# Satish Kumar Verma (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 34
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-09-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2750 of 2017
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Raj Beer Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satish-kumar-verma-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-45230
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Evidence Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 3- Circumstantial Evidence- No
eye witness of the alleged incident of
murder of the deceased- In a case based
on
circumstantial
evidence,
Court
is
required
to
evaluate
circumstantial
evidence to see that the chain of events
have
been
established
clearly
and
completely to rule out any reasonable
likelihood of innocence of the accused.

It is well established that in a case based on
circumstantial evidence the prosecution must
fully complete the link of circumstances which
must lead to the inescapable conclusion of the
guilt of the accused.

Evidence Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Conduct- There is absolutely nothing to
indicate that the witnesses had tried to
catch hold the accused appellants. It
appears against natural human conduct
that after committing the murder of the
deceased, the accused appellants would
wait at the door of their house till 6 a.m.
and
when
suddenly
these
witnesses
reached there, they would run away from
there and that said witnesses would not
try to get them caught. The deceased had
three children, who were residing with the
deceased at the time of incident. The
Investigating Officer did not record any
statement of these children. It is one of
the settled proposition of law that the
prosecution must led its best evidence but
in the instant case, it is quite apparent
that the prosecution has not examined
any of the person residing in the said
premises where the incident had taken
place.

Where the conduct of the witnesses of the
prosecution is unnatural and unlikely and their
testimony regarding the conduct of the accused
is also unnatural and unbelievable and the
prosecution has failed to collect any direct
evidence, which would be the best evidence,
then the story of the prosecution is rendered
artificial and improbable.

Evidence Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 8- Motive- The prosecution has
succeeded in proving that the accusedappellants have motive to commit the
murder of the deceased- In a case based
on
circumstantial
evidence,
motive
assumes importance and it holds one of
the
link
in
chain
of
circumstances,
however, failure to prove motive is not
fatal by itself. No doubt prosecution has
proved motive but sole evidence of motive
would hardly be sufficient to sustain
conviction.

Motive is one of the links in the chain of
circumstances but where the prosecution proves
the motive but fails in establishing the

## Text

_Characters 0–39,860 of 55,763. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39860 for what follows._

34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

41. In the absence of any document in
reference to Section 94 (2) (i) & (ii) of Act,
2015, this Court of necessity has to rely upon
the medical report dated 18.9.2020, submitted
by the Medical Board, K.G.M.U, Lucknow.

42. Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, learned
counsel for informant had disputed the above
noted medical report and also urged before us
that one member of Board should be
summoned by this Court for cross-examination
as the medical report alone is not sufficient to
determine the age and this Court is not denuded
of its powers to itself examine the issue.

43. We were impressed by aforesaid
submission at the first flush particularly in the
light of observations made in Mukarrab and
Others (Supra) wherein the Court rejected the
age determination report prepared by All India
Institute of Medical Sciences (AIMS) New
Delhi, but upon deeper scrutiny, we do not find
any force in this submission. The facts in
Mukarrab's case were very clinching which is
not the case here. In the present case, excpet for
the fact that accused-appellant was issued a gun
license on 24.7.1982 which is after the date of
occurrence i.e. 20.7.1982, nothing else has been
brought on record. The same may create a
suspicion. But Suspicion howsoever strong
cannot take the place of proof. Perusal of the
objections filed by informant does not indicate
the grounds on which the member of the
Medical Board is sought to be examined and
secondly, no such material has been appended
along with the objections file by informant on
the basis of which prima facie we could feel
satisfied to summon a member of Medical
Board. We accordingly, negate the submission
urged by learned counsel for informant to
summon a member of Medical Board for crossexamination.

44. Having dealt with the conflicting
claims
of
the
parties,
the
swinging
circumstances of the case and the law as laid
down Mukarrab and Others (Supra), we find
that the medical report dated 18.9.2020 is
worthy of acceptance, wherein the age of
accused-appellant-2 Ram Vijai Singh has been
determined as 40-55 years on date. The
occurrence took place on 20.7.1982 i.e. 38
years ago .When age of accused-appellant-2
Ram Vijai Singh is determined on all
hypothetical calculations i.e. (55-38=17 years)
(40-38= 2 years) and taking the average of
difference between maximum and minimum
age i.e. 48-38 = 10 years, then the age of
accused-appellant-2 Ram Vijai Singh falls
below 17 years.

45. In view of the discussion made above,
the inescapable conclusion is that application
filed by accused-appellant-2 Ram Vijai Singh,
claiming himself to be a juvenile on the date of
occurrence i.e. on 20.7.1982 has to be allowed.
Accordingly, the same is allowed. Accusedappellant-2 Ram Vijai Singh is declared to be a
juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e. on
20.7.1982.

46. We make no order as to costs.
----------
(2020)10ILR A34
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.09.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2750 of 2017
Connected with
Criminal Appeal No. 4186 of 2012

Satish Kumar Verma ...Appellant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel
for
the
Appellant:
10 All. Satish Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
35
Sri V.P. Srivastava, Sri Lav Srivastava, Sri
Rashtrapati Khare, Sri Vishesh Kumar
Gupta, Sri G.K. Gupta

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri Braham Singh, Sri Susheel Kr.
Tiwari

Evidence Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 3- Circumstantial Evidence- No
eye witness of the alleged incident of
murder of the deceased- In a case based
on
circumstantial
evidence,
Court
is
required
to
evaluate
circumstantial
evidence to see that the chain of events
have
been
established
clearly
and
completely to rule out any reasonable
likelihood of innocence of the accused.

It is well established that in a case based on
circumstantial evidence the prosecution must
fully complete the link of circumstances which
must lead to the inescapable conclusion of the
guilt of the accused.

Evidence Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Conduct- There is absolutely nothing to
indicate that the witnesses had tried to
catch hold the accused appellants. It
appears against natural human conduct
that after committing the murder of the
deceased, the accused appellants would
wait at the door of their house till 6 a.m.
and
when
suddenly
these
witnesses
reached there, they would run away from
there and that said witnesses would not
try to get them caught. The deceased had
three children, who were residing with the
deceased at the time of incident. The
Investigating Officer did not record any
statement of these children. It is one of
the settled proposition of law that the
prosecution must led its best evidence but
in the instant case, it is quite apparent
that the prosecution has not examined
any of the person residing in the said
premises where the incident had taken
place.

Where the conduct of the witnesses of the
prosecution is unnatural and unlikely and their
testimony regarding the conduct of the accused
is also unnatural and unbelievable and the
prosecution has failed to collect any direct
evidence, which would be the best evidence,
then the story of the prosecution is rendered
artificial and improbable.

Evidence Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 8- Motive- The prosecution has
succeeded in proving that the accusedappellants have motive to commit the
murder of the deceased- In a case based
on
circumstantial
evidence,
motive
assumes importance and it holds one of
the
link
in
chain
of
circumstances,
however, failure to prove motive is not
fatal by itself. No doubt prosecution has
proved motive but sole evidence of motive
would hardly be sufficient to sustain
conviction.

Motive is one of the links in the chain of
circumstances but where the prosecution proves
the motive but fails in establishing the other
circumstances, then conviction of the accused
cannot be secured only on the basis of motive.

Evidence Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872-
Section 106 Evidence Act- It is not the
case that only the appellant Satish and the
deceased were residing together when the
alleged incident took place. There is no
evidence that deceased was last seen
alive along with the appellants inside her
room. As noticed earlier, Section 106 of
the Evidence Act, is not intended to shift
the burden of proof on the accused but to
take care of situations where a fact is
known only to accused.

Where the prosecution has failed to establish
that the facts were especially within the
knowledge of the accused, then the burden
under Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot
be pressed into service.
The
circumstances
relied
upon
by
the
prosecution are not of conclusive nature and
chain of circumstances is not complete. The
circumstances are not totally inconsistent with
the innocence of accused-appellants-If two
views are possible on the evidence adduced in
the case, one pointing to the guilt of accused
and the other to his innocence, the view which
is favourable to the accused should be adopted.
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Criminal Appeals Allowed.(Para 27. 35, 36,
37, 39, 40, 41, 45) (E-3)

Case Law relied upon:-

1. Hanumant Vs The St. of M.P, [1952] 3 SCR
1091

2. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs St. of Maha, AIR
1984 SC 1622

3. C. Chenga Reddy & ors Vs St. of A.P, AIR
1996 SC 3390

4. St. of U.P. Vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava,
[(1992) 2 SCC 86]

5. Varkey Joseph Vs St. of Kerala,AIR 1993 SC
1892

6. Shambhu Nath Mehra Vs St. of Ajmer 1956
SCR 199

7. St. of Raj. Vs Kanshi Ram, JT 2006 (12) SCC
254

8. P. Mani Vs St. of T.N (2006) 3 SCC 161

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

1. The above two criminal appeals have
been preferred against the judgment and order
dated 4.9.2012 passed by Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Moradabad in
S.T. No. 1094 of 2008 convicting and
sentencing the appellants Satish Kumar Verma
and Rinki Verma @ Poonam Verma under
section 302/34 I.P.C. for imprisonment of life
and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine one year further R.I.

2. As the above mentioned two criminal
appeals have been preferred against the same
judgment and order, hence the same are heard
and decided together by this common
judgment.

3. The prosecution case as emerges out
from the F.I.R. is that a written report was given
by one Girish Verma (hereinafter referred to as
'the informant') to the concerned police station
alleging that his sister, namely, Smt. Manju
Verma (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased')
was married to appellant Satish Kumar Verma
resident of Parsadi Lal Road Chowk, Tadi
Khana, police station Civil Line, District
Moradabad and from their wedlock two sons an
d one daughter were born. One Rinki Verma
wife of Sanjay @ Banti resident of Buddhi
Vihar,
police
station
Majhola,
district
Moradabad started visiting his sister's house and
gradually illicit relationship was developed
between the husband of the deceased, namely,
Satish Verma and Rinki Verma. When, his sister
objected to the said relationship, his sister's
husband had consoled his sister that there is no
illicit relationship between them and she was
engaged for making silver neckless and,
therefore, she may be allowed to stay at their
residence. His sister being an innocent lady
believed her husband and kept quiet but their
illicit relationship did not stop, hence his sister
had told about the said illicit relationship of her
husband and Rinki Verma to her family
members on which her family members made a
complaint to the police officials and on
interrogation being made about the said fact
from Satish Kumar Verma and Rinki Verma
both of them denied the illicit relationship and
Satish Kumar Verma admitted that from now
Rinki would not come to his house nor he
would go to her house. After 15 days of the said
compromise, Satish Verma disappeared along
with Rinki Verma and after two months it was
disclosed that both of them were illegally living
as husband and wife at Amroha. On pressure
being made on the family members of Rinki
Verma, the brother of Rinki Verma brought
them back at Moradabad. Satish again
promised to live with his wife-the deceased.
Thereafter Satish kept a condition before his
sister whether she wants to live with him or
with her family members on which his sister
got ready to live with her husband, hence his
10 All. Satish Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
37
sister's husband kept informant's sister and
Rinki Verma together at the house situated at
Line Par where Rinki Verma used to take all
household work from his sister and treat her
like a servant and also used to torture her. Four
days prior to the incident, Satish Verma at the
behest of his sister had left his sister and her
children at the house situated at Tadi Khana and
after three days when her husband did not come
then on 3.5.2008 his sister had gone to the
house of Rinki Verma situated at Line Par to
call Satish Verma. In the night at 10:30 p.m.,
Satish Verma and Rinki Verma both came to the
house of his sister situated at Tadi Khana and
assaulted her. An information about the said fact
was received by the informant, hence on
4.5.2008 at 6 a.m. in the morning the informant
along with Suraj Gupta resident of Buddhi
Vihar, police station Majhola and Chandra
Prakash Varshney resident of Jayantipur police
station Majhola went to the house of his sister
and when he reached there, he met Satish
Verma and Rinki Verma at the door and when
he asked about his sister then they told him that
he can go upstairs to meet his sister and when
the informant along with his companions went
upstairs, then he saw his sister Manju Verma
lying on the double bed and after tilting her he
found her to be dead. The informant further
stated that Satish Verma and Rinki Verma
together in order to eliminate his sister from
their way had killed her so that they may not be
interrupted in their relationship. In the
meanwhile, Satish Verma and Rinki Verma fled
away when he went upstairs

4. On the basis of the said written
report (Ex. Ka-3) an F.I.R. was registered at
police station Civil Line on 4.5.2008 at
7:30
a.m.
by
the
Constable
clerk
Ghanshyam Rathi and chik F.I.R. was
prepared by him in his hand writing and
signature marked as Ex. Ka-5, as case
crime no. 383 of 2008 under section 302
I.P.C. which was also endorsed in the G.D.
which has been proved as Ex. Ka-6. The
investigation of the case was entrusted to
Inspector Kavindra Narain Mishra of police
station Civil Line, who recorded the
statement
of
the
Constable
clerk
Ghanshyam Rathi and the informant Girsih
Verma and thereafter he visited the place of
occurrence for spot inspection and at the
instance of the witnesses he prepared the
site plan (Ex. Ka-9) in his hand writing and
signature. The inquest on the dead body of
the deceased was conducted under the
supervision of Station Officer of Manila
Thana, namely, Lokesh Sharan, who was
called for the said purpose. The inquest
report was prepared by Lokesh Sharan in
the presence of the family members of the
deceased Manju Verma and other persons.
She proved the inquest report (Ex. Ka-4) in
her hand writing and signature and further
prepared the relevant documents with
respect to the same such as, letter to R.I.
(Ex. Ka-10), letter to C.M.O. (Ex. Ka-11),
seal sample (Ex. Ka-12), Photo Nash (Ex.
Ka-13, Challan Nash (Ex. Ka-14) which
were also proved by her. Thereafter the
dead body was sealed and handed over to
Constable Manohar Singh and Constable
Geeta Chaudhary along with relevant
document for being sent to mortuary for
conducting post mortem of the deceased.
The post mortem of the deceased was
conducted on 4.5.2008 at 2:20 p.m. by Dr.
Rajendra Singh, who found three ante
mortem injuries on the dead body of the
deceased and as per the post mortem report,
the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of
throttling.
The
Investigating
Officer
arrested the accused appellants on 4.5.2008
and recorded their statements. He further
recorded the statement of the witnesses of
inquest and also collected photograph from
the informant (material Ex. Ka-1). The said
photograph relating to marriage of Rinki
Verma and Satish Verma. He also took on
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
record the compromise entered into on
17.10.2007 between Satish Kumar Verma,
Manju Verma and Rinki Verma which also
was handed over by the informant to him.
He also recorded the statement under
section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses,
namely, Kamalavati, Vedprakash Verma
and Suraj Gupta and thereafter submitted
charge-sheet against the accused appellants
before the competent court and the same
has been marked as Ex. Ka-8.

5. The case was committed to the court
of Sessions on 28.8.2008 by the C.J.M.
Moradabad.

6. The trial court on 12.9.2008 framed
charges against the two appellants Satish
Kumar Verma and Rinki Verma under
section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C.,
who denied the charges and claimed their
trial.

7. The prosecution in support of its case
has examined P.W. 1-the Informant Girish
Verma, P.W.2-Suraj Gupta, P.W. 3-Constable
Ghanshyam Rathi, P.W. 4-Chandra Prakash
Vashney, P.W. 5-Dr. Rajendra Singh, P.W. 6Police
Inspector
Rakesh
Vashishtha
Investigating Officer, P.W. 7-Police Inspector
Kavindra Narain Mishra.

8. Both the appellants were examined
under section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they
denied the prosecution evidence. The accused
appellant Satish Kumar Verma has taken a
plea that the deceased Manju Verma has
some land dispute with her brother Girish
Verma and her mother and due to the fear of
Girish, he had left his house and was not
residing at the house situated at Tadikhana.

9. Accused-appellant Rinki Verma has
taken the plea that she was not present at the
spot.

10. In defence evidence, one Sanjiv
Kumar Verma, who is brother of accusedappellant Satish Kumar Verma, has been
examined as D.W.-1.

11. After hearing and analyzing the
evidence on record, both the accusedappellants were convicted and sentenced by
the trial court as stated in opening part of this
judgment.

12. Being aggrieved, the accusedappellant Satish Kumar Verma and Rinki
Verma @ Poonam Verma have preferred Crl.
Appeal Nos. 2750 of 2017 and 4186 of 2012
respectively.

13. Heard Sri G.K. Gupta, learned
counsel for the appellant and Km. Meena,
learned A.G.A. for the State. No one
appeared on behalf of the complainant.

14. In evidence, P.W. 1 Girish Verma,
who is brother of the deceased Manju Verma,
has stated that the marriage of his sister
Manju Verma with accused-appellant Satish
Kumar Verma had taken place on 24.6.1994
and out of that wedlock, they were blessed
with three children. About seven months prior
to incident, appellant Rinki Verma started
coming to the house of his sister and
meanwhile accused-appellant Satish Kumar
Verma developed physical relations with
Rinki Verma while the deceased Manju
Verma used to object the same. P.W. 1 Girish
further stated that regarding the illicit
relations of accused persons, a complaint was
made to the police and accused Satish had
promised that now the accused Rinki Verma
would not visit his house. This statement (Ex.
Ka-1) was signed by both the accusedappellants as well as by P.W. 1 Girish Verma.
After that for some time, accused appellant
Satish and deceased Manju Verma stayed
together. On the day of Karwachauth, the
10 All. Satish Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
39
accused Satish Kumar Verma had taken Rinki
Verma to Amroha and they started residing
there at a rental house. P.W. 1 Girish and his
family members made pressure on the family
members of Rinki Verma and consequently
they called back Rinki and Satish Verma
again promised that now he reside with the
deceased Manju Verma and he has given
written undertaking (Ex. Ka-2) to this effect
before the police. Thereafter Satish Kumar
Verma and the deceased Manju Verma started
residing at the house situated at Line Par,
Moradabad but later on Rinki Verma also he
started living there and both the accused used
to beat the deceased. Thereafter, Satish left
the deceased at the house situated at Tadi
Khana and started residing with Rinki Verma
at Line Par house. When Satish Verma did
not return at his house at Tadi Khana for
several days, the deceased Manju Verma
went to the house at Line Par to call him then
Satish promised that he would come in the
night. On the night of 3/4.5.2008, Satish and
Rinki came at the house of deceased at
Tadikhana and they did beatings with her.
The deceased informed to P.W. 1 Girish about
this incident on telephone. On 4.5.2008 at
about 6 a.m., when P.W. 1 Girish along with
Suraj Gupta (P.W. 2) and Chandra Prakash
Varshney (P.W. 4) reached at the house of the
deceased situated at Tadi Khana and knocked
the door, Satish opened the door and Rinki
was also standing near the staircase. When
P.W. 1 Girish enquired about the deceased,
Satish told him that she is at upstairs and he
can meet her there. When P.W. 1 Girish
reached there he saw that his sister was lying
dead on her bed. P.W. 1 Girish stated that
Satish and Rinki had committed the murder
of the deceased by strangulating her as they
wanted to eliminate her so that there may not
be any hindrance in their illicit relationship.
P.W. 1 Girish reported the murder to police
by submitting Tehrir (Ex. Ka-3) and after that
police reached at the spot and prepared the
inquest report (Ex. Ka-4).

15. P.W. 2 Suraj Gupta has stated that
on 4.5.2008 he along with Girish Verma
and Chandra Prakash Varshney had gone at
Tadi Khana at the house of sister of Girish
Verma. The accused Satish Kumar Verma
met at the door whereas Rinki was standing
near the staircase and when they enquired
about the deceased, Satish told that they
could see her at upstairs and when they
reached at the room situated at upstairs,
they saw that the deceased was lying dead
on her bed. When they came back on the
ground floor they saw that both the accused
Satish and Rinki had fled away.

16. Similarly, P.W. 4 Chandra Prakash
Varshney has stated that about quarter to
two or two years back he along with Girish
Verma and Suraj Gupta had gone at the
house of Satish Verma situated at Tadi
Khana and when they reached at the door
of the house, Satish and Rinki Verma met at
the door and when they enquired about
Manju, they told that she is at upstairs and
they can see her there. When he along with
Girish and Suraj reached there, they saw
that the deceased was lying dead at her bed
and when they came down they saw that
both the accused Satish and Rinki had
already fled away. P.W. 4 has further stated
that the police have conducted the inquest
proceeding before him and he has signed
the inquest report (Ex. Ka-4).

17. P.W. 3 Constable Ghanshyam
Rathi has recorded the F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-5)
and G.D. entry (Ex. Ka-6).

18. P.W. 5 Dr. Rajendra Singh has
conducted the post mortem on the dead
body of the deceased Manju Verma vide
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
post mortem report (Ex. Ka-7), the
deceased has received following injuries.

"1. Lacerated wound 0.5 cm. x
0.5 cm. muscle deep on left side of upper
lip.1. cm. medial from angle of mouth.

2. Multiple abrasions, contusions
in area 11 cm. x. 4 cm. on both side of neck
and front of neck 5.5 cm. below from chin,
underneath echymosis present.

3. Contusion 2 x. 1 cm. on front
of right forearm, 3 cm. below the elbow
joint."

19. The cause of death of death was
asphyxia as a result of throttling.

20. P.W.7 Kavindra Narain Mishra
has conducted the investigation. He stated
that inquest proceedings were conducted
and documents Ex. Ka 10 to 14 were
prepared. He also prepared the site plan of
spot (Ex. Ka-9).

21.

P.W.
6
Inspector
Rakesh
Vashishtha
has
conducted
further
investigation and has filed charge-sheet
(Ex. Ka-8).

22. D.W. 1 Sanjiv Kumar Verma has
stated that his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Manju
Verma has died on 4.5.2008. He stated that
he heard some noise at 6 a.m. and when he
came on the ground floor, he saw that the
deceased was lying in Verandah and many
persons were present there. The police have
also reached there. D.W. 1 Sanjiv further
stated that at the time of incident, his
brother Satish Kumar Verma used to reside
at the house situated at Line Par whereas
the deceased was residing in the room
situated in front of his room at upstairs. On
the night of 3/4.5.2008, the deceased was
not present at her room and that on
3.5.2008, he has seen that the deceased was
going with Girish at 7-8 p.m. and she did
not return at night. Satish also did not
return in the night. He further stated that
there was no dispute between Satish and
the deceased and when he enquired from
the deceased as to why Satish is residing
separately, the deceased told him that her
father had a house at Rishikesh which was
sold by Girish Verma and he had
misappropriated the sale proceeds and
when Satish demanded the share from
Girish he has refused and due to this reason
some altercation had taken place between
Satish and Girish and due to fear of Girish,
Satish started residing at Line Par. D.W. 1
has stated that there was no dispute
between Satish and the deceased. He
further stated that the deceased was
suffering from fits of epilepsy.

23. Learned counsel for the appellants
has vehemently argued that there is no eye
witness of the incident and that as per the
prosecution
only
circumstance
shown
against the accused-appellants is that on the
morning of 4.5.2008 when P.W. 1, 2 and 4
have gone at the house of deceased, they
were seen at the door of the house of the
deceased and thereafter both the accusedappellants had fled away, however, this
circumstance is not established. It was
stated that the version of P.W. 1, 2 and 4 is
highly improbable and unreliable and it
appears that they have concocted a false
story that they have seen both the accused
persons at the door of house of the
deceased. Thus, this circumstance relied by
the prosecution has not been established. It
was further submitted that there are
material contradictions and inconsistency
in the statements of P.W. 1, 2 and 4. P.W. 1
Girish has stated that when he along P.W. 2
and 4 reached at the house of the deceased,
he knocked the door on which Satish had
opened the door and Rinki was standing
10 All. Satish Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
41
near the staircase whereas P.W. 2 Suraj
Gupta and P.W. 4 Chandra Prakash
Varshney have stated that when they
reached at the house of the deceased, both
the accused-appellants Satish and Rinki
met at the door and thus P.W. 2 and 4 have
not stated that they knocked at the door or
the door was opened by accused Satish. It
was further stated that from the statement
of D.W. 1 Sanjiv Kumar Verma, it is clear
that there was no dispute between the
deceased and appellant Satish Kumar
Verma thus there is no motive on the part of
the accused-appellants to commit the
murder of the deceased. Learned counsel
for the appellants further submitted that the
deceased had three children, who were
living with the deceased but none of them
has been examined and, therefore, the
prosecution has not led its best evidence.
He
submitted
that
the
chain
of
circumstances is not complete and the
prosecution version that both the accusedappellants were seen at the door of the
house, is highly improbable and unreliable.
Thus, the trial court has not considered the
evidence
in
correct
prospective
and
committed manifest error while convicting
and sentencing the accused-appellants.

24. Per contra, it has been submitted
by learned State counsel that though there
is no eye witness of the alleged incident but
there is strong circumstantial evidence
against
the
accused-appellants.
The
deceased was wife of accused-appellant
Satish Kumar Verma and there is evidence
that on the night of incident, the deceased
told P.W. 1 Girish Kumar Verma on
telephone that on the intervening night of
3/4.5.2008, both the accused-appellants had
come there and assaulted her. There is
sufficient and reliable evidence that both
the accused-appellants were having illicit
relationship which was being objected by
the deceased and thus both the accusedappellants had strong motive to commit the
murder of the deceased in order to remove
the hindrance in their illicit relationship.
Learned State Counsel further submitted
that the version of P.W. 1 Girish Kumar
Verma that when he along with P.W. 2 and
4 reached at the house of the deceased, both
the appellants have met there at the door
and that Satish told him that the deceased is
at upstairs and after that both the accusedappellants fled away, has been amply
corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 2 and
4. It was stated that there is strong
circumstantial
evidence
against
the
appellants and the conviction of the
accused-appellants is based on evidence.

25. We have considered the rival
submissions and perused the record.

26. In the instant case there is no eye
witness of the alleged incident of murder of
the deceased. The case is based on
circumstantial evidence.

27. It is well settled that conviction
can be based on circumstantial evidence
alone but for that prosecution must
establish chain of circumstances, which
consistently points to the accused and
accused alone and is inconsistent with
his/their innocence. It is further essential
for the prosecution to cogently and firmly
establish the circumstances from which
inference of guilt of accused is to be drawn.
These circumstances then have to be taken
into consideration cumulatively. They must
be complete to conclude that within all
human probability, accused and none else
have committed the offence.

28. In case of Hanurnant v. The
State of Madhya Pradesh, [1952] 3 SCR
1091 the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fundamental and basic principles for
appreciating the circumstantial evidence.
The Hon'ble Court observed:

"It is well to remember that in
cases
where
the
evidence
is
of
a
circumstantial nature, the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should in the first instance be fully
established and all the facts so established
should
be
consistent
only
with
the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
Again the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency and they
should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be
proved. In other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of
the accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act
must have been done by the accused."

29. In a landmark judgment of
Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1984 SC 1622, Court held as under:-

"152. A close analysis of this
decision would show that the following
conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully
established:

(1) the circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn
should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this
Court indicated that the circumstances
concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be
' established. There is not only a
grammatical
but
a
legal
distinction
between 'may be proved' and 'must be or
should be proved as was held by this court
in Shivaji Sahebaro Bobade V State of
Maharashtra 1973 CriLJ1783 where the
following observations were made:

Certainly, it is primary principle
that the accused must be and not merely
may be guilty before a Court can convict,
and the mental distance between 'may be'
and 'must be' is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions.

(2) the facts so established should
be consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accuses, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

(3) the circumstances should be
of a conclusive nature and tendency.

(4) they should exclude every
possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of
evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by
the accused.

153. These five golden principles,
if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel
of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence".

30. In Joseph vs. State of Kerala,
[(2000) 5 SCC 197], the court has
explained
under
what
circumstances
conviction
can
be based
purely
on
circumstantial evidence. It observed:-

16. "it is often said that though
witnesses may lie, circumstances will not,
but at the same time it must cautiously be
scrutinized to see that the incriminating
circumstances are such as to lead only to a
hypothesis of guilt and reasonably exclude
every possibility of innocence of the
accused. There can also be no hard and
fast rule as to the appreciation of evidence
10 All. Satish Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
43
in a case and being always an exercise
pertaining to arriving at a finding of fact
the same has to be in the manner
necessitated or warranted by the peculiar
facts and circumstances of each case. The
whole effort and endeavor in the case
should be to find out whether the crime was
committed
by
the
accused
and
the
circumstances proved form themselves into
a complete chain unerringly pointing to the
guilt of the accused."

31. In C. Chenga Reddy and others
v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC
3390, the Court has held:-

"In a case based on circumstantial
evidence,
the
settled
law
is
that
the
circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such
circumstances must be conclusive in nature.
Moreover, all the circumstances should be
complete and there should be no gap left in the
chain of evidence. Further, the proved
circumstances must be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally
inconsistent with his innocence."

32. The similar principle was reiterated in
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12
SCC 254, Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan
(2002) 1 SCC 731, State of Maharashtra v.
Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 and State of Tamil
Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679, Padala
Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (AIR
1990 SC 79), Vijay Shankar Vs. State of
Haryana, reported in (2015) 12 SCC 644, Raja
@ Rajinder Vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 11
SCC 43 and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj
Kumar, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 69.

33. In State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar
Srivastava, [(1992) 2 SCC 86], it was pointed
out that great care must be taken in evaluating
circumstantial evidence and if evidence relied
on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the
one in favour of accused must be accepted. It
was also pointed out that circumstances relied
upon must be found to have been fully
established and cumulative effect of all the facts
so established must be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt.

34. In Varkey Joseph Vs. State of
Kerala, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1892, the
Court held that suspicion cannot take place of
proof. In Paragraph 12 of the judgment, Court
concluded as under:-

"12.
Suspicion
is
not
the
substitute for proof. There is a long
distance between 'may be true' and 'must be
true' and the prosecution has to travel all
the way to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubt. We have already seen
that the prosecution not only has not
proved its case but palpably produced false
evidence and the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove its case against the
appellant let alone beyond all reasonable
doubt that the appellant and he alone
committed the offence. We had already
allowed the appeal and acquitted him by
our order dated April 12, 1993 and set the
appellant at liberty which we have little
doubt that it was carried out by date. The
appeal is allowed and the appellant stands
acquitted of the offence under S. 302, IPC"

35. The principle that emerges from
the above discussed decisions is that in a
case based on circumstantial evidence,
Court is required to evaluate circumstantial
evidence to see that the chain of events
have
been
established
clearly
and
completely to rule out any reasonable
likelihood of innocence of the accused.
Needless to say whether the chain is
complete or not would depend on the facts
of each case emanating from the evidence
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and no universal yardstick should ever be
attempted it should be tested on the
touchstone of law relating to circumstantial
evidence laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court. It is essential for the prosecution to
cogently
and
firmly
establish
the
circumstances from which inference of
guilt of accused is to be drawn. These
circumstances then have to be taken into
consideration cumulatively. They must be
complete to conclude that within all human
probability, the accused and none else have
committed the offence.

36. Keeping in view the above
discussed
legal
position
regarding
circumstantial evidence, in the instant case
it may be seen that the prosecution has
heavily relied on the alleged circumstance
that about three four days prior to the
alleged
incident
both
the
accusedappellants have left the deceased at the
house situated at Tadi Khana and both the
accused persons started residing at the
house situated at Line Par, Moradabad and
when the appellant Satish did not visit the
house at Tadi Khana for three days, on
3.5.2008, the deceased gone at his house at
Line Par to call him and accused Satish
Verma told her that he would visit his
house at Tadi Khana in the night.
Thereafter in the night on 3.5.2008 both the
accused-appellants came there and beaten
the deceased and in this regard, the
deceased had informed her brother-P.W. 1
Girish Kumar Verma on telephone. It is
further the case of the prosecution that on
4.5.2008 when P.W. 1, 2 and 4 reached at
the house of the deceased at Tadi Khana,
both the accused met at the door and when
they enquired about the deceased Manju,
accused Satish told that she is on the
upstairs and when he along with P.W. 2 and
4 reached there, they saw that the deceased
was lying dead on her bed. In this regard, it
may be seen that the prosecution has not
filed any record of call details of telephones
in order to show that on the night of
3.5.2008, the deceased had made any
telephonic call to P.W. 1 Girish Kumar
Verma. Further in his statement, P.W. 1
Girish has stated that after reaching at the
house of the deceased, he knocked the door
and thereafter the door was opened by
accused Satish whereas P.W. 2 and 4 have
not stated anything regarding knocking of
the door and they simply stated that both
the accused-appellants were present at the
door. The statement of these witnesses, that
when they reached there both the accused
persons were standing at the door and after
finding the deceased was lying dead at
upstairs when the witnesses came down,
the accused appellants have fled away from
there, appears to be a some what
improbable
and
artificial.
There
is
absolutely nothing to indicate that these
witnesses had tried to catch hold the
accused appellants. It appears against
natural
human
conduct
that
after
committing the murder of the deceased, the
accused appellants would wait at the door
of their house till 6 a.m. and when suddenly
these witnesses reached there, they would
run away from there and that said witnesses
would not try to get them caught.

37. One of the important aspect in the
matter is that the Investigating Officer-P.W.
6 Rakesh Vashishtha has stated in his cross
examination that the deceased had three
children, who were residing with the
deceased at the time of incident. P.W. 1
Girish had also stated that the deceased had
three children. However, surprisingly the
Investigating Officer did not record any
statement of these children. In the site plan
of the spot two rooms have been shown at
upstairs, one room has been shown of
deceased and another room has been shown
10 All. Satish Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P.
45
of D.W. 1 Sanjiv Kumar Verma and
between these two rooms there is an open
space. Doors of both the rooms are
opposite to each other. From the site plan it
appears that the deceased was residing only
in one room and as her children were
residing with her, thus naturally they might
have also been residing in the same room
and, therefore, these children were most
important witnesses to state as to how the
incident had taken place but surprisingly,
the Investigating Officer did not record any
statement of these three children. It is not
so that the children were infant and due to
this reason, their statement could not be
recorded and no such fact has been brought
on record. P.W. 1 Girish has stated that the
elder son of the deceased, namely, Deepu
was aged about 10-12 years, second child
Gudiya was aged about 8 years and third
one was aged about 4 years. Thus, it was
incumbent of the Investigating Officer at
least to inquire elder son Deepu as to how
this incident had taken place. It is also not
disputed that D.W. 1 Sanjiv Kumar Verma
and his wife were residing in another room
in the same premises but it appears that he
has also not been examined during
investigation. P.W. 7 Inspector Kavindra
Nath Mishra has also stated in his cross
examination that mother of the accused
Satish Kumar Verma and two other families
were residing on the ground floor but the
Investigating Officer also did not examine
any of them.