# Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 41
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1959 of 2016
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Rajeev Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramanand-nandlal-bharti-v-state-of-u-p-47114
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-challenge
to-conviction-accused
committed
preplanned and premeditated murder of his
wife and 4 minor children with banka and
thereafter
buried
the
deadbodies
by
pouring kerosene oil in the mid-nightaccused had developed illicit relationship
with other woman and wanted to marry
her-no eye witness of the incident nor
previously convicted-the case is based on
circumstantial evidence- the testimony
furnished by PW-1,PW-2, recovery of
banka, motive of murdering the deceased,
post mortem report, blood stained cloth of
the accused, report of FSL, all shows the
intention of accused-trial court rightly
convicted the accused-the instant case
falls in the category of 'rarest of rare
case'-death sentence awarded to the
appellant is confirmed.(Para 1 to 110)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,954 of 135,074. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39954 for what follows._

7 All. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of U.P.
41
(2021)07ILR A41
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1959 of 2016

Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Jail Appeal, Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-challenge
to-conviction-accused
committed
preplanned and premeditated murder of his
wife and 4 minor children with banka and
thereafter
buried
the
deadbodies
by
pouring kerosene oil in the mid-nightaccused had developed illicit relationship
with other woman and wanted to marry
her-no eye witness of the incident nor
previously convicted-the case is based on
circumstantial evidence- the testimony
furnished by PW-1,PW-2, recovery of
banka, motive of murdering the deceased,
post mortem report, blood stained cloth of
the accused, report of FSL, all shows the
intention of accused-trial court rightly
convicted the accused-the instant case
falls in the category of 'rarest of rare
case'-death sentence awarded to the
appellant is confirmed.(Para 1 to 110)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Marudanal Augusti Vs St. of Ker. (1980)
SCC (Cri) 985

2. Aher Raja Khima Vs St.of Saurashtra(1956)
AIR SC 217

3. Harjit Singh & ors. Vs St.of Punj.(2002) AIR
SC 3040

4. Joydeb Patra & ors. Vs St. of W. B.(2013) 3
JIC 548 SC

5. Najeem Miyan Vs St. of U.P.(2020) 3 JIC 125

6. Manoj Suryavanshi Vs St. of Chhattisgarh
(2020) 2 JIC 491 SC

7. Vijay Kumar Vs St. of J&K (2019) 107 ACC
731 SC

8. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Mah.
(1984) AIR SC 1622

9. Golakonda Venkateswara Rao Vs St. of A. P.
(2003) AIR SC 2846

10. Ombir Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2020) AIR
SC 2609

11. St. of Karnataka Vs Suvarnnamma (2015) 88
ACC 317

12. Zahira Habiullha Sheikh (5) Vs St. of Guj.
(2006) 3 SCC 374

13. Balwinder Singh Vs St. of Punj.(1995) Supp.
4 SCC 259

14. Pakkirisamy Vs St. of T.N[ (1997) 8 SCC 158

15. Kavita Vs St. of T.N. (1998) 6 SCC 108

16. St. of Raj. Vs Raja Ram(2003) 8 SCC 180

17. Aloke Nath Dutta Vs St.of W.B.(2007) 12
SCC 230

18. Sansar Chand Vs St. of Raj. (2010) 10 SCC
604
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
19. Ramesh bhai Chandu bhai Rathod Vs St. of
Guj.(2009) 5 SCC 740

20. S.K. Yusuf Vs St. of W.B. (2011) 11 SCC 754

21. Pancho Vs St. of Har. (2011) 10 SCC 165

22. Bachan Singh Vs St. of Punj. (1980) AIR SC
898

23. Ramnaresh & ors. Vs St. of Chhattisgarh
(2012) 4 SCC 257

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)
&
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh, J.

The instant Criminal Appeal is dismissed
vide our order of date passed on separate
sheets contained in Capital Sentence No. 1
of 2016 : State of U.P. Vs. Ramanand @
Nand Lal Bharti.

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.

1 The appellant Ramanand alias
Nandlal Bharti was charged by the Sessions
Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial
No. 379 of 2010 for offence punishable
under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Vide
judgment and order dated 04.11.2016,
learned Sessions Judge convicted and
sentenced him under Section 302, I.P.C. to
death and fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default
of
payment
of
fine
to
undergo
imprisonment
for
one
year.

2 Aggrieved by his conviction and
sentence, Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti
has preferred, in this Court, Criminal
Appeal No. 1959 of 2016 from jail.

3 Capital Sentence Reference No. 1 of
2016 arises out of the reference made by
the learned trial Court under Section 366
(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 to this Court for confirmation of the
death sentence of Ramanand alias Nandlal
Bharti.

4 Since Criminal Appeal No. 1959 of
2016 and Capital Sentence Reference No. 1
of 2016 arise out of a common factual
matrix and impugned judgment, we are
disposing them of by this judgment.

5 Shortly stated, the prosecution case
runs as under:

On 22.01.2010, when informant
Shambhu Raidas (P.W.1) was present at his
home situate in Village Namdarpurwa,
Police
Station
Dhaurhara,
District
Lakhimpur Kheri, his brother-in-law (sala)
Ramanand
alias
Nand
Lal
(accused/appellant herein), who is the
resident of Namdarpurwa, hemlate of
Amethi,
Police
Station
Dhaurhara,
Lakhimpur Kheri, came at his house at
about 06:30 a.m. and told him that in the
intervening night of 21/22.01.2010, he
(accused/appellant Ramanand alias Nand
Lal) along with his wife (Smt. Sangeeta)
and daughters were sleeping in his house.
In the night, at 1:00 a.m., someone knocked
his door. Thereupon, accused/appellant
asked that who was knocking his door but
there was no response. Thereafter, he
(accused/appellant) went at the roof of his
house and saw that among them one person
was a resident of Village Basheda, who
fired a shot upon him (accused/appellant),
however, he escaped unhurt. Thereafter,
accused/appellant jumped at the ground
floor. At the same time, one of the
miscreant gave a blow at his head with the
butt
of
gun.
Thereupon,
he
(accused/appellant) ran away from there
and by concealing himself in the field, saw
that the miscreants have jumped in to his
house and thereafter smoke was coming out
from his house. He (Ramanand) reached at
7 All. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of U.P.
43
Behman Purwa at the crusher of Khalik as
well as at Ram Nagar Lahbadi and told
about the incident but no one came to help
him.

After
hearing
the
aforesaid
narrated version from accused/appellant,
the informant-Shambhu Raidas (P.W.1)
along with his nephew Pratap reached at
the house of the accused/appellant and saw
that Sangeeta, wife of accused/appellant
and his daughters Tulsi aged about 7 years,
Lakshmi aged about 5 years, Kajal aged
about 3 years and another daughter aged
about one and a half month, have been
murdered and their dead bodies were
burning. On seeing this, the informant and
his nephew Pratap started pouring water in
order to extinguish the fire. In the
meanwhile,
accused/appellant
started
enjoying heat by sitting near fire in the
courtyard. The informant and his nephew
snubbed him saying that his wife and
children have been murdered and he was
still
enjoying
the
heat.
On
this,
accused/appellant became angry and went
away from there. The dead bodies were
lying there. The informant Shambhu Raidas
(P.W.1) went to P.S. Dhaurhara and
narrated the said incident to the police and
lodged
the
F.I.R.
at
police
station
Dhaurhara.

6 The Head Constable Dhani Ram
Verma
(P.W.10)
deposed
that
on
22.01.2010, he was posted as Head
Moharrir at Police Station Dhaurhara. On
the basis of written report submitted by the
informant Shambhu Raidas (P.W.1) on
22.01.2010, at 09.45 a.m., he registered the
F.I.R., on the basis of which, case crime
No. 49 of 2010, under Section 302, I.P.C.
was registered against four unknown
persons. A perusal of the chik F.I.R. also
shows that the distance between the place
of the incident and the police station was
four and half kilometres. He sent the
appellant Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti to
the Community Health Centre, Dhaurhara
along with Constable Brij Mohan Singh for
treatment.

7 The evidence of S.I. Yogendra
Singh P.W. 7 reveals that on 22.01.2010,
he was posted as Incharge Inspector at
Police Station Dhaurhara. On the date itself
i.e. on 22.01.2010, he took investigation of
the case on its own. He immediately had
recorded the statement of scriber of the
F.I.R. Head Constable Dhaniram Verma
(P.W.10) and informant Shambhu Raidas
(P.W.1) and left for the place of the
incident. On the pointing out of the
informant Shambhu Raidas (P.W.1), he
inspected the spot, prepared the site plan
(Ext. Ka.6) and also recorded statements of
Ahmad Hussain and Nizamuddin, who was
present there. The inquest proceedings
were also initiated. The panchanama of the
deceased was also prepared. Thereafter, the
deadbody of the deceased was sealed and
the impression of seal was taken and the
challan nash was prepared. On 23.01.2010,
he recorded the statements of Chatrapal
Raidas (P.W.2) and Rustam Raidas. On
24.01.2010,
accused/appellant-Ramanand
alias Nandlal Bharti was arrested and he
recorded his statement. On the pointing out
of the accused/appellant, the weapon of
offence banka was recovered and also
prepared site plan of the spot of recovery.
Thereafter, on 25.01.2010, he recorded the
statements
of
Chaila
Bihari
Raidas,
Balgovind Raidas, Ram Kumar, Baburam
Hans. The sample of blood stained as well
as sample of earth were taken from the spot
and were taken into possession vide Ext.
Ka-9. The inquest papers of the deceased
persons were prepared by S.I. Nand Kumar
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in his supervision. P.W.7 has also proved
the panchnama and other related document
of deceased Sangeeta Devi as Ext. Ka-10 to
Ext. Ka 15. The panchnama and other
related papers of deceased Tulsi were
proved as Ext. 16 to Ext.. 21. The
panchnama and other related papers of
deceased Kajal were proved as Ext. Ka 22
to Ext. Ka-27. The panchnama and other
related papers of deceased Laxmi were
proved as Ext. Ka-28 to Ext. Ka. 33. The
panchnama and other related papers of
deceased Km. Chhoti were proved as Ext.
Ka-34 to Ext. ka 39. On 05.02.2010, he
recorded the statements of witnesses of
recovery memo S.I. Nand Kumar, S.S.I.
Uma Shankar (P.W.6), Constable Usman,
Constable Prabhudayal, Constable Santosh,
Constable Shrawan Kumar.

8 P.W.7 Inspector Yogendra Singh
has also deposed that after completion of
the investigation, the accused/appellant was
charge-sheeted vide charge-sheet (Ext. Ka8).

9 The Sub-Inspector Uma Shanker
Mishra P.W.6, in his deposition, before the
trial Court stated that on 24.11.2010, he
was posted as Senior Sub-Inspector at
Police Station Dhaurhara. The appellant,
who was arrested in the present case, was
interrogated. Appellant Ramanand has
confessed the crime and disclosed that he
had concealed ''banka' used in the incident
and his blood stained shirt and paint at
unknown place and can get recovered the
same. Thereafter, at the instance of
appellant, police officials along with public
witness Chhatrapal and Pratap took the
accused/appellant to Village Namdarpurwa.
Appellant Ramanand took the police and
witnesses on the road of village Bhakuraiya
to Ram Nagar and at a distance of about
100 steps from his house, he took out one
''Banka' and a blood stained shirt and paint
from the shrubbery on the corner of the
road opposite to field one Kafeel. Appellant
Ramanand told that this ''Banka' was used
by him in committing the murder of his
wife and children. The recovered ''Banka',
shirt and paint were sealed at the spot and
were taken into police possession vide
recovery memo Ext. Ka-5.

10 The injuries of accused/appellant
Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti was
examined by P.W. 9 Dr. Ankit Kumar
Singh on 22.01.2010 at 10:30 a.m. in
Community Health Centre, Dhaurhara. He
deposed that on 22.01.2010, he was posted
as Medical Officer at Community Health
Centre, Dhaurhara. After examination of
accused/appellant Ramanand alias Nandlal
Bharti, he found following injuries :

"Injuries of Ramanand alias
Nandlal Bharti (appellant)

(1) C.L.W. on the left side of
head 2 cm x 0.5 cm in length 10 cm above
from left ear.

(2) C.L.W. on the middle of Head
5 cm x 0.5 cm in length 2 cm from injury
No. (1).

(3) C.L.W. on the middle of Head
4.5 cm x 0.5 cm in length 1 cm from injury
No. (2).

(4) Superficial burn injuries on
the left side of neck in length 8 cm x 6 cm.

(5) Superficial burn injuries on
the (Rt) side of neck in length 10 cm x 7
cm.

In the opinion of P. W. 9 Dr.
Ankit Kumar Singh, all injuries are simple
in nature. Injuries No. (1), (2) and (3) were
caused by hard and blunt object, whereas
injuries No. (4) and (5) were caused by
burn. During examination, he also opined
that smell of Kerosene Oil were coming
from his body and cloth.
7 All. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of U.P.
45

11 The post-mortem on the corpse of
the deceased Sangeeta aged about 35
years and Km. Tulsi, aged about 7 years
were conducted, on 23.01.2010 (on the next
date of incident) at 4.00 p.m., by P.W.8 Dr.
S.V. Singh at District Hospital, Kheri, who
found on it the ante--mortem injuries
enumerated below:-

"Ante-mortem
injuries
of
deceased Sangeeta, aged about 35 years,
wife
of
appellant
Ramanand
alias
Nandlal Bharti

1. Incised wound 25 c.m. x 1 c.m.
x cranial deep on Rt side of head 3 c.m.
above (L) ear underlying (R) temporal and
parietal bones found fractured and brain
cut.

2. Incised wound 20 c.m. x 1 c.m.
x brain deep (bone deep) over back of head
Rt side of Neck below Lt. ear underlying
muscles and vessels found cut.

Postmortem
injuries
of
deceased Sangeeta

Superficial to deep burn all over
body head, Neck.

Burn 90%.

In the opinion of P.W.8 Dr. S.V.
Singh, deceased Sangeeta died due to shock
and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem
injuries.

Ante-mortem
injuries
of
deceased Km. Tulsi, aged about 7 years,
Daughter of appellant Ramanand alias
Nandlal Bharti

Multiple incised wound in an area
of 20 c.m. x 10 c.m. x cranial cavity deep on
Rt. side of head including (R) ear and Rt eye
largest 10 c.m. x 1 c.m. x cranial cavity deep.
Smallest 4 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x bone deep
underlying vessels muscles and temporal
bone (R), parietal bone found fracture,
membrane & brain found cut (cooked).

Postmortem
injuries
of
deceased Tulsi

Deep burn all over body charred
and blackened.

In the opinion of P.W.8 Dr. S.V.
Singh, deceased Tulsi died due to shock
and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem
head injuries.

12 In his deposition, in the trial Court,
P.W.8-Dr. S.V. Singh has deposed that on
23.01.2010, he was posted as Senior
Consultant, Orthopedic Surgeon at District
Hospital,
Lakhimpur
Kheri
and
on
23.01.2010, at 4:00 p.m., he did postmortem on the corpse of the deceased Km.
Tulsi and post-mortem on the corpse of
deceased Smt. Sangeeta Devi at 4:30 p.m.
In his deposition, P.W.8 has stated that on
external
examination,
he
found
that
deceased Km. Tulsi was aged about 7
years; on account of burial, her body
became charred and blackend and bones
were exposed; lower part of both hands and
foot were found missing; and her scalp hair
was burnt. P.W.8 has further stated that on
external examination on the corpse of
deceased Smt. Sangeeta, he found that at
the time of death, deceased Smt. Sangeeta
was aged about 35 years; on account of
burial, her body became charred and
blackend; both foot and legs found missing;
bones were exposed; her body was at
fencing attitude; her scalp hair was burnt.
He has also stated that injuries sustained by
the deceased Km. Tulsi and Smt. Sangeeta
as per the report of post-mortem may be
caused by sharp edged weapon like banka.
He categorically stated that on account of
burial badly the body of the deceased, the
time of death cannot be ascertained. He, in
his cross-examination, has deposed that
90% of the body of the deceased Sangeeta
46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was burnt, whereas 100% of the body of
the deceased Tulsi was burnt.

13 The post-mortem on the corpse
of the deceased Km. Laxmi, aged about
5 years, Kajal aged about 3 years and
Chhoti alias Guddi, aged about 1/2
month were conducted at 4.00 p.m., on
23.01.2010 (on the next date of incident)
by P.W.5 Dr. A.K. Sharma at District
Hospital, Kheri, who found on it the ante-
-mortem injuries enumerated below:-

"Ante-mortem
injuries
of
deceased Km. Laxmi, aged about 5
years,
daughter
of
appellant
Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti

1. Incised wound 20 c.m. x 1
c.m. x cranial cavity deep on left side of
head 3 c.m. above left ear underlying left
temporal and parietal bone membran and
brain found cut.

2. Incised wound 15 c.m. x 1
c.m. x Brain deep over back of head right
side just below left ear underlying
occipital bone, membrane and brain
found cut.

3. Incised wound 20 c.m. x 1
c.m. x cranial cavity deep over right side
of neck face including Rt ear underlying
muscles, vessels upper and lower row of
right side, Rt ear found cut.

Postmortem
injuries
of
deceased Laxmi

Superficial to deep burn all over
body except head and neck and upper part
of chest.

In the opinion of P.W.5 Dr.
A.K. Sharma, deceased Laxmi died due
to shock and hemorrhage as a result of
Ante-mortem head injuries.

Ante-mortem
injuries
of
deceased Kajal, aged about 3 years,
daughter of appellant Ramanand alias
Nandlal Bharti

Multiple incised wound in an area
of 15 c.m. x 5 c.m. x cranial cavity deep on
left side of head including left ear and left
eye. Largest 10 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x cranial
cavity deep, smallest 6 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x
bone deep underlying muscle, vessels and
left temporal and parietal bone, orbital
bone, membrane and brain found cut.

Postmortem
injuries
of
deceased Kajal

Post mortem deep burn all over
body except forehead and left side of head.

In the opinion of P.W.5 Dr. A.K.
Sharma, deceased Kajal died due to shock
and Hemorrhage as a result of Antemortem head injuries.

Ante-mortem injuries of Km.
Chhoti alias Guddi, aged about 1/2
month, daughter of appellant Ramanand
alias Nandlal Bharti

1. Incised wound 8 c.m. x 1 c.m.
x cranial cavity deep over Rt. side of Head
above Rt. Ear. Underlying Rt. temporal and
parietal bone membrane and brain found
cut clotted blood present in cranial cavity
and brain.

2. Incised wound 5 c.m. x 1 c.m.
x scalp deep over left side of head 3 c.m.
above left ear.

Postmortem injuries of Km.
Chhoti alias Guddi

Deep burn all over body charred
and blackened.

In the opinion of P.W.5 Dr. A.K.
Sharma, deceased Km. Chhoti alias Guddi
died due to comma as a result of antemortem head injury.

14 It is pertinent to mention that in his
deposition before the trial court Dr. A.K.
Sharma (P.W.5) reiterated the said cause of
death and stated that the deceased could
have died on account of the ante-mortem
injury suffered by them. He also stated
therein that on account of burial, the body
7 All. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of U.P.
47
of the deceased Laxmi, Kajal and Chhoti
alias Guddi became black and chard,
therefore, time of the death of the deceased
cannot be ascertained. He also stated that
injuries sustained by the deceased as per
the report of post-mortem may be caused
by sharp edged weapon like banka.

15 The case was committed to the
Court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate,
where the appellant was charged for offence
punishable under Sections 302 I.P.C. He
pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed
to be tried. His defence was of denial.

16 During trial, in all, the prosecution
examined ten witnesses, namely, P.W. 1
Shambhu Raidas, who is the informant and
brother-in-law
(Sala)
of
the
accusedappellant, P.W.2 Chatra Pal Raidas, who is
the brother-in-law (Sala) of the accusedappellant, and real brother of the deceased
Sangeeta, P.W.3 Babu Ram Hans and P.W.4
Ram Kumar, before whom extra judicial
confession
has
been
made
by
the
accused/appellant, P.W, 5 Dr. A.K. Sharma,
who conducted the post-mortem on the
corpse of Km. Laxmi, Kajal, Chhoti alias
Guddi, P.W.6 Uma Shankar, who had
prepared the fard recovery memo of blood
stained weapon of assault i.e. banka and
blood stained shirt of the accused/appellant,
P.W.7
Yogendra
Singh,
who
is
the
Investigation of the case, P.W.8 Dr. S.V.
Singh, who conducted the post-mortem on
the corpse of Km. Tulsi and Smt. Sangeeta
Devi, P.W.9 Dr. Ankit Kumar Singh, who
had
examined
the
injuries
of
accused/appellant
and
P.W.10
Head
Constable Dhani Ram Verma, who had
registered the F.I.R. on the basis of written
report of the informant P.W.1 Shambhu
Raidas.

17 The accused/appellant was
examined under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, wherein he had denied
the prosecution evidence and took the plea
that earlier his brother Siyaram was
murdered by one Ramakant, Kamalkant
and Manua alias Ramakant. He had lodged
a report about the said incident. His wife
Sangeeta and daughter of Siyaram, namely,
Gudiya, were eye-witnesses in that case.
The accused persons of that case, in order
to eliminate the evidence of that case, have
burnt him and his wife by pouring
kerosene. They wanted to kill him and have
poured kerosene over him. Daughter of
Siyaram, namely, Gudiya has died due to
illness. The present incident was committed
by Ramakant, Kamalkant and Manua alias
Ramakant.

18 It is pertinent to mention that the
accused/appellant had also filed a written
statement under Section 233 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure but no evidence was
led by him in his defence.

19 We would first like to deal with
the evidence of informant Shambhu Raidas
P.W.1. Since in paragraph 5, we have set
out the prosecution story primarily on the
basis
of
recitals
contained
in
his
examination-in-chief, for the sake of
brevity, the same is not reiterated. P.W.1
Shambhu Raidas has further deposed that
about six months back, when he was
present at his house, at about 06:30 a.m.,
accused/appellant Ramanand came there
and told him that in the night, he along with
his children and wife was sleeping in his
house. At around 01:00 a.m., in the night,
someone knocked his door. He awoke and
asked as to who was knocking the door, but
no one responded. Ramanand went at the
48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
roof of his house and saw that four persons
were standing outside his home and one of
them was a resident of village Basdhiya.
One of the miscreant fired a shot at the
accused/appellant, however he escaped
unhurt. Thereupon, Ramanand jumped on
the ground floor. One of the miscreant gave
a blow at the head of Ramanand with the
butt of Gun. Ramanand further told the
informant P.W.1 that he fled in to a field
and saw that the alleged bandits have
jumped into his house and thereafter smoke
was coming out from his house. Ramanand
further told him that he went to Behan
Purwa, Kalikpurwa and Lehbadi and told
about the incident but no one came from
there. Thereafter, Ramanand came to
P.W.1.

20 P.W.1 further stated that after
coming to know the aforesaid facts from
Ramanand, he along with Pratap and
accused/appellant Ramanand went to the
house of the accused/appellant Ramanand,
where they saw that flame of fire were
coming in the house. The deadbodies of
Sangeeta and his four daughters including
Tulsi were burning. There were signs of
injuries on the dead bodies. P.W.1 and
Pratap started extinguishing the fire by
water, however, accused/appellant started
enjoying heat in the courtyard by putting
his Banyan in the fire. P.W.1 snubbed him
saying that he was extinguishing the fire
and he (Ramanand) was enjoying heat
despite that his wife and children have to
be murdered. Thereafter, P.W.1 left Pratap
at the spot and went to police station
Dhaurahara
and
submitted
a
written
complaint against unknown persons.

21 P.W.1 Shambhu Raidas has further
stated that accused Ramanand was having
illicit relation with one Manju and due to
this illicit relationship, Manju has sustained
pregnancy. Thereafter, brother of Manju
has fixed her marriage with accused
Ramanand. The "Chidna" and "Tilak"
ceremony have taken place. In the
meanwhile, a case was registered under
Section
307
I.P.C.
against
accused/appellant Ramanand. In that case,
Ramanand was sent to jail, on account of
which, the marriage of Manju with accused
Ramanand could not be solemnized.
Thereafter, the family members of Manju
have married her at some other place. After
marriage, Manju came to her parental home
and thereafter she never returned back to
her matrimonial home. Manju still wanted
to marry with accused/appellant Ramanand
only. For the marriage of Manju and
Ramanand, the wife of the accused
Ramamand, namely, Sangeeta was not
ready. Accused Ramanand wanted to get
compensation from the Government for
which the accused/appellant Ramanand
committed murder of his wife Sangeeta and
his daughters and burned their dead bodies.

22 P.W.1 has also stated that earlier
the murder of Siyaram, who was the
brother of the accused/appellant, has taken
place and the accused/appellant has got
about Rs.4-5 Lakhs as compensation. He
has stated that after filing of his report
police came at the spot and the panchnama
proceedings of the deceased persons were
conducted. The deadbodies were sealed and
were sent for post-mortem. The site plan of
spot was also prepared.

23 P.W.1, in his cross-examination
before the trial Court, has stated that earlier
Ramanad resided at Basdhiya village.
Siyaram was the real brother of Ramanand.
Siyaram was murdered three years back,
for which a report was lodged by
Ramanand against Ramakant, Kamlakant
and Munuwa at police station Basdhiya,
7 All. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of U.P.
49
Ishanagar. At the time of murder of
Siyaram, his daughter, Gudiya, was alive.
The incident of murder of Siyaram was
seen by Gudiya and wife of Ramanand,
namely, Sangeeta. They were the eyewitnesses. Thereafter, Gudiya died due to
illness. In the said case, daughter of
Siyaram, namely, Gudiya had received
compensation from the Government but he
did not know how much amount the
compensation was given to him. Prior to
one month of the murder of Siyaram,
Ramakant had lodged an F.I.R. against
Ramanand and Siyaram under Section 307
I.P.C., in which Siyaram and Ramanand
were sent to jail and after detaining 7-8
days in jail, they were released on bail.

24 P.W.1, in his cross-examination,
has further deposed that Ramanand had two
brothers and one sister, namely, Kushuma.
The sister of Ramanand, namely, Kushuma,
was married with him (P.W.1) and from
their wedlock, four children were born,
who are still alive and are with him. His
wife Kushuma deserted him one year back
and gone to village Bauri started living
with Guddu in his house. P.W.1 has further
deposed that prior to three months of the
murder of the wife and children of
Ramanand, his wife Kushuma deserted him
and had gone to village Bauri to the house
of Guddu and since then, she is residing
there. P.W.1 has also stated that the case,
which was lodged by Ramakant under
Section 307 I.P.C. against Ramanand and
Siyaram, he was doing pairvi and had spent
10-12 thousands rupees for the same. The
said money was not returned by Ramanand
till date and after the murder of Siyaram,
Ramanand
came
to
his
village
Namdarpurwa. This witness has further
stated that he had given his field to
Ramanand for construction of his house.
He, however, denied the suggestion that
the
field,
upon
which
Ramanand
constructed the house, was sold by him to
the Ramanand on taking Rs.50,000/- from
him and inspite of repeated request, he has
not executed a sale deed.

25 P.W.1, in his cross-examination,
has further stated that Chatrapal resides in
his village and is the brother of the
deceased Sangeeta. Chatrapal had married
his sister Sangeeta (deceased) in village
Bahad with one Pairu. Sangeeta resided
eight days in her in-law's house and,
thereafter, she had fled from her in-law's
house with Ramanand and performed Court
marriage with him, due to which, Chatrapal
faced great humiliation and since then
Chatrapal is inimical to Ramanand. This
witness has further stated that the distance
of house of Ramanand from his house is
one kilometre. On the date of incident,
Ramanand came to his house in the
morning at 6:30 a.m. and he reached to his
house by foot. He (Ramanand) appeared to
be in much perturbed condition. Ramanand
told him (P.W.1) that 4-5 persons of village
Basadiya had entered his house and set
afire. He (Ramanand) had further told him
(P.W.1) that he (Ramanand) came to his
house stealthily. Thereafter, this witness
along with Pratap went to the house of
Ramanand, where he saw the door of the
house of Ramanand was opened and in the
house, corpses were burning in flames.
Approximately 4-5 minutes, flames came
out from the corpse. The corpses were
burning in the kothari (closet) in the house.
He along with Pratap started extinguishing
the fire by water. Ramanand was taking the
heat of fire in a courtyard. There was a tap
at a distance of 4-5 steps, from which he
carried 4-5 buckets (balti) of water and
poured it over the fire and 4-5 buckets of
50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
water were poured by Pratap over the fire.
All corpses were completely burnt. Out of
the burnt corpses, one girl from neck to the
head was found half burnt, whereas in rest
of the corpses, burnt bones were left only.
This witness has further deposed that the
distance of police station from village
Namdarpurwa is 09 kilometers. He went to
police station to lodge the F.I.R. by bicycle.
He told the whole incident to the Inspector
after reaching the police station. Thereafter,
on the behest of the Inspector, report Ext.
Ka.1 has been written. The tahriri report
was not written at police station in his
presence. He did not know the scriber of
the tehriri report. The report was written at
the chauraha (crossroads). The distance
between the chaurha (crossroad) to police
station is one mile. He put thumb
impression at the chauraha (crossroad).
This witness also stated that he did not
know Manju. He had came to know about
pregnancy of Manju when Ramanand told
him. The marriage of Manju was performed
prior to one year of the incident and since
then, Manju is residing in law's house or he
did not know whereabout she is. He also
deposed that two months prior to the
incident, Ramanand, his wife Sangeeta and
his children has adopted Islam. The
Inspector had not interrogated him at the
police station. The Inspector reached at the
police station with police van. He went at
about 2:00 a.m. from the police station. He
remained present at police station from
lodging of the report till 2:00 a.m. and
Ramanand was also present at police
station. He was not present at the place
where the police had sealed the corpses.
The constable left him at 2 O'clock in the
night in his house. Ramanand was stopped
at the police station. The Inspector did not
meet with Ramanand nor he was called. He
went to police station along with Pratap and
Chatrapal and in his presence, the Inspector
did not put signature of Chatrapal and
Pratap to any paper. Ramanand was
challaned by the police after three days of
the incident and since then, Ramanand was
continuously at the police station. He
denied the suggestion that he cultivated the
field of Ramanand. He further denied the
suggestion that after his wife deserted him,
Ramanand has made a complaint against
him to the police and due to this grudge, he
is falsely deposing against the appellant.

26 P.W.2 Chhatrapal Raidas, who is
the real brother of deceased Sangeeta Devi,
has deposed that his sister Sangeeta Devi
has solemnized Court marriage with
accused/appellant Ramanand about 12
years prior to the incident. Thereafter,
Ramanand started living with his wife at a
distance of about 500 meters from his
village, while originally he was a resident
of village Basdhiya. Out of this marriage,
there were five children of Ramanand and
Sangeeta Devi. The name of the eldest one
among them is B.R. Ambedkar, aged about
10 years. The remaining daughters were
Tulsi aged 07 years, Laxmi aged 05 years,
Kajal aged 03 years and the youngest one
Guddi aged 1 1⁄2 month. At the time of
incident, B.R. Ambedkar was not present at
the house. About 2 1⁄2 years prior of the
incident, accused/appellant Ramanand has
started living in his village Naamdar Purwa
as he has constructed a house at the land of
his
brother-in-law's
Shambhu
Raidas.
Ramanand was a person of rakish and
immoral character. About 02 years prior of
the incident, he has developed illicit
relationship with Km. Manju resident of
village Pakariya, District Sitapur. Accused
Ramanand used to visit there and due to his
illicit relationship, Manju became pregnant.
After coming to know about it, the father of
Manju talked about her marriage with
accused/appellant Ramanand. The marriage
7 All. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of U.P.
51
was fixed with the accused/appellant.
P.W.2 Chhatrapal Raidas further stated that
his sister Sangeeta was an illiterate and
simple lady and in the influence of her
husband Ramanand, she became ready for
marriage
of
Ramanand
with
Manju.
Thereafter, ''Tilak' and ''Chhedna' ceremony
has taken place. Accused Ramanand has
incurred about Rs.80-90 thousands in
''Tilak' ceremony. In the meanwhile, one
Manua lodged a case under Section 307
I.P.C. against accused/appellant Ramanand.
In that case, accused/appellant Ramanand
was sent to jail, on account of which, his
marriage
with
Manju
could
not
be
solemnized. Thereafter, father of Manju has
married her at some other place. After
release
from
jail,
accused/appellant
Ramanand again started contacting Manju
and made talk for marriage with her. In the
month of the incident itself, Manju Devi
came to the house of accused/appellant
Ramanand and after staying 2-3 days there,
she went back to her house. This time, his
sister Sangeeta was not ready for marriage
of
accused/appellant
Ramanand
with
Manju. Accused/appellant has threatened
her that if she (Sangeeta) does not became
ready for his marriage with Manju, he
would kill her and thereafter would marry
with Manju.

27 P.W.2 has further deposed before
the trial Court that about 10 days prior to
the incident, Sangeeta came to his house
and has told him about these facts. At that
time, Ruttam and his neighbours Chhail
Bihari and Bal Govind were also present.
They tried to console Sangeeta and sent her
back to her matrimonial home by saying
that
they
would
make
Ramanand
understand. On the next day, P.W.2 and
above named persons went to the house of
accused Ramanand and tried to make him
understand
but
accused/appellant
Ramanand paid no heed and went away.
P.W.2 Chhatrapal Raidas has further stated
that on the night of 21/22.01.2010, the
accused/appellant Ramanand murderd his
sister Sangeeta and her daughters Tulsi,
Laxmi, Kajal and Guddi and burnt their
deadbodies. Accused/appellant Ramanand
has committed these murder due to the fact
that his marriage could not take place with
Manju.

28 P.W.2, in his cross-examination,
has denied that he had married his sister
Sangeeta with one Pairu. He further stated
that Sangeeta had eloped from his house
and gone with Ramanand. This incident is
of 12 years back i.e. in the year 1998. He
did not lodge any report for the said
incident. He had denied the suggestion that
he had married his sister Sangeeta with one
Pairu twelve years back. He also denied the
suggestion that Sangeeta had eloped with
Ramanand after one year. He did not feel
any humiliation when his sister Sangeeta
eloped with Ramanand but he had married
his sister with Ramanand. This witness has
further stated that Ramanand was living in
his village Naamdarpurwa prior to two
years and before that he was living at
village Bhasadiya. He, in his crossexamination, has stated that prior to 3-4
years, brother of Ramanand, namely,
Siyaram,
was
murdered,
for
which
Ramanand had lodged an F.I.R. against
Ramakant, Kamlakant and Munuwa, who
were the residents of village Bhasadiya and
they were sent to jail in the said case. In the
said case, daughter of Siyaram, namely,
Guddi and wife of Ramanand, namely,
Sangeeta were eye-witnesses as they were
present at the time of the incident. After 1
1⁄2 years of the murder of Siyaram, Gudia
died on account of illness and after her
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
death,
Ramanand
had
received
compensation from the Government. He
used to visit the house of Siyaram. Siyaram
and Ramanand used to live in one house
and in the said house, daughter of Siyaram,
namely,
Gudia,
Ramanand,
wife
of
Ramanand, namely, Sangeeta and their
children also used to live. His sister
Sangeeta had married 12 years back after
she eloped with Ramanand and since then
Sangeeta used to live with Ramanand. In
the last 12 years, his sister Sangeeta had
made several complaints against her
husband (Ramanand) viz. not providing
food, clothes and not permitting her to go
elsewhere and also made illicit relationship,
but she used to live with Ramanand as wife
till the incident. However, he did not lodge
any report to the police station against the
complaint made by his sister. His sister
used to visit his house and after staying
about 1-2 months, she went back to the
house of Ramanand. He had heard that
Ramanand and his wife Sangeeta and their
children adopted Islam prior to the date of
incident. At that relevant time, he was
outside the village for a period of one
month and when he returned after one
month, then, he came to know from the
villagers that Ramanand, his wife and their
children adopted Islam. Thereafter, he had
much persuaded Sangeeta and Ramanand,
then, they lived as such as it was.

29 P.W.2, in his cross-examination,
has further stated that he had seen Km.
Manju and she and her father used to visit
the house of Ramanand six months prior to
the incident. He did not know whether
marriage of Manju had taken place prior to
the incident. The fact that Ramanand and
Manju had illicit relationship and Manju
became pregnant, has been told to him by
his sister Sangeeta when she came to his
house. When she told the said fact, 10-20
persons were present in his house. Prior to
1-2 months of the incident, Sangeeta told
the aforesaid fact outside the house where
20-25 persons were present. Thereafter,
Sangeeta went to the house of Ramanand.
Neither he nor Sangeeta had lodged any
report in this regard. This witness has also
stated that he came to know about the
incident at 07:00 a.m. in the morning from
Ramanand, who had came to his house at
about 07:00 a.m. At that relevant time,
Ramanand was alone and he told him that
his wife and children have been burnt in the
house and someone after murdering him
burnt them. On saying the aforesaid,
Ramanand went away to his house.
Thereafter, Pratap and Shambhu and he
reached to the house of Ramanand by
bicycle and by foot, respectively. When he
reached to the house of Ramanand, then,
Pratap and Sambhu extinguishing the fire
from water and Ramanand was taking the
heat by sitting near fire and villagers were
standing there. The cloth of Ramanand was
blood
stained.
After
sometime,
the
Inspector had arrived and other officials
had also arrived at the place of occurrence.
The police had taken Ramanand. When it
was ascertained that Ramamanand had
murdered his wife and their children and
post-mortam
has
been
conducted/completed, then, he reached to
the police station. The report was lodged by
Sambhu. This witness has stated that he did
not aware of about the fact as to whether
ceremony of Tilak of Ramanand with
Manju had taken place or not. He denied
the suggestion that Sangeeta had married
with one Pairu prior to 12 years back. He
further denied the fact that Sangeeta Devi
had eloped from her in-law's house with
Ramanand and married him due to which
his family faced humiliation. He also
denied the suggestion that he was inimical
with Ramanand and Sangeeta and he did
7 All. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of U.P.
53
not have any relationship with them
because of which he had falsely deposed
against the appellant.

30 P.W.3 Babu Ram Hans, in his
examination-in-chief, has deposed that he
is the leader of Bahujan Samajwadi Party
and earlier he was the President of the said
party
in
Dhaurahara
Assembly
Constituency.
In
the
morning
of
23.01.2010,
at
about
09:00
a.m.,
accused/appellant Ramanand alias Nand
Lal came at his house and told him that a
big mistake has taken place from him. He
(accused/appellant) told him (P.W.3) that
though he wanted to marry with one Manju
r/o Pakariya, P.S.