# Guddu Verma v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 85
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2207 of 2016
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Shiv Shanker Prasad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/guddu-verma-v-state-of-u-p-49240
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302/34 & 201 - Punishment for
murder - Appeal against conviction -
Rigorous Life imprisonment - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161,
313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section
106 - Circumstantial Evidence - P.W.1 filed
written report alleging that his daughter
committed suicide by hanging herself and
no fault of her in-laws, requested to give
him dead body for last rites - After
investigation, charge-sheet submitted -
Charges framed - During trial co-accused
died - Held, from testimony of P.W.-1,
P.W.-6
and
P.W.-8
(reside
in
other
village), it was clear that P.W.-6 and P.W.-
8 was informed by deceased and P.W.-1
was informed by his wife P.W.6 that
appellant and his mother used to make
allegation against deceased of having
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
illicit relationship with her father-in-law,
they tortured her, ultimately killed her and
to hide said murder, they hanged her on a
bamboo stick by tying a rope around her
neck, but this has not been proved by
P.W.2,
P.W.-3
and
P.W.4,
who
are
relatives of P.W.-1 and resident of same
village, where in-laws of his daughter
resides with appellant - Not proved by
another witnesses of said village - Death
of deceased was homicidal, appellant can't
be convicted on basis of testimony of
interested witnesses, no one has seen the
crime - St.ments of P.W.-1 to P.W.-6 and
P.W-8 .have not been properly analysed -
Impugned order set aside. (Para 2, 3, 45,
52)

Jail Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,830 of 53,938. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39830 for what follows._

6 All. Guddu Verma Vs. State of U.P.
85
this Court in Gyanendra Maurya (Supra)
as the applicability of Section 167 of Code
has not been specifically excluded or
barred by any provision contained in the
Act, 1989 or in the Rules, 1995, therefore,
Section 167 of Code would apply in this
case. Reckoned accordingly, the charge
sheet came to be submitted on 61th day,
well within the stipulated period of 90
days, as stated above.

21. In view of the above, no
indefeasible right to seek default bail
accrued in favour of the present appellants.
Therefore, law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in M. Ravindran (supra),
in the humble opinion of this Court, is not
applicable in the facts of the case at hand.

22. The upshot of the aforesaid overall
discussion is that the learned trial Court has
rightly rejected the application moved by
the present appellants seeking default bail
under Section 167(2) of Code, which was
moved on the ground that charge sheet was
not submitted within 60 days as stipulated
under Rule 7(2) of Rules 1995 and since no
indefeasible right accrued in favour of the
present appellants, therefore, rejection of
application moved by the present appellants
seeking default bail under Section 167(2)
Code by learned Special Court cannot be
faulted with.

23. Before parting, this Court places
on record its appreciation for valuable and
erudite assistance rendered by Sri S.S.
Rajawat
and
Sri
Saksham
Agarwal,
Advocates.

24. In view of the aforesaid discussion
and for the reasons aforestated, this Court
does not find any illegality or irregularity
with the impugned order dated 10.09.2021,
which may warrant interference by this
Court. Therefore, the instant criminal
appeal lacks merit, which deserves to be
dismissed and the same is dismissed,
accordingly.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 85
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER PRASAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2207 of 2016

Guddu Verma ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Sri Dinesh
Kumar Pandey, Sri Manu Sharma, Sri Prem
Sagar Gupta

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302/34 & 201 - Punishment for
murder - Appeal against conviction -
Rigorous Life imprisonment - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161,
313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section
106 - Circumstantial Evidence - P.W.1 filed
written report alleging that his daughter
committed suicide by hanging herself and
no fault of her in-laws, requested to give
him dead body for last rites - After
investigation, charge-sheet submitted -
Charges framed - During trial co-accused
died - Held, from testimony of P.W.-1,
P.W.-6
and
P.W.-8
(reside
in
other
village), it was clear that P.W.-6 and P.W.-
8 was informed by deceased and P.W.-1
was informed by his wife P.W.6 that
appellant and his mother used to make
allegation against deceased of having
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
illicit relationship with her father-in-law,
they tortured her, ultimately killed her and
to hide said murder, they hanged her on a
bamboo stick by tying a rope around her
neck, but this has not been proved by
P.W.2,
P.W.-3
and
P.W.4,
who
are
relatives of P.W.-1 and resident of same
village, where in-laws of his daughter
resides with appellant - Not proved by
another witnesses of said village - Death
of deceased was homicidal, appellant can't
be convicted on basis of testimony of
interested witnesses, no one has seen the
crime - St.ments of P.W.-1 to P.W.-6 and
P.W-8 .have not been properly analysed -
Impugned order set aside. (Para 2, 3, 45,
52)

Jail Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Mah.
reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, (Para 152 to 154)

2. Ram Niwas Vs St. of Har. reported in 2022
SCC On Line SC 1007

3. Nagendra Sah Vs the St. of Bihar reported in
(2021) 10 SCC 725

4. Sabitri Samantaray Vs St. of Odisha reported
in AIR 2022 SC 2591, (Para 18 and 19)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shiv Shanker
Prasad, J.)

1. This criminal appeal is directed
against the impugned judgment 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, whereby accused-appellant
Guddu Verma has been convicted of
offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and has
been
sentenced
to
rigorous
life
imprisonment alongwith Rs.20,000/- fine
for
commissioning
of
offence
under
Section 302/34 I.P.C.; in default of payment
in fine to further undergo one year
additional imprisonment and three years
rigorous imprisonment along with fine of
Rs.3000/-, under Section 201 I.P.C.; in
default of payment in fine to further
undergo
three
months
additional
imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on
13.04.1998
complainant/P.W.1,
namely,
Janardan son of Adhare, resident of Village
Barvafahim,
P.S.
Kotwali,
District
Maharajganj had filed a written report
alleging therein that he solemnized the
marriage of his daughter Sangita with the
accused-appellant Guddu son of Kedar
about seven years ago, his daughter
committed suicide tonight by hanging
herself. It is further alleged that there was
no fault of her in-laws in suicide of his
daughter. He was informing to take
necessary action. He also requested to give
him the dead body of his daughter for the
last
rites.
On
the
aforesaid
written
complaint of the complainant, a case was
registered being Case Crime No. 112 of
1998, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C.,
Police
Station
Paniyara,
District
Maharajganj.

3. When the Investigating Officer
collected the evidence during investigation,
it came to light from the evidence of the
witnesses that the accused Mrs. Partapi and
Guddu Verma falsely making allegation of
Sangeeta's character,grabbed her face and
got her back side head hit to the wall
forcefully due to which she sustained
injuries and died on the spot. To hide the
crime both the accused tied her neck with
rope and hanged the dead body on a
6 All. Guddu Verma Vs. State of U.P.
87
bamboo stick near the ceiling so that the
onlookers might be considered the said
crime of murder as suicide.

4. After lodging of the FIR on the
written report of the informant/P.W.-1, SubInspector Brij Mohan Singh (P.W.-10)
reached the place of occurrence and got the
inquest of the deceased prepared (Exhibitka/3) in the presence of inquest witnesses
appointed by him. After getting the dead
body sealed and completing all necessary
formalities P.W.10 got the dead body sent
to the Mortuary. No definite opinion has
been given by the inquest witnesses. Each
of the inquest witnesses has given different
opinion as to the death of the deceased.

5. The post mortem of the body of the
deceased Sangeeta was conducted on
14.4.1998 at 5:00 p.m. by Dr. Noor Ahmed
(P.W.-7) and in the autopsy report (Ex.Ka1), P.W.-7 has opined that the cause of
death of the deceased is due to coma as a
result of ante mortem injuries:

"1. Mark of ligature present on
left side neck-it is post murder.

2. Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on right
side face.

3. Contused swelling 6 cm x 4 cm
on back part of head. On opening-occipital
bone broken- haematoma present."

6. The investigation was conducted by
the Inspector Arun Kumar Singh (P.W.-11).
He
has
recorded
the
statements
of
witnesses and prepared the site plan. He
has also collected the rope and prepared the
recovery memo. He has also arrested the
accused Partapi and Guddu and recorded
their statements in the Case Diary. After
conclusions of the statutory investigation
under Chapter XII Cr.P.C.. P.W.-11 has
submitted the charge-sheet against the
accused-appellants under Sections 302/34
and 201 I.P.C.

7. On submission of charge-sheet, the
concerned Magistrate took cognizance in
the matter and committed the case to the
Court of Sessions by whom the case was to
be tried on 10th June, 1998. On 24th
September, 1998, the concerned Court
framed charges under Sections 302/34 and
201 I.P.C. against the accused Partapi and
Guddu. The charges were read out and
explained to the accused-appellant, who
denied the accusation and demanded trial.

8. During trial co-accused Smt. Partapi
had died and the case of co-accused Smt.
Partapi was abated by the order of the
Session Court dated 12.03.2003. Thus in
this case the trial of only accused-appellant
Guddu Verma was completed.

9. The trial started and the prosecution
has examined seven witnesses, who are as
follows:-
1
Janardan (complainant)
PW1
2
Chauthi
PW2
3
Smt. Bachchi
PW3
4
Rammilan
PW4
5
Santraj
PW5
6
Subhawati
PW6
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7
Dr. Noor Ahmad
PW7
8
Shambhusharan Varma
PW8
9
Ramdavan
PW9
10
SI Brijmohan Singh
PW10
11
Arun
Kumar
Singh,
Inspector
PW11

10. The prosecution in order to
establish the charges levelled against the
accused-appellant
has
relied
upon
following documentary evidence, which
were duly proved and consequently marked
as Exhibits:
1
Written
report
dated
13.4.1998
Ex.Ka.-2
2
Recovery memo of Rope
dated 13.4.1998
Ex.Ka.-8
3
Panchayatnama
dated
13.4.1998
Ex. Ka.-3
4
Post mortem report dated
14.4.1998
Ex.Ka.-1
5
Site plan with index dated
17.4.1998
Ex.Ka.-9
6
Charge sheet mool dated
4.5.1998

Ex. Ka.-10

11. After completion of the prosecution
evidence, statement of the accused was
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The
accused-appellant
denied
the
prosecution
version and stated that the witnesses gave false
evidence under the influence of some people.
Two witnesses namely, Yogendra Kumar, DW1 and Ramakant, DW-2 were examined by the
accused in his defence.

12. On the basis of above evidence
adduced during the course of trial, the court
below after relying various case laws has
recorded findings that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has expressed the view that the law
does not cast an onus on the prosecution to
produce that evidence which is impossible
for the prosecution to produce. It is the duty
of the prosecution to present evidence in
such cases in relation to the facts and
circumstances of which it can collect
evidence. In the case in hand, the deceased
Sangeeta died in the house of the accused
Guddu and the allegation of causing the
murder of the deceased has been made
against the accused persons including the
accused-appellant, therefore, the initial
burden of proof lies on the accused to
prove the cause of death of the deceased
and that they have not committed the
murder of the deceased and if the fact is
disclosed on behalf of the accused that the
deceased has committed suicide, then the
purpose of committing suicide and the
aggravating circumstances in which the
deceased was forced to commit suicide
have to be naturally and satisfactorily
explained by the accused. In the case in
hand, the murder of the deceased has taken
place in the house of the accused, and the
accused were unable to disclose about the
exact cause and manner in which the
deceased could commit suicide and not
saying anything about the same indicates
that the deceased was killed by them only.
The trial court has observed that the case
laws cited in its judgment were applicable
and opined that proper discharge of the
burden of proof has been shifted on the
accused, which they have failed to prove.

13. The trial court has further recorded
that although no specific error in the
investigation could be pointed out in the
6 All. Guddu Verma Vs. State of U.P.
89
case and the prosecution statements cannot
be doubted because of any minor error
occurred therein. The arguments advanced
by the defense have also no substance.

14. On the basis of the above
exhaustive analysis of the evidence, the
trial court has come to the definite
conclusion that all the arguments advanced
by the defence have no force. On the basis
of the above evidence, it has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt that at some
unknown
time
on
the
night
of
12/13.04.1998, the accused Smt. Partapi
Devi (who died during the trial) and Guddu
Verma in fulfilment of their common
intention had killed Sangeeta, who was the
wife of accused-appellant by causing
injuries in their house and in order to avoid
the crime of murder they tried to make the
said murder, projected to be a case of suicide
by getting a rope tied around her neck, which
has been proved by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt by its relevant cogent
evidence, therefore the offence under Section
302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of
the Indian Penal Code against the accused
Guddu Verma is proved beyond reasonable
doubt, accordingly, it seems fully justified to
convict him for the offencee under the above
sections. The trial court has accordingly
convicted
the
accused-appellant
under
Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section
201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
him life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,
000/- for the offence under Sections 302/34
I.P.C. and three years rigorous imprisonment
with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under
Section 201 I.P.C.

15.
Being
aggrieved
with
the
impugned
judgment
and
order
of
conviction passed by the trial court, the
accused-appellant has preferred the present
jail appeal.

16. The submission of the learned
counsel for the accused-appellant is that
there is no direct evidence connecting the
accused with the commissioning of the
crime; the motive is absolutely weak as
admittedly
the
accused-appellant;
the
prosecution case rests on circumstantial
evidence in which the accused-appellant
has been implicated only on the basis of
suspicion and no evidence exist to hold the
accused-appellant guilty.

17. It is further submitted that there is
no complaint regarding cruelty against the
accused-appellant or any other family
members including the co-accused Partapi
(now deceased) made by the deceased
before the incident in question and after the
incident. The first informant/P.W.-1 has
roped the accused-appellant and his mother
(co-accused) in the present case, only in
order to harass and torture them. The
accused-appellant had performed his duties
as husband satisfactorily with the deceased
during her life after marriage. It is also
submitted that in the night of 12th April,
1998 being the loose temper lady, the wife
of the accused-appellant i.e. deceased
committed suicide by hanging herself due
to petty dispute between the husband and
wife and the said fact has been established
from the statements of the prosecution
witnesses. It is also stated that number of
prosecution witnesses declared hostile
during the course of trial but the trial court
merely on the basis of testimony of
interested witnesses, convicted the accusedappellant. It is also submitted that the
conviction and sentence passed by the trial
court against the accused-appellant without
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
considering the evidence available on
record is too severe. It is next submitted
that the accused-appellant has no criminal
antecedents to his credit except the present
and he was on bail during the course of
trial.

18. On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants submits that in view of the
inconsistency in the statements of the
prosecution witnesses; the prosecution has
failed to establish the guilt of accusedappellant beyond reasonable doubt based
on circumstantial evidence. As such the
sentence is excessive and ought not be
sustained and the order of sentence must be
modified taking lenient view in the matter.

19. Per contra, Mr. N.K. Sharma,
learned A.G.A. for the State, supporting the
judgment and order of conviction, submits
that the first information report has been
lodged promptly naming the accused
persons; there is clinching evidence to
support the prosecution's case; the incident
in which the deceased, who was wife of
accused-appellant is alleged to have been
murdered by the accused persons including
the appellant occurred in the house of the
accused persons and burden under Section
106 of the Evidence Act to discharge as to
under which circumstances and how the
deceased died is upon the accusedappellant which he has failed to discharge
on his part. There is strong motive for the
accused-persons, as the deceased had illicit
relationship with her father-in-law i.e.
father of the accused-appellant. It is no
doubt true that the present case is based on
circumstantial evidence in which chain of
events
has
been
completed
by
the
prosecution. The prosecution case has also
been supported by the medical evidence.
The place of occurrence has not been
disputed by the defence; and the accusedappellants have strong motive or intention
and the same has also been explained by
the evidence of prosecution. Therefore, the
prosecution has proved the charge levelled
against the accused-appellants beyond
reasonable doubt.

On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid, learned A.G.A. urges that in the
circumstances the conviction and sentence
awarded to the accused-appellant, by the
court below merits no interference.

20. We have examined the respective
contentions urged by the learned counsel
for the parties and have perused the records
of the present appeal including the lower
court records.

21. The only question requires to be
addressed and determined in this appeal is
whether the conclusion of guilt arrived at
by the learned trial court and the sentence
awarded is legal and sustainable in law and
suffers from no infirmity and perversity.

22. Before entering into the merits of
the case set up by the learned counsel for
the accused-appellant and the learned
A.G.A. qua impugned judgment and order
of conviction passed by the trial court, it is
desirable for us to briefly refer to the
statements of the prosecution witnesses.

23. P.W.-1/informant, Janardan who
happens to be the father of the deceased
6 All. Guddu Verma Vs. State of U.P.
91
Sangeeta, has stated in his examination-inchief that the mother-in-law and husband of
his daughter, namely, Partapi and Guddi
respectively used to quarrel with his
daughter and that quarrel was being
informed by her to her mother. Due to illicit
relationship between the deceased and her
father-in-law, her mother-in-law Partapi
used to quarrel with her and her husband in
collusion of his mother also used to quarrel
with her. He has further stated that the
information about the death of the deceased
was received by him on Monday when he
was cutting wheat crops on his field and the
said information was given to him by one
Ram Milan resident of Kamta not on his
field but on the way that his daughter
Sangeeta had died. After that he went to
place of in-laws of his daughter at Kamta
along with brother Shambhu and Ram
Milan, where he saw the dead body of the
deceased, which was kept in north-south
direction and the preparation for cremation
was going on. The dead body was lying
outside the house and he saw the face of the
deceased and he also saw mark on her
neck.

24. This witness has further stated that
he did not go to the Police Station for
giving written report. His brother went to
the place of Pradhan, where it was come to
know that his daughter committed suicide,
therefore, he did not go to Police Station
for giving written report. In the crossexamination, this witness has further stated
that after marriage when the deceased came
to her parental house for the first time, she
told her mother about the quarrel between
her and her husband and mother-in-law and
she did not tell him. His wife Subhawati
(P.W.-6) informed the informant/P.W.-1 that
the in-laws of the deceased used to torture
her. This witness has further stated that his
wife i.e. P.W.6 has also told him that inlaws of the deceased used to threat to leave
her and on that very matter, he after
convincing her, sent her and no panchayat
was held regarding the said matter. When
the deceased came back to her maternal
home for the second time, she did not
complain about her in-laws. This witness
has further stated that his daughter
(deceased)
told
him
about
illicit
relationship between her and her father-inlaw. This witness has further stated that
after reaching the spot, no one from Kamta
i.e. the place of in-laws of his daughter
(deceased) did not tel him that his daughter
was murdered due to illicit relationship
between
Sangeeta's
father-in-law
and
herself and this fact has also not told by
him to the Inspector. This witness has also
stated that Ram Milan (P.W.-4) had told
him about the murder. Chauthi (P.W.-2) had
sent Ram Milan to go to the place of this
witness and call him so that these people
could not burn the dead body. Sister of this
witness, namely, Bacchi (P.W.-3) is married
to Chauthi (P.W.-2) and Ram Milan is
brother Chauthi. Ram Milan did not tell
him that Guddu accused-appellant and
Partapi (now deceased) had come to his
house on 14.4.98 saying that they had
killed Sangeeta.

Perusal of the testimony of the
informant/P.W.-1 will go to show that he is
a hear-say and interested witness of the
incident. The testimony of this witness is
contradictory. He has admitted that as per
the information given by the Pradhan of the
village concerned, his daughter committed
suicide, therefore, he did not go to Police
Station for giving written report. As per
report given by him to the Police Station
concerned,
his
daughter
Sangeeta
committed suicide and has alleged that
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there was no fault of her in-laws in suicide
of his daughter. The illicit relationship in
between his daughter Sangeeta and her
father-in-law Kedar Verma has also not
been proved by the testimony of this
witness.

25. P.W.-2 Chauthi, who happens to be
the parental uncle of the deceased (Phupha)
and sister's husband of P.W.-1 has stated in
examination-in-chief that the accusedappellant Guddu was married to Sangeeta
i.e. the daughter of informant/P.W.1, and
they were married ten years before the date
of incident. Sangeeta died at her in-laws'
place i.e. village Kamta. He could not
know as to how Sangeeta died. After
coming to know that Sangeeta died, he
went and saw that the dead body was lying
at the door. This witness has further stated
that the informant/P.W.-1 is his brother-inlaw and his wife is Bachi (P.W.-3), who is
sister of informant. Kedar Verma is father
of the accused-appellant and father-in-law
of the deceased, who belongs to his village
and same fraternity. His relations with
Kedar Verma have deteriorated after the
death of Sangeeta.

26. This witness has further stated that
Sangeeta was about 20 years old at the time
of her death. Kedar Verma used to run a
shop on the banks of canal and street and
used to sleep there as well. The accusedappellant Guddu and Paratapi used to live
at home. He did not know that accusedappellant Guddu and Paratapi used to make
allegation qua Sangeeta's character. He also
did not know whether her father-in-law
Kedar Verma had an illicit relationship with
Sangeeta or not. Sangeeta did not die due to
any disease.

27. This witness has denied that he did
not go to see the dead body of the deceased
Sangeeta because of her illicit relationship.
He also could not tell whether Sangeeta
died due to hanging or not. The accusedappellant Guddu and Paratapi did not go to
his house on the date of incident nor did
they apologize for their mistake in front of
him.

From perusal of the aforesaid
testimony of P.W.-2, it is crystal clear that
neither he saw the incident with his own
eyes nor did he know about the alleged
illicit relationship between Sangeeta and
her father-in-law Kedar, when as a matter
of fact, he is also living in the same village
and is Phupha of the deceased. He is a hearsay and interested witness.

28. P.W.-3 Bachchi wife of P.W.-2,
who happens to be the parental aunt of the
deceased
(Bua)
and
sister
of
informant/P.W.1
has
stated
in
her
examination-in-chief that the accusedappellant Guddu and Sangeeta got married
ten years ago in her village. She did not
know as to how her niece Sangeeta died.
After coming to know about Sangeeta's
death, she went to see her dead body. Since
this witness was pregnant so she fainted
before
reaching
Sangeeta's
house.
Sangeeta's father-in-law Kedar Verma is
not from her Pattidaari but belongs to same
fraternity. After the death of Sangeeta, her
relation with Kedar Verma was not good.
After Sangeeta's death, her husband sent his
brother Ram Milan to call Sangeeta's father
Janardan Verma. This witness did not know
how Sangeeta died even after the incident.
The accused-appellant Guddu and Partapi
did not tell her about the death of Sangeeta.
6 All. Guddu Verma Vs. State of U.P.
93

29. In the cross-examination, this
witness has stated that she did not know
whether the accused-appellant Guddu and
Paratapi used to allege about Sangeeta's
character and that Sangeeta had illicit
relations with her father-in-law Kedar
Verma or not. She also did not know as to
whether Sangeeta died due to illness or
someone murdered her. This witness has
clearly denied that the accused-appellant
Guddu and Paratapi after grabbing the face
of her niece, pushed her head on the wall
due to which she sustained injury and died.
She has also denied that after the incident
accused-appellant Guddu and Paratapi
came to her house and told that they have
killed Sangeeta. She has also stated that she
did not give any statement to the Inspector.

Testimony of this witness also goes
to show that she did not see the incident with
her own eyes nor did she came to know about
the alleged illicit relationship between
Sangeeta and her father-in-law Kedar, even
though she is also living in the same village
with her husband i.e. Phupha of the deceased.
She is a hear-say and an interested witness.

30. P.W.-4 Ram Milan, who happens to
be the brother of P.W.-2 and brother-in-law of
P.W.-3, has stated in his examination-in-chief
that villagers asked him to go to the place of
informant/P.W.-1 Janardan to inform about
the death of Sangeeta on which he went to
Janardan's house by bicycle and told him to
see her daughter as she died. He has further
stated that there was an uproar in the village
that she had been killed. He has also stated
that P.W.-2 Chauthi is his brother and his
brother did not ask him to go to informant's
place for informing him about the death of
Sangeeta, whereas the villagers asked him to
go. He has also stated that he did not see the
dead body of the deceased before the incident
or after the incident. This witness has further
stated that though the villagers had asked him
to go to informant's place for informing him
that his daughter died but he did not tell the
same to the informant instead he told that his
daughter was not well. This witness has also
stated that he did not give any statement to the
Inspector. In his entire testimony, this witness
has not stated any single word about the alleged
illicit relationship of the deceased and her
father-in-law Kedar Verma.

From the testimony of this witness, it is
apparently clear that this witness has not seen
the incident with his own eyes. He is only a
hear-say and an interested witness.

31. In his examination-in-chief, Santraj
P.W.-5, who happens to be resident of village of
accused-appellant i.e. Kamta Bujurg has stated
that the informant/P.W.-1 is resident of village
Barwa Faheem and his marriage was
solemnized with the daughter of real uncle of
the informant in village Barwa Faheem. Since
her father-in-law had no son except his wife, the
entire property of his father-in-law was in the
name of his wife, therefore, he used to reside in
his in-laws place. He occasionally went to
village Kamta.

32. This witness has further stated that when
Sangeeta died at her in-laws house at village
Kamta, he was at village Barwa Faheem. On
coming to know about the death of Sangeeta, he
went to see her at village Kamta Bujurg, where he
came to know that she committed suicide by
hanging herself. This witness has further stated
that he has not spoken to anyone about the
incident even later. He did not try to find out as
how Sangeeta died and in which manner.
94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

33. This witness has stated in his
cross-examination
that
the
father
of
informant/P.W.-1 and his father-in-law are
real brothers. He has also stated that he has
not seen that the accused-appellant Guddu
and Partapi killed Sangeeta. He heard that
they had beaten her. On various occasions
the quarrel took place between them. He
has disclosed the said incident of quarrel
for the first time before the trial court. He
did not tell about the same to the
informant/P.W.-1. The informant/P.W.-1 is
his brother-in-law.

34. In the cross-examination, this
witness has stated that on the asking of the
Inspector he went to the Police Station after
4 to 5 days of the incident where he has not
told as to whether the accused-appellant
Guddu i.e. husband of the deceased and
Pratapi killed Sangeeta or not. He has also
stated that the character of Sangeeta was
good and she did not had bad character.

35.
Subhawati,
wife
of
informant/P.W.1, who happens to be the
mother of the deceased Sangeeta has been
adduced as P.W.-6, who has stated in her
examination-in-chief that her daughter
Sangeeta was married to accused-appellant
Guddu son of Kedar resident of village
Kamta Bujurg. She has further stated that
after five years of her marriage when her
daughter Sangeeta went to her in-laws
house after leaving her parental house, the
accused Pratapi and accused-appellant
Guddu used to accuse her daughter that she
had an illicit relationship with her father-inlaw Kedar. When her daughter Sangeeta
came to her parental house, she disclosed
the same to her mother i.e. P.W.-6 that she
had illicit relationship with her father-inlaw and due to the said fact, her mother-inlaw and husband used to torture and threat
her to kill.

36. This witness has further stated that
about about 8 to 9 years ago, her husband
Guddu and mother-in-law Partapi together
killed her girl and to hide their crime,
accused Pratapi and Guddu hanged her by
tying a rope around her neck. She has
further stated that after killing her daughter,
the accused Partapi and Guddu went to
place of her sister and brother-in-laws,
namely, Bachchi and Chauthi, where they
apologized their crime and prayed to save
them and then fled from there, whereas
P.W.-2 Chauthi as well as P.W.-3 Bachchi
have stated in their testimony that they did
not know whether her father-in-law Kedar
Verma had illicit relationship with the
deceased Sangeeta or not. They have also
stated that the accused-appellant Guddu
and accused Partapi did not go to their
house on the date of incident nor did they
apologize for their mistake in front of them.

37. Dr. Noor Ahmad, who conducted
the autopsy of the deceased has been
adduced as P.W.-7. He has stated in his
examination-in-chief
that
during
the
examination he found the following facts
on analysis of the dead body of deceased
Sangeeta:

"1. The age of the deceased was
about 18 years. The body was folded, the
eyes and mouth were open and closed. The
tongue had protruded a little. The stage of
Rigor Mortis had passed. There was a mark
of hanging on left side of her neck.

2. Swelling on right side of face 6
cm x 4 cm was present.
6 All. Guddu Verma Vs. State of U.P.
95

3. Swelling 6 X 4 cm was present
on the back side of head of the deceased.
When the head was opened the occipital
bone was found to be broken and the blood
clot was present.

Head
-
blood
clot
swollen
membranes

Chest-lungs were swollen

The heart chamber was full.

Stomach- there was gas in the
small intestine and the large intestine was
full.

Liver- the liver was two pounds
full.

Childbirth- there was a dead
child of full stage. The death was about a
day old. Death was due to injuries inflicted
before death."

38. In the cross-examination, this
witness has stated as under:

"Injury no. 1 is on the neck of the
deceased.

Injury no. 2 is on the face.

Injury no. 3 is on the back of the
head. Injury no. 2 was contusion mark,
whereas injury no.3 was contusion with
swelling.

Injury nos. 1 and 2 are simple in
nature nature. "

39. This witness has opined that injury
no.3 could come, if a person falls on the
back of head on a hard object. The death of
the deceased happened only after coming
into coma. He has further opined that if
injury no.3 had been properly treated, she
would not have died. A difference of two to
four hours is possible in the period of
death.

40. Shambhu Sharan Verma, who
happens
to
be
the
brother
of
the
informant/P.W.-1
and
uncle
of
the
deceased, has been adduced as P.W.-8. He
has stated in his examination-in-chief that
Sangeeta told them that her husband and
mother-in-law used to demand a transistor
and for not fulfilling the said demand, they
used to torture her on which they including
this witness sent Sangeeta to her in-laws'
place with transistor (radio). After two to
four days, on calling of Sangeeta, this
witness went to her in-laws' place where
she told him that her husband and motherin-law were troubling her in different ways.
Sangeeta told him that Sangeeta's husband
falsely accused her of having illicit
relationship with his father. She told that
her mother-in-law also made such false
allegations against her. Sangeeta was
pregnant at that time. Sangeeta also told
that her husband and mother-in-law were
threatening to kill her. This witness came to
his house and disclosed the entire fact to
his elder brother i.e. informant/P.W.-1. On
the next day his sister's brother-in-law
Rammilan informed him at his house that
Sangeeta was dead. After getting the
information,
his
elder
brother
i.e.
informant/P.W.-1, his wife and two to four
people of the village went to Sangeeta's inlaws' house. As soon as he went out to go
to
Paniyara
Police
Station,
accusedappellant Guddu and his mother caught
hold of her leg and started crying saying
that he in his boyhood had committed the
crime by mistaken. They also prayed not to
lodge the FIR against them for the said
crime. He has further stated that when they
reached Sangeeta's in-laws house, accused-
96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellant Guddu and his family members
were present and they told that Sangeeta
had died by hanging herself.

41. In the cross-examination, this
witness has stated that when he asked the
villagers about Sangeeta's death, he came to
know that accused-appellant and his mother
killed Sangeeta and to hide the crime, they
coloured the said murder as suicide. He has
further stated that when the accused felt
that the post-mortem would reveal the
exact cause of death of Sangeeta, they went
to the place of his sister (P.W.-8) and
brother-in-law (Behnoi) and said that the
incident was true and accepted their crime.

42. In the cross-examination this
witness has admitted that in the report
which
has
been
given
by
the
informant/P.W.-1 to the Police, he has
stated that the deceased had committed
suicide by hanging herself and the in-laws
of his daughter were not responsible for the
same.

Though this witness has also
claimed that he was informed by the
deceased that the accused-appellant Guddu
and his mother used to torture her making
allegation of her having illicit relationship
with her father-in-law and because of the
same they killed her, but he has not seen
the incident with his own eyes. He is also a
hear-say and an interested witness.

43. Ramdawan has been adduced as
P.W.-9 and is a inquest witness and has
proved the same in the Court. SubInspector Brij Mohan Singh has been
adduced as P.W.10, who got prepared the
inquest of the deceased and after necessary
formalities he sent the dead body of the
deceased to Mortuary. This witness has
clearly stated that neither in the report
which has been given to Police nor at the
time of preparation of the inquest, the
informant/P.W.-1 has disclosed that the
accused-appellant and his family members
had killed the deceased. Mr. Arun Kumar
Singh Inspector has been adduced as P.W.-
11. This witness has investigated the case
and after preparing site plan, recording
statements of witnesses and completing
necessary formalities, he has submitted the
charge-sheet against the accused.

44. Kedar Verma, father-in-law of the
deceased Sangeeta on whom allegation of
illicit relationship with the deceased, were
alleged to have been made by the accusedappellant Guddu and his mother Partapi, as
per the version of the prosecution witnesses
i.e P.W.-1, P.W.-6 and P.W.-8, has not been
produced neither by the prosecution nor by
the defence.

45.
On deeper
scrutiny
of
the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses
specially P.W.-1, P.W.-6 and P.W.-8, this
Court finds that P.W.-6 and P.W.-8 was
informed by the deceased and P.W.-1 was
informed by his wife P.W.6 that the
accused-appellant Guddu and his mother
Partapi used to make allegation against the
deceased of having illicit relationship with
her father-in-law and because of said
allegation, they used to torture her and
ultimately killed her and to hide the said
murder, they hanged her on a bamboo stick
by tying a rople around her neck but the
said fact has not been proved by other
witnesses i.e. P.W.2, P.W.-3 and P.W.4, who
are none other than the brother-in-law,
sister
and
sister's
brother-in-law
6 All. Guddu Verma Vs. State of U.P.
97
respectively of the informant/P.W.-1 and
are also resident of same village, where inlaws of his daughter resides including the
accused-appellant. P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-
4 have completely denied the said fact of
illicit relationship of the deceased with her
father-in-law. It is impossible to believe
that the persons, who are residing at the
same place and are also relatives, do not
know about the illicit relationship of the
deceased with her father-in-law, whereas
the persons who reside in other village i.e.
P.W.-1, P.W.6 and P.W.8 had knowledge
about the same but they never made any
complaint before the Police or any other
authority including the Panchayat and their
relatives, who are residents of the same
village. The said fact has also not been
proved by another witnesses of the said
village.

46. We are, therefore, of the considered
view that this is a case of circumstantial
evidence and not direct evidence as all the
prosecution witnesses are hear-say witnesses,
no one has seen the incident with his/her own
eyes. In the chain of circumstantial evidence,
the motive, which is the strongest link of
prosecution evidence in this case rendered
weak and unreliable. The motive as alleged
by the prosecution cannot be relied upon on
the basis of evidence led by the prosecution
during the course of trial. Apart from the
alleged motive no other circumstance has
been proved against the accused persons
including the appellant. We otherwise find
that chain of events in a case of
circumstantial evidence which is required to
be completed by the prosecution is left
incomplete.

47.
Since
this
is
a
case
of
circumstantial evidence and the law on the
point is well settled that the prosecution
must prove the complete chain of events
which points exclusively to the hypothesis
of guilt attributed to the accused appellant.
It is also the requirement of law that the
prosecution must show that alternative
hypothesis does not exist on facts.

48.