# Radha Charan Sharma v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 49 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-02-11 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 1984 - **Bench:** Rajiv Gupta, Devendra Singh-I - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/radha-charan-sharma-v-state-of-u-p-54845 - **Pages:** 26 ## Text _Characters 0–39,785 of 91,291. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39785 for what follows._ 2 All. Radha Charan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. 49 74. The cumulative effect of these deficiencies creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. Such doubt is neither fanciful nor speculative, but arises from material contradictions and lacunae in the evidence on record. In criminal law, even a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to entitle the accused to an acquittal. 75. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The presumption of innocence, which accompanies the accused from the inception of the trial and continues throughout the appellate stage, stands fortified in the present case, and the prosecution has failed to dislodge the same by reliable and convincing evidence. Conclusion: 76. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon an overall re-appraisal of the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances is found to be incomplete and does not unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellant. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 77. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 15th December 2007 passed by the learned Session Judge, District Balrampur in Session Trial No. 06 of 2006 is set aside. 78. The appellant, Shiv Pujan is acquitted of all the charges. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 79. Pending applications if any stands disposed of. 80. The office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this judgment to the court concerned for immediate compliance. ---------- (2026) 2 ILRA 49 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.02.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J. Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 1984 Radha Charan Sharma ...Appellant Versus State of U.P. ...Respondent Issue for consideration 50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES The matter pertains to criminal appeal against a conviction under section 302 of the IPC, where the appellant was accused of murdering his wife with a farsa following a domestic dispute. Headnotes A. Criminal law-Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 302-Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 374(2)-Murder-Circumstantial evidence-Inadmissibility of confessional FIR-Scope of Section 106, Evidence Act-Appellant convicted for the murder of his wife with farsa- Prosecution case primarily rested on a confessional FIR lodged by the accused and subsequent recovery of the weapon-A confessional FIR lodged by an accused is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and is completely inadmissible as substantive evidence-Recovery of the weapon deemed unreliable due to hostile witnesses and procedural inconsistencies-Burden of proof under section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be shifted to the accused unless the prosecution first establishes the foundational fact of the accused's presence at the scene of the crime at the relevant time-Mere existence of matrimonial discord or "could have" committed the crime is insufficient to bridge the gap to "must have" in a case of circumstantial evidence-Chain of circumstances being incomplete ,the conviction is unsustainable-Conviction set aside-Appeal allowed.(Para 54 to 81) Held The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt as the primary evidence (the confessional FIR) was inadmissible, the recovery of the weapon was suspect, and the foundational facts for shifting the burden under section 106 were not established. The conviction and life sentence passed by the trial court are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted. (E-6) Case law Cited Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, Narayan Yadav Vs State of Chhatishgarh 2025 SCC Online SC 1603, Faddi Vs State of M.P. 1964 SCC OnLine SC 123 and Aghnoo Nagesia Vs State of Bihar 1965 SCC OnLine SC 109, State of M.P Vs Balveer Singh (2025) 8 SCC 545, Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya Vs Mahesh Prakash Ahuja & Anr 2025 SCC OnLine SC 451-referred to. List of Acts Indian Penal Code, 1860 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 List of Keywords Confessional FIR, IPC 302 Section, Evidence Act, Section 25, Section 106 (Burden of Proof), Section 27 of Evidence Act (Discovery of fact), Circumstantial Evidence, Hostile witness, Recovery of weapon(Farsa), Matrimonial Discord, Chain of Circumstances, Foundational Facts, Presumption of Innocence, Acquittal. Case Arising from CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.- 235 OF 1984 Radha Charan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. From the judgment and order dated 11.02.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad. Appearances for Parties Adv. for Appellant :- Vishesh Kumar (Amicus Curiae) Adv. for Respondent:- A.G.A. (Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, J.) 1. Heard Shri Vishesh Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the trial court record. 2 All. Radha Charan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. 51 2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.01.1984, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1983 (State of U.P. Vs. Radha Charan Sharma), arising out of Case Crime No. 36 of 1983, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Raya, District Mathura, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment. 3. In the instant case, the information about the incident, in question, was given by the accused-appellant himself through a written report submitted by him in the Police Station Raya on 02.02.1983 at 7:30 AM, which was registered vide Case Crime No. 36 of 1983, under Section 302 IPC. The FIR particularly reveals that in the night at about 12:00 Oclock, the informant had a quarrel with his wife Pramila and she threatened him that within 2-3 days, she will get her killed. The said conversation could not be tolerated by him and in a fit of anger, he struck a farsa blow on her neck causing her instantaneous death. However, in the late hours of the night, he could not approach the Police Station to lodge the report but has now come to register the report. 4. On the basis of the said written report (Exhibit Ka-5) given by the accused-appellant himself, a chik FIR (Exhibit Ka-6) was drawn and its corresponding G.D. entry was also made, carbon copy whereof has been marked as Exhibit Ka-7. 5. After registration of the said FIR in the presence of Second Officer Mahendra Pal Singh (PW-6), investigation of the said case was entrusted to him. He thereafter recorded the statement of Head Moharrir Kamal Kishor Mishra and thereafter, recorded the statement of accused Radha Charan Sharma, who was also present in the Police Station itself. In the said statement, the accused-appellant made a disclosure that a farsa, by which, he had killed his wife, could be got recovered by him, as such, he was taken into custody and the Investigating Officer alongwith the accused-appellant reached at his house, where number of persons were present. Out of them, Har Prasad and Resham Lal were appointed as witnesses and in front of them, the accused-appellant went into the Kotha and from inside the Kotha, he brought a blood-stained farsa and handed it over to the Investigating Officer, which has been marked as Material Exhibit-1. The said farsa was taken into possession and its recovery memo was prepared, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-4 and signed by the witnesses as well as accused-appellant himself, which was later sent for the chemical examination. 6. The Investigating Officer thereafter conducted an inquest on the person of the deceased and prepared the inquest memo, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-10. The dead body was lying near the outer door of the Kotha, the photograph of which has been prepared and the same has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-11 and Ka-12. He thereafter sealed the dead body and sent it for the post-mortem. 7. The Investigating Officer thereafter collected the blood-stained earth and plain earth from the place, where the dead body was lying and took it in his possession and prepared its recovery memo, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-13. 52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 8. An autopsy was conducted on the person of the deceased- Pramila on 03.02.1983 by the Medical Officer Dr. S.S. Saraswat (PW-4). The Doctor has noted following injuries on the person of the deceased :- (i). Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the lower part of right pinna and right side of face just near the angle of right mandible bone. Oblique. (ii). Incised wound 8 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on right side of upper part of neck at the junction with head 3 cm below the right ear. Transverse bone cut underneath. (iii). Incised wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep on the right side of lower jaw just anterior to angle of right mandible bone. Oblique. (iv). Incised wound 1 cm x 1/4 cm x muscle deep on the left cheek 0.5 cm above left angle of. mouth. Oblique. (v). Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the right side of head, 9 cm above right ear. Transvesely oblique. Bone cut underneath. (vi). Multiple abrasions with contusions 9 cm x 5 cm area on the lateral aspect of right shoulder and arm. (vii). Multiple linear abrasions 2 cm x 9 cm. area on the back 7 cm x 1/2 cm. (viii). Incised wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep on the back of right thigh lower part. Transverse. 9. The right ear was found cut at pinna. The right parietal and occipital bones were found cut. Membrane and mind were found lacerated. The right posterior cranial fossa was also found fractured. In the stomach 3 ozs. whitish fluid was found. Small intestines were empty. In Large intestines faecal matter and gases were found. 10. The Doctor took off a Sari, a Sweater, a Peti-Coat, a Nose-Pin, Bichhiya from the deadbody and sealed the same in a packet which was handed over to the constable who had brought the dead-body. In the opinion of the Doctor the death was the result of the coma due to the antemortem injuries. The Doctor proved the post-mortem report Exhibit Ka-8, which was prepared by him at the time of conducting the post-mortem examination. 11. In the opinion of the Doctor, cause of death was noted to be coma, due to the aforesaid injuries. 12. The Investigating Officer then recorded the statement of the witnesses Har Prasad and Resham Lal. The extract of the statement of Resham Lal has been drawn and marked as Exhibit Ka-14. 2 All. Radha Charan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. 53 13. The Investigating Officer inspected the place of incident and prepared the site plan, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-15. He also recorded the statement of one Mahendra Pal Sharma (PW-1) on 7th February, 1983, who handed him over two letters, which were sealed and proved and marked as Exhibits Ka-2 and Ka-3 and recovery memo was also prepared, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-16. 14. On the same day, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witness Shyam Babu, who also handed over him a letter, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-1, which too was sealed and its recovery memo was prepared, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-17. 15. The Investigating Officer Mahendra Pal Singh conducted the investigation till 07.02.1983 and thereafter, investigation was entrusted to Sub Inspector Ravindra Pal Singh, who, after concluding the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-appellant on 19.02.1983, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-18. 16. On the basis of the said charge-sheet, learned Magistrate had taken cognizance, however, since the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, it was committed to the court of Sessions, where it was numbered vide Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1983 (State of U.P. Vs. Radha Charan Sharma). Consequent thereto, on 20.04.1983, learned Sessions Judge, Mathura framed the charge against the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC, which was read out and explained to him in Hindi, who abjured the said charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 17. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt against the accused-appellant, examined as many as two witnesses of fact and three other formal witnesses. Their testimony in brief is enumerated below :- 18. P.W.-1 Mahendra Pal Sharma is the maternal uncle of the deceased, who had handed over two letters written by the deceased herself, which have been proved and marked as Exhibits Ka-2 and Ka-3, which are said to be in the handwriting of the deceased, which according to him, has been received a little earlier before the murder of the deceased. The letter (Exhibit Ka-1) was sent to her father Shankar Lal at his address, which was addressed to her sister Indresh, whereas letter (Exhibit Ka-2) was sent to him. He further testified that after going through the letter (Exhibit Ka2), which was received on 28.01.1983, it became difficult for him to hold on for the next day as the contents of the letter very serious. Consequent thereto, on the very next day i.e. on 29.01.1983, he left his village in the morning and reached Hardua Ganj and thereafter, reached Raya at 6:00 PM and stayed at the house of Radha Ballabh, in whose house, accused-appellant was a tenant and used to live with his niece Pramila as well as Manju, niece of the accused-appellant, however, none of the three met him there. The other tenants however met him, who informed him that the accused had already left day before yesterday alongwith two others. He thereafter returned to Aligarh and then, went to his brother-in-laws house at Ghazipur and informed him about the entire incident and then, returned back to his village. On first day of the month, his brother-in-law Shankar Lal received a letter (Exhibit Ka-1) and on receiving the said letter, his brother-in-law reached the Village Imlani and met him. After going through the said letter, on the next day, he sent his brother Satendra to Badhaun to bring back Pramila, however, on reaching Raya, it was revealed that 54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Pramila had already been done to death by her husband and her dead body was lying in the Police Station. When Satendra visited the Police Station, he found that Radha Charan was put in the lockup and the dead body had been sent to Mathura for an autopsy and thereafter was taken to Imlani. Later, when the police met him, then he had handed over the three letters (Exhibits Ka-1 to Ka-3) to the Police. 19. PW-1, in his cross-examination, has testified that he reached Raya on 29th and not on 28th as the letter was received by him on 28th itself. He further testified that he had informed the Investigating Officer on first day of the month, that Shankar Lal had received a letter, who came to him, then he had sent Satendra to Badhaun, however subsequently, it was revealed that Pramila has been done to death by her husband, however, if the said factum has not been stated in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, he can not offer any reason for it absence. Before receiving the letters (Exhibits Ka-2 and Ka-3), he had no personal knowledge that there was some matrimonial discord between Pramila and her husband Radha Charan. The letter (Exhibit Ka-3) was received in January, 1983, however, he does not remember its exact date. The letter (Exhibit Ka-2) was received earlier to the letter (Exhibit Ka-3). The accused is M.A., B.Ed and is not a cynic. He further denied the suggestion that Gudiya was unhappy out of the said marriage. 20. PW-2 Har Prasad is another witness of recovery of farsa from the house of the accused Radha Charan. He, in his testimony, testified that wife of Radha Charan was killed about nine months back, however, said murder had not occurred in his presence. The accused Radha Charan had taken out of a blood-stained farsa from his Kotha in his presence and handed it over to the Police, however, he can not identify the said farsa. On showing the said farsa to the witness, he testified that he can not state that this is the same farsa, which was handed over by the accused to the Police, however, the farsa was sealed in his presence by the Investigating Officer, whose recovery memo was prepared at the spot and he had signed it as a witness, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-4, containing his signatures. At the relevant time, Resham Lal was also present with him and he also signed the recovery memo in his presence. 21. During the course of cross-examination, he stated that his house is situate, leaving one house between the accused house. In the morning, it was revealed that Radha Charan had killed his wife and had gone to the Police Station. He further denied that he has given any affidavit in the court nor he knows what an affidavit is. About 2-1/2 months back, he came to the court but did not come in the court room. He was brought by the brother of Radha Charan, who wrote something on a paper, which was singed by him, however, he does not know the contents of the said paper. On his attention been drawn to an Application, marked as Kha-2, he stated that it is signed by him at two places and once, it was signed in the court. On his attention been drawn the affidavits, marked as Kha-3 and Kha-4, he stated that said affidavits has been signed by him at four places. On his attention been drawn to his vakalatnama, marked as 14-Kha-1, he stated that it has been signed by him. He further testified that he does not remember if any counsel got his signatures on the register, may be he has signed it, however, the counsel had not read out the paper to him. He does not know any counsel Daudayal Agrawal but stated that he came in the court to file the papers alongwith counsel, however, he could not identify him. He does not remember, if any question was put to him by the Judge. Counsel had asked to sign the papers before the court, which he did. On the relevant date, Radha Charan at about 10-11:00 AM had handed over a farsa. He further denied the 2 All. Radha Charan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. 55 suggestion that he had submitted an affidavit and it is also wrong to state that under the pressure of the Investigating Officer, he is denying to have filed an affidavit. 22. P.W.-3 Kamal Kishor Mishra, was the Moharir in the Police Station on the relevant date i.e. 02.02.1983, on the basis of a written report handed over to him by the accused Radha Charan, he had drawn the chik FIR. The said written report was drawn and signed by the accused, on the basis of which, the chik FIR was prepared, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-6. On the basis of which, corresponding G.D. Entry No.14 was also prepared, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-7. After registering the case, he had taken the accused into custody and put him in the lock-up. 23. During the course of cross-examination, he testified that from the midnight dated 1/2-21983 up to 7:30 in the morning, no cognizable report was lodged nor after registering the report, in question, any other report was lodged till 11:30 AM. He further denied the suggestion that the information in respect of the incident was received by him at the Police Station in the night itself, on the basis of which, Investigating Officer had reached the place of incident. He further denied that the accused was called to the Police Station from Raya for interrogation and his written report (Exhibit Ka-5) was got forcefully scribed. The sealed farsa was deposited in the Police Station by the Investigating Officer on 02.02.1983 in the evening at 5:00 PM, which was sent in the Maal Khana on 10.02.1983. The accused was also brought to the Police Station at 5:00 PM alongwith Investigating Officer. He had further stated that the accused was sent to the jail on 03.02.1983 at 6:00 PM and thereafter, sealed farsa could not be deposited in the Sadar Maal Khana for some reasons and was brought back by Constable Bahuran Singh and thereafter, till 10.02.1983, it was not sent back to the Maal Khana, for which, no explanation could be offered. He further stated that he does not remember if any reason was assigned by Constable Bahuran Singh to return back the crime weapon- farsa. 24. P.W.-4 Dr. S.S. Saraswat is the Medical Officer, who had conducted an autopsy on the person of the deceased on 03.02.1983 and had prepared the post-mortem report, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-8. He had noted eight injuries on the person of the deceased, which has been noted in the post-mortem report and has already been discussed in the earlier part of the judgment. The genuineness of the said document was admitted by the prosecution. While making internal examination, the doctor found that the right parietal and occipital bone of the deceased were cut and right posterior cranial fossa was fractured and the cause of death was injuries sustained by the deceased. PW-4 further testified that he had examined the farsa (Material Exhibit-1) with his own hands and since, edges of farsa were not sharp, as such, such injuries could not have been caused by the said farsa, which were found on the body of the deceased, however, if the edges of the farsa, in question, is sharpened, then the said injuries could have been caused by it but the state, in which, the farsa is and on being used, such injuries could not be caused by it, which though may cause incised wound but its margin would be contused, however, in the instant case, margins have been found to be clean cut. The relevant papers were sent alongwith the dead body and the injuries on the person of the deceased were sufficient to cause death of the deceased. At this stage, said witness has been declared hostile and an opportunity was given to the Public Prosecutor to cross-examine him. 56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 25. On being cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, PW-4 Doctor testified that he has not pointed out in his report that the margins of the incised wounds were clean cut, rather it was not written, if margins were found to be clean cut or contused. Only on the basis of his memory, he had stated that the margins in the instant case were clean cut and more so, because the wounds were found to be cutting the bones. He further testified that if by the said farsa (Material Exhibit-1) is forcefully hit, then bones could be cut. 26. On being cross-examined by the accused, PW-4 stated that blade of the said farsa is rough at some places, while plain at some places but is not sharp. He further stated that he could not state as to how many blows were inflicted to cause the injuries on the body of the deceased. Injuries nos. 6 & 7 could be caused by fall or by lathi-danda 27. P.W.-5 Resham Lal is another witness of recovery of farsa brought out by the accused Radha Charan, who, in his testimony, has candidly stated that no farsa was recovered in his presence. On the next day, when the dead body was taken away at about 4:00 PM, a constable came to him and stated that the paper, on the basis of which, blood test was to be done, has been spoiled and therefore, requested him to sign another paper, consequently, he signed the said paper. At the relevant time, when the paper was signed, he was present in his field mowing the grass. At the relevant time, when he had signed the paper, nothing was written on it and it was a plain paper. On his attention been drawn to recovery memo of blood-stained farsa (Exhibit Ka-4), he admitted that the said paper contains his signatures. However, On his aforesaid testimony, the said witness was declared hostile and the Public Prosecutor was requested to cross-examine him. 28. During his cross-examination, he testified that he had heard that the wife of Radha Charan has been killed. After the said incident, Investigating Officer came in his village at about 10-11:00 AM. Accused Radha Charan was also present there, however, he does not know if Radha Charan came with the Investigating Officer or was already present in the village. He was also a Panch witness of the inquest. On the said date, Investigating Officer had also collected the blood-stained earth and plain earth from the place of incident and prepared its recovery memo, which was signed by him. Har Prasad was also one of the Panch witness and his signatures were also obtained on the inquest memo in his presence, however, recovery of blood-stained earth was not signed by him in his presence. At about 4:00 PM, he signed the inquest and recovery memo of the blood-stained earth. On the relevant date, Radha Charan did not produce the farsa in his presence. On the relevant date and time, the police got his signatures on two papers. The Investigating Officer did not interrogate him nor recorded his statement. He denied the factum that he gave any statement to the Investigating Officer. To quote :- "(i). मैंने पंचायतनामा पर दस्तख्त करीब चार बजे ककये और उसी समय कमट्टी के कागज पर भी दस्तखत ककये। (ii). राधा चरन ने उसी समय मेरे सामने कोठे से फरसा कनकाल कर नहीं कदखाया था। उस कदन पुकलस ने मेरे दस्तखत केवल दो कागजों परे कराये। (iii). अन्दर दरोगा जी ने मुझसे कभी कोई पूछताछ नहीं की। मुझे याद नहीं है कक दरोगा जी ने मेरा कोई बयान कलखा या नहीं। मैंने दरोगा जी को ये बयान नहीं कदया था कक आपने मेरे सामने मुलकजम राधा चरन से एक अदद फरसा कजसके फल पर खून लगा है, अन्दर वाले कोठे के उत्तरी- 2 All. Radha Charan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. 57 पकिमी कोने से कनकालकर आपको कदया। कजसकी फदद आपने कलखी व फरसा को एक कपडे में रखकर सील ककया। गवाह को बयान उपरोक्त पढ़कर सुनाया गया तो उसने कहा कक मैंने दरोगा जी को ये बयान नहीं कदया, मैं नहीं कह सकता कक उन्होंने मेरा ये बयान कैसे कलख कलया। (iv). मैंने इस मुकदमें में पहले भी बयान हलफी लगाया था, मेरे सामने कोई फरसा, राधा चरन ने कनकालकर पुकलस को नहीं कदया। मैं बयान हलफी देने स्वयं ही आया था, मुझे मुलकजम का भाई अथवा कोई नहीं लाया था। बयान हलफी दाकखल करने के कलए दाऊ दयाल वकील ककया था, कजन‌को 20 रुपए मैंने कदये थे। ये बयान हलफी लगाने मैं इसकलए आया था कक मेरे घरवाले मुझे परेशान करते थे कक तुम तारीख पर कचहरी चले जाते हो और कोई घर का काम नहीं होता है, इसकलए मैंने सोचा कक बयान हलफी देने से कचहरी आने से छुट्टी हो जावेगी। ऐसी बात नहीं है कक मुलकजम के घरवाले मुझे परेशान कर रहे थे कक तुम बयान हलफी दे दो क्यों कक पता नहीं कक तुम तारीख पर क्या कहो क्या नहीं कहो। जो बयान हलफी दाकखल करने में मैंने खचाद ककया वो मुझे आज तक ककसी ने नहीं कदया। ये कहना गलत है कक मैं राधा चरन को बचाने के कलए झूठ बोल रहा ह ूँ।" 29. On being cross-examined by the accused, he testified that he alongwith Har Prasad had come to file an affidavit and the affidavit was read out to him as well as Har Prasad. The Oath Commissioner, who sweared the affidavit had also read out the same to him as well as Har Prasad. 30. P.W.-6 Mahendra Pal Singh is the first Investigating Officer, who, in his testimony, has stated that in February, 1983, he was posted as Second Officer at the Police Station Raya and in his presence, the FIR was registered, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-6, which contains his signatures. The investigation of the said case was entrusted to him, who thereafter recorded the statement of the Head Moharrir Kamal Kishor Mishra at the Police Station and since, the instant case was got registered at the instance of accused Radha Charan himself, who too was present in the Police Station, as such, his statement was also recorded in the Case Diary, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-9. The accused made a disclosure to get the crime weapon- farsa recovered, as such, he was taken into custody and brought to village Bhaisara, at his house, where large number of persons were present, out of them, Har Prasad and Resham Lal were appointed as witnesses and the accused, in their presence, went inside the Kotha and brought out a blood-stained farsa (Material Exhibit-1) and handed it over to him. He prepared its recovery memo, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-4 and got it signed by Har Prasad and Resham Lal. He further denied the suggestion that the signatures of Resham Lal were obtained on the next date by sending a constable, on which, fard recovery memo has been prepared. The said farsa was recovered in the morning at 10:00 AM, which was later sent by the second Investigating Officer Ravindra Pal Singh for chemical examination, the chemical examination report of which is available on record, marked as Exhibit Ka-23. After making the recovery of farsa, he had conducted an inquest on the person of the deceased and prepared the inquest memo, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-10. Thereafter, he prepared the photo nash and challan nash, which have been proved and marked as Exhibits Ka-11 and Ka-12 and thereafter, dead body was sent for post-mortem through two constables Suresh Singh and Lala Ram. He further testified that the place, where dead body was kept, blood had fallen and from such place, he had collected the blood-stained earth and plain earth and prepared its recovery memo, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-13. He recorded the statement of Har Prasad and Resham Lal and other Panch witnesses. The statement of Resham Lal has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-14. The site plan has been prepared by him, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-15. On 07.02.1983, he recorded the statement of Mahendra Pal Sharma, who had handed over him two letters (Material Exhibits-2 and 3), which was sealed by him and its recovery memo was also prepared, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-16. On the same day, he also recorded 58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES the statement of Shyam Babu, who handed over him a letter marked as Material Exhibit Ka-1, which was sealed by him and its recovery memo was also prepared by him, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-17, which has been signed by Shyam Babu. 31. On being cross-examined, he testified that he recorded the statement of some witnesses, living in the vicinity of house of the accused but did not record the statement of Ramji Lal, Ram Kishan, Lekhraj, Hetram or Ram Singh, the houses of which, he has shown in the site plan prepared by him, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-15. He further stated that he had gone in the village only twice, first on 01.02.1983 and next on 07.02.1983 but no one amongst them met him, however, again he corrected himself and stated that infact on 07.02.1983, he had not gone in the village rather the statement of all the witnesses that were recorded on 07.02.1983, has infact been recorded in the Police Station itself. He further testified that on 02.02.1983, nobody has informed that they had heard the cries of Pramila in the night or had seen the accused leaving his house, however, in the statement of sister-in-law of the deceased, it has been noted that on the day of incident, accused was at his house. The name of sister-in-law of the deceased is Vimlesh, who lives separately but her house is attached with that of accused Radha Charan and Vimlesh is the wife of Ram Kishan, whose house is situate in the west as shown in the site plan. The boundary walls of Ram Kishan and the accused Radha Charan are the same and it has only one exit. The Investigating Officer further testified that the relevant time of recovery, when the accused went inside the Kotha, he was standing at its doorstep, which was placed in the wall, where the dead body was lying and the farsa was not visible. The said farsa was kept in the north-western corner, however, he did not consider it necessary to find out, if the farsa was hidden in some object or it was simply kept there. No one accompanied the accused inside the Kotha and he alone went inside it. Resham Lal and Har Prasad were present with him at the doorsteps, where the dead body was kept. The place, where they were standing, was about 14 feet long and on the said place, only three persons were present and others were outside the courtyard. In fard recovery memo, marked as Exhibit Ka-4, there is some gap between the Tahreer and the signatures but it is not much. He further denied the suggestion that the plain papers were got signed by the witnesses and then, the recovery memo was subsequently prepared on it. He further denied the suggestion that information of the murder was reported in some other manner and on getting the said information, he reached the village and arrested the accused and took him to the Police Station and thereafter, written report was forcefully got scribed, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-5. He further denied the suggestion that just to create an evidence, fake blood marks were put on the farsa (Material Exhibit-1). Nobody's statement has been recorded in the Case Diary as a link evidence, moreover, the statement of Constable Bahuran Singh has also not been recorded. Further, there is no mention in the Case Diary that the farsa was sent to Maal Khana on 03.02.1983 but could be not deposited there, however, the same may have been mentioned in the General Diary. 32. After recording the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, statement of the accusedappellant Radha Charan has recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting all the incriminating circumstances to him. The accused-appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances and claimed that he has been falsely implicated. 33. In his defence, accused-appellant had got examined one Daudayal Agrawal, Advocate as DW-1, who, in his testimony, has testified that he is a practising Advocate in Collectorate, 2 All. Radha Charan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. 59 Mathura. On 02.08.1983, he had prepared the affidavits of Resham Lal, son of Shiv Lal and Har Prasad, son of Nattha Ram, resident of Bhaisara, Police Station Raya. Exhibit Kha-1 is a vakalatnama, which bears the signatures of Har Prasad as well as Resham Lal. Exhibit Kha-2 is an application, which bears the signatures of Resham Lal as well as of Har Prasad. Exhibit Kha-3 is an affidavit of Har Prasad, whereas Exhibit Kha-4 is an affidavit of Resham Lal bearing their respective signatures, which has been identified by him. The said affidavits were read out to both the deponents Har Prasad and Resham Lal and the same were prepared as per their instructions. Thereafter, the said affidavits were sworn before the Oath Commissioner. 34. On being cross-examined, DW-1 Daudayal Agarwal testified that he was very well acquainted with Har Prasad and Resham Lal and also the person, who was accompanying them and on his pointing out, he had identified Har Prasad and Resham Lal, however, he does not remember as to who had identified the two deponents. He further denied the suggestion that brother of the accused Radha Charan had brought the two deponents and on their instance, application and affidavits were prepared. 35. In such facts, learned trial court, after analysing the evidence adduced during the course of trial and considering the submissions made by the accused and the prosecution, has held the appellant guilty of the offence charged with and accordingly convicted him under Section 302 IPC and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment. 36. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order, the instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 37. Challenging the impugned judgment and order, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has completely misread, misappreciated and misinterpreted the evidence on record and has illegally recorded the findings of conviction and sentence against the appellant, which is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. 38. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has next submitted that though instant case is based on circumstantial evidence and in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive is of great significance, however, in the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive of the accused for committing such serious offence of causing the death of his own wife. Moreover, to prove the factum of motive against the appellant, the prosecution has placed implicit reliance upon the three letters said to be written by the deceased herself, addressed to her father (who has not been produced at all) as well as her maternal uncle- Mahendra Pal Sharma (PW-1), however, when we carefully go through the contents of the said letters, it is evident that the necessary inference that could, at the most, be drawn from the said letters is, that the deceased Pramila was not living happily with her husband-accused-appellant Radha Charan and there has been stray incidents of torturing and beating her, however, merely in the backdrop of the said circumstance, it can not be said to be a strong motive to commit the offence of murder of the deceased, however, the trial court, by placing implicit reliance upon the said letters, has treated the conduct of the accused to be strong motive against the appellant and on that basis has illegally and erroneously recorded the findings of conviction and sentence against the appellant, which is bad in law and is liable to be set-aside. 60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 39. It is further pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae that the trial court while recording the findings in respect of motive has categorically held that "from all the facts coming out of these letters, written by the deceased herself, it can be said that the accused-appellant 'could' be the person, who committed the murder of the deceased." 40. Criticizing the said findings recorded by the trial court, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has submitted that infact, there is a big gap between the findings of "could have" and "must have" committed the murder of the deceased, particularly in a case based on circumstantial evidence. 41. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following five golden principles i.e. the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence :- "(i). The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved". It is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (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 a 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." 42.