# Smt. Kamini Verma v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 75
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 855 of 2016
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kamini-verma-v-state-of-u-p-52893
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

appellant under Ss. 302/34 and 120-B I.P.C.
based solely on circumstantial evidence, last
seen theory and alleged illicit relationship, could
be sustained in the absence of a complete chain
of circumstances proving criminal conspiracy
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and common intention beyond reasonable
doubt.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302/34 and
120-B - Murder and Criminal Conspiracy -
Circumstantial Evidence - "Panchsheel"
principles - Appellant convicted by Trial
Court for burning alive the wife and son of
the co-accused due to an alleged illicit
relationship - Criminal Trial - Standard of
Proof - Criminal Conspiracy - S.120-B
I.P.C. - Proof of Agreement - Last Seen
Theory - Evidentiary Value - Suspicion,
however grave, cannot replace proof -
Benefit of Doubt - Entitlement of Accused.
Held: The evidence suffers from "significant
weaknesses" and "merely placing the appellant
as a last seen person at the scene, without any
further corroboration, does not satisfy the
elevated standard of proof required in a case
built solely on circumstantial evidence" -
"Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute
for proof" - The Trial Court "has drawn direct
inference merely based on the fact that there
was illicit relationship between the appellant and
Rajesh Kumar Mishra" without "any objective
analysis of the evidence on record referring to
the particular act of appellant Kamini Verma
indicating that she hatched a conspiracy" - "No
active role of appellant-Kamini Verma in
hatching conspiracy for killing Nandini or the
Appellant having any common intention with the
co-accused Rajesh Kumar, has been established
by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts
and therefore, she is certainly entitled for
benefit of doubt"- appeal allowed - conviction
and
sentence
set
aside
-
appellant
acquitted.(Paras 41, 44, 45, 46) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Sharad
Birdhichand
Sarda
vs
State
of
Maharashtra, 1984 4 SCC 116; Hanumant
Govind Nargundkar vs State of Madhya
Pradesh, 1952 2 SCC 71; Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade vs State of Maharashtra, 1973 2 SCC
793; State of Kerala vs P. Sugathan, AIR
2000 SC 3323; Kanhaiya Lal vs State of
Rajasthan, 2014 4 SCC 715; Nusrat Parveen
vs State of Jharkhand, 2024 INSC 955;
Anees vs State Govt. of NCT, 2024 INSC
368; Krishnan vs State of T.N., 2014 12
SCC 279; Vadivelu Thevar vs State of
Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614.
List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961;
Indian Evidence Act,1872.

List of Keywords
Circumstantial
evidence;
Illicit
relationship;
Criminal conspiracy; Last seen theory; Benefit of
doubt;
Shoddy
investigation;
Suspicion;
Common intention; Chain of circumstances;
Burn injuries; Kerosene lamp; Pugilistic attitude;
Hostile Witness; Accidental Fire; Inquest Report.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Judgment and order dated 10.06.2016 passed
by Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court
No. 1, Balrampur, in Sessions Trial No. 34 of
2012, arising out of Crime No. 553 of 2011,
State v. Rajesh Kumar Mishra and others.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Lalla Ji Maurya, Anju Tripathi, Ashutosh Tiwari,
Jyoti Rajpoot, Kuldeep Kumar Srivastava,
Nadeem Murtaza, Reena Gupta, Shailesh Kumar
Pathak, Srikant Mishra, Umesh Pratap Singh
Advs. for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Deepak Kumar Pandey

## Text

_Characters 0–39,985 of 97,156. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39985 for what follows._

11 All. Smt. Kamini Verma Vs. State of U.P.
75
has also failed to explain the injuries, the
mode and the manner of receiving of fatal
injuries by Umakant by defence side and
firearm injuries received by accused Surya
Kumar. It appears that it is quite obvious
that the prosecution has concealed the
genesis of the incident, which resulted in
unfortunate death of three persons. The
prosecution has deliberately concealed
some
material
facts
during
the
investigation, as well as during trial.
Therefore, the conviction and sentence
awarded to the surviving appellants cannot
be sustained. Learned trial court has erred
in applying the fact while recording
conviction of the appellants while giving
a verdict of acquittal to nine named
accused persons, despite the fact that
there was almost similar evidence against
all the 21 named accused persons.
Consequently, the judgment and order
passed by leraned trial court dated
31.03.1983,
whereby
the
surviving
appellants are convicted and sentenced in
above manner for charges under Sections
302, 149, 302/149 IPC is set aside. The
case is based on direct evidence of
eyewitnesses but their evidence regarding
complicity of the appellants and mode
and manner of the commission of the
offense
does
not
inspire
requisite
confidence.

70. Consequently, the appellants,
namely, Rajendra Prasad, Bimal Kumar,
Surya Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Bhaiyalal,
Anant Ram and Pratap Narain, are
acquitted of charge under Sections 147 and
302/149 I.P.C. They have been enlarged on
bail by order of this Court on admission of
present appeal long ago. They need not
surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled
and sureties discharged.

71. The appeal is allowed.

72. The aforementioned appellants are
directed to appear before the trial court and
file the requisite bail bonds, within two
weeks in compliance of Section 437 of
Cr.P.C.
upto
satisfaction
with
an
undertaking to appear before the appellate
Court as and when an appeal is filed
against this judgment and order.

73. Let a certified / authenticated copy
of this judgment be sent to the court
concerned
for
necessary
compliance
alongwith the trial court record.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 75
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR
CHAUDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 855 of 2016

Smt. Kamini Verma ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Lalla Ji Maurya, Anju Tripathi, Ashutosh
Tiwari, Jyoti Rajpoot, Kuldeep Kumar
Srivastava, Nadeem Murtaza, Reena Gupta,
Shailesh Kumar Pathak, Srikant Mishra,
Umesh Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate, Deepak Kumar Pandey

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the conviction of the
appellant under Ss. 302/34 and 120-B I.P.C.
based solely on circumstantial evidence, last
seen theory and alleged illicit relationship, could
be sustained in the absence of a complete chain
of circumstances proving criminal conspiracy
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and common intention beyond reasonable
doubt.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302/34 and
120-B - Murder and Criminal Conspiracy -
Circumstantial Evidence - "Panchsheel"
principles - Appellant convicted by Trial
Court for burning alive the wife and son of
the co-accused due to an alleged illicit
relationship - Criminal Trial - Standard of
Proof - Criminal Conspiracy - S.120-B
I.P.C. - Proof of Agreement - Last Seen
Theory - Evidentiary Value - Suspicion,
however grave, cannot replace proof -
Benefit of Doubt - Entitlement of Accused.
Held: The evidence suffers from "significant
weaknesses" and "merely placing the appellant
as a last seen person at the scene, without any
further corroboration, does not satisfy the
elevated standard of proof required in a case
built solely on circumstantial evidence" -
"Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute
for proof" - The Trial Court "has drawn direct
inference merely based on the fact that there
was illicit relationship between the appellant and
Rajesh Kumar Mishra" without "any objective
analysis of the evidence on record referring to
the particular act of appellant Kamini Verma
indicating that she hatched a conspiracy" - "No
active role of appellant-Kamini Verma in
hatching conspiracy for killing Nandini or the
Appellant having any common intention with the
co-accused Rajesh Kumar, has been established
by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts
and therefore, she is certainly entitled for
benefit of doubt"- appeal allowed - conviction
and
sentence
set
aside
-
appellant
acquitted.(Paras 41, 44, 45, 46) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Sharad
Birdhichand
Sarda
vs
State
of
Maharashtra, 1984 4 SCC 116; Hanumant
Govind Nargundkar vs State of Madhya
Pradesh, 1952 2 SCC 71; Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade vs State of Maharashtra, 1973 2 SCC
793; State of Kerala vs P. Sugathan, AIR
2000 SC 3323; Kanhaiya Lal vs State of
Rajasthan, 2014 4 SCC 715; Nusrat Parveen
vs State of Jharkhand, 2024 INSC 955;
Anees vs State Govt. of NCT, 2024 INSC
368; Krishnan vs State of T.N., 2014 12
SCC 279; Vadivelu Thevar vs State of
Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614.
List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961;
Indian Evidence Act,1872.

List of Keywords
Circumstantial
evidence;
Illicit
relationship;
Criminal conspiracy; Last seen theory; Benefit of
doubt;
Shoddy
investigation;
Suspicion;
Common intention; Chain of circumstances;
Burn injuries; Kerosene lamp; Pugilistic attitude;
Hostile Witness; Accidental Fire; Inquest Report.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Judgment and order dated 10.06.2016 passed
by Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court
No. 1, Balrampur, in Sessions Trial No. 34 of
2012, arising out of Crime No. 553 of 2011,
State v. Rajesh Kumar Mishra and others.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Lalla Ji Maurya, Anju Tripathi, Ashutosh Tiwari,
Jyoti Rajpoot, Kuldeep Kumar Srivastava,
Nadeem Murtaza, Reena Gupta, Shailesh Kumar
Pathak, Srikant Mishra, Umesh Pratap Singh
Advs. for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Deepak Kumar Pandey

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdhesh Kumar
Chaudhary, J.)

1. The present Criminal Appeal under
Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.)
has been filed by the appellant/ accused
Smt. Kamini Verma against the judgment
and order dated 10.06.2016 passed by the
Additional
Sessions
Judge/Fast
Track
Court No. 1, Balrampur in Sessions Trial
No. 34 of 2012 arising out of Crime No.
553 of 2011 (State V/s Rajesh Kumar
Mishra and others), wherein she has been
convicted and sentenced for punishment for
the substantive offence under Section
302/34 I.P.C. for life imprisonment along
11 All. Smt. Kamini Verma Vs. State of U.P.
77
with fine of Rs. 15,000/- and under Section
120-B I.P.C. for life imprisonment along
fine of Rs. 15,000/-. However, the benefit
of Section 428 of Criminal Procedure Code
relating to concurrent running of both the
said sentences of conviction has been
granted to the appellant by the Ld. Trial
Court.

Case of the Prosecution

2. The case of the prosecution as
elaborated by the learned Trail Court in the
impugned judgment is briefly encapsulated
as herein under:

2.1
The
complainant-
Prem
Kumar Shukla(PW-1), had got married his
sister-Nandini to Rajesh Kumar Mishra,
(A-1) S/o Jagdamba Prasad Mishra and R/o
Village
Sonhati,
Police
Station-
Pachpedwa, District- Balrampur.

2.2 Out of the said wedlock, one
son and two daughters were born, who
were aged 5 years, 6 years and 8 years,
respectively at the time of incident.

2.3
On
08.12.2011,
Rajesh
Kumar Mishra took his only son Sundaram
for performing "Tudan Ceremony" to
Gaura Chauraha.

2.4
Apparently,
at
Gaura
Chauraha, Rajesh Kumar Mishra used to
run a ready-made shop in a tenanted
premise, rented out by the landlord- Govind
Prasad Pandey (PW-3).

2.5 It has been stated that Rajesh
Kumar Mishra had illicit relationship with
the appellant-Kamini Verma, (A-2) who is
resident of village- Haraiyya Chandrasi,
Police Station- Pachpedwa, since the last
two years and for which the complainant-
Prem Kumar Shukla had even complained
to the parents of Rajesh Kumar Mishra on
several occasions.

2.6 It has further been stated that
on 10.12.2011 at around 5:00 AM in
morning
the
complainant
received
a
telephonic
call
from
Mobile
No.
7398526113 belonging to one Shri Ram
Pandey, (PW-2) S/o Ram Sumer Pandey,
R/o Village- Gaura Chauraha, informing
him that after having burnt alive the
complainant's sister- Nandini and her sonSundram, both Rajesh Kumar Mishra and
the Appellant-Kamini Verma had fled
away.

2.7 The complainant also stated
that whenever his sister used to come to her
parental home, she used to tell her mother
and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) that she was
being harassed by her mother-in-law (Smt.
Parwati
Devi)
(A-3),
father-in-law
(Jagdamba Prasad) (A-4) and her husband
(Rajesh Kumar Mishra) by demanding
motorcycle and chain as dowry. She also
used to tell that if she did not fulfill this
demand, then her husband would be
remarried and her in-law's would end her
life and that of the children.

2.8 On the basis of the aforesaid
statement of Prem Kumar Shukla, a First
Information report (FIR) No. 553/2011
dated 10.12.2011 (Exhibit-Ka-18) came to
be lodged at around 8:30 AM in the
morning, under Sections 498-A, 304-B,
201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, against four accused,
including the Appellant.

2.9 Thereafter, the police arrived
at the crime spot and inspected the dead
body. Inquest report was prepared of the
deceased- Nandini (Exhibit Ka-02) and
78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that of deceased Sundaram (Exhibit Ka03), wherein the reason was mentioned as
'burning to death for dowry'. The ashes of
the burnt room (Exhibit Ka-4) was
collected from the crime site. The dead
bodies were sent to the District Hospital,
Gonda for post mortem, which were
conducted on 11.12.2021 at 3.00 PM of the
deceased Nandini (Exhibit Ka-16) and at
3.35 PM on the same day of deceased
Sundaram (Exhibit Ka-17).

2.10 During investigation, the
police prepared the site plan (Exhibit Ka20). Statements were recorded of the
complainant and other witnesses under
section 161 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, Forensic report (Exhibit Ka-22) was
collected
and
upon
completion
of
investigation, the Investigating officer filed
the Charge-Sheet (Exhibit Ka-21) and
supplementary Charge-Sheet (Exhibit Ka23), for offences punishable under Section
498A, 302, 120B of the Indian Penal code.

Proceedings before the Ld. Trial
Court

3. The Charge-Sheet named four
accused being (i) Rajesh Kumar Mishra (A1), (ii) Smt. Parvati Devi (A-2), (iii) Smt.
Kamini Verma- Appellant (A-3) and (iv)
Jagdamba Prasad Mishra (A-4). Thereafter,
the case came to be committed to the
Sessions Court and to the charges framed
against the accused, all of them pleaded not
guilty and claimed Trial.

3.1 The prosecution, in order to
prove its case, have examined nine
witnesses. The details of the witnesses are
given herein below: -

P.W.-
1
Prem
Kumar
Complainant/brother
of the deceased
Shukla
P.W.-
2
Shri
Ram
Pandey
He got married in
the same village as
that
of
the
complainant and is
related as son of
brother-in-law.
P.W.-
3
Govind
Prasad
Landlord of the shop
of
Rajesh
Kumar
Mishra
P.W.-
4
Manzoor
Ahmad
Nayab
Tahsildar,
Tehsil-Balrampur
P.W.-
5
Dr.
F.R.
Malik
E.M.O.
Memorial
Hospital, Balrampur
P.W.-
6
Dr.
P.K.
Srivastava
Radiologist of the
Hospital
P.W.-
7
Constable-
Hariram
Bharti
Head
Moharrir
posted
at
Gaura
Chauraha at the time
of the incident
P.W.-
8
Inspector
Banshraj,
I.O.
Investigating
Officer.
P.W.-
9
Harigovind,
Additional
S.P.
C.O./Investigating
Officer

3.2 Apart from the oral evidence
led by the prosecution, various documents
have also been exhibited and proved
running from Exbt. Ka-1 to Exbt. Ka-23.

3.3 Thereafter, the statement of
the Appellant and the other accused were
recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C
on 21.1.2015, wherein she denied the fact
of being involved in the present incident
and setting ablaze of the deceased- Nandini
and her son Sundaram. She has stated that
she was married in the year 2005 with one
Bansraj Verma, R/o Ram Nagar, Police
Station- Pachpedwa, District- Balrampur
and her parental home is at Haraiyya
Chandrasi, Police Station- Pachpedwa. She
also stated that the complainant-Prem
11 All. Smt. Kamini Verma Vs. State of U.P.
79
Kumar Shukla has kinship in the family of
Gram Pradhan Brijesh Pandey of village of
her parental home and stated that her
parental family had an old animosity with
Brijesh Pandey. She also stated in her
statement recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. that she was at her parental home at
the time of incident and that Brijesh Pandey
had provoked the complainant- Prem
Kumar Shukla to get registered this false
case against her and she does not recognize
Rajesh Kumar Mishra nor had any
relationship with him.

3.4 None of the accused persons,
including the appellant produced any
defence witnesses in their favour.

3.5 After hearing the arguments
of both the sides and on basis of the
evidence available on record, the Learned
Trial Court returned a finding that the oral
and documentary evidence placed before
the Court by the prosecution were found
adequate for successfully proving the entire
chain of whole evidence from beginning to
end in a coherent manner on the parameters
of circumstantial evidence set by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sharad Birchandra Sarda v/s State of
Maharashtra, 1984 SCC(Crime) 487,
against the accused Rajesh Kumar Mishra
and Kamini Verma for hatching a criminal
conspiracy for killing Prem Kumar Shukla's
sister Nandini and nephew Sundaram by
burning them to death in the present case.
According to the learned Trial Court, the
bodies of Nandini and Sundaram were
found in the rented shop of accused Rajesh
Kumar Mishra, the shutter of the shop was
closed from outside and the accused failed
to give any satisfactory explanation in this
regard, and the accused Rajesh Kumar
Mishra had an illicit relationship with
accused Kamini Verma, the postmortem
report stated that the death was one and a
half day before and the cause of death was
due to shock of burning before death.
According to the Trial Court, these are such
links of the witnesses which are connected
to each other and clearly prove the accused
Rajesh Kumar Mishra and Kamini Verma
guilty for the murder of Nandini and
Sundaram but the prosecution evidence
does not fully prove the allegation in
respect of accused Jagdamba Prasad and
Parvati Devi.

3.6 The learned Trial Court, in
conclusion, after analyzing the evidence
available on record, arrived at a conclusion
that the prosecution has been successful in
proving its witnesses in this case that the
accused- Rajesh Kumar Mishra and Kamini
Verma hatched a criminal conspiracy to
remove Nandini from their path due to their
illicit
relationship
and
under
this
conspiracy,
they
called
Nandini
and
Sundaram to a rented shop on the pretext of
getting "Tundan" done and in order to
satisfy their love affair, they burnt them to
death with the common intention of killing
them. Thus, according to the Trial Court,
the prosecution has been successful in
proving the offence under Section 302 read
with Section 34 and Section 120B of the
Indian Penal Code against the accused
persons Rajesh Kumar Mishra and Kamini
Verma
beyond
a
reasonable
doubt.
Therefore, both the accused persons Rajesh
Kumar Mishra and Kamini Verma were
convicted under Section 302 read with
Section 34 and Section 120 I.P.C.

3.7 The learned Trial Court, also
found that the charge levelled against the
accused persons Rajesh Kumar Mishra and
Kamini Verma under Section 498A I.P.C.
was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the accused persons Rajesh
80 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Kumar Mishra and Kamini Verma were
acquitted under Section 498-A I.P.C.

3.8
Similarly,
the
evidence
presented by the prosecution did not prove
any allegation against Jagdamba Prasad
Mishra and Parvati Devi under sections
498A, 302 read with 34 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the accused
persons Jagdamba Prasad Mishra and
Parvati Devi were acquitted under Sections
498A, 302 read with 34 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code.

Proceedings before this Court

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
conclusion of the learned Trial court, two
Appeals came to be filed. One by the
Accused Rajesh Kumar Mishra (being
Criminal Appeal No. 856/2016) and the
second being the present Appeal (being
Criminal Appeal No. 855/2016) by the
Accused Kamini Verma.

4.1 During the course of hearing
of the present Appeal, this Court was
informed that in the Appeal filed by the
Accused-Rajesh
Kumar
Mishra
vide
Criminal Appeal No. 856 of 2016, an
application for bail had been preferred by
him, which came to be rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 6.4.2022.
The rejection of the said bail application
was carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court
vide S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 6131 of 2022. It
has further been informed that Rajesh
Kumar Mishra, who is the main accused of
the present case, had been granted bail
(Sentence had been suspended) by Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide its order dated
04.07.2023.

4.2
However,
subsequently
Rajesh Kumar Mishra left for his heavenly
abode and as such the aforesaid appeal
preferred by him before this Court stood
abated vide order dated 21.04.2025.

4.3 It has been thus submitted by
the learned counsel for the appellant that it
is Kamini Verma, (the Appellant), who is
the only surviving accused in the present
case and although there is no cogent
evidence found against her, still she is
being forced to be incarcerated since last
more than 11 and half years and as such he
has prayed for Bail.

4.4 However, during the hearing
of the Bail Application of the Appellant,
since the paper-book was ready and the
Appeal had been pending for close to nine
years, both the parties chose to address this
Court on the Appeal itself on merits and as
such this Court heard both sides at length.

Submission of the Parties

5. Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar Pathak,
learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri
Umesh Verma, learned A.G.A. for the
State.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant
has vehemently argued that there was no
ocular witness to the present incident and
the entire case is based on hearsay
evidences.
According
to
him,
the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove
the presence of the present appellant-
Kamini Verma at the place of occurrence.
The Appellant has been convicted on the
premises of being in illicit relationship with
the main accused- Rajesh Kumar Mishra,
however apparently the said relationship
was not established by cogent evidence.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has
further relied on the statement of accused
Rajesh Kumar Mishra recoded under
11 All. Smt. Kamini Verma Vs. State of U.P.
81
Section 313 Cr.P.C. to highlight the reason
for the fire which broke on the fateful
intervening night of 9-10 December, 2011.
According to him, co-accused Rajesh
Kumar Mishra has stated that a kerosene
lamp was lighting at the place of
occurrence. There was no electricity
connection in his shop and his residence
was situated on the rear side. It was due to
fall of the lamp at about 4 o'clock on the
morning of 10.12.2011, a fire broke out in
the shop due to which the entire shop was
guttered and his wife and son had died of
burning. He vehemently argued that there
was evidence to support the version that
Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Govind Prasad
Pandey and people from the surroundings
tried to extinguish the fire by throwing
water and it was Rajesh Kumar Mishra,
who had informed the complainant-Prem
Kumar Shukla from his mobile. It has also
been submitted that although there were
four accused persons, who were sent for
Trial, however, on the appreciation of
evidence, learned Trial Court found only
two persons guilty and has exonerated the
mother-in-law
and
father-in-law
and
convicted the appellant and Rajesh Kumar
Mishra.

7. The learned Counsel has also sought
to submit that the entire case is based on
circumstantial evidence and the present
Appellant is being connected to the offence
of murder due to invocation of the
provisions of criminal conspiracy under
section 120B IPC, however it is his
submission
that
a
reading
of
the
prosecution witnesses and the material
brought on record, reveals that there are
various missing link and as such the
appellant cannot be convicted in the
absence of the completion of chain, which
is a sine quo non for any criminal
conspiracy to sustain in the eyes of law. He
has also argued that in the evidence, which
has come on record, there cannot be any
iota of suspicion that there could be any
meeting of mind or common intention as
the Appellant has nowhere been connected
to the present incident and has been merely
roped in by alleging illicit relationship with
the co-accused Rajesh Kumar Mishra.
Thus, he prays for setting aside of the
Judgment dated 10.06.2016 passed by the
Additional
Sessions
Judge/Fast
Track
Court No. 1, Balrampur in Sessions Trial
No. 34 of 2012 and prays for acquittal of
the Appellant in the present case.

8.
Per
contra,
learned
A.G.A.
appearing for the State has submitted that it
is the specific submission of P.W.-2 that
the appellant Kamini Verma was present in
the shop of Rajesh Kumar Mishra,
immediately before the fateful night of
incident and as such the last seen theory
would be applicable to the facts of the
present case. According to the learned
AGA, all the prosecution witnesses and the
material brought on records, point towards
the culpability of the Appellant and the
learned Trial Court has rightly convicted
the Appellant under section 302/34 and
120B IPC for life imprisonment. He
pointed out that there is no specific defence
raised by the appellant in respect of her
alleged
innocence,
and
therefore,
considering the entire evidence on record,
her conviction recorded by the learned trial
Court has to be upheld. Thus, he prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.

Discussion & Finding

9. We have heard the learned Counsel
for both the parties and perused the
material brought on records. The power of
this Court as being the 1st Appellate Court
under section 386 Cr.P.C are as wide as the
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Trial Court and as such this Court can
review the whole evidence and all relevant
circumstances
to
arrive
at
its
own
conclusion about the guilt or innocence of
the accused. This Court in view of the
power having been bestowed by the
aforesaid provision has a mandatory duty to
make proper analysis of evidence and to
consider
whether
the
Trial
Court's
assessment of evidence and its opinion
regarding
conviction
deserved
to
be
confirmed or not because the personal
liberty of an accused is being curtailed due
to the aforesaid conviction.

10. However, before this Court delves
into the evidence of the present case for the
purpose of scrutinizing and appreciating its
credibility, it would be incumbent upon this
Court to first narrate the testimony of each
and every prosecution witness, which has
come on record vis-a-vis the involvement
or otherwise of the Appellant.

11. As already stated herein above, the
prosecution in order to prove its case, have
examined nine witnesses. Prem Kumar
Shukla(PW1)
is
the
brother of
the
deceased. His educational qualification is
intermediate and is posted as Home-Guard
at Sidharthnagar. He has stated in his
examination in chief, that Accused Rajesh
Kumar and the Appellant had illicit
relationship since the last 2-3 years from
the date of incident. However, he also says
that he does not recognizes the Appellant
and came to known about her only after her
arrest, after the incident. He also says that
the parents of Rajesh Kumar knew about
the illicit relationship between Rajesh
Kumar and the Appellant. He says that
Rajesh Kumar shifted to a rented shop at
Gaura Chauraha, some 5-6 months before
the incident and used to run a garment
shop. The landlord of the shop was Govind
Prasad Pandey and the Appellant used to
come to the shop of Rajesh Kumar from
time to time.

As far as the present incident is
concerned, he says that on 10.12.2011 at
about 5:00 AM, Shri Ram Pandey has
informed about the incident on his mobile
that his brother-in-law Rajesh and the
Appellant has burnt alive his sister and
nephew (bhanja) Sundaram in the night and
ran away. He was informed that the dead
body was lying burnt and he was told to
come fast. He further says in his
examination-in-chief that when he visited
the crime spot, he came to learn that his
sister Nandini and bhanja-Sundaram had
come to the Gaura Chauraha ready-made
garment
shop
from
their
home
on
08.12.2011 and the Appellant had also
come to the shop on the very next day. He
further stated that, he came to learn that on
the arriving of the Appellant, the same was
objected to by his sister by stating that
when Rajesh Kumar had called over the
Appellant, what was the point in calling his
sister-Nandini at his home at Gaura
Chauraha and as such all of them quarreled
for the entire day and in the night these
people burnt his sister and bhanja alive in
an organized manner. The said witness had
also stated that around 3 AM in the night,
the landlord woke up due to sound of
cracking of cement and smoke and he was
the person who raised an alarm and called
all other neighbors and since the said
landlord did not hear any scream, he
doubted that the deceased was killed before
putting on fire.

In the cross-examination, the said
witness stated that the appellant is a
resident of hariaya chandershi and he has
some relatives in the said village. Further,
he said that the said village is about 5-6
11 All. Smt. Kamini Verma Vs. State of U.P.
83
Kilometers far from the police station-
Pachpedwa. He reiterated that he has
already stated in his examination-in-chief
that he did not know the Appellant before
the incident. He has also stated that
although he had been off and on visiting his
sister's matrimonial home during festival or
as per his wishes, every in 4-6 months, but
did not ever find the Appellant in his
brother-in-law's house. However, he has
also stated that, whenever he called the
appellant, over phone, the appellant told
that she was enemy of his sister. He also
admits that he had been trying to talk to the
Appellant since the last 2-3 years, however
could not succeed and he did not ever try to
contact the parents of the Appellant or her
husband. He also admits that before the
incident, PW1, never visited the shop of his
brother-in-law at gaura chauraha. He also
stated that the landlord and other person
had informed him that the appellant had
visited the house of Rajesh Kumar on
09.12.2011. He has further stated that
Govind had told him that his sister had
come to the shop of Rajesh Kumar at
Gaura Chauraha on 08.12.2011. He has
also stated that Shri Ram Pandey and other
persons, whose name he does not know,
have also told that the appellant had visited
the shop of Rajesh Kumar. He stated that
his sister used to tell about the appellant
and as such he has got the name of the
Appellant mentioned in the complaint. He
has also stated that the neighbor, the
landlord and Shri Ram Pandey have told
him that when the appellant reached, his
sister had "bata-kahi" with her. Although
the said witness, admits that the Appellant
is
married,
however
he
denies
the
suggestion that there was no illicit
relationship between Rajesh Kumar and the
Appellant, also denied the suggestion that
the Appellant had nothing to do with the
incident.

The said witness admits that
neither he nor the deceased or any of the
family members, had ever reported about
matrimonial harassment before the present
FIR. He stated that the entire family,
including his mother, father, uncle and
brothers have given statement to the Police,
as they have been asked to do. He also
stated that the deceased-sister had come to
the parental house before six months of the
incident and at that point of time stayed at
her Uncle's place, although it was the said
witness, who had gone to the matrimonial
home to bring her. He denied the
suggestion that the fire, which broke out in
the shop was an accident or that Rajesh
Kumar had tried to save her from the fire.

12. Shri Rram Pandey (PW-2), is the
person, who informed PW-1 about the said
incident and is a resident of Gaura
Chauraha. The said witness in his
examination in chief stated that he and the
accused Rajesh Kumar are married to the
same village-Majhowa, PS: Trilokpur,
Siddharthnagar and as such are known to
each other and used to often visit each
other's house. He stated that Rajesh Kumar
had a garment shop at Gaura Chauraha,
where he also sold Petrol. The shop was
rented to the accused Rajesh Kumar by the
landlord- Govind Prasad Pandey.

About the incident, he says that a
day prior to the incident, i.e on 09.12.2011
at about 3-4 PM in the evening, the
deceased along with her son-Subham came
to his home and told that Rajesh Kumar
had physically abused and thrown her out
from the shop at Gaura Chauraha and as
such the deceased had requested the
witness to let her stay that day and started
crying. He also stated that Rajesh Kumar
had brought his wife/deceased one day
before to his shop and after that also had
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
brought the appellant to the said shop,
which resulted in a quarrel between all of
them. The witness has also stated that he
and his wife, made the deceased understand
and around 7 PM in the evening on that
same day took the deceased back to the
room of Rajesh Kumar, where the appellant
was also present. He also stated that he
explained and made understand Rajesh
Kumar and even Rajesh Kumar talked over
phone with his parents and thereafter both
he and his wife came back after handing
over the deceased to Rajesh Kumar. The
witness thereafter stated that he woke up at
5 AM in the morning and got news from
people that Rajesh Kumar and the appellant
had burnt alive both Nandini and her sonsundaram and fled from the scene. He also
stated that he called from his mobile to
PW-1, the elder brother of the deceased and
informed him about the incident and the
said PW-1 and his entire family came to the
spot at Gauri Chauraha at about 7:30 PM in
the evening and then he visited the spot,
where he saw the burnt dead bodies of
Nandini and her son- Sundaram.

In his cross-examination, the said
witness, stated that PW-1 is related to him
as being his brother-in-law's son. He stated
that, when the incident occurred, he was
sleeping in his house. Gaura Chauraha is
about half kilometer from his house. He
stated that the electric supply at Gaura
Chauraha had been off and on and
sometime, it did not come for two weeks in
a stretch, when people used lamp and
lantern. He admits that some people, who
were on a morning walk had informed him
about the incident, while he was sweeping
and when he reached the spot, the police
had already come and hundreds of people
were using bucket and tumbler to douse the
fire. Govind Prasad Pandey, his mother,
Laldhar Jaiswal of Kulahiya village and
various police personnel were present on
the spot. He stated that Rajesh Kumar was
running a ready-made garment shop and
used to also sell petrol and stored them in
plastic can. The garment shop was full of
clothes meant for 6th-12th standard girls
Suits and Jeans Pant for elders.

He admits that whatever people
told him about the incident, he gave his
statement accordingly. He also stated that
when he reached the spot, he found the
entire goods of the shop was burnt and the
two dead bodies. He also admits that he did
not see the incident himself and has given
his statement, on the basis of what he saw,
on reaching the spot after the incident. He
has expressed his ignorance about the
husband or parentage or village of the
Appellant, but he has stated that the
Appellant used to stay at Gaura Chauraha
and used to visit Rajesh off and on. He
admits that the deceased is his brother-inlaw's daughter. He stated the size of the
shop as 10' X 15' with shutter in the front
and wooden door at the rear. He denied the
suggestion of any relationship between
Rajesh and the Appellant.

13. The next witness is Govind
Prasad(PW-3). The said witness is the
landlord of the Shop, wherein the incident
occurred. He is also the immediate
neighbor as per the site-plan field by the
prosecution. In his examination-in-chief he
stated that Rajesh Kumar was his tenant.
He stated that shoes, chappal, readymade
and petrol used to be sold from the said
shop and was started 4-5 months before the
incident. He stated that Rajesh Kumar used
to live along with his wife-Nandini and
Son-Sundaram in his house on the rear side
of the shop. According to the said witness,
the Appellant never visited the shop of
Rajesh Kumar. He specifically stated that at
11 All. Smt. Kamini Verma Vs. State of U.P.
85
the time of incident, Rajesh Kumar, his
wife and their son were at the house and the
Appellant was not present. He stated that
he woke up at 2:45 AM in the night with
the sound of cracking of plaster and smoke
and saw that the shop was in flames and
shutter came to be locked. He stated that
when he reached the spot, many people had
already gathered and were sprinkling water
for dousing the fire. It was when the fire
was doused that the dead bodies of Nandini
and her son were found. He also stated that
he is one of the witness of Panchayatnama
of the deceased Nandini and her son-
Sundaram. He is also one of the witness of
the ashes collected by the police from the
spot. He also stated that his statement was
recorded by the Police at the time of
Panchayatnama, however he also stated
that he did not tell the Police that there was
some quarrel between the deceased, Rajesh
and the appellant on the preceding night of
the incident.

The said witness was declared
hostile and as such was permitted to be
cross-examined by the prosecution.

In his cross-examination, the said
witness stated that on the previous day of
the incident he was at home and again said
he was at Tulsipur between 9-10 AM to 8
PM. He stated that he did not see Shriram
had come to leave the deceased or her son
on the preceding night of the incident. He
stated that he never saw the face of the
Appellant, from the time Rajesh Kumar had
started the shop. He also stated that he did
not tell the police that on 09.12.2011 at
about 10 AM in the morning, the appellant
had come at the shop of Rajesh Kumar,
wherein the deceased told her husband
Rajesh Kumar that when she was called
from her home, why did he call the
Appellant, whereinafter quarrel started
between Rajesh Kumar, the deceased and
the Appellant. He admits that the deceased
was brought from her home to the shop
some two days before the incident. He
stated that he and some people in the
neighborhood opened the shutter and
doused the fire at the shop. He also stated
that he was living alone and his entire
family and even his mother- Syamkali were
living at his ancestral village- Sakra Pathak.
He stated that the rear door of the shop was
of wood and the same was not burnt fully
but only half. He stated that he did not hear
the noise of the deceased as he was
sleeping under the blanket. He also stated
that when Rajesh took the house on rent, he
brought his wife after one month and there
were trifle fights between them during their
stay in the house. He stated that Nandini
and his son were burnt alive in an accident.

14. The next witness namely Manssor
Ahmed Ansari (PW-4) is a Naib Tehsildar
and is a witness of recording of the Inquest
report / Panchayatnama and sending of the
dead bodies to Gonda for post mortem.
Although, he does not say anything about
the Appellant, but he stated in his crossexamination that when he reached the spot,
there was a huge crowd and the dead body
was found on the floor and under a tin roof.
He stated that five people were identified as
Panchayat witness and that it took him
about two and half hours for preparing the
said two Panchayatnama. Further, Dr. F.R.
Malik (PW-5) was examined by the
prosecution, who has stated that the
wounds of the accused Rajesh Kumar
Mishra, were due to burn on the right ear,
right side of the nose and forehand and left
palm. He opined that the wounds were
normal and it was possible that these would
had been inflicted on 10.12.2011 between 1
AM to 5 AM. In his cross-examination, he
accepted the suggestion that these wound
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
can come while trying to save a woman
from fire.

15. Dr. P.K. Srivastava (PW-6) is the
doctor, who conducted the post mortem. He
stated that there were burn injuries in the
entire body of the deceased-Nandini and
her son- Sundaram, wherein the flesh and
bones were also burnt. The line of redness
was present in both the bodies. The cause
of death has been mentioned as "shock due
to burn injuries before death." for both the
deceased. In his cross-examination, he
stated that besides burn injuries, there were
no bodily injuries present on the bodies of
deceased Nandini & Sundaram. According
to the said witness, both were alive, before
the burn injuries. There was neither any
smell nor any presence of kerosene oil,
petrol or any inflammable item on the body
of the deceased persons. He admits the
proposition that death would have been
caused due to being trapped in sudden
breaking of fire. He also admitted the
suggestion that death could be caused by a
fire caused by falling down of burning
Tibri or lamp. He also stated that no
abnormality or injuries were found on the
person of the dead bodies, besides the burn
injuries. He also stated that he did not
mention that the bodies started rigor
mortise and instead wrote pugilistic attitude
of the dead bodies.

16. Constable Hariram Bharti, was
examined as PW-7. He is the Head
Moharrir, who has registered the subject
FIR No. 56/11 under section 498A, 304B,
201 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act on the written complaint of Prem
Kumar
Shukla(PW1).
In
his
crossexamination he has stated that Prem Kumar
Shukla had come to the Police station along
with two other persons and had come with
a written complaint and did not write the
complaint at the police station in his
presence. These people had come for
lodging of the FIR around 8:30 in the
morning on 10.12.2011. He denied the
suggestion that the accused Rajesh Kumar
Mishra had himself come to the police
station for lodging of the complaint and he
was made to sit in the police station. He
also denied that he was helping Prem
Kumar Shukla as being in the same
department or that he had dictated the
contents of the complaint.

17. PW-8 (Bansraj) is the Station
House Officer of PS: Gaura Chauraha. In
his examination-in-chief he stated that the
FIR was lodged in his office vide Case
Crime No. 553/11 against all the accused
person. He stated that since the case was of
dowry death, the concerned Magistrate was
informed for preparation of Inquest report.
He also stated that the Inquest report was
prepared
in
his
presence
and
the
investigation
was
handed
over
and
thereafter conducted by Shri Hari Gobind
Mishra. The said Investigating Officer,
prepared the site-plan (naksha-naziri) and
the said witness identified the signatures
and hand-writing of the said Investigating
Officer. He stated that the statement of
Govind Prasad Pandey ( land lord) was
recorded on the spot and other witnesses
were also inquired at the spot.