# Chhunna v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 35
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 558 of 1996
- **Bench:** Sunita Agarwal, Om Prakash Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chhunna-v-state-of-u-p-48530
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-challenge
to
-conviction-accused
committed
murder of the deceased by fatal blow of
knife-PW-2 is the sole eye-witness of
the occurrence, who is the son of the
deceased-evidence
of
PW-2
is
corroborated
by
PW-6
who
had
recovered blood stained knife on the
pointing out of the accused-PW-2 had no
animus to implicate accused falsely-on
the basis of solitary witness PW-2,
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
although, witness is related by blood
with the deceased, conviction can be
corroborated, if the testimony is reliable
and trustworthy-Trial court committed
no error in recording the conviction of
the
accused-assailant
inflicted
fatal
blow on scrotum, inguinal region, this
shows that he had every intention and
knowledge that injury caused by him
would
result
in
the
death
of
the
deceased-It is a murder made with cool
mind in a planned way four hours after
altercation on the same day-It is not a
case of grave and sudden provocation.
(Para 1 to 47)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Chhunna Vs. State of U.P.
35
the
evidence
of
DW1
Gulab
Rani,
grandmother of the accused-appellant, is
concerned, she has not given any evidence
regarding suspicion of deceased that
accused-appellant has illicit relationship
with other women. She has only stated that
accused-appellant was not present at the
time of occurrence. She has also admitted
that at the time of death of the deceased,
the deceased has a child of about 6-7
months old. She has admitted that the
deceased was not suffering from any
illness. Likewise, DW2 Munna Lal has also
stated that deceased has committed suicide
by bolting the door from inside the room,
but no such thing like broken door has been
found by the Circle Officer Subodh Gautam
(PW5) at the time of preparation of siteplan, therefore, in above circumstance the
defence witnesses are unreliable and no
reliance can be placed on their evidence.

27. I am in agreement with the finding
recorded by the court below that accusedappellant is guilty for offence punishable under
Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act. I am also in agreement
with the finding of the court below that from the
evidence on record it is also proved that the
deceased met with homicidal death and the
court below has rightly sentenced the accusedappellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
10 years under Section 304-B I.P.C., to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years and a
fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo further
imprisonment for two months under Section
498-A
I.P.C.
and
to
undergo
rigorous
imprisonment for two years and a fine of
Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo further
imprisonment for three months under Section 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, which cannot be said
to be disproportionate.

28. For the foregoing reasons, I find
no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed,
accordingly. Consequently, the impugned
judgment of conviction dated 03.02.2018
and order of sentence dated 09.02.2018
passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Jhansi
against the accused-appellant is, hereby,
confirmed and maintained.

29. Let a copy of this order along with
the lower court record be transmitted
forthwith to the learned trial court for
compliance.
----------
(2022)05ILR A35
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH TRIPATHI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 558 of 1996

Chhunna ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri S.C. Dwivedi, Sri Deepak Singh, Sri
Rahul Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Govt. Advocate

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-challenge
to
-conviction-accused
committed
murder of the deceased by fatal blow of
knife-PW-2 is the sole eye-witness of
the occurrence, who is the son of the
deceased-evidence
of
PW-2
is
corroborated
by
PW-6
who
had
recovered blood stained knife on the
pointing out of the accused-PW-2 had no
animus to implicate accused falsely-on
the basis of solitary witness PW-2,
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
although, witness is related by blood
with the deceased, conviction can be
corroborated, if the testimony is reliable
and trustworthy-Trial court committed
no error in recording the conviction of
the
accused-assailant
inflicted
fatal
blow on scrotum, inguinal region, this
shows that he had every intention and
knowledge that injury caused by him
would
result
in
the
death
of
the
deceased-It is a murder made with cool
mind in a planned way four hours after
altercation on the same day-It is not a
case of grave and sudden provocation.
(Para 1 to 47)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Pratap Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. (2021) SCC
Online All 686

2. Abu Thaker Vs St. of T.N. (2010) 5 SCC 91

3. Bipin Kumar Mondal Vs St. of W.B. (2010) 12
SCC 91

4. Bishwanath Dhuley Vs St. of Mah. (1997) SCC
Crl. 1075

5. Kailash Vs St. of U.P. (1998) SCC Crl. 1980

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash
Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Roopak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the
State-respondent and perused the material
on record.

2. The appellant has preferred the
present criminal appeal aggrieved by the
judgment and orders dated 12.03.1996 and
13.03.1996, passed by the District and
Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions
Trial No.173 of 1995 "State vs. Chhunna
and others" Police Station Sheorajpur,
District Kanpur Dehat, convicting and
sentencing the appellant to undergo life
imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC
with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default thereof,
to undergo one year rigorous additional
imprisonment.

3. The prosecution case is as follows:

4. Subhash Chandra Mishra, the
complainant, s/o late Sunderlal Mishra, r/o
Village Dubiana, P.S. Sheorajpur, District
Kanpur Dehat lodged the first information
report on 23.03.1995 alleging that the
deceased Sunder Lal r/o village Dubiana,
Police Station Sheorajpur, District Kanpur
Dehat, had his flour mill towards east of his
house at a distance of about 1-1/2 furlong
near G.T. Road. On 22.03.1995 at about
8:00 PM, Sunder Lal deceased, his son
Subhash Chandra and Rakesh were busy in
grinding flour. One Amit resident of village
Baharmapur came to the said flour mill for
grinding his wheat. Accused Chunna and
Dinesh, who were relatives of Amit, were
also with him. The accused wanted to get
their wheat grinded first, breaking the
number of other customers, Subhash
Chandra and his brother Rakesh asked
them to get the wheat grinded on their turn.
On that, accused Chunna and Dinesh
threatened them to see. Thereafter Amit
went to his house after getting his wheat
grinded.

5. On the said night of 22.03.1995,
Sunder Lal deceased, was sleeping inside
the premises of flour mill on a Takhat. His
son Rakesh P.W.2 and Suresh Kumar,
brother-in-law (Sala) of Subhash Chandra
P.W.1 were sleeping on another Charpai
near the Takhat of the deceased. A lighted
lantern was hanging inside the premises. At
about 11:45 PM. Sunder Lal deceased
raised cries. Hearing his cries, Rakesh
P.W.2 and Suresh Kumar woke up and
5 All. Chhunna Vs. State of U.P.
37
observed that Chhunna- accused was
inflicting knife blows on the deceased. On
the challenge given by Rakesh P.W.2 and
Suresh, Chhunna accused fled away. Both
Rakesh and Suresh chased Chhunna and
observed that accused Dinesh was standing
on the gate of flour mill. Both accused fled
away taking benefit of darkness. Hearing
alarm, the other persons of the village also
came to the spot.

6. Sunder Lal deceased had fallen
down on the ground and had profused
bleeding from the injuries he sustained.
Injured was taken to the P.H.C. Sheorajpur
at about 3:00 AM. He was attended there
by the Pharmacist P.W.3 as the Doctor was
not present. After providing first aid, he
was referred to L.L.R. Hospital, Kanpur
City. But before being shifted to L.L.R.
Hospital, the deceased succumbed to his
injuries at 5:10 AM. Sri Udai Narain Yadav,
P.W.3 sent information of the death of the
deceased Sunder Lal,vide memo Ext.Ka-4
to the Police Station Sheorajpur.

7. After the death of the deceased,
Subhash Chandra P.W.1 prepared report of
the occurrence Ext.Ka-1 in the Hospital and
came to the Police Station Sheorajpur,
where he lodged the report at 6:50 AM on
23.03.1995. The Chick FIR Ext.Ka-19 was
prepared by the then Head Constable who
made an endorsement of the same at G.D.
report Ext.Ka-20 and registered a case
under Section 302 IPC against the accused.

8. The investigation of the case was
taken up by Sri Vijay Narain Pandey, I.O.,
P.W.6. He interrogated the witness of the fact,
Subhash Chandra P.W.1 and proceeded to
P.H.C., Sheorajpur, where he appointed
Panches and conducted inquest of dead body
of Sunder Lal and got prepared inquest report
Ext.Ka-7, diagram corpse, challan corpse,
letter to C.M.O. and R.I. Exts. Ka.-9 to Ka-12
through S.I. Sri Lalluji Dubey. He got the
dead body sealed and prepared sample of seal
Ext. Ka-8 and handed over to the Constable
Sri Shyam Babu P.W.5 and Home Guard Sri
Suresh Chandra Pandey for taking it for post
mortem. The Investigating Officer thereafter
visited the place of occurrence and prepared
site-plan Ext. Ka-13 on the pointing of
complainant. He also took into possession the
blood-stained and plain earth Ext.2/1 and 2/2,
sealed it in different containers and prepared
recovery memo Ext.Ka-15. He also took into
possession blood-stained ''Dhoti' of the
deceased, sealed it and prepared recovery
memo Ext.Ka-14.

9. The autopsy on the dead body of
Sunder Lal deceased was conducted on
24.03.1995 by Dr.L.K. Tiwari P.W.4 who
found stitched wound on the scrotum,
inguinal region and contusions on the left
side of chest and head and cause of death was
opined due to shock and haemorrhage as a
result of antemortem injuries. He prepared
post mortem report Ext. Ka-6.

10. On 24.03.1995, the Investigating
Officer interrogated Rakesh P.W.2 and
Suresh Pandey. He apprehended accused
Chhunna and Dinesh. On the pointing of
Chhunna accused, I.O. recovered bloodstained knife Ext.1, the weapon of assault,
sealed it and prepared recovery memo
Ext.Ka-16. On 28.03.1995, he inspected the
place of recovery of knife and prepared
site-plan Ext.Ka-17 and interrogated the
witnesses of recovery and on completion of
investigation, he submitted the charge sheet
Ext.Ka-18 against the accused under
Section 302 IPC on 04.04.1995.

11. The cognizance of the offence had
been
taken
by
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat, who committed
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the case to the Court of Sessions for trial on
5.7.1995.

12. Accused Chhunna was charged
with the offence punishable under Section
302 IPC while accused Dinesh was charged
with the offence punishable under Section
302/34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty
and contended that they being workers of
Bahujan
Samaj
Party
were
falsely
implicated on account of enmity and PartyBandi.

13. The prosecution, in support of
its case, examined Subhash Chandra
P.W.1, Rakesh P.W.2, Udai Narain Yadav
P.W.3, Dr. L.K. Tiwari P.W.4, Constable
Sri Shyam Babu P.W.5, Sri Vijay Narain
Pandey, I.O. P.W.6 and S.I. Sri Amarpal
Singh P.W.7.

14. Rakesh P.W.2 is a witness of fact
while evidence of other witnesses are
formal in nature. Besides documents
referred to above, the prosecution has
also tendered in evidence the report of
Joint
Director,
Forensic
Science
Laboratory, Lucknow, Ext. Ka-19.

15. According to prosecution,
Sunder Lal deceased died on account of
knife injuries. The accused have not
disputed identity, death and cause of the
death of deceased Sunder Lal.

16. So far as the FIR of this case is
concerned, the occurrence took place in
the night of 22.03.1995 at about 11:45
PM inside the flour mill premises of the
deceased, situated in Village Dubiana,
Police
Station
Dheorajpur,
District
Kanpur Dehat. Thereafter the deceased
was taken to the P.H.C. by Khatola (small
cot) at about 3:00 AM. Doctor was not
present therefore, the Pharmacist had
attended the patient and after primary
treatment, referred the injured to L.L.R.
Hospital, Kanpur City. But before being
shifted to L.L.R. Hospital, the deceased
Sunder Lal expired at 5:10 AM and
thereafter complainant prepared a written
report and on the basis of written report,
FIR against the accused was lodged at
about 6:50 a.m.on 23.03.1995, i.e., after
one hour and 40 minutes after death. It is
also proved that due to serious injuries,
complainant was busy in treatment to
save life of his father, after death,
information was given to the police
station. FIR of the case has been lodged
promptly without unnecessary delay and
without any legal consult.

17. So far as the motive of the
incident is concerned, learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that the appellant
has weak motive to cause the incident. The
appellant has been falsely implicated in this
case, being member of BSP.

18. It is a case of eye-witness account
of those who had seen the occurrence and
in case of eye-witness, direct evidence,
motive becomes immaterial.

19. In support of above contentions,
learned
A.G.A.
placed
reliance
on
following decisions :

20. In Pratap Singh and others vs.
State of UP 2021, SCC Online All 686,
the Court held that :

"Motive is not very relevant in a
case
of
direct
evidence,
where
it
dependable ocular version is available.
Once, there is evidence forthcoming on the
basis of an eye witness account that is
consistently narrated by multiple witnesses
motive is hardly relevant. "
5 All. Chhunna Vs. State of U.P.
39

In Abu Thaker Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, (2010) 5 SCC 91, the Court
held that :

"It is settled legal proposition that
even if the absence of motive and if
allowed
is
accepted
that
is
of
no
consequence and pales into insignificance
when direct evidence establishes the crime,
therefore,
in
case,
there
is
direct,
trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to
commission of an offence, the motive part
uses its significance. Therefore, if the
genesis of motive of occurrence is not
proved, the ocular testimony of the
witnesses as to the occurrence could not be
discarded only by reason of absence of
motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy
of reliance."

In Bipin Kumar Mondal Vs.
State of West Bengal, (2010) 12 SCC 91,
the Court held that :

"Motive is of no consequence and
pales into insignificance when direct
evidence establishes the crime. Motive is a
thing which is primarily known to the
accused himself and it may not be possible
for the prosecution to explain it. Ocular
testimony of the witnesses if reliable
cannot be discarded only by the reason of
the absence of motive."

21. Thus, from the evidence, it is
proved that accused Chhunna and Dinesh
threatened the deceased Sunder Lal to see
at about 8:00 PM and committed the
gruesome murder of the deceased Sunder
Lal within four hours in the midnight, in
the presence of eye-witness.

22. On the basis of law laid down as
above, the presence of ocular evidence, the
motive becomes immaterial and further the
prosecution has also proved the motive for
causing the incident by the appellant.

23. Dr. L.K. Tiwari, P.W.4 who
conduced the autopsy on the dead body of
the deceased on 24.03.1995 at 2:15 PM
found following facts :-

" The deceased was aged about
60 years and had died before 1-1/2 day. He
had average built body. Rigor mortis passed
of from both extremities. Eye and mouth
closed. Post mortem staining present on the
whole of the back buttock and thighs.
Abodmen distended. Blisters present. Skin
peeled off at places."

24. The Doctor found following antemortem injuries on the dead body of the
deceased Sunder Lal.

"1. Contused swelling 8 Cm. x 4
Cm. on left lateral side of hand just above
left ear.

2. Contusion 6 Cm. x 4 Cm. on
the left lateral aspect of lower part of chest
and upper part of abdomen.

3. Stitched wound 8 Cm. long
with 9 stitches present on right side of
scrotum.

4. Stitched wound 3 Cm. long
with 3 stitches present on right side of
inguinal region on medial side

Scrotum was swollen."

25. On internal examination, both
lungs were pale. Both chambers of heart
were empty. 1-1/2 Litre blood was present
in abdominal cavity. Watery fluid was
present in the stomach. Semi solid fluid
was present in the small intestines and
gases and faecal matters were present in the
large intestines. Gallbladder, pancreas,
spleen and both kidneys were pale. In the
opinion of Doctor, death was caused due to
haemorrhage and shock as a result of antemortem injuries.
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

26. Dr. L.K. Tiwari, P.W.4 further
opined that injuries further clarified that
stitched wounds were not lacerated as
oozing of blood is not possible from
lacerated wound. However, he stated that
he had not opened the stitched wounds.

27. It is true that the Pharmacist, who
examined the injuries of the deceased, had
not mentioned the nature of injures but
considering the internal condition of the
dead body and bleeding nature of injuries,
Sri Udai Narain Yadav, P.W.3 has stated
that injuries were caused by some sharp
edged weapon. Dr. L.K. Tiwari, P.W.4 also
stated that a huge amount of blood had
come out from stitched wounds (injuries
nos. 3 and 4). Thus it is clear from the
medical evidence is that injuries nos. 3 and
4 were not lacerated or stab wounds but
incised wound.

28. Regarding injuries Nos. 1 and 2,
Dr. L.K. Tiwari P.W.4 has opined that these
injuries could be caused by fall on the
ground. It has been clarified by Rakesh
P.W.2 that after sustaining knife injuries,
the deceased raised cries and fell down on
the ground from Takhat, on which he was
sleeping. Therefore, there is explanation
regarding injuries nos. 1 and 2, which could
be caused by the fall.

29. It is clear from the above
medical evidence that the deceased died
on account of injuries on his scrotum
and
inguinal
region.
Thus,
the
prosecution has successfully proved
identity, death and cause of death of
Sunder Lal, deceased.

30. The main question before us is
that whether the appellant Chhunna had
committed the murder of Sunder Lal
deceased by inflicting knife injuries.

31. P.W.1 Subhash Chandra was
admittedly at his house in the night of
occurrence
and
had
not
seen
the
occurrence. This evidence is hearsay so his
evidence is not material for proving the
manner of occurrence and complicity of
accused.

32. P.W.2 Rakesh is only witness,
who stated about the manner of occurrence
and complicity of accused. According to his
evidence, in the night of occurrence, the
deceased, he and his relative Suresh were
sleeping in the flour mill premises. The
deceased was sleeping on the Takhat while
he and Suresh were sleeping on a Charpai.
Lighted lantern was hanging near the
Thakat of deceased and his Charpai. At
about quarter to mid-night, he heard the
shrieks of his father. He and Suresh woke
up and saw that accused Chhunna was
inflicting knife blows on the deceased. He
and Suresh raised alarm and chased him.
The other accused Dinesh was standing on
the gate of flour mill. The accused started
running. He and Suresh chased the accused
but they ran away.

33. In his cross-examination, he
clarified that he came to the flour mill on
the night of occurrence at about 10:00 pm
alongwith Suresh. His father, the deceased
came to the flour mill at 9:00 pm when the
operation of flour mill was closed. Subhash
Chandra P.W.1 stated that he has his
residential house and in the night of
occurrence, he, his wife and children of
Rakesh were sleeping inside the house and
Rakesh was sleeping inside the flour mill
premises. Rakesh P.W.2 has denied the
suggestion of accused that he was sleeping
in his house in the night of occurrence.
There is no evidence otherwise on record to
prove that the witness (P.W.-2) was
sleeping inside his house on the night of
5 All. Chhunna Vs. State of U.P.
41
occurrence. The deceased was aged man of
about 60 years, therefore, other member of
his family required to sleep in the flour mill
premises. There is nothing in the crossexamination of Rakesh P.W.2 to doubt his
presence on the spot in the night of
occurrence.

34. Rakesh further clarified that he
had seen Chhunna accused inflicting one
knife blow. It is clear from the evidence of
the witness that he woke up on hearing the
shrieks of the deceased. This shows that the
first blow was inflicted on the deceased
before his shrieks and therefore, it was
natural for Rakesh P.W.2 to observe only
one knife blow on the deceased. Regarding
identity of accused Chhunna and Dinesh,
Rakesh P.W.2 stated that he was knowing
Chhunna accused prior to the incident but
was not knowing Dinesh accused before.
He also stated that he had seen Chhunna
accused twice prior to the occurrence in the
market but did not talk to him. Subhash
Chandra P.W.1 stated that he knew
Chhunna and Dinesh prior to the incident
but he was not knowing their parentage. On
the day of occurrence, when altercation
took place between him and the accused, he
enquired parentage and residence of
accused Chhunna and Dinesh from their
relative Amit who told them the details. It
was on the basis of above information, he
mentioned
the
name,
parentage
and
residence of the accused in the FIR. The
evidence of Rakesh P.W.2 that he knew
Chhunna accused prior to the incident, and
met him twice prior to the occurrence in the
market, had not been challenged, and
therefore, there is ample evidence on record
to prove that Rakesh P.W.2 knew Chhunna
accused prior to the incident.

35. No direct enmity, ill-will or
grudge of witness with the accused or any
member of his family had been suggested
or proved. The accused contended in their
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that
they were active members of Bahujan
Samaj Party and, therefore, were falsely
implicated. What grudge Rakesh P.W.2 had
with the accused, had not been specified.
Assuming that the accused were members
of Bahujan Samaj Party, it was no ground
for Rakesh P.W.2 to be enimical with him.
Therefore, the alleged enmity suggested by
the accused has no weight.

36. Beside the ocular evidence of
Rakesh P.W.2, there is evidence of I.O. Sri
Vijay Narain Pandey P.W.6, who stated that
he apprehended accused Chhunna on
24.03.1995 and on his pointing out
recovered blood stained knife Ext.1. The
recovery memo Ext.Ka-16 shows that
accused had taken the Investigating Officer
and the witnesses at a lonely place besides
broken boundary of the old hospital and
took out blood stained knife from the heap
of bricks and handed over to him. The
above knife Ext.1 was sealed on the spot
and
was
sent
to
Forensic
Science
Laboratory for analysis and report. The
report of the Joint Director Forensic
Science Laboratory U.P. Lucknow, Ext.Ka19 shows that item no.3 (knife) contained
human blood. There is nothing in the crossexamination of the I.O. to disbelieve him
on the issue of recovery of knife on the
pointing out of the accused Chhunna.
Length of knife is 8 angul, i.e., about 8 cm
and injury no.3 was also 8 cm in length
with nine stitches, which also reflects that
the recovered knife was one, which had
been used in causing fatal injury on the
person of the deceased. In this way, the
evidence
of
Rakesh
P.W.2
finds
corroboration from the recovery of human
blood-stained knife on the pointing out of
Chhunna accused. Apart from this, human
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
blood was found on plain and blood-stained
earth, dhoti, shirt, half sweater, vest and
towel of the deceased.

37. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that P.W.2 is the near relative of
the deceased and due to this reason, his
evidence should not be considered reliable.

38. Per contra, learned A.G.A.
submitted
that
evidence
of
related
witnesses is reliable but must be scrutinized
with care and caution. On this point,
learned A.G.A. relied upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in Bishwanath Dhuley vs.
State
of
Maharastha,
1997,
SCC
Criminal 1075, wherein it has been held
that : "mere relationship does not qualify
the witness even if independent witness in
spite of being available not produced
related witness to be the competent witness.
However,
their
evidence
must
be
scrutinized with car and caution".

39. Learned A.G.A. has also relied
upon another judgment of Apex Court in
Kailash vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1998
SCC Criminal 1980, wherein it has been
held that: "absence of any material on
record to show that prosecution witness has
any enmity with the accused, his evidence
cannot be brushed aside merely on the
ground of relationship, generally relations
of victim are interested in bringing the
book the real culprits".

40. It is evident that the accused and
the deceased belong to different castes and
had no reason of enmity. Witness P.W.2
was not an interested witness and his
presence on the spot at the time of
occurrence, can not be disputed. It is not
expected that in the mid-night, in the
premises of flour mill, presence of
independent witness, was not probable. In
such
circumstances,
P.W.2
who
was
sleeping on the Takhat nearby the deceased,
was the best, appropriate and natural
witness of the occurrence and his evidence
is fully reliable. Thus, mere relationship of
the witness with the deceased is no ground
to disbelieve his testimony.

41. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant that P.W.2 is the
son of the deceased and he is the interested
sole witness and in this situation, evidence
of P.W.2 is not reliable as it has no
corroboration.

42. It is settled that the testimony of
single eye witness can be acted upon if
otherwise
reliable
and
corroboration
required only when his evidence is open to
doubt and suspicious. A close relative who
is a natural witness, cannot be recorded as
an interested witness. The term ''interested'
postulates that the person concerned must
have some direct interest in seeing that the
accused person is somehow or the other
convicted either because some animus with
accused for some other reason. Testimony
of solitary witness has to be examined with
great care and circumspection. In the
present case, P.W.2 is the sole eye witness
of the occurrence, who is the son of the
deceased. He has no animus to implicate
accused
falsely.
In
the
long
crossexamination, nothing in his evidence
contrary to the case of the prosecution
could come out. In fact, P.W.2 is solitary,
sterling eye witness, whose testimony is
wholly, reliable and does not need any sort
of corroboration. Besides this, evidence of
P.W.2 is corroborated by the Investigating
Officer P.W.6, who had recovered blood
stained knife on the pointing out of the
applicant. Thus, on the basis of solitary
evidence of P.W.2, although, witness is
related by blood with the deceased,
5 All. Ram Khelawan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
43
conviction can be recorded. The trial Court
has not committed any error much less
manifest error in recording the conviction
of the accused appellant Chhunna.

43. On the basis of above discussion,
it is clear that the prosecution has
successfully
proved
the
manner
of
occurrence that accused Chhunna was real
assailant who inflicted the fatal blow on
scrotum, inguinal region of the deceased.
The nature of ante-mortem injuries of the
deceased were such that it could cause his
death in all probabilities. This shows that
accused Chhunna had every intention and
knowledge that injury caused by him would
result in the death of the deceased.
Therefore, the prosecution has successfully
proved the guilt of accused Chhunna for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
It is a murder made with cool mind in a
planned way four hours after altercation on
the same day. It is not a case of grave and
sudden provocation.

44. Co-accused Dinesh was not found
guilty by the trial Court and was acquitted
for the charge under under Section 302/34
IPC. The State of Uttar Pradesh had not
filed any appeal against the acquittal of coaccused Dinesh and no such appeal has
been brought before us.

45. On the basis of above discussion,
we are of the view that the judgment and
orders of the trial court dated 12.03.1996
and 13.03.1996 passed by the District and
Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions
Trial No.173 of 1995 "State vs. Chhunna
and others", Police Station Sheorajpur,
District Kanpur Dehat, convicting and
sentencing the accused appellant Chhunna
to undergo life imprisonment under Section
302 IPC with fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default
thereof, to undergo one year rigorous
additional
imprisonment,
is
hereby
confirmed.

46. During trial, the accused appellant
Chhunna was on bail. During appeal, the
appellant Chhunna was on bail. The
appellant was arrested on 21.01.2020 in
execution of the non-bailable-warrant and
is detained in the District Jail, Mati, Kanpur
Dehat at present. The accused appellant
Chhunna is directed to serve out the
remaining period of his sentence. The bail
bonds filed by the appellant are forfeited
and sureties are discharged.

47. The appeal is devoid of merits and
liable to be dismissed. The appeal is
accordingly, dismissed.

48. Certify this judgment to the Court
below immediately for compliance. The
compliance report be submitted through the
Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad.
----------
(2022)05ILR A43
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 674 of 1982

Ram Khelawan & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Ram Chandra, Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,
Girish Kumar Pande, Pawan Kumar Tiwari,
Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi (A.C.)

Counsel for the Resondent:
Govt. Advocate