# Gajendra Singh v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 101 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2023-05-23 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2989 of 2010 - **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Umesh Chandra Sharma - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gajendra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-50435 - **Pages:** 22 ## Headnote Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 & 506 - Punishment for murder - Appeal against conviction - Life imprisonment - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2) (v) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 174, 313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Direct Evidence - Daughter of deceased moved written complaint stating that in absence of his father accused often visit her house - In spite being forbidden by her father, her mother used to meet him - On 07.01.2006 her father had dinner, fell unconscious - Thereafter accused and her mother put some inflammable substance in room where her father was sleeping and died - Chargesheet submitted - Charges framed - St. argued that P.W.-3 as real brother of coaccused and he can't falsely implicate his sister - Explained as to how and in which circumstances his brother-in-law was killed by his real sister in connivance with appellant - Held, regarding delay in lodging FIR was satisfactorily explained, accused persons had threatened to kill 102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES them also as their father had been killed - From evidence of fire fighting officer and PM doctor and oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 established that neither deceased committed suicide nor he died due to electrocution on account of short circuit but set ablaze by putting inflammable material on his body - Evidence of PW-1 that after death of deceased, co-accused solemnized marriage with appellant also goes against her - Appeal lacks merit, dismissed. (Para 5, 22, 36, 51, 52, 59, 61, 62, 66, 70) Criminal Appeal dismissed. (E-13) List of Cases cited: ## Text _Characters 0–39,858 of 68,546. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39858 for what follows._ 6 All. Gajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. 101 facts are specially within his knowledge which he must prove. 19. Thus, although Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving the prosecution from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused, it applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused. Moreover, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events. [See Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681]" 57. In view of the discussions and deliberations held above, the present jail appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 14.04.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Maharajganj in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 1998 (State Vs. Guddu Verma), arising out of Case Crime No. 112 of 1998, under Sections 302/34, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Paniyara, District Maharajganj, against the accused appellant, is hereby set aside. 58. The accused appellant-Guddu Verma, who is in jail from 13th April, 2016 shall be released forthwith, unless he is wanted in any other case on compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. 59. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj henceforth, for necessary compliance. ---------- (2023) 6 ILRA 101 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. Criminal Appeal No. 2989 of 2010 Gajendra Singh ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P.K. Singh, Sri Anupam Laloriya Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Advocate Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 & 506 - Punishment for murder - Appeal against conviction - Life imprisonment - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2) (v) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 174, 313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Direct Evidence - Daughter of deceased moved written complaint stating that in absence of his father accused often visit her house - In spite being forbidden by her father, her mother used to meet him - On 07.01.2006 her father had dinner, fell unconscious - Thereafter accused and her mother put some inflammable substance in room where her father was sleeping and died - Chargesheet submitted - Charges framed - St. argued that P.W.-3 as real brother of coaccused and he can't falsely implicate his sister - Explained as to how and in which circumstances his brother-in-law was killed by his real sister in connivance with appellant - Held, regarding delay in lodging FIR was satisfactorily explained, accused persons had threatened to kill 102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES them also as their father had been killed - From evidence of fire fighting officer and PM doctor and oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 established that neither deceased committed suicide nor he died due to electrocution on account of short circuit but set ablaze by putting inflammable material on his body - Evidence of PW-1 that after death of deceased, co-accused solemnized marriage with appellant also goes against her - Appeal lacks merit, dismissed. (Para 5, 22, 36, 51, 52, 59, 61, 62, 66, 70) Criminal Appeal dismissed. (E-13) List of Cases cited: 1. Tara Singh & ors. Vs St. of Pun., 1991 SCC (Crl) 710 2. Ravinder Kumar & anr. Vs St. of Pun., (2001) 7 SCC 690 3. Amar Singh Vs Balwinder Singh & ors., (2003) 2 SCC 518 4. Sahebrao & anr. Vs St. of Mah., (2006) 9 SCC 794 5. Bhookan Vs St. of U.P., (2020) 110 ACC 729 6. Mukesh Vs St. for NCT of Delhi & ors., AIR 2017 SC 2161 7. Podda Narayan Vs St. of Andhra Pradesh, (1975) 4 SCC 153 8. George Vs St. of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 1376 9. Brahma Swaroop Vs St. of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 280 10. Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb Vs St. of U.P., 2006 (54) ACC 862 (SC) 11. Chimanbhai Ukabhai Vs St. of Guj., AIR 1983 SC 484 12. St. of U.P. Vs Mohd. Iqram, (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 354 13. Ramakant Rai Vs Madan Ra, 2005 SCCrR 1126 (SC) 14. Vijay Pal Vs St. (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2015) 4 SCC 749 15. Mallela Shyamsunder Vs St. of Andhra Pradesh, (2015) 2 SCC 115 16. Saddik @ Gulam Hussein Shaikh & ors. Vs St. of Guj., (2016) 10 SCC 663 17. Bhim Singh & anr. Vs St. of Uttarakhand, (2015) 4 SCC 281 18. Dasin Bai @ Shanti Bai Vs St. of Chhattisgarh, 2015 (89) ACC 337 (SC) 19. Sanjeev Vs. St. of Har., (2015) 4 SCC 387, (Para 16) 20. Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs St. of Mah., (2016) 10 SCC 537 21. Chhotanney Vs St. of U.P., AIR 2009 SC 2013 22. Gangadhar Behera Vs St. of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381 23. Vijayee Singh Vs St. of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190 24. Ramesh Harijan Vs St. of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 777 25. Such Singh Vs St. of Punj., (2003) 7 SCC 643 26. St. of U.P. Vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava, AIR 1992 SC 840 27. Inder Singh Vs St. of Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1091 28. Jose @ Pappachan Vs Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy & anr., (2016) 10 SCC 519 29. Gurbachan Singh Vs Satpal Singh, AIR 1990 SC 209 6 All. Gajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. 103 (Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.) 1. Heard Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the impunged judgment and order dated 11.03.2010 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar, in Sessions Trial No.1210 of 2006 (State Vs. Maya Verma and another) arising out of Case Crime No.226 of 2006, under Sections 302, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST Act'), Police Station Barra, District Kanpur Nagar by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC alongwith fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 506 IPC. 3. By the same judgment co-accused Maya Verma was also convicted and sentenced similarly but during her incarceration, she was granted remission by the State Government and was set free. On account of that, the Division Bench disposed of her appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No.2318 of 2010 (Smt. Maya Verma Vs. State of UP) on 23.03.2023. 4. The appellant-Gajendra Singh has taken ground that the conviction is against the weight of evidence on record; the incident occurred accidentally; proper information was made to the authorities; fire brigade was informed on intervening night of 07/08.01.2006 at 01:15 a.m. and the witness has also stated that in the night hearing the hue and cry, he went to the spot and extinguished fire; the son, daughters and house-holdings were taken out from the house and the place of occurrence, therefore, the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside. 5. In brief, facts of the case are that the informant, Kumari Rama Verma, daughter of the deceased Ravindra Kumar Verma, moved a written complaint stating that her father who was posted as Bank Manager at Bank of Baroda, Chaure Bazar, District Faizabad, generally used to come home on Saturday evening and in his absence neighbour Gajendra Singh Chauhan used to often visit her house. In spite being forbidden by her father, her mother used to meet Gajendra Singh. On 07.01.2006 her father came to house, her mother served the dinner all by herself. As soon as her father had the dinner, he fell unconscious. The remaining dinner was consumed by her younger brother who thereafter also fell unconscious. On the same night at around 12:00 p.m. someone knocked the door, her mother opened the door and Gajendra Singh entered in the house. Both of them after conversation and hatching a conspiracy in order to remove the obstacle in their way, put some inflammable substance in the room where her father was sleeping. Everything started burning in the house. Gajendra Singh Chauhan and her mother threatened her that if she tells anyone about this incident, they would also face the same consequence. Her father died on the spot and Gejendra Singh fled away. 6. The informant further stated that she came down after saving the lives of her 104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES younger brother and sister. In such a situation, she could not tell the truth to the people. In the morning postmortem of the dead body of her father was conducted. They are three siblings. She is the elder sister. Her younger brother Prashant Verma was aged about 16 years and younger sister Harshita Verma was aged about 14 years. As a result of this her mother married Gajendra Singh Chauhan and they lived together. They have been left helpless for about five months and they often kept wandering here and there. Now her mother's intention is to grab the money and house of her father and attempts were being made to kill them also. Gajendra Singh Chauhan and her mother had conspired and killed her father. 7. On 24.07.2006, the FIR was somehow lodged at Crime No.226 of 2006, under Section 302/506 IPC. The Investigating Officer (IO) started the investigation. The inquest and postmortem reports had already been prepared. The spot map Ex.Ka-9 was prepared later on during the course of investigation on the pointing of the informant. Some documents such as report of fire brigade Department were also collected. Statements of the witnesses of fact and formal witnesses were recorded by the IO. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded and after finding that a case under Section 302/506 IPC has been caused by the appellant, the charge sheet Ex.Ka-10 was submitted on 29.09.2006 against the appellant upon which cognizance was taken on 12.10.2006. Accused were summoned and after framing of charge trial started. 8. On 06.02.2007, charge under Sections 302, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act was framed by the trial Judge against the accused-appellant which they denied and claimed trial thereafter following witnesses were examined:- PW-1 Kumari Rama Verma, informant and witness of fact, elder daughter of the deceased and accused Maya Verma, who has proved written complaint Ex.Ka-1. PW-2 Kumari Harshita @ Hansa Verma, witness of fact, younger daughter of the deceased and accused Maya Verma and younger sister of the informant. PW-3 Rajendra Kumar - real brother of the accused Maya Verma. PW-4 Sudhir, cousin brother of the accused Maya Verma (witness of fact). PW-5 Shivdaras Prasad, Fire Fighting Officer, Mariyampur, Kanpur Nagar who has proved Ex.Ka-2. PW-6 HC 118, Radhey Shyam Pandey, Police Station Naubasta, Kanpur Nagar who has proved chik FIR Ex.Ka-3 and carbon copy GD Ex.Ka-4. PW-7 Dr. Santosh Narayan Shukla who has proved the postmortem report Ex.Ka-5. PW-8 Ramsharan Verma, SI has proved inquest report Ex.Ka-6 and has also proved material Exs.7 to 12. PW-9 Virendra Singh, SI, the then Constable Clerk, Police Station 6 All. Gajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. 105 Barra who has proved information submitted by the accused Maya Verma regarding death of the deceased on account of short circuit which was entered in the GD rapat no.4 at 02:20 a.m. on 08.01.2006 as Ex.Ka-7 and its carbon copy GD as Ex.Ka-8. PW-10 SSI Bankey Bihari, SHO/IO who has proved map Ex.Ka-9. PW-11 Om Prakash Singh DSP/CO City, Firozabad, IO of the case who has proved charge sheet Ex.Ka-10 and photographs of the place of occurrence as material Exs.1-6. 9. Following documentary evidences had been relied on by the prosecution:- Written report Ex.Ka-1 Report of Fire Fighting Officer Ex.Ka-2 Chik FIR/FIR Ex.Ka-3 Carbon copy GD Ex.Ka-4 Postmortem report Ex.Ka-5 Panchayatnama Ex.Ka-6 GD rapat no.4 Ex.Ka-7 Carbon copy GD Ex.Ka-8 Map Ex.Ka-9 Charge sheet Ex.Ka-10 Photographs of place of occurrence Material Exs.1-6 Clothes and watch of the deceased Material Exs.7-12 10. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC on 16.09.2008 in which Maya Verma denied the allegations, charge and evidence produced from the side of the prosecution and has stated that the information was given to the police station that due to short circuit her husband had died. The fire was extinguished by the fire brigade. After recovering his daughter and brother false statements have been recorded. Accused Gajendra Singh Chauhan has also denied the allegations, evidence and has said that he helped Maya Devi in learning to drive a car, therefore, he has also been falsely implicated. 11. After hearing the argument, the trial court found that the charges under Sections 302, 506 IPC have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, hence accusedappellant was convicted and sentenced as noted above and was exonerated under the charge of Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. 12. In brief, statements of the witnesses are being reproduced hereinafter. 13. PW-1, Kumari Rama Verma, daughter of the deceased and accused Maya Verma has deposed in favour of the 106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES prosecution that during the course of learning to drive the car, her mother and Gajendra Singh came very close and became intimate. Gajendra Singh started visiting her house in absence of her father and illicit relation arose between the two. She herself had seen it 1-2 times and had informed her father upon which her father directed her mother not to meet Gajendra Singh and also restricted entry of Gajendra Singh in the house but Gajendra Singh did not follow the same and visited the house any time in absence of her father, either it is day or night. When she used to come to the house from school, he was found to be inside the house. When her younger brother and sister used to make objection, they were scolded by her mother and the illicit relationship remained intact. Her mother used to meet him in the car. 14. About the main incident PW-1 has deposed that lastly at about 10:30 p.m. on 07.01.2006 (Saturday) her father had come to the house. He took off his pant as he had upset stomach, he kept looking for slippers and when he could not find slippers, he went bearing shoes (in bathroom) and after getting fresh her father sat down for dinner at the dining table. Her mother had served food to her father. She used to cook the food but that day the food was cooked by her mother. After dinner her father fainted, he sat on the floor. For a while mother and father sat with her thereafter she went to another room to study. After studying as soon as she was going to sleep, there was a sound of knocking on the door, she saw that Gajendra Singh had come. He had a white coloured plastic bag in his hand in which some inflammable substance was there and after arrival of Gajendra Singh her mother also talked to him for a while. After that Gajendra Singh threw the inflammable material brought in the box towards her father and threw it from the door towards their (children's) room and her mother lit the fire by match. The fire spread severely to her father's room and in their room also. Due to this fire her father died on the spot. When the fire spread in her room she woke up her younger brother and sister shouting loudly then her mother and Gajendra Singh Chauhan had seen them that they had witnessed them setting fire. Her mother and Gajendra Singh threatened them that if they tell the fact to anyone, all the three of them will be in the same condition as their father. They locked them in the room and threw inflammable material in their room with the intention to burn them to death. After her father's death, mother Maya Verma and Gajendra Singh dragged the dead body together and put it near the TV switch board, her mother took off the shoes from the dead body and threw them away. When he died, accused Gajendra Singh stayed with her mother for a while and then left. On the information of the local people, the fire brigade came and extinguished the fire. 15. Her mother and Gejendra Singh had an illicit relationship and she used to love Gajendra Singh. They were obstacles in their path that is why accused persons killed their father and also tried to kill them. 16. At the end of February, 2006 at 11:30 p.m. she received a call from Gajendra Singh Chauhan that her mother had met with an accident near Gujaini Bridge, you all three should go there, they were alone at home and they suspected that an attempt could be made to kill them that is why they did not go there but called and told Sudhir, their maternal uncle (mama) 6 All. Gajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. 107 about the same who went to Gujaini Bridge and found that there was no accident and informed them accordingly. Her father had already died, her hair and her sister's hair were scorched and her feet and clothes were burnt. The witness recognized her signature at the written complaint Ex.Ka-1 and proved it. 17. Regarding delay in lodging the FIR this witness had deposed that they were young, her father had been killed, only mother was their support, if mother is jailed, they would have been helpless but her conscience forced her that the murderers should be punished. About another incident this witness has deposed that before killing her father her mother had locked up Sarvesh Dixit, the tutor who used to come to the house, and got him beaten up by goons, seeing this they were very scared of her mother. There was also fear that they might be killed by her mother somewhere else. When she came to know that her mother had been sent to jail in the case of Sarvesh Dixit, then they overcame their fear and she gave a letter to SSP. The witness has also deposed that her statement was recorded by the IO and CO police. She also recognized the photo relating to the incident. 18. In the cross-examination the witness has remained intact and has also deposed that sometimes there used to be a fight on this point between her parents. Her father used to remain tense. Her mother was an active politician from the Congress party. The maruti car was purchased in December, 2002. She had informed the matter to her maternal uncle and aunt (mausi). She deposed that wherever inflammable material was thrown, it was burnt. Chair, table were burnt. Nothing was visible in her father's room. His room was completely arsoned and the door started burning gradually. Some part of her bed was also burnt. When the fire broke out, first her younger brother and sister were picked up. The room was not burning so much. Accused Gajendra Singh and Maya Verma had threatened that what happened with their father would happen with them too if it is told to the inspector. They did not cry or shout because they were scared. There was fire all over her father's body. There was slight fire in his leg. The whole body was not burnt. The body was scorched and turned black. The pajama was burnt at the bottom. The neighbours extinguished the fire. She had seen her mother and Gajendra Singh setting fire to the house. She could not raise noise while the fire was lit up or the kerosene was thrown as all of this happened suddenly. They (children) had came out after 5-7 minutes of fire, father's screams and shout was not heard. He died in front of them. He was alive for 2-3 minutes. When she came back home, her father's dead body was kept and the policemen were present there. (After the incident, the informant and rest two children were shifted at the neighbour's home). 19. This witness has further deposed in cross-examination that the burnt bed was shown to the CO but he did not take it in his possession. He himself had inspected the rooms. She could not go to save her father in his room because her room had also caught fire. Her father could not scream, even though his body was on fire. Gajendra and Maya Verma were standing at a little distance in the same room 3-4 steps away from her father. Gajendra Singh and her mother dragged him and put near the 108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES switch board. According to this witness, after 3-4 months of the death of her father, her mother had withdrawn about one and a half lac rupees (Rs.1,50,000/-) from his fund. She wanted to grab her father's money. She denied that there was any enmity regarding fund money of her father and the house between her mother and her maternal uncle. The witness further deposed that when she came to the house nothing was there, all the household articles were lost. 20. PW-2, Kumari Harshita @ Hansa Verma has given a similar statement to that of PW-1. This witness has also deposed that there were illicit relations between her mother and accused Gajendra Singh which was informed to her father. There is no dissimilarity, contradiction and variation between the evidence of this witness and that of PW-1. This witness has also deposed that her mother and Gajendra Singh were present at the scene of occurrence. In Gajendra's hands there was a white plastic bag containing inflammable material. Since they had seen the incident, hence the accused had threatened them that what happened with their father would happen with them if they tell anyone about the incident. They were very scared because of threats. She admits that her hair and skirt were burnt and her sister's kurta was also burnt. After tendering threat the accused persons had grabbed her father by the hands and put him near the switch board. His father had died on the spot. After the incident, her mother had sent them to the neighbour's house. Her father was killed by her mother for having an illicit relationship with Gajendra Singh in which her father was an obstruction. This witness has also given similar statement regarding call by the accused Gajendra Singh at about 11:30 p.m. at the end of February, 2006 regarding a fake accident of her mother. She has also given similar statement regarding maltreatment with tutor Sarvesh Dixit. 21. PW-3, Rajendra Kumar, maternal uncle, real brother of accused Maya Verma has deposed in support of the prosecution. He has deposed that about 3-4 months before the incident, his brother-in-law, Ravindra Kumar Verma had called him, he reached Kanpur with his elder sister, Vimla. His brother-in-law told him that he was very upset. There is very serious problem as Maya Verma had stolen all the jewelleries and had given all the money to one Gajendra Singh who kept coming to his house from time to time. He has an illicit relationship with Maya. When brother-inlaw tried to make her understand, Maya did not realize the same and bent on fighting. He and Vimla also tried to convince her. They came to know that there was a very intimate relationship between the two and she could do anything. Thereafter he heard about the death of his brother-in-law. At that time his nephew and nieces did not tell anything as they were very scared and he brought them Bharatpur and left them back to Kanpur after a few days. After a month and a half Rama Verma called him on the phone, he reached Kanpur. The children were very scared. The police arrested his sister Maya Verma. His nephew and nieces informed that their mother and Gajendra Singh had killed their father by setting him on fire. They were also called at Gujaini Bridge in the night by Gajendra Singh on the pretext of her mother's accident but due to wisdom of Rama Verma they were saved otherwise all the three children would have been killed. He deposed that he was of the considered belief that his brother-in-law was killed by Gajendra and Maya Verma 6 All. Gajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. 109 together because of his obstruction in their illicit relationship. Since the nephew and nieces had seen the incident, there was a plan to kill them too. Gajendra and Maya took away all the belongings from his brother-in-law's house and money. This witness has given similar statement even in cross-examination and in favour of the prosecution. 22. Learned AGA argued that this witness is the real brother of the accused Maya Verma and there was no reason to falsely implicate his sister that is why his evidence is quite material which explains as to how and in which circumstances his brother-in-law was killed by his real sister in connivance with her lover Gajendra Singh. 23. PW-4, Sudhir is the cousin of accused Maya Verma. According to him, her children used to call him uncle (mama). After the death of Ravindra Verma he used to come to her house to take care of the children. When he used to visit their house, Maya Verma's children had told him and their real maternal uncle that their father was burnt to death by her mother and Gajendra Chauhan and they also threatened them to kill. On February, 2006 at around 11:30 p.m. Maya Verma's daughter Rama Verma called and told him that Gajendra has called that her mother had met with an accident near Gujaini and they all three had been called there. They were scared to go there. Then he went to their house, the children told him the matter and after hearing, he went to Gujaini Bridge where he came to know that no such accident had taken place there. He called Maya Verma who informed that she was in Priya Nursing Home, when he reached, Maya Verma and Gajendra Singh and 2-3 other persons were there, shops were closed. Seeing him Gajendra and the other persons left the place and he came to the house with Maya from which it became clear that Maya Verma and Gajendra Singh Chauhan were planning to kill the children. After this the children had called their real maternal uncle from Bharatpur and on his arrival they went with him to Bharatpur. This witness has given similar statement in cross-examination. 24. PW-5, Shivdaras Prasad, Fire Fighting Officer has deposed that on 07/08.01.2006 at 01:15 a.m. an information from a wireless set was received that House No.H-1-103, Vishwakarma Bank, Barra has been set on fire. On this information he reached there with his colleagues and found that the fire was burning on the first floor of the said building and the local people were trying to extinguish the fire. They extinguished the fire and went inside the house and found that kitchen was safe and three pet dogs were hidding in the bathroom, they were taken out, in another room a person was sitting cross-legged near the TV and telephone wire had fallen upon him. The window was open. A person was sitting and one side of his body was scorched by fire. That person was Sri Ravindra Kumar aged about 42 years who was declared dead by the police. The police started investigation of the incident questioning land-lady. On questioning about the fire, land-lady could not give a clear and satisfactory answer about the cause of fire. Sonu Dixit and B.K. Tiwari who had already extinguished the fire told that all the three children were put out from the fire through the escape route. On being asked they said that fire spread to both the rooms in no time. The article kept in the 110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES room were safe, only the door and bed were burnt. This witness was of the view that the fire did not start due to short circuit rather it was planted by pouring inflammable material that is why he had written other reason as the source of fire in his report that is why he had marked the cause of fire as suspicious. When he was talking to Maya Verma about the fire, her daughter cried and said that "mummy you have killed our father". Then Maya Verma shut her mouth. His report was also counter-signed by CFO and it was submitted to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Fire Services, UP, Lucknow in original and its copies were also sent to the other authorities. The witness has proved his report Ex.Ka-2. 25. In cross-examination also this witness has given intact evidence and has deposed that there was smell of burning in the room, he found it suspicious because the kitchen and cylinder were safe. A live wire had fallen on Ravindra Verma and it was not connected to anything (circuit). There was no blast on the TV screen but it was intact. The wire inside the room was not intact as it was spoiled to some extent due to fire. 26. PW-6, HC 118, Radhey Shyam Pandey has proved chik FIR Ex.Ka-1 and carbon copy GD Ex.Ka-4. 27. PW-7, Dr. Santosh Narayan Shukla who conducted autopsy of the deceased has deposed that the deceased was burnt about 65%. The hair on the head was scorched. There was a line of redness in burnt parts of the dead body. Brain and membranes were congested. The deceased had died due to shock and hemorrhage on account of antemortem burn injuries. According to this witness the death is possible due to fire on the night of 07/08.01.2006 at around 12:00 o'clock and the death has not occurred due to electrocution. It is not possible that the deceased also caught fire due to electrical short circuit. It is not possible to start a fire even with a blast. It was not a suicidal death. The witness denied the suggestion that the deceased's burning was possible from a short circuit. 28. PW-8, SI Ramsaran Verma has proved the inquest. This witness has also proved the material Exs.7-12 which were the clothes and watch of the deceased. This witness denied that the deceased had died due to short circuit. 29. PW-9, SI Virendra Singh, the then Constable Clerk has proved the application Ex.Ka-7 moved by the accused Maya Verma and carbon copy GD Ex.Ka-8. 30. PW-10, SSI Bankey Bihari, IO has deposed that after lodging the FIR, he started investigation. Maya Verma had reported that her husband had died due to electric sparking. He arrested the accused Maya Verma and interrogated her in which she accepted the illicit relation with coaccused Gajendra Singh Chauhan and also accepted that since her husband was an obstacle in their relationship, therefore, they killed him. The witness recorded the statement of the deceased's son Prashant Verma and daughter Kumari Harshita Verma and prepared the map on the pointing of Kumari Rama Verma, recorded the statement of Jitendra and Prem Singh, collected panchayatnama and postmortem report, report of Fire Fighting Officer, 6 All. Gajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. 111 arrested Gajendra Singh Chauhan and recorded his statement in District Jail, Kanpur Nagar in which he admitted his illicit relationship with accused Maya Verma and also accepted that he had borrowed Rs.35,000/- from the deceased Ravindra Kumar Verma for her wife's treatment. He also confessed that after making a conspiracy they killed the deceased in a planned way. Since the deceased belonged to scheduled caste, hence adding Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, the investigation was transferred to CO Police. He admits that he had not recorded the statement of neighbours Jagdish Narayan, Chandra and Virendra Tiwari. 31. PW-11, DSP Om Prakash Singh, the then CO City, Govind Nagar has deposed that when he visited the spot, the children were with his maternal uncle at Bharatpur. Maya Verma was in jail. He recorded the statement of Smt. Guddi and tried to record the statement of other persons but they did not come forward. When Rama Verma appeared with other persons before him he recorded statements of Rama Verma, Rajendra Kumar, Vimla Devi and Prashant Verma. There was no need to sketch and another site plan. After inspection of place of occurrence, the incident was confirmed from the statement of the informant and the photographs attached with CD and it had also been confirmed that the deceased was set ablaze after pouring inflammable material upon him. There was no sign of fire due to short circuit. He recorded statement of Kumari Harshita Verma and Sudhir Kumar, Suresh Chandra, Shyam Chandra, Pappu, Satish and Raghuvir Singh and Fire Fighting Officer-Shivdaras Prasad and the doctor who did the autopsy. On the basis of evidence a commission of offence under Sections 302, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act was proved against Maya Verma and Gajendra Singh Chauhan, therefore, charge sheet Ex.Ka-10 was submitted accordingly. This witness has also proved photographs material Exs.1 to 6. 32. DW-1 Shivratan neighbour has been examined in defence. He has deposed that at about 11-12 o'clock on the night of 07.06.2006 when he was arriving at his house, he heard a noise, when he reached the house of the deceased, many people had gathered. Everyone was putting out the fire. They went inside the house and took out the children. When he reached the spot Gajendra Singh was not present there. Gajendra Singh had not threatened the children. This witness had denied the illicit relation between Gajendra Singh and Maya Verma and accepted that the house of Gajendra Singh would be 300 yards away from that of Maya Verma. The fire started from the electric short circuit. He did not see the fire. Those who reached earlier were telling. The witness denied that Gajendra Singh and Maya Verma set the house on fire planting inflammable material. 33. After perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and after hearing the arguments accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as noted above. 34. The appeal is decided as under: (I) FIR: 35. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is undue delay in lodging the FIR. The incident had occurred on the 112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES night of 07.01.2006 and the FIR was lodged on 24.07.2006 for which no explanation has been given. 36. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that there is unreasonable, undue and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. In this case the informant was a girl of tender age, rest two children i.e. son Prashant and daughter Harshita were minor. The accused persons had threatened to kill them also as their father had been killed. Being scared they were not in a position to lodge the FIR. They were taken to Bharatpur. The children were aware about the killing of their father but they were not in position to approach the police. Later on anyhow the informant moved an application on 29.06.2006 but the FIR could be lodged only on 24.07.2006. 37. He further argued that even when there was no sign of fire on account of electric short circuit and there was no positive report of Fire Fighting Officer in this regard and the whole incident was doubtful, it was duty of the concerned police station to lodge the FIR and proceed to investigate the case. 38. Though the FIR should be lodged at the earliest after the incident but in this case on the above ground it was not possible for the informant to lodge the FIR just after the incident as they were dependent upon her mother. 39. In Chapter XXXVI CrPC limitation for taking cognizance of offences has been enumerated. In cases of Sections 302 and 506 IPC, there is no limitation regarding taking cognizence. Hence, if the proceeding initiated after a lapse of six months, it cannot be said that the present proceeding is barred by limitation. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, it has been held by the Apex Court that if causes are not attributable to any effort to concoct a version and the delay is satisfactorily explained by prosecution, no consequence shall be attached to mere delay in lodging FIR and the delay would not adversely affect the case of the prosecution. Delay caused in sending the copy of FIR to Magistrate would also be immaterial if the prosecution has been able to prove its case by its reliable evidence. 40. In Tara Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 1991 SCC (Crl) 710 the Apex Court held that the delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect these villagers to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report to the police. At times being grief-stricken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is but natural in these circumstances for them to take some time to go to the police station for giving the report. Of course the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts have pointed out that in cases arising out of acute factions there is a tendency to implicate persons belonging to the opposite faction falsely. In order to avert the danger of convicting such innocent persons the courts are cautioned to scrutinise the evidence of such interested 6 All. Gajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. 113 witnesses with greater care and caution and separate grain from the chaff after subjecting the evidence to a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR also will have to be scrutinised carefully. However, unless there are indications of fabrication, the court cannot reject the prosecution version as given in the FIR and later substantiated by the evidence merely on the ground of delay. 41. In Ravinder Kumar and another Vs. State of Punjab, (2001) 7 SCC 690 it was held that the attack on prosecution cases on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR has almost bogged down as a stereotyped redundancy in criminal cases. It is a recurring feature in most of the criminal cases that there would be some delay in furnishing the first information to the police. It has to be remembered that law has not fixed any time for lodging the FIR. Hence, a delayed FIR is not illegal. Of course a prompt and immediate lodging of FIR is the ideal as that would give the prosecution a twin advantage. First is that it affords commencement of the investigation without any time lapse. Second is that it expels the opportunity for any possible concoction of a false version. Barring these two plus points for a promptly lodged FIR the demerits of the delayed FIR cannot operate as fatal to any prosecution case. It cannot be overlooked that even a promptly lodged FIR is not an unreserved guarantee for the genuineness of the version incorporated therein. 42. In Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh and others, (2003) 2 SCC 518 the Supreme Court held that there is no hard and fast rule that any delay in lodging the FIR would automatically render the prosecution case doubtful. It necessarily depends upon facts and circumstances of each case whether there has been any such delay in lodging the FIR which may cast doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case and for this a host of circumstances like the condition of the first informant, the nature of injuries sustained, the number of victims, the efforts made to provide medical aid to them, the distance of the hospital and the police station etc. have to be taken into consideration. There is no mathematical formula by which an inference may be drawn either way merely on account of delay in lodging of the FIR. 43. In Sahebrao and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 9 SCC 794 it was held that the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case and discard it. The delay in lodging the FIR would put the Court on its guard to search if any plausible explanation has been offered and if offered whether it is satisfactory. 44. In Bhookan Vs.