed under sections 498A/304B Indian
Penal Code & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. On 01.10.2008, the learned trial court proceeded to
frame charges against the accused under section 302/201. At the trial stage, prosecution produced
six witnesses to prove its case namely PW1- Shri Ram Rajbhar (father of the deceased), PW2-
990 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sumitra (mother of the deceased), PW3 Krishan Kumar Singh, PW4 Ram Krishan Magan, PW5
Dr. Vijay Tiwari, and PW6- CM. Virendra Kumar Gautam. The defence produced one witness
namely DW1 Chaituram.

5. PW1 deposed before the trial court that the accused persons have killed the deceased on the
pretext of not getting motorcycle as dowry however in his cross examination, he has stated that no
demand for dowry was made by the accused persons and further stated that he does not remember
that Nand Lal came to his house to give information regarding the death of the deceased. He further
stated that when he reached the place of incident the police of P.S. Sammanpur, Akbarpur and
accused persons were present there.

6. PW2 deposed that for demand of motorcycle her daughter was killed by the accused
persons. When she reached the place of incident, she saw vomit under the cot, which had not been
cleaned, and the deceased's body was soiled with faeces. In her Cross examination she admitted the
fact that Nand Lal has a motorcycle and at the time of marriage no demand of dowry was made.

7. PW-3 stated that the Panchnama of deceased was made in his presence. In his cross
examination he stated that except an injury mark on the neck of the deceased no other injury was
seen by him.

8. PW-4 before the trial court stated that the reason for death of the deceased was illicit
relationship and she had been married for about 10-15 years as such, he amended charges to
section-302/201 I.P.C. In his cross examination he stated that he did not get any evidence to the
effect that the accused persons were demanding motorcycle as a dowry. He further said that the
deceased had illicit relationship with someone in her parental home and this fact was told by the
family members of the deceased. He further stated that the informant has not given any statement
that the deceased was beaten by the accused persons prior to her death.

9. Dr. Vijay Tiwari was examined as PW-5 before the trial court, stated that a ligature mark
around the neck 25 x1 C.M. was found. A contusion mark was also found on the left eye of the
deceased. He further stated that the hyoid bone was not fractured and the injury on the neck was
post-mortem as such the cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. In his
cross examination, he stated that the contusion on the left eye was near the eyebrow and the same
may be caused while falling on some hard object. He further stated that the death had not been
caused due to any injury and the marks on the neck could not come without strangulation. The
Constable Virendra Kumar Gautam was examined as PW-6 before the trial court and he proved
chik FIR.

10. After the conclusion of the prosecution witnesses' testimony, the statements of the accused
persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded. The main question put to all the accused
was whether, on June 11, 2008, at approximately 06:00 A.M., they had strangulated the deceased
with a rope, thereby causing her death, and subsequently attempted to hide the body.

11. The defence produced Chaitu Ram as DW-1. He stated before the trial court that the
incident took place seven years ago in the month of June. He testified that Anil Kumar and Gena
2 All. Anil Vs. State Of U.P.
991
reside in front of his house and that, at the time of the deceased's death, they had gone to the fields
for the weeding of peppermint. He further stated that appellant Nand Lal has resided in Machhali
Gaon for the last twenty years and appellant Govardhan has resided in Kurri for eight years with his
family; both Nand Lal and Govardhan have lived separately from appellants Anil and Gena for
several years.

12. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court proceeded to convict the
accused persons under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 on the basis of circumstantial evidence,
including medical evidence indicating alleged poisoning and the presence of a ligature mark on the
neck of the deceased. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES

13. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that no evidence regarding the demand for
dowry was found and, accordingly, no charges under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
were framed. It was contended that PW-1 and PW-2 had lied about the demand for dowry in order
to add gravity to the prosecution's case. The prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the
accused. In support of this submission, the counsel referred to the judgment in State of Orissa v.
Babaji Charan Mohanti and Another (2003) 10 SCC 57.

14. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that PW 1 has deliberately concealed the
fact that appellant Nand Lal had gone to the house of PW 1 to inform him regarding the death of
the deceased so as to show the conduct of the appellants as doubtful. Whereas also no allegation
has been levelled by the prosecution witnesses regarding the hiding of the body by the accused
persons.

15. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Trial Court wrongly applied
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to convict the appellant. The Apex Court, in Nagendra
Shah v. State of Bihar (2021) 10 SCC 725, held that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act
applies to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing facts from which a reasonable
inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts within the exclusive
knowledge of the accused. The Apex Court further held that an accused cannot be convicted solely
on the basis of an autopsy report. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant also cited the
judgment in Anil v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 812.

16. It was further argued that the Trial Court did not put any questions to the appellant under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the administration of poison to the
deceased, nor regarding the ligature marks on her neck. Once such questions are not put to the
appellants, it cannot be expected to them to provide an explanation or a defense regarding such
facts of the case. In support of his argument, the learned counsel cited the following cases: Indira
Kunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1364; Nababuddin @ Mallu @
Abhimanyu v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1534; Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam,
(2013) 12 SCC 406; and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108.
992 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. It was further argued that the learned trial court convicted the appellants Nand Lal,
Govardhan, and Sheela, despite the fact that they lived separately from the deceased.

18. The counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial court's judgment is a reasoned one
and that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants. All incriminating material was put forth to
the accused-appellants during their examination in compliance with Section 313 of the CrPC.

ANALYSIS

19. We have considered the submissions. A perusal of the appeal reveals that, among other
grounds, the primary contention rests on non-compliance with Section 313 of the CrPC. At this
stage, it would not be appropriate to deliberate upon the conviction and sentence of the appellants
on merits. The only question that falls for our consideration is whether the trial court has erred in its
compliance with Section 313 of the CrPC during the trial procedure.

20. A fair trial is a guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. One of the nonnegotiable requirements of a fair trial is the opportunity given to the accused to be heard and to
prove his innocence by dispelling the claims of the prosecution raised against him, on his own and
in his own words.

21. In reference to the non-compliance with Section 313 of the CrPC, the law is clear; there is
a catena of judgments, apart from the ones relied upon by the appellants, that has deliberated on
this issue. Even so, we may refer to certain pronouncements for the sake of completeness.

22. In Sanatan Naskar v. State of W.B (2010) 8 SCC 249, the Apex Court, regarding the
scope of the examination under Section 313 CrPC follows:

"21. The answers by an accused under Section 313 CrPC are of relevance for finding out
the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. The scope of Section 313 CrPC
is wide and is not a mere formality. ... 22. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement
of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is to put all incriminating evidence to the accused so as to
provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in
the evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also permit him to put forward his own version
or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime. The court has
been empowered to examine the accused but only after the prosecution evidence has been
concluded. It is a mandatory obligation upon the court and, besides ensuring the compliance
therewith, the court has to keep in mind that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct.
The option lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with simpliciter denial or, in the
alternative, to explain his version and reasons for his alleged involvement in the commission of
crime. This is the statement which the accused makes without fear or right of the other party to
cross-examine him. However, if the statements made are false, the court is entitled to draw adverse
inferences and pass consequential orders as may be called for in accordance with law. The
primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused and to put
every important incriminating piece of evidence to the accused and grant him an opportunity to
answer and explain. ..."
2 All. Anil Vs. State Of U.P.
993

23. In Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 17 SCC 95, as subsequently approved by
a three-judge Bench in Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of U.P. and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 913, the Apex Court laid down the following factors:

"22. The law consistently laid down by this Court can be summarised as under:

22.1. It is the duty of the trial court to put each material circumstance appearing in the
evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately. The material circumstance
means the circumstance or the material on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking his
conviction.

22.2. The object of examination of the accused under Section 313 is to enable the accused
to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence.

22.3. The Court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances not put to the accused
from consideration while dealing with the case of the particular accused.

22.4. The failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious
irregularity. It will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused.

22.5. If any irregularity in putting the material circumstance to the accused does not
result in failure of justice, it becomes a curable defect. However, while deciding whether the defect
can be cured, one of the considerations will be the passage of time from the date of the incident.

22.6. In case such irregularity is curable, even the appellate court can question the
accused on the material circumstance which is not put to him.

22.7. In a given case, the case can be remanded to the trial court from the stage of
recording the supplementary statement of the accused concerned under Section 313 CrPC.

22.8. While deciding the question whether prejudice has been caused to the accused
because of the omission, the delay in raising the contention is only one of the several factors to be
considered."

24. In the recent case of Sovaran Singh Prajapati v State of U.P 2025 SCC OnLine SC 351
the Supreme Court has while summing up the law laid down in the case of Zahira Habibullah
Sheikh v State of Gujurat 2006 3 SCC 374 laid down the following

"30.1 A perusal and consideration of the aforesaid decisions reveal the following
principles as governing the application of Section 311 Cr.P.C. :

(a) The Section is divided into two parts, the first being directory with the use of the word
'may' and the latter being mandatory with the use of the word 'shall'.
994 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b) The power of the Court is couched in the widest terms possible with no express
limitation thereon.

(c) The exercise of such power is not only the prerogative but also the duty of the Court,
in connection with a witness who may be considered absolutely necessary, in the interest of justice.

(d) This power is to be used both for the benefit of the prosecution and the defence. To
summon a witness because it serves the case of one of the parties and not the other, would be
improper.

(e) This power can be exercised at any stage of proceedings, i.e. enquiry, trial or any
other.

(f) Power is to be exercised judiciously since wider the power, greater the requirement of
the application of a judicial mind.

(g) If a witness so-called under this power, gives evidence against the complainant, the
latter should be given an opportunity to crossexamination. This power arises not under Section 311
but under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

(h) A witness cannot be recalled by the use of this power to simply fill up a lacuna in the
case of the prosecution"

25. The object of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance
appearing in the evidence against him and to ensure compliance with the principle of natural justice
(audi alteram partem). Any circumstance not put to the accused cannot be used against him.

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that failure to put material incriminating
circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity and causes prejudice, particularly in
cases based on circumstantial evidence.

27. Having duly considered the position of law and principles as above, on a careful scrutiny
of the record, we may now examine the statements of the appellants recorded under section 313
CrPC. The statements recorded under section 313 of the accused persons is as below:

Appellant no. 1

Name - Anil Kumar Age - 26 years Father's name - Late Bhagirathi

1. Question - According to the prosecution story, on 11.06.2008 at around 6:00 AM at
village Tandwa Gopalpur, Police Station Sammanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, you, along with
other co-accused, murdered the complainant's daughter, Bhuila @ Sushila, who was married to the
accused Anil, by strangling her with a rope, and after committing the murder, you concealed the
deceased's body with the intention of destroying evidence. What do you have to say in this regard?
2 All. Anil Vs. State Of U.P.
995

Answer - This is false.

2. Question - You have heard the statement of prosecution witness PW-1 Shriram
Rajbhar, who has proved the complaint Exhibit K-1 and his signature on the inquest report Exhibit
K-2. What do you have to say in this regard?

Answer - He has falsely testified.

3. Question - Have you heard the statement of witness PW-2 Sumitra? What do you have
to say in this regard?

Answer - She has given false testimony due to enmity.

4. Question - Have you heard the statement of witness PW-3 Krishna Kumar Singh, Naib
Tehsildar, who has proved police documents Exhibit K-3 to Exhibit K-6?

Answer - He is a formal witness. He has given false evidence.

5. Question - Have you heard the statement of witness PW-4 Ram Krishna Magan, who
has proved the site plan Exhibit K-7 and the charge sheet Exhibit K-8?

Answer - He is a formal witness. He has falsely testified.

6. Question - Have you heard the statement of witness P.W. 5 Dr. Vijay Tiwari, who
conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Sushila @ Bhuila, whose post-mortem
report has been proved as Exhibit K-9? What do you have to say in this regard?

Answer - I don't know.

7. Question - Have you heard the statement of witness P.W. 6 Constable No. 582
Virendra Kumar, who has certified the carbon copy of the Chik GD report No. 10, which is in the
handwriting and bears the signature of Constable Jamuna Prasad, as Exhibit K-11? What do you
have to say in this regard?

Answer - I don't know.

8. Question - Have you heard the statement of witness P.W. 6 Inspector Ram Kumar
Chaudhary, who has proved the charge sheet Exhibit K-6 and the site plan of the incident Exhibit
K-7? What do you have to say in this regard?

Answer - He is a formal witness. He has given a false statement.

9. Question - Why did the above witnesses give their testimonies? What do you have to
say in this regard?
996 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Answer - Due to enmity.

10. Question - Why was this case filed against you?

Answer - Due to enmity.

11. Question - Do you want to produce any defense evidence?

Answer - Yes.

12. Question - Do you have anything else to say in your defense?

Answer - The deceased had an illicit relationship with someone in her village, due to
which she wanted to stay at her parents' house. Even before this, she had consumed poison at her
parents' house before her Gauna ceremony. The complainants forcibly sent her with the appellant,
and being upset by this, she committed suicide. The complainants have falsely implicated me under
pressure from the patidar.

28. The appellant no. 2 Nandlal, appellant no. 3 Govardhan, appellant no. 4 Gena Devi and
appellant no. 5 Sheela have been asked the same questions as appellant no. 1 Anil to which their
replies are identical except question 12, which has been answered by the appellants as follows:

Appellant no. 2

Name - Nandlal Age - 38 years Father's name - Late Bhagirathi

12. Question - Do you have anything else to say in your defence?

Answer - I have been living in Sammanpur market with my wife in a house I built since
1994. When I went to the complainant's house after receiving information about the incident, I was
beaten up. My motorcycle was snatched away. I have been falsely implicated because I am the
brother-in-law of the deceased.

Appellant no. 3

Name - Govardhan Age - 45 years Father's name - Late Bhagirathi

12. Question - Do you have anything else to say in your defense?

Answer - I had been living separately from my parents in my own house for 8 years
before the incident. I have no connection with the incident. He was falsely implicated simply
because he was the eldest brother.

Appellant no. 4
2 All. Anil Vs. State Of U.P.
997

Name - Gena Devi Age - 70 years Husband's name - Late Bhagirathi

12. Question - Do you have anything else to say in your defense?

Answer - Both my elder sons lived separately. I lived with the deceased. The deceased
committed suicide herself. I sent the information to her parents' house through my son Nandlal.
Upon receiving the information, her family members came to our house and, instigated by our
relatives, falsely implicated me because I was her mother-in-law.

Appellant no. 5

Name - Sheela, Age - 43 years, Husband's name ' Govardhan

12. Question - Do you have anything else to say in your defense?

Answer - I have been living separately from my in-laws for 8 years before the incident. I
have been falsely implicated because I am the sister-in-law.

29. The statements extracted above reveal that all the accused persons were asked general
questions and all appellants have given an omnibus denial to allegations made against them in the
questions put forth by the learned trial court. Question no. 12 where all the appellants have been
asked to speak anything in their defense, all have given their respective statements. However in
reference to the grounds that were undertaken by the prosecution for the conviction of the
appellants no questions have been put forth. In reference to question no. 12 all the appellants
cannot be expected to make any statement of defense against the grounds they are unaware of.

30. Therefore, It is evident that the learned trial court failed to put specific and material
incriminating circumstances to the accused, particularly:

i. The allegation relating to administration of poison to the deceased; and

ii. The post-mortem finding of ligature mark on the neck of the deceased.

31. These circumstances form the foundation of the prosecution case. Once the prosecution
relied upon them to establish homicidal death, it was mandatory for the trial court to confront the
accused with the same while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

32. In the present case, despite the omission, the learned trial court relied upon the aforesaid
circumstances to record conviction, which has resulted in prejudice to the appellants.

33. Though the prosecution sought to rely upon Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act on the
ground that the incident occurred inside the house, such burden on the accused can arise only after
the prosecution discharges its primary burden and the incriminating circumstances are properly put
to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
998 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

34. Considering the nature of the defect, this Court is of the view that the same is curable and
the ends of justice would be served by remanding the matter to the trial court for compliance of
Section 313 Cr.P.C.

35. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed to the limited extent indicated herein. The judgment
and order dated 08.09.2015 passed by the learned trial court are set aside.

36. The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court with the following directions:

i. The Trial Court shall record fresh statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
specifically putting all incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence, including those
relating to alleged poisoning and post-mortem ligature mark.

ii. The accused shall be afforded an opportunity to lead defence evidence, if they so
choose.

iii. Thereafter, the trial court shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law,
uninfluenced by the earlier judgment.

37. Considering the pendency of the appeals, we direct the concerned trial court to expedite
the proceedings and do the needful within three months from the date of communication of this
judgment. The appellants namely Anil- the present appellant, Nand Lal- appellant in Criminal
Appeal No.1388 of 2015, Govardhan- appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1384 of 2015, Gena-
appellant in Criminal Appeal No.439 of 2016 and Smt. Sheela- appellant in Criminal Appeal
No.1121 of 2015 be released on bail unless they are required to be detained in connection with any
other case and they will appear before the trial court in person and will participate in the
proceedings on the date fixed by the trial court, failing which the trial court shall be at liberty to
cancel their bail and take them into custody.
---------
(2026) 2 ILRA 998
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT MISHRA-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1188 of 1989

Khunni Lal ...Appellant
Versus
State ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to principal of Parity in case of more than one accused.