# Rishi Talwar v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 612
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 2018
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rishi-talwar-v-state-of-u-p-49893
- **Pages:** 43

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302 - Murder - Arms Act, 1959 -
Sections 25 & 27-A - Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 - Section 13B - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 125, 128, 161,
293, 313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Sections 3(2), 6, 11, 32(1), 53, 59, 63,
65A, 65B, 73, 106 & 118 - Circumstantial
evidence - Chain of circumstances
complete - Murder of wife - Burden of
proof always lies on prosecution - Concept
of proof beyond shadow of doubt is to be
applied in criminal trials - Doubts would
be called reasonable if they are free from
zest for abstract speculation or from an
over-emotional response - If St.ment
recorded by PW-11 is not considered, the
information given by deceased would be
sufficient evidence to convict accused - All
chains of circumstantial evidence are
attached with each other - Motive that
there was no cordial relation between
wife and husband and accused wanted to
get decree of divorce, presence of accused
admitted by him, proves that accused was
present in house where deceased was
killed - Deceased had communicated
torture, beating and ill-treatment soon
before her death to her parents - Extra
judicial confession made by accused to
his
sisters
and
mother, recovery
of
weapon which has matched with empty
cartridges found on spot - Presence of
accused and deceased together in house,
failure of accused to prove plea of alibi
3 All. Rishi Talwar Vs. State of U.P.
613
are chains of circumstances which are
intact and unbroken. (Para 73, 104, 106)

Appeal is dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,923 of 148,261. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39923 for what follows._

612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16.2. We may also observe that
human mind could be affected and could
react in myriad ways; and impact of one's
action on the mind of another carries
several imponderables. Similar actions are
dealt with differently by different persons;
and so far a particular person's reaction to
any other human's action is concerned,
there is no specific theorem or yardstick to
estimate or assess the same. Even in regard
to the factors related with the question of
harassment of a girl, many factors are to be
considered
like
age,
personality,
upbringing, rural or urban set ups,
education etc. Even the response to the illaction of eve-teasing and its impact on a
young girl could also vary for a variety of
factors, including those of background,
self- confidence and upbringing. Hence,
each case is required to be dealt with on its
own facts and circumstances."

19. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, submissions of
learned counsel for the parties, nature of
evidence and gravity of the offence,
without expressing any opinion on merits
of the case, the Court is of the view that
the applicant is not entitled for the bail,
therefore, the bail application is rejected.

20. Any observation made above shall
not be treated as any finding on the merit
and shall not prejudice the trial.
----------

(2023) 3 ILRA 612
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 2018
Rishi Talwar ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Vijit Saxena, Sri Ataullah Mubarak
Ahmad, Sri G.S. Chauhan, Sri Kuldeep
Saxena, Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri
Ranjeet
Singh,
Sri
Shashwat
Kishore
Chaturvedi, Sri Somesh Khare, Sri Vimlendu
Tripathi, Sri Mohd. Amir, Sri Ashwini Kumar
Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 302 - Murder - Arms Act, 1959 -
Sections 25 & 27-A - Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 - Section 13B - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 125, 128, 161,
293, 313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Sections 3(2), 6, 11, 32(1), 53, 59, 63,
65A, 65B, 73, 106 & 118 - Circumstantial
evidence - Chain of circumstances
complete - Murder of wife - Burden of
proof always lies on prosecution - Concept
of proof beyond shadow of doubt is to be
applied in criminal trials - Doubts would
be called reasonable if they are free from
zest for abstract speculation or from an
over-emotional response - If St.ment
recorded by PW-11 is not considered, the
information given by deceased would be
sufficient evidence to convict accused - All
chains of circumstantial evidence are
attached with each other - Motive that
there was no cordial relation between
wife and husband and accused wanted to
get decree of divorce, presence of accused
admitted by him, proves that accused was
present in house where deceased was
killed - Deceased had communicated
torture, beating and ill-treatment soon
before her death to her parents - Extra
judicial confession made by accused to
his
sisters
and
mother, recovery
of
weapon which has matched with empty
cartridges found on spot - Presence of
accused and deceased together in house,
failure of accused to prove plea of alibi
3 All. Rishi Talwar Vs. State of U.P.
613
are chains of circumstances which are
intact and unbroken. (Para 73, 104, 106)

Appeal is dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rohtash Vs St. of Raj., AIR 2007 SCW 44

2. Motilal & ors. Vs St. of U.P., AIR 2010 SC 281

3. Harbans Kaur & anr. Vs St. of Har., AIR 2005
SC 2989

4. Ravinder Kumar & anr. Vs St. of Punj., AIR
2001 SC 3570

5. C. Magesh Vs St. of Karn., AIR 2010 SCW
3194

6. Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs St. of Mah.
(2016) 10 SCC 537

7. Charanpal Vs St. of U.P. (2006) 6 SCC 662

8. St. of Maharashtra Vs Tulsi Ram Bhanu Das
Kambla AIR 2007 SC 3042

9. Sucha Singh Vs St. of Punj. (2003) 7 SCC
643

10. Pooja Pal Vs U.O.I. (2016) 3 SCC 135

11. Shyama Ghos Vs St. of W. B. AIR 2012 SC
3539

12. G. Parshwanath Vs St. of Karn., AIR 2010
SC 2914

13. Sandeep Vs St. of U.P., (2012) 6 SCC
107

14. Prithipal Singh Vs St. of Punj., 2012 (76)
ACC 680 (SC)

15. Jagdish Vs St. of U.P., 2009 (67) ACC 295
(SC)

16. St. of Punj. Vs Karnail Singh, 2003 (47) ACC
654 (SC)

17. Joshinder Yadav Vs St. of Bihar, (2014) 4
SCC 42
18. Binay Kumar Singh Vs St. of Bihar, AIR 1997
SC 322

19. St. of U.P. Vs Bashisht Rai & ors., 2006 (5)
ALJ (NOC) 902 (All)

20. Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao & anr. Vs St. Of
Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2791

21. Mukesh Vs St. of NCT of Delhi & ors. AIR
2017 SC 2161

22. Om Prakash Vs St. of Raj. & anr.(2012) 5
SCC 201

23. Adalat Pandit Vs St. of Bihar, (2010) 6 SCC
469

24. Madan Vs St. of Mah., AIR 2018 SC 2007

25. Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs St. of Mah., AIR
1984 SC 1622

26. Bhagirath Vs St. of Har. (1977) 1 SCC 481

27. Pakla Narayan Swami Vs Emperor AIR 1939
Privy Council 47

28. St. of M.P. Vs Dharkole, AIR 2005 SC 44

29. Paramjeet Singh Vs St. of Uttrakhand, AIR
2011 SC 200

30. Narain Singh Vs St. of Har. (2004) 13 SCC
264

31. Babulal Vs St. of M.P. (2003) 12 SCC 490

32. Sharda Vs St. of Raj. 2010 (68) ACC 274
(SC)

33. Laxman Vs St. of Mah. (2002) 6 SCC 710

34. Balvir Singh Vs St. of Punj. AIR 2006 SC
3221

35. Narendra Kumar Vs St. (NCT) of Delhi, AIR
2016 SC 150

36. Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs St. through
Srirampuram P.S. & anr., AIR 2012 SC 1292

37. Nathiya Vs St. (2016) 10 SCC 298
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
38. Bhim Singh Vs St. of Uttarakhand (2015) 4
SCC 281 (para 23)

39. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Mah.,
(1984) 4 SCC 116 (paras 120 and 121)

40. St. of W. B. Vs Dipak Halder, (2009) 7 SCC

41. St. of Goa Vs Pandurang Mohite, AIR 2009
SC 1066

42. St. of U.P. Vs Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114

43. Rohtash Kumar Vs St. of Har., 2013 (82)
ACC 401 (SC) (para 25)

44. Prithipal Singh Vs St. of Punj., (2012) 1 SCC
10

45. Ashok Vs St. of Mah., (2015) 4 SCC 393

46. Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs St. of M. P., 2017 SCC
Online MP 2329

47. Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs St. of Mah., 2008
SCC Online Bom 1859

48. Pramila Vs The St. of U. P., Criminal Appeal
No.700 of 2021

49. St. of MP Vs Ramesh, (2011) 4 SCC 786

50. Ravinder Singh @ Kuku Vs St. of Punj., 2022
Live Law (SC) 461

51. Vikram Singh @ Vicky Walia & anr. Vs St. of
Punj. & anr., AIR 2017 SC 3227

52. St. of Maharashtra Vs Kamal Ahmad
Mohammad Vakil Ansari & ors., 2013 CrLJ
2069

53. St. (NCT) of Delhi Vs Navjot Sandhu @
Afsan Guru (2005) SCC (Crl) 1715

54. Anvar P.VS Vs P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC
473 (three-Judge Bench)

55. St. of U.P. Vs Ajai Kumar Sharma, 2016 (92)
ACC 981 (SC) (para 14)

56. R.M. Malkani Vs St. of Mah., AIR 1973 SC
157
57. Ram Singh & ors. Vs Col. Ram Singh, 1985
(Supp) SCC 616

58. Harpal Singh Vs St. of Punj., (2017) 1 SCC
734

59. Vikram Singh Vs St. of Punj., (2017) 8 SCC
518

60. St. by Karn. Lokayukt P.S. Bengaluru Vs M.R.
Hiremath, 2019 0 Supreme 590 (SC)

61.
Arjun
Panditrao
Kholkar
Vs
Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal & ors., AIR 2020 SC 4908

62. Mohammad Arif @ Ashfaq Vs St. (NCT) of
Delhi, 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1113

63. Kalloo @ Kalyan Singh Vs St. of U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No.1459 of 2009)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by
the convicted accused Rishi Talwar against
the conviction and sentencing order dated
11.10.2017 in ST No.238 of 2014 (State of
UP Vs. Rishi Talwar), under Section 302
IPC, Crime No.211 of 2014 and ST No.239
of 2014 (State of UP Vs. Rishi Talwar),
under Section 25/27-A Arms Act, Crime
No.212 of 2014 by which the appellant was
convicted and sentenced under Section 302
IPC for life imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.50,000/- and in case of non-payment of
fine to undergo three months' additional
imprisonment and also conviction and
sentence under Section 27 of the Arms Act,
1959 for five years rigorous imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of
non-payment of fine to undergo one
month's additional imprisonment. It was
also directed that both the sentences shall
run concurrently.

2. In brief, facts of the case are that
informant Manohar Lal Suri resident of
3 All. Rishi Talwar Vs. State of U.P.
615
Narula Navi Mumbai, father of the
deceased, Shweta and father-in-law of the
accused, lodged an FIR on 30.04.2014
stating that the marriage of his daughter
Shweta was solemnized as per social rituals
and customs on 27.11.2003 with the
accused Rishi Talwar son of Deepak
Talwar resident of Mission Compound
Sarva Nagar, Jhansi. After a few days of
the marriage, Rishi Talwar started beating
the informant's daughter. His daughter used
to convey to the informant about beating
and abuses by the accused over the phone.
After the marriage the accused neither
allowed the informant's daughter to meet
the informant nor was she allowed to go
anywhere in her kinship. He used to
threaten her for divorce and used to
demand money and said that she should
take divorce otherwise he would kill her.

3. On 28.04.2014 at about 08:00
O'clock his daughter informed him over the
telephone that Rishi had beaten her that day
and had been doing so for 3-4 days. Again
at about 11-12 O'clock she made a call
where she said that Rishi was still beating
her and she said that papa take away her
and her children from here otherwise Rishi
would kill them. On this, he told his
daughter that he would come in the
morning.

4. On 29.04.2014 at around 04:45
a.m. the accused's mother Smt. Asha
Talwar made a missed call on the
informant's mobile no.9821154419. When
the informant called back, the phone was
switched off. After that at around 11
O'clock, Smt. Charu Suri, daughter-in-law
of the informant, also (who is accused's
sister) called and informed that Rishi
Talwar had shot and killed Shweta. The
informant immediately informed Jhansi
Police and his relative Kamal Raj at around
01:00 O'clock and requested that no action
should be taken till he and his family
reached Jhansi. He himself would take
legal action after seeing the condition of his
daughter. Accused's mother Smt. Asha and
sister Charu Suri are also involved in the
murder.

5. On the night of 30.04.2014 at about
01:00 a.m. the informant with his wife Smt.
Shakti Suri, son-in-law Umesh Vishnu
Shirke and daughter Monika Umesh Shirke
reached the house of the daughter Shweta
and saw that her dead body lying in the
bathroom, whom Rishi Talwar had killed
by a gun shot. The informant requested to
take legal recourse.

6. On the basis of above tahrir a case
at Crime No.211 of 2014, under Sections
302,
120-B
IPC
was
registered
on
30.04.2014 at 02:00 p.m. at Police Station
Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi against Rishi
Talwar, Asha Talwar (mother of the
accused) and Charu Suri (sister of the
accused).

7. The Investigating Officer started
investigation and copied tahrir and chik
FIR and recorded statements of the writer,
informant and other witnesses and went in
search of the accused. On the pointing of
informant's wife he reached at the house of
the accused where he was arrested at 07:30
a.m. while he was locking the gate of his
house. Upon being asked he identified
himself as Rishi Talwar. In personal search
a pistol on which MADE IN USA No.405
with OMEY ARMY SUPPLY printed on
its barrel, was recovered with two live
cartridges of 32 bore from the left side of
his pant. He confessed killing his wife,
Shweta Talwar with the recovered pistol on
the night of 29.04.2014. The accused was
taken into custody and the recovered case
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
property was sealed on the spot and its
specimen seal was also prepared. None
came forward to be witness of the recovery
except Kamal Raj and Azhar Khan. A
recovery memo was prepared on the spot
and its copy was provided to the accused.
In this respect a case at Crime No.212 of
2014, under Section 25/27 Arms Act was
registered on 01.05.2014 at 09:45 a.m. at
Police Station Sipri Bazar against the
accused.

8. In Crime No.211 of 2014, under
Section
302
IPC
charge-sheet
was
submitted against the accused-appellant,
Rishi Talwar alone (exonerating his mother
and sister). In Crime No.212 of 2014, under
Section
25/27-A
Arms
Act
after
investigation charge-sheet was submitted
against the accused under Section 25/27
Arms Act.

9. After taking cognizance Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi submitted both
the cases to the Court of Sessions on
23.07.2014 which were numbered as ST
No.238 of 2014 and ST No.239 of 2014,
respectively. On 17.04.2015 charges under
Section 302 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms
Act were framed, which the accused denied
and sought trial.

10. Following witnesses have been
examined by the prosecution:-

(i) PW-1, Manohar Lal Suri,
informant, father of the deceased and
father-in-law of the accused; (ii) PW-2,
Kamal Raj, witness of recovery of the
empty cartridges 32 bore, blood stained and
plain floor and recovery memo of pistol
and cartridges; (iii) PW-3, Azhar Khan,
witness of recovery of pistol and cartridges
and arrest; (iv) PW-4, Kumari Anchita,
daughter of the deceased and accused; (v)
PW-5, Monika Umesh Shirke, daughter of
the informant; (vi) PW-6, Head Constable,
writer,
Satish
Kumar
Dwivedi
who
prepared chik FIR, kaymi GD (registration
of the case GD); (vii) PW-7, Dr. Sushil
Kumar Gupta, the doctor who prepared and
proved the post mortem report Ex.Ka-8 and
material Ex.1-5; (viii) PW-8, Umesh
Vishnu Shirke, scribe of Ex.Ka-1 and
witness of inquest Ex.Ka-2; (ix) PW-9,
Smt. Shakti Suri, mother of the deceased;
(x) PW-10, Ram Bhajan, Investigating
Officer; (xi) PW-11, Sudhir Suri, brother of
the deceased; (xii) PW-12, Ravindra
Sharma, friend of the deceased's brother,
Sudhir Suri; (xiii) PW-13, Smt. Charu Suri,
sister-in-law
(bhabhi/nanad)
of
the
deceased; (xiv) PW-14 Lalaram Verma,
notary advocate who proved Ex.Ka-18 and
Ex.Ka-19, FSL Report, Paper No.86-A/3
and 89-A.

11. The oral evidence in ST No.239
of 2014 in Crime No.212 of 2014, under
Section 25/27 Arms Act are;

(i) SI Dinesh Singh, Investigating
Officer who proved map Ex.Ka-6, chargesheet Ex.Ka-7 and chik FIR, Ex.Ka-8 by
his secondary evidence; (ii) Photocopy GD
6-A, 7-A and prosecution sanction paper 9A.

12. Statement of the accused has been
recorded in which the accused has denied
the allegations and stated that he himself
reached police station at 04:30 a.m. after
getting information from Anchita. He
denied any conversation with Charu Suri.
He stated that he remained at his house on
28.04.2014 upto 09:00 p.m. Thereafter, he
had proceeded for Delhi. He further stated
that one Ravi had killed his wife in his
house but for blackmailing him, her father
had lodged this case falsely. He stated that
3 All. Rishi Talwar Vs. State of U.P.
617
Charu Suri is living in Jhansi and admitted
that she was not living with her husband,
Sudhir Suri. He expressed ignorance about
any friendship or animosity with advocate
Sri Janardan Vyas and notary advocate Sri
Lalaram Verma.

13. According to the accusedappellant, prosecution sanction is forged
and wrong and had been made for extorting
money and blackmailing him. According to
him he had not killed his wife. At the time
of incident he was not at home but had left
his house for going to Delhi.

14. Accused-appellant has examined
following witnesses in defence:-

(i) DW-1, Mahendra Dubey; (ii)
DW-2, Anil Kumar Singh.

15. Following documentary evidences
have been produced by the prosecution in
ST No.238 of 2014, under Section 302
IPC:-

(i) Ex.Ka-1, tehrir; (ii) Ex.Ka-2,
inquest; (iii) Ex.Ka-3, recovery memo
regarding two empty cartridges 32 bore;
(iv) Ex.Ka-4, recovery memo regarding
taking sample of pieces of blood stained
and plain floor; (v) Ex.Ka-5, recovery
memo regarding recovery of pistol and
cartridges from the accused; (vi) Ex.Ka-6,
chik FIR; (vii) Ex.Ka-7, carbon copy of
kaymi GD (lodging of FIR); (viii) Ex.Ka-8,
post
mortem
report;
(ix)
Ex.ka-9,
photonash; (x) Ex.Ka-10, police form-13;
(xi) Ex.Ka-11, letter to CMO; (xii) Ex.Ka12, specimen seal; (xiii) Ex.Ka-13, map of
place of occurrence; (xiv) Ex.Ka-14, map
regarding recovery of pistol and cartridges;
(xv) Ex.Ka-15, charge-sheet under Section
302
IPC;
(xvi)
Ex.Ka-16,
CD
of
conversation between Charu Suri and the
accused, Rishi Talawr; (xvii) Ex.Ka-17,
application no.114-B; (xix) Ex.Ka-18,
signature and seal of advocate Janardan
Vyas, swearer, Charu Suri and signature of
her advocate; (xx) Ex.Ka-19, photocopy of
register of notary; (i) FSL report 86-A/3
regarding
country-made
pistol
with
magazine, two empty and two live
cartridges 32 bore, two pieces of metal of
used bullet; (ii) 89-A FSL report regarding
clothes of deceased, blood stained and plain
pieces of floor etc.

16. Material Exhibits:-

(i) Material Exs.1 to 3, two metal
pieces and bullet recovered from the dead
body; (ii) Material Ex.4, match box; (iii)
Truss (bundle); (iv) Material Exs.6 and 7,
pieces of blood stained and plain floor; (v)
Material Ex.8, pistol; (vi) Material Exs.9
and 10, two live cartridges of 32 bore; (vii)
Material Exs.11 and 12, two empty
cartridges of 32 bore; and (viii) Material
Exs.13 and 14, two trusses.

17. In S.T. No.239 of 2014, Crime
No.212 of 2014, under Section 25/27 Arms
Act the evidence consists of Ex.Ka-6, map
of the recovery, Ex.Ka-7, charge-sheet,
Ex.Ka-8, chik FIR, 6-A and 7-A return of
lodging
of
FIR
GD,
paper
no.9-A
prosecution sanction.

18. In brief, evidence of witnesses is
reproduced herein below:-

(I) PW-1, Manohar Lal Suri,
father of the deceased and father-in-law of
the accused deposed that on 27.11 2003 his
daughter Shweta Talwar was married with
Rishi Talwar resident of Jhansi as per
social rituals. His daughter used to inform
him by phone that Rishi Talwar frequently
beats her and quarrelled over minor issues
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
hurling abuses and stating that if she did
not give him money, he would divorce her.
Two daughters were born to his daughter
Shweta. Rishi used to tell Shweta that she
had some affair with Ravi who used to visit
his house in his absence. On 29.04.2014,
Rishi Talwar's mother made a call which
got disconnected. When he called back, the
phone was switched off. At 11:00 a.m. he
received a call from his son's wife, Charu
Suri, sister of Rishi Talwar informing that
Shweta has been shot. He called Jhansi
Police and relatives and instructed that no
action be taken till he reached Jhansi. He
further deposed that at 08:00 O'clock, on
the night of 28.04.2014 Shweta made a call
and said that Rishi was beating her for last
3-4 days. He told her to go to upper portion
of the house and to not talk. Then at 11:30
p.m. she called again and said that Rishi
was beating her due to which she was
bleeding from her nose. Further, she asked
him to come and take her away with her
children or else Rishi would kill her. He
consoled that he would come and taken
them away in the morning. He came to
Jhansi on the night of 29.04.2014. He
stayed at Rishabh Hotel. He had dictated an
application to his son-in-law, Umesh
Shirke and after signing it went to the
police station Sipri Bazar and filed the
application.

(II) PW-2, Kamal Raj deposed
that on 29.04.2014 informant had informed
him over phone about the death of his
daughter. On the night of 29/30.04.2014 at
01:00 - 01:30 a.m. informant and his family
reached his hotel i.e. Rishabh Hotel and
had gone to police station Sipri Bazar at
02:00 - 02:30 a.m. At 03:00 a.m. he was
rung up and informed that informant and
Nisar Khan went to the house of Rishi
Talwar where they saw the dead body of
Shweta lying in the bathroom. Investigating
Officer sent the dead body for post mortem
after the inquest which was signed by him
and Nisar Khan. The witness identified his
signature on inquest Ex.Ka-2, fard Ex.Ka-3
and Ex.Ka-4. On 01.05.2014 at about 09:00
a.m. Investigating Officer had called him to
the house of Rishi Talwar, wherefrom, he
with Rishi Talwar and Azhar came to
police station Sipri Bazar where he and
Azhar signed some documents. The witness
identified his signature on paper no.15A,
Ex.Ka-5. This witness denied that accused
Rishi Talwar had confessed of the crime
before him or that Investigating Officer had
recovered one country made pistol and two
live cartridges from Rishi Talwar.

(III) The witness was declared
hostile and was cross-examined by ADGC
(Criminal).
He
denied
his
statement
recorded under Section 161 CrPC and also
preparation
of
panchayatnama
and
recovery of empty cartridges 32 bore and
signing Ex.Ka-4 on the spot. After reading
he also denied arrest of the accused on
01.05.2014 at about 07:30 a.m. before him
and recovery of country-made pistol and
two live cartridges from his possession and
preparation of recovery memo and the
accused's confession of crime. In crossexamination by the accused he deposed that
police had not arrested Rishi Talwar in his
presence. When he reached on receiving a
call from the police, Rishi Talwar was
already in the custody at the police station.

(IV) PW-3, Azhar Khan has also
deposed against the prosecution and was
declared hostile. He deposed that on
01.05.2015 Rishi Talwar was not arrested
from his door in his presence. He had
reached with his employer Kamal Raj at
09:00 a.m. and found Rishi Talwar already
in police custody. Some papers were signed
at the police station. No pistol or cartridges
were recovered before him. Rishi Talwar
had not confessed killing his wife, Shweta.
The witness identified his signature on
3 All. Rishi Talwar Vs. State of U.P.
619
Ex.A-5. The witness was declared hostile.
During
cross-examination
by
ADGC
(Criminal)
the witness disowned his
statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC
and stated that he could not explain why
investigating officer recorded the same.
This witness also denied the recovery and
arrest of the accused, Rishi Talwar from his
door at 07:30 a.m. on 01.05.2014. He also
denied that the accused had confessed his
guilt before him. This witness has simply
identified his signature but had said that it
is wrong to say that police had prepared the
recovery memo before him and the case
property was sealed before him. In crossexamination by accused's counsel this
witness has deposed that Investigating
Officer got his signature on plain paper and
nothing was written on it. Kamal had also
signed it along with him. He denied seeing
any pistol or cartridge anywhere.

(V) PW-4, is Kumari Anchita
Talwar aged about 11 years, is daughter of
the deceased and the accused. She was
tested under Section 118 of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 and after concluding
that the witness understood the nature and
importance of the questions and could
properly answer and knew the meaning of
oath, her evidence was recorded. During
her deposition, this witness recognised her
father and said that her mother was Shweta
Talwar. They are two sisters and one
brother. Her younger sister is Jaanvi Talwar
and her younger brother is Rudranksh Suri
who is her aunt's (buwa) son. According to
her, the incident occurred on 29.04.2014 at
about 09:00 O'clock. She along with her
younger sister was with her parents and
after sometime her father went to Delhi by
train. Half an hour later, Ravi uncle had
come and had rung the bell. Her mother
opened the door, he sat in the drawing
room. She was watching TV inside the
house. They both were talking and after
sometime she heard that they were
quarrelling then she lowered the volume of
TV and heard what they were saying. Ravi
said to her mother to go with him. Her
mother refused to go with him because her
husband was not in the house and her
children were alone there. Ravi started to
force; her mother said to get out from the
house then he took a small gun from his
pocket. Her mother got scared and started
running towards bathroom to save her life
and started closing the door of the
bathroom but before that Ravi opened fire
and her mother fell down. When she started
crying and shouting loudly, he threatened
and said not to say anything about him
being there. After going to the upper
portion of the house got up to her sister and
told that Ravi uncle has killed their mother.
When she went out with her only Anil
Singh and Sanjeev Pandey uncle had come
there and she had narrated all the facts to
them. They said that they were calling the
police. When she was nervous to stay alone
at her house, she stayed for sometime in the
house of Anil Singh and for sometime at
Sanjeev Pandey's house. Next day when her
maternal grandfather came, she told him
about this. He said to go to police station.
On 01.05.2014 at 04:00 a.m. when her
father arrived, she narrated everything
about her mother. Her father stated that he
was going to the police station but he did
not return.

(VI) This witness was declared
hostile and was cross-examined by ADGC
(Criminal) but she did not support the
prosecution version and disowned the
evidence recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
She deposed that at present she was living
with her grandmother, aunt (bua), brother
and sister. She had come that day with her
aunt (bua), Smt. Charu Suri. This witness
has said that her parents had good relations.
They never fought or quarrelled.
620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(VII) PW-5, Monika Umesh
Sirke wife of Umesh Vishnu Sirke, sister of
the deceased deposed that her younger
sister Shweta had been married to Rishi
Talwar on 27.11.2003. Whenever Shweta
came to Bombay, she used to tell that her
husband Rishi Talwar used to beat and
abuse her, and always demanded money.
On 28.04.2014 in the evening Shweta
Talwar called her mother on her mobile and
informed that Rishi Talwar was beating and
quarrelling with her and that even 4-5 days
ago Rishi Talwar had beaten her. At that
time she (the witness) was at her mother's
house and she took the phone/mobile from
her mother and talked to Shweta and asked
her to keep calm and informed Shweta that
mummy and papa have talked with each
other and will go to get her.

(VIII) On 29.04.2014 Charu Suri
called on the mobile of her mother, Smt.
Shanti Manohar Lal Suri, whose mobile
number she could not recollect; informing
that Rishi Talwar shot Shweta and asked
that they should all leave for Jhansi. It was
11:30 a.m. or 12:00 O'clock in the day. She
was going to school. Her husband came to
take her to go to Jhansi then they left
Mumbai and travelled to Jhansi. They came
to Rishabh Hotel and stayed there and
called the police from there and went to
Shweta's house. There in the bathroom the
dead body of her sister was lying in pool of
blood. After this her mother started crying.
Charu who was her sister-in-law (bhabhi)
had a recording system in her mobile in
which all the calls were recorded from
which she came to know that Rishi had
called Charu Suri after the shooting and
confessed his crime and said that he had
shot two bullets at Shweta. The dead body
is lying in the bathroom. She had got
prepared a CD of the recordings of that
mobile and the same CD got installed in the
Court. She had submitted that CD on which
basis bail application of Rishi Talwar was
rejected from the Court of District Judge
and the Hon'ble High Court. In crossexamination this witness admitted that
accused did not shoot in her presence as
she was in Mumbai at that time. The
Investigating Officer had recorded her
statement on 02.05.2014. Except the fact
regarding recording in CD rest of the things
narrated by her in court had also been
conveyed to the Investigating Officer. She
admitted that the date and time of giving
information by the deceased about the
beating and abusing by the accused is
neither in her remembrance nor had been
reported in police station at Mumbai as its
proceedings could be drawn only in Jhansi.
She and her father had neither reported the
matter through mobile nor informed the
police. She herself said that Charu Suri,
sister-in-law (bhabhi) used to settle the
matter and used to explain and make
conciliation pointing out the girls.

(IX)
She
deposed
that
this
marriage took place in her relation. Rishi
Talwar's mother Smt. Asha Talwar was
their real aunt (mausi) who is her mother's
real elder sister. Shweta used to go back to
her in-law's house for the sake of their
elder's apology. She further deposed that
they came to know about the facts that
recording of conversation was done one
week after the last rites. Funeral took place
in the evening at 04:30 p.m. on 30.04.2014.
She does not remember the exact date she
came to know about the recording. She
admitted that she had not informed the
Investigating
Officer
about
the
call
recording on CD as due to litigation she
had gone to Mumbai after the last rites. She
did not think that it was necessary to tell
this to the Investigating Officer, even by
mobile. She refused the suggestion that
there is no such recording of Charu's
mobile. Her aunt (mausi) used to get
3 All. Rishi Talwar Vs. State of U.P.
621
reconciliation by apologizing over the
phone. She could not remember phone
number of her aunt but had deposed that
she used to apologize over the mobile
phone to her parents but could not
remember the phone numbers of her
parents' mobile either. She herself stated
that it was not known that how the situation
could come to murder. She used to live in
her marital house and she came to know
about the incident after talking to her
parents. Charu bhabhi also used to tell her,
she had no personal information. She had
told the Investigating Officer that accused
always made demands for money, if the
same is not written in her statement, she
cannot tell the reason. She told the
Investigating Officer that she was at the
house of her mother that day. She had
talked to Shweta on her mother's phone and
had told her to keep calm, she and her
father will come to Jhansi to get her. If it
was not written by the Investigating
Officer, she cannot tell the reason. She
stated that because she lived near her
parental house, therefore, she had come
there several times in the year of 2013 and
2014 although she cannot tell the exact
number of times. She deposed that when
Shweta used to go to Mumbai, she used to
inform the matter, she cannot tell the day,
date, month or the year when the deceased
had said so before her. She could not tell
the day, date and month when Charu had
reconciled the matter. She could not
remember the day, date and month when
Asha Talwar had apologized. She further
deposed that on 29.04.2014 at about 11:30
to 12:00 O'clock Charu had rung her
mother but she does not remember the
mobile number of Charu or her mother (of
the witness). She admitted that this
conversation was not recorded, only mobile
statement is available but the same is not
on record. She admitted that on 29.04.2014
she had reached Jhansi with her parents and
husband at about 11:30 to 12:00 O'clock
and had gone to Rishabh Hotel via
Atarkesh. After reaching there her father
had rung the police and using the vehicle of
Kamal Raj, they reached the house of Rishi
Talwar between 12:30 to 01:00 a.m. where
police had also reached and a hawaldar was
already there. Since her mother was not
well, they came back to Rishabh Hotel
where they stayed for the next four days.
She deposed that the fact that Charu asked
them over phone to go to Jhansi, was
conveyed by her to the Investigating
Officer, if the same was not recorded by
him, she cannot tell the reason.

(X) This witness admitted that
she knew Ravi. Her husband Umesh had
gone to the house of the accused for further
police action. She, her parents and her
husband had gone to police station
together. She denied that on 29.04.2014 at
about 11:30 - 12:00 O'clock Charu had not
rung up her mother to inform that Rishi
Talwar had shot Shweta.

(XI)
PW-6,
Satish
Kumar
Dwivedi, HCP, had deposed that on
30.04.2014 on the basis of tahrir of the
informant, Manohar Lal Suri, he had
prepared chik no.120 of 2014 at 02:00 a.m.
and had lodged an FIR at Crime No.211 of
2014, under Sections 302, 120-B IPC
against the accused Rishi Talwar and
others. This witness had proved the chik
FIR Ex.Ka-6. This witness had also proved
carbon
copy
GD
Ex.Ka-7
regarding
institution of the case. In cross-examination
this witness had answered that Umesh
Vishnu Sirke had also come with the
informant. He deposed that the date of
sending the chik FIR from the police
station was not noted in the concerned
column but rather it was marked in the
outgoing column ''through post office'. The
date is not mentioned below the signature
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of C.O. He also admits that there was no
signature of the CJM on it. This witness
denied that the chik report and GD were
prepared anti-timed.

(XII) PW-7, Dr. Sushil Kumar
Gupta who performed the post mortem,
deposed that on 30.04.2014 at about 12:30
p.m. he had conducted the post mortem of
the dead body of the deceased. In external
examinations he found rigour mortis in the
whole body of the deceased. This witness
found following injuries on the body of the
deceased:-

"(i) Gunshot punctured wound on
the left parietal bone, 1 x 1 cm size
scorching present in inverted wound 3 cm
above left pinna, wound goes deep
puncturing pellet recovered 2 cm behind
the eye-wall, no exit wound. Side of left
parietal and frontal bone were broken.

(ii) Gunshot punctured wound 1 x
1 cm size, 5 cm above navel scorching
present, inverted wound and gun powder
was present in wound, no exit wound
present in X-Ray. Pellets seen deep in left
side 3 cm lateral to sacrum whose possible
effect could not be found out."
(XIII) In internal examination, brain was
found congested. A metal cap was
recovered
from
the
molar
tooth.
Oesophagus was reddish. Right and left
lungs were of 380 g.m. and 320 g.m,
respectively. Heart was empty. There was
50 g.m. of semi-digested food in the
stomach. In small intestine and appendix
there were chyme and gases present. In
large intestine and mesentery vessels there
were faecal matters and gases. Spleen was
congested and it weighed 150 g.m. Kidney
were congested, both were of 200 g.m.
Urinary bladder was empty. Genital organs
and uterus were non-gravid.

(XIV) According to this witness,
the deceased died due to shock and
haemorrhage on account of ante mortem
gunshot injuries. This witness has proved
post mortem report Ex.Ka-8 and has also
proved recovery of one bullet of yellow
metal and two pieces of metal. This witness
has proved bullet as material Ex.-1. Piece
of metal material Ex.-2 and piece of
recovered two molar tooth cap material
Ex.-3, matchbox material Ex.-4 and truss of
the match material Ex.-5. In crossexamination, this witness has opined that
there could be variation of 06 hours in the
timing of death. There is possibility of
death having occurred in the night at about
10:00 - 11:00 p.m.

(XV)
PW-8,
Umesh
Vishnu
Sirke, brother-in-law (bahnoi/jija), deposed
that the deceased was married with the
accused 10-11 years ago. When deceased
went to Mumbai, he knew that she was
beaten in Jhansi. He could not know the
reason. On 29.04.2014 at about 12:00 noon
his mother-in-law Smt. Shakti Devi Suri
rang him and asked him to come to her
house as Charu Suri had informed her over
the phone that Rishi Talwar had shot
Shweta. Manohar Lal Suri informed SSP,
Jhansi, Smt. Aparna Ganguli and his
relative Kamal Raj that no action should be
taken till their arrival at Jhansi. On
29.04.2014 at about 11:45 to 12:00 O'clock
they reached Rishabh Hotel, Jhansi from
where they reached the police station with
Kamal Raj. Therefrom they went to the
house of Rishi Talwar where a policeman
was stationed. After a while a police car
with 2-3 policemen reached there and went
inside and showed the bathroom where
Shweta's dead body was lying. Seeing the
dead body, Smt. Shakti Devi Suri, Manohar
Lal Suri and Smt. Monika Sirke started
weeping loudly. Due to the deteriorating
health of Smt. Shakti Devi Suri, they took
her back to Rishabh Hotel and then
proceeded to police station at the behest of
Manohar Lal Suri. He had written a tahrir
3 All. Rishi Talwar Vs. State of U.P.
623
Ex.Ka-1, inquest Ex.Ka-2 was prepared on
the spot. This witness identified his
signature on both the papers.

(XVI)
This
witness
further
deposed that at his house in Mumbai he
heard about mar-peet with Shweta by her
in-laws. He admits the writing of written
complaint at police station in presence of
police and the SHO. The SHO did not help
in writing the report. Manohar Lal went on
speaking and he was writing the complaint.
He has a little remembrance of the writing.
He signed inquest at Shweta's house. He
further deposed that in inquest he has noted
where the dead body was found and blood
sample was taken. The position of the
clothes and the corpse was also written.
Recovery of an empty cartridge from the
bathroom is also written in it. Investigating
Officer had asked him about the incident.
He signed the inquest between 04:00 to
04:30 O'clock. He said that he had given
statement to the Investigating Officer that
they went to the police station at about
12:00 O'clock leaving Nisha Sirke. He
denied the suggestion that on 29.04.2014
his mother-in-law had not rung him and
had not said that Charu Suri informed
through phone that Rishi Talwar had killed
Shweta. This witness denied all the
suggestions of the defence.

(XVII) PW-9, Shakti Suri, mother
of the deceased deposed that her daughter
Shweta Talwar was married to the accused
Rishi Talwar about 11-12 years ago. After
few days, accused started beating and
abusing her daughter which she used to
inform by phone. Two daughters were born
to her daughter. Accused, Rishi Talwar
always used to send her daughter after
beating her. On 28.04.2014 her daughter
Shweta rang at 08:00 p.m. that the accused
was seriously beating her. She asked to
take her and her daughters from there and
then she consoled that next morning she
was coming to take her. In the night at
11:00 O'Clock she got a call of her
daughter on her husband's phone stating
that Rishi was abusing a lot and threatening
that he would kill her. Her husband said
that he with her mother were coming. At
around 05:00 O'clock a missed call came
on her husband's phone. She called back
but no one picked up the call. Thereafter on
29.04.2014 at 11:00 a.m. her daughter-inlaw Charu Suri made a call on her
husband's phone and said that they all have
not left yet, there Rishi Talwar shot Shweta
then she took the phone from her husband
and talked to her. She also told her the
same thing then her husband rang Kamal
Raj, owner of Rishabh Hotel, and asked to
get information about the matter. He rang
SP, Jhansi and informed about the incident
and also told him not to take any action till
they reach there. On 30.04.2014 at 01:00
a.m. they reached Jhansi and went to Rishi
Talwar's house where Shweta's dead body
was lying in the bathroom. Incident was
reported by her husband.

(XVIII) In cross-examination this
witness deposed that her daughter used to
tell about the beatings on the phone, she
cannot tell the date. She could not tell that
how many times in 10 years the accused
had beaten her daughter. Whenever her
daughter came to her house after marpeet,
she did not get her medically examined but
there were marks of injuries in her hands,
feet and nose too. On 28.04.2014 at about
08:00 O'clock a call came on her phone.
She could not remember mobile number of
her deceased daughter. When she got a call
on her husband's phone at 11:00 p.m, it was
not recorded.