# Jitendra Pal v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 611
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2259 of 2017
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jitendra-pal-v-state-of-u-p-54894
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for consideration
Matter
pertains
to
legality
of
impugned
judgment and order of conviction u/s 302 I.P.C.
and
sentenced
to
undergo
Rigorous
Imprisonment for Life and fine.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860-sec 302Circumstantial
evidence;
Indian
Evidence Act-sec 106-deceased was
last seen together with the appellant
who was her husband-duly proved that
the
death
of
the
deceased
was
homicidal-once the theory of "last seen
together"
was
established
by
the
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prosecution, the appellant was expected
to offer some explanation as to when
and under what circumstances he had
parted the company of the deceased-
when any fact is within the knowledge of
any person the burden of proving that
fact is upon him-failure on the part of
the accused may be used against the
accused-
prosecution
established
the
guilt
of
the
appellant
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt-Appeal
dismissed.
(E-9)

Case Law Cited

## Text

_Characters 0–39,918 of 66,003. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39918 for what follows._

11 All. Jitendra Pal Vs. State of U.P.
611
parade occurred, as such, they cannot take
the plea that the prosecution case is
doubtful because of this delay. It is evident
that there was no motive on the part of first
informant to falsely implicate the accused.
No suggestion was given to PW-1, PW-2
and PW-3 by the accused, that they were
having enmity with the accused and due to
this, they have falsely implicated the
accused. Even in their statement under
section 313 CrPC, the accused had not
specified what enmity the first informant
and other prosecution witnesses were
having with them, so as to implicate them
falsely in this case.

75. In view of the above analysis, I am
of the considered opinion that the trial court
has not committed any illegality in
convicting all the accused for the offence of
murder of Govind, for concealing the
evidence
of
murder
and
for
misappropriating his tractor-trolley and
convicting them under section 302/34, 201
and 404 I.P.C and sentencing them to
undergo the minimum punishment of life
imprisonment for offence under section
302/34 IPC. For other offences, lesser
sentence have been awarded, which have
been ordered to run concurrently with the
major sentence of life imprisonment. I am
of the considered opinion that the appeal is
meritless and is liable to be dismissed.

76. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of conviction and the
sentence imposed on 12.9.1996 by the trial
Court on all the accused-appellants in ST
no. 150 of 1993, is affirmed.

77. Accused Ashok Kumar & Ramdas
are on bail, who are directed to surrender in
the trial court forthwith, failing which the
trial court is directed to adopt coercive
measures for securing the presence of the
accused, in accordance with law. Accused
Gore alias Ujagar Singh is in jail.

78. A copy of this order be sent by
Registrar compliance to the trial court and
the jail concerned forthwith. The trial court
is directed to submit its compliance report
within two months. Office is directed to
send back, the original record of the trial
court, forthwith.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 611
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR
CHAUDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2259 of 2017

Jitendra Pal ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Akash Dikshit, Neeraj Singh, Rajesh Kumar
Sharma

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Issue for consideration
Matter
pertains
to
legality
of
impugned
judgment and order of conviction u/s 302 I.P.C.
and
sentenced
to
undergo
Rigorous
Imprisonment for Life and fine.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860-sec 302Circumstantial
evidence;
Indian
Evidence Act-sec 106-deceased was
last seen together with the appellant
who was her husband-duly proved that
the
death
of
the
deceased
was
homicidal-once the theory of "last seen
together"
was
established
by
the
612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prosecution, the appellant was expected
to offer some explanation as to when
and under what circumstances he had
parted the company of the deceased-
when any fact is within the knowledge of
any person the burden of proving that
fact is upon him-failure on the part of
the accused may be used against the
accused-
prosecution
established
the
guilt
of
the
appellant
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt-Appeal
dismissed.
(E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Padman Bihar Vs State of Odisha, reported in
AIR 2025 SC 2538
2. G. Parshwanath vs. State of Karnataka 2010
(8) SCC 593
3. Chetan Vs State of Karnataka, Criminal
Appeal No. 1568/2013
4. Ram Gopal S/o Mansharam v/s State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 14 SCC 531
5. Rajendra Vs State of NCT of Delhi, (2019) 10
SCC 623 and Satpal vs State of Haryana, (2018)
6 SCC 610
6. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra
(2006) 10 SCC 681
7. Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code,1860

List of Keywords
Chain of circumstances, false case due to
vengeance

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Akash Dikshit, Neeraj
Singh, Rajesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for
Respondent(s) : Govt. Advocate

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.
&
Hon'ble Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard Shri Neeraj Singh and Shri
Akhilendra
Kumar
Goswami,
learned
Counsels for the appellant, as well as Shri
Umesh Verma, learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. The present Criminal Appeal has
been filed against the impugned judgment
and order dated 25.08.2017, passed by the
learned Trial Court in Sessions Trial No.
205 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime no.
124 of 2015, whereby the Appellant has
been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C.
and
sentenced
to
undergo
Rigorous
Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.
20,000/- in default of payment of fine,
additional Rigorous Imprisonment for one
year.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

3. The factual matrix leading up to the
filing of the present Criminal Appeal is
delineated herein below:

3.1) In the present case, with respect to
an incident occurred on 09.03.2015, a
written tehrir was filed with Police Station
Ajgain, District Unnao, by the informant
namely Smt. Kunta, mother-in-law of the
Appellant
on
10.03.2015,
with
the
averments that her daughter namely Anita
(deceased) had been married to the
Appellant-Jitendra Pal, about two years
ago. On 09.03.2015, the appellant brought
his wife Anita to the informant's house at
Sheetal Kheda, around 11 AM and after
dropping the deceased at her parental
home, took the informant (mother-in-law)
to Makhdoom Nagar, also known as
Ludhausi, Safipur, District Unnao, for
attending a family wedding. After dropping
the informant at the venue of the said
wedding, the appellant returned back to the
informant's home at Sheetal kheda and
stayed with her wife Anita therein and
thereafter, left the informant's house on the
11 All. Jitendra Pal Vs. State of U.P.
613
same night, along with the deceased
carrying her jewellery and cash on a motorcycle.

3.2) In the next morning i.e. on
10.03.2015 the informant received an
information that Anita was found lying
dead in a wheat field outside village
Teliyani. Upon receiving this information,
informant along with other family members
arrived at Teliyani, Hasanganj, District
Unnao and found ligatures marks on her
daughter's neck, indicating a strangulation.
Informant has alleged in the said Tehrir that
the appellant along with the help of
someone, strangulated her daughter and
then dumped her body in the wheat field of
the village Teliyani. The informant has
further alleged that the appellant was
having an affair with another woman,
which led to the said incident with her
deceased daughter, Anita. She also stated
that the appellant was lastly seen on
09.03.2015, around 8 pm, while returning
to the informants house after leaving her
at her mayka, by one Nisha, who is the
appellants
cousin
father-in-laws
daughter.

3.3) Based on the aforesaid given
written information, Case Crime No. 124 of
2015, under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, was registered against the
appellant (Exhibit Ka-1) at Police Station
Ajgain, District Unnao. Police arrived at
the scene and took possession of the body
of the deceased and upon the direction of
Magistrate,
the
local
Police
Officer
prepared the Panchayatnama and sent
the dead body to the mortuary for
postmortem. In the postmortem report
(Exhibit Ka-4), the medical officer found
the cause of death to be suffocation, which
was likely due to the neck being
strangulated by a noose.

3.4) During investigation by the
police, the crime scene of the incident was
inspected and a site-map was prepared by
the Investigating Officer. The statements of
witnesses and other witnesses familiar
with the incident were also recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., and after collecting
evidences, the investigation was culminated
in submission of Charge-sheet under
Sections 302 I.P.C. against the appellant.

3.5) Cognizance was taken in the
matter
by
the
concerned
Magistrate
whereafter, case was committed to the
Court
of
Session
vide
order
dated
23.05.2015 and the case was registered as
Sessions Trial No. 205 of 2015 (State vs.
Jitendra Pal) arising out of Case Crime No.
124 of 2015 under Section 302 Indian
Penal Code, Police Station Ajgain, District
Unnao. The Court of Session framed
charge against the appellant under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the
appellant denied the charge and demanded
for a Trial. Therefore, the case was taken
up for Trial.

4. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
TRIAL COURT

4.1) During the Trial, in order to prove
the charge against the appellant, the
prosecution
examined
the
following
witnesses namely:

1
H.C.P.
Lavkush
Pandey
PW-1
Official witness
for proving the
registration of
FIR
2
Smt. Kunta
Devi Pal
PW-2
Witness of fact/
Mother of
deceased

3
Nisha Devi
PW-3
Witness of fact/
Cousin-Sister of
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deceased

4
Raju Pal
PW-4
Witness of fact/
villager

5
Dr. Arun
Kumar
Sachan
PW-5
Medical doctor
to Prove the
Post Mortem
Report
6
S.D.M.
Udaybhan
Singh
PW-6
To prove the
Inquest report

7
S.I. Vijay
Kant Mishra
PW-7
Investigating
Officer

8
Tej Pal
PW-8
Villager,
Witness of
recovery of
Broken piece of
Bangles ( Ka19) from the
crime spot &
Inquest Report

9
Dheeraj Pal
PW-9
Witness of fact/
Brother

4.2) Furthermore, the prosecution also
relied
on
the
following
important
documentary evidence, to substantiate its
case: -

i
First Information
Report
Exhibit Ka1
ii
Written Report
Exhibit Ka3
iii
Postmortem Report
Exhibit Ka4
iv
Panchayatnama
Exhibit Ka5
v
Site Plan
Exhibit Ka11
vi
Fard/Recovery Memo
of 4 pieces of broken
Bangles from the crime
spot, where the
deceased body was
found
Exhibit Ka12
vii
Fard/Recovery Memo
of pieces of broken
Bangles from the
Verandah of the
complainant
Exhibit Ka13
viii
Call Details Record
(C.D.R.)
Exhibit Ka15
ix
Fard/Recovery Memo
of Mobile PhoneINTEX of Accused/
Appellant from his
person
Exhibit Ka16
x
Charge-sheet
Exhibit Ka17

4.3) During Trial, the prosecution
heavily relied on the oral evidence of the
above prosecution witnesses and the related
documentary
evidences,
namely,
FIR,
General
Diary(GD),
written
Tahrir,
postmortem
report,
Inquest
report/Panchayatnama, letter to CMO,
challan of dead body, letter to RI, sample
seal, Naksa Nazari, Fard broken bangles,
CDR details, Fard mobile and charge sheet,
Exhibit A-1 to Exhibit A-17, and strived to
prove the charge against the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt, though, there was
no ocular witness to the present incident
and the entire case was based on
circumstantial evidence.

4.4) During the examination by the
prosecution, the PW-1 H.C.P. Lavkush
Pandey, who was the FIR writer in the
present case, has testified the contents of
the FIR as well as of the General Diary.
The
witness
denied
the
defence's
suggestion during cross-examination that
11 All. Jitendra Pal Vs. State of U.P.
615
the complaint was registered after meeting
with the complainant, in the absence of
orders from the higher officials.

4.5) The informant Smt. Kunta Devi
Pal was produced as PW-2, who has fully
supported
the
prosecution
case.
Additionally, PW-2 has testified that the
appellant was in a love affair with another
woman, leading to her daughters death.
She also stated that Nisha Devi, her Cousin
Father-in-laws daughter had last seen the
deceased
along
with
the
appellant.
Furthermore, PW-2 testified that relying
upon her complaint the Police arrived at the
crime spot, conducted Panchayatnama of
her daughter's dead body, sealed it, and sent
the deceaseds body for a post-mortem.

During her cross-examination, the
informant-witness PW-2 has testified that
the appellant had come with the deceased
upon her request only, to take care of her
house, as she would be attending a family
wedding at Ludhausi, Safipur, District
Unnao. She admitted the factum of Nisha,
informing her about appellants returning
to his matrimonial home on the same
evening. Also, she had written a report on
paper, though she is an illiterate lady.
Further, she cannot explain why she did not
include anything in the report pertaining to
what the deceased said to her about the
love affair of the appellant. She stated that
Teliyani was located 2-3 KM from her
village. Her family consisted of her
husband and elder son, who were working
in Surat and her younger son had gone to
attend a marriage in a nearby village
located about 2 KM and had not come
home on the said night of incident. PW-2
refuted the defence's suggestion that the
deceased had love affair with a village boy
before marriage and that boy was not happy
of the deceased being married to someone
else. She further refuted the defence's
suggestion that due to fear of public shame,
she has chosen not to name the said village
boy and instead named the appellant in her
written complaint.

4.6) PW-3, Nisha Devi was examined
by the prosecution wherein she testified
that the deceased had not said anything to
her, before her death. On 9.03.2015, at
11:00 AM, the appellant brought his wife,
Anita, to Sheetal kheda and took his
mother-in-law to the wedding venue on his
motorcycle and then returned to the village
on the same evening. She testified that she
didnt see the appellant taking Anita away
on the motorcycle. Furthermore, on the
next morning, she heard that the appellant
had murdered his Wife-Anita, because the
appellant was having an affair with another
woman. During her cross-examination by
the defense, PW-3 stated that she did not
know the girl with whom the appellant was
having any affair.

4.7) PW-4, Raju Pal was examined by
the prosecution wherein he has testified
that the deceaseds home is next to his in
the same village. He testified that the
deceased was married to the appellant two
and a half years ago, before the incident.
He also stated that the appellant was
working in Nainital and just after one and
half year of their marriage, information
spread in the neighborhood & the entire
village that Anita's husband was of
unsavory conduct and was involved with a
lady in Nainital. On 09.03.2015, the
appellant returned to the village around 6
PM on his motorcycle. A short while later,
PW-4 stated that he met the deceased, who
was leaving with the appellant on his
motorcycle. He asked them where they
were going that evening, to which the
appellant replied that he would be returning
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
back shortly, but they never returned. The
next day, Anita's body was found in a
wheat field in Teliyana. He, along with
many villagers, went to see the body.

During his cross-examination by the
defense, he testified that Smt. Kunta Devi
Pal is his Aunt. On the day of the incident,
he had gone to attend a Thervi ceremony in
the neighboring village of Mikhani Kheda.
The PW-4 denied the suggestion of the
defense that on the day of the incident, he
was not in the village at all. The witness
has also denied the suggestion of the
defense that he did not see the appellant
coming or going anywhere on the day of
the incident.

4.8) The prosecution examined PW-5, Dr.
Arun Kumar Sachan, the medical officer, who
conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and
has verified the injuries sustained by the
deceased. In the Autopsy report, the probable
time of death was approximately one and a half
days before the time of the examination. The
cause of death was asphyxia, which is possible
due to a noose around the neck. The said
witness also stated that it was not possible for
the deceased to have died by hanging herself;
rather, she could have died by strangulation.
The deceased's death is likely to have occurred
sometime during the night of March 9th -10th,
2015. The post-mortem reports were prepared
in his handwriting and signature at the time of
the examination, as well as signed by her
colleague, attested as to Exhibit Ka-4. In his
cross-examination, the witness has withstood
his testimony relating to her statement of
death by strangulation, which he stated was
given based on the symptoms mentioned in the
post-mortem report.

4.9) PW-6 Udaybhan Singh, SDM,
was examined by the prosecution wherein
he has testified in detail about the
procedure
followed
during
the
Panchayatnama
proceedings
and
has
supported the prosecution case.

4.10) PW-7 Inspector Vijay Kant
Mishra, is the Investigating Officer of the
case, who has explained the steps taken
during the course of investigation and has
supported the prosecution case on the basis
of
evidence
collected
during
the
investigation. He further testified about the
Site Map/Plan (Exhibit Ka-11) prepared by
him, as well as recovery of Four pieces of
red bangles which were found lying at the
scene of the incident & subsequently,
sealed in a cloth and taken into police
custody. During further investigation and
while keeping surveillance upon the
appellants call records, the said PW-7 has
stated that the cell phone location of the
appellant was found near the place of
incident on 09.03.2015. He has testified
relating to the Mobile number used by the
Appellant and the lady, with whom the
appellant had love affair. In the same
sequence, on 15.03.2015 the appellant was
arrested at Chamrauli Mod at 5:45 PM.
PW-7 has further testified that the appellant
has
stated
in
his
statement,
while
confessing to the crime that he had fallen in
love with Sardarni named Guddi,
whose husband had already died. They both
were in regular contact with each other
over phone, but his wife had a dispute over
this matter, which is why the appellant
murdered her.

During his cross-examination by the
defense, the PW-7 did not disclose on
whose name the SIM card number in
question was taken. The witness refuted the
defense's claim that, at the complainant's
request, he had shown the mobile number
in question. He denied suggestion that the
mobile recovered from the Appellant was
11 All. Jitendra Pal Vs. State of U.P.
617
being used by the appellant himself and
that phone number had neither been
recovered from nor used by the appellant.

4.11) Tejpal was examined by the
prosecution as PW-8, who remain present
all the time at the site of incident and even
certified the Panchayatnama, being a
witness. During Cross-examination, the
witness refuted the defense's claims that he
was coerced into signing a blank form or
that he had provided false testimony on her
aunt's request.

4.12)
Dheeraj
Pal
(brother
of
deceased) was examined by the prosecution
as PW-9, he has testified that the appellant
while living in Nainital was working as a
blacksmith, before and after his marriage.
He testified that his sister used to tell him,
that the appellant was having an affair with
the blacksmith shop owner, Sardarini. His
mother and others were well aware with the
said fact. His sister Anita and the
convict/appellant used to have regular
fighting as a result of the same and that is
why the appellant killed his sister.

During
his
extensive
Crossexamination, the PW-9 has stated that
neither him nor anyone from his family had
been to Nainital, where the convict
/appellant was residing and working. He
did not know the name of the Sardarini,
with whom the appellant was having an
affair. The witness vehemently denied the
defense
suggestion
that
appellants
relationship with the Sardarini is a
fallacious statement just because he is the
deceased's brother.

5. On the basis of the above material
produced and oral witnesses testified as
well as relying upon the law and principles
laid down in catena of judgments by the
Honble Apex Court in the cases of the
conviction on the basis of circumstantial
evidence, the learned Court of Sessions by
its judgment and order dated 25.08.2017
reached to a conclusion relating to the guilt
of the appellant, having been proved
beyond reasonable doubt against the
appellant and consequently, the appellant
was convicted and sentenced under Section
302 I.P.C. with Rigorous Imprisonment for
Life and Fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in case of
default in payment of fine, additional
rigorous imprisonment for one year.

6. It is in his aforesaid background that
the Appellant as being aggrieved, has
preferred the present Appeal under section
374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
against the Impugned Judgment and order
dated 25.08.2017 passed by the Ld. Trial
Court in Sessions Trial No. 205 of 2015
(State Vs. Jitendra Pal) arising out of Case
Crime No. 124 of 2015, Ajgain police
station, District Unnao.

7. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF
THE PARTIES

7.1)
Challenging
the
impugned
Judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 25.08.2017, learned Counsel
for the appellant has submitted that the
Court of Sessions has erred in recording the
findings of conviction and sentence against
the appellant. According to the learned
Counsel, the prosecution has completely
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt, as well as the testimony of witnesses
are
neither
reliable
nor
has
been
corroborated with sufficient evidences and
the appellant has been falsely implicated in
the present case. He has further submitted
that the Learned Trial Court has completely
ignored the fact that there is no independent
witness supporting the prosecutions case
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and the findings are solely based upon
surmises and conjectures.

7.2) Learned Counsel has sought to
contend that the entire prosecution case
rests solely upon circumstantial evidence.
There is no direct or ocular witness to the
alleged act of strangulation. The evidence
produced by the prosecution fails to satisfy
the well-settled principles which are
required to be a foundation stone for the
conviction
of
the
appellant
on
circumstantial evidence.

7.3) It has been contended that none of
the
circumstances
has
been
proved
conclusively. Furthermore, the so-called
last seen witnesses are unreliable as
they lack any substantive corroboration
because PW-3 (Nisha Devi) has admitted
that she did not saw the appellant taking the
deceased away and subsequently, PW-4
(Raju Pal), a related witness, has also given
contradictory
versions
regarding
his
presence; although he admitted attending a
theravi ceremony in another village on the
same date, which casts serious doubt on his
testimony. Hence, the last seen together
circumstance collapses.

7.4)
Learned
Counsel
for
the
appellant has further contended that even
the alleged motive is speculative without
rendering any substantial proof for the
same. The alleged affair with a woman
named Gudddi is unsupported by any
independent proof. Even not a single
witness from Nainital or his workplace
has been produced or examined. Even
PW-9, the brother of the deceased, has
admitted that he never visited Nainital
and did not know the said woman. Thus,
motive
remains
unestablished.
The
alleged recoveries are even doubtful.
Hence, the chain of circumstances is
incomplete as well as inconclusive in the
present case.

7.5) Learned Counsel has submitted
that Medical Evidence produced on
record are not even conclusive in nature
for punishing the appellant for the
offence of Murder. The postmortem only
indicates death by asphyxia; it does not
identify the appellant as the perpetrator.

7.6)
Learned
Counsel
for
the
appellant has finally submitted that the
presumption
of
innocence
stands
fortified in the present matter, and unless
the prosecution proves guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, conviction cannot
stand. He has also taken a stand that,
except for evidence of last seen together,
there
was
no
other
incriminating
material against him and the nature of
circumstantial evidence available against
him raised merely a doubt that he may
have committed the murder, but the
same being not conclusive, the Appellant
cannot be convicted only on the basis of
last seen together and in that regard
relied on the judgment of Padman Bihar
Vs State of Odisha, reported in AIR
2025 SC 2538.

7.7) Per contra, learned Additional
Government Advocate (A.G.A.) appearing
for the State has opposed the contentions
advanced by learned Counsel for the
appellant and has submitted that the
prosecutions case is well-founded and
fully proved by a chain of circumstantial
evidence, leading to no other hypothesis
than the guilt of the appellant-Jitendra Pal,
for the murder of his wife, Smt. Anita Pal
(deceased), punishable under Section 302
I.P.C. It has been further argued that the
appellant was involved in an extra-marital
relationship with a woman (Guddi) at
11 All. Jitendra Pal Vs. State of U.P.
619
his workplace in Nainital. The deceased
had complained of this affair to her mother
(PW-2) and brother (PW-9) and the entire
village knew about it as also (PW-4). This
provided a strong motive for the appellant
to eliminate his wife, as she was opposing
his illicit conduct.

7.8) Learned A.G.A. has further
contended that the prosecution has relied
on the last seen together circumstance,
as PW-3 (Nisha Devi) and PW-4 (Raju Pal)
both have deposed that on the evening of
09.03.2015, the appellant was seen leaving
his home with the deceased on his
motorcycle, and both did not return
thereafter. On the following morning,
10.03.2015, Anitas dead body was found
in a wheat field near village Teliyani. The
proximity of time between the deceased
being last seen with the appellant and her
homicidal death points unerringly towards
the guilt of the appellant.

7.9) Learned A.G.A. has also drawn
the attention of this Court towards the
alleged
recovery
and
corroborative
materials produced in the present case. The
broken red bangles recovered near the body
(proved by PW-8 Tejpal) establish a scuffle
at the scene. CDR (Call Detail Record)
evidence proved by the Investigating
Officer (PW-7 Vijay Kant Mishra) placed
the accuseds mobile location near the
scene of crime around the relevant time.
The appellant was arrested with a mobile
phone from which calls to the said woman
were made, with whom he was in
continuous touch on the date of incident. In
his disclosure statement, he admitted to
having quarreled with his wife over his
affair.

7.10) Furthermore, Learned A.G.A.
has questioned the subsequent conduct of
the appellant, as he absconded after the
incident
and
did
not
inform
the
complainant or the police, of his wifes
disappearance, which further indicates his
guilty mind and conduct. Thus, according
to
him,
a
complete
chain
of
the
circumstances has been interwoven and as
such the impugned judgment and order of
the learned Trial Court, does not requires
any interference.

DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS

8. We have heard the learned Counsel
for both the parties and perused the
materials brought on record. The power of
this Court as being the 1st Appellate Court
under Section 386 Cr.P.C. are as wide as
the Trial Court. This Court in view of the
power having been bestowed by the
aforesaid provision has a mandatory duty to
analyses all the evidence brought on record
and then to consider, whether the Trial
Courts assessment of evidence and its
opinion regarding conviction deserves
and/or
requires
any
interference.

9. After hearing the learned counsel
for the parties and having perused the
materials on record, this Court has given its
anxious thought to the entire gamut of facts
and evidences led by the parties in the
present case and is of the view that there is
no quarrel that the present case is purely
based on circumstantial evidence as there is
no ocular witness. The law is no longer trite
that as far as circumstantial evidence is
concerned, the events have to be so
intertwined and connected, so that together
they form an unbreakable complete chain,
wherein the only hypothesis available
would be pointing towards the guilt of the
Accused. In this regard, the law holding the
ground is the landmark judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC
116, wherein it has been held that;

"153. A close analysis of this
decision would show that the following
conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully
established:

(1) the circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this
Court indicated that the circumstances
concerned must or should and not
may be established. There is not only a
grammatical
but
a
legal
distinction
between may be proved and must be
or should be proved as was held by this
Court
inShivaji
Sahabrao
Bobadev.State
of
Maharashtra[(1973) 2 SCC 793: 1973
SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where
the observations were made: [SCC para
19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]

Certainly, it is a primary
principle that the accusedmustbe and
not merelymaybe guilty before a court
can convict and the mental distance
between may be and must be is long
and divides vague conjectures from sure
conclusions.

(2) the facts so established
should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,
that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis
except that the accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be
of a conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of
evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by
the accused.

154. These five golden principles,
if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel
of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence."

10. In the present case, the curtain
raises with the recovery of a dead-body of
the deceased Anita, wife of the appellant,
on 09.03.2015 at village Teliyani, Unnao.
A written complaint came to be lodged by
the mother-in-law (PW-2) of the appellant.
Interestingly, PW-2, complainant has stated
in her complaint that the deceased was last
seen together with the appellant by PW-3
(Nisha Devi). Thus, a last seen theory has
also been developed by the prosecution in
order to bring home the charges against the
appellant. Therefore, this Court, while
examining the evidence brought on record,
would
be
analyzing
not
only
the
circumstantial evidence which has been led
against the appellant but would also
analyze the last-seen theory, which has
been propounded by the prosecution story.
Apparently, a motive has been also
sought to be accorded to the said incident
by further unfolding the story by narrating
that the appellant due to an illicit
relationship with one Guddi of Nainital,
had not been treating the deceased properly
and there was continuous fight between
them, and therefore, to remove the said
obstacle from their illicit relationship, the
11 All. Jitendra Pal Vs. State of U.P.
621
appellant had a motive to commit the said
crime. Thus, according to the prosecution a
complete
chain
of
events
stands
interconnected, which points towards the
guilt of the appellant.

11. As far as the death of deceased
(Anita) is concerned, her dead-body was
found at village Teliyani in a wheat-field
which is about one and a half kilometer
away from her parental home, located at
village Sheetal khera. The Inquest report
which has been exhibited as Ka-5,
invariably states that the ligature mark
present on front of neck which might be
due to rope and the panchayatnama does
not record any other injury on the body of
the deceased. Although, the inquest report
records the status of dead-body of the
deceased Anita, however, since the cause
of death was not clear so the body was send
for postmortem-examination. In the post
mortem report which has been exhibited as
Ka-4 it is noted that rigor mortis passed off
from neck and upper extremities and was
present in Lower limb and as far as the
ante-mortem injuries are concerned, it
specifically notes ligature mark present
on the front of neck. It also mentions
that the death was caused due to antemortem strangulation and immediate
cause of death is asphyxia. This Court
notes that the said post mortem report
has been proved by PW-5, Dr. Arun
Kumar Sachan who has stated in his
testimony that the death was caused by
tightening of rope on the neck, which
was not possible to be done individually
by the deceased herself and the death has
happened in the intervening night of
09/10.03.2015.
From
the
aforesaid
evidence, it is clear that the death of
deceased Anita Pal is not a suicide,
according to opinion of the medical
expert (PW-5) and is homicidal.

12. Further, the inquest report contains
details about clothes fully worn by the
deceased, a yellow metal ring in the middle
finger of the right hand, white metal rings
in the toes. Thus, taking into consideration
the inquest report and keeping in view the
clothes and the metals available on body of
the deceased, the reason for robbing or any
other such act is totally ruled out. The post
mortem report also does not disclose any
sexual assault on the Deceased-Anita.
Thus, the motive of robbing or sexual
assault is altogether ruled out.

13. As the story unfolds further, it has
been stated by PW-1, the de facto
complainant and also mother of the
deceased that she had given her daughter in
marriage to the appellant few years back
and on the said fateful day of 09.03.2015,
just after the festival of Holi, the deceased
along with her husband, who is the
appellant herein, came to her house at
Sheetal khera at around 11 AM and after
leaving deceased Anita Pal at her parental
place, took the PW-2 to her brother's
village at Ludhausi, Safipur, District Unnao
to attend a marriage ceremony. In her
examination-in-chief, she has stated that
since her son-in-law i.e. the appellant had a
love affair with some other lady, therefore,
he has killed her daughter and has also
stated that her cousin, father-in-law's
daughter, namely, Nisha had last seen her
daughter along with the appellant, leaving
on his motorcycle at around 8PM in the
night. However, this Court find that PW-3,
Nisha Devi, during her examination-inchief, has specifically stated that she had
not seen the deceased going along with the
appellant on his motorcycle, although she
has corroborated the other statements of
PW-2, relating to her story of first dropping
the deceased at her parental home by the
appellant and then taking the PW-2 to her
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
brother's place for a marriage to Ludhausi,
Safipur, District Unnao and subsequently
coming back alone to village Sheetal khera.
PW-3 also supported the statement of PW2 as far as the love affair of the appellant
with some other lady was concerned.

14. This Court finds that PW-4 (Raju
Pal) is a villager and neighbor of PW-2 and
has corroborated the statement of PW-2
and PW-3 as far as coming of the appellant
along with his wife to Sheetal khera at
around 11 AM on the fateful day. He has
also supported the statement of the PW-2 as
far as leaving of the deceased at her home
and taking his mother-in-law to attend
marriage ceremony at village Ludhausi. He
has also stated in his examination- in-chief
that he saw the appellant returning to the
village at around 6 p.m. in the evening and
after a short while taking away the
deceased (Anita) along with him on his
motorcycle after sometime. He has also
stated that he asked the appellant as to
where both were going, to which the
Appellant had replied that they will be
coming back in a short while. This Court
finds
that
PW-4
was
subjected
to
intensified
cross-examination
to
his
statements, however his testimony relating
to last seen together of the deceased
and the Appellant, remained intact.

15. From the aforesaid statements,
although it can be argued that there are
some inconsistency and variation in the
statements of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4
relating to the last seen together theory
propounded by the prosecution, as PW-2
stated that PW-3 had told her about the
deceased having been last seen together
with the appellant and subsequently, PW-3
denying the same, but one thing remains
intact that the appellant did come to Sheetal
khera on 09.03.2015 and he, after leaving
the deceased at her matrimonial home, took
his mother-in-law to attend a marriage at
his brother's place at village Ludhausi and
again came back alone to Sheetal khera,
where the deceased-Anita was present.
Therefore, the coming and presence of the
Appellant at Sheetal Khera, which is
located in the vicinity of the place where
the dead body of Deceased-Anita was
found has been proved and remains
unchallenged.

16. Further, PW-4 is a villager and
nowhere it has come in evidence that he
was inimical to the appellant or had any
reason
to
testify
in
favour of
the
prosecution. He is the witness, who has
stated that he has last-seen the appellant
along with the deceased at around 6 p.m. in
the evening on that day. In his crossexamination,
his
version
remained
unchallenged and this Court does not find
his testimony to be unreliable as he is a
natural witness, keeping in view his
presence in the village and his natural
manner of interacting with the appellant
and the deceased, when they were seen
together. Therefore, it can be safely
concluded that as far as the appellant is
concerned, he was very much present at
Sheetal khera on that fateful day of
09.03.2015 and the deceased was also
present in Sheetal khera and there were no
other person present at the parental home of
the deceased on that day, as it has also
come in the evidence of PW-2 and PW-9,
that the father and elder brother of the
deceased were working at Surat and her
younger brother (PW-9) had gone for a
marriage at adjoining village Lokhariya and
did not return to his home on that night.

17.
No
doubt,
discrepancies
or
inconsistencies in prosecution evidence is a
short fall from which no criminal case is
11 All. Jitendra Pal Vs. State of U.P.
623
free. However, this court cannot be
oblivious to the fact that while considering
the deposition of a witness, this Court has
to take into consideration the process in
which the facts are perceived and testified
by a witness. Time and again, it has been
held in a catena of judgments that when an
incident occurs, a witness perceives facts
according to his intelligence and experience
in life and subsequently when he or she is
called upon to recollect those facts, after a
long gap of time, his or her memory may
help or deter him/her in recollection of
those facts and he/she may flounder on the
precise time, place and sequence of events.
This human process brings discrepancy in
the deposition of a witness, which may be
termed as normal. The testimony of PW-4
as far as the timing relating to having seen
the deceased and the appellant together on
the fateful day at 6 PM in the evening is an
outcome of such a discrepancy. However,
when this discrepancy is weighed and
marshalled along with other evidence,
which has come on record, it can be safely
deduced that both the deceased and the
appellant were last seen together on the
said fateful day. Further, it cannot be
discounted that this kind of discrepancies in
time, especially in a village, may occur on
account of errors of observation of facts,
normal errors of memory due to lapse of
time or mental disposition of a witness.
These discrepancies are those which are
normal and expected of a normal person
and cannot be termed as any material
discrepancies,
which
may
affect
the
substratum of the story itself.