# Mahadev Raidas v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 157
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-25
- **Case number:** Jail Appeal No. 1062 of 2017
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar, Zafeer Ahmad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahadev-raidas-v-state-of-u-p-54302
- **Pages:** 19

## Text

_Characters 0–39,977 of 62,311. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39977 for what follows._

3 All. Mahadev Raidas Vs. State of U.P.
157

(50) The defence also attempted to create doubt through the testimony of D.W.5 Dr. K.C.
Kapoor regarding the autopsy report and the evidence of Dr. R.P. Mishra, who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased persons and appeared as P.W.5. However, this Court finds no
reason to rely the testimony of D.W.5 over that of P.W.5, inasmuch as P.W.5 is a qualified Surgeon
holding the degree of M.S., whereas D.W.5 is a Physician holding the degree of M.D. In matters
concerning injuries and their nature, the opinion of a Surgeon would ordinarily carry greater
evidentiary value than that of a Physician.

(51) Upon a careful consideration of the entire evidence on record and the circumstances of
the case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order has rightly
been passed by the learned trial Court in accordance with law after proper appreciation of the
evidence and material available on record. No illegality, perversity or error has been pointed out,
which may warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

(52) In view of the foregoing discussion, the instant appeal preferred on behalf of surviving
appellant no.3, Mukundi Singh, is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. The impugned
judgment and order of conviction passed by learned trial Court is affirmed and sentence confirmed.

(53) The appellant No.3, Mukundi Singh, is on bail. He shall surrender before the Court
concerned within two weeks to serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court, failing which the
concerned Court shall take appropriate steps for his arrest in accordance with law.

(54) Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial Court record be transmitted to the Court
concerned forthwith, and in any case within two weeks from today, for information and necessary
compliance.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 157
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.03.2026

BEFORE

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

Jail Appeal No. 1062 of 2017

Mahadev Raidas ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the prosecution has successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of
circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused-appellant in the murder of Kandhai and
whether the conviction under S. 302 IPC recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence calls for
interference. (Paras 24-61)
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction can be based solely on
circumstantial evidence provided that the chain of circumstances is complete, unerring and
excludes every reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused -
Prosecution succeeded in proving the motive, the last seen circumstance, the extra-judicial
confession, the recovery of the weapon of offence and the opinion of the doctor that the antemortem injuries could have been caused by an axe, which together form a continuous chain of
circumstances leading to the only conclusion that it was the accused-appellant who committed
the murder of Kandhai. (Paras 24,25,26,27,28)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 106 - Last seen theory - Deceased was last seen alive in the
company of the accused shortly before the occurrence - Accused did not offer any plausible
explanation regarding the circumstances in which he parted company with the deceased -
Failure of the accused to offer any reasonable explanation regarding facts which were especially
within his knowledge provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances established by the
prosecution. (Paras 39,40,41,42,43,44)
Criminal Jurisprudence - Minor contradictions - Minor contradictions or omissions, which do not
go to the root of the prosecution case cannot be made a ground to discard the otherwise reliable
testimony of a witness - Maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India and is
merely a rule of caution - Minor discrepancies highlighted by the defence neither affect the
substratum of the prosecution's case nor create any reasonable doubt regarding the involvement
of the accused. (Paras 31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38)
Criminal Trial - Benefit of doubt - Benefit of doubt must be founded on sound reasoning and not
on mere conjectures or speculative possibilities - Absence of eyewitness not fatal where
prosecution case rests on cogent and consistent circumstantial evidence - Defective
investigation cannot be a ground for acquittal when substantive evidence on record is
trustworthy. (Paras 45,46,47,48,49,50)
Medical Evidence - Time of death - Condition of stomach contents is not a precise or infallible
guide for determining the exact time of death and must be appreciated in conjunction with other
surrounding circumstances - Mere presence of partially digested food in the stomach cannot be
treated as a conclusive indicator of the exact time of death. (Paras 51,52,53,54,55,56,57)
Forensic examination - Human blood detected on axe and other articles recovered during
investigation - Though blood detected was not conclusively established to belong to deceased,
presence of human blood on weapon of assault constitutes a relevant circumstance lending
corroboration to prosecution case. (Paras 58,59,60)
Held: The prosecution witnesses deposed regarding the complicity of the accused in a consistent and cogent
manner and their testimonies substantially corroborate each other in material particulars - PW-1 Hemnath and
PW-2 Lajja Devi clearly deposed regarding the motive and the threats extended by the accused - PW-3 Suresh
supported the circumstance of last seen by stating that the deceased was last seen in the company of the
accused shortly before the occurrence - Evidence of PW-5 Narayan Lal regarding apprehension of the accused
and recovery of the weapon of assault further strengthens the prosecution case - Medical evidence of PW-4
Dr. M.K. Agarwal lends corroboration to the prosecution version regarding the nature of injuries and the time
of death - Chain of circumstances emerging from the evidence on record forms a complete and coherent
chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused - Deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused
shortly before the occurrence and the accused failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding the
circumstances in which he parted company with the deceased - Failure of the accused to offer any reasonable
explanation regarding facts which were especially within his knowledge attracts the principle embodied in S.
106 of the Evidence Act and provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances established by the
prosecution - Minor discrepancies pointed out by the defence are of a trivial nature and do not affect the core
of the prosecution case - Benefit of doubt cannot be extended on mere conjectures or speculative possibilities
- Medical evidence regarding time of death is broadly consistent with the prosecution version - Presence of
human blood on the axe and other articles recovered during investigation lends corroboration to the
prosecution case - Prosecution successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances
pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused-appellant - No infirmity or illegality in the judgment and
3 All. Mahadev Raidas Vs. State of U.P.
159
order of conviction recorded by the learned trial court calling for interference in appeal - Jail appeal dismissed
and conviction and sentence under S. 302 IPC affirmed. (Paras 24-61) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116; Chetan v. State of Karnataka,
(2025) 9 SCC 31; Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 457; State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh, (2011) 4 SCC 786; Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC
253; Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 42; Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant
Raghunath Dhoble, (2003) 7 SCC 749; Nizam v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 SCC 550; State of
Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2
SCC 793; Vijay Bahadur v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 SCC Online All 4202; Sheo Darshan v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, (1972) 3 SCC 74

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Criminal Procedure Code - S. 313; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 106

List of Keywords
Circumstantial evidence; last seen theory; motive; extra-judicial confession; recovery of axe; sharp-edged
weapon; S. 106 of the Evidence Act; benefit of doubt; falsus in uno falsus in omnibus; medical evidence;
forensic report; human blood; village factionalism; prosecution case; chain of circumstances; imprisonment for
life; compensation

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: The jail appeal arises out of order and judgment dated 27.04.2017 passed by the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 357 of 2005 (State v.
Mahadev Raidas) arising out of Case Crime No. 807 of 2004, Police Station Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri,
whereby the appellant was convicted under S. 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life along with fine.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Sri Adarsh Mehrotra, learned Amicus Curiae.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel A.G.A for the State.

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

1. Heard, Sri Adarsh Mehrotra, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri Pawan Kumar
Mishra, learned counsel A.G.A for the State. Perused the records.

2. The aforesaid jail appeal arises out of order and judgment dated 27.04.2017 passed by the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 357 of
2005 (State v. Mahadev Raidas) arising out of case crime no. 807 of 2004, Police Station Gola,
District- Lakhimpur Kheri, wherein the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code (in short I.P.C) and sentenced to imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-
and in case of non-payment of fine, an additional six months simple imprisonment. It has further
been directed that, out of the total fine amount, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid to the wife of
the deceased by way of compensation.

Prosecution Story in Nutshell:
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 28.10.2004 complainant Hemnath s/o Maikulal r/o
Purnbhugrant, Police Station- Gola, District- Kheri submitted a written report in Police Station-
Gola stating therein that his brother, Kandhai was asleep, when at around 9:00 PM, Mahadev s/o
Tauleram, a resident of the same village, came to his house and called Kandhai outside and took
him along. It was further alleged that Kandhai's wife, Lajja Devi, objected to his going; however,
the accused persuaded him on the pretext of going for fishing and took him away. It was further
stated that when Kandhai did not return home even by 11:00 P.M., Lajja Devi sent her brother-inlaw, Bhagwan Deen, in search of him. Despite extensive search, Kandhai could not be traced and
he returned home exhausted at about 3:00 A.M. Thereafter, Lajja Devi disclosed that the accused
Mahadev had earlier expressed his desire to keep her, which she had refused and had informed her
husband also about the same. It was further alleged that upon refusal, the accused had threatened
that he would eliminate her husband. On the following morning, one Suresh s/o Putan, of his
village, informed that on the previous night at about 9:00 P.M., Mahadev had brought Kandhai and
that the accused had made him consume liquor. Thereafter, the complainant and his family
members searched the fields and nearby forest area and in the Gadiyana forest, the dead body of
Kandhai was found lying with his throat slit. It was alleged that the accused Mahadev had
committed the murder of Kandhai and body is lying on the spot.

4. On the basis of the written report (Ext. Ka-1), an FIR was registered (Ext. Ka-15) under
Section 302 IPC against the Mahadev (accused-appellant). The investigation started on 29.10.2004
and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-14) under Section 302 IPC was
submitted against the accused. 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 six witnesses, namely PW-1 Hemnath,
PW-2 Lajja Devi, PW-3 Suresh, PW-4 Dr. M. K. Aggarwal, PW-5 Narayan Lal and PW-6 SSI
Ashutosh Mishra. However, the Investigating Officer of the case, SHO T.B. Singh could not be
examined as he had retired from service and was critically ill and unable to walk. Similarly, SSI
Ram Sagar had also retired from service and Head Moharrir Chandrika Prasad had passed away.
The documents prepared by the aforesaid officials during the course of investigation have been
duly proved by PW-6.

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

Particulars
Exhibit Number

Written Report
Ext. Ka-1

Post-mortem report
Ext. Ka-2

Panchayatnama
Ext. Ka-3

Recovery Memo of axe
Ext. Ka-4

Sample Seal

Ext. Ka-5
Police Form-13
Ext. Ka-6
3 All. Mahadev Raidas Vs. State of U.P.
161

Sketch of Dead Body

Ext. Ka-7
Police Form-33
Ext. Ka-8

Letter to RI
Ext. Ka-9

Letter CMO Ext. Ka-10Recovery Memo of one pair of
plastic slippers and blood stained gamcha (गमछा)

Ext. Ka-11
Site plan of the place of the occurrence
Ext. Ka-12

Site Plan of the place from where recovery of the axe is
made

Ext. Ka-13
Charge-Sheet
Ext. Ka-14

FIR

Ext. Ka-15
Recovery Memo of plain and blood-stained earth
Ext. Ka-16

Carbon Copy of GD Entry No. 36
Ext. Ka-17

Forensic Report

Ext. Ka-18
Axe Material

Ext.-1

7. Furthermore, the appellant, in his statements recorded under Section 313 Criminal
Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C.), denied the prosecution allegations and stated that he has been
falsely implicated due to party-bandi (factionalism) prevailing in the village. No defence witness
was examined on behalf of the appellants.

8. 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 life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine, an
additional six months simple imprisonment.

Submissions made by learned counsel for the Appellant:

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment is liable to be set
aside as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It has been contended
that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, inasmuch as the alleged occurrence took
place in the night of 28/29.10.2004, the dead body of the deceased was found at about 8:00 A.M.
on 29.10.2004, yet the FIR was registered only at about 3:20 P.M. on the same day, which creates
serious doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution case. It has further been argued that there are
no eyewitnesses to the actual occurrence and the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence,
with only Lajja Devi having allegedly seen the deceased leaving the house with the appellant.
Learned counsel also pointed out alleged contradictions in the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW3.It was also argued that even according to the testimony of PW-2 Lajja Devi, the Investigating
Officer did not put any specific question to her regarding the occurrence or the murder, which itself
reflects a serious lapse in the investigation and further weakens the prosecution case.It was further
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contended that the bloodstains allegedly found on the weapon of offence were not conclusively
examined to establish that they belonged to the deceased, therefore, the chain of circumstances is
incomplete, entitling the appellant to benefit of doubt.

Submissions made by learned A.G.A:

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellant and supported the impugned judgment and order of conviction. It has been submitted that
the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the appellant through cogent and reliable
evidence. The alleged delay in lodging the FIR has been duly explained and does not affect the
substratum of the prosecution case. It is further contended that though there is no direct eyewitness
to the actual assault, the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and points unerringly towards
the guilt of the appellant. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses is consistent and inspires
confidence, and minor discrepancies, if any, are natural and do not go to the root of the matter. It is
thus submitted that the conviction recorded by the learned trial court is well-founded and calls for
no interference by this Court.

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.

11. PW-1, Hemnath, who is the complainant and brother of the deceased ,Kandhai, was
examined. In his examination-in-chief, he narrated the sequence of the incident and also stated
about the threats allegedly given by the appellant-accused, Mahadev, as disclosed to him by the
wife of the deceased, Lajja Devi. He further deposed that after the discovery of the dead body of
his brother, Kandhai, he went to the concerned police station and submitted a written report, which
was scribed by one namely Ramakant. Thus, in his examination-in-chief, he fully supported the
prosecution version.

12. In cross-examination, he further clarified the timeline of the incident and categorically
stated that he had heard the accused-appellant, Mahadev, calling his brother for fishing. He refuted
the suggestions put by the defence regarding false implication, illicit relations and other such
allegations, and also proved the written report as Ext. Ka-1. He further stated that the relations
between Kandhai and Mahadev were not strained. He also deposed that when Bhagwandeen, his
brother, returned after extensive search at around 3:00 A.M., thereafter Lajja Devi disclosed that
Mahadev wanted her to live with him and also had a bad intention towards her("मुझ पर बुरी नज़र
रखता था"). He further deposed that the police personnel reached the place of occurrence in the
afternoon. Despite exhaustive cross-examination, which runs to about nine pages, nothing material
could be elicited which may create doubt in the prosecution version. On a careful perusal of the
testimony of this witness, it transpires that he establishes the motive and also, to a certain extent,
can be regarded as a witness to the circumstance of last seen.
3 All. Mahadev Raidas Vs. State of U.P.
163

13. PW-2 Lajja Devi, wife of the deceased, deposed that on the night of 28.10.2004 the
appellant Mahadev came to her house at about 9:00 P.M. and allured her husband Kandhai on the
pretext of going for fishing. She further deposed that after a considerable lapse of time, when her
husband did not return, she asked Bhagwandeen to search for him. Bhagwandeen went in search of
Kandhai at about 11:00 P.M. and returned exhausted and unsuccessful at about 3:00 A.M., without
any information regarding his whereabouts. She further disclosed that the appellant had earlier
expressed improper intentions towards her and had threatened that if she refused to live with him,
he would eliminate her husband. She further deposed that on the following morning the dead body
of Kandhai was discovered in the jungle. She also stated that Daroga ji(Investigating Officer) had
inquired from her about the incident.

14. In cross-examination, she stated that on the night of the incident she had prepared food at
about 8:00 P.M. and it took about half an hour for the family to finish the meal. She further
deposed, at page 4 of her deposition, that Mahadev had come to her door about an hour after they
had finished dinner. At page 9 of her deposition, she reiterated that the Investigating Officer had
inquired from her about the murder. She denied the suggestion put by the defence that she had not
seen her husband going away with Mahadev or that she was deposing falsely. Upon careful perusal
of her cross-examination, nothing material could be elicited which may be said to be fatal to the
prosecution case.

15. PW-3 Suresh, is the witness who had last seen the deceased in the company of the
accused-appellant. According to this witness, on the date of occurrence at about 9:00 P.M., the
deceased Kandhai and the appellant Mahadev came to his house. He deposed that Mahadev made
Kandhai consume liquor and thereafter asked him to accompany him for fishing, whereupon both
of them left together. He further deposed that on the following morning, when the dead body of
Kandhai was discovered in the Ambara jungle, he and the family members of the deceased became
convinced that Mahadev had murdered Kandhai. He also deposed that the police had inquired from
him regarding the occurrence.

16. In cross-examination, he clarified that Kandhai was his cousin brother-in-law and used to
visit his house occasionally. He stated that on the day of occurrence Kandhai and Mahadev had
come to his house at about 9:00 P.M., consumed liquor there and thereafter left together. He further
deposed that on the next morning he came to know that Kandhai had been murdered and later saw
the dead body in Gola. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely under the influence
of Kandhai's family members or that he had not seen Kandhai leaving with Mahadev. Upon careful
consideration of his testimony, nothing substantial has surfaced in his cross-examination, which
could negate the complicity of the appellant in the commission of the offence.

17. PW-4 Dr. M.K. Agarwal, Senior Consultant, District Jail Hospital, Lakhimpur Kheri,
deposed that on 30.04.2004 he was posted at T.B. Clinic, Kheri and at about 3:00 P.M. conducted
the post-mortem examination of deceased Kandhai, whose body was brought by Constable
Bhikhari Lal Verma of Police Station Gola. According to him, the deceased was about 32 years of
age and had died approximately one and a half days prior to the post-mortem. On external
examination, the body was of average build with bloodstains throughout and rigor mortis had
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
disappeared from the upper limbs and was spreading to the lower limbs. The following antemortem injuries were found:

 Injury No. 1: Incised wound measuring 7 cm X 2 cm X spinal cord deep, on the back of the
neck with all underlying muscle, vessels and neck vertebra broken.

 Injury No. 2: Incised wound measuring 6 cm X 2 cm X spinal cord deep on the front of the
neck, underlying muscle, trachea, and oesophagus were cut.

 Injury No. 3: Incised wound measuring 2 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep on the neck, below
injury no. 1.

 Injury No. 4: Incised wound measuring 7 cm X 1 cm X trachea deep on the front of the neck,
2cm below injury no. 3.

 Injury No. 5: Abraded contusion measuring 2 cm X 1 cm on the chin.

18. On internal examination, the heart was normal and empty; the stomach contained about
200 grams of paste-like food, while the liver, spleen and kidneys were normal. In his opinion, death
occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the ante-mortem injuries and had likely taken
place between the night of 28.10.2004 and the afternoon of 29.10.2004. He further stated that
injury nos.1 and 4 could have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon such as an axe and injury no.5
could also result from a fall.

19. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not specified in the post-mortem report the
exact weapon causing the injuries. He further stated that the spine of the deceased was broken,
which could be caused by a heavy weapon and possibly even by a slingshot. He further stated that
injury nos.1 and 2 were caused in a slanting direction and could occur if a standing person was
struck from the front with an axe. He further stated that all injuries were of similar nature, though
he could not say that all were caused from the front and that such injuries could be caused by
different weapons. He further stated that there was no injury on the back of the deceased, that
injury no.5 could occur if the chin was struck by a heavy weapon or due to a fall, and that alcohol
was not found in the stomach. He further stated that the deceased might have consumed food 2-3
hours prior to death and that the time of death could vary by about six hours either way. From a
careful perusal of the medical evidence, it transpires that the injuries found on the body of the
deceased were incised wounds caused by a sharp-edged weapon and were sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. The medical evidence thus broadly corroborates the prosecution
version regarding the nature of assault and the time of death. Nothing substantial has emerged in
the cross-examination of the doctor, which may render the prosecution case improbable or
inconsistent with the medical findings.

20. PW-5 Narayan Lal deposed that upon receiving information he went to the place of
occurrence and was present when the police reached there.He stated that the police sealed and
stamped the dead body of Kandhai in his presence and completed the necessary formalities, thus
proving Ext. Ka-3. He further deposed that when he returned to the village he saw Mahadev there
3 All. Mahadev Raidas Vs. State of U.P.
165
and upon being questioned about the murder, Mahadev attempted to run away but was apprehended
by villagers including Asharfi and Rajendra. He further stated that Mahadev admitted the murder
and offered to recover the weapon. According to him, Mahadev led them to bushes in the jungle
and recovered a kulhadi (axe) having blood on its blade. The axe was thereafter taken to the police
station and was sealed in his presence, thus proving Ext. Ka-4, though it was not read over to him
before obtaining his signatures. When a sealed case was opened before the Court, he identified the
axe as the same weapon recovered at the instance of Mahadev, though he stated that at the time of
recovery it had a long handle.

21. In cross-examination, he stated that Kandhai was the son of his uncle and their houses
were separate. He further stated that he did not know at what time Kandhai had left his house. He
deposed that on the next day at about 1:00 P.M., while working at a saw mill, he received
information that Kandhai had been murdered and his dead body was found in the jungle. When he
reached the village at about 2:00 P.M., the police were present and the dead body was in sealed
condition in a jeep. He further stated that villagers including Kandhai's family members were
present and Mahadev had been tied by the police. He further stated that no axe was found near the
jeep and after staying there for about half an hour he returned to work. He further deposed that he
was called to the police station at about 4:00-5:00 P.M., where the dead body was lying and
Mahadev was in the lock-up. He stated that the Investigating Officer only obtained his signatures
on a document, which was not read over to him and thereafter no further inquiry was made from
him. He denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed anything or that no recovery had been
made.

22. PW-6 Ashutosh Mishra, SSI, Police Station Karaundi Kalan, District Sultanpur, deposed
that on 29.10.2004 he was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Gola, District Kheri. He stated
that on the same day Crime No. 807 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC was registered at the police
station in the presence of SHO T.B. Singh and he accompanied the SHO to the place of occurrence.
Through his testimony he proved the panchayatnama (Ext. Ka-3), sample seal (Ext. Ka-5), police
form-13 (Ext. Ka-6), sketch of the dead body (Ext. Ka-7), police form 33 (Ext. Ka-8), letter to RI
(Ext. Ka-9) and letter to CMO (Ext. Ka-10). He further proved the recovery memo of one pair of
plastic slippers and a blood-stained gamcha prepared by SSI Ram Sagar Rakesh, who had since
retired, also bearing the signatures of SHO T.B. Singh, as Ext. Ka-11. Since SHO T.B. Singh had
also retired and was critically ill and unable to walk, the site plan of the place of occurrence (Ext.
Ka-12), site plan of recovery of axe (Ext. Ka-13) and the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-14) prepared by
him were also proved through this witness. He further proved the check FIR prepared by HM
Chandrika Prasad, who had since expired, as Ext. Ka-15, the recovery memo of plain and bloodstained earth prepared by SSI Ram Sagar Rakesh and signed by SHO T.B. Singh as Ext. Ka-16, and
the GD entry prepared by HM Chandrika Prasad as Ext. Ka-17.

23. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not identify the signature of
the aforesaid officials. He further denied the suggestion that, being a police officer, he was
deposing falsely in order to settle the case. Upon careful perusal of the testimony of this witness, it
transpires that he is a formal witness, who has proved various documents prepared during the
course of investigation, including the inquest report, site plans, recovery memos and the check FIR.
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Nothing material has surfaced in his cross-examination which may cast doubt on the formal aspects
of the prosecution case.

Court Analysis:

Circumstantial Evidences:

24. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The law relating
to circumstantial evidence has been fairly settled by the Supreme Court in a plethora of judgments
and is no longer res integra. The settled legal position is that a conviction can be based solely on
circumstantial evidence provided that the chain of circumstances is complete, unerring and
excludes every reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. 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.

25. These principles have been consistently reaffirmed in several later decisions. In Chetan v.
State of Karnataka, (2025) 9 SCC 31, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction based solely on
circumstantial evidence, including the application of the last seen theory. The last seen theory
comes into play, where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased
were last seen alive together and when the deceased is found dead is so small that the possibility of
any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes highly improbable.

26. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, upon a careful perusal of the entire
evidence led by the prosecution, the following incriminating circumstances emerge against the
accused-appellant:

1. The accused Mahadev had expressed his desire to keep PW-2 Lajja Devi, the wife of
the deceased Kandhai, with him.

2. When such proposal was rejected by PW-2, the accused threatened her by stating that
he would eliminate her husband.
3 All. Mahadev Raidas Vs. State of U.P.
167

3. On the night of the occurrence, the accused came to the house of the deceased at about
9:00 P.M. and called him outside on the pretext of going for fishing.

4. At that time PW-2 Lajja Devi was present there and PW-1 Hemnath heard the accused
calling the deceased.

5. Thereafter the accused and the deceased left together, but the deceased did not return
home even after considerable time. PW-2 then asked Bhagwandeen, the brother of the deceased, to
search for him at about 11:00 P.M.

6. Bhagwandeen returned exhausted and unsuccessful at about 3:00 A.M.

7. Thereafter PW-2 Lajja Devi disclosed to PW-1 Hemnath that the accused had earlier
expressed improper intentions towards her and had threatened to eliminate her husband when she
refused his proposal.

8. PW-3 Suresh deposed that on 28.10.2004 at about 9:00 P.M., the deceased Kandhai
and the accused Mahadev came to his house and consumed liquor, whereafter Mahadev asked
Kandhai to accompany him for fishing and both of them left together.

9. PW-5 Narayan Lal deposed that when he questioned Mahadev regarding the murder of
Kandhai, the accused attempted to flee but was apprehended with the help of other villagers.
According to this witness, the accused admitted that he had murdered Kandhai and also led the
villagers to the recovery of the blood-stained axe used in the commission of the offence. The
accused along with the recovered weapon was thereafter taken to the police station.

10. PW-4 Dr. M.K. Agarwal conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased
Kandhai and opined that the death could have occurred between the night of 28.10.2004 and the
afternoon of 29.10.2004. The nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased was consistent
with injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon such as an axe, thereby lending medical
corroboration to the prosecution case.

11. In the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the learned trial court put all
the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused-appellant to him. However, he did
not offer any plausible explanation and merely stated that he had been falsely implicated due to
village factionalism (party bandi). It is also noteworthy that the accused-appellant did not lead any
evidence in defence, either oral or documentary.

27. The witnesses produced by the prosecution have deposed regarding the complicity of the
accused in a consistent and cogent manner. The testimonies of the witnesses of fact substantially
corroborate each other in material particulars. PW-1 Hemnath and PW-2 Lajja Devi have clearly
deposed regarding the motive and the threats extended by the accused. PW-3 Suresh has supported
the circumstance of last seen by stating that the deceased was last seen in the company of the
accused shortly before the occurrence. The evidence of PW-5 Narayan Lal regarding the
apprehension of the accused and the recovery of the weapon of assault further strengthens the
prosecution case. The medical evidence of PW-4 Dr. M.K. Agarwal lends corroboration to the
prosecution version regarding the nature of injuries and the time of death. Thus, the chain of
circumstances emerging from the evidence on record forms a complete and coherent chain pointing
towards the guilt of the accused.

28. It is well settled principle that when the prosecution successfully establishes a chain of
circumstances, which is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and excludes
every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence, conviction can safely be recorded on the
168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
basis of such circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the prosecution has succeeded in proving
the motive, the last seen circumstance, the extra-judicial confession, the recovery of the weapon of
offence and the opinion of the doctor that the ante-mortem injuries could have been caused by an
axe, which together form a continuous chain of circumstances leading to the only conclusion that it
was the accused-appellant who committed the murder of Kandhai.

29. Another important circumstance which deserves consideration is the conduct of the
accused-appellant immediately after the occurrence. The evidence of PW-5 Narayan Lal indicates
that when the accused was questioned regarding the murder of Kandhai, he attempted to flee from
the spot and was apprehended with the assistance of other villagers. Such conduct of the accused
assumes significance in a case resting upon circumstantial evidence. It is a well-recognised
principle that conduct often speaks louder than words and the behaviour of the accused before,
during and after the occurrence may provide a valuable link in the chain of circumstances. The
attempt of the accused to run away, when confronted with questions regarding the incident clearly
reflects a consciousness of guilt and constitutes an incriminating circumstance against him.

30. The case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on
facts and therefore do not assist the appellant. On the contrary, the principles laid down therein
reiterate the settled law relating to appreciation of circumstantial evidence and support the
prosecution case.

Alleged Minor Contradictions/ Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

31. Learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to discredit the prosecution witnesses
,particularly in the statements of PW-1 Hemnath, PW-2 Lajja Devi and PW-3 Suresh, by pointing
out inconsistencies in their testimonies, regarding time of death, delay in lodging FIR, who went to
search for deceased during night, etc. However, it is well settled that minor contradictions or
omissions, which do not go to the root of the prosecution case cannot be made a ground to discard
the otherwise reliable testimony of a witness. In Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of
Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 457, the Supreme Court observed in para 42:

"42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material particulars can be
used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The omission in the police statement by itself would
not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in
the court is different in material particulars from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case
of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear
in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of
observation differ from person to person...."

32. The same principle has been reiterated in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh, (2011) 4
SCC 786 and Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh,(2022) 8 SCC 253, wherein the
Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies or omissions cannot be a ground to discard the
testimony of witnesses, if the evidence on material aspects is otherwise credible.
3 All.