# Pankaj v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1249
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1820 of 2015
- **Bench:** Rajiv Gupta, Harvir Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pankaj-v-state-of-u-p-53450
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

G.A., Sri Vivek Kumar Singh

Benefit of doubt-incident had taken place in
the dark hours of night-no eye witnessnobody was named in the FIR- the father and
brother of the deceased, -who are said to
have taken the victim to hospital -not been
produced
by
the
prosecution-relevant
witnesses, whose testimony appears to be
material to corroborate the prosecution story-
if not produced, then adverse inference may
be drawn against the prosecution -benefit of
doubt extended.

Appeal allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,912 of 101,851. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39912 for what follows._

5 All. Pankaj Vs. State of U.P.
1249
is
incompetent
officer
to
conduct
investigation much less investigation of
complicated matter like the present one
which is based on circumstantial evidence.

77. The office is directed to send the
certified copy of this judgment along with
the trial court records to the trial court
concerned for necessary information and
follow-up action.

78. Copy of this judgement be also
sent to the D.G.P., U.P. Lucknow by the
Registrar (Compliance) within one week
from today for information and necessary
action.

79. Since the appeals are being
decided, pending application(s), if any, and
bail applications shall stand disposed of.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1249
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1820 of 2015

Pankaj ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ajay Kumar Mishra, Sri Arun Kumar Singh,
Sri Vivek Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Sri Vivek Kumar Singh

Benefit of doubt-incident had taken place in
the dark hours of night-no eye witnessnobody was named in the FIR- the father and
brother of the deceased, -who are said to
have taken the victim to hospital -not been
produced
by
the
prosecution-relevant
witnesses, whose testimony appears to be
material to corroborate the prosecution story-
if not produced, then adverse inference may
be drawn against the prosecution -benefit of
doubt extended.

Appeal allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ratnu Yadav Vs St. of Chhatisgarh, Criminal
Appeal No.1365 of 2018

2. Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & ors. Vs St.
of Karn. (Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2010)

3. St. of Uttar Pradesh Vs Deoman Upadhyaya
(AIR 1960 SC 1125)

4. Mohd. Abdul Hafeez Vs St. of Andhra Pradesh
(1983) 1 SCC 143

5. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs St. of U.P.
(2022 SCC Online SC 1396)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the accused-appellant,
Shri A.N. Mulla and Shri Ashish Tiwari,
learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Vivek
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first
informant and perused the trial court
record.

2. The instant criminal appeal has
been filed against the judgment and order
dated 09.03.2015 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Meerut in
Sessions Trial No. 418 of 2010 (State Vs.
Pankaj and Another), arising out of Case
Crime No. 432 of 2009, under Sections 302
IPC, Police Station Saroorpur, District
Meerut and Sessions Trial No.419 of 2010
(State Vs.Pankaj), arising out of Case
Crime No. 476 of 2009, under Section 25/4
of Arms Act, Police Station Saroorpur,
District Meerut, by which, the appellant has
1250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 302/34 IPC and awarded the
sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.5,000/- further the appellant has been
convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 4/25 of Arms Act and awarded the
sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default
stipulations. Both the sentences have been
directed to run concurrently.

3. As per the prosecution case, first
information report in the instant case has
been lodged by one Jaiveer Singh, uncle of
the deceased Parul vide written report dated
24.11.2009
(Ext.
Ka-4),
which
was
registered vide Case Crime No. 413 of
2009, under Sections 307 IPC, Police
Station Saroorpur, District Meerut at 08:15
p.m., carbon copy whereof has been drawn
vide G.D. Report No. 42 at 20:15 p.m.,
which has been proved and marked as Ext.
Ka-5 by Constable Clerk Ram Chandra
(P.W.5) at the relevant date and time.

4. Briefly, the prosecution story, as
stated in the first information report, is that on
24.11.2009 at about 07:15 p.m., Kumari
Parul, daughter of his brother Harvir Singh
after stepping out from the door of her house
was giving breads to the dogs, when two
unknown persons reached there and both of
them stabbed Kumari Parul with a knife in
her abdomen. After assaulting her, they
immediately left the place of incident, which
incident has been witnessed by some persons.
His brother along with his nephew Rahul had
taken Parul to the hospital at Meerut. On the
basis of the aforesaid allegations, a written
report was scribed by the scribe Rajpal Singh,
son of Ranjeet Singh, resident of Karnaval,
Tehsil Sardhana, Meerut and thereafter it was
lodged in Police Station Saroorpur, District
Meerut vide Case Crime No. 413 of 2009,
under Section 307 IPC.

5. The said FIR was registered in the
presence of S.I. Devendra Singh (P.W.7),
who was entrusted with the investigation of
the said case. He thereafter recorded the
statement of the first informant and then
visited the place of incident and collected
blood stained earth and plain earth from the
place of incident, kept it in a separate
container, sealed it and thereafter prepared
the recovery memo, which has been proved
and marked as Ext. Ka-2.

6. Thereafter, P.W.7, the Investigating
Officer had prepared the site plan, which
has been proved and marked as Ext. Ka-7.
On getting the information about the death
of the victim Kumari Parul, the case was
converted
under
Section
302
IPC,
thereafter the Investigating Officer visited
her house and had prepared the inquest
report and thereafter prepared the other
relevant documents namely photo-nash,
challan-nash, letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O.,
sample seal and thereafter wrapped the
dead body in a cloth and handed it over to
the constable for taking it to the mortuary
for post-mortem. The inquest report as well
as the other documents have been proved
and marked as Exts. Ka-8 to Ka-13. The
Investigation of the case was then entrusted
to P.W.8 Pramod Kumar Sharma.

7. An autopsy was conducted on the
person of the deceased Parul on 25.11.2009
at 04:30 p.m. by Dr. D.K. Saxena (P.W.6).
The Doctor has noted the following antemortem injuries on the person of the
deceased:

(i) Stab wound 5 cm x 2m x cavity
deep left side of sub costal region 12 cm
below left nipple at 7 'O' clock position
direction backward and medially. On
dissection underneath the wound soft
tissues and peritoneum is cut at places.
5 All. Pankaj Vs. State of U.P.
1251
Stomach and left side of liver is found cut
on various places. Abdomen cavity filled
with 2 litres of clotted blood.

(ii) Stab wound 5 cm x 2 cm
cavity deep. On left side Abdomen 4 cm
from the umbilicus at 3 'O' clock position
on dissection peritoneum found cut at
places.

8. The cause of death of the deceased
has
been
noted
to
be
shock
and
haemorrhage, as a result of ante-mortem
injuries.

9. Thereafter on 27.11.2009, the first
informant Jaiveer Singh gave another
written application stating therein that on
24.11.2019 at about 07:15 p.m., his niece
was stabbed by knife, information in
respect of which was given by him in the
police station. On the basis of a written
report scribed by Rajpal Singh, an FIR was
registered.
Subsequently
his
niece
succumbed to her injuries. On the said day,
his sister-in-law Parvita was returning back
to her home from her Gher, who saw the
assailants assaulting the victim with knife
and had fallen down unconscious in the
lane,
whose
physical
condition
later
deteriorated. Today after recovering from
the said shock, Parvita disclosed that her
daughter Parul was stabbed by Pankaj and
Babloo (son of maternal uncle of Pankaj),
who then ran away towards their house. He
further stated that today one Satveer Singh,
of his village had also informed him that at
the time of incident, he was standing near
the shop of Chintu, when Pankaj along with
Babloo (his maternal uncles' son) reached
there and assaulted Parul with the knife in
their hands and ran towards their house.
The next day, Satveer Singh had left to
mourn the death of his relative and today
when he returned back and came to know
that the FIR has been lodged against the
unknown persons, then he had disclosed the
truth to Jaiveer Singh.

10. The contents of the said written
application were reduced in writing in the
case diary on 27.11.2009 and have been
proved and marked as Ext. Ka-1. Thereafter
on 29.11.2009, the Investigating Officer
had recorded the statement of Parvita,
mother of the deceased, Smt. Geeta wife of
Jaiveer, Smt. Poonam wife of Ravindra.
Further on 07.12.2009, Babloo is shown to
be arrested and on his pointing out a knife
was recovered, the recovery memo of
which was prepared by the Investigating
Officer (P.W.8) and has been proved and
marked as Ext. Ka-14. Thereafter on
17.12.2009,
the
appellant-
Pankaj
surrendered before the court and on
18.12.2009, his disclosure statement was
recorded in District Jail, pursuant to which,
on 23.12.2009, after taking him in police
custody remand, recovery of a knife has
been shown to be made, fard recovery
memo of which has been prepared on
23.12.2009, which has been proved and
marked as Ext. Ka-15. The site plan of the
said place of recovery of knife has also
been prepared and proved and marked as
Ext. Ka-17.

11.

The
Investigating
Officer
thereafter recorded the statement of the
relevant witnesses and after collecting the
cogent and material evidence against the
nominated accused persons submitted the
charge-sheet against the accused Pankaj
and Babloo under Section 302 IPC, which
has been proved and marked as Ext. Ka-18.

12. On the basis of the said chargesheet
submitted by the Investigating
Officer, learned Magistrate had taken
cognizance, however, since the case was
exclusively triable by the court of Sessions,
1252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as such, it was committed to the court of
Sessions, who, on its turn, made over the
case to the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 13, Meerut, where it was
registered vide Sessions Trial No. 418 of
2010 (State Vs. Pankaj and another), under
Sections 302 IPC with Sessions Trial No.
419 of 2010 (State Vs. Pankaj), under
Sections 25/4 of Arms Act.

13. On the basis of the material
collected during the course of investigation,
the trial court framed the charges against
the accused persons Pankaj and Babloo,
under Section 302 IPC and Section 25
(ii)(b) of Arms Act. The said charges were
read out and explained to the accusedassailants, who pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.

14. The prosecution, in order to prove
its case, has produced as many as 10
prosecution witnesses and number of
relevant
documents
have
also
been
produced and brought on record, which
have been proved and marked as Exts. Ka1 to Ka-25. Their testimony, in brief, is
enumerated as under :-

15. P.W.1 Jaiveer Singh is the first
informant of the instant case. He, in his
testimony, has stated that the incident is dated
24.11.2009 at 07:15 P.M. On the relevant date
and time of incident, his niece Kumari Parul
after stepping out from the house was feeding
bread to the dogs, when two unknown
persons arrived there, who stabbed her in her
abdomen, causing injuries and ran away.
Kumari Parul was thereafter brought to
Meerut for treatment. In respect of the said
incident, he had lodged a written report
scribed by one Rajpal Singh and after signing
it had delivered it at Police Station Saroorpur,
on the basis of which, chik FIR was prepared
and case was registered.

16. P.W.1 further stated that, when he
along with his family members was taking
his niece to Meerut for treatment, en-route
to the hospital, she breathed her last, as
such, they returned back without she being
taken to the hospital. It is further stated that
at the time of incident his sister-in-law
Parvita, mother of the deceased Parul was
returning back from the Gher, who saw the
incident and thereafter fell unconscious,
consequent thereto, her medical condition
deteriorated and she was taken to Budhana
for treatment. Thereafter on 27.11.2009,
when her condition improved, she returned
back to her house and disclosed that she
had seen and identified the assailants, who
stabbed her daughter on the day of incident
and disclosed their names to be Pankaj and
Babloo.
He
further
stated
that
on
27.11.2009, one Satveer Singh of the
village had also come at his house and
informed him that at the time of incident,
he was standing near the shop of Chintu,
when Pankaj and Babloo emerged and they
assaulted Parul by their respective knives
and ran towards their house near the jungle.

17. On being questioned, as to why
Satveer had not disclosed this fact earlier,
he stated that since he had gone to mourn
the death of his relative, as such, he could
not earlier disclose the said information.
The said information was again reduced in
writing by one Brajpal, which was read out
to him and thereafter he handed over the
said written report at the gate of police
station to P.W.8, who incorporated the same
in the case diary, which has been proved
and marked as Ext. Ka-1. On the basis of
earlier FIR lodged by him, the police had
reached the place of incident and conducted
the inquest and collected relevant materials
including plain earth and blood stained
earth and prepared its recovery memo,
which has been proved and marked as Ext.
5 All. Pankaj Vs. State of U.P.
1253
Ka-2. Thereafter, the police conducted the
inquest and the body of the deceased was
sent for post-mortem.

18. During cross-examination, P.W.1
stated that Satveer Singh, witness of the
incident is related to him as 'uncle'. He
further stated that Jasveer s/o Srinivas and
Robin s/o Rampal had seen the accused
assailants running away and had disclosed
this fact to him, however, he did not
disclose the said names to the Investigating
Officer, because of fear. He further stated
that at the time of incident, he was 100-150
yards from his house and at the relevant
time, two other ladies along with his
mother Seema Devi and sister-in-law
Poonam were present in the house. He
further stated that the factum of stabbing
Parul was disclosed to him by Robin,
Yashvir and Chintu, when he was on his
way to his house and after reaching there
he had gone to lodge the report.

19. P.W.1 further stated that prior to
reaching his house, his brother Harvir and
nephew Rahul had already taken Parul to
Meerut hospital. He further resiled from his
earlier statement dated 04.10.2010 before
the court and states that "मैं नहीं कह सकिा तक
तदनाांक 4.10.10 को र्जो मैंने बयान तदया 'र्जब मैं ििा मेरे अन्द्य
पररवार र्जन अपनी भिीर्जी कु० पारुल को इलार्ज के तलए मेरि ला
रहे िे िो राथिे में ही उसने दम िोड तदया िा' मैं नहीं कह सकिा तक
यह बाि सही है या गलि है "

20. P.W.1 further stated that shop of
Chintu is at the distance of 20 yards from
his house and when he reached at the shop
of Chintu, he does not remember, if any
other person was there, however, Chintu
was present at his shop, where he informed
him of the incident. After lodging of the
report, when he was returning back, he
received a phone call about the death of
Parul. He further stated that he does not
remember that when he reached the shop of
Chintu to get the paper for scribing the
report, his uncle Satveer was present there
or not.

21. P.W.1, in his further crossexamination, stated that the factum of two
persons reaching the place of incident had
been disclosed to him by his father and
mother, however, he cannot state that, as to
who informed them about the factum of
stabbing of his niece by two unknown
persons. He further stated that when he
reached the village, Police was already
there. He further stated that, while police
was carrying out the requisite proceedings
at the place of incident, the factum that his
sister-in-law, had fallen unconscious was
within his knowledge. He further stated that
his sister-in-law was taken to the hospital
by his brother Ravindra to Budhana in an
unconscious state. He further stated that he
has no knowledge as to where in Budhana
her sister-in-law was admitted in a nursing
home. He further stated that except
Ravindra, nobody from his family had gone
to meet his sister-in-law in Budhana and
she remained admitted in the nursing home
from 24.11.2009 to 26.11.2009.

22. P.W.1 further stated that while
conducting the inquest, the police had
interrogated Yashvir, Robin and Jaipal in
his presence. He further stated that he had
asked Babu Ram, Ompal Singh, Subodh,
Rajkumar, Katare and Chintu about the
incident, but they had not disclosed him
anything due to fear. The said witness
further stated that on 27.11.2009 at about
07:00-08:00 a.m. in the morning, Satveer
Singh and his sister-in-law Parvita had
disclosed the name of the accused-persons
to him, who had stabbed the victim. He
further stated, that on 26.11.2009, his
1254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sister-in-law had returned back to the
village in the evening at her house and at
the relevant time was speaking and had a
conversation with him as well as with the
other family members.

23. He further showed his ignorance,
as to whether the Investigating Officer had
reached at his house to record the statement
of his sister-in-law Parvita. He further
denied the suggestion that since he was
having enmity with Pankaj and Babloo (his
maternal uncle's son), as such, they have
been falsely implicated in the present case.
He further denied the suggestion that Parul
was having relations with number of boys
of the village. He further denied the
suggestion that Babloo had been falsely
implicated in the present case. He further
denied the suggestion that Parul had illicit
relations with the villagers and wanted to
elope before the marriage, consequent to
which, she has been done to death by her
family members. He further denied the
suggestion that accused persons have been
falsely implicated.

24. P.W.2 Satveer Singh is another
witness, who claims himself to be an eyewitness of the incident. He, in his
testimony, stated that Pankaj is the son of
Vijendra, resident of his native village and
Babloo is the son of his maternal uncle.
The incident is dated 24.11.2009. At about
07:15 p.m. at the time of incident, he had
gone from his house to the shop of Chintu
for purchasing bidi, where he saw the
accused-assailants assaulting the victim
Parul, when she had stepped out of her
house for giving breads to the dogs. He
further stated that both the accusedassailants had made the victim fall down on
the ground and both Pankaj and Bablu
assaulted her with their knives. The said
incident is said to have been witnessed in
the electric light placed at the shop. He
further stated that on raising alarm by the
victim, apart from him, her mother Parvita
w/o Harvir, who was returning from her
Gher had also reached the place of incident
and had also seen two assailants assaulting
her daughter Parul with their knives and
thereafter escaping towards south of their
house with knives in their hands. After the
incident, on account of fear, he returned
back to his house and on the next day went
to mourn the death of his relative. On
26.11.2009, he stayed at his house in
Kankarkheda,
which
was
under
construction
and
returned
back
on
27.11.2009. Upon reaching his village, he
came to know that the family members of
the Parul had lodged the report against
unknown persons and thereafter he visited
Jaiveer, uncle of Parul and informed him
being the eye witness of the incident, where
Parul was assaulted with knives by Pankaj
and Babloo.

25. He, in his cross-examination,
stated that at about 07:00 P.M., while he
had gone at the shop of Chintu for
purchasing bidi, by that time he had
received information about the death of his
relative over phone. The said death had
taken place about four days back and one
Gulveer Singh had died, whose younger
brother is Baljeet s/o Balveer, with whom
his real niece Savitri is married. On the
next day, he had gone to mourn the death of
Gulveer Singh, though his tehravi was
fixed after 4-5 days. He further stated that
at about 07:10 P.M., he had reached the
shop of Chintu and had purchased bidi and
while he had opened the bundle and was
lightening the bidi, no other person was
present at the shop of Chintu. Chintu was
also inside his house and had come out to
give him the bidi. He further stated that
from the said place for about 2-3 minutes,
5 All. Pankaj Vs. State of U.P.
1255
he witnessed the incident and thereafter
went to his house, however, at the relevant
time had not seen Jasveer and Robin at his
shop. He further stated that while he was
standing at the shop of Chintu, he had seen
Parvita coming from her Gher and reaching
the turning from a distance of about 11⁄2
yards. He further stated that Parvita at the
relevant time, when he had first seen her,
was at a distance of 10 yards from her
house. He further stated that he is related as
an 'Uncle' to Harvir.

26. After recording of his testimony
on 19.01.2011, next date 25.01.2011 was
fixed
for
further
cross-examination,
however, he could not be cross-examined
on the said date and his evidence was
closed.

27. Consequently, an application was
filed by the accused-appellant Babloo for
recalling him, which was allowed and
P.W.2 was further cross-examined on
16.03.2011, wherein he stated that at the
time of incident, he had reached the place
of incident to rescue Parul, though Chintu
did not made any attempt to save her. At
the relevant time, no one was seen coming
and the assailants were 20 yards away from
him. He further stated that he had also seen
Parul coming out from the house with
breads in her hand and then after about one
and half minutes, had seen the assailants
coming there, who were correctly identified
by him, however, he could not overhear the
conversation
between
Parul
and
the
assailants. When the assailants stabbed the
victim, she raised alarm 'Maa', consequent
to which, his attention was drawn there.
Pankaj, first assaulted the victim with knife
and then Babloo assaulted her. At the
relevant time, feeling that her life was in
danger, he tried to rescue her. The
assailants after assaulting her tried to
escape from the place where he was
standing and he also raised alarm. He
further stated that he had not seen, if Chintu
had come out, as he chased the assailants
by raising alarm. While he was chasing the
assailants, he saw Parvita coming.

28. He further stated that he continued
to chase the assailants for about 20-30
yards and thereafter after chasing them, he
straight away went to his house and
thereafter did not visit the house of Parvita.
After his return, he did not enquire about
the
surviving
status
of
Parul.
On
25.11.2009, he did not visit Harvir, as he
left for Meerut and returned on 27.11.2009.
On the day of incident he was present at his
house, but had no information that the
police had visited the place of incident. He
was interrogated by the Investigating
Officer after three days. The incident was
witnessed by him in the electric light,
however, the said factum was not disclosed
as he was not questioned for the same by
the Investigating Officer. He had also not
informed the Investigating Officer about
the
construction
of
his
house
at
Kankarkheda.

29. He further stated that he had
informed the Investigating Officer about
the return of victim's mother Parvita from
the Gher and reaching the place of incident.
He further stated that the house of Pankaj is
situated in front of his house, though
Babloo is resident of other village and he
used to meet him everyday.

30. He further denied the suggestion
that on account of relations with the family
members of the deceased, he is falsely
deposing. He further denied the suggestion
that he had not seen the incident. He further
denied the suggestion that he had not seen
Pankaj and Babloo assaulting the victim
1256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Parul. He further stated that after the
incident, where Parvita was taken, is not
known to him. On the date of incident, he
had seen her. He further stated that in his
presence, nobody had taken away Parvita in
an unconscious state. He further denied the
suggestion that he is falsely implicating
Babloo
in
collusion
with
the
first
informant.

31. During cross-examination, on
behalf of Pankaj, he further stated that at
the relevant time of incident, he had
reached there, however, no alarm was being
raised. In order to rescue the girl, he rushed
10-15 paces, however by the time he
reached there to rescue the deceased, the
assailants had already left. He did not stay
near Parul, but chased the assailants for
about 25 meters and thereafter returned
back to the place of incident. He, in his
further cross-examination, stated that when
he reached the place of incident, Jaiveer
and mother of the deceased were present
there, however, he does not remember as to
who else was present there. He did not
make any attempt to take Parul to hospital.
To quote:

"र्जब मैं घटना थिल पर पहुांचा र्जयवीर, उसकी मााँ
वहााँ मौर्जूद िे। वहााँ और कौन लोग मौर्जूद िे मुझे ध्यान नहीं है। मैंने
लडकी पारूल को अथपिाल ले र्जाने की कोतशश नहीं की, मााँ और
चाचा ने की होगी।"

32. He further stated that at the time
of incident there was no supply of
electricity. He did not go to the hospital
with the victim nor visited the police
station to inform about the incident.

33. P.W.2 further stated that on the
night of incident, he could not get the
information, if his grand daughter had died,
as he had gone to his house. When he
reached at his house, he met his son
Upendra and his two children but not his
wife, as she was on the second floor. In
respect of the incident, he had informed his
son Upendra and his two grand daughters
Sonu and Monu about the factum of assault
by knife. Getting the said information, they
had visited at the house of Jaiveer whereas
he along with his wife remained present at
his house. After ten minutes, Upendra had
returned back to his house and informed
him that Parul has been taken to Meerut
Hospital. He further stated that he did not
visit the house of Jaiveer after getting
information of the death of his niece as he
had to go out, nor participated in her
funeral.

34. He further denied the suggestion
that Gulveer had not died, nor he visited
there to mourn his death. He further stated
that on 26.11.2009, he stayed at his house
at Kankankheda for the reason that he had
seen the assailants assaulting the victim and
apprehending that he may not fall in some
difficult situation, he preferred to stay there
and did not even made a phone call. He
further denied the suggestion that he had
not seen the incident nor was present at the
shop of Chintu. He further denied the
suggestion that on account of darkness, he
had not seen the incident. He further denied
the suggestion that on account of being the
family member, he is concealing the true
facts. He further denied the suggestion that
the boy with whom marriage of Parul was
fixed was not appreciated by Parul and due
to such annoyance, she wanted to leave her
house on the day of incident. He further
denied the suggestion that the factum of her
running away was disclosed to them and
consequent thereto, she was done to death
by them.

35. P.W.3 Parvita is the mother of the
deceased. She, in her examination-in-chief,
5 All. Pankaj Vs. State of U.P.
1257
has stated that the incident had taken place
about 22 months back at about 07:15 p.m,
while she was returning for her home from
her Gher and when she reached near the
turning, she saw Pankaj and Babloo
assaulting her daughter Parul with knife in
front of her house. The said incident is
stated to have been witnessed in the light of
a bulb lit by inverter. Apart from her,
Satveer had also witnessed the incident.
Witnessing
the
said
incident,
she
immediately fell unconscious and when she
regained consciousness, she found herself
admitted in the hospital owned by Dr.
Rakesh Mittal at Budhana. She further
stated that she had regained consciousness
on 26.11.2009. She further stated that when
she came back to her house from the
hospital, then at her house, she had
informed her brother-in-law Jaiveer about
the incident. Upon reaching at her home,
she came to know about the death of her
daughter. She further stated that marriage
of her daughter Parul was to be held on
28.11.2009,
however,
the
accusedassailants forcibly wanted to marry her.
Since her daughter had refused to marry
them, as such, she was done to death by the
accused persons.

36. During cross-examination, she
stated that on 24.11.2009 at about 06:30
p.m., she had gone from her house to Gher
for providing water to her cattle, who were
two in numbers and had no other work
there. She further stated that she took about
45 minutes in providing water to her cattle.
At the relevant time, Harvir and his two
brothers Jaiveer and Ravindra were present
in the house along with the other ladies and
children. She further stated that while
returning from the Gher, it was almost dark
and when she reached in the lane in front of
the house of Ram Kumar, she had seen
Satveer standing there, who was facing the
other way. Apart from Satveer Singh, no
other person was present there. She further
stated that while returning from her Gher,
when she had reached the house of Ram
Kumar, she heard the alarm of rescue,
however, could not identify, as to whose
alarm it was. After hearing the alarm, she
rushed to her house, Satveer also proceeded
towards her house from the shop of Chintu,
however, she was ahead of Satveer and he
was following her.

37. In her further cross-examination,
she stated that she had witnessed the
accused-assailants
assaulting
Parul
by
knife, when she had reached at the turning.
She further stated that when she reached
near Parul, she fell down unconscious. The
place where she fell down unconscious was
at a distance of 10-11 yards from the
turning and Parul was lying there, however,
no other person was present there. At the
time when she had seen Parul lying down
on the ground after receiving stab injuries,
none of her family members had come out
from the house. Parul was lying at a
distance of 2-3 yards from the door of her
house. She further stated that though she
had seen Parul lying down after receiving
stab injuries, but she did not made any
attempt to raise her as she had fallen
unconscious. Prior to this incident, after
hearing any sad news, she had never fallen
unconscious
nor
she
ever
suffered
convulsions. She had not seen the body
parts where Parul was stabbed but had only
seen blood flowing out.

38. P.W.3 further stated that after
picking Parul from the place of incident,
she does not know as to in which room of
her house, she was kept. She also does not
know as to who had taken her to the
hospital. Subsequently, she came to know
that her brother Ravindra had taken her in
1258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an unconscious state to the nursing home at
Budhana run by Dr. Rakesh Mittal. She
further stated that her brother used to live
in Bitvada, which is 25-26 k.m. away from
Karnaval. She remained lying at the place
of incident in an unconscious state till his
brother came from Bitvada and took her to
the hospital. She further stated that she
remained admitted in nursing home from
24.11.2009 upto 07:00 P.M. on 26.11.2009.
In the nursing home, her mother Rajvali
was only present and apart from her, no
other person from Karnaval was present
there. On 26.11.2009 at about 07:00 P.M.,
she regained her consciousness and at the
relevant time her mother was with her and
on 26.11.2009 at about 07:00-07:30 P.M.,
she reached Karnaval along with her
mother in a taxi.

39. P.W.3 further stated that the
prescriptions at the nursing home and other
receipts including doctor fees is lying at her
house, which has not been filed in the
court. She further stated that at about 07:45
P.M., she reached her home from nursing
home and informed Jaiveer, her brother-inlaw, about the incident. At the nursing
home, she did not inform anyone about the
incident nor even to her mother. She further
stated that Investigating Officer recorded
her statement on 29.11.2009 in her village.
At the relevant time, when the Investigating
Officer had recorded her statement, number
of family members were present in the
house including Satveer and Jaiveer,
however, her statement was not recorded in
the nursing home. She further stated that
she had deposed before the Investigating
Officer that Pankaj and Babloo repeatedly
stabbed the victim and thereafter left for
their house with knives in their hands. She
further stated that in her statements before
the Investigating Officer, she had stated
that on 27.11.2009, when she regained her
consciousness, she informed the inmates of
her house that her daughter Parul had been
assaulted by Pankaj and Babloo. She
further stated to the Investigating Officer
that she had seen the incident in the bulb lit
by inverter placed outside the shop and at
the relevant time, Satveer was also present
there and witnessed the incident. After
witnessing
the
incident,
she
fell
unconscious. She had also informed the
Investigating Officer that she was admitted
in the nursing home of Dr. Rakesh Mittal at
Budhana and regained consciousness on
26.11.2009 in the evening.

40. P.W3 further stated to the
Investigating Officer that marriage of Parul
was to be held on 28.11.2009 and the
accused-assailants wanted to marry her
daughter, however, her daughter had
refused to marry them, as such, the
assailants had killed her. The factum of
going to nursing home was also disclosed
to him. She further stated that the aforesaid
facts were disclosed to the Investigating
Officer in her statement recorded by him,
however, if the said factum is not
mentioned in her statement, then she cannot
assign any reason for its non-mentioning.

41. She further denied the suggestion
that she had not witnessed the incident and
remained present in the village at the time
of incident till 27.11.2009 and did not fell
unconscious.
She
further
denied
the
suggestion that her daughter wanted to
marry as per her own wishes, however,
since they were not agreeable to that, as
such, she was done to death. She further
denied the suggestion that she had not seen
the assailants assaulting the victim and is
falsely
implicating
them.
Regarding
Pankaj, she stated that Pankaj is the
resident of her mohalla, but she does not
know as to how far his house is situate
5 All. Pankaj Vs. State of U.P.
1259
from her house. She further stated that
Parul had informed him that Pankaj and
Babloo wanted to marry her and Babloo
had asked Parul to marry him, however, she
had refused for the same. The said factum
was disclosed to her about 15-20 days back
and she had informed her husband and
other family members about it. Proposal by
Babloo to marry the victim was disclosed
to the Investigating Officer, however, if it is
not mentioned there, she cannot assign any
reason for the same.

42. During further cross-examination,
P.W.3 has candidly stated that prior to the
date of incident, she had never fallen
unconscious nor any injury was ever
caused on her head. She further stated that
on
26.11.2009,
when
she
regained
consciousness, all her family members
were with her and she had disclosed the
incident to Jaiveer, who himself had asked
her about the incident. She further denied
the suggestion that she had not witnessed
the incident. She further denied the
suggestion
that
she
did
not
fell
unconscious.
She
further
denied
the
suggestion that she was not admitted in any
nursing home. She further denied the
suggestion that Pankaj had informed her
that her daughter was likely to leave her
house. She further denied the suggestion
that on account of said animosity, she is
falsely implicating the appellant Pankaj.

43. P.W.4. Dr. Rakesh Mittal is the
Medical officer in whose nursing home
mother of the victim Parvita is said to have
been admitted. He, in his examination in
chief, has stated that on 24.11.2009 Parvita
wife of Harvir Singh was brought at his
nursing home in acute mental shock and
depression and was having convulsions.
After examining her, he advised her to stay
in his clinic and when by the evening her
condition did not improve, he asked her to
remain admitted there for two days at his
home, which earlier was his clinic. He
further stated that on 26.11.2009, after
resuming her consciousness at 05:00 p.m.,
he had discharged Parvita from the
hospital. The medical treatment given to
the patient and her case history, prepared in
his handwriting is on record and is proved
and marked as Ext. Ka-2. To medically reexamine Parvita, he had called her on
27.11.2009 and after re-examining her on
27.11.2009,
he
had
discharged
her,
discharge slip of which has been proved
and marked as Ext. Ka-3.

44. During cross-examination, P.W.4
states that he had medically examined
Parvita in the afternoon on 26.11.2009 at
02:00 p.m., thereafter she started regaining
consciousness. He further stated that he
does not remember, if at the time of
regaining
consciousness
her
family
members were present at the clinic. Parvita
was brought at his clinic by her brother
Ravindra with whom he is well acquainted
with and apart from him, he cannot identify
any of her relatives. He further stated that
in front of his clinic Ravindra is having a
computer institute. He further stated that he
had not seen any lady at his clinic attending
her. He further stated that on 2425.11.2009,
Parvita
did
not
regain
consciousness to speak. He further stated
that he had admitted Parvita at his home,
which earlier was his clinic. He further
stated that in his clinic, he has permission
to admit two patients but at the relevant
time, no other patient was admitted at his
clinic. He further stated that the admission
of the patients is maintained in a register,
however, he has not brought the said
register. He further stated that he cannot
state the serial number at which Parvita was
admitted.
1260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

45. The treatment provided to the
patient Parvita on 24.11.2009 has been filed
in the court, which has been marked as ExtKa-2
containing
all
relevant
details,
however, in the said Ext. Ka-2, there is no
description of blood pressure, pulse rate
etc. of the patient. The bedhead ticket of
Parvita was also prepared, however, it is
not on record. He further denied the
suggestion that Parvita was not admitted in
his clinic and that is why the said
documents are not available. He further
stated that prior to 24.11.2009, he had not
provided any treatment to Parvita. He
further candidly stated that on 27.11.2009,
Parvita was again re-examined by him and
then the discharge slip was issued, which
has been proved as Ext. Ka-3. He further
denied the suggestion that Exts. Ka-2 and
Ka-3 are fake documents and on account of
his friendship with Ravindra, he is falsely
deposing in the court.

46. P.W.4 further stated that while
Parvita was admitted in his clinic, no police
personnel had reached there to record her
statement and during her treatment, neither
Ravindra nor anyone else had informed
him about the incident. He further stated
that neither on Ext.Ka-2 nor on Ext.Ka-3,
the
identification
of
the
patient
is
mentioned. The factum of treatment of
Parvita was also not verified by any of the
police personnel. He further stated that he
has been known to Ravindra for the last
three and a half years and his clinic is
situate just in front of his institute. He
further denied the suggestion that on
account of acquaintance with Ravindra, he
had forged the documents Exts. Ka-2 and
Ka-3.

47.