# Minni @ Meena v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 949
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-13
- **Case number:** Jail Appeal No. 1545 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Mrs. Saroj Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/minni-meena-v-state-of-u-p-49690
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Law- Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 3- The complainant Siyapati and
Pohkar who are claiming themselves as
eyewitnesses of the crime were not
reliable. Their presence at the place of
occurrence is highly unbelievable- The
statements of these two witnesses are
contradictory in material terms and create
a serious doubt about their presence at
the spot. Further more the recovery of
weapon of offence is also highly doubtful
because P.W.1 Siyapati has stated in her
cross-examination that both the trowels
i.e. one of Minni and another of Balram
were left at the spot and those were taken
by the police. On the other hand, the
Investigating Officer has stated that he
was handed over the trowel by accused
Balram from his nursery.

Settled law that where the testimony of the
witnesses of the prosecution has such material
contradictions that they go to the root of the
story of the prosecution make their presence on
the place of occurrence unbelievable and the
recoveries do not stand proved ,then such
evidence cannot be relied upon by the
court.(Para 17, 18)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-3)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

## Text

1 All. Minni @ Meena Vs. State of U.P.
949
documents and statements of Investigating
officer
including
arrest
of
accusedappellant and recovery of sickle and vest of
the accused-appellant having blood stains
as well as medical evidence fully support
the prosecution version.

52. Taking cumulative effect of the
evidence, we are in respectful agreement with
the finding recorded by the trial court and it
was fully justified in convicting the appellant.
Accordingly, we confirm the order of trial
court.

53. The appeal has no substance and the
same is dismissed. The appellant is reported
to be on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled
and he be taken into custody for serving the
remaining sentence.

54. Now coming to the question of fine,
we find it to be mandatory where punishment
is awarded under Section 302 I.P.C., as per
Section 302 I.P.C. For ready reference,
Section 302 I.P.C. reads as follows:

"Whoever commits murder shall be
punished with death or [imprisonment for
life], and shall also be liable to fine."

55. From perusal of the aforesaid
Section, it is clear that any accused, who
commits any murder shall be punished with
death or life imprisonment and fine shall also
be imposed against him. While awarding
sentence of death or life imprisonment, fine
should be read together. Before the word
"fine", the word "shall" is used and therefore,
the imposition of fine is mandatory while
awarding death or life sentence to any
accused, who committed murder.

56. Accordingly, in addition to life
imprisonment,
while
affirming
the
judgment of trial court, we also impose fine
of Rs. 10,000/- upon the accused-appellant.
It is also clarified that in case of default in
payment of the said fine, he has to undergo
six months additional imprisonment.

57. The dismissal of this criminal
appeal however shall not prejudice the
rights of the accused-appellant to apply for
remission, which shall be dealt with in
accordance with law on merits.

58. We record our appreciation for the
able assistance rendered in the case by Mr.
Raj Kumar Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae,
who would be entitled to his fee from the
High Court Legal Service Authority.

59. Let a copy of this judgment be
sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Farrukhabad, who shall transmit the same
to the Jail Superintendent concerned for
information
of
the
accused-appellant
henceforth.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 949
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

Jail Appeal No. 1545 of 2019
And
Jail Appeal No. 1546 of 2019

Minni @ Meena ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mr. Anurag Shukla (Amicus)

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.
950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Law- Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 3- The complainant Siyapati and
Pohkar who are claiming themselves as
eyewitnesses of the crime were not
reliable. Their presence at the place of
occurrence is highly unbelievable- The
statements of these two witnesses are
contradictory in material terms and create
a serious doubt about their presence at
the spot. Further more the recovery of
weapon of offence is also highly doubtful
because P.W.1 Siyapati has stated in her
cross-examination that both the trowels
i.e. one of Minni and another of Balram
were left at the spot and those were taken
by the police. On the other hand, the
Investigating Officer has stated that he
was handed over the trowel by accused
Balram from his nursery.

Settled law that where the testimony of the
witnesses of the prosecution has such material
contradictions that they go to the root of the
story of the prosecution make their presence on
the place of occurrence unbelievable and the
recoveries do not stand proved ,then such
evidence cannot be relied upon by the
court.(Para 17, 18)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-3)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

1. Sunil Kundu & anr. Vs St. of Jhar., (2013) 4
SCC 422.

2. Krishnegowda & ors. Vs St. of Kar., (2017) 13
SCC 98.

3. Puran Singh Vs St. of Uttaranchal (2008) (3)
SCC 795.

4. Mani Ram & ors. Vs St. of U.P. 1994 Supp (2)
SCC 289

5. Bhikari Vs St. of U.P. AIR 1966 SC 1
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

1. These criminal appeals have been
preferred
from
the
jail
by
the
appellants/convicts Minni @ Meena and
Balram against the judgment and order
dated 19.06.2019 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.5/ Special Judge,
Gangsters Act, Lucknow in Sessions Trial
No.79 of 2010 arising out of Crime No.349
of 2009, under Sections 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short IPC),
Police Station Mall, District Lucknow,
whereby the convicts/appellants have been
held guilty under Section 302/34 of I.P.C.
and sentenced for life
imprisonment
coupled with a fine of Rs.25,000/- each and
in default of payment of fine further
imprisonment of six months.

2. The facts in short, necessary for
disposal of these appeals are as under:-

(i) A First Information Report (in
short F.I.R.) was registered at Case Crime
No.349 of 2009, at Police Station Mall,
District Lucknow on the basis of written
report presented by Siyapati. It was stated
in the written report that on 17.10.2009 at
about 7:00 P.M. he went to meet her father
Lallu and mother Lalain in the village
Badkhorwa. As soon as she entered through
door she saw that her younger sister Minni
and her husband Balram assaulted and
killed her parents with a trowel (khurpi)
and they ran away from the house as soon
as they saw her. She raised alarm and some
people of the village came there, and they
also saw Minni and Balram running. Her
younger sister Minni and her husband
Balram killed her parents for money and
property. The dead bodies were lying at the
spot.

(ii)
After
investigation
chargesheet was submitted in the Court
against
the
appellants/convicts
under
Section 302/34 of I.P.C. The concerned
Magistrate after taking cognizance on the
chargesheet committed the case to the
Court of Sessions for trial which was
1 All. Minni @ Meena Vs. State of U.P.
951
registered as Sessions Trial No.79 of 2010.
The learned Sessions Judge transferred the
case for trial to the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No.5/ Special Judge,
Gangsters Act, Lucknow. The Additional
Sessions Judge, Lucknow framed charge
under
Section
302/34
of
IPC.
The
appellants/convicts denied the crime and
claimed to be tried.

(iii) The prosecution examined
following witnesses to prove its case:-

(a)
P.W.
1
Siyapati
the
complainant.

(b) P.W. 2 Pohkar husband of
Siyapati the complainant.

(c) P.W. 3 Dr. P.K. Dwivedi, who
conducted postmortem examination on the
cadavers of both the deceased.

(d) P.W. 4, Sub Inspector Avadhu
Prasad Azad who conducted the inquests of
both the deceased on the direction of
Station House Officer of the Police Station
concerned.

(e) P.W. 5, Suraj Bhan Singh
Head-Moharrir who registered FIR and
prepared Chick FIR Exhibit Ka-13 and
Kayami Nakal Report Exhibit Ka-14.

(f) P.W. 6, Sub Inspector Gauri
Shankar Pal, Investigating Officer of the
case.

(iv) Apart from above oral
evidences
following
documentary
evidences were also proved and exhibited
as Exhibit Ka-1 to Ka-25:-

(1) Exhibit Ka-1, written report.

(2) Exhibit Ka-2, inquest report
of deceased Lallu.

(3) Exhibit Ka-3 inquest report of
deceased Lalain.

(4)
Exhibit
Ka-4
wrongly
mentioned due to clerical error as written in
the judgment.

(5) Exhibit Ka-5 postmortem
report of deceased Lallu.

(6) Exhibit Ka-6 postmortem
report of deceased Lalain.

(7) Exhibit Ka-7 Chalan 'Nash' of
deceased (Lallu).

(8) Exhibit Ka-8 Photo 'Nash' of
deceased Lallu.

(9) Exhibit Ka-9 specimen seal
related to deceased Lallu.

(10) Exhibit Ka-10 Chalan 'Nash'
of deceased (Lalain)

(11) Exhibit Ka-11 Photo 'Nash'
of deceased Lalain.

(12) Exhibit Ka-12 specimen seal
related to deceased Lalain.

(13) Exhibit Ka-13 Chick FIR.

(14) Exhibit Ka-14 Nakal report.

(15) Exhibit Ka-15 Site Plan.

(16) Exhibit Ka-16 recovery
memo of collection of plain and blood
stained soil from the spot.

(17) Exhibit Ka-17 recovery
memo of Saree of accused Minni.

(18) Exhibit Ka-18 recovery
memo of recovered weapon of crime trowel
(Khurpi).

(19) Exhibit Ka-19 recovery
memo of blood stained Shirt and vest of
accused Balram.

(20) Exhibit Ka-20 site plan of
the places of recovery of Khurpi, blood
stained shirt and vest.

(21) Exhibit Ka-21 site plan of the
place of recovery of Saree of accused Minni.

(22) Exhibit Ka-22 Chargesheet.

(23) Exhibit Ka-23 Forensic
Science Lab report regarding plain and
blood stained soil.

(24) Exhibit Ka-24 Forensic
Science Lab report regarding plain and
blood stained soil.

(25) Exhibit Ka-25 Forensic
Science Lab report regarding the recovered
clothes of accused persons and weapon of
offence.
952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(v) After close of prosecution
evidence,
the
statements
of
the
appellants/convicts under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (in
short Cr.P.C.) were recorded, wherein they
denied crime and stated that witnesses have
deposed falsely. They have also stated that
they have been implicated in the crime due
to enmity. The convict/appellant Minni has
further stated that her parents did not allow
her sister (complainant) and her husband to
come to their house, because they used to
sell liquor. Her parents wanted to give all
the property to her, but she denied and told
them that after their death both the sisters
would get equal shares. When she was
imprisoned her sister had sold the land and
also got the house constructed. It is wrong
to say that she (her sister) used to live for
some period with parents and for some
period in her matrimonial home, because
her parents did not allow her to come to
their house. Her sister sold all the land of
her father. She further stated that she did
not commit any crime. She was arrested
from
her
matrimonial
home.
The
convict/appellant Balram has also stated
that he was not present in the village at the
time of incident as he was in Lucknow.

(vi)
In
their
defence
convicts/appellants examined D.W. 1 Dr.
Rakesh Kumar, Physician Community
Health Center, Haidargarh.

(vii)
After
completion
of
evidence, learned trial court after hearing
the arguments of both the sides and
analyzing the evidences available on record
reached
at
the
conclusion
that
convicts/appellants Minni and Balram
committed the murders of Lallu and Lalain,
the parents of Minni and in-laws of Balram.
The learned trial court relied upon the
evidences of Siyapati and Pohkar and also
on the recovery of blood stained clothes of
both the accused and the recovery of
weapon
of
offence
trowel
(Khurpi).
Learned trial court concluded that the
prosecution has proved the case beyond all
reasonable doubts and held both the
convicts/appellants guilty under Section
302/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced them for life
imprisonment coupled with a fine of
Rs.25,000/- each and in default of payment
of fine further imprisonment of six months.

(viii) Being aggrieved of this
conviction and sentence, the present
appeals have been preferred by the
convicts/appellants.

3. Heard Mr. Anurag Shukla, learned
Amicus Curiae for the convicts/appellants
and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Singh, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the
State-respondents.

4. Learned Amicus Curiae Mr.
Anurag Shukla argued for the appellants
that FIR is ante-timed. The police reached
at the spot first, thereafter FIR was lodged
in consultation with police. The presence of
the alleged eye-witnesses i.e. P.W.1 and
P.W.2 at the spot is highly doubtful as they
were residents of another village situated at
a distance of 1Km from the village of
incident. Recovery of trowel and blood
stained clothes is fake. This recovery has
been planted and forged by the police to
create evidence. P.W.1 Siyapati has said in
her statement before the trial court that two
trowels were there at spot, but the
Investigating Officer has said that only one
trowel was recovered and that too not from
the spot, but from somewhere else. He
further argued that alleged motive has not
been proved because there was very small
piece of land in the ownership of the
deceased persons and after their death both
the sisters would have inherited in equal
shares. The statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and
P.W.6 and the Investigating Officer are
1 All. Minni @ Meena Vs. State of U.P.
953
contradictory. The alleged recovery cannot
be
used
as
evidence
against
the
convicts/appellants under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act as that has not been
recovered from their possession or at their
pointing out. He further submitted that the
evidence produced by the prosecution is
highly unreliable and conviction based on
this evidence deserves to be set-aside and
the convicts/appellants be freed.

5. Learned Amicus Curiae relied upon
following case laws:-

a. Sunil Kundu and another Vs.
State of Jharkhand (2013) 4 SCC 422.

b. Krishnegowda and others Vs.
State of Karnataka (2017) 13 SCC 98.

c. Puran Singh Vs. State of
Uttaranchal (2008) (3) SCC 795.

d. Mani Ram and others Vs.
State of U.P. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 289.

e. Bhikari Vs. State of U.P. AIR
1966 SC 1.

6. On the other hand Shri Dhananjay
Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. countered
the arguments made by the learned Amicus
Curiae and submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2
are eyewitnesses. They both saw the
incident
being
committed
by
the
convicts/appellants.
When
complainant
Siyapati raised alarm other persons of
village also reached there. The weapon of
offence trowel was recovered by the police
and the stains of blood were found on the
trowel. The blood stained saree of Minni
was also recovered at her pointing out. The
blood stained shirt and vest of Balram were
also recovered on his pointing out. In
Forensic Science Laboratory report human
blood was found on these recovered
clothes. There is sufficient evidence to hold
the convicts/appellants guilty. Therefore,
the trial court has rightly held them guilty
and punished accordingly. Hence, the
appeal should be dismissed.

7. Considered the rival submissions
and perused the evidences available on
record and gone through the case law cited
above. As per version of FIR, on the day of
incident i.e. 17.10.2009 at about 7:00 pm
the complainant Siyapati went to meet her
parents at village Badkhorwa from her
matrimonial village Atwathari. As soon as
she entered through the door she saw that
her younger sister Minni and Balram had
killed her parents with trowel. As soon as
they (appellants) saw the complainant, they
ran away out of the house. When the
complainant raised alarm, then people of
village came there and they also saw Minni
and Balram fleeing. It has also been
mentioned in the FIR that appellants killed
the deceased in the greed of money and
property.

8. P.W.1 Siyapati has claimed herself
as eyewitness of the crime and has stated in
her statement given as P.W.1 that the
incident occurred on the day of Deepawali
at about 7:00 PM when she went to meet
her father Lallu and mother Lalain at
village Badkhorwa. As soon as she reached
at the door she saw inside that her younger
sister Minni and her husband Balram who
lived in the village Badkhorwa itself,
assaulted her parents with trowel and
injured them, consequently they died. They
both ran away out of the house as soon as
they saw her. Thereafter she raised alarm
and many persons of the village came there
and they also saw Minni and Balram
running. She has further stated that
appellants have killed her parents for the
greed of money and property. She has
proved her written report as Exhibit Ka-1
and identified her thumb impression over
that. In the cross examination she has stated
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that her matrimonial home is situated at a
distance of 1Km from her paternal house.
Her father had two issues one she herself
and another her sister, Minni her younger
sister. After the death of her parents both
the sisters would have inherited half and
half share. She has further stated that her
father had three Bighas of land at the time
of his death, now only two and half Biswa
land is left. She has further stated that her
parents had sold the land before their
murder, only two and half Biswa land was
left over. Now after their death, their house
is lying vacant and none is living there.

9. She has further stated that when the
murder of his parents was done in the
house of her father only one door was there
for entry. She has further stated that she
entered the house first and none else has
entered the house. When she raised alarm
then many people of the village came there.
She first saw the appellants coming out of
the door when she entered and both the
appellants were in the courtyard near the
dead bodies of her parents. When they ran
away many people of village came there,
her husband reached there after ten to
fifteen minutes. She was accompanied by
ten to twelve people of her matrimonial
village because they (appellants) might kill
her also, after seeing her alone. Dallaye,
Pappu, Jagdish, Jaghatte and Vikas were
with her. These all people just accompanied
her, they did not have prior knowledge of
the incident. The door of her house was
open. The people who came from her
matrimonial home were standing outside.
The people of her matrimonial home and of
parental village came inside when she
raised alarm and by that time both the
accused ran away. She has further stated
that she told to the police that Minni was
holding the deceased persons and Balram
was assaulting and the same was written by
her in the FIR. Balram is Raidas by caste
and Minni had married him on his own will
for that reason parents and she were not
happy with Minni and Balram. Minni and
Balram used to come to the house of her
parents. At the time of incident Balram was
wearing the white shirt and pant and tied a
white handkerchief in neck. Her sister
Minni was wearing a red colour saree and
blouse. Both were holding trowels in their
hands and they ran with trowels. She again
said that trowel of Minni was left at the
spot which was picked up by the police and
trowel of Balram was left outside the house
and that too was picked up by police. The
recovery memo was prepared about the
recovery of trowel and she and her husband
put their thumb impressions on that
recovery memo.

10. Pohkar the husband of the
complainant Siyapati has been examined as
P.W.2 and he has stated before the trial
court that she alongwith wife Siyapati went
to
wife's
parental
house
at
village
Badkhorwa. His wife went ahead as he
stopped on the way to urinate, for that
reason he remained behind. When he
reached at the house he found his wife
crying. His wife told that Minni and
Balram were cutting his (P.W.2's) motherin-law and father-in-law with trowel. On
this he also started crying and on this
village people gathered there and appellants
ran away after committing murder. He has
further stated that he and villagers saw
Minni
and
Balram
running
after
committing the murders. He also stated that
he is resident of village Atwathari and that
village is situated at a distance of 1Km
from the village of incident. He further
stated that the villagers belonging to the
village also reached at the spot after
hearing the noise. He has further stated that
he did not open the door when Balram ran
1 All. Minni @ Meena Vs. State of U.P.
955
away.The accused persons opened the door
and ran away and he saw that his motherin-law and father-in-law were lying in the
courtyard. He did not catch them due to
fear. He has further stated that at the place
of incident first his wife reached and after
five minutes he reached. He saw the
accused persons committing the murders of
his in-laws.

11. P.W.3 Dr. P.K. Dwivedi,
conducted postmortem examination of
cadavers of the both the deceased. On the
cadaver of deceased Lallu he found
following ante-mortem injuries:-

1. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.5
cm muscle deep present on left side of face
5 cm below left eye, margins, clear-cut,
sharp and well defined;

2. Contusion 8 cm X 4 cm present
on left side of head just above left ear;

3. Contusion 20 cm X 10 cm
present on left side of ear and below left
collar bone;

4. Contusion 8 cm X 5 cm present
on lateral aspect of right side of abdomen 7
cm above illiac crest;

On opening ecchymosis present
underneath above injuries, fracture of left
temporal
and
parietal
bone
present,
underneath the fracture brain meninges and
brain lacerated, fracture of 2nd to 6th
number rib on left side of chest present,
underneath the fracture lung and pleura
lacerated, about one litre fluid of clotted
blood present in left chest cavity.

In the opinion of Doctor, the
death
resulted
due
to
shock
and
hemorrhage as result of ante-mortem
injuries as noted above. (Exhibit Ka-5)

12. In the postmortem examination of
deceased Lalain P.W. 3 Dr. P.K. Dwivedi
found the following ante-mortem injuries:-

1. Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm
present on right side of face 4 cm below
left eye, margins, clear-cut, sharp and well
defined;

2. Contusion 10 cm X 8 cm
present on right side of face and chin;

3. Contusion 15 cm X 10 cm
present on right side of forehead just above
eyebrow;

4. Contusion 15 cm X 10 cm
present on lateral aspect of right side of
chest 3 cm below right clavicle;

On opening ecchymosis present
underneath
above
mentioned
injuries,
fracture of frontal bone present, underneath
the fracture brain meninges and brain
lacerated, fracture of 2nd to 6th number rib
on left side of chest present, underneath the
fracture lung and pleura lacerated, about
one litre fluid of clotted blood present in
left chest cavity.
In his opinion the cause of death was shock
and hemorrhage as aresult of ante-mortem
injuries as noted above (Exhibit Ka-6).

13. P.W.4 Sub Inspector Avadhu
Prasad Azad, who prepared the inquest
reports at the direction of Station Houses
Officer concerned has proved the inquest
reports of deceased Lallu (Exhibit Ka-2)
and of deceased Lalain (Exhibit Ka-3). He
has
also
proved
the
other
relevant
documents as Exhibits Ka-7 to 12.

14. P.W. 5 Constable Moharrir Suraj
Bhan Singh who has proved the Chick FIR
as Exhibit Ka-13 and Kayami Nakal as
Exhibit Ka-14.

15. P.W.6 Sub Inspector Gauri
Shankar Pal, the Investigating Officer of
the case, he has stated that after taking over
the investigation he recorded the statement
of witnesses, prepared the site plan of the
place of incident at the pointing out of the
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complainant Siyapati. He has proved the
site plan as Exhibit Ka-15. She has also
proved that he has collected the blood
stained and plain soil from the spot and got
prepared the recovery memo by Sub
Inspector Arjun Singh. Thereafter he
arrested the accused Minni and recorded
her statement and recovered the blood
stained saree in the presence of witnesses at
the pointing out of Minni. He has proved
the concerned recovery memo as Exhibit
Ka-17. He further stated that he also
arrested accused Balram, recorded his
statement and recovered weapon of offence
blood stained trowel, blood stained shirt
and vest, which Balram gave him taking
out from his nursery. He has proved the
recovery memo of trowel as Exhibit-18 and
of Shirt and Vest as Exhibit-19. He has also
proved the site plans of the place of
recovery as Exhibit Ka-20 and 21. He has
also
stated
that
after
completing
investigation he submitted chargesheet
against the accused persons proved as
Exhibit Ka-22. The allegedly recovered
trowel was produced before the Court and
this witness has identified, as the trowel
recovered at the pointing out of the accused
Balram. This witness has stated that
accused persons told him that they
committed the murder of deceased persons
by this trowel. In the cross-examination this
witness has stated that there is no mention
of confession made by the accused in
Exhibit Ka-19 i.e. recovery memo of
trowel, shirt and vest.

16. He has further stated that he
recovered no trowel from Minni, but there
is mention in the column two of Forensic
Science Laboratory report that the weapon
used by Minni for committing the murder.
He further stated that he did not know who
sent this weapon. In his cross-examination
he has further stated that in the docket
prepared by Circle Officer Malihabad,
there is mention of weapons of offence
recovered from the possession of Minni
and Balram from the place of incident and
there is no mention in the Forensic Science
Laboratory report about the recovery of
weapon of offence from the possession of
Balram. He further stated that it is true that
Circle Officer prepared the docket and sent
the same for examination in Forensic
Science Laboratory. There is no mention in
the
whole
investigation
that
he
(Investigating
Officer)
recovered
any
trowel, weapon of offence from the
possession of Minni.

17. Upon examining the evidence of
all the witnesses in totality it appears that
the complainant Siyapati and Pohkar who
are claiming themselves as eyewitnesses of
the crime were not reliable. Their presence
at the place of occurrence is highly
unbelievable because as per their version
the day of incident was the day of
Deepawali festival and they used to reside
in another village situated at a distance of
1Km from the village of incident. Both
P.W.1 and P.W. 2 have given contradictory
statements, as P.W. 1 has stated in FIR that
she went to meet her parents at village
Bhadkhorwa. There is no mention in the
FIR
that
her
husband
Pohkar
also
accompanied her. In her examination in
chief, as P.W.1 she has stated that she went
to meet her parents and saw that Minni and
Balram had assaulted her parents with
trowel. They died and they (Minni &
Balram) ran away as soon as they saw
Siyapati. When she raised alarm many
people of village came there and they also
saw Minni and Balram running from the
place. In the examination in chief she has
not stated that she was accompanied by her
husband or her husband came there after
some time. In cross examination she has
1 All. Minni @ Meena Vs. State of U.P.
957
stated that after ten to fifteen minutes
running of the accused persons her husband
reached there. She has also stated that ten
to twelve people of her matrimonial home
accompanied her (Siyapati) when she went
to meet her parents. She has not stated that
her husband and she left from the house
together, but her husband stopped on the
way to urinate and she reached earlier at
the house of her parents.

18. On the other hand, P.W.2 has
stated that he alongwith his wife Siyapati
went to his in-laws house at village
Bhadkhorwa. His wife reached earlier to
him as he stopped on the way to urinate.
When he reached at the spot he heard the
cry of his wife and his wife told him that
Minni and Balram were cutting his in-laws
with trowels. He has stated that he along
with other villagers saw Minni and Balram
fleeing. The statements of these two
witnesses are contradictory in material
terms and create a serious doubt about their
presence at the spot. Further more the
recovery of weapon of offence is also
highly doubtful because P.W.1 Siyapati has
stated in her cross-examination that both
the trowels i.e. one of Minni and another of
Balram were left at the spot and those were
taken by the police. On the other hand, the
Investigating Officer has stated that he was
handed over the trowel by accused Balram
from his nursery. In the Forensic Science
Laboratory report Exhibit Ka-25 there is
mention that the trowel recovered from
Minni. These all facts and circumstances
create serious doubt about the recovery
also. Further there is nothing in the
statement of the Investigating Officer that
at the time of recovery of alleged blood
stained clothes the accused persons told
them that they wore the clothes at the time
of committing the murder or the weapon
allegedly handed over by Balram was used
to commit the murders of the deceased
persons. There is mention in the statement
of Investigating Officer as P.W.2 that
Circle Officer prepared docket of recovery
of weapon of offence, but that Circle
Officer has not been examined before the
Court as witness.

19. On analyzing the evidence, it is
evinced that prosecution could not prove
the
charges
framed
against
the
convicts/appellants
beyond
reasonable
doubt. Hence the impugned judgment and
order deserves to be set-aside and both the
appeals are allowed accordingly. Let the
appellants Minni @ Meena and Balram be
released from jail, if not required in any
other case.

20. Appellants Minni @ Meena and
Balram are directed to file their personal
bonds and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned in compliance with Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

21. Before we part with the case, we
must candidly express our unreserved and
uninhibited appreciation for the assistance
rendered by Mr. Anurag Shukla, Amicus
Curiae
for
the
convicts-appellants,
therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct
for payment to Mr. Anurag Shukla, learned
Amicus Curiae for his valuable assistance
as per Rules of the Court.

22. Office is directed to pay
remuneration to Mr. Anurag Shukla,
learned Amicus Curiae as per Rules of the
Court within a month.

23. Let a copy of this order alongwith
original record be transmitted to the trial
court concerned forthwith for necessary
information and follow up action.
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 958
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 5125 of 2018

Km. Sandhya Singh & Ors.
 ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Saroj Kumar Yadav, Sri Rahul Mishra,
Sri Vishwadeep Patel

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Birendra Singh

Criminal Law- Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Sections 3 & 60- Case of circumstantial
evidence-Evidence
of
'last-seen'-Extrajudicial confession-Evidence of PW1 is
hear-say evidence and is not admissible-
fact of 'last-seen' was disclosed by PW2
and PW4 after 25 days of the said
occurrence when the dead-body of the
child was recovered- PW4-Jai Karan also
did not disclose the fact of 'last-seen' to
anybody during this period of 25 days-
The testimony of PW2 and PW4 is not
reliable and it does not inspire confidence.
So the important link of the chain of
circumstances breaks here.

In a case of circumstantial evidence the
prosecution has to prove every link of the
circumstances and where the story of last seen
is rendered unbelievable and testimony of the
witness is based on hearsay, then the links in
the story of the prosecution break.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 3-
Section 8- In a case of circumstantial
evidence, motive carries a strong weightIt was incumbent upon prosecution to
prove the motive behind the crime yet
PW3, the mother of the deceased, has first
time disclosed the motive in her testimony
that appellant used to falsely allegate her
husband for molesting her. This motive
could not be proved by prosecution by
way of any evidence.

Motive is a relevant fact in a case based on
circumstantial evidence as the same forms one
of the links in the chain of circumstances and
where the prosecution fails to prove the motive
then the story of the prosecution is rendered
doubtful.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 24 -
Settled law with regard to extra-judicial
confession that it should be made before a
person, who is in position to save or help
the accused making confession. In this
case, the aunt of deceased-child was not
in a position to save or help the appellants
so there was no question for any of the
appellants to confess before PW5.

Where the extra-judicial confession is made to a
person who is not in a position to save or help
the accused then such extra-judicial confession
cannot be believed. (Para 17, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-3)

Case Law/ Judgements relied upon:-

1. Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs St. of Maha. dated
2.3.2021 in Crl. Appeal No.1348 of 2013

2. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Maha.,
(1984) 4 SCC 116

3. St. of U.P. Vs Kishanpal (2008) 16 SCC 73

4. Pannayar Vs St. of T.N, (2009) 9 SCC 152
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred
against the judgment and order dated
6.8.2018, passed by the learned Additional