# Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 1074
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 6495 of 2017
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajveer-singh-v-state-of-u-p-49791
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302/34 & 201 - Punishment for
murder - The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 161, 313 - Evidence Act,
1872 - Section 106 - Life imprisonment -
Appeal against conviction - FIR was
lodged
by
informant
on
information
received from Gajraj Singh regarding
murder of his daughter - During trial PW-1
St.d that incident was witnessed by PW.2,
Ravi, PW-3 and Sanjay - During trial, PW2 and PW-3 declared hostile - Sole
witness, mentioned in the FIR was not
produced before trial court - Another
witness Ravi, was not produced before
court by prosecution - PW-4 declared
hostile - Recovery memo for recovery of
ashes, burnt bones of deceased was not
signed by appellants, witnesses who
signed were not produced before court -
The FSL report didn't give opinion about
origin of recovered ashes and burnt bones
- Against PW-1 , appellant - Rajveer and
his deceased daughter lodged criminal
cases and PW-1 also lodged cases against
said appellant - According to DW-1,
deceased has died due to illness - DW-2
proved medical prescription of deceased
issued by his clinic, she had died because
of dehydration - As per St.ment of
appellants
they
have
been
falsely
implicated, to enter into the settlement in
cases which were lodged by appellant and
her daughter - Basis of conviction of
appellants was circumstantial evidence,
presumption - Chain of circumstances is
not
complete
-
No
eye
witness,
prosecution case is based on St.ment of
PW-1 who was not witness of incident -
Evidence of PW-1 is hearsay evidence, no
relevancy under Evidence Act - PW-1
couldn't prove motive of appellants to
murder - Appellants proved motive of
PW-1 to falsely implicate them - No
evidence which connects appellants with
death of deceased - Memo of recovery is
not reliable, not proved by SDM as
prepared
by
his
direction-
Hence,
prosecution fails to prove its case against
appellants beyond doubt. (Para 2, 20, 21,
22, 25, 26)

Appeals are allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,959 of 51,349. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39959 for what follows._

1074 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
custody forthwith for serving the remaining
sentence.

76. Let a copy of this judgment along
with trial court record be sent to the Court
concerned for necessary compliance. A
copy of this judgement be also placed in
the connected appeal.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 1074
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 6495 of 2017
And
Criminal Appeal No. 6497 of 2017

Rajveer Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Kamlesh Tripathi, Sri Man Bahadur
Singh, Sri Kaulesh Tripathi, Sri Noor
Mohammad, Sri Kalyan Singh, Sri M.C.
Tiwari, Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Sri Ashish
Kumar Singh, Sri S.K. Verma (Senior Adv.),
Sri Vipin Lal Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.,

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302/34 & 201 - Punishment for
murder - The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 161, 313 - Evidence Act,
1872 - Section 106 - Life imprisonment -
Appeal against conviction - FIR was
lodged
by
informant
on
information
received from Gajraj Singh regarding
murder of his daughter - During trial PW-1
St.d that incident was witnessed by PW.2,
Ravi, PW-3 and Sanjay - During trial, PW2 and PW-3 declared hostile - Sole
witness, mentioned in the FIR was not
produced before trial court - Another
witness Ravi, was not produced before
court by prosecution - PW-4 declared
hostile - Recovery memo for recovery of
ashes, burnt bones of deceased was not
signed by appellants, witnesses who
signed were not produced before court -
The FSL report didn't give opinion about
origin of recovered ashes and burnt bones
- Against PW-1 , appellant - Rajveer and
his deceased daughter lodged criminal
cases and PW-1 also lodged cases against
said appellant - According to DW-1,
deceased has died due to illness - DW-2
proved medical prescription of deceased
issued by his clinic, she had died because
of dehydration - As per St.ment of
appellants
they
have
been
falsely
implicated, to enter into the settlement in
cases which were lodged by appellant and
her daughter - Basis of conviction of
appellants was circumstantial evidence,
presumption - Chain of circumstances is
not
complete
-
No
eye
witness,
prosecution case is based on St.ment of
PW-1 who was not witness of incident -
Evidence of PW-1 is hearsay evidence, no
relevancy under Evidence Act - PW-1
couldn't prove motive of appellants to
murder - Appellants proved motive of
PW-1 to falsely implicate them - No
evidence which connects appellants with
death of deceased - Memo of recovery is
not reliable, not proved by SDM as
prepared
by
his
direction-
Hence,
prosecution fails to prove its case against
appellants beyond doubt. (Para 2, 20, 21,
22, 25, 26)

Appeals are allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ravindra Singh @ Kaku Vs The St. of Punjab
in Criminal Appeal No.1307 of 2019

2. Indrajit Das Vs The St. of Tripura (Criminal
Appeal No.609 of 2015)
4 All. Rajveer Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1075
3. Nagendra Sah Vs St. of Bihar reported in
(2021) 10 SCC 725

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Man Bahadur Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant and
learned AGA for the State.

2. Present two appeals were filed
against the judgement and order dated
28.10.2017 passed by learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Court
No.3, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial
No.271 of 2012 (State Vs. Rajveer Singh
and another) by which both the appellants
were awarded life imprisonment along with
fine of Rs.20,000/- each, under Section-302
read with Section 34 IPC and in case of
non-payment of fine they would further
undergo
two
years
incarceration.
Appellants were also imposed six months
imprisonment
along
with
fine
of
Rs.10,000/- each under Section-201 IPC
and in case of non-payment of fine, they
would
further
undergo
one
year
imprisonment.

Prosecution Case

3. As per the prosecution case, first
informant Harbir Singh Arya Advocate
(PW-1)
had
given
a
Tehrir
dated
20.10.2011 to Station House Officer, Police
Station-Narora,
District-Bulandshahr
stating therein that his son Lavkesh was
married to Pooja, daughter of Rajveer
resident of village-Kamalpur in the year
2009. Since, the date of marriage Smt.
Pooja refused to live with his son Lavkesh
and she has also lodged case under dowry
prohibition act as well as for maintenance
against him as well as his family. On
18.10.2011 at 9:30 pm, he received a phone
call from Gajraj Singh, son of Banshi
Singh, resident of Ganaura Nagli that his
daughter-in-law Smt. Pooja has been killed
by her parents, brother and Rahisuddin by
forcibly administering poison to her and
just to falsely implicate him, they initially
planned to bring the dead body of Pooja at
his house. When they could not get chance,
they disposed off the dead body of Pooja
by burning it. After receiving the aforesaid
information, first informant, Harbir Singh
had given information of this incident to SP
Sri R.S. Rathore on his mobile phone. It
was further mentioned that he could not
register the case because of the fear of
accused persons.

4. After receiving the aforesaid
information, FIR was registered in case
crime no.252 of 2011, under Sections-302,
201 IPC on 20.10.2011 at 10:50 am against
Rajveer as well as mother and brother of
Pooja and also against Rahisuddin.

5.
During
investigation,
police
prepared site plan of place of incident
where the deceased was administered
poison as well as the place where ashes and
bone of dead body of Pooja was recovered
from and recovery memo for recovering the
ashes and bone was also prepared and
thereafter, ashes and other remains along
with soil of the place of incident was also
sent
for
chemical
examination
and
thereafter, on the basis of available
evidence, charge-sheet dated 20.01.2022
under Sections-302 and 201 IPC was filed
against the present appellants and chargesheet against the other co-accused persons
namely Pawan and Roopwati was also filed
on 21.03.2012, under Sections-302 and 201
IPC before the concerned court. Appellants
were committed to Sessions court on
13.03.2012 and also the case of other coaccused persons on 22.07.2012. Thereafter,
1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Sessions court summoned the accused
persons and these accused persons also
appeared
before
the
Sessions
court.
Thereafter, after hearing the Assistant
District Government Counsel as well as
Defence counsel, charges were framed
against
the
present
appellants
under
Section-302 read with Sections-34 and 201
IPC in Sessions Trial No.271 of 2012. The
charges were also framed against other coaccused persons namely, Pawan and Smt.
Roopwati, under Section-302 read with
Sections- 34 and 201 IPC on 27.01.2014
for which accused persons denied and
demanded trial.

Prosecution Evidence

6. To prove its case, prosecution
produced first informant Harbir Singh as
PW-1, Budhh Pal Singh as PW-2, Nanak as
PW-3, Bishan Singh as PW-4, SI Tezvir
Singh as PW-5, (chik FIR and GD writer),
SI Naresh Kumar (Investigating Officer) as
PW-6 and documentary evidence, the
Tehrir report (Ext Ka-1), chik FIR (Ext Ka2), GD (Ext Ka-3), site plan where the
poison was administered to Pooja (Ext ka4). Site plan where the ashes of the dead
body of Pooja recovered (Ext Ka-5), memo
of recovery of ashes and bone of body of
Pooja (Ext ka-6), charge-sheet no.01 of
2012 against the accused appellantsRajveer and Rahisuddin in Sessions Trial
No.271 of 2012 (Ext. Ka-7). Charge-sheet
No.01A of 2012 against co-accused Pawan
and Smt. Roopwati (accused of Sessions
Trial No.555 of 2012) (Ext Ka-8) and also
the report of Forensic Science Laboratory
(Paper No.19A) showing no opinion about
the bone and ashes. Prosecution completed
this defence on 07.09.2017, thereafter,
statement of accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they denied
from the incident in question.
Statement of Accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C.

7. Appellant-Rajveer stated that he
has
been
falsely
implicated
just
to
pressurize him to enter into compromise
with the first informant Harbir because his
daughter Pooja as well as he lodged
criminal cases against the first informant as
well as against his family members under
Sections-498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3⁄4
Dowry Prohibition Act and also the case
for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
and his daughter Pooja has died due to
natural death while bringing her to the
clinic of doctor as she was suffering from
high fever and diarrhea.

8. Similarly appellant-Rahisuddin also
stated in his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. that he has been falsely implicated
in the present case by the first informant
only because he is the witness of the case
registered by Pooja against the first
informant and his family members and
because of his false implication, first
informant want to pressurize him to enter
into compromise and not to pursue the case
on behalf of Smt. Pooja. Statements of
other co-accused namely, Smt. Roopwati
and Pawan were recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. in Sessions Trial No.555 of
2012 are not relevant as both of them were
acquitted in that case.

Evidence of Defence

9. In support of defence, Sanjay Singh
was examined as DW-1, Dr. Rameshwar
Singh was examined as DW-2 and in
documentary evidence, original copy of
two medical certificates dated 14.10.2011
(Paper No.-93A) and 18.10.2011 (Paper
No.93B) and charge-sheet submitted in
NCR No.25/10 under Sections-504, 506
4 All. Rajveer Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1077
IPC,
Police
Station-Narsena,
DistrictBulandshahr against Lavkesh son of Harbir
(Paper No.99B), copy of the order dated
23.07.2011 passed by the Additional Civil
Judge
(Junior
Division)/Judicial
Magistrate, Court No.2, Bulandshahr in
Miscellaneous Case No.06 of 2010 (Smt.
Pooja Vs Lavkesh) under Section-125
Cr.P.C. (Paper No.100B), certified copy of
the order dated 22.05.2017 passed by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.3, Bulandshahr in Case No.2040 of
2012 (State Vs. Lavkesh and others) (Paper
No.101B). Certified copy of chik FIR of
Case No.2040 of 2012 (Paper No.102 B) as
well as certified copy of order dated
20.05.2017 passed in Case No.2040 of
2012 (Paper No. 103-B).

Discussion on Prosecution Evidence

10. PW-1 Harbir Singh stated in his
statement that he knows and recognizes
accused Rajveer, Smt. Roopwati, Pawan
and Rahisuddi. Rajveer is my samdhi and
Smt. Roopwati is my samdhan and accused
Pawan is son of Rajveer and accused
Rahisuddin is friend of accused Rajveer.
Lavkesh is my son who got married with
Pooja, daughter of Rajveer on 01.12.2019.
Pooja on the investigation of Roopwati
refuses to live with my son Lavkesh just
after the marriage. Pooja also filed case in
the Bulandshahr court for maintenance and
court also granted her maintenance. After
the compromise in dowry case, Pooja
refused to take maintenance. In mediation
centre where the cousin of Pooja, Budhh
Pal Singh was present, she expressed her
desire to him to go to our village Habauda.
Pooja also lodged a case under Section 406
IPC against my wife Rajni, my son
Lavkesh and my sister Krishna under the
pressure of accused Rajveer. Though,
subsequently, summoning order passed by
CJM was set aside in revision in that case.
He also lodged an FIR against Rajveer and
others but stay was granted by Hon'ble
High Court. I have also filed complaint
case in Court at Garhmukteshwar, under
Sections-452, 323, 504, 306 IPC, Police
Station-Sambhawali,
against
accused
Rajveer but stay was granted in favour of
Rajveer by the Hon'ble High Court. On
11.05.2010, accused Rajveer brought Pooja
at Garhmukteshwar in the office of SubRegistrar where Pooja executed deed for
dissolution
of
marriage
which
was
registered and Rajveer also received
Rs.1,10,000/- in lieu of that. This act of
Rajveer was against the wishes of Pooja. In
the night of 18.10.2011 at 10:30 pm, Gajraj
Singh informed me on my phone that his
daughter-in-law Pooja has been killed by
his father Rajveer, Roopwati and brother
Naresh and Pawan along with Rahisuddin
by forcibly administering her poison and
they are planning to bring the dead body of
Pooja in his village- Habauda but driver
Laxman refused to come here, thereafter
accused person disposed of the dead body
by burning the same at their agriculture
land. He had also confirmed the above
incident from Budhh Pal Singh on mobile.
This incident was witnessed by Gajraj
Singh, Banshi Singh, Sanjay, Budhh Pal
Singh and Nanak and he also intimated the
same to SSP Bulandshahr through phone.
He did not go to Police Station-Narsena, on
that date, because of fear of accused
persons. He has given written report on
20.10.2011
in
Police
Station-Narsena
which is before me as Ext No. Ka-1 in my
writing and signature. Subsequently, he
came to know that accused Rajveer wanted
to fix second marriage of Pooja with
Udayveer of village-Bhadaura after taking
money, for which ceremony of godhbharai
was also conducted on 06.10.2011 in which
Gram Pradhan of village-Habauda, Sri
1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bishan Singh was also present and date for
marriage was also fixed as 05.11.2011.
Pooja had refused for this marriage. She
wanted to come back at our village and for
this reason the accused persons mercilessly
killed her.

11. In his cross-examination, PW-1
stated that he received information about
the death of Pooja on 9:30 pm through
phone and at that time, he was in his
village-
Habauda,
Police
StationSambhawali, District-Hapur. At that time,
he was practising as an Advocate in
Garhmukteshwar court. On 19.10.2011, he
did not go to Garhmukteshwar court for
practice. He was not aware whether there
was a holiday on 19.10.2011 or not.

On 19.10.2011, he went to Hapur
to take medicine for his wife. On
19.10.2011 at 6:00 am, he along with his
wife went to Hapur to visit doctor through
motor cycle. In Hapur, he consulted with
doctor in Tara Chand Government Hospital
and returned back at 11:00 am to his house.
He did not have any medical prescription or
any receipt of purchasing the medicine.

He is also aware that at that time,
Senior
Police
Officer
as
well
as
Administrative officers used to sit in Hapur
and probably office of DSP was situated
there. He did not give any information (or
application) regarding the murder of Pooja
to
any
Senior
Police
Officer
or
Administrative Officer on 19.10.2011,
because I had already informed on
18.10.2011 to SSP Bulandshahr through
Telephone. He informed SSP Bulandshahr
on 18.10.2011 at 9:40 pm but he did not
remember the number on which I talked to
SSP Bulandshahr. At the time of calling to
SSP Bulandshahr, my wife and my children
were also present with me. He did not
mention the mobile number of SSP
Bulandshahr in his report. He also did not
tell
the
phone
number
of
SSP
to
Investigating Officer because I have not
asked for the same. I am not aware whether
I had called on personal or Government
mobile number of SSP. I cannot tell P & T
personal number or Government number of
then SSP. My village is 7 Km from Police
Station-Sambhawali. When any person
goes from my village to Hapur then we go
through police station-Sambhawali because
police station-Sambhawali is situated at
main
road.
I
have
not
given
any
information to Police Station-Sambhawali
on 19.10.2011.

On 20.10.2011, I along with
Jitendra Pradhan went to Police StationSyana,
District-Bulandshahr.
Police
Station-Syana is 16 to 17 km far from my
village. I have not submitted any report on
19.10.2011 or 20.10.2011 in Police StationSyana. Jitendra Singh Pradhan returned
back to his village from police stationSyana. In Syana, Budhh Pal Singh met me.
I went to police station-Narsena along with
him. Narsena is 28-30 km from my village.
On being asked question, why he did not go
to police station-Narsena on 19.10.2011
and why he went there on 20.10.2011 then
in his reply, he stated that my wife was ill
on 19.10.2011 and I went to take medicine
for her. I remained with her. Therefore, I
did not submit any report on 19.10.2011. I
have not mentioned this fact in my report
that my wife was ill and I went to take her
medicine and for this reason, there was a
delay in submitting report. This fact is
correct that I have mentioned in my report
that because of fear of accused persons, not
because of illness of my wife there was a
delay in submitting report. I had lodged
report
after
preparing
the
same
on
20.10.2011.
4 All. Rajveer Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1079

I have not mentioned in my FIR
that driver Laxman was not ready to bring
Car to his village and this information had
spread in the village. But on reading his
statement recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C., he states that Investigating Officer
has not recorded above statement. I cannot
tell the reason for the same. I have neither
mentioned in my FIR that dead body was
burnt in agriculture land nor informed to
Investigating Officer but he mentioned in
FIR as well as stated in his statement that
the dead body has been disposed off by
burning the same. I have not seen the
accused persons disposing the dead body
by burning the same. I have not mentioned
in FIR that second marriage of Pooja was
fixed by accused Rajveer against her
wishes with Udayveer after taking money
and date of marriage was also fixed for
which Pooja had refused, therefore, the
accused had killed Pooja. I got the above
information after 2 to 2 1⁄2 month after the
above incident and thereafter, he informed
the police in writing but he does not
remember on which date he has intimated
to police and also he does not have any
receipt for submitting any information to
police. He also did not remember in which
month he had given information to police
about the incident. I have not mentioned in
the FIR that I have verified the incident of
murder of Pooja through mobile from
Budhh Pal Singh and this incident was seen
by Gajraj Singh, Ravi, Sanjay, Budhh Pal
Singh, Nanak, though I have stated in the
statement to Investigating Officer. On
perusal of his statement recorded by
Investigating Officer, he states that I.O. has
not recorded the aforesaid thing in his
statement
because
of
local
political
pressure. Therefore, I have also made a
complaint to SSP Bulandshahr personally
but I did not have receipt of the same. I
have not filed any copy of that complaint in
the Court till date. It is also correct that he
has mentioned the name of Gajraj Singh as
witness in his first information report and
one of witness driver Laxman, but names
of Budhh Pal Singh, Ravi, Sanjay, Nanak
were not mentioned in FIR because he was
not aware about these witnesses till lodging
of the FIR. He has told the name of the
above witnesses to Investigating Officer in
his statement but he has not written the
name of those witnesses except the name of
Gajraj. I know the name of Budhh Pal but
he did not mention his name in the FIR
because he is relative of Rajveer. At
present, relation of Budhh Pal with Rajveer
is not cordial.

It is correct that Rajveer has
lodged case against me and my family for
the harassment of his daughter Pooja under
Section 498A IPC which is still pending in
the court. In that case, accused Rahisuddin
is not the witness. Rajveer has also lodged
the case for threatening against me and my
family which is still pending in the court
which was registered prior to present case
under Section 302 IPC. It is correct that
accused Rahisuddin is witness in that case.
Second
marriage
of
Lavkesh
was
consummated with Pooja daughter of
Raghuraj resident of village-Gangeshwari,
district-Amroha and Lavkesh has been
residing with me.

On being asked question whether
second daughter-in-law has been residing
with him. He did not reply to the same on
the ground that the same is not concerned
to present case. On being questioned that
his second daughter-in-law lodged a case
under Section-354 IPC against him, he
replied that Yes that case was registered but
after
investigation,
final
report
was
submitted which was accepted in the court
also. The cases which I have registered
1080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against Rajveer and others were registered
subsequent to the registration of cases by
Rajveer against him and anothers under
Sections-498A, 406 IPC.

12. Buddh Pal Singh was examined as
PW-2. In his statement, PW-2 stated that
accused Rajveer Singh is his maternal
uncle and Smt. Roopwati is my maami who
is wife of the accused Rajveer. Accused
Pawan is son of accused Rajveer. The name
of other son of accused Rajveer is Naresh.
Accused-Rahisuddin is friend of accused
Rajveer Singh. He also knows first
informant Harbir Singh and his son
Lavkesh.

Daughter of Rajveer namely,
Pooja got married with son of Harbir
Singh, Lavkesh on 01.12.2009 but because
of non-adjustment between two families,
their marriage could not proceed further
and both parties started lodging cases
against each other. I went with my maternal
uncle Rajveer for panchayat at the house of
Harbir, village-Habauda because I was
mediator of marriage. In panchayat, goods
and articles given in dowry were returned,
which was brought by him and Rajveer
after five months of marriage, by loading it
in jugaad. After five to six days of bringing
the goods and articles of dowry, I and
Rajveer along with Pooja went to the
Registry office Garhmukteshwar. There
marriage of Pooja and Lavkesh was
annulled.
Harbir
Singh
had
given
Rs.1,10,000/- to my maternal uncle Rajveer
and Rajveer, after receiving the money
executed
notary
affidavit.
Thereafter,
Rajveer Singh, Harbir Singh and I returned
back to their houses. Subsequently, I came
to know that Rajveer wanted to get marry
to his daughter in village-Bhadaura but
Pooja had refused for that and Pooja
wanted
to
go
at
Harauda.
During
conciliation proceedings, Pooja also told
me bhaisahab please arrange for sending
me to Harauda.

On 08.10.2011, I and Nanak who
belongs to my village, had reached
Kamalpur at the house of my maternal
uncle Rajveer at 3:00 pm. There, I had seen
that Rajveer, Roopwati, son of Rajveer
Pawan and Naresh as well as friend of
Rajveer Rahisuddin had surrounded Pooja.
Rahisuddin was having glass full of poison,
Rajveer opened the mouth of Pooja and
Rahisuddin
forcibly
administered
her
poison from that glass, thereafter, Pooja
fainted. We went to our houses because of
fear and reached at 5:00 pm and in the
night at about 9 or 9:30 pm, he received
phone call of Harbir Singh, who asked him
whether there occurred any incident.
Thereafter, I obtained information from the
son of my maternal uncle Subhash about
the status of the above incident who
informed me that Pooja has died. Then, we
told Harbir Singh that Vakil sahab Pooja
has died. Rajveer Singh, Rahisuddin, Arjun
and Deepak, they had come to my village
10 to 15 days earlier and threatened me not
to give any witness because he is their
relative. Otherwise, we will tell you.

13. In the cross-examination, PW-2
retracted from his statement given in
examination-in-chief and did not support
the prosecution story and clearly stated that
he had not seen the incident because he was
staying at 400 metres away from the house
of Rajveer. When he reached at the house
of Subhash then he got information about
the incident which occurred with Pooja. He
did not remember who told him about the
incident at the house of Subhash. After
receiving information, Subhash and several
other people of village went to the house of
Rajveer where about 250-300 persons were
4 All. Rajveer Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1081
already assembled but I am not in a
position to tell the name and place. I have
not seen any incident of surrounding Pooja
by Rajveer, Pawan, Naresh, Roopwati and
Rahisuddin and I have also not seen any
glass containing poison in the hand of
Rahisuddin. I have also not seen Ramveer
opening
the
mouth
of
Pooja
and
Rahisuddin administering the poison from
glass in the mouth of Pooja. I have told
whatever the villagers told me. I don't
remember which villager told me about the
said incident. I have not told any of the
incident of village-Kamalpur to any of the
person. When I received the call of Harbir
Singh, I don't remember where I was at that
time. The incident of Kamalpur dated
18.10.2011 did not happen before me. I
have not seen deceased Pooja in Kamalpur
on 18.10.2011. On that day, I did not go to
the house of Rajveer in village-Kamalpur.
As PW-2 did not support the prosecution
story, therefore, prosecution declared him
hostile and also cross-examined PW-2. In
his cross-examination, PW-2 stated that
statement given by him on 08.11.2016 was
given by him on the basis of information
received from villagers. He cannot tell the
name of villagers who had given him the
information. Accused Rahisuddin is friend
of Rajveer. This is correct that after lodging
of the present case, Harbir and accused
persons entered into compromise. This is
incorrect that I have
seen Rajveer,
Roopwati, Pawan, Naresh and Rahisuddin
surrounding Pooja.

14. Nanak was examined as PW-3 but
he did not support the prosecution story,
therefore, he was declared hostile at the
request of prosecution and put to crossexamination. In his cross-examination,
PW-3 stated that it is incorrect, that he had
gone to the house of Rajveer on 18.10.2011
along with Budhh Pal Singh and it is also
incorrect that on that day, he had seen
Rajveer, Pawan, Naresh, Roopwati and
Rahisuddin surrounding and catching hold
of Pooja. He is not aware how Pooja has
died. He did not tell anything about the
death of Pooja to Harbir Singh.

15. Bishan Singh was examined as
PW-4 but he did not
support
the
prosecution story, therefore, he was also
declared hostile by the prosecution and
prosecution was also allowed to crossexamine him. In his cross-examination,
PW-4 stated that it is incorrect that he
participated in godhbharai rasam of second
marriage of daughter of Rajveer, Pooja.
PW-5 was formal witness who was SubInspector Tejveer Singh, who proved the
chik FIR and carbon copy of GD. PW-6
was Sub-Inspector of Naresh Kumar who
was an Investigating Officer of Case Crime
No.252 of 2011, under Sections-302 and
201 IPC. In his statement, he stated that
after arresting Rajveer and Rahisuddin, he
had taken them in the jungle (agriculture
filed).
He
stated
that
Rajveer
and
Rahisuddin in presence of SDM, Kunwar
Bahadur Singh gave information about the
place where ashes and burnt bone of dead
body of Pooja were found and memo of
recovery was prepared on the spot as per
the direction of SDM in presence of
witnesses. He proved above memo of
recovery (Ext Ka-6) which was signed by
SDM as well as witnesses. He also proved
sealed
bundle
containing
two
small
containers. One is having normal soil and
other is having ashes and bone of deceased.
On opening the sealed bundle, he stated
that this is the same soil and ashes as well
as bones which I have sent for Forensic
Science Laboratory after sealing the same.
Normal soil was marked as Ext No.1, ashes
on small container was exhibit as Ext No.3
and bone were exhibited as Ext No.4. The
1082 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
container containing the ashes and bone
was marked as Ext No.5. In crossexamination, PW-6 stated that it is correct
that he is telling first time in the court about
the information by Gajraj to first informant
through phone, though same was not
mentioned by him in case diary. He did not
go to the house of Rajveer between 3 pm to
7:30 pm. He went to the place of incident
(agriculture land) along with Rajveer and
Rahisuddin at 5:55 pm. When he reached at
the house of Rajveer then he found
Rajveer,
Rahisuddin
were
there
and
immediately after reaching at their house,
he recorded the statement of Rajveer and
Rahisuddin. Memo of recovery (Ext Ka-6)
does not have signature of accused
Rahisuddin and Rajveer.

First informant did not tell me his
mobile number. First informant did not tell
me in his statement that his wife was ill and
he went to take medicine for his wife and
for this reason, lodging of the FIR was
delayed. First informant also did not tell
him why driver Laxman was not ready to
bring the dead body of the deceased at his
village. First informant also did not tell him
in his statement that Rajveer has fixed the
second marriage of Pooja with the son of
Udayveer, resident of village-Bhadaura
after taking money with him for which
godhbharai
rasam
was
fixed
for
08.10.2011 and at that time, village
Pradhan of Bhadaura, Sri Bishun Singh was
present. First informant did not tell him that
he has verified about the incident through
mobile from Buddh Pal Singh, PW-2 and
Budhh Pal Singh and Nanak has seen this
incident. During investigation also, first
informant did not inform him that Budhh
Pal and Nanak had seen this incident.
Budhh Pal and Nanak are also not
witnesses in charge-sheet. First informant
did not tell in his statement the name of any
other witness except the Gajraj. I have
submitted charge-sheet against the four
accused. It is correct that there is a Rajwaha
(canal) adjacent to the agriculture land of
Rajveer. Report of Forensic Science
Laboratory regarding ashes and bone, sent
by me is available and this report did not
express any opinion about the origin of
piece of burnt bone and ashes.

Discussion on Evidence of Defence

16. Defence produced Sanjay Singh
as DW-1, who belongs to the village of
accused Rajveer. DW-1 stated that Pooja
has died. On the day when Pooja had died,
Budhh Pal and Nanak did not come to his
village and neither he met with them. Pooja
had died because of illness. Pooja was not
murdered by anybody. I have not seen any
person either committing the murder of
Pooja or administering her poison. At the
time of last rites of Pooja at the bank of
ganga, 200-250 persons had participated in
her last rite. In cross-examination by the
prosecution, DW-1 stated he belonged to
the caste of accused Rajveer and he used to
go to the house of Rajveer. I was not
present at the time of incident. I have not
seen any incident. Therefore, I cannot tell
that Pooja has died because of illness.
Pooja was suffering from fever. He is not
aware which doctor treated Pooja.

17. Dr. Rameshwar Singh was
examined as DW-2 by the defence. He
stated in his statement that he completed
his BMS degree in the year 1980-81 from
Kanpur. On perusal of Paper No.94B/2, he
stated that this prescription was issued by
my clinic and as per this prescription, Pooja
had come at my clinic on 14.10.2011 and at
that time Pooja was suffering from
diarrhea, acidity and fever of 101-102
degrees. I had treated her and given
4 All. Rajveer Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1083
medicine. Paper No.94B/2 was issued in
my writing and signature and my seal is on
that prescription. This paper was marked as
Ext Kha-1. On perusal of Paper No.94B/1,
it is stated that this paper was written in my
writing and signature. Both these papers
were prepared at the time of examination of
Pooja. Paper No.94B/1 was marked as Ext.
Kha-2. As per Paper No.94B/1, Pooja came
to my clinic on 18.10.2011 and at that time
she was suffering from Pyranea Gastritis.
Condition of patient was very poor,
therefore, on the basis of her condition at
2:30 pm, he referred her for Kailash
Hospital. Dehydration is possible because
of the illness of patient. Severe dehydration
may cause death. On cross-examination by
the prosecution, he stated my signature on
Ext No. Kha-1 and Kha-2 were not
different. Patient Pooja came to me in
normal condition. He does not know Pooja
personally.

Contention of Appellant

18. Appellant contended that FIR was
highly belated, ante- dated, ante-timed and
prepared
after
due
consultation
and
afterthought.
Inquest
memo
dated
20.10.2011 sent by Investigating Officer to
SDM contains a blank space for writing
case crime number and that goes to show
that FIR was not in existence even up to the
time of alleged recovery of remains of body
of Pooja. As per the prosecution case, first
informant
is
said
to
have
received
information from one Gajraj Singh, alleged
eye witness about the incident at 9:30 pm
on 18.10.2011 but first informant had
lodged
first
information
report
on
20.10.2011 at 10:50 am and reason for
delay for lodging the FIR, as mentioned in
FIR is that due to fear of accused, first
informant could not come to police station
whereas in his evidence PW-1 has stated
that FIR was delayed due to illness of his
wife. It was further submitted there is false
implication of appellant-Rajveer because
appellant-Rajveer and deceased had lodged
criminal cases against the first informant
and his family under Sections-498A, 406,
323, 504, 506 IPC as well as under Section
125 Cr.P.C. and first informant also lodged
criminal cases against the deceased as well
as the appellant-Rajveer and his family
members.
Relationship
between
the
deceased and her husband (son of first
informant)
was
dissolved
by
mutual
agreement and two families were not
having cordial relation with each other.
Therefore, first informant grabbed the
opportunity to settle his personal scores and
launched present malicious prosecution in
active
connivance
of
Investigating
Officer/SHO against whom appellant-
Rajveer had preferred a complaint dated
19.10.2011
before
SSP,
Bulandshahr.
Appellant- Rahisuddin was a witness in a
criminal case filed by the deceased against
the first informant, therefore, he was also
falsely implicated on that ground. It was
further contended by learned counsel for
the appellant that Pooja had died due to
illness which was absolutely natural death
and there is no evidence that Pooja has died
due to unnatural death by poisoning.
Deceased Pooja was suffering from loose
motion and diarrhea and she was treated by
DW-2 who also proved his medical
prescription dated 14.10.2011 as well as
18.10.2011 and Pooja died on her way to
Kailash Hospital, where she was referred to
by DW-2 considering her critical condition.
Last rite of Pooja was conducted in
presence of 100 villagers at the bank of
river
ganga
on
18.10.2011.
Learned
counsel for the appellants also submitted
that the alleged eye witness of FIR had
given his statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. but he was not produced before the
1084 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
trial court. Similarly, name of Kharak, Ravi
and Sanjay were mentioned in charge-sheet
as eye witnesses but they were not
examined as prosecution witnesses before
the trial court and even the charge-sheet
witness, Sanjay instead of supporting the
case of prosecution appeared as DW-1 as a
defence witness and clearly stated that
cremation of Pooja was conducted at river
ganga in presence of 100 villagers. It was
further contended that witness of motive,
Udayveer was not produced before the
court and even the prosecution witness,
Gram Pradhan, Bishan Singh, PW-4 was
said to be present in the godhbharai of
second marriage of Pooja and Udayveer did
not support the prosecution case while
examined as PW-4. Recovery memo was
not proved by Sub-Divisional Magistrate
who witnessed the recovery. Even the
alleged two independent witnesses of
recovery, namely, Ram Lal Singh and
Khadhak Singh were not produced before
the trial court to prove the recovery of
remains of deceased Pooja from the
agriculture land of appellant- Rajveer. This
case is based on circumstantial evidence
but chain of circumstances is not complete
and conviction of the appellants is solely on
the basis of recovery of remains of body of
deceased which was not proved nor
supported by forensic evidence as well as
on the basis of presumption under Section106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter
referred to as the ''Evidence Act'), despite
the fact that appellants have been fully
discharged their burden regarding the death
of Pooja by their statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. as well as examining the
defence witnesses, DW-1 and DW-2.
Therefore, it was submitted by the
appellant that order of trial court is
absolutely erroneous and without any
evidence and deserves to be set aside and
appellants are entitled to be acquitted.
Contention of State

19. Learned AGA contended that
from the evidence of PW-1, it is established
that accused, just to falsely implicate the
first informant as well as because of
annoyance with Pooja who refused to get
second marriage under the pressure of
appellant Rajveer, had murdered Pooja. It
was further contended that recovery memo
of the remains of deceased Pooja shows
that ashes and burnt parts of bones of
deceased Pooja were recovered from the
agriculture land of appellant Rajveer on the
basis of information given by the appellant.
It was further contended by learned AGA
that it is the common practice among
hindus that after the cremation, the ashes of
dead bodies is emerged in river but in the
present case, ashes of dead body of
deceased Pooja was recovered from the
agriculture land of the appellant- Rajveer,
which establishes that after committing the
murder of Pooja, had concealed the ashes
of her dead body in his agriculture land
after digging a pit in it. Therefore, there is
no illegality in the judgement of trial court
and same deserves to be affirmed.

Analysis and Conclusion

20. Sole basis of lodging the FIR on
part of the first informant (PW-1) is the
information received by him from Gajraj
Singh regarding the murder of deceased
Pooja. Subsequently, during trial PW-1 had
stated that the incident of causing death
was also witnessed by Budhh Pal Singh,
Ravi, Nanak and Sanjay apart from Gajraj
Singh. During trial, Budhh Pal Singh (PW2) and Nanak (PW-3) did not support the
prosecution story and were declared
hostile.
The
sole
witness
(Gajraj)
mentioned in the FIR who was the main
source of information regarding the murder
4 All. Rajveer Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1085
of Pooja was not produced before the trial
court to support the prosecution story.
Apart from this, another witness Ravi, who
as per the statement of PW-1 had seen the
incident, was not produced before the court
by the prosecution. Even the witness of
motive for causing the murder of Pooja,
Bishan Singh (PW-4) did not support the
prosecution
story,
therefore,
he
was
declared hostile.

21. The recovery memo for recovery
of ashes and burnt bones of deceased Pooja
on the basis of information given by the
appellants which was marked as Ext No.
Ka-6 was not signed by any of the
appellants and the witnesses who signed
this recovery memo namely, Ram Lal
Singh and Kadhak Singh, were not
produced before the court to prove the
aforesaid recovery memo (Ext Ka-6). The
above
evidences
shows
the
entire
prosecution story is based on hearsay
evidence of PW-1 as well as circumstantial
evidence. Even the Forensic Science
Laboratory report which was marked as
Paper No.19A did not give any opinion
about the origin of recovered ashes and
burnt bones. PW-1 in his statement clearly
admitted that the appellant- Rajveer as well
as his daughter deceased Pooja had lodged
criminal cases against PW-1 and, PW-1 had
also subsequently lodged cases against
appellant no.1-Rajveer, prior to lodging the
present case and this fact was also admitted
to PW-1 that appellant- Rahisuddin was
also the witness of one of the cases lodged
by the appellant-Rajveer. Learned Sessions
Judge
while
passing
the
impugned
judgement also observed that if deceased
Pooja was died because of illness then there
was no occasion on the part of the
appellants to dump the ashes and burnt
bones in his agriculture land by digging the
pit and he has not given any information to
police.