# Ram Bharosey & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 361
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 1993
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-bharosey-ors-v-state-of-u-p-53083
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A.G.A., Sri Ashvani Tripathi, Sri Brijesh Sahai (Sr.
Advocate), Sri Jai Singh Yadav, Sri Jitendra
Singh,
Sri
Pradeep
Kumar
Mishra,
Sri
Raghuvanshi Misra, Sri Vinay Saran (Sr. Adv.)

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302, 147, 148 & 149 - Conviction
based
on
circumstantial
evidence
-
Murder alleged over property dispute - No
recovery of dead body - Doubtful recovery
of spectacle frame and blood-stained stick
-
Forensic
reports
absent
-
Key
prosecution witnesses turned hostile -
Alleged enmity as motive not supported
by
consistent
testimony
-
Chain
of
circumstances broken - Trial court erred
in conviction - Held, in absence of
conclusive chain of circumstances pointing
exclusively to guilt of accused, conviction
unsustainable - Acquittal directed-Appeal
allowed. (Paras 11 to 15, and 22)

HELD:
362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The law on the issue that the chain of
circumstances must be so complete that there
was no escape from the conclusion, that within
all human probability, the crime was committed
by the accused and they should be incapable of
explanation on any hypothesis other than that
of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with
his innocence as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St.
of Maharashtra, 1984 4 SCC 116. (Para 11)

From the discussion made hereinabove, we are
of the opinion that there is absence of the dead
body of Babu Singh in the present case. The
charge of destroying the evidence was not
proved by the prosecution and therefore, the
very first link of circumstances is missing and
broken; the motive for committing such murder
is also missing as once it comes out that her
father filed a suit for partition and shares were
made and all the accused persons have agreed
to the same. The alleged incident of scuffle one
day prior to the incident was also not alleged in
the first information report, which should have
been actually done in case any such scuffle had
taken place one day prior to the incident. The
recovery
of
articles,
namely,
halfbroken
spectacle and blood-stained stick of Babu Singh
from the spot is also doubtful and PW-3Durwasa in her Statement had not referred to
the stick in the first information report and in
any case, same was not sent for chemical
examination and in her cross-examination she
admitted that she had taken the broken
spectacle frame from the spot and does not
know as to who has handed over the same to
the Investigating Officer and that she had not
handed over the same to the I.O., therefore,
recovery of said half-broken frame from the spot
is not worth belief. No weapon was recovered,
and therefore, the empty cartridge also could
not be connected with the offence. We
therefore,
find
that
the
prosecution
has
miserably failed to prove its case; the chain of
circumstances is not complete in the present
case, therefore, judgment of conviction is liable
to be set aside. (Para 22)

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Ram Bharosey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
361
be shown that all the aforesaid
conditions of this clause are satisfied."

25. While applying the aforesaid
doctrine in the instant matter, it can be
fairly stated that the plea of Double
Jeopardy as relied by learned counsel for
the respondent No. 2 has no application,
because the respondent No. 2 Sanjeev was
neither convicted nor acquitted in any
matter previously having the same set of
facts. Therefore, the order passed by the
revisional court has been decided on
incorrect application of law.

26. After analysing the matter, it
can be concluded that the investigation in
both the FIRs were clubbed together and
chargesheet was submitted under Sections
279 and 304A IPC but subsequently
looking to the gravity of the offence,
cognizance was taken by the learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
MagistrateI/ACJM-I, Amroha on 05.01.2023 under
Sections 304, 323, 325 IPC setting aside
the final report submitted in Case Crime
No. 27 of 2018 dated 18.11.2019.

27. The learned court below in
Case Crime No. 253 of 2017 instead of
taking cognizance under Sections 279,
304A IPC has taken cognizance under
Sections 304, 323, 325 IPC instead of
Section 302 IPC which is well in
accordance with law and is not barred by
the doctrine of Double Jeopardy.

28. Accordingly, the order dated
13.03.2024 passed by learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1,
Amroha, is hereby set aside as it is not
barred by Article 20(2) of the Constitution
of India, the doctrine of Double Jeopardy.
The order dated 05.01.2023 does not
require any interference. The trial Court is
directed to proceed against respondent No.
2 in accordance with law.

29. The petition is, partly
allowed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 361
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 1993

Ram Bharosey & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Apul Misra, Sri Devendra Pratap, Sri Vivek
Shukla

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A., Sri Ashvani Tripathi, Sri Brijesh Sahai (Sr.
Advocate), Sri Jai Singh Yadav, Sri Jitendra
Singh,
Sri
Pradeep
Kumar
Mishra,
Sri
Raghuvanshi Misra, Sri Vinay Saran (Sr. Adv.)

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302, 147, 148 & 149 - Conviction
based
on
circumstantial
evidence
-
Murder alleged over property dispute - No
recovery of dead body - Doubtful recovery
of spectacle frame and blood-stained stick
-
Forensic
reports
absent
-
Key
prosecution witnesses turned hostile -
Alleged enmity as motive not supported
by
consistent
testimony
-
Chain
of
circumstances broken - Trial court erred
in conviction - Held, in absence of
conclusive chain of circumstances pointing
exclusively to guilt of accused, conviction
unsustainable - Acquittal directed-Appeal
allowed. (Paras 11 to 15, and 22)

HELD:
362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The law on the issue that the chain of
circumstances must be so complete that there
was no escape from the conclusion, that within
all human probability, the crime was committed
by the accused and they should be incapable of
explanation on any hypothesis other than that
of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with
his innocence as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St.
of Maharashtra, 1984 4 SCC 116. (Para 11)

From the discussion made hereinabove, we are
of the opinion that there is absence of the dead
body of Babu Singh in the present case. The
charge of destroying the evidence was not
proved by the prosecution and therefore, the
very first link of circumstances is missing and
broken; the motive for committing such murder
is also missing as once it comes out that her
father filed a suit for partition and shares were
made and all the accused persons have agreed
to the same. The alleged incident of scuffle one
day prior to the incident was also not alleged in
the first information report, which should have
been actually done in case any such scuffle had
taken place one day prior to the incident. The
recovery
of
articles,
namely,
halfbroken
spectacle and blood-stained stick of Babu Singh
from the spot is also doubtful and PW-3Durwasa in her Statement had not referred to
the stick in the first information report and in
any case, same was not sent for chemical
examination and in her cross-examination she
admitted that she had taken the broken
spectacle frame from the spot and does not
know as to who has handed over the same to
the Investigating Officer and that she had not
handed over the same to the I.O., therefore,
recovery of said half-broken frame from the spot
is not worth belief. No weapon was recovered,
and therefore, the empty cartridge also could
not be connected with the offence. We
therefore,
find
that
the
prosecution
has
miserably failed to prove its case; the chain of
circumstances is not complete in the present
case, therefore, judgment of conviction is liable
to be set aside. (Para 22)

Appeal allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Mah.,
1984 4 SCC 116

2. Anjan Kumar Sharma Vs St. of Assam, (2017)
14 SCC 359

3. Pradeep Kumar Vs St. of Chattisgarh, (2023)
5 SCC 350

4. Laxman Prasad Vs St. of M.P., (2023) 6 SCC
399

5. Abdul Nassar Vs St. of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw
(SC) 61

6. Darshan Singh Vs St. of Pun., (2024) 3 SCC
164

7. Shriniwas Vs St. of U.P., 2022 (10) ADJ 202
(DB); 2022 SCC OnLine All 87

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,
J. & Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Apul Mishra alongwith
Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the
appellants, Shri Vinay Saran, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Pradeep
Kumar Mishra, Shri Ashvani Tripathi,
learned counsel for the informant as well as
Shri Rahul Asthana, learned AGA for the
State of U.P. and perused the record.

2. Present Criminal Appeal is being
preferred against the judgment and order
dated 28.01.1993, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge
E.C. Act, Budaun in Sessions Trial
No.176/87 convicting and sentencing the
appellants- Ram Bharosey and Bankey with
life imprisonment, under Section 302 read
with section 149 IPC and 5 years Rigorous
Imprisonment, under Section 148 IPC, and
appellants- Shishu Pal, Yogendra, Bhup
Singh, Shiv Lal and Ashok alias Rohtash
are sentenced for life imprisonment under
section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC
3 All. Ram Bharosey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
363
and 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment under
section 147 IPC.

3. Vide order dated 05.03.2025 the
appeal stood abated in respect of appellant
no.1-Ram Bharosey son of Vikram Singh
and Appellant no.5-Shiv Lal son of Kundal
Singh. Now the appeal is surviving only in
respect of appellants no.2- Shishupal son of
Latoori Singh, appellant no.3-Yogendra son
of Latoori Singh, appellant no.4-Bhoop
Singh son of Mahendra Singh, appellant
no.6-Bankey son of Nita and appellant
no.7-Ashok alias Rohitash son of Ragubir
Singh.

4. The prosecution story, in brief,
is that the complainant-Durwasa, resident
of village Raipur married Babu Singh
resident of Kurrao, police station Ujhani.
The complainant was the sole daughter of
her parents. The parents of the complainant
had already expired due to which the entire
movable and immovable property were
inherited by Durwasa, due to which the
other family members of the father of
Durwasa had an enmity because they were
in search to usurp the landed property
inherited by Durwasa, but they could not
succeed in their aims. Hence Bhoop Singh
and others used to remain in search of any
opportunity to cause damage to Dirwasa
and her husband in any manner whatsoever.
On 15.04.1984 Babu Singh at about 8.00
p.m. went to attend a Lagun ceremony at
the house Ruddar Murao in Village
Baholia. After a short distance Chhotey,
Ram Bharosey, Shishu Pal, Yogendra,
Bhoop Singh, Harinandan Singh, Ashok,
and
Shiv
Lal
also
followed
him
accompanying with Bankey Mehtar, who
was servant of Bhoop Singh. Out of them
Ram Bharosey was armed with his licensee
gun, Bankey Mehntar was armed with
Gandasa and others were armed with lathis.
The husband of the complainant Babu
Singh did not return back to his house till
morning. In the morning complainant felt
some doubt and sent her son Jogpal Singh
to village Baholia to enquire Ruddar Murao
in respect of Babu Singh. Ruddar Murao
told that Babu Singh did not attend Lagun
ceremony. Thus, he could not reach there.
Then Jogpal Singh, Dhakan Singh, Udiaivir
and Omkar Singh started to make search in
jungle (forest) and they found some blood
lying at the pathway nearby the field of
Thakuri. One empty cartridge was also
found there. On further search some fire
was seen then all the aforesaid persons
reached nearby the fire. When they reached
there, they found that one chita (pyre) was
burning and a frame of spectacle was also
lying there. They became certain that Babu
Singh has been murdered by aforesaid
persons and has been burnt to destroy the
evidence of murder. A Tehrir was got
written
by
Jogpal
Singh
upon
the
instructions of complainant -Durwasa. An
F.I.R. was
lodged
in police
station
Moosajhag on 16.04.1984 at about 12.15
noon. Thereafter, a case under sections 147,
148, 302 read with section 149 and 201
I.P.C. was lodged in police station and
investigation
was
started
by
the
Investigating Officer who investigated the
matter and after concluding investigation
submitted a charge-sheet against the
accused persons.

5. The prosecution has examined
as many as nine witnesses, namely, Amba
Sahai-P.W.1,
Sukhpal-P.W.2,
DurwasaP.W.3, Omkar son of Chiraunji-P.W.4,
Omkar son of Hameer Singh-P.W.5, Jogpa1
Singh- P.W.6, Ram Bharosey son of
Bheem-P.W.7, Mishri Lal, Retired S.I.,
I.O.- P.W.8 and Head Constable- Charan
Lal Sharma-P.W.9.
364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
6. The prosecution has also
submitted documentary evidences, i.e.,
Written Report- Ext.Ka-1, Chick F.I.R.-Ext.
Ka-2, Site-plans-Ext. Ka-3 and Ka-4, Fards
(3) Ext.Ka-5 to Ka-8, F.I.R. Ext.Ka-9,
Police Report- Ext. Ka-10, Site-plan Ext.
Ka-ll, Fards (6) Ext. Ka-12 to Ka-16-A.
Copy of General Diary- Ext. Ka-17 and
Charge-sheets- Ext. Ka-18 and Ka-19. The
prosecution has also submitted material
exhibits Broken frame of Chashma Ext l.,
Bent -Ext- 2, Empty Cartridge- Ext.3,
Blood Stained Earth- Ext. 4, Simple Earth
Ext. 5, Bones- Ext.6 and Ashes- Ext.7.

7. Submission of the learned
counsel
for
the
appellants
is
that
undisputedly it is a case of circumstantial
evidence and the chain of circumstances is
completely broken, therefore, the accused
appellants could not have been convicted
for the charges levelled against them. It is
further submitted that virtually it is case of
no evidence. The trial court has recorded
categorical finding that prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the charge under
Section 201 IPC against accused persons
and all were acquitted from the charge
under section 201 IPC. Therefore, clearly
the murder of the deceased-Babu Singh
could not be proved, hence the entire
prosecution
has
proceeded
only
on
incorrect presumption. Further submission
is that PW-1-Amba Sahai, PW-2-Sukhpal,
PW-4-Omkar son of Chiraunji and PW-5Omkar son of Hameer Singh turned hostile
and the recovery of articles, namely, halfbroken frame of spectacle and bloodstained stick (bent) allegedly belonging to
deceased Babu Singh was also not proved.
It is next submitted that although recovery
of one empty cartridge, blood-stained soil,
bone and ashes from pyre has been shown,
however, no weapon was recovered and as
such, alleged recovery of empty cartridge
(exhibit-6) is of no relevance. The bloodstained soil was not put to forensic
laboratory for chemical examination, and it
is, therefore, not known that even such
blood was human blood apart from the fact
that even the dead body was not recovered
and was allegedly burned on pyre.
Similarly, recovery of blood-stained stick
(bent) is also of no relevance as the same
was also not put to forensic laboratory for
chemical
examination.
It
is
further
submitted that although PW-8-Investigating
Officer, Mishri Lal has stated that the bones
and
blood
were
sent
to
chemical
examination, however, there is no such
report on record and as such, it was not
proved that the bones, ashes or the blood
were of alleged deceased Babu Singh,
husband of the informant. It is also
submitted that there is contradictory
statement in respect of motive as the
property inherited by the informant is
alleged to be the motive to commit the
murder whereas the contradictory statement
was made by PW-3-Durwasa, informant,
who had inherited the property that a suit
for partition was filed by her father,
however, the same was settled as the
accused persons had no objection to the
partition. He further pointed out that it has
also figured in the statement of PW-6Jogpal Singh, son of deceased Babu Singh
that a suit was filed for partition and shares
were demarcated and after partition no
other suit was filed. Submission, therefore,
is that the motive is also not proved. It is
next
submitted
that
the
chain
of
circumstances is completely broken right
from the initial stage, therefore, judgment
of the trial court convicting and sentencing
the appellants-accused cannot be sustained
and is liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, Shri Vinay Saran,
learned Senior Counsel for the informant
3 All. Ram Bharosey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
365
submitted that PW-3-Durwasa, informant,
has
categorically
proved
the
first
information report and submitted that when
her husband Babu Singh left for village
Baholia on the invitation of Ruddar Murao,
the accused persons, who were having
litigation with the deceased, had followed
him. Accused Ram Bharosey was carrying
licensee gun, Bankey Mehtar was carrying
Gandasa and other were carrying lathis and
PW-3-Durwasa, informant had seen them
going after her husband and when she felt
scared, she sent her son Jogpal Singh to
resident of Ruddar Murao for village
Baholia where he found that Babu Singh
had not reached there. Thereafter she along
with others started searching her husband
and found the blood-stained soil and empty
cartridge nearby the field of Thakuri.
During search some fire was also seen and
when they reached near fire, they found
that one chita (pyre) was burning and one
broken frame of spectacle of her husband
was lying there and she had categorically
stated that as the litigation was pending
between her and accused persons and due
to enmity, they have committed murder of
her husband and burned his dead body. She
has also named the persons who had seen
the accused persons going behind her
husband and therefore, it is submitted that
last seen evidence is proved in clear terms.
Learned
Senior
Counsel,
therefore,
submitted that the factum that four
witnesses have turned hostile is of no
consequence. PW-3-informant submitted
that police has recovered half-broken frame
of spectacles and blood-stained stick of the
deceased as well as blood-stained soil,
empty cartridge, burnt bones and ashes,
therefore, it is proved that murder of Babu
Singh had taken place and evidence has
also been destroyed by burning the dead
body. It is submitted that in the present
case, the chain of circumstances is
complete and conviction of the accused
persons warrant no interference.

9. Shri Rahul Asthana, learned
AGA for the State has also opposed the
appeal by adopting the arguments advanced
by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.

10. We have considered the rival
submissions and perused the records.

11. The law on the issue that the
chain of circumstances must be so
complete that there was no escape from the
conclusion,
that
within
all
human
probability, the crime was committed by
the accused and they should be incapable of
explanation on any hypothesis other than
that of the guilt of the accused and
inconsistent with his innocence as held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of
Maharashtra, 1984 4 SCC 116. Relevant
Paragraphs 153, 154, 155 and 156 whereof
are quoted as under:-

"153. A close analysis of
this decision would show that the
following
conditions
must
be
fulfilled before a case against an
accused can be said to be fully
established:
(1) the circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is to
be
drawn
should
be
fully
established.
It may be noted here that
this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned 'must or
should'
and
not
'may
be'
established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction
between 'may be proved' and "must
be or should be proved" as was
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
held by this Court in Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 :
1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ
1783] where the observations were
made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC
(Cri) p. 1047] "Certainly, 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."
(2) 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,
(3)
the
circumstances
should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
(4) they should exclude
every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and
(5) 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.
154. These five golden
principles, if we may say so,
constitute the panchsheel of the
proof
of
a
case
based
on
circumstantial evidence.
155. It may be interesting
to note that as regards the mode of
proof in a criminal case depending
on circumstantial evidence, in the
absence of a corpus delicti, the
statement of law as to proof of the
same was laid down by Gresson, J.
(and concurred by 3 more Judges)
in King v. Horry thus:
Before he can be convicted,
the fact of death should be proved by
such circumstances as render the
commission of the crime morally
certain and leave no ground for
reasonable doubt: the circumstantial
evidence should be so cogent and
compelling as to convince a jury that
upon no rational hypothesis other
than murder can the facts be
accounted for.
156. Lord Goddard slightly
modified the expression 'morally
certain' by "such circumstances as
render the commission of the crime
certain".
(Emphasis Supplied)

12. The aforesaid legal position is
being consistently followed up till now.
However, reference to the some of the
latest judgments may be noted:-

(i) Anjan Kumar Sharma
vs. State of Assam, (2017) 14 SCC
359
(ii) Pradeep Kumar vs.
State of Chattisgarh, (2023) 5 SCC
350
(iii) Laxman Prasad vs.
State of M.P., (2023) 6 SCC 399
(iv) Abdul Nassar vs. State
of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 61

13. A three Judge Bench in
Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab ,
(2024) 3 SCC 164 has held in paragraphs 9
and 37 as follows:-

"9. There is no eye-witness
to the incident. The case of the
3 All. Ram Bharosey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
367
prosecution rests on circumstantial
evidence. The normal approach in
a case based on circumstantial
evidence is that the circumstances
from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn must be
cogently and firmly established;
that those circumstances should be
of a definite tendency unerringly
pointing towards the guilt of the
accused; that the circumstances
taken cumulatively should form a
chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion, that
within all human probability, the
crime
was
committed
by
the
accused
and
they
should
be
incapable of explanation on any
hypothesis other than that of the
guilt
of
the
accused
and
inconsistent with his innocence.
37.
Seen
in
this
background, we need not go further
and consider the evidence qua other
circumstances sought to be proved
by the prosecution since the failure
to prove a single circumstance
cogently can cause a snap in the
chain
of
circumstances. There
cannot be a gap in the chain of
circumstances.
When
the
conviction is to be based on
circumstantial evidence solely, then
there should not be any snap in the
chain of circumstances. If there is a
snap in the chain, the accused is
entitled to benefit of doubt. If some
of the circumstances in the chain
can be explained by any other
reasonable hypothesis, then also the
accused is entitled to the benefit of
doubt." (Emphasis Supplied)

14. The same view was taken by
several Division Benches of this Court
including the case of Shriniwas vs. State of
U.P., 2022 (10) ADJ 202 (DB); 2022 SCC
OnLine All 87 , of which one of us (Justice
Vivek Kumar Birla) is a member.

15. The judgment of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda (supra) has been
considered in the latest judgement of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Abdul Nassar vs.
State of Kerala (supra), also, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that courts
must adhere to following principles while
appreciating and evaluating evidence in
cases based on the circumstantial evidence.
Paragraph 30 of the said judgment reads as
under:-

"30. We deem it essential
to enunciate the principles that
courts
must
adhere
to
while
appreciating
and
evaluating
evidence
in
cases
based
on
circumstantial evidence, as follows:
(i). The testimony of each
prosecution and defence witness
must be meticulously discussed and
analysed. Each witness's evidence
should be assessed in its entirety to
ensure no material aspect is
overlooked.
(ii).
Circumstantial
evidence is evidence that relies on
an inference to connect it to a
conclusion of fact. Thus, the
reasonable inferences that can be
drawn from the testimony of each
witness
must
be
explicitly
delineated.
(iii). Each of the links of
incriminating
circumstantial
evidence should be meticulously
examined so as to find out if each
one of the circumstances is proved
individually
and
whether
collectively taken, they forge an
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
unbroken chain consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused and totally inconsistent
with his innocence.
(iv). The judgment must
comprehensively
elucidate
the
rationale for accepting or rejecting
specific
pieces
of
evidence,
demonstrating how the conclusion
was logically derived from the
evidence.
It
should
explicitly
articulate how each piece of
evidence contributes to the overall
narrative of guilt.
(v). The judgment must
reflect that the finding of guilt, if
any, has been reached after a
proper and careful evaluation of
circumstances
in
order
to
determine
whether
they
are
compatible
with
any
other
reasonable hypothesis.
(Emphasis Supplied)

16. The trial court has acquitted all
the accused persons of the charge under
section 201 IPC, their acquittal under
Section 201 IPC is not under challenge.
This is the first link of circumstances which
it is not proved by proving beyond doubt
that in fact the bone and ashes recovered
from the pyre are of Babu Singh, husband
of the informant, allegedly murdered by the
accused persons. It may be noted that there
was no examination of the blood-stained
soil or at least no report is on record
although investigating officer, PW-8 Mishri
Lal had stated that blood-stained soil was
sent for chemical examination. Admittedly,
there is no recovery of weapon, therefore,
recovery of empty cartridge (exhibit-6)
loses its importance as the use of the same
in the murder of Babu Singh is also not
proved as there was no recovery of any
bullet or pallets from the pyre or on the
spot. In the absence of murder of Babu
Singh having been proved, the charge of
murder of Babu Singh is also not proved.

17. The prosecution has sought to
prove the murder of Babu Singh by
connecting the same with the recovery of
half-broken frame of spectacle of right eye
and broken blood-stained stick(bent) of
Babu Singh from the spot. The recovery
memo of half-broken frame of spectacle is
exhibit Ka-8, dated 16.04.1984. In the first
information report, it has been stated that
the same was lying near the pyre and it has
been shown to have been recovered from
the spot by the Investigating Officer,
whereas PW-3-Durwasa, the informant had
stated that she had taken away the halfbroken frame of spectacle with her from the
spot and she had not handed over the same
to the Diwanji (Investigating Officer) and
that she was not aware who has given the
same to Investigating Officer, therefore,
recovery of half-broken frame of spectacle
of the deceased from the spot also become
doubtful.

18. Insofar as the recovery of
blood-stained stick allegedly belonging to
the deceased Babu Singh is concerned, it
was stated by Jogpal Singh, PW-6, son of
deceased Babu Singh that there was no
specific mark in the stick belonging to
Babu Singh. Moreover, the blood-stained
stick was also not chemically examined, as
such, the recovery of blood-stained stick is
not enough to indicate that the body, which
was burned on pyre, was of deceased and
the accused were involved in the offence.

19. Insofar as the motive is
concerned, it is not in dispute that PW-3Durwasa
has
received
the
property
belonging to her father by inheritance. In
her cross-examination, she has stated that
3 All. Ram Bharosey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
369
there was no land dispute with the accused
persons. She has further stated that her
father had filed a suit for partition so that
separate shares may be made to which all
the accused persons have agreed and no
further litigation in this regard with the
accused persons have taken place and after
death of her father, her name was mutated
in the revenue records and the accused
persons have not raised any objection in
this regard. There was no allegation in the
first information report that on the previous
night any scuffle took place between the
deceased and the accused persons or any
other person, however, it was asserted by
her and PW-6- Jogpal while making
statement that one NCR was lodged in
respect of scuffle that had taken place on
the previous night on 15.04.1984 and this
was the reason that Babu Singh was
eliminated by the accused persons. Further,
as already noticed earlier PW-6-Jogpal
Singh, son of Babu Singh had also stated
that after partition shares were demarcated
and no other suit was pending. We,
therefore, are of the opinion that this story
was developed subsequently. The relevant
police station is Musajhag, District Budaun
whereas
the
NCR
was
lodged
on
15.04.1984 in a different police station, i.e.,
Police Station Civil Lines, Budaun a copy
whereof was handed over to Investigating
Officer. We find that in case any such
incident had at all taken place just one day
before the alleged murder of Babu Singh,
this should have been the first fact to have
been mentioned in the first information
report. Therefore, clearly this story has
been developed subsequently to attribute
some kind of motive behind the murder of
Babu Singh.

20. PW-1-Amba Sahai and PW-2Sukhpal were stated to be the witnesses of
burning of the body of the deceased Babu
Singh on pyre by the accused persons. They
have denied the same and were declared
hostile and nothing came out from their
examination. PW-4 Omkar s/o Chiraunji
was also declared hostile as he had stated
that the police had not brought the accused
Bankey in custody/arrest and stick of
deceased-Babu Singh was not recovered in
his presence. PW-5 Omkar s/o Hameer
Singh was also declared hostile. In his
cross-examination, PW-6 Jogpal Singh s/o
deceased Babu Singh had stated that he
along with his brother Alok and mother
Durwasa (informant-PW-3) have gone upto
the door to see off his father-deceased Babu
Singh. However, his real brother Alok was
not examined as prosecution witness. It is
pertinent to note that Jogpal Singh-PW-6,
stated that he had gone to some relation on
16th April and his brother Alok had not
gone to the police station for lodging the
first information report although he and his
brother Alok were present in the village on
the date of incident. It is also worth noting
that on one hand, allegedly his father was
murdered on 15th April whereas on 16th
itself after he had gone to the house of
Ruddar Murao in village Baholia and found
that Babu Singh had not reached there, he
returned home and informed his mother
about this and thereafter he had left the
village to visit some relative, which is
absolutely unexpected from a son whose
father is missing and he had seen the pyre.
Insofar as the recovery of broken spectacles
of the deceased is concerned, in his cross
examination he has stated that he did not
remember as to whether his mother had
taken the same to police station, while she
had gone for lodging report. He has further
stated that the entire body was turned into
ashes and certain bones were left but the
same was not recovered by the police in his
presence. Therefore, nothing came out from
his statement to complete the chain of
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstances. PW-7 Ram Bharosey son of
Bhim had stated that he had seen the
accused persons abusing Babu Singh and
threatening him not to turn his head
towards the land in Raipur or he would be
killed. He was, however, not the named
witness and stated in his cross-examination
that he had come on his own to make the
statement. PW-8 Mishri Lal, Investigating
Officer had stated in his cross examination
that the informant never told him that Babu
Singh had any dispute/scuffle between the
accused persons one day prior to the
incident.

21. We have also gone through the
statements of accused persons recorded
under
Section
313
Cr.P.C.
Nothing
incrimining could be noticed.

22. From the discussion made
hereinabove, we are of the opinion that
there is absence of the dead body of Babu
Singh in the present case. The charge of
destroying the evidence was not proved by
the prosecution and therefore, the very first
link of circumstances is missing and
broken; the motive for committing such
murder is also missing as once it comes out
that her father filed a suit for partition and
shares were made and all the accused
persons have agreed to the same. The
alleged incident of scuffle one day prior to
the incident was also not alleged in the first
information report, which should have been
actually done in case any such scuffle had
taken place one day prior to the incident.
The recovery of articles, namely, halfbroken spectacle and blood-stained stick of
Babu Singh from the spot is also doubtful
and PW-3-Durwasa in her statement had
not referred to the stick in the first
information report and in any case, same
was not sent for chemical examination and
in her cross-examination she admitted that
she had taken the broken spectacle frame
from the spot and does not know as to who
has
handed
over
the
same
to
the
Investigating Officer and that she had not
handed over the same to the I.O., therefore,
recovery of said half-broken frame from
the spot is not worth belief. No weapon was
recovered,
and
therefore,
the
empty
cartridge also could not be connected with
the offence. We therefore, find that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove
its case; the chain of circumstances is not
complete in the present case, therefore,
judgment of conviction is liable to be set
aside.

23.

The
present
appeal
is
accordingly
allowed.
The
impugned
judgment and order of the trial court dated
28.01.1993 convicting and sentencing the
appellants is hereby set aside and the
appellants are acquitted of the all charges
levelled against them. Bail bonds are
discharged. They need not surrender.

24. Copy of this judgment be sent
to the court concerned for necessary
compliance.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 370
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1954 of 1993

Gendan Lal ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel
for
the
Appellant: