# Shiv Pujan Verma v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 30
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2008
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar, Zafeer Ahmad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-pujan-verma-v-state-of-u-p-54831
- **Pages:** 20

## Text

_Characters 0–39,922 of 65,313. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39922 for what follows._

30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which reveals that from 10.04.2018 to 24.01.2024 continuous processes means, summons, bailable
warrant and non-bailable warrant have been issued but accused did not appear and directly
approach this Court invoking Section 482 CrPC. This shows that the accused is an unscrupulous
litigant, whose main purpose is to ignore the processes of court and delay the proceedings of the
case to any stretch.

62. The last point of argument of learned counsel for the accused is for quashing of the
summoning order dated 25.02.2012 on the ground that the account is not maintained in the name of
accused, which has been acknowledged by the complainant in his complaint and ignored by the
Magistrate at the time of issuance of summons and relied upon the cases of Jugesh Sehgal(supra)
and P.G.Agro Tech Ltd. (supra) but the plain reading of complaint does not show that the account
is not maintained in the name of accused/applicant. Further, the complaint shows transaction
between the parties with no involvement of the Company to invoke Section 141 NI Act.

63. Therefore, (1) Application U/s 482 No. 12094 of 2024 (Rai Anoop Prasad Vs. State of
U.P. and another), (2) Application U/s 482 No. 12548 of 2024 (Rai Anoop Prasad Vs. State of
U.P. and another), (3) Application U/s 482 No. 12590 of 2024 (Rai Anoop Prasad Vs. State of
U.P. and another), (4) Application U/s 482 No. 12625 of 2024 (Rai Anoop Prasad Vs. State of
U.P. and another), (5) Application U/s 482 No. 12953 of 2024 (Rai Anoop Prasad Vs. State of
U.P. and another), (6) Application U/s 482 No. 12968 of 2024 (Rai Anoop Prasad Vs. State of
U.P. and another), (7) Application U/s 482 No. 13016 of 2024 (Rai Anoop Prasad Vs. State of
U.P. and another) and (8) Application U/s 482 No. 113020 of 2024 (Rai Anoop Prasad Vs. State
of U.P. and another) are hereby dismissed with cumulative cost of Rs. 50,000/- payable by
accused to complainant within 30 days whereas, the application moved by the complainant in
Application U/s No. 15862 of 2024 (Gopal Prasad Shamra Vs. State of U.P. and another) is
hereby allowed with direction to the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Agra or trial Magistrate to speed up the trial of all cases detailed
above in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court In-Re Expeditious
Trial of Cases Under Section 138 NI Act, 1881.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 30
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 79 of 2008

Shiv Pujan Verma ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
2 All. Shiv Pujan Verma Vs. State of U.P.
31
The appellant was accused of murdering his father with an axe and danda over a dispute regarding the sale of
agricultural land.

Headnotes
A. Criminal law-Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 302-Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section
374(2)-Murder-Circumstantial evidence-Prosecution case based on motive of land dispute, extra
judicial confession, and recovery of weapons-Failure of prosecution to complete the chain of
circumstances-Complainant
and
Independent
witnesses
turning
hostile-Extra
-judicial
confession deemed weak and unreliable as confession allegedly made to a village witness but
denied during trial and also recovery memo not supported by independent witnesses who
claimed signatures were obtained on blank papers under police pressure-Held, when the links in
the chain of circumstances are broken and the evidence fails to unerringly point towards the
guilt of accused, the benefit of doubt must accrue to the appellant-Conviction set aside.(Para 40
to 77)
Held
The court held that evidence of recovery and confession cannot be relied upon if the witnesses do not support
the prosecution version during cross-examination. Also the testimony of hostile witnesses cannot be used to
fill gaps in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution failed to provide eyewitness
accounts or forensic links to the accused. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Sahadeven Vs State of T.N. (2012) 6 SCC 403, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4
SCC 116,Raja Naykar Vs State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) 3 SCC 481, Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen Vs State of
Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724, Nanhar & Ors Vs State of Haryana, (2010) 11 SCC 423, Mehendra Singh & Ors
Vs State of M.P. (2022) 7 SCC 157-referred to.

List of Acts
Criminal Procedure Code,1973
Indian Penal Code,1860
Evidence Act,1872

List of Keywords
Circumstantial evidence, Extra-judicial confession, hostile witnesses, Recovery, Independent witnesses,
Presumption of Innocence, Motive, Deceased, medical evidence, land dispute.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.- 79 OF 2008
Shiv Pujan Verma Vs. State of U.P.
From the judgment and order dated 13.02.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Appellant :-
Sri S.S Imam Rizvi, Sri Diwakar Singh, Sri Rajiva Dubey
Adv. for Respondent:-
G.A.,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Zafeer Ahmad, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rajiva Dubey learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Pawan Kumar Singh
learned A.G.A for the State.
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. The aforesaid criminal appeal arises out of order and judgment dated 15.12.2007 passed by
learned Sessions Judge , Balrampur in S.T. No. 48 of 2006 (State v. Shiv Pujan) arising out of case
crime no. 06 of 2006 wherein the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment u/s 302 Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C).

Prosecution Case in Nutshell:

3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the complainant Mangal Prasad Verma submitted a
written report (Ex. Ka-1) at Police Station Jarwa, District Balrampur, stating therein that his father
Shiv Pujan had two brothers, namely Munshi and Nibber. Shiv Pujan was the eldest, Munshi was
the second and Nibber was the youngest. All the three brothers were living separately. The second
brother Munshi used to reside with his parents, namely Ragunath and Kamla, in a seperate house
situated at the edge of the forest. Furthermore, it was stated that on the morning of 17.01.2006, his
uncle Nibber came and informed him that during the preceding night, some unknown persons had
dragged Munshi (uncle), Ragunath (grandfather) and Kamla (grandmother) from the said house to
the back side of the chak-road and assaulted them with sharp-edged weapons, resulting in their
death. On receiving this information, the complainant rushed to the house of his grandfather and
found that all the three had been murdered. It was further stated that his uncle Nibber had collected
the dead bodies and placed them in the courtyard of the house.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC
against unknown persons (Ex. Ka-8) and corresponding entry was made in the general diary as
entry no. 14 (Ex. Ka-9). The investigation was taken up by S.H.O. R.N. Gautam, who reached the
place of occurrence and inspected the site. During inspection, samples of blood-stained and plain
soil were collected (Ex. Ka-6) and a site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared (Ex. Ka-30).

5. The panchayatnama of the dead body of Smt. Kamla was prepared by S.I. A.P. Singh (Ex.
Ka-4). On his directions, the dead body was duly sealed and the following papers were prepared:
letter to R.I. (Ex. Ka-13), letter to C.M.O. (Ex. Ka-14), challan lash (Ex. Ka-15), sketch of the dead
body (Ex. Ka-16) and sample seal (Ex. Ka-17). The panchayatnama of the dead body of Raghunath
was prepared by S.I. Bhagirathi Tiwari (Ex. Ka-2). On his directions, the dead body was duly
sealed and the following papers were prepared: letter to R.I. (Ex. Ka-18), letter to C.M.O. (Ex. Ka19), challan lash (Ex. Ka-21), sketch of the dead body (Ex. Ka-20) and sample seal (Ex. Ka-22).
Furthermore, the panchayatnama of the dead body of Munshi was prepared by S.I. A.P. Singh and
S.I. Bhagirathi Tiwari (Ex. Ka-3). On his directions, the dead body was duly sealed and the
following papers were prepared: letter to R.I. (Ex. Ka-23), letter to C.M.O. (Ex. Ka-24), challan
lash (Ex. Ka-25), sketch of the dead body (Ex. Ka-26) and sample seal (Ex. Ka-27).

6. During the preparation of the panchayatnama of the dead body of Munshi, an application
addressed to Police Station Jarwa, dated 14.01.2006, was recovered from the pocket of his jacket
(Ex. Ka-29). The said application contained allegations against the accused Shiv Pujan. A recovery
memo in respect of the said application was prepared at the place of occurrence and the same was
attested by witnesses (Ex. Ka-28).
2 All. Shiv Pujan Verma Vs. State of U.P.
33

7. Further, on 17.01.2006 at about 8:30 P.M., an application was produced at the police station
by constable Mahesh Prasad, which had been received through the office of the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Tulsipur. The said application, dated 28.12.2005, had been submitted by the deceased
Raghunath on Tehsil Diwas against his son Shiv Pujan, on which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
had passed directions on the same day. Along with the said application, other connected documents
were also produced at the police station (Ex. Ka-31).

8. On 20.01.2006, Ram Niwas (brother of the complaint Mangal Prasad) and the accused Shiv
Pujan were brought to the police station for interrogation and their statements were recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. During the said interrogation, the accused Shiv Pujan confessed the
commission of the offence and assured recovery of the axe and danda used in the incident.
Thereafter, he was arrested and taken into custody. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, the
accused was taken to the house of Raghunath, where a heap of dry sugarcane leaves was lying near
a bullock cart placed in the eastern corner of the house, he caused the recovery of an axe and a
danda from the said heap, stating that the same had been used by him in killing his parents and
brother. A recovery memo of the said weapons was prepared and the same was attested by two
independent witnesses, namely Mahendra Nath and Kuddan (Ex. Ka-5).

9. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-33) under Section 302 IPC
was submitted before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 25.03.2006. Cognizance was
taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session on 19.04.2006.

10. To prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, namely: PW-1 Mangal Prasad
(complainant), PW-2 Ram Chhabiley, PW-3 Mahendra Nath, PW-4 Guddan, PW-5 Govardhan,
PW-6 Lalta Prasad, PW-7 Ramashankar Chauhan (constable), PW8- Dr. H.P. Singh (post-mortem
doctor), PW9- Ram Nihore Gautam, and PW-10 Israr Husain (constable).

11. Appellant has not produced any oral or documentary evidence in his defence. In his
statement under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant denied having committed the crime. Thus, the
appellant pleaded innocence.

12. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the
learned Trial Court convicted the appellant to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.

Submission made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant:-

13. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and
order are unsustainable in law and on facts. It was further argued that the Trial Court has erred in
placing reliance upon the testimonies of the police witnesses, which, according to the learned
counsel, suffer from material contradictions. It was further urged that there is no eyewitness to the
occurrence and, therefore, the appellant has been falsely and wrongly implicated in the present
case.

14. It was also argued that the entire prosecution case substantially rests upon the testimony of
PW-2 Ram Chhabiley, which, according to the learned counsel, is unreliable and unworthy of
34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
credence. It was further argued that the judgement of the Trial Court is founded upon conjectures
and surmises and on erroneous presumptions, rather than on cogent and trustworthy evidence. It
was lastly argued that the appellant was not named in the first information report, which, according
to the learned counsel, further weakens the prosecution case.

Submission made by learned A.G.A : -

15. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellants. It was argued that the prosecution has successfully established
the chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the appellant and that no
material infirmity or illegality has been committed by the Trial Court while recording the
conviction. It was further argued that though the appellant was not named in the FIR, the
subsequent investigation has clearly brought on record cogent material establishing the motive,
conduct and involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence. It was argued that the
recovery of the weapon used during the offence at the instance of the appellant, the extra-judicial
confession made by him, and the surrounding circumstances constitute a complete and unbroken
chain pointing to his guilt.

16. Thus, learned A.G.A. submitted that the accused-appellants has rightly been convicted in
accordance with law and sentenced accordingly. There is no illegality or error in the impugned
judgment and order. It is further submitted that the appeal has been filed on misconceived and
baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed.

Oral Testimonies:

In order to appreciate the issues arising in the present appeal, it is appropriate to examine, in
brief, the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution.

17. PW-1 Mangal Prasad, son of the accused Shiv Pujan, deposed that his father had two
brothers, namely Munshi and Nibber, Shiv Pujan being the eldest, Munshi the middle and Nibber
the youngest. He further deposed that his father was residing separately in the village, whereas his
grandfather Raghunath, grandmother Kamla and uncles Munshi and Nibber were residing in a
house situated about one kilometre to the south of the village. He further deposed that on the night
of the incident, Raghunath, Kamla, Munshi and Nibber were sleeping in the said house. He further
deposed that in the morning following the occurrence, Nibber came to his house and informed him
that during the night some unknown person had dragged Raghunath, Munshi and Kamla to the
chak-road and had murdered them by using sharp-edged weapons and danda. Upon receiving this
information, he along with his family members reached the spot and saw that all three had been
killed. He further deposed that Nibber had brought the dead bodies to the courtyard of the house.
He denied acquaintance with the village chowkidar and also denied having gone with him to the
police station, though he admitted that the police subsequently came to the spot and thereafter he
went to the police station, where a written application was prepared by the police. At this stage, he
was declared hostile by the Trial Court.
2 All. Shiv Pujan Verma Vs. State of U.P.
35

18. During cross-examination, he denied having made any statement to the police regarding
his arrival at the police station along with the village chowkidar and also denied the suggestion that
he was deposing falsely to save his father. He further deposed that his uncle Munshi generally lived
in a separate house in the village and only occasionally stayed with his grandfather. He further
deposed that the second marriage of his uncle Nibber had taken place on the condition that some
land would be transferred to his wife, and when Raghunath refused to do so, disputes arose
between Nibber's in-laws, Nibber and his grandparents Raghunath and Kamla, due to which
Nibber's wife left for her parental home. On being questioned by the Court as to who came into
possession of Raghunath's agricultural land after the deaths of Ragunath and Munshi, he stated that
he could not say whether the land was vacant or not. He further stated that he had one more uncle
and that during chakbandi (consolidation proceedings) Ragunath had received about 12-14 bighas
of abadi land, over which disputes existed between Moose, Bachchan, Gadde Yadav and Kalau
Rajendra Walender. He further stated that after the murders of his grandfather, uncle and
grandmother and after his father was sent to jail, the said land was taken over by Moose, Bachchan,
Gadde, Kalu Rajendra and Walender. He further deposed that the three deceased persons were
living together in the same house and that Nibber's wife was not present on the date of occurrence
as she had gone to her parental home after a quarrel. He further deposed that he was informed about
the murders on the following morning, whereafter his entire family reached the place of occurrence
on receiving the information from his uncle. He further deposed that his uncle Nibber and his father
had went with the dead bodies to Gonda for post-mortem examination and that in his presence no
articles were recovered from the bodies of his uncle, grandmother and grandfather.

19. PW-2, Ram Chhabiley, deposed that about 1520 days prior to the occurrence, he had
met deceased Raghunath, who informed him that his son Shiv Pujan had threatened to kill him. He
further deposed that frequent quarrels used to take place between Raghunath and the accused over
agricultural land and that Raghunath had categorically stated that Shiv Pujan would not receive any
share in the land during his lifetime. He further deposed that two days after the occurrence, in the
afternoon hours, Shiv Pujan met him and made a confession stating that he had murdered his father
Raghunath, his mother Kamla and his brother Munshi. He further stated that the accused requested
him to use his influence with the police to save him. Upon being questioned as to why he had killed
his mother, the accused replied that he had done so in order that no witness might remain alive.

20. During cross-examination, he deposed that he was not present in the village on the date of
occurrence and returned on the following day. He further deposed that the house of deceased
Munshi Verma was situated adjacent to the house of Govardhan Yadav and that Munshi and his
brother Nibber used to stay alternately with their parents. He stated that the land on which Munshi
had constructed his hut was not patta land but was abadi land belonging to the Gram Samaj. He
further deposed that Shiv Pujan had earlier assisted Munshi in obtaining land from the village
Pradhan. He further deposed that he used to frequently meet deceased Raghunath. He admitted that
he was involved in proceedings under Section 151 Cr.P.C. with deceased Munshi Verma about one
years prior to the incident, though he denied that the said proceedings were related to any land
dispute. He further deposed that Nibbers first wife had left him and that the in-laws of his second
marriage were primarily interested in the family property, but Raghunath had refused to transfer
any land in favour of Nibbers wife. He further stated that Nibber possessed no property of his
own and that the entire agricultural land stood in the name of Raghunath. He further deposed that
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Raghunath had ongoing land disputes with villagers namely Moose, Gudde, Bachchan, Atau and
Ghirau in respect of land near the Nevalgarh Dam, and that Shiv Pujan himself had earlier
submitted an application at the police station on behalf of his father regarding said dispute.

21. PW-3, Mahendra Nath, deposed that upon receiving information regarding the murder of
Munshi, Raghunath and Smt. Kamla of village Pehalwan Purva, he reached the said village. He
further deposed that the Inspector conducted the panchayatnama of the dead bodies of Raghunath,
Munshi Verma and Smt. Kamla at the place of occurrence and, after sealing the dead bodies in
cloth, sent them to Gonda for post-mortem examination. He further deposed that the
panchayatnama of all the deceased persons was prepared on the spot by the Station House Officer.
He further deposed that on 20.01.2006 the accused Shiv Pujan was neither arrested nor produced
before him and that the police did not interrogate Shiv Pujan in his presence. He further deposed
that the accused did not lead to any recovery of the alleged murder weapons, namely axe or danda,
in his presence, nor did the police prepare any recovery memo in his presence. Upon being shown
paper no. 4/13, he admitted that the signatures appearing thereon were his, but deposed that his
signatures were obtained by the Inspector on a blank paper. At this stage, the witness was declared
hostile in the Trial Court.

22. During cross-examination, he stated that to his knowledge the Investigating Officer had
not recorded any of his statement. When his alleged statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was read
over to him, he stated that he had not made any such statement to the Investigating Officer and
could not explain how the Investigating Officer had recorded the same. He denied the suggestion
that he had colluded with the accused and was deliberately not speaking the truth before the Court
in order to protect him. He further denied the suggestion that the murder weapon, namely axe, was
recovered in his presence, that he had appended his signatures on the recovery memo of the murder
weapons, or that any written recovery memo was prepared and read over to him in his presence.

23. PW-4, Guddan, son of Dhagai and resident of Jugulmaria, deposed that on the morning of
17.01.2006, accused Shiv Pujan came to his house in village Pahalwan Purva and informed him
that during the preceding night, some unknown person had murdered his father, mother and
brother. He further deposed that upon receiving the said information, he went to the place of
occurrence and was present when the police prepared the panchayatnama of the three deceased
persons, namely Raghunath, Kamla and Munshi. He further deposed that no letter was recovered
from the pocket of the jacket of deceased Munshi in his presence. He further deposed that he did
not witness the arrest of the accused Shiv Pujan, nor did he see the police interrogate him. He
further deposed that no recovery of axe or danda was made in his presence. Upon being shown the
recovery memo, the witness admitted that the signatures appearing thereon were his, but deposed
that the Inspector filled up the memo and thereafter obtained his signatures. At this stage, the
witness was declared hostile in the Trial Court.

24. During cross-examination, he stated that the inspector had not recorded his statement.
When his alleged statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was read over to him, he deposed that he
had not made any such statement to the inspector and could not explain how the inspector had
recorded the same. He further deposed that he is illiterate and is only aware of how to sign his
name. He denied the suggestion that he had colluded with the accused and was deliberately not
2 All. Shiv Pujan Verma Vs. State of U.P.
37
speaking the truth before the Court in order to protect him. He admitted that he is the Pradhan of
the village of Shiv Pujan and further admitted that Shiv Pujan had remained his supporter. He
denied the suggestion that the murder weapons, namely axe and danda, were recovered in his
presence, that he had appended his signatures on the recovery memo of the murder weapons, or that
any written recovery memo was prepared and read over to him.

25. PW-5 Govardhan, a neighbour of the deceased Raghunath, deposed that his agricultural
land is situated near the house of Raghunath. He deposed that on the day of the incident, he had
gone to inspect his land and to ease himself at around 6:00-7:00 p.m., though he could not specify
the exact time as he is illiterate and unable to accurately assess time. He deposed that when he
proceeded some distance near a brick structure, he saw deceased Ragunath and Munshi coming
from that side in a bullock cart. He further deposed that after Munshi reached his house, he heard
Munshi saying "kon ho?" and "tum kya kar rahe ho?", but he could not hear the second voice. He
further deposed that he heard only the voices of Munshi and Raghunath and did not hear the voice
of any other person. He further deposed that he neither saw nor heard the voice of Shiv Pujan at the
spot. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the Inspector. He also stated that he did
not hear any cries for help from Munshi or Raghunath. At this stage, the witness was declared
hostile in the Trial Court.

26. During cross-examination, he deposed that he did not inform the Inspector that he had
heard cries of Munshi and Raghunath for help or that they were being beaten with a danda. He
denied having heard the voices of Munshi, Raghunath or Shiv Pujan at the time of the incident and
stated that he had only informed the Inspector that he had seen Raghunath and Munshi while they
were coming in a bullock cart. He further deposed that he was not aware of any dispute involving
the parties and admitted that he had friendly relations with Shiv Pujan. He denied the suggestion
that he was deposing falsely before the Court due to fear or pressure from the accused. He denied
the suggestion that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had been correctly recorded by the
Inspector in accordance with what he had stated. He further denied the suggestion that he had heard
the voices of deceased Munshi and Raghunath or of accused Shiv Pujan at the time of the incident
and that he was deliberately suppressing the truth before the Court. He further deposed that Munshi
and Raghunath had no enmity with anyone in the village, though there was some dispute with one
Gudde regarding agricultural land, and that on some occasions he had heard quarrel between Shiv
Pujan and Raghunath, with regards to share in the property.

27. PW-6 Lalta Prasad, elder brother of deceased Raghunath, deposed that Raghunath
possessed about 26-27 bighas of land at his maternal village Pahalwan Purva and had three sons,
namely Shiv Pujan (the eldest), Munshi, and Nibbar (the youngest). He deposed that Shiv Pujan
had been residing separately from his parents and brothers for about seven to eight years prior to
the occurrence. He further deposed that Shiv Pujan had approached him requesting that he
influence Raghunath to give him about five bighas of land for cultivation; to which Raghunath
agreed. He further deposed that as per his knowledge there was no dispute between Raghunath and
Shiv Pujan.

28. During cross-examination, he stated that the second marriage of the youngest son Nibbar
was solemnised on the condition that Raghunath would transfer land in the name of Nibbar's wife.
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
When Raghunath refused to do so, disputes arose between Raghunath and Nibbar's in-laws. He
further deposed that Raghunath had informed him that threats were being extended by Nibbar's inlaws on account of the property dispute. He further deposed that a portion of Raghunath's land was
acquired for the Sarju Canal, for which compensation was paid, and that several villagers, namely
Ghirau, Moose, Gudde, Bachchan and Atau, were desirous of occupying the said land. He further
deposed that after the deaths of Raghunath, Munshi and Kamla and the subsequent incarceration of
Shiv Pujan, the aforesaid villagers occupied the land and have remained in possession thereof till
date.

29. PW-7, Ramashankar Chauhan, C.P. 254 Police Station, Uska Bazaar, Siddarth Nagar,
depsoed that on 17.01.2006 he was posted as head constable in Kotwali Jarwa police station. He
further deposed that on the basis of written complaint of Mangal Prasad Verma he filed a chik FIR
No, 2/06, case crime no. 6/06 under Section 302 IPC (Ext. Ka-8). He further deposed that he made
the entry of same as entry no. 14 on 17.01.2006 at around 9-10 AM (Ext. Ka-9).

30. No cross-examination of PW-7 was done.

31. PW-8 Dr. H.P. Singh, Consultant Surgeon, District Hospital, Gonda deposed that on
18.01.2006 he was posted at District Hospital Gonda and on that day he conducted the post-mortem
of deceased Smt. Kamla, who was brought in sealed cover condition by constable 225 Bachanram
and constable 330 Israr Husain of police station Jarwa. On external examination, it was found that
the rigor mortis had passed in the upper limbs and was beginning to subside in the lower legs. The
following ante-mortem injuries were found on the deceased's body:

Injury No. 1: Lacerated wound on forehead measuring 8cm X 6cm X bone deep, 3 cm above
the tips of the eyes. There was no fracture.

Injury No. 2: Contusion measuring 4cm X 2cm, which was 2 cm lateral to the right angle of
the mouth. There was no fracture of Mandible.

Injury No. 3: Multiple contusions on right arm, 4cm below the shoulder measuring 12 cm X &
7 cm. The right humerus bone was fractured.

Injury No. 4: Lacerated wound on right wrist measuring 2 cm X 1cm X deep up to bone.

Injury No.5: Multiple contusions on the back of the right hand measuring 8 cm X 4cm.

Injury No. 6: Contusion with a swelling on both sides of the front chest, 2cm below the medial
end of left clavicle measuring 12 cm X 12cm.

Injury No. 8: Rib bone 2nd to 6th on the right side and 2nd to 9th on the left were broken.

Injury No. 7: Multiple contusion on right thigh, lacerated 10 cm above the right knee,
measuring 8 cm X 8 cm.
2 All. Shiv Pujan Verma Vs. State of U.P.
39

The left lung was severely lacerated and the pleural cavity was filled. All other organs were
normal. The teeth were 9/8 in numbers. There was fluid in the stomach. There was faecal matter in
the large intestine. He opined that she could have died from excessive bleeding and shock due to
the ante-mortem injuries. Further he opined that she could have died between 36 to 48 hours from
the time of post-mortem examination.

32. Furthermore, on the same day at 1:35 PM, he also examined the dead body of deceased
Raghunath, who was brought by same constable namely, Bechanram and Israr Hussain. On
external examination, he found that the rigor mortis had passed in the upper body and was almost
passed in the lower body. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the deceased's body:

Injury No. 1: Lacerated wound measuring 3cm X 1 1/2cm X deep to bone was present at the
junction of the eye and forehead. The nasal bone was fractured and the right lower part of the
frontal bone was fractured.

Injury No. 2: Lacerated wound measuring 3cmX 1cmX bone deep on the right side of the chin.
The lower jaw bone of the right side was fractured and the teeth were protruding and dislodged.

Injury No. 3: Lacerated wound measuring 3cm X 1cm deep to bone, behind the right ear.

Injury No. 4: Lacerated wound measuring 1cm X 1 cm X on the right arm, 12 cm below the
right shoulder deep upto bone. The humerus bone of the arm was fractured.

Injury no. 5: Lacerated wound measuring 3cm X 2cm X bone deep on the left forearm, 6cm
above the left wrist. Both the radius and ulna bones of the forearm were fractured.

Injury No. 6: Lacerated wound measuring 6cm X 1 1/2 cm X deep up to bone in left leg 12 cm
below knee.

Injury No. 7: Multiple abrasions with swelling on the front of the chest, 1cm below the
suprasternal notch. Rib bone 2nd to 5th on the left side and 2nd to 9th on the right side were broken
and the lung cavity was filled with blood. The liver on the right side was ruptured and the stomach
cavity was completely filled with blood. The deceased had 14/ 11 teeth, his stomach was empty and
his heart was also empty but there was blood in the heart membrane. Brain was not liquidified.
Further, he opined that the Ragunath died due to excessive bleeding and shock caused by the antemortem injuries on his body. He may have passed away between 36 to 48 hours prior to the time of
post-mortem examination.

33. Furthermore, on the same day at 4:15 PM, he conducted the post-mortem examination of
the deceased Munshi Verma, who was brought by the same constables as stated above. On external
examination, he found that the rigor mortis had passed in the upper body and was beginning to
subside in the lower body. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the
deceased:
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Injury No. 1: Incised wound measuring 4cm X 2cm X bone deep on the left side of the neck, 4
cm below the left ear. The carotid and jugular veins on the right side were severed.

Injury No. 2: Incised wound on the right side of the face about 5cm below the ear measuring
5cm X 5cm X deep to the bone. The jaw bone was fractured.

Injury No. 3: Multiple lacerated wounds on right side of the face, 1cm above the injury no. 2,
measuring 6cmX 3cm X deep up to bone.

Injury No. 4: Lacerated wound on the right side of the head 5 1/2 cm above the right eyebrow
measuring 6cm X 1cm X deep up to bone.

Injury No. 5: Multiple contusions measuring 12cm X 3cm on the right chest, 2cm below the
right nipple.

Injury No. 6: Multiple contusions on the chest 4cm below suprasternal notch. The seventh rib
on the left side and rib 2nd to 6th on the right side along with middle bone (sternum) were
fractured.

On internal examination he found that the right lung membrane and lung were ruptured. The
deceased had 11/10 teeth, stomach contained black digested food, the large and small intestines
were empty, brain was not liquidified. He opined that the death may have occurred due to bleeding
and shock caused by the ante-mortem injuries and he may have passed away between 36 to 48
hours from the time of post-mortem examination.

34. He further deposed that in his opinion the cut wound on the body of Munshi could have
likely been caused by a sharp weapon such as an axe and the contusions and lacerated wounds on
the bodies of all the deceased could have been caused by a hard and blunt object like a lathi. He
further opined that all the deceased may have died sometime during the night of January 16th/17th,
2006 and the injuries inflicted on all the deceased were sufficient to cause the death.

35. During cross-examination, he deposed that under normal circumstance it takes four hours
for the food to pass through the stomach. He further deposed that no food was found in the
stomachs of deceased Kamla and Ragunath, and black type digested food was found in the stomach
of deceased Munshi, which was not recognizable as to what type of the food it was. He further
deposed that looking at the contusions and lacerated wounds of all the deceased it would not be
possible to conclude as to whether they were caused by same weapon or different weapon.

36. PW-9, Ram Nihor Gautam, DCRV police line Balrampur, Balrampur deposed that on
17.01.2006 he was posted as inspector-in-charge at police station Kotwali Jarwa. He further
deposed that on the same day, he had registered a case crime number 06/06, on the bases of the
written complaint of Mangal Prasad Verma, under Section 302 IPC and he himself took up the
investigation of the case. He further deposed that thereafter he along with constable Ramshankar
Chauhan, S.S.I Sri Arvind Pratap Singh, S.S.I. Sri Bhagirathi Tiwari, CP 244 Naval Bihari Pandey,
SI CP 225 Bechan Prasad, CP 330 Israr Hussain, CP 361 Radhey Shyam Sharma, H.G. Somai
2 All. Shiv Pujan Verma Vs. State of U.P.
41
Prasad, and Pawan Kumar left for the place of the occurrence. He further deposed that after
reaching the place of occurrence he recorded the statement of Mangal Prasad. He further deposed
that after the witnesses of the panchayatnama were appointed, panchayatnama of dead body of
deceased Kamla and Munshi were prepared and after sealing the bodies in separate clothes and
stamping them, they were handed over to constable 330 Israr Hussain, constable 225 Bachan Ram
and SI Bhagirathi Tiwari for post-mortem. He further deposed that he had prepared the
panchayatnama of dead body of Kamla (Ext. Ka-4). He further deposed that on his instruction SI
A.P. Singh had prepared letter to RI, letter to CMO, challan lash, sketch of the dead body, and
sample of the seal (Ext. Ka-13 to Ka-17). He further deposed that on his instruction the
panchayatnama of dead body of Raghunath Verma was prepared by SI Bhagirathi Tiwari (Ext. Ka2) along with letter to RI, letter to CMO, challan lash, sketch of the dead body, and sample of the
seal (Ext. Ka-18 to Ka-22). He further deposed that he had also prepared the panchayatnama of
dead body of Munshi Verma (Ext. Ka-3). He further deposed that on his instruction SI Bhagirathi
Tiwari and SI A.P. Singh prepared letter to RI, letter to CMO, challan lash, sketch of the dead
body, and sample of the seal (Ext. Ka- 23 to Ka-27). He further deposed that while preparing the
panchayatnama of dead body of Munshi, an application dated 14.01.2006 was found, addressed to
Jarwa police station, against the accused Shiv Pujan and his son. He further deposed that memo of
recovery for this application was prepared and it was attested by the witnesses (Ext. Ka-28). He
further deposed that the application was taken into custody along with paper number 4/5 (Ext. Ka29). He further deposed that on 17.01.2006 statement of Nibber was recorded and thereafter the
place of occurrence was inspected and a site map was prepared (Ext. Ka-30). He further deposed
that on the same day, after the panchayatnama were prepared, plain soil and blood-stained soil were
collected from the place of occurrence, placed in separate boxes, sealed and stamped, and single
memo for all of them was prepared (Ext. Ka-6). He further deposed that on 17.01.2006 at about
8:30 PM an application dated 28.12.2005 submitted by deceased Raghunath at tehsil diwas against
Shiv Pujan and his son was received through the office of S.D.M., Tulsipur and an entry in this
regard was made (Ext. Ka-31). He further deposed that SDM, Tulsipur took action on the said
application on 28.12.2005. He further deposed that on 20.01.2006 Ramnivas, brother of Mangal
Prasad, and accused Shiv Pujan were called to the police station for questioning. He further
deposed that the statement of witness Govardhan and Ram Chhabiley were recoded under Section
161 CrPC. He further deposed that thereafter, statement of accused Shiv Pujan was recorded,
wherein he confessed to his crime and assured the recovery of the murder weapon, an axe and
danda. He further deposed that thereafter accused Shiv Pujan was arrested and taken into custody.
He further deposed that public witnesses Mahendra Nath and Kuddan along with accused Shiv
Pujan were taken to place of occurrence, where accused took to police to a pile of dry sugarcane
leaves near the bullock cart in the eastern corner of Ragunaths house and from that pile accused
himself searched for an axe and a danda, and told that he had killed his parents and brother with the
same. He further deposed that after taking possession of the danda and axe, the same were kept in a
cloth, sealed and stamped. He further deposed that a memo of the recovery of the murder weapon
was prepared at the spot and it was attested by the witnesses (Ext. Ka-5). He further deposed that
on the same day, the site plan of the recovery of murder weapon was prepared (Ext Ka-32).