# Sheela @ Sushila (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 86
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2813 of 2014
- **Bench:** Naheed Ara Moonis, Anil Kumar Ix
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sheela-sushila-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-44779
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302
read with section 34 IPC, 120B IPC -criminal
appeal - Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Section 313 - Examination of accused
persons - offered no explanation to negative
the chain of circumstances pointing towards
the guilt of the accused persons- Statement
under
section
161
Cr.P.C
-The
first
information report is not an encyclopaedia to
give
each
and
every
details-Minor
contradictions cannot be taken to be a
ground to reject the testimony of the
prosecutions
witnesses
of
facts-
consideration of circumstantial evidence -
circumstances forms a complete chain that
in all human probability the crimes were
committed by the accused appellants and
none else - Law does not require to the
prosecution to prove the existence of motive
and probability of the accused having
committed the crime -appellants sentenced
for life imprisonment under section 302 of
IPC. (Para 36,46 & 55)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27,
134 & 106 - When an offence like murder is
committed in the secrecy inside a house,
the initial burden to establish the case
would
undoubtedly
be
upon
the
prosecution - burden on the inmates of the
house to give cogent explanation as to how
the crime was committed -The testimony of
the prosecution witnesses fully supports
the prosecution case and they have no
motive to make false statement against the
accused-appellants - evidence must be
weighed
and not counted
-
Medical
evidence
(postmortem
report)
fully
corroborates the prosecution version as
well as the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses. The blood-stained weapon of
offence and recovery of articles at the time
of arrest of the accused persons on their
disclosure statement made by them is
admissible under section 27 of the Evidence
Act. Merely because the other accused who
was named by the prosecution has been
acquitted by giving benefit of doubt would
not make the evidence of the witnesses
totally untrustworthy. (Para 42 & 46)

Criminal Appeal dismissed (E-7)

List of Cases Cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,956 of 88,176. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39956 for what follows._

86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

40. The prosecution has miserably
failed to adduce any evidence linking the
'pharsa'
allegedly
recovered
on
the
pointing out of Kripa Ram (A2) from the
river bed with the commission of the
murder of the deceased. The 'pharsa'
admittedly was not sent to the forensic lab
for chemical examination. Similarly,
blood allegedly recovered from the place
where the deceased had fallen after being
shot while he was sitting on the platform
and
the
empty
cartridges
allegedly
recovered from the place of incident were
not sent for chemical examination.

41. The different dimensions of the
incised wounds noted by P.W.5 Dr. B. D.
Mangal on the deceased's body clearly
suggest use of not one but several sharp-edged
weapons in inflicting incised wounds on the
deceased's body, thus totally nullifying the
prosecution theory that the injuries sustained
by the deceased were caused by the ''pharsa'
allegedly recovered on the pointing out of
Kripa Ram (A2).

42. There is another very strange aspect
of the matter. Along with appellants before us,
one Mehngu was also charge-sheeted and
tried for the charge u/s 302/34 I.P.C. The role
assigned to him by P.W.2 Ram Narayan was
that he had fired the first shot at the deceased
which had hit him and thereafter he had
caught hold of the deceased along with
Matadin @ Chapole (A1) while Kripa Ram
(A2) had inflicted injuries on him with
'pharsa'. According to P.W.3 Hari Om, the
shot fired by him at the deceased had missed
him. The trial court however strangely
proceeded to acquit Mehngu and convicted
Kripa Ram (A2) on the same set of evidence.
The learned trial Judge has failed to assign
any reason for disbelieving the evidence of
two eye witnesses qua Matadin @ Chapole
(A1) while relying upon the same for the
purpose of convicting Kripa Ram (A2).

43. Thus, upon a wholesome
consideration of the facts of the case,
attending circumstances and the evidence
on record, we do not find that the
prosecution has been able to prove its
case against the surviving appellant
Matadin @ Chapole (A1) beyond all
reasonable doubts and he is entitled to
benefit of doubt.

44. The appeal succeeds and is
accordingly allowed.

45. Matadin @ Chapole (A1) is on bail.
He need not surrender. His bail bonds are
cancelled
and
his
sureties
discharged.
However, he shall comply with the provisions
of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

46. There shall however, be no order
as to costs.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 86

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.07.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR IX, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2813 of 2014
connected with
Criminal Appeal No. 2770 of 2014

Sheela @ Sushila ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel
for
the
Appellant:
2 All. Sheela @ Sushila Vs State of U.P.
87
Sri M.J. Akhtar, Sri Nazrul Islam Jafri, Sri
Ravi Prakash Srivastava, Sri V.M. Zaidi, Sri
Khalid Mahmood.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302
read with section 34 IPC, 120B IPC -criminal
appeal - Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Section 313 - Examination of accused
persons - offered no explanation to negative
the chain of circumstances pointing towards
the guilt of the accused persons- Statement
under
section
161
Cr.P.C
-The
first
information report is not an encyclopaedia to
give
each
and
every
details-Minor
contradictions cannot be taken to be a
ground to reject the testimony of the
prosecutions
witnesses
of
facts-
consideration of circumstantial evidence -
circumstances forms a complete chain that
in all human probability the crimes were
committed by the accused appellants and
none else - Law does not require to the
prosecution to prove the existence of motive
and probability of the accused having
committed the crime -appellants sentenced
for life imprisonment under section 302 of
IPC. (Para 36,46 & 55)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27,
134 & 106 - When an offence like murder is
committed in the secrecy inside a house,
the initial burden to establish the case
would
undoubtedly
be
upon
the
prosecution - burden on the inmates of the
house to give cogent explanation as to how
the crime was committed -The testimony of
the prosecution witnesses fully supports
the prosecution case and they have no
motive to make false statement against the
accused-appellants - evidence must be
weighed
and not counted
-
Medical
evidence
(postmortem
report)
fully
corroborates the prosecution version as
well as the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses. The blood-stained weapon of
offence and recovery of articles at the time
of arrest of the accused persons on their
disclosure statement made by them is
admissible under section 27 of the Evidence
Act. Merely because the other accused who
was named by the prosecution has been
acquitted by giving benefit of doubt would
not make the evidence of the witnesses
totally untrustworthy. (Para 42 & 46)

Criminal Appeal dismissed (E-7)

List of Cases Cited: -

1. Reena Hazarika Vs St. of Assam AIR 2018
Sc.5361

2. Vikram Jit Singh Vs St. of Punj. (2006) 9 SC Page 338

3. Dr. (Smt.) Nupur Talwar Vs St. of U.P.
(2018) 102 ACC Page 524

4. Joydeb Patra & ors. Vs St. of W.B. AIR 2013
S.C.2878

5. Shanker Lal & anr. Vs St. of CG. (Criminal
Appeal No. 497 of 2008) decided on 6.10.2017

6. Sukhjeet Vs St. of Punj. (2015) 3 S.C. 670

7.Ranvir Yadav Vs St. of Bihar (2009) 4 SC 205

8. Sukhjeet Vs St. of Mah. (2009) 4 S.C. 429

9. Navaneetha Krishan Vs St. through Insp. of
Police (Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 2013)

10. Dashrath Singh Vs St. of U.P. (2004) 7 SCC 408

11. Suresh Chandra Bahri Vs St. of Bihar JT
(1994) 4 SC 309
(Delivered by Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis J.)

1. Since both the accused appellants
have been convicted and sentenced vide
order dated 8.7.2014 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge Court No.10
Muzaffar Nagar,hence these appeals have
been heard together and are being decided
by a common order.

2. These criminal appeals have been
preferred on behalf of the accused-
88 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appellants against the impugned judgment
and order dated 8/9-7-2014 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10
Muzaffar Nagar whereby the accusedappellants have been convicted and
sentenced to serve out life imprisonment
with fine of Rs. 25,000/- in Sessions Trial
No. 382 of 1982 (State vs. Sheela @
Sushila and others) under Sections 302
read with section 34 IPC, Police Station
Hastinapur District Meerut .In default of
payment of fine, they have to undergo
imprisonment for a period of three
months.

3. The emanation of facts giving rise
to the prosecution in a short conspectus is
that a first information report was lodged
on 22.6.1982 at about 6.20 a.m. with
respect to the incident occurred at night
on 21/22-6-1982 with the allegation that
the complainant heard shrill and shriek of
his brother's wife in the morning on 22nd
June 1982 at about 5.00 a.m. Being
thunder-struck
and
panicky
the
complainant, his elder brother Mahesh
and other family members rushed towards
the room of Ramesh where they saw the
dead body of his brother Ramesh lying on
the cot. The blood was oozing from his
mouth.There were marks of a number of
injuries on the person of Ramesh. Ramesh
was done to death at any time in the night.
On the basis of tip off of the complainant
(Ashok Kumar Singhal), an FIR was
registered against unknown persons at
police station Medical District Meerut
vide Case Crime No. 170 of 1982 under
section 302 IPC.

4. After lodging of the FIR, the
investigating
officer
S.I.
Sudarashan
Chandra Katoch (P.W.12) swung into
action and recorded the statement of the
complainant and the witnesses. He got the
copy of the FIR entered in the case diary.
He reached at the place of incident i.e.
residence of deceased Ramesh, Mohalla
Madho Nagar, Meerut. He prepared the
site plan which is marked as Ext. Ka.14.
After conducting the requisite formalities,
Panchayatnama of corpse was prepared
on the same day in accordance with the
procedure prescribed which was marked
as Ext.Ka.15. Thereafter, the copy of
chik, copy of report, photo lash, challan
lash, report R.I., report C.M.O. and
sample seal along with sealed dead body
was sent to the mortuary for the autopsy.
The aforesaid papers were marked as
Ext.Ka.16 to 19. The investigating officer
prepared the questions to be asked from
the Medical Officer which was marked as
Ext.Ka.20. At the instance of accused
Haroon he prepared the recovery memo of
blood stained Pant and towel from the
shop which was marked as Ext.Ka.4. On
23.6.1982, arrested accused Sheela from
her house and was interrogated. At her
instance a screw driver was recovered in
the presence of witnesses exhibited as
Ext.12. Site plan with regard to recovery
of Screw Driver was marked as Ext.Ka.
21. One piece of blood stained rod
recovered at the instance of accused
Rahimuddin exhibited as Ka.4 of which
memo was prepared as Ext.Ka.5. The site
plan of recovery of iron rod was prepared
which was marked as Ext.Ka.22 .
Constable CP 710 Rameshwar Singh
associated with S.I.Suresh Chandra were
present at the place of occurrence. After
Panchayatnama ,the corpse of Ramesh
Chand was handed over to them with
relevant papers for autopsy. Autopsy of
deceased Ramesh was conducted on
23.6.1982
by
P.W.10
Dr.S.K.Tyagi,
Medical Officer, P.S.Sharma Hospital
Meerut. The investigating officer after
completing all the necessary formalities
2 All. Sheela @ Sushila Vs State of U.P.
89
and collecting the credible and clinching
evidence against the accused appellants
Sheela
and
Irfran,
and
co-accused
Rahimuddin and Haroon submitted the
charge sheet under sections 302/120B
IPC.

5. The case was initially committed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
Meerut but was later on transferred to the
VIth Additional Sessions Judge Meerut
for trial.

6. The learned trial judge after
hearing the prosecution as well as the
defence and also after providing the
necessary documents to the accused
appellant and the co-accused persons
framed charges against them under
Section 302/34/120B IPC. The charges
framed against the appellants and the coaccused persons were read over and
explained to them. All the accused
persons adjured the charges and claimed
to be tried hence the prosecution was
called upon to lead the evidence.

7. In order to prove guilt of the
accused persons, the prosecution had
examined the complainant Ashok Kumar
(PW-1), Mahendra Giri (PW-2), Suresh
Chandra Singhal (PW-3), Babu Lal
Sharma (PW-4), Mahesh Chandra (PW5), Pradeep Kumar (PW-6), Ram Karan
(PW-7) Constable Kanhaiya Lal (P.W.8),
Prakash Chand (P.W.9), Dr.S.K.Tyagi
(P.W.10), Constable Subhash Chand
(P.W.11),
S.I.
Sudarshan
Chandra
(P.W.12)
and
Constable
Rameshwar
Singh (PW-13) All the prosecution
witnesses had supported the prosecution
case.

8. After examining the prosecution
evidence, the accused appellants namely
Sheela and Irfan and the co-accused
Rahimuddin and Haroon were examined
under section 313 Cr.P.C. and in their
statement, they denied all the charges
levelled against them and pleaded for
innocence. The accused persons pleaded
that they have been falsely implicated in
the present case on account of suspicion
and personal vengeance. The accused
appellant Sheela in her statement divulged
that she was on duty in the nursing home
on the fateful night of 21/22.6.1982.
Kaushal Kumar an employee of Nandan
Cinema Meerut was examined as D.W.1.

9. Since the accused Haroon was
declared juvenile by the Principal Judge,
Juvenile Justice Board , Muzaffar Nagar
hence his trial was separated vide order
dated 5.4.2014. The learned trial Judge,
Muzaffar Nagar upon appreciation and
appraisal of material evidence on record
held that the prosecution has failed to
prove evidence against Rahim Uddin
under section 302 read with section 34
and section 120B IPC. The learned Addl.
Additional Sessions Judge, (Court No.10)
held the appellants Sheela and Irfan guilty
for the murder of Ramesh whereby they
were convicted and sentenced under
Section 302/34 IPC to serve out life
imprisonment along with fine of Rs.
25,000/-. In case of default, they were
directed to serve out additional sentence
of three months. Both the accused
appellants were acquitted of the charge of
section 120B IPC. Since the prosecution
had not provided any evidence against
accused Rahimuddin, he was acquitted
from
the
charge
under
section
302/34/120B IPC. His bonds and sureties
were discharged.

10. In support of prosecution case,
the prosecution has examined Ashok
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kumar Sanghal son of Kailash Narain as
PW 1. In his testimony, Ashok Kumar
deposed that he is well aware about the
miscreants present in Court namely
Mohd. Irfan, Rahimuddin ,Haroon and
Sheela. Accused Sheela is the wife of his
brother
Ramesh
(deceased).Accused
Haroon and Rahimuddin were doing the
work of mechanic with accused Irfan.
Irfan has developed illicit carnal relation
with accused Sheela. Accused Irfan was
running a shop in contiguous to his house.
Accused Irfan had taken on rent on rent a
shop in the house of the complainant
(P.W.1). He had also taken a room on rent
in the house of Ramesh. Ramesh is the
elder brother of the complainant. The
house of the complainant (P.W.1) and
Mahesh are adjoining . The main gate of
the house of Ramesh was opening
towards road in the western side. A door
of that house was opening in the back side
towards lane. He had seen his Bhabhi
Sheela reading and writing. He can easily
identify her writings. It was crucial day of
22.6.1982 at about 5.00 a.m. in the
morning, he was sleeping in the Verandah
of his house . He heard panic-stricken
voice of lamentation & bemonaning of
Sheela (appellant).The complainant,his
brother
Mahesh
and
other
family
members reached there at the place of
occurrence. The complainant (P.W.1) saw
the corpse of his brother lying on the cot.
The deceased Ramesh had sustained fatal
injuries. The fan was moving. The
deceased Ramesh had worn blue linear
underwear which was soaked with blood.
Rigor mortis was present on the corpse
and there was blue mark around the neck.
A number of persons of the locality
namely Natthoo Lal, Mahinder Giri ,
Baboo Ram , Satya Prakash and other
arrived there. The accused Sheela had
strained and acrimonious relation with her
husband (Ramesh deceased). The brother
of the compainant namely Ramesh used to
thrash his wife (Sheela) occasionally on
account of illicit corporal relation with
Irfan. There had been scuffling between
Ramesh and his wife (Sheela) in the
morning on 19.6.1982. Just after half or
quarter to half hour Irfan appeared and
uttered that he would not spare any person
who would try to put spokes on their
relations whosoever may be inclusive of
her husband. The paper written by Sheela
which was marked as Ext.Ka.1 and the
paper which was written by accused Irfan
were proved by the complainant (P.W.1).
The report of the murder was given by the
complainant (P.W.1) which was in his
writing and signature. The paper written
by the complainant marked as Ex.Ka.3
was duly proved. The accused Sheela
used to sleep with his brother (Ramesh) in
the room. The cot on which dead body
was lying had a blank sheet, two pillows.
Both the pillows were saturated with
blood.

11. During cross examination
condition of the deceased was neither
disclosed
in
the
FIR
nor
was
communicated to the Station Officer.
There was no mention in the first
information report with regard to clothes
and cot.He did neither disclose the factum
of sleeping in room with Sheela (accused)
in the FIR nor to the station officer
concerned. The marriage of Irfan (coaccused) was solemnized prior to 8 to 10
days. The complainant (P.W.1) had
relation with Irfan (co-accused) as tenant.
The complainant (P.W.1) and his brother
Mahesh had attended his marriage. The
marriage of Irfan (co-accused) was
performed at Unchauli. The complainant
was doing the work of Munshi prior to 1
& 1'1/2 years but he denied that he was
2 All. Sheela @ Sushila Vs State of U.P.
91
doing the work of Munshi with Gajendra
Singh Dhama. Mahesh (P.W.5) was doing
the work at Kutcheri (civil court).His
father and uncle were also doing the work
at Kutcheri (civil court). On 19.6.1982,
Ramesh had thrashed Sheela (accused) for
attending the marriage of Irfan. On the
persuation of his mother, the complainant
had gone at the residence of Irfan but
looking the presence of Sheela ,he came
back. The place where dead body was
lying was in the tenancy of Irfan (coaccused). Since Ramesh was the owner of
that room hence it was mentioned in the
first
information
report.
When
the
complainant came back after lodging the
first information report, Babu Lal Sharma
(P.W.4) met him outside the room. The
name of father of Mahendra Giri (P.W.2)
is Lakhpat. His house is adjoining to the
shop of Irfan (accused appellant). The
father of the complainant (P.W.1) had got
published in the news paper prior to
murder of Ramesh that the demeanour
and conduct of Ramesh was not fair. This
fact was disclosed by his mother. His
father had written will deed in favour of
his mother. It was incorporated in the will
deed by his father that after his death, the
property left by his will be inherited by
the complainant and his brother Mahesh
(P.W.5). It was not remembered to the
complainant as to whether the portion in
which Ramesh and Sheela used to live
was constructed prior to executing will
deed or thereafter. The father of the
complainant had expired prior to six years
of the incident. The portion in which
Ramesh (deceased) and Sheela (accused)
used to live was taken into possession by
the complainant's mother. The accused
appellant Sheela used to work in Manjula
Nursing Home adjoining to the home
during the course of that period. The
complainant
(P.W.1)
showed
his
ignorance as to whether Sheela (accused)
used to work in that nursing home at
night. The complainant used to meet
Ramesh
(deceased)
frequently.
The
complainant went to lodge the report with
his brother Mahesh (P.W.5) and Raj
Kumar. He reached at the police station
ast 6.15 a.m. and the police personnel
came at the spot at about 7.00 a.m.Satya
Prakash Tyagi and Mahendra were tenant
in the house of the complainant. The
portion
of
the
house
where
the
complainant was sleeping,its door was
opening towards west. The door of the
house of complainant was not opening
towards the house of Ramesh. There was
a window in between the house of the
complainant and Ramesh but that window
was not being used for ventilation. The
tenant had also reached there. The police
personnel remained present near the dead
body of Ramesh upto 11.15 a.m. It was
asserted by the complainant that there was
illicit carnal relation between Sheela and
Irfan. The complainant deposed that
Ext.Ka.1 was not written before him. He
had not seen that letter earlier. Nobody
had come to collect money from Sheela
borrowed by Ramesh. There was cordial
and congenial relation between Ramesh
and the complainant. Irfan used to repair
light of the motor and charge battery.
Shop is in the name of Jalaluddin on rent
of
Rs.50/-
who
is
tenant
since
childhood.There was no dispute between
Irfan and Jalal Uddin for getting the shop
vacated. Rahim Uddin was doing the
repairing of the tractor. He also used to
work as electrician at the shop of Irfan.
When threat was extended by Irfan to
eliminate Ramesh, his mother ,Mahendra
,Natthoo and other persons of the locality
were present. At that moment about 10-15
persons were there. The complainant
showed his ignorance with respect to
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ext.Ka.2. portraying second of wife of
Irfan. He did not certify the photo taken at
the marriage of Irfan. The complainant
(P.W.1) had come back prior to reciting
the Nikah at about 11/12 "O"clock. He
did not have any information as to
whether the girl with whom marriage of
Irfan was performed was within the
access of Sheela. He proved similarity
between Ext.Kha2 and Ka.2. In Ext.Ka.3
Irfan and Sheela were shown side by side.
Irfan was wearing the cloths of groom. In
Ext.Kha.4, the picture of Irfan has been
delineated. Probably, the lady was the
same which was delineated in Ex.Ka.2.
The invitation card which was printed for
the marriage of his sister was proved as
Ext.Ka.5. In that invitation card, the name
of Ramesh (deceased) was elucidated.
There is no member of his family in
Ext.Ka.6. He disowned that he had falsely
implicated them on account of litigation.
It was also divulged that the room of the
house was rented to Irfan in the
intervening period of one & half to two
years earlier. The possession of the room
rented to Irfan was taken by the mother of
the complainant after 8-9 months of the
incident of murder. At the crucial period
of murder of Ramesh, some glasses and
clothes were lying inside the room of
which photo was taken by the station
officer
concerned.
The
complainant
asserted with respect to presence of Irfan
in that room. The complainant was
associated with his brother Mahesh
(P.W.5) upto coming back from the police
station concerned. The dead body was
sent at about 10.15 a.m. on rickshaw.
Mahesh (P.W.5) went on motor cycle.
Irfan was tenant in the room of Ramesh.
Sheela had illicit corporal relation with
Ramesh. There is no intention of
implicating Irfan with an oblique design
of getting the room vacated.

12. Mahendra Giri was examined as
P.W.2. In his statement on 24.9,86
averred that his house is in the adjoining
of Ashok (P.W.1) and Mahesh (P.W.5).
He was well aware about the identity of
accused
persons
namely
Haroon,
Rahimuddin, Irfan and Sheela. Sheela is
the widow of Ramesh (deceased). Haroon
and Rahimuddin used to work with Irfan.
His shop was situated in the vicinity of his
house. Haroon and Rahimuddin did not
stay at the shop in night. It was the
incident prior to four to four and half
years, he came to know in the morning
about murder. The miscreants Irfan and
Haroon were coming back from the house
of Sheela at about 12.15 in the night. The
accused persons were not present at the
shop on the fateful day of occurrence. He
had seen the dead body of Ramesh to
whom a number of injuries were inflicted.

13. In his cross examination he
deposed that he was sleeping outside the
house. He had seen from the distance of 5
to 7 paces that the miscreants were going.
The distance from the shop of Irfan was
about 8 to 10 paces. His shop was
adjacent to the shop of Irfan . Irfan had
small shop. The door of the shop of
Mahendra Giri (P.W.2) and Irfan was
opening towards east. He (P.W.2) was
taking rest after urination. He had shown
the place of his sleeping and the place of
departing of miscreants. He could not put
forth any reason as to why it has not been
demonstrated in the map. He was well
aware about the miscreants. Their names
were disclosed to the station officer
concerned. He could not advance any
reason why it was omitted. When he
reached near the dead body of Ramesh at
about 5.30 a.m., Ashok (P.W.1) Mahesh
(P.W.5) and Banwari were present. He
had gone at the house of Ramesh at about
2 All. Sheela @ Sushila Vs State of U.P.
93
4.30 p.m. at the call of Station Officer
concerned.
At
that
moment, police
personnel were present there. The station
officer concerned was present in front of
room of Sheela (accused appellant). The
dead body of Ramesh arrived after 2/3
days at about 2 to 2.30 p.m. He remained
at his shop on the fateful day of murder
from 7.30 to 8.00 a.m. and 7.30 to 8. p.m.
It was disclosed by him that Dhama
Advocate, had been looking after his
cases for the last 5 to 7 years. Ashok
(P.W.1) had been clerk of Mr. Dhama
Advocate. It was also divulged by him
that Rahimuddin is servant at the shop of
Irfan (accused).

14. The prosecution had examined
Suresh Chandra Singhal as P.W.3. He
stated on oath that on 23.6.82 at about
1.30 p.m. he was sitting at the outer
portion of house of his Tau. Yogesh,
Ashok (P.W.1) ,Bhagat, Banwari Lal and
Babu Ram were also sitting there. Haroon
and Rahimuddin were brought there in the
custody of police personnel. It was
unfolded by the police that both the
miscreants
namely
Haroon
and
Raimuddin would make recovery of the
weapons inclusive of clothes used in the
murder of Ramesh. Both the miscreants
were interrogated by him (P.W.3), they
answered in affirmative. The miscreant
Haroon
went
ahead,
P.W.3
Suresh
Chandra and others proceeded behind the
police personnel. The lock of the shop of
Irfan (accused) was opened by Haroon.
He took out a dirty Khaki pant from the
plywood makeshift roof which was
saturated with blood. A torn towel was
taken out from the cannister filled with
black oil. Both the articles were sealed by
the station officer concerned in different
bundle. He (Suresh Chandra SinghalP.W.3) and Yogesh had put their
signatures on the Fard which was marked
as Ext.Ka.4. The accused Rahimuddin
went ahead and entered in the shop. He
took out an iron axle from the rack of
table. The fard of the recovered article
was prepared and was duly signed by him
and Yogesh which was marked as
Ext.Ka.4. The recovered rod was put
under seal cover and was also signed by
him. Haroon was the servant of Irfan.
Both were present in the court. On
21.6.1982, the P.W.3 Suresh Chandra
Singhal and the son of his Tau,Mahesh
were coming back after looking picture.
They saw Irfan and Haroon coming from
their shop. When they were at the distance
of 5 to 7 paces, Mahesh said to Irfan to
have a cup of tea. Irfan did not show his
willingness on the pretext of going to
village. Iran and Haroon were highly
disturbed. They proceeded towards the
Hapur stand. After some time Haroon
came back and proceeded towards the
shop of Irfan. He (P.W.3) and Mahesh
returned to their house. Next day at about
5.30 a.m. He (P.W.3) was sleeping inside
his house. His father shouted that
someone had done to death to Ramesh in
the night . He (P.W.3) immediately
rushed towards the house of Kailash
Narain. Sheela (accused appellant) was
lamenting and bemoaning outside of the
house. The corpse of Ramesh was lying
on the cot in the room. There were
multiple injuries on his person. There was
blue mark on the neck. On that crucial
date, Irfan, Rahimuddin and Haroon did
not come at the shop. The shop was
closed. He (P.W.3) remained present there
upto 6'1/2 'O' clock till then neither they
(accused persons) came nor the shop was
opened. He reached near to the deceased
Ramesh at about 5.00 a.m. and remained
there till 6.30 a.m. When he (Suresh
Chandra Singhal-P.W.3) reached at the
94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
place of occurrence, Mahesh ,Ashok,
Natthoo were present there. Mahesh s/o
Lakhpat was also present there. The shop
of Mahesh s/o Lakhpat was opened on the
fateful day. The miscreants were arrested
by the police personnel on 23.6.1982. The
key of lock which was opened by Haroon
was closed by police personnel and was
given to Haroon. They remained present
at the shop of Irfan about one hour. The
panchayatnama of Ramesh was done
before him. The house of Ramesh is at a
distance of 400 yards from the tea shop of
Bhure and 100 yards from his house. He
proved the presence of Irfan and Haroon.

15. The prosecution has examined
Baboo Lal Sharma as P.W.4. He stated on
oath with regard to murder of Ramesh in
June 1982. He had gone at the place of
occurrence. The dead body of Ramesh
was lying on the cot. The police personnel
had come and had taken into custody the
pillow etc. The articles taken by the police
were marked as Ext.Ka.8 to 11. He had
proved his signature on Ext.Ka.6. Next
day, Sheela (accused) had supplied screw
driver which was marked as Ext.Ka.12.
The screw driver recovered by the police
personnel was saturated with blood. It
was affirmed that the said screw driver
was used in the commission of murder.
Sheela went ahead. She opened the lock
and door. The screw driver was wrapped
in the cloth and the fard of which was
prepared and marked as Ext.Ka.7.He had
proved his signature on Fard Ext.Ka.7.
Next day, the children of Sheela had left
the house.

16. In his cross examination he
deposed that he had reached at the place
of occurrence at about 5.30 a.m.The
police personnel were not present there.
Mahesh, Ashok, Banwari and Suresh
were present there. He could not mind as
to whether Mahendra was present there or
not.Sheela
(accused
appellant)
was
present there.,He came back after 2 to 4
minutes. He again went at about 8.30
a.m.The dead body of Ramesh was lying
on the cot. The dead body was not sealed.
He had again gone at 10.30 a.m.The dead
body of Ramesh was sent at that time. He
came back at about 6 to 6.30 p.m.Next
day, police was not present there.
Recovery was made at about 11.30 a.m.
There was gathering on 23.6.1982 then he
was also present there. One police
constable called him by indication. The
Station officer concerned, P.W.4 Babu
Lal Sharma and Sheela entered inside the
room. The station officer concerned came
back taking the screw driver. The screw
driver used in the said crime was marked
as Ext. Ka.11. The entire process was
completed at the place of occurrence. The
house of P.W.4 Babu Lal Sharma and
Mahesh was in front of each other. The
house of the deceased Ramesh is situated
at Hapur road.

17. The prosecution has examined
Mahesh Chandra as P.W.5. He stated on
oath that he is well aware about the
identity of the accused persons. Haroon
and Rahimuddin used to come to Irfan.
Sheela is the wife of his brother, Ramesh.
In one portion Ramesh used to live, one
portion of that house was given on rent to
Irfan. Sheela and Irfan had illicit physical
relation. He heard shriek and scream of
wife of Ramesh (Sheela) on 22.6.82 at
about 5.00 a.m. He in the company of his
wife, Ashok Kumar (P.W.1) and mother
went
inside
the
room
of
Ramesh
(deceased). Sheela was lamenting on the
door step of the room of Irfan. The dead
body of Ramesh who was wearing linear
half pant was lying on the cot in the room.
2 All. Sheela @ Sushila Vs State of U.P.
95
Blood was clotted on the face. There were
multiple injuries. One pillow was placed
below the head and one beneath the leg. Both
the pillows were saturated with blood. The
children of Ramesh were not present there.
They came out seeing the deceased Ramesh.
The condition of his mother deteriorated. She
was consoled. At about 5.30 a.m. he (P.W.5),
Ashok and Rajkumar went at the police
station concerned for lodging the first
information report. Ashok (P.W.1) handed
over the report of the incident to the Moharrir.
On 21.6.82, he (P.W.5) and Suresh went to
see picture, while returning they were taking
tea and saw Haroon and Irfan were coming
back from their shop. When they came near to
them, they offered to have a cup of tea. Irfan
was confounded and perplexed. He showed
his hurriness. After sometime Haroon came
there and moved towards his shop. There was
illicit corporal relation between Irfan and
Sheela. Irfan had thrashed to Ramesh many
times on this pretext. Irfan had given overt
challenge to eliminate to anyone who would
dare to intervene in their relation. Ramesh had
beaten to his wife Sheela. Sheela had attended
the marriage of Irfan against the wish of
Ramesh. Ext.Ka.1 was written by Sheela. On
thrashing of Sheela by Ramesh, Irfan came
and warned that whosoever would muster
courage to interdict in his matter, would be
eliminated for ever. Ext.Ka. 2 was recovered
from the room of Ramesh in the newspaper.
He (P.W.5) had seen to Sheela reading and
writting the letter. Ext.Ka.1 is signed by her.
He had seen her reading and writing .He was
well aware about her hand writing. The same
was signed by her.

18. The fateful date when Ramesh
was liquidated, the shop of Irfan was
closed. On 23.6.1982, the wife of Ramesh
had come at about 3'1/2 'O' clock. When
the wife of Irfan opted to open the door,
in the meantime police arrived and took
her into custody. He (P.W.5) and Babu
Lal were called outside by the police
personnel. It was disclosed by the Police
personnel that the accused Sheela wanted
to get the screw driver recovered. On
being interrogated, Sheela evinced her
willingness to get the recovery of screw
driver used in the murder of Ramesh. It
was about 11.30 a.m. Two sub-inspectors,
P.W.5 Mahesh Chand and Babu Lal went
forward behind Sheela. Sheela opened the
door after unfastening the lock and
entered inside the house. Both the subinspectors in association with P.W.5
Mahesh Chand and Babu Lal entered
inside the house. The cannister was
placed towards north window. The screw
driver used in the commission of said
crime was taken out from that cannister.
The said screw driver was saturated with
blood at a number of places. The said
screw driver was put under seal and the
fard was prepared exhibiting as Ka.7. The
said Fard was signed by P.W.5 Mahesh
Chand ,Babu Lal and Sheela and was
marked as exhibit-12.

19. In cross examination Mahesh
Chandra (P.W.5) divulged that he had
been working on the post of clerk in the
civil court since 3.7.75. He was posted in
the court of Munsif Magistrate. The report
was written at about 5.30 a.m. in the
frontal portion of room of Ramesh. At
that moment, Suresh, Banwari Lal, Babu
Lal, Nattho etc. came. He did not mention
with regard to envision of Haroon and
Irfan in the night. There has been no
disclosure with regard to illicit relation
between Irfan and Sheela. He has also not
discussed any inkling for thrashing to
Sheela and any threats extended by Irfan.
This fact was also not unravelled that the
condition of mother was deteriorated. He
(P.W.5) stayed at the police station
96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
concerned about 10 minutes. The police
had come after 5 to 7 minutes after his
departure. It was intimated by him to the
Station
Officer
concerned
that
Rahimuddin was doing work at Irfan but
this was not reduced in writing. It was not
divulged by him that Sheela was weeping
at the threshold of room of Irfan. It was
also not unfolded that the children of
Ramesh were not there. This matter was
brought in the notice of Irfan which
caused him infuriation and extended
threats. This fact was intimated to the
Station officer concerned. He could not
expose any reason as to why it was not
reduced in writing. Irfan had taken on rent
the said room prior to one & half or two
years. He could not inform the amount of
rent. This fact was not mentioned while
lodging the report. The relationship with
Irfan was merely of a tenant. Irfan had
thrashed to Ramesh about month back to
the incident. He (Irfan) used to beat to
Ramesh earlier also. On account of
relationship with Bhabhi (Sheela) he had
gone on 12.6.82. Ashok Kumar (P.W.1)
was also associated to him. They
remained at the house of Irfan about one
and half hour. It was not remembered to
him that photo was clicked or not. He
could not identify to Ext.Ka.2 (photo)
which was clicked in red Sari whether she
was the wife of Irfan as he (P.W.5) had
never seen the wife of Irfan. In Ext.Ka.2
green dhoti of Sheela has been depicted.
Second lady is the same who has been
portrayed in Ext.Ka.2. That lady was seen
in the marital function. In Ext.Ka.4, Irfan
has been evinced. He (P.W.5) was not
aware as to that photo was pertaining to
marriage and the said lady was not
manifested. In Ext.Kha 3 groom Irfan was
evinced. He showed his ignorance as to
whether it was pertaining to the marriage.
In Ext.Kha.1. the photo of Mahesh Chand
(P.W.5) and Sheela was displayed. He
could not ascertain as to whether this
photo was clicked at the time of marriage
of Irfan. The name of son of Sheela is
Manoj. Ext.Ka.2 and negative were made
available to him in December 1982 which
were
handed
over
to
Government
Counsel. The letter was also given to him.
He could not disclose the name of
government counsel. The government
advocate was hailing to Meerut District.
He was engaged when the case was
transferred. No letter or application was
presented to the Superintendent of Police.
He did not disclose the distance of
Uchauli from Meerut but divulged that
this path can be covered within half hour.
He (P.W.5) was annoyed hearing about
the extra marital relation of Sheela with
Irfan anterior to one year. He (P.W.5) had
tried to convince Irfan but he did not
agree. He admitted that Irfan was tenant
of Ramesh. He also ratified with regard to
illicit relation of Irfan with Sheela. He
also authenticated with regard to beating
of Sheela by Ramesh. On 19.6.1982,
Ramesh had thrashed to Sheela . After
half an hour Irfan appeared then he vented
his ire & irate that Ramesh will be
decimated. He (P.W.5) did not move any
application with regard to that episode.
Jalaluddin who is the brother of Irfan, is
owner of the shop in question. He could
not
disclose
the
whereabouts
of
Jalaluddin. He (P.W.5) did not make any
complain of illicit relation of Irfan with
Sheela to any person of the locality or to
Jalaluddin. His father had died in 1980.
He (P.W.5) did not make complain to
Banwari Lal. Nobody had disclosed to
him with relation to her relation with
Irfan. The shop was rented at Rs. 50/-.
The rent of the shop was taken by mother.
The mother was living with him. His
mother is in possesion of the room rented
2 All. Sheela @ Sushila Vs State of U.P.
97
to Irfan. Irfan did not live in Uchauli at
the time of marriage as well as on the
crucial day of murder of Ramesh. Irfan
used to live in the room of Ramesh. He
(P.W.5) was not aware as to whether bus
was running to Uchauli or not. The bus
was plying from Mawana station. The
Mawana station was at a distance of three
kilometres from the place of occurrence.
He did not interrogate from Irfan as to
why he was going at his room at 12'1/2"O'
clock at night. He (P.W.5) was sipping tea
prior to 3-4 minutes. Thereafter 4 to 5
minutes were passed away. Haroon had
come back after one and one & half
minutes. Bhoora and his servant were
present there. He had been looking to
Bhoora running the shop for the last 8
to10 years. He was not aware as to
Bhoora was conversant to Irfan. He
(P.W.5) did not have any conversation
with Bhoora after liquidation of Ramesh.
After murder of Irfan, the shop of Natthoo
was rented at Rs. 250/- per month.
Mahendra did not have any shop. The
room adjoining to the road was not in the
tenancy of Mahendra. He (P.W.5) did not
recollect as to whether this fact was
narrated to the Station Officer concerned
that the shop of Irfan was closed. He
(P.W.5) rebutted this fact that this story
was fabricated so as to get the shop
vacated. He confronted this fact that the
photo was taken from the album of Irfan
and was got prepared deceitfully. The
roon was rented to Irfan. He could not
recollect the exact period of departure of
Sheela to attend the marriage of Irfan. On
paying a glance on the wife of Ramesh,
he declined to have meal. Ramesh did not
interrogate from him as to why he had
attended the marriage of Irfan. His father
had executed a will in favour of his
mother in which the place which was in
possession of Ramesh and Sheela was not
portrayed. He was not aware when this
share was demarcated. There was no
partition from Ramesh. Since Ramesh
was divested from the property of his
father thus the question of partition did
not crop up. His mother had staked her
right over that property. His mother had
produced the copy of Prabhat in the suit.
He could not confirm as to whether
Ext.Ka.7 is the same document. This fact
was divulged by Sheela to the station
officer concerned and thereafter she
opened the door removing the lock.