# Smt. Seema v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 315
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 6760 of 2017
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh, Devendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-seema-v-state-of-u-p-54833
- **Pages:** 18

## Text

_Characters 0–39,875 of 55,787. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39875 for what follows._

2 All. Smt. Seema Vs. State of U.P.
315
between the accused and the deceased a day prior to the incident of murder, which resulted in the incident in
question in which both the deceased Damodar and Chandra Pal have been assassinated.

53. In view of the aforesaid facts, it can be inferred that both the deceased were excluded from the joint
property/land by the two accused persons, despite the fact that they could exercise possession over 1/3rd
share of the land in question on behalf of their mother. Further, the accused-appellants were also making
drainage on the filed of the deceased, which they had purchased from Chhadmi Lal. In order to get the matter
settled, they might have thought of entering into some sort of settlement with the accused persons through
some influential persons of the village and accordingly a Panchayat was convened, which resulted in the
incident in question wherein both the deceased have been done to death by the appellants.

54. It was a gruesome murder in which two persons have been assassinated in a dare devil manner.
Perusal of postmortem shows that the both the deceased were mercilessly attacked. Severity of injuries
clearly demonstrate the brutality of the attacks.

55. We have carefully scrutinized and examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses and we find that
they have been correctly marshalled and assessed by the learned Trial Court.

56. In view of what has been indicated above, we are of the view that the prosecution has successfully
proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against both the accused-appellants.

57. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

58. The appellants Ram Chandra and Babu Ram are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties
are discharged. They are directed to surrender before the Court concerned within three weeks to serve out the
sentence awarded to them by the learned Trial Court.

59. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned along with necessary
documents for compliance and compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 315
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 6760 of 2017
& Other Connected Case

Smt. Seema ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether "in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution succeeded in
establishing the chain of the circumstances leading to an inescapable conclusion that the accused-appellant
had committed the crime." (Para 43)

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S.s 302/34, 201 and 120B - Murder - Criminal Conspiracy -
Circumstantial Evidence - Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment - Appeal against
judgment of Trial Court.
Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - "the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature" (Para 33)
Circumstantial Evidence - Chain of Evidence - "all the circumstances should be complete forming
a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence" (Para 33)
Circumstantial Evidence - Inference of Guilt - "the inference of the guilt can be justified only
when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be in compatible with the
innocence of the accused" (Para 33)
Homicidal Death - Proof - "from the evidence of the doctor coupled with the evidence of
prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the death of the deceased-Chandra Pal was homicidal"
(Para 47)
Recovery - Weapon of Assault - "the weapons of assault were recovered on the pointing out of
the appellant - Dildar from the house of the deceased" (Para 49)
Motive - Illicit Relation - "the appellant-Seema had illicit relation with appellant-Dildar" (Para
54)
Hostile Witness - Evidentiary Value - "evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in
toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile" (Para 55)
Burden of Proof - S. 106 Evidence Act - "burden lies on her to explain as to how body had been
buried in her house" (Para 63)
S. 106 Evidence Act - Application - "there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the
house to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed" (Para 67)
Failure to Explain - Adverse Inference - "both the accused - appellants have failed to give any
explanation about the afore-mentioned foundational facts" (Para 75)
Held: The death of the deceased-Chandra Pal was homicidal - the appellant-Seema had illicit relation with
appellant-Dildar and that the weapon of assault has been recovered on the pointing out of the appellantDildar - the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the house of the appellant-Seema and burden lies
on her to explain as to how body had been buried in her house - the aforementioned circumstances constitute
more than a prima facie case to enable the prosecution to invoke S. 106 of the Evidence Act and shift the
burden on the accused" - both the accused-appellants have failed to give any explanation - the prosecution
has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants - both the criminal appeals
are dismissed. (Paras - 47,54,63,74,75,76,77) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1984) (SC) 1622; State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar
Srivastava, (1992) Crl. L.J. 1104; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343;
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706; C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P.,
(1996) 10 SCC 193; Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 172; Sattatiya v.
State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210; State of Goa v. Pandurang Mohite, (2008) 16 SCC 714; Laxman
Pradad alias Laxman Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023(3) SCC (Cri) 27; R. Sreenivasa Vs. State of
Karnataka (2024) 17 SCC 426; Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1991) 3 SCC
627;
State of U.P. Vs. Ramesh Prasad Mishra, (1996) 10 SCC 635; Bhajju Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4
SCC 327; Selvamani Vs. State, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 837; Dadu alias Ankush Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1178; Shambhu Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404; State of West
Bengal Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar, (2000) 8 SCC 382; State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram, JT 2006 (12) SCC
2 All. Smt. Seema Vs. State of U.P.
317
254; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 10 SCC 445; Jagdish Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2009) 9 SCC 495; State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh, (2014) 12 SCC 211; Nagendra Sah Vs.
State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725; State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Balveer Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC
390.

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

List of Keywords
circumstantial evidence; homicidal; illicit relation; weapon of assault; hostile witness; burden of proof; S. 106
of the Evidence Act; chain of circumstances; beyond reasonable doubt

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Arising out of "the judgement and order dated 24.10.2017 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Agra in ST No. 730 of 2007, arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of
2007"

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shri Mohd. Kalim; Shri Ashish Pandey
Advs. for the Respondents:
Shri S.K. Ojha, learned Additional Government Advocate-Ist

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)

1. After being convicted and sentenced in ST No. 730 of 2007 arising out of Case Crime No.
159 of 2007, under Sections 302/34, 201 and 120B IPC, police station Etmaddaula, district Agra by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Agra vide judgement and order dated
24.10.2017, appellant-Seema filed Criminal Appeal No. 6760 of 2017, whereas appellant-Dildar
filed Criminal Appeal No. 7030 of 2017.

2. By the impugned judgement and order dated 24.10.2017, the learned Judge convicted and
sentenced the appellant Dildar to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty
thousand only) under Section 302 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant was
further directed to undergo additional imprisonment of six months. He was further convicted and
sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand
only) under Section 201 IPC and in default, four months additional imprisonment.

3. Appellant Seema was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) under Section 120-B read with Section 302 IPC and in
default six months additional imprisonment. All the sentences of the appellants were directed to
run concurrently.

4. Since, both the afore-captioned criminal appeals have been filed against the judgement and
order dated 24.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Agra in ST
No. 730 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 159 of 2007, under Sections 302/34, 201, 120-B
IPC, PS Etmaddaula, district Agra, both the appeals have been heard together and are being
disposed of by means of this common judgement.
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Facts of the case

5. The facts giving rise to the present criminal appeals, in nutshell, are that a written report
was given by Netrapal Singh, son of Shri Saudan Singh, resident of village Maan, police station
Iglas, district Aligarh on 16.03.2007 that the marriage of his brother Chandra Pal (hereinafter
referred to as the deceased) was solemnized in the year 1996-1997 with one Seema, who was the
resident of district Allahabad and that they were not agree with the said marriage. Seema had a
daughter named Roshni, who was born from the wedlock of Seema and her earlier husband. Three
children were born from the wedlock of Seema and his brother-Chandra Pal. After the marriage,
her brother (deceased) was distressed with the demeanour of his wife, who always used to quarrel
with his brother and go to her maternal house. Due to the demeanour of Seema, some persons of
the locality used to come to the house to meet Seema. Out of the aforesaid persons, one Dildar
(hereinafter referred to as the accused-Dildar) always comes to the house of his brother. In the
morning of 16.03.2007, Seema informed that after committing the murder, the dead body of
Chandra Pal has been buried in the heap of sand. On the aforesaid information, when the first
informant along with family members reached to his brother's house at Sadahra, the police
personnel dug out the body from the heap of sand. The first information report further alleges that
his brother has been killed by Seema with the help of Dildar and his 2-3 accomplices and hid the
body in the heap of sand.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid information, PW-2, Constable Maherwan Singh registered the
first information report at Case Crime No. 169 of 2007, under Section 302, 201 IPC against Seema,
which was entered in GD No. 27 at 10:30 AM on 16.03.2007.

7. After the registration of first information report, the law set into motion and investigation of
the case was taken up by SI Rajiv Yadav. He copied the FIR and recorded the statement of Chik
writer, Constable Maherwan Singh and first informant Netrapal Singh and inspected the spot on the
pointing out of the informant and prepared site plan, Ext. Ka-11. Thereafter, he recorded the
statements of Rajpat Singh, Shri Chandra Jaat. He recorded the statement of named accused Smt.
Seema and took her into custody. On the pointing out of the accused-Dildar, the investigating
officer recovered weapon of assault, i.e. handle of hand pump and spade in the presence of
witnesses Raghvendra Singh and Virendra Singh. SI D.P. Singh made the memo of weapon of
assault in his writing, which was signed by the investigating officer, Ext. Ka-10. On 19.03.2007, he
recorded the statements of witnesses of inquest namely Shri Chandra, Virendra Singh, son of Heera
Singh, Virendra Singh, son of Lochan Singh, Roshan Singh, Vijay Pal Singh and Radhey Shyam as
well as the scribe of FIR Shri Devendra Kumar. After culmination of investigation, the
investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the appellants under Sections 302/201/120-B
IPC, which he proved as Ext. Ka-12.

8. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate
committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where case was registered as ST No. 730 of 2007.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Agra vide order dated 09.08.2007 framed the
charges against the appellant Dildar under Sections 302/201 IPC. Learned Judge also framed the
charges against the appellant Seema under Section 302/34 and 120-B IPC.
2 All. Smt. Seema Vs. State of U.P.
319

9. The charges were read over and explained to both the accused-appellants, who denied the
charges and claimed to be tried.

10. To bring home guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution has
examined as many as eight witnesses.

11. PW-1, Dr. Shri Ram, in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 17.03.2007, he was
posted as Medical Officer, at Police Hospital, Agra. On that date, he conducted post-mortem on the
body of the deceased and found the following ante mortem injuries:

1. A wound of 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep 4 cm away from the left side of the face.

2. A wound of 2 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on the left side of face, 1 cm below the left
eye.

3. A wound of 2 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on the left side face, 1.5 cm anterior to left ear.

4. A wound of 3 cm x 2 cm on the lower face on the chin.

5. Abrasion 3 cm x 1.5 cm on forehead 2 cm above bridge of nose.

12. Bones of left mandible and maxilla were fractured. Frontal bone was also fractured.

13. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of
ante mortem injures, which may have been caused 3-4 days before.

14. PW-2, Maherwan Singh, in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 16.03.2007, he was
posted as Constable in police station Edmaddaula. On that date, on the basis of written report, he
prepared Chik FIR, which he proved as Ext. Ka-1.

15. PW-3, Netrapal Singh, son of Saudan Singh, is the first informant of the case. In his
examination-in-chief, he deposed that deceased-Chandra Pal was his younger brother. He lived in
Shahadra, Nai Basti, Agra along with his wife and children. He was married to Seema Nishad, who
was resident of Allahabad, prior to 12-13 years before the murder of the deceased. She has a
daughter named Roshni. Seema deserted her first husband and came to the deceased along with her
daughter Roshni. Three children were also born from the wedlock of Seema and the deceased. Four
years prior to the murder, he along with the deceased used to reside in the same flat in separate
portion. Seema was a lady of bad character and when he objected about the demeanour of Seema,
she used to quarrel with him due to which after disposing of his house, he shifted to village. He
further deposed that his marriage was solemnized in Assam. Accused-Dildar is his brother-in-law.
Initially accused-Dildar used to reside with him, but after his departure, he used to come to the
place of Seema as a result thereof he developed illicit relation with Seema.

16. PW-3, Netra Pal further deposed that on 16.03.2007, he received information about the
death of Chandra Pal. Seema informed one Gambhir of the village about the death of the deceased,
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
who in turn informed him. On the aforesaid information, he along with his family members,
Rajendra, Prabhu Singh, Balveer and Munna came to the house of the deceased at about 08:3008:45 AM. On entering the house, he saw that the dead body of the deceased near the heap of sand.
Thereafter, he went to the police station Etmaddaula and got a written report scribed by one
Devendra Kumar, son of Amar Singh, lodged after putting his thump impression, which he proved
as Ext. Ka-9.

17. PW-4, Rajpat Singh, son of Shri Ram Prasad, in his examination-in-chief deposed that he
is the resident of Nagla and ex-Pradhan of Nagla Vihari. He knew deceased-Chandra Pal. He lived
ahead of his house in Nai Basti, Shahdara. Deceased's wife is Seema. Deceased-Chandra Pal used
to live in his house along with his wife and children. Accused-Dildar was the regular visitor of
deceased's house. Accused-Dildar is brother-in-law (Sala) of the first informant Netra Pal. Chandra
Pal was murdered a year ago. He saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the door. He had
neither talked to anyone nor anyone informed him that the dead body of the deceased was lying on
the floor.

18. At this juncture, on the request of ADGC, this witness was declared hostile and he was
permitted to cross examine him.

19. PW-5, Constable Devendra Kumar, in his cross-examination has deposed that he knows
deceased-Chandra Pal, who lives in Shahdara Colony. Accused-Seema also lives with the deceased.
The first informant Netra Pal is the brother of the deceased. Accused-Seema had illicit relation with
accused-Dildar. Accused-Seema used to extend threat to the deceased that if he does not desert her,
she will get him killed. Seema and Dildar along with their accomplices eliminated the deceased and
hid the dead body in the heap of sand. On 16.03.2007, he was told by Netra Pal that Seema has
killed Netra Pal and hid the body in the heap of sand. The dead body of deceased-Chandra Pal was
dug out by the police in his presence. The report of the occurrence was written by him on the
dictation of Netra Pal on which he put his thump impression, which he proved as Ext. Ka-9.

20. PW-6, Virendra Singh, son of Heera Singh, in his examination-in-chief has deposed that
the deceased was the resident of Shahdara, Agra. On 16.03.2007, he came to Agra on the
information received by him in respect of the death of the deceased where Shri Chandra, who is the
brother of the deceased was also present. At that time, police personnel also reached along with
Dildar. On the pointing out of accused-Dildar, handle of hand pump and spade were recovered and
memos were prepared on which he put his signature. Shri Chandra also put his thumb impression,
which was marked at Ext. Ka-10.

21. However, on cross-examination, this witness has been declared hostile.

22. PW-7, Rajiv Yadav, was is investigating officer of the case. His evidence has already been
discussed above.

23. PW-8. SI Dinesh Pal Singh, in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 16.03.2007,
he was posted at police station. He prepared inquest report of the deceased Chandra Pal. He
2 All. Smt. Seema Vs. State of U.P.
321
appointed Panch (inquest witnesses) and recorded their opinion in the inquest report and obtained
their signature. He also prepared required papers.

24. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused-appellants
were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, in which they denied the charges levelled against them
and plead false implication and they claimed trial.

25. Kumari Roshni, daughter of the deceased-Chandra Pal and the accused-appellant Seema,
was produced as defence witness to prove that the deceased and the accused-Seema had good
relation.

26. DW-1, Kumari Roshni in her deposition has stated that her parents used to live together
and there was no dispute between them. After the death of her father, her mother has been arrested
and sent to jail. At that time, she was kept by her maternal grand-parents, who live in Allahabad. At
the time of death of her father, she was with her mother. Her mother was in Allahabad. She had
gone to Allahabad along with her mother eleven days prior to the incident in question. At that time,
there was holidays on account of Holi. She was living with her maternal grand-parents when her
mother was in Jail. She further deposed that the information about the death of her father was
received from her Tau (father's elder brother).

27. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Agra after hearing the learned counsel
for the parties and assessing, evaluating and scrutinizing the evidence on record, convicted and
sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated herein above.

28. Hence, these appeals.

29. Heard Shri Mohd. Kalim, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 6760
of 2017, Shri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 7030 of
2017 and Shri S.K. Ojha, learned Additional Government Advocate-Ist representing the State and
gone through the record of the case.

Submissions on behalf of the appellants

30. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and
there is neither any eyewitness of the occurrence nor any witness of last seen and the appellants
have been dragged in the present case only on the presumption that both the accused-appellants
have illicit relations without there being any evidence to that effect.

31. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that so called recovery of handle of
hand pump and spade have been effected on the pointing out of the accused-Dildar in the presence
of PW-6, Virendra Singh and Shri Chandra. PW-6, Virendra Singh did not support the prosecution
case and declared hostile, whereas Shri Chandra has not been produced by the prosecution, which
makes the recovery doubtful.

Submissions on behalf of the State
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

32. On the other hand Shri S.K. Ojha, learned Additional Government Advocate supported the
findings of the learned trial court by stating that the prosecution has discharged its burden by
establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that the
judgement is well reasoned and calls for no interference by this Court.

Analysis and conclusions

33. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that it is a case of
circumstantial evidence and there is no witness of last seen, is concerned, it may be noted that in a
case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in
nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete forming a chain and there should be no
gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused totally in consistent with his evidence. It has been
consistently laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that where a case rests on circumstantial
evidence, the inference of the guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are found to be in compatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other
person.

34. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1984) (SC) 1622, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has framed five golden principles for the circumstantial evidence, which are as under;

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

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

(iii) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency

(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and,

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

35. In State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) Crl. L.J. 1104, it was pointed out that
great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is
reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in the favour of the accused must be accepted. It was
also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have fully established and
cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

36. In the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343, Hon'ble
Apex Court observed as under:
2 All. Smt. Seema Vs. State of U.P.
323

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

37. In the case of Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, Hon'ble Apex
Court opined as under:

"10. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel, we shall at the
threshold point out that in the present case there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with
the offence in question and the prosecution rests its case solely on circumstantial evidence. This
Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial
evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be
cogently and firmly established;

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt
of the accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is
no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the
accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be
complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused
and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be
inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra, (1982) 2 SCC 351)"

38. In the case of C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193, Hon'ble Apex
Court while considering a case of conviction based on the circumstantial evidence, held as under:

"21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be
conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no
gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In the present
case the courts below have overlooked these settled principles and allowed suspicion to take the
place of proof besides relying upon some inadmissible evidence."

39. In the case of Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P., (2006) 10 SCC 172,
Hon'ble Apex Court again considered the case of conviction based on circumstantial evidence and
held as under:
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"26. It is now well settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial
evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable
and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would
permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any
other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a
substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only
on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. (See Anil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2003) 9 SCC
67 and Reddy Sampath Kumar v. State of A.P., (2005) 7 SCC 603)."

40. In the case of Sattatiya v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210, Hon'ble Apex Court
held as under:

"10. We have thoughtfully considered the entire matter. It is settled law that an offence
can be proved not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence where there is no
direct evidence. The court can draw an inference of guilt when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances are found to be totally incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Of course,
the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt is drawn have to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be
inferred from those circumstances." This Court further observed in the aforesaid decision that:

"17. At this stage, we also deem it proper to observe that in exercise of power under
Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court will be extremely loath to upset the judgment of
conviction which is confirmed in appeal. However, if it is found that the appreciation of evidence
in a case, which is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, is vitiated by serious errors and on
that account miscarriage of justice has been occasioned, then the Court will certainly interfere even
with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the High Court--Bharat v. State of
M.P., (2003) 3 SCC 106. "

41. In the case of State of Goa v. Pandurang Mohite, (2008) 16 SCC 714, Hon'ble Apex Court
reiterated the settled law that where a conviction rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the
inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found
to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any person. The circumstances
from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be
inferred from those circumstances.

42. The decision in Sharad Birdichand Sarda (Supra) has recently been followed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in catena of judgement including Laxman Pradad alias Laxman Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2023(3) SCC (Cri) 27 and R. Sreenivasa Vs. State of Karnataka (2024) 17 SCC
426.

43. In the light of the above pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, we shall now consider
whether in the present case, the prosecution succeeded in establishing the chain of the
circumstances leading to an inescapable conclusion that the accused-appellant had committed the
crime. The following circumstances have to be proved.
2 All. Smt. Seema Vs. State of U.P.
325

1. Whether the death of the deceased-Chandra Pal was homicidal.

2. Whether weapons of assault, i.e. handle of hand pump and spade and dead body of the
deceased-Chandra Pal have been recovered on the pointing out of the appellant-Dildar.

3. Whether deceased was done to death by the appellant-Dildar with criminal conspiracy
of appellant-Seema.

44. PW-1, Dr. Shri Ram, who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the
deceased noted the following ante-mortem injuries:

1. A wound of 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep 4 cm away from the left side of the face.

2. A wound of 2 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on the left side of face, 1 cm below the left
eye.

3. A wound of 2 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on the left side face, 1.5 cm anterior to left ear.

4. A wound of 3 cm x 2 cm on the lower face on the chin.

5. Abrasion 3 cm x 1.5 cm on forehead 2 cm above bridge of nose.

45. Bones of left mandible and maxilla were fractured. Frontal bone was also fractured.

46. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of
ante mortem injures, which may have been caused 3-4 days before. Doctor further opined that antemortem injuries received by the deceased was sufficient to cause death. He also stated that the
injuries can be caused by the rod of hand pump. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused
at about 11:00 PM on 13.03.2007. Doctor further opined that if the dead body is buried under the
sand, the symptom which is found in this case during postmortem examination is present. The dead
body was covered in soil.

47. From the evidence of the doctor coupled with the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is
clear that the death of the deceased-Chandra Pal was homicidal.

48. The genesis of the case is the alleged information given by the accused-appellant Seema to
one Gambhir for being conveyed to the first informant Netra Pal, about the death of the deceasedChandra Pal. The first informant in his deposition has stated that on the basis of information given
by the appellant-Seema when he rushed to the house of the deceased-Chandra Pal along with
Rajendra, Prabhu Singh, Balveer and Munna, at about 08:30-08:45 AM and when he entered the
house, he saw that the dead body of Chandra Pal was lying beside the heap of sand. Thereafter, he
lodged the report scribed by PW-5, Devendra Kumar. Thereafter, he came back to the house of the
deceased Chandra Pal along with police personnel, where dead body was dug out of the sand and
after conducting inquest on the body of the deceased, it was sent for postmortem examination.
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

49. The weapons of assault, i.e. handle of hand pump and one spade, were recovered on the
pointing out of the appellant-Dildar from the house of the deceased, which was hidden behind the
double bed. As the aforesaid articles do not have bloodstained, they were not sealed. Memo Ext.
Ka- 10 was prepared, which was signed by Virendra Singh, Heera Singh and the accused-appellant
Dildar. While recording the statement of the accused-appellant Dildar under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
when this question was put to the accused-Dildar that weapon of assault was recovered on his
pointing out, he has not given any specific reply and only stated that false charge sheet has been
filed against him.

50. Accused-appellant Dildar is real brother-in-law (Sala) of PW-3, Netra Pal, who is the elder
brother of the deceased Chandra Pal. In his deposition PW-3, Netra Pal, the first informant has
stated that the character of appellant-Seema was not good and when he complaints about her
demeanour, she used to quarrel. Due to her bad conduct, PW-3 Netra Pal sold out his house and
settled in the village. His marriage was solemnized in Assam. Accused-Dildar is his real brother-inlaw. Initially, he used to live with him, but after his departure, he used the come to Seema and
developed illicit relations with Seema. On 16.03.2007, Seema informed Gambhir, who is his cousin
about the murder of deceased-Chandra Pal.

51. PW-4, Rajpat Singh, who was later on declared hostile, in his examinaion-in-chief has
stated that accused-appellant Dildar was the regular visitor to the house of deceased-Chandra Pal.

52. PW-5, CP Devendra Kumar in his deposition has stated that accused-Dildar used to come
to the house of accused-Seema. He was having illicit relation with accused-Seema. Accused-Seema
used to extend threat to the deceased that if he does not desert her, she will get him killed. Seema
and Dildar along with their accomplices eliminated the deceased and hid the dead body in the heap
of sand.

53. PW-6, Virendra Singh in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 16.03.2007, he
came to Agra on the information received by him in respect of the death of the deceased where Shri
Chandra, who is the brother of the deceased was also present. At that time, police personnel also
reached along with Dildar. On the pointing out of accused-Dildar, handle of hand pump and spade
were recovered and memo whereof was prepared on which he put his signature. Shri Chandra also
put his thumb impression, which was marked at Ext. Ka-10.

54. Cumulative effect of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses is that the appellant-Seema
had illicit relation with appellant-Dildar and that the weapon of assault has been recovered on the
pointing out of the appellant-Dildar. Appellant Dildar has also confessed to have killed the
deceased.

55. So far as the evidence of hostile witness is concerned, a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1991)3 SCC 627,
relying upon catena of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that evidence of a prosecution
witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and
cross-examined him. It was further held that the evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as
2 All. Smt. Seema Vs. State of U.P.
327
effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version
is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.

56. In State of U.P. Ramesh Prasad Mishra, (1996) 10 SCC 635, Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the
prosecution or the accused, but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the
evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon.

57. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajju Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 327
discussed the worth of the evidence of a hostile witness in the following words:

It is settled law that the evidence of hostile witnesses can also be relied upon by the
prosecution to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version of the incident. The evidence
of such witnesses cannot be treated as washed off the records, it remains admissible in trial and
there is no legal bar to base the conviction of the accused upon such testimony, if corroborated by
other reliable evidence.

58. In Selvamani Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC OnLinw SC 837,
after considering a catena of its earlier judgements on the point, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:

Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness
cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used
by the prosecution or the defence.

59. The judgement in Ramesh Prasad Mishra (Supra) was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Dadu alias Ankush and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2025 LiveLaw
(SC) 1178.

60. In view of the above, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that evidence of
some of the prosecution witnesses, who turned hostile, cannot be taken into account has no leg to
stand.

61. Now the question for consideration before this Court is as to how the accused-appellant
Seema, who claims that she was not present in Agra and was in Allahabad, had the knowledge
about the death of the deceased.

62. The First Information Report has been lodged on 16.03.2007 at 10:30 AM and autopsy on
the cadaver was done on 17.03.2007. Dr.