# Naresh Chaudhary v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 361
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-13
- **Case number:** Jail Appeal No. 787 of 2016
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh, Devendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/naresh-chaudhary-v-state-of-u-p-54010
- **Pages:** 12

## Text

1 All. Naresh Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.
361
appellant was only of exhortation, which is a weak type of evidence as held by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Jainul Haque Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 45, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as under:

"The evidence of exhortation is, in the very nature of thing, as weak piece of
evidence. There is quite often a tendency to implicate some person in addition to the
actual assailant, by attributing to that person an exhortation to the assailant to
assault the victim. Unless the evidence in this respect be clear, cogent and reliable,
no conviction for abetment can be recorded against the person alleged to have
exhorted the actual assailant. The evidence adduced at the trial in respect of the part
alleged to have been played by the appellant is contradictory and far from
convincing. We would, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the conviction of the
appellant and acquit him.

37. In view of of the above, this Court is of the view that the evidence produced by the
prosecution has neither quality nor credibility and it would be unsafe to rest conviction upon such
evidence. After having considered the matter thoughtfully, we find that the evidence on record in
this case is not sufficient to bring home guilt of the appellant under Section 302/34 IPC beyond
reasonable doubt.

38. Accordingly, the order dated 10.02.1987 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Gyanpur, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1983, convicting and sentencing the appellant under
Section 302/34 is set aside.

39. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.

40. The appellant Madhav alias Mewa Lal is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties
are discharged.

41. Office is directed to transmit a copy of this order along with trial court record to the court
concerned for compliance and compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 361
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Jail Appeal No. 787 of 2016

Naresh Chaudhary ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent(s)
362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
The appellant was convicted under section 302 IPC for the strangulation murder of his wife on 2/3 September
2009 .

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 302-Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 378-MurderCircumstantial evidence-Prosecution case rested on last seen theory and recovery of the murder
weapon(Lungi) belonging to the appellant-Testimony of daughter and son established a history
of matrimonial disputes and an altercation on the night of the incident-Appellant was found
missing for six days-Later surrendered without offering any explanation in his Section 313 CrpC
statement regarding the circumstances of the death or the use of his Lungi in the crime-Appeal
dismissed.(Para 32 to 43) (E-6)

Held
The court held that the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused. In the present case the chain was held to be complete as the date and time of the death
were confirmed by medical evidence. the appellant was present in the house on the night of the incident and
the victim was strangulated with the appellant's clothing and the appellant absconded immediately after the
crime.

Case law Cited
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, State of U.P. Vs Ashok Kumar
Srivastava, (1992( 2 SCC 86, Padala Veera Reddy Vs State of A.P. 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, C.Chenga Reddy &
Ors Vs State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193,State of Goa Vs Pandurang Mohite, (2008) 16 SCC 714, Laxman
Prasad alias Laxman Vs State of M.P. 2023(3) SCC (Cri) 27 & R. Sreenivasa Vs State of Karnataka (2024) 17
SCC 426, State represented by inspector of Police Vs Saravanam & Anr. (2008) 17 SC 587,State of U.P. Vs
M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505-referred to.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code,1860, Criminal Procedure Code,1973.

List of Keywords
Section 302 IPC, Circumstantial evidence, Strangulation, Last seen theory, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda,
Uxoricide, Chain of Evidence, Absconding, Minor Contradictions, Section 313 CrPc, Motive.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: JAIL APPEAL No. - 787 of 2016

 Naresh Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.
From the Judgment and order dated 13.01.2026 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Appellant(s):-
Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey, From jail, Himansu Rai A.c., Pravin Kumar Tiwari
Adv. for Respondent(s):-
A.G.A.,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)

1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been sent from jail by the accused-appellant, Naresh
Chaudhary against a judgment dated 27.07.2015 and order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 1999 of 2009 arising out
1 All. Naresh Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.
363
of Case Crime No. 971 of 2009, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Vijaynagar, district
Ghaziabad, whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for
life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed
to undergo imprisonment of two years.

Brief Facts

2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution as set up in the first information report is that a
written report was filed by Preeti Chaudhary, daughter of Naresh Chaudhary, resident of Lane No.
1, 36/4 Krishna Nagar Bagu, Ghaziabad that in the night intervening 2/3.09.2009 her mother-Meera
Chaudhary (herein after referred to as "the deceased") has been strangulated to death by her fatherNaresh Chaudhary (hereinafter referred to as "the accused-appelant") by Lungi. It is mentioned in
the report that at about 9:30 PM, when her mother came to house after finishing her duties, an
altercation took place between the deceased and the accused-appellant. Thereafter, the deceased
cooked food and after having dinner, she went to the roof for sleeping, whereas the accusedappellant stayed with the children at downstairs. The F.I.R. further alleged that when the informant
suddenly woke up in the midnight, she found the accused-appellant missing. She thought that he
(accused-appellant) went to upstairs, where deceased was sleeping. The F.I.R. further alleges that
in the next morning, when her brother, namely, Amit went to the roof in search of her mother
(deceased), he saw that the deceased was lying dead. On an alarm being raised by her brother, she
went upstairs and saw that her mother (deceased) was strangulated to death by the same Lungi,
which was worn by her father last night. She also saw that some bangles and mangalsutra of her
mother were also broken and scattered.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the First Information Report was lodged at Case Crime
No. 971 of 2009, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad, which
was marked as Ext. Ka-5.

4. After registration of the aforesaid case, the law set into motion and investigation of the case
was entrusted to S.I. Dalchand Tiwari, PW-7, who copied the F.I.R. and GD in the case diary and
recorded the statement of the first informant. He also inspected the spot along with the first
informant and collected Lungi, broken bangles, one hair clip and prepared recovery memo thereof,
which was marked as Ext.Ka-5. He also recorded the statement of Chik writer of the F.I.R.
Constable Rameshwar Tyagi, PW-6 and made a search of the accused-appellant. On 09.09.2009, he
recorded the statement of the accused in Kutchery, who confessed to his crime. He also copied the
post-mortem report in the case diary, recorded the statement of the first informant and witnesses of
inquest. He also recorded the statement of Ankit Chaudhary. He also prepared site plan, which was
marked as Ext.Ka-6. Thereafter, this witness has been transferred and investigation of the case was
entrusted to Station House Officer Sudhir Kumar Tyagi, PW-8.

5. S.O. Sudhir Kumar Tyagi, PW-8, in his examination-in-chief, which was recorded on
06.11.2012, deposed that on 02.10.2009, he was entrusted the investigation of pending case crime
No. 971 of 2009, under Section 302 I.P.C. On 09.10.2009, he started the investigation and recorded
the statement of brothers of the deceased, namely, Virendra Kumar and Vinod Kumar. On
13.10.2009, he recorded the statement of Dr. Rajpal Singh, who conducted post-mortem
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
examination on the cadaver of the deceased. After culmination of investigation, he submitted
charge sheet No. 996 of 2009, dated 13.10.2009 against the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C.,
which has been marked as Ext.Ka-7.

6. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where case was registered as ST No. 1999 of 2009.
Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Ghaziabad framed the charges
against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C., which was read over and explained to the accused,
who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To bring home guilt of the appellant beyond the hilt, the prosecution has examined as many
as nine witnesses, out of whom PW-1 Hari Om Gautam, PW-2 Kumari Preeti Chaudhary and PW-4
Amit are witnesses of facts, whereas, PW-5 Vinod Kumar is the witness of inquest. Remaining
witnesses namely PW-3 Dr. Raj Pal Singh, PW-6 Constable Rameshwar Tyagi, PW-7 S.I.
Dalchand Tiwari, PW-8 S.H.O. Sudhir Kumar Tyagi and PW-9 S.I. Rajendra Kumar Verma are
formal one.

8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused-Naresh Chaudhary
has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the charges levelled against him.
However, he produced two witnesses in his defence namely DW-1 Smt. Kanti Devi and DW-2
Jagveer Singh.

9. DW-1, Smt Kanti Devi deposed that the relation between the accused and the deceased was
very much cordial. Whenever she visited their house, they used to discuss the family affairs with
her. About four years ago, she received an information from the house of Naresh that Smt. Meera,
the deceased, who was sleeping over the roof, has been killed by some unknown person. When she
went to the house of Naresh, she was told that the dead body has been taken away to Hathras, the
maternal house of the deceased. Children of the deceased told her that the deceased was
strangulated to death by some unknown person.

10. DW-2, Jagveer Singh deposed that he is employed in Gurugram Haripal from where he
used to visit to his cousin-the appellant. On 01.09.2009, he visited the house of the accused and the
deceased and stayed there in the night. He never seen any quarrel between them. Both accused and
the deceased were happy with their children. On 03.09.2009, he received an information that
Meera, the deceased has been done to death by some unknown person while sleeping over the roof.

11. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. Ghaziabad after hearing the learned counsel
for the parties and assessing, evaluating and scrutinizing the evidence on record, convicted and
sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated herein above.

12. Hence, this appeal.

Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant
1 All. Naresh Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.
365

13. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accusedappellant vehemently submitted that the entire prosecution case is based upon circumstantial
evidence and there is no eye-witness in this case. It is next submitted that after plain reading of
deposition of Hariom Gautam (PW-1); Km. Preeti Chaudhary (PW-2) and Amit (PW-4), there are
several contradictions in their statement. Learned counsel for the appellant, while reading the
deposition of Hariom Gautam (PW-1), pointed out that in examination-in-chief of PW-1, it is stated
that he had informed the police about the death of the deceased, whereas he, in his crossexamination, has stated that his neighbours had informed the police about the incident. It is further
stated that Km. Preeti Chaudhary (PW-2) in her examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination
has also not established the motive behind the incident. As per the deposition of PW-2, a quarrel
took place between the deceased and accused-appellant due to a reason that the accused-appellant
had taken money from the groom's side as her marriage was fixed in their family, therefore, her
mother (deceased) was upset from the aforesaid conduct of the accused-appellant. It is also
vehemently submitted that Amit (PW-4), in his examination-in-chief, has given some other reason
to establish the motive behind the murder of the deceased. PW-4, in his deposition, has stated that
as the accused-appellant did not want his wife (deceased) to work in Sahara and due to that reason,
they regularly quarrel with each other.

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant next contended that after
reading the depositions of all the aforesaid three prosecution witnesses of the facts, motive to the
accused-appellant has not been assigned by any of them which supports the prosecution story that
the accused-appellant had committed the murder of the deceased. In support of his submission, he
has also referred the depositions of Smt. Kanti Devi (DW-1) & Jagveer Singh (DW-2) and
submitted that Km. Preeti Chaudhary (PW-2) had informed them that someone else had committed
the murder of the deceased by entering into the house from the stairs which can be accessed from
outside.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon the site plan (Ext.Ka.6)
and submitted that there are stairs from the outside of the house, by which anyone can easily access
into the house, therefore, there is high chance that someone else might have committed the murder
of the deceased.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is
based upon circumstantial evidence. After perusing the entire evidence on record, the prosecution
has miserably failed to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence. The trial court, while passing
the impugned judgment and order, had mechanically appreciated the evidence and convicted the
accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. without appreciating all the
contradictions, as pointed above.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that if the case of the prosecution is
based upon the circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of circumstantial evidence must be
completed and if the chain breaks, in any manner, the benefit of doubt will go to the accused. In
support of this submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant lastly submitted that in view of the aforesaid
facts and circumstances and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the prosecution has
miserably failed to make out any case against the accused-appellant, therefore, the instant criminal
appeal may be allowed by setting aside the order of the trial court.

Submissions of learned counsel for the A.G.A.

19. Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State
vehemently opposed the instant criminal appeal and submitted that the learned trial court, while
convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., has
not committed any error or illegality. The learned trial court after considering the deposition of the
ocular evidences and other documentary evidences, reached on a conclusion that there are no major
contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that the ocular
evidences and the documentary evidences support each other. It is further submitted that at the time
of incident, accused-appellant was in the house and after having dinner, he went downstairs
whereas the deceased went to upstairs to sleep. Km. Preeti Chaudhary (PW-2), in her deposition,
has categorically deposed that when she awake in the mid-night, she did not find her father,
however in the morning, when her brother had raised an alarm, she reached upstairs and saw that
her mother was strangulated by the same lungi, which was worn by her father last night.

20. It is also submitted by learned A.G.A. that the stairs, which was shown in the site-plan
(Ext.Ka.6) to reach at the first floor of the house, was situated from outside of the house and there
is a separate entry for the landlord, who lives at the ground floor of the house. However, there were
no stairs from the outside of the house to reach to the roof of the house, where the deceased was
murdered.

21. Learned A.G.A. next submits that there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for
the appellant that some outsider might have committed the murder of the deceased by accessing the
outside stairs. It is also submitted that the lungi which was worn by the accused-appellant by which
the deceased was strangulated, there is no suggestion available on record not even in the statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused-appellant that how the same lungi which was worn by
him in the night, the deceased was strangulated. It is also submitted that it is an admitted fact that
the accused-appellant was present at the night and fled away from the house after committing the
murder of his own wife and surrendered before the Court on 09.09.2009, after six days of the
alleged incident.

 22. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State further submitted that the trial court while
passing the judgment has also noted that there are minor contradictions in the statement of the
prosecution witnesses, but it has also given the explanation for that reason as the witnesses were
examined after a gap of more than 2-1/2 years from the date of occurrence. Accordingly, such kind
of minor contradictions, which have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant,
cannot be fatal to the prosecution story to be disbelieved. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that
after taking into consideration the ocular evidence and documentary evidence, the prosecution has
successfully completed the entire chain of circumstantial evidence. There is no illegality in the
impugned order, the instant appeal is devoid of merit, and deserves to be dismissed.
1 All. Naresh Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.
367

Analysis and Conclusion

23. Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the accused-appellant and
Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of U.P.

24. The case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case
based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature.
Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete forming a chain and there should be no gap
left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused totally in consistent with his evidence. It has been
consistently laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that where a case rests on circumstantial
evidence, the inference of the guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are found to be in compatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other
person.

25. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, Supra, (relied upon by the
learned counsel for the appellant), the Hon'ble Apex Court has framed five golden principles for
the circumstantial evidence, which are as under:

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

(ii) 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.

(iii) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency

(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and,

(v) 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.

26. In State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) 2 SCC 86., it was pointed out that
great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is
reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in the favour of the accused must be accepted. It was
also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have fully established and
cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

27. In the case of Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, Hon'ble
Apex Court opined as under:

"10. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel, we shall at the
threshold point out that in the present case there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with
the offence in question and the prosecution rests its case solely on circumstantial evidence. This
Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial
evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be
cogently and firmly established;

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards
guilt of the accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is
no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the
accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be
complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused
and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be
inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, (1982) 2 SCC 351)"

28. In the case of C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193, Hon'ble
Apex Court while considering a case of conviction based on the circumstantial evidence, held as
under:

"21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be
conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no
gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In the present
case the courts below have overlooked these settled principles and allowed suspicion to take the
place of proof besides relying upon some inadmissible evidence."

29. In the case of State of Goa v. Pandurang Mohite, (2008) 16 SCC 714, Hon'ble Apex
Court reiterated the settled law that where a conviction rests squarely on circumstantial evidence,
the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are
found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any person. The
circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact
sought to be inferred from those circumstances.

30. The decision in Sharad Birdichand Sarda (Supra) has recently been followed by Hon'
ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments including Laxman Prasad alias Laxman vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2023 (3) SCC (Cri) 27 and R. Sreenivasa vs. State of Karnataka (2024) 17
SCC 426.

31. In the light of the above pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, we shall not consider
whether in the present case, the prosecution succeeded in establishing the chain of the
circumstances leading to an inescapable conclusion that the accused-appellant has committed the
crime.

32. We have perused the entire evidence on record i.e. ocular evidence as well as documentary
evidence for proper adjudication of the case. The relevant portion of deposition of the prosecution
witnesses of Hariom Gautam (PW-1), Km. Preeti Chaudhary (PW-2) and Amit (PW-4) are
extracted herein below :-
1 All. Naresh Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.
369

PW-1, who is the landlord of the house in question, in his examination-in-chief, which
was recorded on 24.12.2010, deposed that he has two storied house. He lives in the lower portion of
the house, whereas in the upper portion of the house Naresh Chaudhary (accused-appellant) live on
rent along with his wife and three children. At 5:30 AM on 03.09.2009, on the shriek of children of
Naresh Chaudhary (accused-appellant) when he along with other persons of the vicinity went on
the upper portion of house, he saw Meera Devi lying dead, whereas accused Naresh Chaudhary fled
away. Thereafter, he informed the police by dialling 100. Police on reaching the spot to sealed the
dead body and conducted inquest. He also put his signature on the inquest report.

PW-2, Kumari Preeti Chaudhary is the first informant and daughter of the deceased, in
her examination-in-chief, deposed that she lives in Vijaynagar along with his family. In the night
intervening 02.3.2009, she along her brother was sleeping in the lower portion of the house,
whereas her mother and father were on the upper portion of the house. Her father Naresh
Chaudhary strangulated her mother to death by Lungi. She she woke up in the morning and went
upstairs, she found her mother lying beneath the cot on the roof and Lungi was stuck in her neck,
which her father was wearing. Her mother has been done to death by her father. This witness
further deposed that her father used to quarrel with her mother. Her father has arranged her
marriage with some person and took certain money from him, but her mother did not like this, due
to which her father used to quarrel with her mother, due to that reason he strangulated her mother to
death by Lungi and fled away. Handkerchief was stuffed in the mouth of her mother, bangles and
Mangalsutra were broken. This witness also deposed that report of the incident was lodged by her,
which she proved as Ext. Ka-2.

PW-4 Amit, who is the son of the deceased and appellant. As he was minor on the date of
his deposition, the Court, in order to ascertained his mental condition, asked certain questions and
on being satisfied about is mental conditions, allowed the ADGC to get his statement recorded.
PW-4, Amit in his examination-in-chief deposed that the incident in question took place on
02.9.2029. On that date, her mother, who was working in a company, return home at 09:30 PM.
Altercation took place between his mother and father. Thereafter, his mother went on the roof to
sleep. His father also went on the roof. Thereafter, what happened, he does not know. In the
morning when he went on the roof, he did not find his mother. Thereafter, when he went on the
roof along with his sister, his mother was lying besides the cot and her neck was tied with Lungi of
his father. She was dead. On his shrieks, neighbours arrived. Police also arrived thereafter. This
witness further deposed that his father used to quarrel with his mother every day. He was a
drunkard. Earlier he was employed, but later on he left the job. After his father, left the job, her
mother started working. After the death of his mother, his father fled away.

33. PW-3, Dr. Rajpal Singh, in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 03.09.2009 he was
posted at M.M.G. Hospital Ghaziabad as Physician. He was assigned the duty of post mortem. He
conducted the autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased and found the following ante mortem
injuries:

"Abrasion, contusion and ligature mark 30 cm x 3.5 cm all over neck. Traverse position
8 cm below right ear, 8 cm below left ear and 7 cm below chin. Under the skin, blood was present.
Trachea rings and hyoid bone were also fractured."
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

On internal examination, doctor noted that both the lungs were congested, gall bladder
congested and 1/2 full, spleen and kidneys were congested.

34. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia as a result of
ante-mortem injuries (strangulation). He proved his post mortem report as Ext. Ka-3.

35. In the post-mortem report, time of strangulation (between 2/3.09.2009) has also been
stated by the Dr. Rajpal Singh, therefore, the first chain of circumstantial evidence is completed
that there is no dispute in date and time of the alleged incident.

36. Secondly, after going through the deposition of Hariom Gautam (PW-1), who is a landlord
of the accused-appellant as well as deceased, it is established that he lives on the ground floor of
the house and on the alarm raised by the daughter and son of the deceased, he went upstairs on the
roof and saw the dead body of the deceased lying behind the cot. Thereafter, he informed the
police. The police reached the place of incident and considering the written report (Ext. Ka-2) of
Km. Preeti Chaudhary (PW-2), F.I.R. was lodged on 03.09.2009 against the accused-appellant, as
such, there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. The second chain has also been completed.

37. Thirdly, Km. Preeti Chaudhary (PW-2), in her deposition, has clearly stated that after
having dinner, her mother went upstairs for sleeping, whereas her father stayed back on the first
floor with the children. When she woke up in the midnight, she did not find her father and in the
next morning, when her brother reached to the roof of house, he raised the alarm whereby she also
went to the roof of the house and saw that her mother was lying dead and strangulated by the same
lungi which was worn by her father last night. There was no explanation with regard to the
aforesaid facts, not even in the statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
therefore, the third chain of circumstances is also completed.

38. It is an admitted fact and not denied by the accused-appellant that on 02.09.2009 at 09:30
pm, the accused-appellant had dinner with his wife and children and thereafter, he fled away and
only surrendered on 09.09.2009 in the Court. If he was not guilty for committing the aforesaid
offence, why he fled away from the house and in this regard, no explanation has been tendered by
the accused-appellant even in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., therefore, this chain has also
been completed.

39. It is also an admitted fact that there are certain minor contradictions in the statement of the
prosecution witnesses but such kind of minor contradictions cannot negate the prosecution story. It
is settled proposition of law that even if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies,
the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the
evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the Court comes to a
conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue
importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go
the heart of the matter and shake the basis version of the prosecution's witness. As the mental
abilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details of the incident,
minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses.
1 All. Naresh Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.
371

40. In State represented by Inspector of Police Vs. Saravanam and another (2008) 17
SCC 587, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take
into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may
materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements
on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to
reject the evidence in its entirety. The Trial Court, after going through the entire evidence, must
form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate Court in normal course
would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons.

41. In State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony, (1985)1 SCC 505, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:

"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the
evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is
formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly
keeping in view the deficiencies, draw-backs and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole
and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the
witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of
belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical
approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching
importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the : root of
the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court before
whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of
evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due
weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and
formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or
infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some
details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction
differ with individuals. Cross examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer.
Having examined the evidence of this witness, a friend and well-wisher of the family carefully
giving due weight to the comments made by the learned Counsel for the respondent and the reasons
assigned to by the High Court for rejecting his evidence simultaneously keeping in view the
appreciation of the evidence of this witness by the trial court, we have no hesitation in holding that
the High Court was in error in rejecting the testimony of witness Nair whose evidence appears to
us trustworthy and credible."

42. Taking into consideration the aforesaid reasons and after going through the entire records,
we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial court as the learned trial court
has not committed any error or illegality in the impugned order convicting the accused-appellant
for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him, as stated above.

43. The instant criminal appeal from jail is devoid of merit, and is accordingly, dismissed.
372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

44. The appellant-Naresh Chaudhary is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are
discharged. He is directed to surrender before the court concerned forthwith to serve out the
remaining sentence awarded by the Trial Court.

45. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with record of this case to the
court concerned/learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad forthwith for immediate compliance and
compliance report be submitted to this Court.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 372
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD- 27.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 10956 of 2025

Vishal Tyagi & Anr. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
The appeal involves the conviction of two school staff members for allegedly abusing and threatening their
Principal. The trial court convicted them based on the Principal's initial testimony despite all witnesses turning
hostile.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 504, 506, Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 161, Evidence
Act,1872-Section 145-Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989Section 3(1)(da)d-Testimony of hostile witness-legality of-Abuse and threatening to the
Principal over a salary dispute-During trial, all prosecution witnesses including the informant,
turned hostile-Pw-1 supported the case in examination -in-chief but resiled during crossexamination-The trial court committed error by treating the Investigating officers testimony as
primary evidence to establish the truth of the oral evidence- A witness stated under section 161
CrPC cannot be treated as substantive evidence-Appellants acquitted.(Para 13 to 18) (E-6)
Held
The court held that Testimony of Investigating officer is not substantive evidence; it is only corroborative in
nature. testimony of eyewitnesses and victim constitutes substantive evidence. Law mandates that
corroboration is required to support substantive evidence and not that substantive evidence is to be proved by
seeking support from corroborative evidence. Trial court convicted the appellants solely on the basis of partial
testimony of hostile witness, without lawful corroboration and without confronting the witness with his
previous statement. The findings recorded by the learned trial court are perverse and contrary to law. Appeal
allowed.
Case law Cited
Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab (2015) 3 SCC 220, State of U.P. Vs Ramesh Prasad & Ors., AIR 1996 SC
2766, Ram Swaroop Vs State of Rajasthan , AIR 2004 SC 2243, Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt. of N.C.T. of
Delhi), AIR Online 2022 SC 1160, V.K. Mishra Vs State of Uttarakhand (2015) 9 SCC 588, Renuka Prasad Vs
State of (2025 INSC 657)-referred to.