# Kamal Prasad v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 567
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 2016
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar, Zafeer Ahmad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kamal-prasad-v-state-of-u-p-54458
- **Pages:** 14

## Text

_Characters 0–39,779 of 44,541. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39779 for what follows._

4 All. Kamal Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
567

68. The learned trial court in the impugned judgement has not adverted to the uncontroverted
fact that medical evidence in the record does not establish homicidal death .

69. The impugned judgement rendered by the learned trial court overlooks the material
contradictions in the testimonies of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4.

70. The impugned judgement is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

Conclusions

71. In the wake of the preceding discussion this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to
prove the charges under Section 302, 420, 467 I.P.C. against the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt. The accused is acquitted of the offences he was charged with by the learned trial court.

72. The Jail Appeal is allowed.

73. The appellant shall be forthwith released from prison and set forth at liberty unless
required in any other criminal case.

74. The Court would like to accord its deep appreciation for the scholarly assistance rendered
by Shri Dharmendra Singhal, learned Senior Counsel and also the assistance of Ms. Deeksha
Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Shivendra Singhal, learned counsel ably pro bono
assisted the Court.

75. A copy of this judgement translated in Hindi to be communicated to the appellant by the
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 567
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 2016

Kamal Prasad ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether, on the basis of the circumstances established by the prosecution, the offence
committed by the accused falls within the ambit of "murder" under S. 300 I.P.C. punishable under S. 302
I.P.C., or whether it constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under S. 304 I.P.C.;
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and whether the chain of circumstances established the involvement of the accused in causing the death of
the deceased. (Paras 34-52)

Headnotes
Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Appreciation of evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Ss. 302, 304 Part II - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 134 - Credibility of related/interested
witnesses - Evidence of a related or interested witness is not to be discarded merely on the
ground of relationship; law only requires that such evidence be subjected to careful scrutiny; if
testimony is found to be natural, consistent and trustworthy, it can safely form the basis of
conviction - PW-1 being son of deceased and accused was a natural witness; PW-2 corroborated
testimony of PW-1 on material particulars; occurrence took place inside house where ordinarily
independent witnesses would not be available; non-examination of scribe, panch witnesses and
other witnesses not fatal as quality of evidence and not quantity is material - Testimonies of PW1 and PW-2 found consistent, natural and inspiring confidence - Presence of accused, quarrel
immediately prior to incident and accused leaving spot established. (Paras 26-33)
Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302, 304 Part II -
Principles governing circumstantial evidence - Panchsheel principles - Circumstances established
that accused and deceased were present inside house; accused was involved in quarrel with
deceased; cries heard; accused seen leaving place of occurrence immediately after incident;
deceased found dead with injuries; axe found at place of occurrence; accused remained
absconding; accused failed to offer any explanation under S. 313 Cr.P.C. - Cumulative effect of
circumstances clearly established that accused caused injuries to deceased resulting in death.
(Paras 34-38)
Criminal Law - Murder and Culpable Homicide - Distinction - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 299,
300, 302, 304 Part II - Exception to murder - Sudden quarrel - Absence of premeditation -
Determination of mens rea - Incident occurred inside house in course of quarrel between
accused and deceased; no material to suggest premeditated intention to cause death;
occurrence took place on spur of moment; prosecution failed to establish prior planning,
preparation or design; though sharp-edged weapon was used on vital part of body, surrounding
circumstances created doubt regarding existence of intention to cause death; accused must be
attributed with knowledge that such act was likely to cause death - Prosecution failed to
establish element of intention required under S. 300 I.P.C.; knowledge attributable to accused
clearly established - Conviction altered from S. 302 I.P.C. to S. 304 Part II I.P.C. (Paras 39-55)
Criminal Law - Sentence - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 304 Part II - Accused had already
undergone incarceration for a period of 15 years, 04 months and 14 days as on 21.02.2026,
exceeding maximum sentence prescribed under S. 304 Part II I.P.C. - Period of imprisonment
already undergone held sufficient sentence; sentence of fine maintained - Appeal partly allowed
and accused directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. (Paras 56-60)
Held: The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are consistent, natural and inspire confidence. Their evidence
clearly establishes that the accused was present at the place of occurrence, was involved in a quarrel with the
deceased immediately prior to the incident, and was seen leaving the spot thereafter. (Para 33)
The cumulative effect of the established circumstances clearly establishes that it was the accused who caused
the injuries to the deceased which resulted in her death. However, the occurrence took place in the course of
a sudden quarrel and there was absence of any premeditation. (Paras 37-38)

The prosecution has not been able to establish the element of intention required to bring the case within the
ambit of S. 300 I.P.C. However, the knowledge attributable to the accused is clearly established.
Consequently, the offence committed by the accused would fall within the ambit of S. 304 Part II I.P.C. and
the conviction under S. 302 I.P.C. is liable to be altered to one under S. 304 Part II I.P.C. (Paras 51-55)
The conviction under S. 302 I.P.C. is altered to a conviction under S. 304 Part II I.P.C. The period of
imprisonment already undergone is held to be sufficient sentence for the offence under S. 304 Part II I.P.C.
The sentence of fine is maintained. The appeal stands partly allowed and the accused-appellant is
directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. (Paras 56-60) (E-7)
4 All. Kamal Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
569
Case Law Cited
M.C. Ali v. State of Kerala, (2010) 4 SCC 573; State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, (1988) 3 SCC 686; Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116; Pundalik v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 15
SCC 122; Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1989)2 SCC 217; Rambir v. State (NCT Delhi),
(2019) 6 SCC 122; Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 753.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Evidence Act, 1872

List of Keywords
Circumstantial evidence; interested witness; related witness; credibility of witness; quarrel; sudden quarrel;
premeditation; chain of circumstances; ocular evidence; murder; culpable homicide not amounting to murder;
intention; knowledge; mens rea; absconding; axe; recovery; S. 302 I.P.C.; S. 304 Part II I.P.C.; S. 313
Cr.P.C.; S. 134 of the Indian Evidence Act

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Arising out of judgment and order dated 29.03.2016 passed by Sessions Judge,
Balrampur in S.T. No. 145/2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 356/2012, Police Station Pachperwa, District
Balrampur, whereby conviction under S. 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for life with fine were recorded.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Sri Piyush Kumar Singh
Advs. for the Respondents:
Learned A.G.A. for the State.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Zafeer Ahmad, J.)

1. Heard, Sri Piyush Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A for the
State. Perused the records.

2. The aforesaid criminal appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 29.03.2016 passed by
Sessions Judge, Balrampur in S.T. No. 145/2013 (State v. Kamal Prasad), arising out of Case
Crime No. 356/2012, Police Station Pachperwa, District Balrampur whereby the appellant has been
convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (in short I.P.C) and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo an additional one year of simple imprisonment.

Prosecution Story in Nutshell:

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.04.2012, the complainant Anil Kumar s/o
Kamal Prasad r/o Semrahwa, Police Station Pachperwa, District Balrampur submitted a written
report at Police Station Pachperwa stating therein that at about 2:30 PM, his mother, Indravati, was
alone at home when his father, Kamal Prasad, entered the house and started quarrelling with her
and, in a fit of rage, assaulted her with an axe, causing her death. It was further stated that the
complainant, along with his friend Kunjan Chaudhary s/o Raja Ram, was present at some distance
and when they heard cries from the house, immediately rushed towards the spot. It was further
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
alleged that upon reaching there, they saw the accused Kamal Prasad fleeing from the house. It was
also stated that when the complainant entered the house, he found his mother lying dead therein.

4. On the basis of the written report (Ext. Ka- 1), a check FIR (Ext. Ka- 3) was registered
under Section 302 IPC against accused-appellant,Kamal Nath. The investigation commenced on
19.04.2012, and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka- 14) under Section
302 IPC was submitted against the accused-appellant. The case was committed to the Court of
Session, where charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused. The accused denied
the charge, pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, namely: PW- 1 Anil
Kumar, PW- 2 Kunjan Chaudhary, PW- 3 SI Anirudh Kumar Singh, PW- 4 Constable Akhilesh
Yadav, PW- 5 Dr. Rajendra Kapoor, PW- 6 IO Dinesh Singh Yadav and PW-7 SHO Uma Shankar
Yadav.

6. The following documents were produced and proved before the trial court:

EXHIBITNUMBER

PARTICULARS

Ext. Ka-1
Written Report
Ext. Ka-2
Panchayatnama
Ext. Ka-3
Check FIR
Ext. Ka-4
Copy of Report
Ext. Ka-5
Post-mortem Report
Ext. Ka-6
Letter to RI
Ext. Ka-7
Letter to CMO
Ext. Ka-8
Sketch of Dead Body
Ext. Ka-9

Inquest of Dead Body

Ext. Ka-10
Sample seal
Ext. Ka-11
Site plan of the place of occurrence
Ext. Ka-12
Recovery Memo of blood-stained and plain
soil
Ext. Ka-13
Recovery Memo of blood-stained axe
Ext. Ka-14
Charge Sheet
Ext. Ka-15
Supplementary Charge Sheet

7. The following material exhibits were produced and proved before the trial court:

EXHIBIT NUMBER
ITEM/DESCRIPTION
Material Exhibit-1

Sample of plain earth from the place of
occurrence
Material Exhibit-2

Sample of blood-stained earth from the place
of the occurrence
Material Exhibit-3
Axe

8. Furthermore, the appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure,1973 (in short "Cr.P.C."), denied the prosecution allegations and asserted that
he has been falsely implicated due to prior enmity and a conspiracy aimed at usurping his property.
4 All. Kamal Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
571

9. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the
learned Trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo an additional one year of simple imprisonment.

Submissions made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant:-

10. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that the impugned judgment of
conviction suffers from serious infirmities and is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that there
exist material contradictions between the F.I.R. and the testimonies of PW-1, complainant, and
PW-2 ,alleged eye-witness, which go to the root of the prosecution case and render it unreliable. It
is further contended that the medical evidence, particularly the post-mortem report, does not fully
corroborate the prosecution version, thereby creating reasonable doubt regarding the manner of
occurrence. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the
present case is essentially based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has not been able
to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused.
It is argued that important links in the chain are missing, and the possibility of false implication
cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel has also argued that PW-1 and PW-2 are interested witnesses,
being closely related and acquainted with the deceased, and their testimonies have not been
corroborated by any independent witness. It is contended that reliance upon such interested
testimony without adequate corroboration is unsafe. On the aforesaid grounds, it is submitted that
the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to
benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal

Submissions made by learned A.G.A. : -

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted
that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
It is contended that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are natural, consistent and trustworthy and
there are no material contradictions affecting the core of the prosecution case. The minor
discrepancies, if any, are only natural and do not go to the root of the matter. It is further submitted
that the ocular version is fully corroborated by the medical evidence, as the nature of injuries found
on the body of the deceased clearly support the prosecution case regarding the manner of assault
and the weapon used. The recovery of the blood-stained axe from the place of occurrence further
lends assurance to the prosecution story. Learned A.G.A. has also argued that merely because PW1 and PW-2 are related or known to the deceased, their testimonies cannot be discarded, especially
when the same inspire confidence and are otherwise reliable. It is submitted that the presence of the
accused at the place of occurrence, his conduct in fleeing from the spot, and his failure to offer any
plausible explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. constitute strong incriminating circumstances. It is
further submitted that the alleged lapses in investigation are not sufficient to discredit the otherwise
cogent and reliable evidence on record. The prosecution has been able to establish a complete chain
of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. On these grounds, it is submitted that
the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Oral Testimonies:

In order to appreciate the issues arising in the present appeal, it is appropriate to examine, in
brief, the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution.

12. PW-1 Anil Kumar, son of the deceased Indra Devi and the accused, deposed that the
incident occurred on 19.04.2012 at about 2:30 P.M., when his mother was alone in the house. He
further deposed that he was sitting along with Kunjan Chaudhary, PW-2, at a place approximately
20 meters from his house, when he saw the accused in an intoxicated condition, entering the house
and quarrelling with the deceased, which was audible to him. As such quarrels were a routine
occurrence on account of the accused demanding money for liquor, he did not immediately
intervene. However, upon hearing the screams of his mother, he rushed towards the house and saw
the accused coming out therefrom. Upon entering, he found his mother lying dead in a pool of
blood between two dehri (earthen vessel used to store grains). The accused could not be traced
thereafter. He further desposed that a written report was scribed on his narration and lodged,
pursuant to which the Investigating Officer reached the spot and conducted the inquest and other
necessary proceedings.

13. During cross-examination, he admitted that the door of his house was not visible from
the place where he was sitting and that he had not witnessed the actual assault. He deposed that
upon hearing a scream, he rushed to the house and found his mother already dead. He denied the
suggestion of any property dispute or false implication of the accused. He further deposed that he
was about 16 years of age at the time of the incident and that he was in a sound mental condition at
the time of making his statement.

14. PW-2 Kunjan Chaudhary deposed that on 19.04.2012, at approximately 2:30 P.M., he
was conversing with PW-1 Anil Kumar near the house of Ram Gulam Chaudhary, situated about
20 meters from the accused's residence. He saw the accused-appellant enter his house, followed by
the sound of him abusing the deceased over demands for liquor money. After nearly ten minutes,
upon hearing a scream, the witness rushed to the spot and saw the accused fleeing the house.
Inside, he discovered the deceased in a pool of blood between two dehris (grain storage vessels)
with her throat slit. A blood-stained axe was lying near the body. The witness further deposed that
his siblings were away at work and that he was present when the police prepared the inquest report
(Ext. Ka-2) at approximately 4:00 P.M.

15. During cross-examination, the witness affirmed that there were no structural obstructions
between his location and the place of occurrence. He maintained that despite his orientation facing
north, he witnessed the accused entering the house from the east and subsequently fleeing towards
the west post-incident. The witness provided specific details regarding the posture of the deceased,
noting she lay north of the dehri with her head toward the east. He denied any ulterior motive or
false implication predicated on his friendship with PW-1 or disputes over labour wages. PW-2
further corroborated the accused's history of alcoholism and habitual domestic violence, affirming
his long-standing acquaintance with the family through the accused's employment as a labourer.
4 All. Kamal Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
573

16. PW-3 Anirudh Kumar Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Pachperwa, deposed that on
19.04.2012 he was posted as Head Constable at the said police station. He further deposed that on
the basis of the written report submitted by the complainant, Case Crime No. 356 of 2012 under
Section 302 IPC was registered. He proved the check F.I.R. as Ext. Ka-3. He further deposed that
on the basis of the said check F.I.R., he made the corresponding entry in the General Diary as
Report No. 32 at about 4:30 P.M. on 19.04.2012.

17. During cross-examination, he deposed that the complainant had brought the written
report (Ext. Ka-1) already prepared and signed, and on the basis thereof he prepared the check
F.I.R. He further deposed that the complainant came alone to the police station and that he did not
inquire as to who had scribed the complaint or the distance between the place of occurrence and the
police station. He further deposed that the check F.I.R. bore the signature of the then Station House
Officer, who had taken over the investigation. He clarified that he first prepared the check F.I.R.
and thereafter made the General Diary entry. He denied the suggestion that the written report was
prepared at his instance or under any influence, or that the check F.I.R. and G.D. entry were
fabricated.

18. PW-4 Akhilesh Yadav, Constable, Police Station Pachperwa, deposed that on 19.04.2012
he was posted as Constable at the said police station. He further deposed that on the said date, he
accompanied the Investigating Officer to the place of occurrence, where the inquest proceedings of
the deceased Indravati were conducted, which he proved as Ext. Ka-2. He further deposed that after
the inquest proceedings, the dead body was wrapped, stitched and sealed, and was handed over to
his custody along with Constable Santram Verma for being taken for post-mortem examination. He
further deposed that they transported the dead body to the mortuary at Gonda, where the postmortem was conducted after due identification. He further deposed that the post-mortem report was
thereafter received and submitted at the police station.

19. During cross-examination, he deposed that the articles and ornaments worn by the
deceased at the time of inquest were duly noted and the body was sent for post-mortem in the same
condition. He further deposed that no broken bangles were found near the body. He further deposed
that the relatives of the deceased accompanied the body for post-mortem and that the post-mortem
was conducted on the next day. He, however, expressed inability to recall certain details, including
whether the F.I.R. was registered prior to the inquest or whose seal was used at the time of sealing.

20. PW-5 Dr. Rajendra Kapoor, Senior Consultant, District Hospital, Gonda, deposed that
on 20.04.2012 at about 3:15 P.M., he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of
Indravati, aged about 45 years, and proved the post-mortem report. He found the following antemortem injuries on the body:

Injury No. 1: Incised wound measuring 6 cm X 3 cm X bone deep on the right side of
the neck, located 5cm below the right ear and just below the right side of the jaw. The blood vessels
of the neck were found severed.

Injury No. 2: Incised wound measuring 6.5 cm X 3 cm X flesh deep, on the right side of
the neck, situated 2 cm below injury no. 1.
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

He opined that the death occurred due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the aforesaid
injuries, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further deposed
that the injuries could be caused by a sharp-edged weapon like an axe and that the death had
occurred about one day prior, consistent with the time of incident.

21. During cross-examination, he admitted that the time "3:15 P.M." mentioned in the postmortem report appeared to be overwritten. He further deposed that on internal examination, the
neck bone of the deceased was not found cut. He further deposed that he cannot state with certainty
the specific sharp-edged weapon which caused the injuries. He further admitted that he had not
mentioned in the post-mortem report as to whether rigor mortis was present at the time of
examination, nor had he recorded observations in the column of external examination. He accepted
that the estimation of time of death is ordinarily based on the condition of rigor mortis and that
there may be a variation of about six hours on either side. At this stage, on a query put by the Court
regarding determination of time of death, he stated that the same was assessed on the basis of
stiffness and condition of the dead body; however, he admitted that such relevant details were not
specifically recorded in the post-mortem report. He further deposed that he had not mentioned
whether the eyes, mouth or nostrils of the deceased were open or closed at the time of post-mortem.
He, however, clarified that since the major blood vessels of the neck were severed, it is difficult to
say as to whether the deceased could have been saved even with immediate medical aid. He denied
the suggestion that he had not conducted the post-mortem or that the report was fabricated.

22. PW-6 Dinesh Singh Yadav, SHO Police Station Pachperwa, deposed that on 19.04.2012
he was posted as Station House Officer and took over the investigation of the case. He further
deposed that after perusing the check F.I.R., he proceeded to the place of occurrence, conducted the
inquest proceedings of the deceased, and proved the panchayatnama as Ext. Ka-2, letter to R.I.,
letter to C.M.O., sketch of the dead body, inquest of the dead body, and sample seal as Ext. Ka-6 to
Ka-10 respectively. He further deposed that he inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the
site plan (Ext. Ka-11). He further collected blood-stained soil and plain soil from the spot, sealed
them separately and prepared the recovery memo (Ext. Ka-12). The said articles were produced and
proved before the Trial Court as Material Ext.-1 (plain earth) and Material Ext.-2 (blood-stained
earth). He further deposed that an axe with blood-stained blade was recovered from near the dead
body lying in the veranda of the house, which was sealed and taken into possession, and the
recovery memo thereof was proved as Ext. Ka-13. He further deposed that the said axe was
produced before the Trial Court as Material Exhibit-3. He further deposed that thereafter he was
transferred and the further investigation was conducted by Uma Shankar Yadav.

23. During cross-examination, he deposed that he reached the place of occurrence at about
5:45 P.M. and took samples of blood-stained earth, plain earth and recovered the axe, which were
sealed and deposited at the police station on the same day. He admitted that the seized articles were
first sealed separately and thereafter wrapped together. He identified Material Exhibits 1 to 3,
which had been produced before the Trial Court. He deposed that the sample seal marked as
Exhibit Ka-10 was not his, and that the signature appearing on Exhibit Ka-10 was also not his. He
further deposed that he could not identify the handwriting on Exhibit Ka-9 and did not recall who
had written the same on his instructions. He also deposed that Exhibit Ka-8 was not written by him;
however, the signature appearing thereon was his. He further admitted that though the complainant
4 All. Kamal Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
575
was made a panch witness, certain other persons, including Kunjan Chaudhary, were not formally
appointed as panch witnesses, and that the panchayatnama does not record any opinion regarding
the accused having committed the offence. He further deposed that he did not examine the family
members of the deceased and did not record exact distances in the site map of the place of the
occurrence. He deposed that during the entire course of the investigation conducted under his
authority, no circumstantial evidence was revealed except the statements of PW-1 and PW-2. He
further deposed that he neither arrested the accused-appellant nor any recovery was made from
him. He denied the suggestion that the investigation was false or that any documents were
fabricated.

24. PW-7 Uma Shanker Yadav, Station House Officer, Police Station Pachperwa, deposed
that on 25.05.2012 he was posted on the same position and he took over the investigation of the
case after transfer of the previous Investigating Officer. He perused the case diary and continued
the investigation. He further deposed that on 06.06.2012 he recorded the statements of panch
witnesses and witnesses of recovery. He further deposed that since the accused-appellant Kamal
Prasad was absconding, attachment proceedings were initiated against him and executed. He
further submitted the charge sheet, which he proved as Ext. Ka-14. He further deposed that on
23.10.2013, acting on information from a informant, he apprehended the accused near Narihwa
village. He further deposed that the accused made a confessional statement regarding commission
of the offence and disclosed that he had killed his wife with an axe and had fled from the spot. He
further submitted a supplementary charge sheet, which he proved as Ext. Ka-15. He further
deposed that the material exhibits were sent for forensic examination to the Forensic Science
Laboratory.

25. During cross-examination, he admitted that no recovery of any incriminating article was
made from the accused and that no further material evidence was discovered during his
investigation beyond what had already been collected by the previous Investigating Officer. He
further deposed that the alleged confession of the accused did not lead to any recovery. He also
admitted certain lapses, including non-recording of some details in the case diary and nonexamination of certain aspects, but denied the suggestion that the charge sheet was filed without
evidence or that the investigation was false.

Court Analysis:

Credibility and reliability of ocular evidence

26. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the testimonies of PW-1 Anil Kumar and PW-2
Kunjan Chaudhary. It has been contended by learned counsel for the accused-appellant that both
these witnesses are interested witnesses and, therefore, their testimonies ought not to be relied
upon. This Court finds no merit in the said contention.

27. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the evidence of a related or interested
witness is not to be discarded merely on the ground of relationship. The law only requires that such
evidence be subjected to careful scrutiny. If upon such scrutiny, the testimony is found to be
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
natural, consistent and trustworthy, it can safely form the basis of conviction. Moreover, in M.C.
Ali v. State of Kerala, (2010) 4 SCC 573, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:

"51. On the basis of the law as settled by this Court in a number of judgments which are
noticed by the High Court, it is held that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a
witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make
allegations against an innocent person leaving a way for the real accused to escape.."

28. In the present case, PW-1, being the son of the deceased and the accused, is a natural
witness. His presence near the place of occurrence stands duly established. He has consistently
deposed that the accused entered the house, started quarrelling with the deceased, and shortly
thereafter, upon hearing screams, he rushed and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood, while
the accused was seen fleeing from the spot.

29. PW-2, though acquainted with PW-1, cannot be termed as an interested witness in the
strict sense, as no animus or motive for false implication has been attributed to him. He is an
independent neighbour, who has corroborated the testimony of PW-1 on material particulars,
namely, that the accused entered the house, quarrelled with the deceased, and immediately
thereafter fled from the spot when cries were heard.

30. It is true that neither PW-1 nor PW-2 has witnessed the actual act of assault. However,
their testimonies clearly establish the circumstances immediately preceding and succeeding the
occurrence, which form part of the same transaction and are highly relevant for determining the
involvement of the accused.

31. It is also to be noted that the occurrence took place inside the house, where ordinarily
independent witnesses would not be available. In such circumstances, the evidence of natural
witnesses present nearby cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are related or known
to the deceased.

32. Moreover, the contention that all the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet have not been
examined, including the scribe of the written report, certain panch witnesses, and other listed
witnesses, also does not merit acceptance. It is well settled that the prosecution is not bound to
examine each and every witness cited in the charge-sheet. Under Section 134 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact, and it is the
quality of evidence and not the quantity which is material. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v.
Anil Singh, (1988) 3 SCC 686, has held that it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine all
witnesses and non-examination of some witnesses is not a ground to reject the prosecution case, if
the evidence of the witnesses examined is found to be reliable. In the present case, the witnesses
examined by the prosecution are found to be cogent and trustworthy, and no prejudice has been
shown to have been caused to the accused by non-examination of the scribe or panch witnesses.
Therefore, such omission is not fatal to the prosecution case.

33. Upon careful scrutiny, this Court finds that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are
consistent, natural and inspire confidence. Their evidence clearly establishes that the accused was
4 All. Kamal Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
577
present at the place of occurrence, was involved in a quarrel with the deceased immediately prior to
the incident, and was seen leaving the spot thereafter.

Chain of Circumstances

34. It is well settled that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances
must be such as to establish the involvement of the accused and must be consistent with the
prosecution case. However, the nature of the offence-whether it amounts to murder or culpable
homicide-depends upon the accompanying mental element, which is required to be independently
assessed.

35. The foundational principles governing appreciation of circumstantial evidence were laid
down by Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,(1984) 4 SCC
116, wherein the well-known panchsheel principles were formulated, namely:

(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and
'must be or should be proved'. It is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely
may be 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.

36. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the following
circumstances stand firmly established:

(i) The accused and the deceased were present inside the house at the relevant time;

(ii) The accused was seen entering the house and was involved in a quarrel with the
deceased;

 (iii) Shortly thereafter, cries were heard from inside the house;

(iv) The accused was seen leaving the place of occurrence immediately after the incident;

(v) The deceased was found lying dead inside the house with injuries;

(vi) The weapon of offence (axe) was found at the place of occurrence;

(vii) The accused remained absconding after the incident and was apprehended later upon
information;

(viii) The accused has failed to offer any explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding
the circumstances in which the deceased sustained injuries.
578 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

37. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances clearly establishes that it was the
accused, who caused the injuries to the deceased which resulted in her death. However, the nature
of circumstances, particularly the fact that the occurrence took place in the course of a sudden
quarrel and absence of any premeditation, assumes significance while determining the nature of the
offence and the degree of culpability of the accused.

38. Thus, while the chain of circumstances clearly establishes the involvement of the accused
in causing the death of the deceased, the precise nature of the offence is required to be determined
on the basis of the mental element attributable to the accused, which is being considered separately.

Whether the offence amounts to murder under Section 302 I.P.C. or culpable homicide
not amounting to murder under Section 304 I.P.C.

39. Having given consideration to the entire evidence on record, this Court proceeds to
determine as to whether the act attributed to the accused falls within the ambit of "murder" under
Section 300 I.P.C. punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., or whether it constitutes culpable homicide
not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 I.P.C.

40. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that there was no premeditation
on the part of the accused and that the incident occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel. In
support of the said submission, reliance has been placed upon Pundalik v. State of Maharashtra,
(2010) 15 SCC 122; Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1989)2 SCC 217 and
Rambir v. State (NCT Delhi), (2019) 6 SCC 122.

41. Before adverting to the applicability of the aforesaid judgments, it would be apposite to
briefly notice the legal framework governing the distinction between culpable homicide and
murder. Section 299 I.P.C. defines culpable homicide, whereas Section 300 I.P.C. specifies when
such culpable homicide amounts to murder. The exceptions engrafted in Section 300 carve out
situations where, despite the act resulting in death, the offence would not amount to murder.

42. Section 304 I.P.C. is divided into two parts. Part I applies where there is intention to cause
death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, whereas Part II applies where there is no
intention, but the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. The distinction,
therefore, hinges upon the degree of mens rea.

43. The Supreme Court in Kesar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 753 has held that
culpable homicide is the genus and murder is its species, and that where the special characteristics
of murder are absent, the offence would fall within the lesser category. It has further been observed
that where intention is not proved but knowledge is attributable, the case would fall under Section
304 Part II I.P.C.

44. In Surinder Kumar (supra), it has been held that the number of injuries is not decisive, but
what is relevant is whether the occurrence was sudden and without premeditation and whether the
act was committed in the heat of passion without taking undue advantage. Similarly, in Pundalik
4 All. Kamal Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
579
(supra), on facts involving a sudden quarrel without premeditation, the conviction under Section
302 I.P.C. was altered to Section 304 Part I I.P.C.

45. On the other hand, in Rambir (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to extend the
benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C., where the act was found to be cruel and indicative of
clear intention, holding that such conduct could not be said to be an act committed in a fit of anger.

46.