# Sanjeev @ Sanju v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** Criminal Appeal No. 1431 of 2007
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-03-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1431 of 2007
- **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjeev-sanju-v-state-of-u-p-46428
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

A. Evidence law- Indian Evidence Act,
1872- Section 8-Motive- The cases which
are based on direct evidence of the
witnesses should be decided on the basis
of quality and probative value of the
evidence of such eye witnesses.

Motive is insignificant in cases of direct
evidence.

B. Evidence law- Indian Evidence Act,
1872 -Section 134 - It is not the quantity,
but the quality which is material- The
court can and may act on the testimony of
a single witness provided he is wholly
3-5 All. Sanjeev @ Sanju Vs. State of U.P.
473
reliable- In case of doubts and suspicion
the courts will insist on corroboration.

The number of witnesses is not material, rather
the quality of evidence adduced by even a
single witness is enough to secure conviction
provided the said evidence is credible.

C. Evidence law- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section 118- Natural witnesses may not be
labelled as interested witnesses - Interested
witnesses are those who want to derive some
benefit out of the litigation/case - Court has to
adopt a careful approach and analyse the
evidence of such witness to find out whether
he is a natural witness and whether in the
facts and circumstances of the case his
evidence is cogent and credible.

A witness whose presence is natural cannot be
labelled as an interested witness, only because he is a
related witness, since an interested witness is a
person who stands to benefit from the case.

D. Any illegality either committed knowingly
or unknowingly by the investigating officer
will not adversely affect the case of the
prosecution and in any case the fate of a
criminal trial could not be left at the mercy of
an erring investigating officer.

Lapses made in the course of investigation cannot
benefit the accused.

E. Evidence law- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section 27- Recovery of any fact under Section
27 of the Evidence Act is only one piece of
evidence amongst many pieces of evidence
relied on by the prosecution and if in the
process of appreciation of evidence any one
piece of evidence is even not found proved,
the duty of the Court is to see as to whether
the remaining evidence which has been found
proved is of such a nature that the case of the
prosecution is proved beyond reasonable
doubt.

Even where the recovery of any fact under section 27
of the Evidence act is not proved due to the error or
lapses of the investigating officer, the Court can
always rely upon the other evidence which proves the
case of the prosecution beyond any reasonable
doubt.
(Para 12, 14, 17, 21, 22, 23)

Criminal Appeal dismissed (E-3)

List of case cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,876 of 68,851. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39876 for what follows._

472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
testimony
which
is
consistent,
trustworthy, natural and spontaneous
and without any material contradiction
and discrepancy. No convincing reason
has been assigned by the defence why
the real brother and sister will implicate
the accused falsely.

66. In view of the above we find that
prompt FIR has been lodged in this case;
prosecution version has been supported by
the account of two eyewitnesses which
further finds support and corroboration by
medical evidence and recovery of weapon
used in the commission of the offence;
alleged motive has been proved; the
presence of both the eyewitnesses at the
time of incident and with the deceased is
natural and their evidence is credible,
consistent and trustworthy on which
reliance has been rightly placed by the
learned trial court. Once, it was established
by prosecution and defence version both
that at the time date and place, the deceased
was killed by firearm injury and the injury
was sufficient to cause death, the limited
question for determination was the role and
involvement of the accused persons and
that has been proved by two eyewitnesses
and there is nothing on record to discard
their evidence. As such, we do not find any
perversity or illegality in the impugned
judgement. The conviction and sentence
awarded by the learned trial court is
upheld. The appeal is, therefore, liable to
be dismissed.

67. All the three Criminal Appeals are
accordingly dismissed.

68. The accused-appellants Ram
Naresh and Kamal are directed to
surrender before the learned trial court
forthwith where from they shall be sent to
jail to undergo the sentence.

69. Amicus Curiae Shri Pradeep
Kumar Mishra, Advocate shall be paid Rs.
10,000/- for his legal assistance to the
Court.

70. Office is directed to send a copy
of this order to the court below for
communication and compliance along with
lower court record.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A472
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.03.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1431 of 2007

Sanjeev @ Sanju ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Afaq Zaki Khan, Anil Kumar Tiwari, Arun
Kumar, Neeta Singh Chandel, Rishad
Murtaza, Udai Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Saurabh Chandra

A. Evidence law- Indian Evidence Act,
1872- Section 8-Motive- The cases which
are based on direct evidence of the
witnesses should be decided on the basis
of quality and probative value of the
evidence of such eye witnesses.

Motive is insignificant in cases of direct
evidence.

B. Evidence law- Indian Evidence Act,
1872 -Section 134 - It is not the quantity,
but the quality which is material- The
court can and may act on the testimony of
a single witness provided he is wholly
3-5 All. Sanjeev @ Sanju Vs. State of U.P.
473
reliable- In case of doubts and suspicion
the courts will insist on corroboration.

The number of witnesses is not material, rather
the quality of evidence adduced by even a
single witness is enough to secure conviction
provided the said evidence is credible.

C. Evidence law- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section 118- Natural witnesses may not be
labelled as interested witnesses - Interested
witnesses are those who want to derive some
benefit out of the litigation/case - Court has to
adopt a careful approach and analyse the
evidence of such witness to find out whether
he is a natural witness and whether in the
facts and circumstances of the case his
evidence is cogent and credible.

A witness whose presence is natural cannot be
labelled as an interested witness, only because he is a
related witness, since an interested witness is a
person who stands to benefit from the case.

D. Any illegality either committed knowingly
or unknowingly by the investigating officer
will not adversely affect the case of the
prosecution and in any case the fate of a
criminal trial could not be left at the mercy of
an erring investigating officer.

Lapses made in the course of investigation cannot
benefit the accused.

E. Evidence law- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section 27- Recovery of any fact under Section
27 of the Evidence Act is only one piece of
evidence amongst many pieces of evidence
relied on by the prosecution and if in the
process of appreciation of evidence any one
piece of evidence is even not found proved,
the duty of the Court is to see as to whether
the remaining evidence which has been found
proved is of such a nature that the case of the
prosecution is proved beyond reasonable
doubt.

Even where the recovery of any fact under section 27
of the Evidence act is not proved due to the error or
lapses of the investigating officer, the Court can
always rely upon the other evidence which proves the
case of the prosecution beyond any reasonable
doubt.
(Para 12, 14, 17, 21, 22, 23)

Criminal Appeal dismissed (E-3)

List of case cited:-

1. Vadivelu Thevar Vs. St. of Madras; AIR 1957
SC 614

2. Molu & ors Appellants Vs. St. of Har. AIR
1976 SC 2499

3. Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar & anr Vs. St. of
Ker., AIR 1981 SC 1237

4. Praful Sudhakar Parab Vs. St. of Maha. AIR
2016 SC 3107

5. Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy &
Ors., MANU/SC/0897/2013

6. St. of Raj. Vs. Smt. Kalki and Anr.
MANU/SC/0254/1981 : AIR 1981 SC 1390

7. Sachchey Lal Tiwari Vs. St. of U.P.
MANU/SC/0865/2004 : AIR 2004 SC 5039

8. Bhagaloo Lodh & Ors.Vs. St. of U.P.,
MANU/SC/0700/2011

9. State of Karnataka vs. K. Yarappa Reddy,
MANU/SC/0633/1999

10. C. Muniappan Vs. St. of T.N., (2010) 9 SCC
567

11. Appabhai and Ors. Vs. St. of Guj.,
MANU/SC/0028/1988

12. Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. St. of
Guj. AIR 1983, 753, MANU/SC/0090/1983

13. Krishna Mochi and Ors. Vs. St. of Bih.,
MANU/SC/0327/2002

14.
Raj.
Vs.
Smt.
Kalki
and
Anr.
MANU/SC/0254/1981

15. Gangadhar Behera & ors Vs. St. of Orissa,
MANU/SC/0875/2002

16. Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade Vs.. St. of Maha.
MANU/SC/0167/1973 : 1973CriLJ1783
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohd.
Faiz Alam Khan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri Chandra Shekhr Pandey,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed
by appellant/Sanjeev alias Sanju Yadav
under Section 374 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure against the judgment
and order dated 08.06.2007 passed by
Additional Session Judge/Fast Track CourtIII, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 73 of
2005, "State Vs. Sanjeev alias Sanju
Yadav", arising out of Case Crime No.
1380 of 2004, under Section 302 of I.P.C.,
Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District
Faizabad, whereby the appellant has been
convicted under Section 302 of I.P.C. and
has been sentenced for rigorous life
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with
default clause.

3. Brief facts necessary for the
disposal of this criminal appeal are that on
24.07.2004 at 21:15 hours a written
application
was
presented
to
S.H.O.
Kotwali, Faizabad by informant Shyam
Sundar Malviya stating therein that his
brother-in-law (Sala) is resident of Village
Dhangada,
Police
Station
Salempur,
District Deoria. He after passing M.A.
examination was living with him since
1997 and was also teaching in his school
namely Surabhi Siksha Sansthan. A girl
student of his school wrote a love letter to
one Nirankar, resident of ''Datta ka purva',
P.S. Kotwali which some how came in the
custody of his brother-in-law, in relation to
which, his wife Smt. Girija Malviya who is
the Principal of school scolded appellant
Sanjeev @ Sanju Yadav and Nirankar. It
was further stated that some hot talks had
taken place between his brother-in-law
Rakesh Kumar Dubey and Sanjeev @
Sanju Yadav and Sanjeev asked his brotherin-law to hand over the love letter to him
and when his brother-in-law refused to
hand over the same to Sanjeev, he
threatened that his brother in law will have
to pay the price for that.

It was further stated that on the
basis of above enmity on 24.07.2004 at
8:00 pm. his brother-in-law Rakesh was
returning to his house with two bags of
''Morang' laden on his bicycle and when he
reached a little ahead of the house of
Surajdeen, appellant Sanjeev @ Sanju
Yadav and one unknown person with him
dragged his brother-in-law into the bushes
and Sanjeev @ Sanju committed his
murder by assaulting him with a sharp
edged weapon. The incident was witnessed
by many persons and the accused persons
fled away from the scene of crime. There
was enough moonlight and electricity light,
at the time of incident.

4. On the basis of the above
mentioned written application, (Exhibit-ka1), an F.I.R. under Section 302 I.P.C. was
registered against Sanjeev @ Sanju and one
unknown person at Case Crime No. 1380
of 2004 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar,
Faizabad and the substance of this
information was entered into the G.D.
Serial No.-62, (Exhibit-ka-5) at 21:15 hours
on 24.07.2004. Investigation of the crime
was entrusted to S.I. Ram Shiromani Singh,
who at once arrived at the spot and
collected the belongings of the deceased
which was scattered around his dead body
and prepared a memo (Exhibit-ka6). He
also collected the blood stained and simple
soil from the spot and kept the same in
separate containers and also prepared a
memo, (Exhibit-ka-7) of the same. He
3-5 All. Sanjeev @ Sanju Vs. State of U.P.
475
prepared the Site Plan, (Exhibit-ka-8) on
the pointing of the informant and also
prepared the Inquest Report (Exhibit-ka-9)
of the dead body and also prepared
necessary papers i.e. Form No.-13, Photo
Lash, Chitthi R.I., Chitthi C.M.O., Sample
of Seal, (Exhibit-ka-10 to 15) for the
purpose of postmortem.

5. The postmortem on the dead body
of deceased Rakesh Kumar Dubey was
performed by P.W.-5/Dr. Chandra Shekhar
Singh on 25.07.2004 at 2:30 pm. at District
Hospital, Faizabad. The deceased was
found to be aged about 25 years and it was
opined by the doctor that his death had
occurred 3/4 day before and that he was a
person of average built and rigor mortis
had passed away from both extremities of
his body. Following injuries were found on
the body of the deceased:-

(i) Injury No.1/Incised wound 18
cm. x 8 cm. x bone deep over the anterior
aspect just below the mandible all around
except posterior of the neck, 14 cm. left 3rd
Cervical vertebra artery clean cut.

(ii) Injury No.2/Incised wound
14 cm. x 2 cm. x muscle deep over right
posterior occipital region 5 cm. above the
ear.

On internal examination, 3rd
Cervical vertebra was found clean cut,
trachea was clean cut and divided, both
chambers of the heart were empty,
oesophagus was clean cut and divided. 200
grams of semi-digested food was found in
the stomach. Small intestine was full of
fluid and gases while faecal matter and
gases were found in the large intestine, gall
bladder was half full, spleen and kidneys
were pale, bladder was empty and the cause
of death of the deceased was ascertained as
shock and hemorrhage as a result of antemortem
wounds.
P.W.-4/Dr.
Chandra
Shekhar Singh proved to have prepared the
postmortem report (Exhibit-k-3) in his hand
writing and under his signatures.

6. On 25.07.2004 at about 3:00 hours,
appellant Sanjeev alias Sanju was arrested
and he stated to have confessed his guilt
and also that he could get the weapon
recovered
which
was
used
in
the
commission of the crime. A knife was
recovered at his pointing and a memo of
the same (Exhibit-ka-2) was also prepared.
The
investigation
thereafter,
was
transferred to S.H.O. Ram Pal Singh., who
after taking over the investigation of the
case
recorded
the
statement
of
the
witnesses and sent the material exhibits for
forensic examination and after collecting
the report of the Forensic Lab (Exhibit-ka18) submitted the charge-sheet (Exhibit-ka19) against Sanjeev @ Sanju Yadav under
Section 302 of I.P.C.

7. The case being triable by the Court
of sessions was committed and charge
under Section 302 of I.P.C. was framed
against the appellant Sanjeev @ Sanju
Yadav. He denied the charges and claimed
trial.

8. The prosecution in order to prove
its case beyond reasonable doubt relied on
the
following
documentary
evidences
before the trial Court:-

Written application (Exhibit-ka1), memo of arrest and recovery of knife by
the appellant (Exhibit-ka-2), Postmortem
Report
(Exhibit-ka-3),
Chick
F.I.R.,
(Exhibit-ka-4), G.D. Qayami (Exhibit-ka5), memo of seizing the belongings of
deceased found at the place of occurrence
(Exhibit-ka-6), memo of taking simple and
blood stained soil from the spot (Exhibitka-7), Site Plan of the place of occurrence
476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Exhibit-ka-8), Inquest Report (Exhibit-ka9), Chitthi C.M.O. (Exhibit-ka-10), Chitthi
R.I. (Exhibit-ka-11), Photo Lash (Exhibitka-12), Report of Police Station to R.I.
(Exhibit-ka-13), Letter to C.M.O. (Exhibitka-14), Sample seal (Exhibit-ka-15), Site
Plan of the place of occurrence (Exhibit-ka16), letter whereby the material was sent to
forensic lab (Exhibit-ka-17), report of the
forensic lab (Exhibit-ka-18), charge-Sheet
(Exhibit-ka-19).

9. The prosecution also testified
following witnesseses in support of its
case:-

P.W.-1/Shyam Sundar Malviya
(Informant/eye witness), P.W.-2/Smt. Girja
Malviya, P.W.-3/Saurabh Malviya (Eye
witness), P.W.-4/Gulab Chandra Malviya
(Eye witness), P.W.-5/Dr. Chandra Shekhar
Singh
(Doctor,
who
conducted
the
postmortem), P.W.-6/Constable Lalmani
Rai (Scribe of Chick F.I.R. and G.D.), P.W.-
7/Ram Shiromani Singh (First Investigating
Officer), P.W.-8/Ram Pal Singh (Second
Investigating Officer).

10. Learned counsel for the appellant
while pressing the appeal submits that the
trial
Court
has
committed
manifest
illegality in appreciation of prosecution
evidence and has relied on inadmissible
evidence and passed a judgment of
conviction only on the basis of ''surmises
and conjectures'.

It is further submitted that the
trial Court has not taken into consideration
the fact that the love letter allegedly written
by the girl student to one Nirankar was
never
produced
either
before
the
Investigating Officer or before the trial
Court and when the basis of the prosecution
case was missing it was not justified for the
trial Court to convict the appellant, more so
when the girl who had allegedly written the
love letter was also not being produced as a
witness.

It is further submitted that it is
not clear from the evidence on record as to
whether the said love letter was written to
Nirankar or to Sanjeev @ Sanju and that if
the letter was written to Nirankar, how
Sanjeev @ Sanju was concerned with the
same. It is next submitted that all witnesses
of fact and of recovery are family members
and related to each other, while the
independent witnesses having houses on
both side of the scene of occurrence namely
Surajdeen and Ram Narayan Gupta have
not been produced before the trial Court as
witnesses, therefore, the story of the
prosecution is doubtful on this score. The
recovery stated to have been effected on the
pointing of the appellant is also not
believable.

It is next submitted that Sanjeev
@ Sanju was not studying in the school of
P.W.-1/Shyam
Sundar
Malviya,
while
Nirankar was stated to be a student of that
school. Therefore, the trial Court has erred
in concluding that appellant was having
any connection with Nirankar. The motive
suggested by the prosecution is weak and
has not been proved. The prosecution
witnesses were not in a position to see the
assailants, as there was no source of light
and in site plan the Investigating Officer
has also not shown any electricity pole
around the scene of occurrence belying the
story of the prosecution that there was an
electricity pole around the spot. It has
overwhelmingly been submitted that the
prosecution witnesses who have claimed to
have witnessed the incident are not reliable
and, therefore, the appeal of the appellant
be accepted and the judgment and order of
the trial Court be set-aside.
3-5 All. Sanjeev @ Sanju Vs. State of U.P.
477

11. Learned A.G.A., per contra,
submits
that
the
trial
Court
after
meticulously appreciating the evidence
available on record has came to a
conclusion that the appellant has committed
the offence and the finding of the trial
Court is based on acceptable, reliable and
truthful evidence of prosecution witnesses.

It is next submitted that the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses who
claimed to have seen the occurrence is
reliable, trustworthy and the appellant has
also recovered the weapon of assault on his
pointing and there is no difference or
alteration between ocular and medical
evidence, rather the medical evidence
supports
the
ocular
testimony
of
prosecution witnesses. The motive is also
proved, however, there was no need for the
same as the case was based on direct
evidence of the eye-witnesses. Therefore,
keeping
in
view
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case as well as
evidence available on record, no illegality
appears to have been committed by the trial
Court in arriving to a conclusion that the
offence has been committed by the
appellant.
The
minor
irregularities
committed in the investigation could not be
the basis to doubt the prosecution.

12. Having heard the submissions
of learned counsels for the parties, the
question which arises for adjudication
in this criminal appeal is as to whether
the
trial
court
has
convicted
the
appellant on the basis of evidence
available on record or the prosecution
has failed to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubts.

Hon,ble Apex Court in Vadivelu
Thevar Vs. State of Madras; AIR 1957 SC
614 has held as under:-

"The contention that in a murder
case, the Court should insist upon plurality of
witnesses, is much broadly stated."

"The Indian Legislature has not
insisted on laying down any such exceptions to
the general Rule recognized in Section 134
quoted above. The Section has enshrines the
well recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be
weighed and not counted." Our Legislature has
given statutory recognition to the fact that
administration of justice may be hampered if a
particular number of witnesses were to be
insisted upon.

"Even as the guilt of an accused
person may be proved by the testimony of a
single witness, the innocence of an accused
person may be established on the testimony of a
single witness, even though a considerable
number of witnesses may be forthcoming to
testify to the truth of the case for the
prosecution."

"Generally
speaking
oral
testimony in this context may be classified
into three categories, namely (1) wholly
reliable (2) wholly unreliable (3) neither
wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In
the first category of proof, the Court should
have no difficulty in coming to its
conclusion either way- it may convict or
may acquit on the testimony of a single
witness, if it is found to be above reproach
or
suspicion
of
interestedness,
incompetence or subornation. In the second
category, the Court equally has no
difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is
in the third category of cases, that the
Court has to be circumspect and has to
look
for
corroboration
in
material
particulars by reliable testimony, direct or
circumstantial. There is another danger in
insisting
on
plurality
of
witnesses.
Irrespective of the quality of the oral
evidence of a single witness, if courts were
to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of
any
fact,
they
will
be
indirectly
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
encouraging subornation of witnesses.
Situations may arise and do arise where
only a single person is available to give
evidence in support of a disputed fact. The
Court naturally has to weigh carefully such
a testimony and if it is satisfied that the
evidence is reliable and free from all taints
which tend to render oral testimony open to
suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon
such testimony."

Vadivelu Thevar case (supra) has
been referred to with approval in many
cases thereafter and it has been held that as
a general rule the court can and may act on
the testimony of a single witness provided
he is wholly reliable. There is no legal
impediment in convicting a person on the
sole testimony of a single witness. This is
what the essence of Section 134 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is. But, if there
are doubts and suspicion about the
testimony of such a witness, the courts will
insist on corroboration. Therefore, it is not
the number and the quantity, but the quality
which is material. The time tested principle
is that evidence has to be weighed and not
counted. The test is whether the evidence
has a ring of truth around it, is cogent,
credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.

13. Before proceeding further, it
appears necessary that a brief survey of the
prosecution evidence be made so that the
evidence available on record may be
appreciated in an effective way, keeping in
view the above legal principles.

P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya,
who is the brother-in-law (bahnoi) of the
deceased- Rakesh has stated in his
statement that a girl student of class-8th of
his school wrote a love letter to Nirankar
and appellant- Sanjeev @ Sanju. His wife
Girja Malviya was the Principal of the
school and deceased- Rakesh, was his
brother-in-law who somehow got this love
letter and showed it to his sister Girja
Malviya and thereafter kept the same with
him. On 24.07.2004 his wife, namely, Girja
Malviya called Nirankar and appellant-
Sanjeev and scolded them for this. Sanjeev
asked Rakesh to handover the letter to him,
who refused and some hot exchanges took
place between them and Sanjeev threatened
deceased- Rakesh of dire consequences.

He further stated that on the same
day deceased- Rakesh went to took some
''morang' as some repair work was going
on in the house of the informant. When
deceased did not return for quite some
time, he went out, at about 8:00 P.M. in
search of him. When he reached at the
''kharanja' road, he saw in the light of
electric bulb and moonlight that one
unknown person dragged deceased towards
bushes and Sanjeev assaulted deceased
with a knife. According to this witness,
Sanjeev assaulted Rakesh firstly on his ear
and thereafter on his neck by which the
whole neck of the deceased was cut and
only a small portion of the same remained
connected. Deceased- Rakesh was carrying
two bags of ''morang' on his bicycle and
the bags were scattered on the road. This
incident was witnessed by his son Saurabh
Malviya and many others. Sanjeev and an
unknown person fled away from the scene
and thereafter they went to the police
station and lodged the F.I.R. (Exhibit ka-1).
He also stated that investigating officer had
come on the spot and he had shown him the
place of occurrence. The Investigation
Officer recorded his statement and also
took soil samples and bicycle of deceased
in his custody.

P.W.2- Smt. Girja Malviya in her
statement has stated that deceased- Rakesh
was her brother, who was living with her
and was teaching in her school. One of the
3-5 All. Sanjeev @ Sanju Vs. State of U.P.
479
girl student of class- 8th of her school
wrote a letter to Nirankar and Sanjeev,
which was taken by his brother and his
brother showed that letter to her. She stated
to have summoned and scolded both
Nirankar as well as Sanjeev for this and
there were some hot exchanges between
Rakesh and Sanjeev and Sanjeev threatened
her brother either to return the letter or to
face the consequences. Her brother did not
handover the letter to appellant- Sanjeev
and due to this he was done to death by
Sanjeev.

P.W.3- Saurabh Malviya is the
son of P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya
(informant) who has stated in his statement
that his maternal uncle deceased- Rakesh
Kumar was teaching in the school managed
by his father and mother. Corroborating the
statement of P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya
and P.W.2- Smt. Girja Malviya, he further
stated that a girl student of class- 8th wrote
a letter to Sanjeev and Nirankar and the
same was taken by deceased- Rakesh and
he also showed this letter to his mother,
namely, Smt. Girja Malviya, who in-turn
scolded Sanjeev and Nirankar. Rakesh
Kumar told Sanjeev that he will inform his
parents about this letter on which a quarrel
had taken place between them. Sanjeev was
continuously
persuading
Rakesh
to
handover the letter to him while Rakesh
was not handing over the letter to him and
thereon
Sanjeev
had
threatened
his
maternal uncle of dire consequences.

This witness has further stated
that on 24.07.2004 at about 8:00 P.M., he
went out of his house and when he reached
at ''Kharanja'Road' he saw that Sanjeev
was standing there with an unknown person
and his maternal uncle, namely, Rakesh
Kumar was coming on bicycle carrying two
bags of ''morang'. At that time Sanjeev
assaulted Rakesh with a knife on his neck
and ear. He saw the incident in the light of
electric bulb and moonlight. Apart from
him, his father and other persons had also
witnessed the incident.

P.W.4- Gulab Chandra Malviya is
stated to be a witness of the recovery of a
knife on the pointing of appellant- Sanjeev
@ Sanju and has proved the knife, which
was also presented in the Court as Material
Exhibit No.1. He also stated that a memo
was also prepared pertaining to recovery of
knife.

P.W.5-
Dr.
Chandra Shekhar
Singh has conducted the post-morterm on
the body of the deceased- Rakesh on
25.07.2004 at 2:30 P.M. and has proved the
post-morterm report in his writing and
signature as (Exhibit ka-3).

He further stated that both the
injuries, i.e., Injury nos.1 and 2 on the
deceased were caused by a sharp edged
weapon and both these injuries may have
been caused on 24.07.2004 at 8:00 P.M.
Detailed description of the post-morterm
report has been given in the paragraph no. 5
of this judgment .

P.W.6- Constable Lalmani has
proved the Chik F.I.R. as (Exhibit ka-4) and
also the G.D. Qayami as (Exhibit ka-5) in
his writing and signature.

P.W.7-
Sub-Inspector
Ram
Shiromani Singh is the first Investigating
Officer of the crime, who has stated that on
24.07.2004
after
taking
over
the
investigation, he departed towards the
scene of crime and after arriving at the spot
took into possession the dead body of the
deceased and his other belongings which
were scattered there. He also stated to have
prepared a memo of the same as (Exhibit
ka-6). He also stated to have collected the
blood stained and simple soil from the spot
and also prepared a memo of the same
(Exhibit ka-7). He further stated to have
prepared the site plan (Exhibit ka-8) of the
spot at the pointing of informant and also
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
prepared inquest report (Exhibit ka-9) of
the
dead
body
and
after
preparing
necessary papers forwarded the dead body
for the purpose of post-morterm.

He further stated that he arrested
the appellant- Sanjeev @ Sanju on the
same day at about 13:00 hours, who during
interrogation confessed his guilt and a knife
was recovered on his pointing. A memo of
the recovered knife (Exhibit ka-2) was also
prepared. This witness has also proved the
site plan (Exhibit ka-16) of the place from
where the knife was got recovered by
appellant.

P.W.8- S.H.O. Ram Pal Singh is
the second Investigating Officer of the case
who after recording the statement of the
witnesses and having found sufficient
evidence against the appellant submitted
the charge-sheet (Exhibit ka-19) against
him.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the motive as alleged by the
prosecution has not been proved and letter
which was the basis of dispute has not been
produced before the Court.

A three Judges Bench Of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Molu and others
Appellants v. State of Haryana AIR 1976
SUPREME COURT 2499 has opined as
under :-

"11. Finally it was argued by the
appellants, following the reasons given by
the Sessions Judge, that there was no
adequate motive for the accused to commit
murder of two persons and to cause
injuries to others. It is well settled that
where the direct evidence regarding the
assault is worthy of credence and can be
believed, the question of motive becomes
more or less academic. Sometimes the
motive is clear and can be proved and
sometimes. however, the motive is shrouded
in mystery and it is very difficult to locate
the same. If, however, the evidence of the
eye-witnesses is credit-worthy and is
believed by the Court which has placed
implicit reliance on them, the question
whether there is any motive or not becomes
wholly irrelevant. For these reasons,
therefore, we agree with the High Court
that the prosecution has been able to prove
the case against the appellants beyond
reasonable doubt."

Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Krishna Pillai Sree Kumar and another
v. State of Kerala, AIR 1981 SUPREME
COURT 1237 has held as under:-

"7. It is undisputed that some bad
blood existed between the deceased on the
one hand and the appellants on the other
prior to the occurrence. The animosity may
not have been very bitter but then it is too
much to say that it could not possibly form
a motive for the occurrence. The variation
in human nature being so vast murders are
known to have been actuated by much
lesser motives. In any case, it is not a sine
qua non for the success of the prosecution
that the motive must be proved. So long as
the other evidence remains convincing and
is not open to reasonable doubt, a
conviction may well be based on it."

In Praful Sudhakar Parab v.
State
of
MaharashtraAIR
2016
SUPREME
COURT
3107
Hon'ble
Supreme Court stated as under :-

"16. One of the submissions
which has been raised by the learned
amicus curiae is that the prosecution failed
to prove any motive. It is contended that the
evidence which was led including the
recovery of bunch of keys from guardroom
was with a view to point out that he wanted
to commit theft of the cash laying in the
office but no evidence was led by the
prosecution to prove that how much cash
3-5 All. Sanjeev @ Sanju Vs. State of U.P.
481
were there in the pay office. Motive for
committing a crime is something which is
hidden in the mind of accused and it has
been held by this Court that it is an
impossible task for the prosecution to prove
what precisely have impelled the murderer
to kill a particular person. This Court in
Ravinder Kumar and another v. State of
Punjab, 2001 (7) SCC 690 : (AIR 2001 SC
3570),
has
laid
down
following
in
paragraph 18:

"18........It
is
generally
an
impossible task for the prosecution to prove
what precisely would have impelled the
murderers to kill a particular person. All
that prosecution in many cases could point
to is the possible mental element which
could have been the cause for the murder.
In this connection we deem it useful to refer
to the observations of this Court in State of
Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh {1999 (4)
SCC 370 : (AIR 1999 SC 1293)}:

"No doubt it is a sound principle
to remember that every criminal act was
done with a motive but its corollary is not
that no criminal offence would have been
committed if the prosecution has failed to
prove the precise motive of the accused to
commit it. When the prosecution succeeded
in showing the possibility of some ire for
the accused towards the victim, the inability
to further put on record the manner in
which such ire would have swelled up in
the mind of the offender to such a degree as
to impel him to commit the offence cannot
be construed as a fatal weakness of the
prosecution. It is almost an impossibility
for the prosecution to unravel the full
dimension of the mental disposition of an
offender towards the person whom he
offended."

Keeping in view the above
referred law, we are of the considered
opinion that the prosecution is not obliged
to prove those facts which are either
impossible for the prosecution to prove or
which are locked up in the mind of the
accused persons, as to what tempted them
to commit the crime. Therefore, the cases
which are based on direct evidence of the
witnesses should be decided on the basis of
quality and probative value of the evidence
of such eye witnesses.

15. In the First Information Report, it
was stated that deceased- Rakesh who was
the brother-in-law of informant was living
with informant and his wife. P.W.2- Girja
Malviya, was running a school and
deceased- Rakesh was teaching in the same
school. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R.
that a girl student of class-8th of this school
wrote a love letter to Nirankar which
somehow fell in the hands of deceased-
Rakesh and P.W.2- Smt. Girja Malviya
having seen the letter called and scolded
Nirankar and Sanjeev @ Sanju. Sanjeev
asked deceased- Rakesh to handover that
letter to him or to face the consequences.
However, deceased- Rakesh did not give
the letter to appellant and on the basis of
this enmity appellant along with one other
person committed the murder of deceased
on 24.07.2004 at 8:00 P.M. when deceased
was returning home after getting two bags
of ''morang' on his bicycle.

P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya in
his statement has specifically stated that
only enmity of appellant with his family
was due to the love letter, which was
written by a girl student of his school to
Nirankar and Sanjeev. He also stated that
Rakesh after showing this letter to his
sister- Girja Malviya kept it with him and
did not give this letter to Sanjeev and it was
for this letter that Sanjeev has committed
his murder. In his cross-examination, this
witness has stated that he did not see the
letter himself and his wife Girja Malviya
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
told him about this letter and it was only on
this basis, he has stated that the letter was
written to both Sanjeev and Nirankar.

P.W.2- Smt. Girja Malviya in her
statement has also corroborated the fact of
writing a letter to Sanjeev and Nirankar by
a girl student of class-8th of her school. She
has also stated that after reading the letter
she scolded Nirankar and Sanjeev and
Sanjeev threatened her brother of dire
consequences if the letter is not handed
over to him. In her cross-examination, she
has stated that she did not provide that
letter to the investigating officer as her
brother kept the same with him.

P.W.3- Saurabh Malviya has also
stated of getting the information of this
letter from her mother P.W.2- Girja
Malviya and also that he himself had not
seen the letter.

P.W.8- Sub-Insepctor Ram Pal
Singh has also stated that no letter was
given
to
him
by
anyone
during
investigation,
however,
P.W.2
Girja
Malviya informed him about this letter
which was written to Nirankar. He also
stated that he did not record the statement
of the girl student.

A perusal of the evidence of
above witnesses would reveal that P.W.1-
Shyam Sundar Malviya, who is the brotherin-law of the deceased- Rakesh has never
seen the love letter which was written by a
girl student of his school to Nirankar and
Sanjeev and also that the love letter which
was intercepted by deceased- Rakesh was
either seen by the deceased or it was read
by P.W.2- Girja Malviya, who was the
Principal of the school, where the girl was
studying. It has also come in the evidence
that deceased- Rakesh after showing the
letter to his sister, kept the same with him.
So there is no evidence on record which
may suggest that any letter was provided to
P.W.2- Girja Malviya by deceased- Rakesh.
Perusal of the memo prepared by the
investigating officer of the belongings of
the deceased found at the place of
occurrence would also reveal that no such
letter has been found either with the
deceased or in his belongings which were
scattered on the spot. Therefore, this
possibility could not be ruled out that
deceased himself had kept the letter
somewhere or the same could have been
taken
away
by
the
appellant
after
commission of the offence. It has been
categorically
stated
by
prosecution
witnesses that apart from this letter, there
was no enmity of any kind with the
appellant and the deceased- Rakesh has
done to death only due to this letter.

16. It is also pertinent to mention here
that the appellant in his statement recorded
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has also
stated that he has been falsely implicated in
this case due to enmity but he has not
specified as to what enmity he was having
with the deceased. Instant case is based on
the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses
P.W.1- Shyam Sundar Malviya and P.W.3-
Saurabh Malviya, who have claimed to
have seen the occurrence and have also
claimed to have identified the appellant in
the light of the electric bulb which was
lighting on the electric pole near the place
of occurrence and also in the moonlight.
Since the case is based on eye-witness
account, hence motive is not of much
significance,
but
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, it is evident that
the prosecution has been able to prove that
a letter was written by a girl student of
class-8th of the school to appellant and
Nirankar and the same was intercepted by
deceased- Rakesh. P.W.2- Girja Malviya
scolded
Sanjeev
and
Nirankar
and
appellant- Sanjeev thereafter threatened the
deceased to handover the letter or to face
3-5 All. Sanjeev @ Sanju Vs. State of U.P.
483
the consequences. In our considered
opinion, this was sufficient motive for the
appellant to commit crime.

17. It has been overwhelmingly
argued by learned counsel for the appellant
that all the witnesses of the prosecution are
related to each other and also to the
deceased and, therefore, there testimony
could not be believed in absence of
independent witnesses.

The law with regard to the
submission made by learned counsel for the
appellant pertaining to the appreciation of
evidence of related or interested witnesses
is no more res-integra.Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati
Venkat
Reddy
and
Ors.,
MANU/SC/0897/2013 has held as under :-

"11.
It
is
a
settled
legal
proposition that the evidence of closely
related witnesses is required to be carefully
scrutinised and appreciated before any
conclusion is made to rest upon it,
regarding the convict/accused in a given
case. Thus, the evidence cannot be
disbelieved merely on the ground that the
witnesses are related to each other or to the
deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of
truth to it, is cogent, credible and
trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be
relied upon.(Vide: Bhagaloo Lodh and Anr.
v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0700/2011 : AIR
2011 SC 2292; and Dhari and Ors. v. State
of U.P. MANU/SC/0848/2012 : AIR 2013
SC 308).

In State of Rajasthan v. Smt.
Kalki and Anr. MANU/SC/0254/1981 :
AIR 1981 SC 1390, it has been held as
under:

"5A. As mentioned above the
High Court has declined to rely on the
evidence of P.W. 1 on two grounds: (1) she
was a "highly interested" witness because
she "is the wife of the deceased"......For, in
the circumstances of the case, she was the
only and most natural witness; she was the
only person present in the hut with the
deceased at the time of the occurrence, and
the only person who saw the occurrence.
True it is she is the wife of the deceased;
but she cannot be called an 'interested'
witness. She is related to the deceased.
'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested. A
witness may be called 'interested' only
when he or she derives some benefit from
the result of a litigation; in the decree in a
civil case, or in seeing an accused person
punished. A witness who is a natural one
and is the only possible eye witness in the
circumstances of a case cannot be said to
be 'interested'. In the instant case P.W.