# Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari (Tantric) v. State Of U.P. 1272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1271
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-27
- **Bench:** Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, Anil Kumar Srivastava-Ii
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dev-bux-yadav-pujari-tantric-v-state-of-u-p-1272-indian-law-reports-allahabad-43725
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

IPC - Sections 302/34, 201/34 - Murder of minor child - Circumstantial evidence - Recovery
of dead body from exclusive possession of accused - Sections 8, 27 & 106 Evidence Act -
Conduct of accused - Burden of proof - Statement of co-accused - Acquittal of co-accused -
Conviction sustained.

Circumstantial Evidence
Where prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, conviction can be sustained if the chain of circumstances
is complete and points unerringly towards the guilt of the accused, excluding every hypothesis of innocence.

Recovery from Exclusive Possession
Recovery of the dead body of a three-year-old child from a locked suitcase kept inside a box in the room of
accused establishes exclusive possession. Such recovery, proved by cogent oral evidence, is a strong
incriminating circumstance against the accused.

Section 8 Evidence Act - Conduct of Accused
Conduct of accused in avoiding social rituals, remaining absent during marriage ceremonies, concealing the
dead body, avoiding handing over keys, and leading police to the concealed body is relevant under Section 8
of the Evidence Act, irrespective of admissibility under Section 27.

Section 27 Evidence Act - Not Sole Test
Even if technical requirements of Section 27 Evidence Act are disputed, pointing out of place of concealment
and recovery of dead body is admissible as conduct under Section 8 Evidence Act.

Section 106 Evidence Act - Special Knowledge
 When a fact, namely concealment of dead body in a locked suitcase in the accused's room, is especially
within the knowledge of the accused, burden lies upon the accused to explain the same. Failure to offer any
explanation attracts adverse inference under Section 106 Evidence Act.

Related Witnesses -
Testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of relationship, if it is natural,
trustworthy, and corroborated by medical and other evidence.

Medical Evidence
Post-mortem report confirming death due to ante-mortem strangulation fully corroborates prosecution version
regarding homicidal death.

 Motive
Though motive is not an essential ingredient, proof of motive assumes significance in a case based on
circumstantial evidence. Superstitious belief of accused for obtaining a male child provided a strong motive for
commission of the offence.

Statement of Co-Accused
Conviction of an accused cannot be based solely on inculpatory statement of a co-accused. In absence of
independent corroborative evidence, co-accused is entitled to acquittal.
5 All. Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari (Tantric) Vs State Of U.P.

1273
Acquittal of Co-Accused
Where the only evidence against co-accused is inadmissible disclosure statement of main accused, conviction
cannot be sustained and benefit of doubt must be given.

Delay and Discrepancies
Minor discrepancies regarding timing or formal preparation of recovery memo do not affect core prosecution
case when reco

## Text

_Characters 0–39,965 of 46,089. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39965 for what follows._

5 All. Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari (Tantric) Vs State Of U.P.

1271
 opportunity to the scrupulous persons in the State Government in collusion with individual land
owner to negotiate for release of land from acquisition or otherwise refuse to do so.

44. The purpose of Section 48 is not to confer a right upon the land owners to insist upon
the State Government to consider and decide the request of land owners for release of land from
acquisition but on the contrary the objective thereof is to confer a discretion upon the Government
not to acquire land so long as it is not vested in it by taking delivery if it subsequently or any later
point of time but before possession found that the land may not be required by it for the purpose it
has been acquired or may not achieve the objective thereto. Sometimes it may also happen that if
the land is to be acquired for a company or corporation and such company or corporation finds at a
later point of time, for any reason whatsoever, that it does not require such land or required lesser
area, in that case, the land or part of land may be released from acquisition, but, this discretion is
available only so long as the land has not vested in the Government. We cannot and should not
allow the provision of Section 48 to be read in such a manner so as to confer a right upon the land
owners to claim release of the land from acquisition and a corresponding statutory obligation on the
State Government to consider such right of the land owners in a judicious manner. As said by Apex
Court in M/s Godrej and Boyce (Supra) that the State need not to require to gave any reasons for
release of the land from acquisition, we fail to understand as to how it may be compelled to do so
when it is not required to exercise its discretion otherwise.

45. In view of above discussion, we find no reason to interfere in these writ petitions.

46. Dismissed.

47. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

48. No costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-II, J.

Criminal Appeal No.- 924 Of 2013
&
Criminal Appeal No.- 932 Of 2013

Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari (Tantric) ...Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Respondent
1272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Appellant:
Avinash Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

IPC - Sections 302/34, 201/34 - Murder of minor child - Circumstantial evidence - Recovery
of dead body from exclusive possession of accused - Sections 8, 27 & 106 Evidence Act -
Conduct of accused - Burden of proof - Statement of co-accused - Acquittal of co-accused -
Conviction sustained.

Circumstantial Evidence
Where prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, conviction can be sustained if the chain of circumstances
is complete and points unerringly towards the guilt of the accused, excluding every hypothesis of innocence.

Recovery from Exclusive Possession
Recovery of the dead body of a three-year-old child from a locked suitcase kept inside a box in the room of
accused establishes exclusive possession. Such recovery, proved by cogent oral evidence, is a strong
incriminating circumstance against the accused.

Section 8 Evidence Act - Conduct of Accused
Conduct of accused in avoiding social rituals, remaining absent during marriage ceremonies, concealing the
dead body, avoiding handing over keys, and leading police to the concealed body is relevant under Section 8
of the Evidence Act, irrespective of admissibility under Section 27.

Section 27 Evidence Act - Not Sole Test
Even if technical requirements of Section 27 Evidence Act are disputed, pointing out of place of concealment
and recovery of dead body is admissible as conduct under Section 8 Evidence Act.

Section 106 Evidence Act - Special Knowledge
 When a fact, namely concealment of dead body in a locked suitcase in the accused's room, is especially
within the knowledge of the accused, burden lies upon the accused to explain the same. Failure to offer any
explanation attracts adverse inference under Section 106 Evidence Act.

Related Witnesses -
Testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of relationship, if it is natural,
trustworthy, and corroborated by medical and other evidence.

Medical Evidence
Post-mortem report confirming death due to ante-mortem strangulation fully corroborates prosecution version
regarding homicidal death.

 Motive
Though motive is not an essential ingredient, proof of motive assumes significance in a case based on
circumstantial evidence. Superstitious belief of accused for obtaining a male child provided a strong motive for
commission of the offence.

Statement of Co-Accused
Conviction of an accused cannot be based solely on inculpatory statement of a co-accused. In absence of
independent corroborative evidence, co-accused is entitled to acquittal.
5 All. Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari (Tantric) Vs State Of U.P.

1273
Acquittal of Co-Accused
Where the only evidence against co-accused is inadmissible disclosure statement of main accused, conviction
cannot be sustained and benefit of doubt must be given.

Delay and Discrepancies
Minor discrepancies regarding timing or formal preparation of recovery memo do not affect core prosecution
case when recovery of dead body is otherwise proved and mentioned in the FIR itself.

Held

Appeal of Asha Devi dismissed - conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 201/34
IPC affirmed.
Appeal of Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari allowed - conviction set aside - acquitted.

Case listed

Bahadul vs. State of Orissa AIR 1979,Supreme Court,1262
Manoranjan Singh vs. State of Delhi (1998)3 SCC 523
Manoranjan Singh vs. State of Delhi (1998)3 SCC 523
Prakash Chand vs. State of Delhi Administration (1979)3 SCC 90;
A.N. Venkatesh and Another vs. State of Karnataka (2005)7 SCC 714
Chandra Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan 2014 CRL. L.J.2884 (Supreme Court)
Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash (1972)1 SCC 249
Chandra Prakash v. State of Rajasthan 2014 CRI. L.J. 2884
State of Rajasthan vs. jaggu Ram (2008)12 Supreme Court Cases 51
Nagappan Vs. State (by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 660
Vikram Singh and others V. State of Punjab (2010) 3 SCC 56
Rana Pratap and Others V. State of Haryana 1983 (3) SCC 327
Thangaiya V. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 9 SCC 650
State of Gujarat v. Anirudh Singh and Another AIR 1997 SCC 2780
Rajinder Kumar and Another v. State of Punjab AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1322.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar Srivastava-II, J.)

1. Shri Avinash Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Umesh Verma,
learned AGA for the State were heard at length.

2. Since both these connected criminal appeals i.e. (CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 924 of 2013Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari (Tantric) vs. State Of U.P.) and (CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 932 of
2013- Smt. Asha Devi vs.State Of U.P.) arise out of a common judgment, therefore, the same are
being decided by a common judgment.

3. Instant appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 29.04.2013 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge,Court No.2, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No.236 of 2010 arising out of
Case Crime No.542 of 2010, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, P.S. Raunahi, District-Faizabad;
State Vs. Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari (Tantrik) & Smt. Asha Devi wherein accused appellants were
convicted under Sections 302 read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and
1274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fine of Rs.5000/- each, with default stipulation of one month's imprisonment, under section 201
read with section 34 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of
Rs.5000/- each, with default stipulation of one year's rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.

 4. According to the prosecution version, complainant Krishan Chandra Singh @ Raju resident
of Barai Khurd, P.S. Raunahi, District- Faizabad, lodged a first information report at Police Station-
Raunahi on 20.6.2010 stating that his daughter Kumari Palak aged about three years is not traceable
from 10.30 AM. An oral information about missing of Kumari Palak was given at police out-post
Satti Chaura at about 5.00 PM. On receiving the information S.I. Mahesh Singh accompanied with
constable Ajay Singh and Ajamat came to Village Barai Khurd. They inquired strictly from Asha
Devi wife of Satyavir Singh @ Pintu son of Kali Prasad. Asha Devi told that she had no son. On
the instigation of (Tantrik) Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari, that if she will sacrifice one child than she
will be blessed with a son, she called Kumari Palak to her house through Shivam Singh @
Shubham Singh who is brother of Asha Devi and strangulated her neck and killed her. In order to
get a son, she had kept the dead body in a suitcase and kept it in a large box in her room. She can
get it recovered. In the presence of Ram Pratap Singh and Mata Prasad Singh, Asha Devi opened
the large box in her room in which dead body of Palak was concealed in a 24" suitcase of black
colour. Dead body of Palak was lying in the house of Asha Devi.

5. On the basis of written report, first information report was lodged and investigation was
handed over to the investigating officer Sumeshwar Singh who was station house officer. He
proceeded to the place of occurrence and recovered the dead body. Inquest proceedings were
conducted on 20.6.2010 at 9.30PM. Dead body was sealed and sent for postmortem. Postmortem
was conducted on 21.6.2010 at 2.30 PM . Investigating officer prepared the site plan, recorded the
statement of witnesses. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants.

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution has produced. P.W. 1 Ram Pratap Singh grand father
of the deceased in whose presence dead body was recovered. P.W.2 Chhaya Singh mother of the
deceased who was also present at the time when dead body was recovered. P.W. 3 Krishan Chandra
Singh father of the deceased and complainant, in whose presence, dead body was recovered and
inquest proceedings were conducted. P.W. 4 Constable 470 Ram Sanehi who has prepared the chik
FIR and G.D. P.W. 5 Dr. Ghanshaym Singh who had conducted the postmortem on the body of the
deceased and found following antemortem injuries:-

Strangulation mark all over the neck size 18cm x 1cm alongwith abrasions and
margins situated over coastal cartridge in front of 5cm below chin, 4 cm below both mastoid
process.

7. According to the Dr. Ghanshyam Singh, duration of death was about one day. Death was
caused due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation.
5 All. Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari (Tantric) Vs State Of U.P.

1275
8. P.W. 6 constable Nand Lal Verma who is formal witness, P.W. 7 S.I. Sumeshwar Singh
investigating officer. P.W. 8 Rajesh Chand Tripathi who has submitted the charge-sheet. P.W.9 S.I.
Mahesh Singh Rathore who went to the house of the complainant on receiving information about
missing of Palak.

9. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Dev Bux Yadav has denied
the allegations against him and stated that he is not a Tantrik. He has been falsely implicated due to
enmity.

10. Asha Devi has also denied the allegations levelled against her and stated that on 20.6.2010
marriage of her real brother-in-law Atul Singh was fixed. Barat went to Pratrapgrah. Dead body of
Palak was recovered in the night of 20/21.6.2010 in the field. Police came and recovered the dead
body. She has been falsely implicated.

11. No evidence was adduced in defence.

12. After appreciating the evidence on record. Learned trial court has convicted and sentenced
the accused-appellants against which they have preferred the appeal.

13. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants argued that there is absolutely no evidence
against the appellant Dev Bux Yadav. He has been convicted on the basis of statement of coaccused Asha Devi which is not admissible in evidence.

14. It is further argued that appellant Dev Bux Yadav is neither a Tantrik nor has any relation
with this technique. He is not at all concerned with the death of Palak.

15. On behalf of the appellant Asha Devi it is argued that she has been falsely implicated in
this case. There was no motive for her to commit the murder of Palak, who was the daughter of
elder brother of her husband. Recovery is not proved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

16. It is further submitted that the recovery as alleged is not proved. Time of recovery is not
mentioned in the memo of recovery. It has further argued that provision of Sections 8 and 106 of
the Evidence Act would only be attracted when recovery under section 27 Evidence Act is legally
proved.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon Bahadul vs. State of Orissa
AIR 1979,Supreme Court,1262, Manoranjan Singh vs. State of Delhi (1998)3 SCC 523, Pancho
vs. State of Haryana (2011)10 Supreme Court Case, 165.

18. Per contra, learned AGA submits that recovery on the pointing out of the accused Asha
Devi is admissible in evidence. It is contended that when the recovery was made from the room of
Asha Devi wherein suitcase was kept in a large box. Dead body was kept in suitcase. Hence,
1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
burden lies upon the appellant Asha Devi to explain as to how dead body was there. Burden lies
upon the appellant Asha Devi to show the existence of dead body in the suitcase in her room.

19. Learned AGA has placed reliance upon the Prakash Chand vs. State of Delhi
Administration (1979)3 SCC 90; A.N. Venkatesh and Another vs. State of Karnataka (2005)7
SCC 714; Chandra Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan 2014 CRL. L.J.2884 (Supreme Court). It is
further contended that it is not always necessary for the prosecution to prove the recovery under
Section 27 of Evidence Act when burden lies upon the accused. First we will discuss the law on the
point of applicability of Section 8 of the Evidence Act.

20. Section 8 of the Evidence Act reads as under:

"Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.--Any fact is relevant which
shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of
any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or
proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any
person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct
influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or
subsequent thereto."

21. In Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979)3 SCC 90; it was held by the
Apex Court that it was a case of taking bribe of an amount of Rs.30 which was recovered from the
file which was in possession of the accused/appellants it was held by the Apex Court that "There is
a clear distinction between the conduct of a person against whom an offence is alleged, which is
admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, if such conduct is influenced by any fact in issue or
relevant fact and the statement made to a Police officer in the course of an investigation which is
hit by Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code. What is excluded by Section 162 Criminal Procedure
Code is the statement made to a Police officer in the course of investigation and not the evidence
relating to the conduct of an accused person (not amounting to a statement) when confronted or
questioned by a Police officer during the course of an investigation. For example, the evidence of
the circumstance, simpliciter, that an accused person led a Police officer and pointed out the place
where stolen articles or weapons which might have been used in the commission of the offence
were found hidden, would be admissible as conduct, under Section 8 of the Evidence Act,
irrespective of whether any statement by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to
such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act [vide Himachal Pradesh
Administration v. Om Prakash.]" (1972)1 SCC 249.(Emphasis added)

22. In A.N Venkatesh and Another v. State of Karnataka (2005)7 Supreme Court Cases 714.
Facts were similar to the present case. Son of complainant did not return from school the missing
complaint was lodged. Ransom was demanded. At the place where ransom was to be paid. Accused
were arrested by the police, they volunteered that they had kidnapped Madhu and they show the
place from where dead body can be recovered, thereafter, they were brought to the police station
5 All. Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari (Tantric) Vs State Of U.P.

1277
and were interrogated, their disclosure statements were recorded. Thereafter, on their pointing out
dead body was recovered. It was held by the Apex Court that

"8. The accused persons were apprehended near the spot where the ransom amount
was supposed to be paid. The accused person's presence at the place where they were arrested is a
strong circumstance against the accused appellants. There was no apparent plausible reason for
their presence alongside the railway track, loitering around a place which is quite far away from
the place where they were residing viz., Hosadurga. Their conduct in running away when they saw
the police party is also indicative of their guilty mind and is an important piece of evidence
showing their conduct. No plausible explanation was given by the accused appellants for their
presence at the spot where they were arrested, which was nearby the place indicated in the demand
for payment of the ransom amount.

9. By virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused person is
relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The
evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the
place where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was found and on their pointing out the body was
exhumed, would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the
statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within
the purview of Section 27 or not as held by this Court in Prakash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)
(1979)3 SCC 90. Even if we hold that the disclosure statement made by the accused appellants(Ex.
P15 and P16) is not admissible under Section 27of the Evidence Act, still it is relevant under
Section 8." (Emphasis added)

23. In Chandra Prakash v. State of Rajasthan 2014 CRI. L.J. 2884; Recovery was attacked
on the ground that when the accused led to the discovery of the articles ceased, he was not arrested.
Hon'ble Apex Court referred the case of Anter Singh vs State of Rajasthan (2004)10 SCC 657
wherein it was held as under:

"16. The various requirements of the section can be summed up as follows:

(1)The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It
must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with the question of relevancy. The
relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions relating to
relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered
admissible.

(2)The fact must have been discovered.

(3)The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from
the accused and not by the accused's own act.

(4) The person giving the information must be accused of any offence.
1278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(5) He must be in the custody of a police officer.

(6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused
in custody must be deposed to.

(7)Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly
to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible."

24. It was further held by the Apex Court that the fact whether the accused was formally
arrested or not will not vitiate the factum of leading to discovery. Even if the arrest was done after
recovery, it would not make any difference.

25. In State of Rajasthan vs. jaggu Ram (2008)12 Supreme Court Cases 51;

" It was held that for the absence of any explanation from the side of the accused
about the boy, there was every justification for drawing an inference that they had murdered the
boy. It was further observed that even though Section 106 of the Evidence Act may not be intended
to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,
but the section would apply to cases like the present, where the prosecution has succeeded in
proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding death. The accused by
virtue of their special knowledge must offer an explanation which might lead the court to draw a
different inference."

26. In the case of Bahadul v. State of Orissa, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1262; as relied by
learned counsel for the appellant facts were different. Tangia was recovered on the pointing out of
accused it was held that " As there is nothing to show that the appellant had made any statement
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act relating to the recovery of this weapon hence the factum of
recovery thereof cannot be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, what the
accused had done was merely to take out the axe from beneath his cot. There is nothing to show
that the accused had concealed it at a place which was known to him alone and no one else other
than the accused had knowledge of it. In these circumstances the mere production of the tangia
would not be sufficient to convict the appellant." Reliance was also placed on the Manoranjan
Singh's case wherein it was held that at the time making disclosure accused was not in custody of
the police. But in the present case when interrogation was made by the police then
accused/appellant Asha Devi has made the disclosure statement which is admissible in evidence.

27. According to P.W.9 S.I. Mahesh Singh Rathore an information about disappearance of
deceasd was given at the out-post Satti Chaura, P.S. Raunahi he alongwith constable Ajay Singh
and Ajmat reached at village Barai Khurd and strictly interrogated the accused Asha Devi who
stated that she has no son. Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari has prompted her that if she sacrifice a child
then she will be blessed with a son. Then she called the deceased in her house through her brother
Shivam Singh @ Shubham Singh strangulated her neck by cloth and killed her. Dead body was
5 All. Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari (Tantric) Vs State Of U.P.

1279
kept in a suitcase which was locked in a large box then she went to her room opened the large box a
suitcase of 24" size was there. When locks of suitcase were broken dead body of deceased was
found. It has also come in evidence that she avoided to hand over the keys to the police. On the
basis of this statement of P.W.9 S.I. Mahesh Singh Rathore learned counsel for the accusedappellant Asha Devi contended that the alleged recovery is not a recovery under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act and is not admissible in evidence. It is further contended by him that only piece of
evidence against Asha Devi is the recovery which is not proved and she cannot be held guilty of
murder of Kumari Palak.

28. According to the first information report exhibit Ka-1 S.I. Mahesh Singh alongwith two
constables of out-post Satti Chaura came to the residence of complainant. On the basis of suspicion.
S.I. Mahesh Singh interrogated her then she has admitted that she killed Kumari Palak and kept the
dead-body in a suitcase which is in a large box. Suitcase was recovered in presence of Ram Pratap
Singh and Mata Prasad Singh. It has also come in the evidence that suspicion on Asha Devi was
raised as she did not go to attend the rituals of marriage of her own Dewar Atul Singh.

29. Any statement made by Asha Devi under Section 27 Evidence Act would be admissible
only when prosecution has successfully established the recovery. Sections 8 and 106 Evidence Act
would also come into play only when the recovery is proved. Learned counsel for the appellant has
challenged the recovery and argued that no such recovery was made by the police on the pointing
out of Asha Devi.

30. Now we have to see as to whether prosecution has been able to successfully prove the
recovery of the dead-body of deceased ?

31. Accused Asha Devi is the wife of cousin of complainant Krishan Chandra Singh.
Admittedly, on 20.6.2010, marriage of Atul Singh, brother-in-law of appellant Asha Devi, was
fixed. Barat went to Pratapgarh in the evening at about 5.00PM. According to the P.W. 2 Chhaya
Singh mother of the deceased Kumari Palak was not seen by any one since 10 or 10.30 AM. P.W. 1
Ram Pratap Singh grand father of the deceased. P.W. 3 Krishan Chandra Singh father of the
deceased were also searching her since morning. Husband of the appellant Asha Devi and
complainant Krishan Chandra Singh belongs to one family they all were living in a big house
separately. A new house was also constructed by husband of the appellant. Appellant Asha Devi
was also not seen since morning although there were different rituals for marriage in the house of
Atul Singh. Notably, Atul Singh is the real brother-in-law (Dewar) of the appellant. Appellant
should have participated in different rituals but she did not take part in all these rituals. Till late in
the after-noon this fact was not noticed by anyone. When deceased was not traceable anywhere
then Krishan Chandra Singh went to the police out-post Satti Chaura and informed the police about
missing of Palak.

32. On the basis of information S.I. Mahesh Singh alongwith constables reached at the house
of complainant. At that time, the finger of suspicion was raised towards appellant Asha Devi on the
pretext that she was not seen in any rituals of the marriage since morning which creates a doubt. All
1280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the three prosecution witnesses have stated that when police asked the appellant then she admitted
that she has killed Palak on the instigation of Dev Bux Yadav. At this stage, we find that the role of
Dev Bux Yadav has nowhere been proved by the prosecution. Only evidence against Dev Bux
Yadav is the statement of co-accused Asha Devi that Dev Bux Yadav is a Tantrik. Since, she was
not having a male child. Dev Bux Yadav instigated her that if she will give sacrifice of the child
then she would be blessed with the male child. This statement itself is not admissible, so far as it
relates to Dev Bux Yadav. Apart from this evidence, there is absolutely no evidence against Dev
Bux Singh which would implicate the appellant Dev Bux Yadav. Evidence of co-accused against
an accused is not admissible except in certain circumstances. There is no evidence to show that
accused Dev Bux Yadav had ever prompted or instigated the appellant. Hence, we do not find any
evidence against co-accused Dev Bux Yadav who is entitled for acquittal.

33. According to the first information report, dead body was recovered from the room of
appellant which was in a suitcase of black colour. Suitcase was kept in a large box. There were also
injuries on the body of deceased. Asha Devi herself has opened the room and the box in which
suitcase containing dead-body was kept. This fact is mentioned in the written report itself. First
information report was lodged at 8.10 PM, thereafter, investigating officer Sumeshwar Singh
prepared the recovery memo and conducted the inquest proceedings which began at 9.30 PM on
20.6.2010 and finished at 11.00AM 20.6.2010.

34. P.W. 1 Ram Pratap Singh, P.W. 2 Smt. Chhaya Singh, P.W. 3 Krishan Chandra Singh
are the witnesses of recovery. It is argued that all the three are relative and most interested
witnesses. Hence, their evidence on the point of recovery could not be believed. We do not find any
substance in the argument.

35. Law is settled on the point that even if a witness is a chance witness or a related witness,
even then his evidence cannot be discarded solely on the ground that he was a chance or a related
witness.

36. In a recent judgment in the case of Nagappan Vs. State (by Inspector of Police, Tamil
Nadu) reported in (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 660 Hon'ble the Apex Court in paragraph no. 10 has
observed as under :-

"10. As regards the first contention about the admissibility of the evidence of PW 1
and PW 3 being closely related to each other and the deceased, first of all, there is no bar in
considering the evidence of relatives. It is true that in the case on hand, other witnesses turned
hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. The prosecution heavily relied on the
evidence of PW 1, PW 3 and PW 10. The trial court and the High Court, in view of their
relationship, closely analysed their statements and ultimately found that their evidence is clear,
cogent and without considerable contradiction as claimed by their counsel. This Court, in a series
of decisions, has held that where the evidence of "interested witnesses" is consistent and duly
corroborated by medical evidence, it is not possible to discard the same merely on the ground that
5 All. Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari (Tantric) Vs State Of U.P.

1281
they were interested witnesses. In other words, relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of
a witness. " (emphasis added)

37. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikram Singh and others V. State of Punjab reported
in (2010) 3 SCC 56 has cited paragraph 3 of its earlier pronouncement in the case of Rana Pratap
and Others V. State of Haryana reported in 1983 (3) SCC 327 which reads as under:-

"There were three eye witnesses. One was the brother of the deceased and the other
two were a milk vendor of a neighbouring village, who was carrying milk to the dairy and a
vegetable and fruit hawker, who was pushing his laden cart along the road. The learned Sessions
Judge and the learned Counsel described both the independent witnesses as chance witnesses
implying thereby that their evidence was suspicious and their presence at the scene doubtful. We do
not understand the expression 'chance witnesses'. Murders are not committed with previous notice
to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of
the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a brothel, prostitutes and paramours are
natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passersby will be witnesses. Their
evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that that they are mere
chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witnesses' is borrowed from countries where every
man's home is considered his castle and every one must have an explanation for his presence
elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is a most unsuitable expression in a country whose people
are less formal and more casual. To discard the evidence of street hawkers and street vendors on
the ground that they are 'chance witnesses' even where murder is committed in a street is to
abandon good sense and take too shallow a view of the evidence."(Emphasis added)

38. Reference may also be made to the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Thangaiya V. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) 9 SCC 650 and the Hon'ble Apex Court
has observed in para 8 which is reproduced as under:-

" Coming to the plea of the accused that PW-3 was 'chance witness' who has not
explained how he happened to be at the alleged place of occurrence, it has to be noted that the said
witness was an independent witness. There was not even a suggestion to the witness that he had
any animosity towards the accused. In a murder trial by describing the independent witnesses as
'chance witnesses' it cannot be implied thereby that their evidence is suspicious and their presence
at the scene doubtful."

39. A natural conduct of a human being is shown by the complainant Krishan Chandra Singh,
his wife Chhaya Singh and father of Ram Pratap Singh. No doubt, all the three are closely related
with the deceased but it never means that would falsely implicate the appellant. The appellant is
also wife of the cousin of complainant Krishan Chandra Singh. P.W. 1 Ram Pratap Singh has stated
that on 20.6.2010 at 6/6.30PM. Police came and interrogated the appellant who got the dead body
recovered from her room in suitcase which was kept in large box. Keys of the suitcase were not
available then the locks of suitcase were broken. Atul Singh is also related to the P.W.1 Ram Pratap
Singh. P.W. 1 Ram Pratap Singh did not go in Barat as he got disturbed due to missing of his grand
1282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
daughter likewise. P.W.2 Chhaya Singh also stated that Ram Pratap Singh and Krishan Chandra
Singh did not go in the marriage party as Palak was not seen since 10 or 10.30A.M. in the morning.
By the time dead body was recovered, Barat had already gone. Chhaya Singh was also present.
P.W.1 Krishan Chandra Singh has given a very natural statement regarding recovery of the dead
body. He has stated that he informed the police of out-post Satti Chaura about missing of Palak
then S.I, Mahesh Singh alongwith two constables reached at his house. He asked him as to whether
he has any suspicion against someone, then Krishan Chandra Singh told him that appellant has not
been seen since morning in spite of the fact that she had to take part in different ceremonies of
marriage of the Atul Singh which casts a doubt upon the conduct of appellant Asha Devi. Conduct
of the accused Asha Devi gains importance in view of Section 8 Evidence Act. Conduct of the
appellant is non-attending the marriage of ceremony itself shows that she was trying to conceal
herself from the eyes of others. Appellant did not want to be seen by any one during the course of
the day. Because, she herself has killed the deceased and kept the body concealed. Although, there
is some discrepancies in the statement of P.W.7 S.I. Sumeshwar Singh who is the investigating
officer of this case and P.W.9 Mahesh Singh Rathore. According to the statement of witnesses,
dead body was recovered by S.I. Mahesh Singh. When appellant opened the large iron box in her
room, wherein the suitcase was kept. Dead body was in the suitcase. P.W. 7 S.I. Sumeshwar Singh
has stated that he had prepared the recovery memo. Appellant was formally arrested on next day
i.e. 21.6.2010 at 6.30 AM. Statement of complainant was recorded on 20.6.2010. At one place, S.I.
Sumeshwar Singh has stated that when he reached at the spot then on the basis of interrogation of
appellant, dead body was recovered on her pointing out. It is admitted by him that when he reached
at the spot, sub-inspector of police out-post Satti Chaura and constables were present there. While
P.W.9 S.I. Mahesh Singh has stated that he has not recorded the statement of appellant. When the
suitcase was broken up, Sumeshwar Singh was not present. Inquest proceedings were conducted by
the Sumeshwar Singh when he reached at the spot alongwith Krishan Chandra Singh.

40. These statements are indicative of the fact that the dead body was recovered from the
room of appellant Asha Devi. Both S.I. Sumeshwar Singh and S.I. Mahesh Singh reached at the
spot. S.I. Mahesh Singh reached there on getting an information from Krishan Chandra Singh
complainant. He reached at about 6/6.30 PM. Thereafter, Asha Devi was interrogated. Then she got
the dead body recovered from the suitcase which was kept in a large box in her room. No doubt
thereafter, first information report was lodged on the basis of written report of complainant.
Investigating officer Sumeshwar Singh alongwith complainant reached at the sport prepared a
formal recovery memo, conducted inquest proceedings and send the body for postmortem. It
appears that S.I. Sumeshwar Singh has exaggerated the prosecution version to the extent that dead
body was recovered by him. When he reached at the spot after registration of the case. This
statement itself cannot belie the whole prosecution version. P.W.7 S.I. Sumeshwar Singh has
admitted that the case was registered at the police station in his presence. He himself took over the
investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence that he had interrogated appellant rather it is
stated that he recovered the dead body from the suitcase. Although, in the cross-examination, he
has stated that he recovered the dead body on the pointing out of the appellant. If this was the
situation then why he has not examined. S.I. Mahesh Singh on this point ? Why complainant
Krishan Chandra Singh was not interrogated on this point ? Whole prosecution story revolves on
5 All. Dev Bux Yadav @ Pujari (Tantric) Vs State Of U.P.

1283
the point that dead body was recovered by Sub-Inspector of Police out-post Satti Chaura on the
pointing out of appellant. It is true that no formal recovery memo was prepared by the SubInspector Mahesh Singh which was subsequently, prepared by S.I. Sumeshwar Singh, it appears
that in order to take the credit of solving the case. S.I. Sumeshwar Singh has over reacted in the
court. Even in recovery memo Ka5, he has mentioned that the dead body was recovered from the
suitcase. He has nowhere mentioned that appellant was interrogated by him. Hence, the statement
of S.I. Sumeshwar Singh on this count is not believable rather he has over reacted in the Court. Fact
of the recovery of dead body was mentioned in the FIR itself S.I. Sumeshwar Singh started
investigation after registration of the case. He has only prepared the formal recovery memo of the
dead body which was already recovered.

41. True that the accused-appellant was taken into custody by the investigating officer
21.6.2010 at 6.30 AM. Dead body of the deceased was recovered on 20.6.2010 in the evening at
about 6.00PM. When appellant was interrogated by S.I. Mahesh Singh then dead body of deceased
was taken out by the appellant from a locked suitcase which was kept in a large box in her room.
Conduct of the appellant becomes relevant and admissible under Section 8 Evidence Act as has
been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.N. Venkatesh (Supra).

42. In the present case also, dead body was recovered from the room of the appellant which
was kept in a suitcase that too was kept in a large box. This fact was exclusively within the
knowledge of appellant only. Section 106 Evidence Act provides that when any fact is specially
within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Appellant was
obliged to explain as to how dead body reached in her room in a suitcase. But there is no evidence
on record to explain it. Section 106 Evidence Act, specifically makes a provision for explanation of
a fact which is in favour of the prosecution. Appellant has failed to produce any such explanation.
Why accused would be falsely implicated? No enmity or other circumstance has been brought on
record to show that the complainant or family members were having any bias or grudge or ill-will
against the appellant. Dead body was recovered from her possession which cannot be said to be the
brain child of prosecution as such a recovery could not be a false or planted recovery.

43. It is a case of circumstantial evidence wherein no direct evidence is available. Appellant is
a close relative of the deceased. Deceased was child aged about three years.