# State of U.P v. Nanhe Lal & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 478
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-21
- **Case number:** THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN. J. Government Appeal No. 71 of 2021
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-nanhe-lal-anr-47841
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302, 376, 394 & 411 - Evidence
Act, 1872 - Section 3 - circumstantial
evidence - in a criminal case based on the
strength of circumstantial evidence, chain
of circumstances must be complete and on
completion
of
such
chain
only
one
conclusion can be drawn that it is only the
accused who had committed the crime -
F.I.R. version that informant daughter
went to watch T.V. at accused house; she
was wearing golden earrings and one
locket on her neck; they out of greed,
murdered the deceased by strangulation
by her Dupatta and snatched jewellery
from her and kept them in the Almirah
placed in the room; they had thrown her
dead body in the wheat field - Held - case
rests on circumstantial evidence - no
witness came forward to depose that they
had seen the deceased going to the house
of the accused to watch Television - P.W.-
1, Veerpal, on whose instance First
Information Report came to be lodged
turned hostile and has not supported the
allegations contained in his written First
Information Report - P.W.-2 w/o P.W.-1
also
turned
hostile
-
independent
witnesses also turned hostile and those
witnesses in their cross examination have
not stated any thing which may support
the prosecution story - alleged recovery of
articles from the Almirah of the accused is
also not proved - impugned judgment and
order is not erroneous or perverse and the
same is sustainable in the eyes of law
(Para 45, 26)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
30th June 2016 passed by the Additional
District and Sessions Judge is hereby set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the
revisional court for hearing the matter
afresh, in the light of the observations made
hereinabove.

27. Instant application is allowed
accordingly.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 478
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN. J.

Government Appeal No. 71 of 2021

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Nanhe Lal & Anr. ...Accused-Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dhananjay Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302, 376, 394 & 411 - Evidence
Act, 1872 - Section 3 - circumstantial
evidence - in a criminal case based on the
strength of circumstantial evidence, chain
of circumstances must be complete and on
completion
of
such
chain
only
one
conclusion can be drawn that it is only the
accused who had committed the crime -
F.I.R. version that informant daughter
went to watch T.V. at accused house; she
was wearing golden earrings and one
locket on her neck; they out of greed,
murdered the deceased by strangulation
by her Dupatta and snatched jewellery
from her and kept them in the Almirah
placed in the room; they had thrown her
dead body in the wheat field - Held - case
rests on circumstantial evidence - no
witness came forward to depose that they
had seen the deceased going to the house
of the accused to watch Television - P.W.-
1, Veerpal, on whose instance First
Information Report came to be lodged
turned hostile and has not supported the
allegations contained in his written First
Information Report - P.W.-2 w/o P.W.-1
also
turned
hostile
-
independent
witnesses also turned hostile and those
witnesses in their cross examination have
not stated any thing which may support
the prosecution story - alleged recovery of
articles from the Almirah of the accused is
also not proved - impugned judgment and
order is not erroneous or perverse and the
same is sustainable in the eyes of law
(Para 45, 26)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Suraj Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2008 (11) SCR 286

2. C. Magesh & ors. Vs St. of Karn., Criminal
Appeal
Nos.
1028-1029
OF
2008,
dt
30.04.2010

3. Silash Singh Kurid Vs The State 2018 Cr.L.J.
394

4. Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs St.of Mah.
(1984) 4 SCC 116

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Waiz Mian, J.)

1. By means of this Government
Appeal, on behalf of the State, challenge
has been made to the validity and legality
of judgment and order of acquittal dated
11.11.2020, having been passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court, Bareilly, in connection with
Session trial No. 275 of 2017, State vs.
Nanhe Lal and another, arising out of Case
Crime No. 89 of 2017, under Sections-302,
376, 394 and 411 I.P.C., Police StationBhamora, District-Bareilly.
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Nanhe Lal & Anr.
479

2. Heard Shri Vikas Goswami learned
A.G.A. and perused the record.

3. Brief facts emerge from the the First
Information Report are that the complainant
presented a written complaint at the
concerned police Station, stating therein that
he had solemnized marriage of his daughter
with one Morpal and thereafter, on the
occasion of festival of Holi she was present at
her parental house on 15.03.2017; she went to
the house of accused respondent to watch
television but she did not return till the
evening; search was made but she could not
be traced out; on 16.03.2017, at about 7 a.m.
dead body of daughter of informant was
found in a wheat field near river.

4. On presentation of the application of
complainant/informant a criminal case being
Case Crime No. 89 of 2017, under Sections302, 376, 394, and 411 I.P.C. Police
StationBhamaura, District-Bareilly, came to
be registered against one Nanhe Lal and his
wife Smt. Nisha Devi.

5. Upon investigation, statements of
informant, constable and another were
recorded on 17.03.2017. In charge, Sub
Inspector Ajab Singh, with police team, was
patrolling in search of the accused. On
reaching Devchara, they got information
from the police informer that accused, who
had killed the deceased, are standing at
Devchara square; believing the information,
I.O. Ajab Singh, along with his police team,
reached at the place where accused persons
were standing; upon inquiry one told his
name as Nand Lal and another Nisha Devi,
R/o Village Sirohi, Police StationBhamaura,
District-Bareilly; they told that a criminal
case, against them, is registered, at the police
station. With regard to the occurrence it was
apprised by the informant that his daughter
went to watch T.V. at their house; accused
admitted that Sunita d/o Veerpal, who lives in
their neighbour, had come to their house to
watch T.V.; she was wearing golden earrings
(kundals) in her ears and one locket on her
neck; they out of greed, murdered the
deceased by strangulation by her Dupatta and
snatched jewellery from her and kept them in
the Almirah placed in the room; they had
thrown her dead body in the wheat field on
15.03.2017 at around 12 at night; to save
them, they offered the Investigating Officer
and Police Team that they can get recovered
the jewellery wore by the deceased;
Investigating Officer and police team were
brought by both the accused to their house
and they opened the room in their house and
the Almirah and the jewellery was got
recovered from there; the recovered articles
were identified by the Rajendra and Rajdulari
and these articles were sealed on the spot, in
the presence of the accused as well as
witnesses; memo of recovery of articles was
written and it was signed by all the witnesses,
accused, investigating Officer and police
constable etc, accompanying the investigating
officer.

6. Inquest of the dead body of the
deceased was conducted by the Sub
Inspector, in the presence of Panchan and he
prepared an inquest report, Exhibit-Ka-3, to
ascertain the real cause of death of the
deceased, dead body along with necessary
papers were forwarded for conducting the
autopsy on the dead body to District
Mortuary, wherein, autopsy was conducted,
and an autopsy report, Exhibit-Ka-9 by the
Doctor was prepared. In this autopsy report
the details have been recorded and the cause
of death of the deceased has been opined as
Asphyxia due to strangulation.

7.

During
investigation,
the
investigating officer has recorded the
statements of rest of witnesses and accused
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under
Section
161
Cr.P.C.;
during
investigation clothes wore by the deceased
and her other belongings were also taken so
that scientific examination can be done and
the same were forwarded to Joint Director
Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Moradabad,
and the office of Joint Director, Forensic
Science Laboratory, has sent examination
report dated 17.06.2017 (Exhibit-Ka-17) to
C.O. Aonla (Bareilly) which is on record.

8. On the strength of incriminating
evidence collected by the Investigating Officer,
the investigating officer forwarded a police
report for offences punishable under Sections
302, 376, 394 and 411 I.P.C. against the
accused Nanhe Lal and Nisha Devi to the Court
concerned.

9. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bareilly, upon taking cognizance in exercise of
powers enshrined under Sections-190 (1)
Cr.P.C. has found ample evidence under
aforementioned offences against both accused
and thus took cognizance and summoned the
accused. After completing the formalities, the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order
dated 11.08.2017 committed the criminal case
which came to be registered as criminal case
No. 275 of 2017 to the Court of District District
and Sessions Judge, Bareilly, for necessary
action.

10. In the Court of District and Sessions
Judge, the said case was registered as S.T. No.
275 of 2017, which was transferred to
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tack Court,
and vide order dated 21.09.2017, charges for
offences under Sections 302/34, 376, 394 and
411 I.P.C. against both the accused were
framed the charges for offences under Sections
302/34, 376, 394 and 411 I.P.C. against both
the accused, they denied the charges and
claimed trial, hence their trial commenced.

11. In order to prove charges against
the respondents, under above sections of
I.P.C. the witnesses P.W.-1 Veerpal,
informant who approved his written First
Information Report, P.W.-2 Rajdulari,
P.W.-3 Rajendra, inquest report, as exhibit
Ka1-2, P.W.-5, Tejpal, also proved inquest
report and also identified his signature
thereon and P.W.6 Yaduveer Singh, who
proved First Information Report Chik as
Exhibit Ka-4 and G.D. Exhibit Ka-Kha-Ka
5, respectively, were examined

12. Thereafter, accused admitted the
genuineness
of
prosecution
papers,
however,
vide
Court
order
dated
11.09.2020 C.W. 1, Sub Inspector-Ajab
Singh, was summoned, who proved site
plan of place of occurrence and memo of
recovery of articles as Exhibit Ka-7,
Exhibit-Ka-8, inquest report Exhibit-Ka 3,
Foresnsic
Science
Laboratory
report,
Exhibit Ka-17, two gold earrings as
material ExhibitKa-1, locket as material,
Exhibit-Ka 2. Further, the accused also
admitted the genuineness of the police
report and other police papers as Exhibit
Ka-6, to Exhibit Ka-16.

13. After closure of evidence, on
behalf of the prosecution, statements of
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were
recorded.

14. Accused Nanhe Lal and Smt.
Nisha Devi stated that the evidence of
P.W.-1, and recovery memo and evidence
of P.W.-4, P.W. 5 are false. They further
stated that the recovered articles and other
belongings of the deceased were planted on
account of enmity of political rivalry and
they have been falsely implicated in this
case and they declined to adduce any
evidence in their defence.
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Nanhe Lal & Anr.
481

15. Learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court, Bareilly, vide
judgment and order dated 11.11.2020 did
not find sufficient evidence against the
accused and extended the benefit of doubt
to the accused and accordingly, acquitted
them
from
the
charges
under
aforementioned offences.

16.
 Feeling
aggrieved
by
the
judgment and order dated 11.11.2020,
rendered by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court, Bareilly, instant
Government Appeal on behalf of the State
of U.P. has been preferred challenging the
impugned judgment and order on the
grounds that the accused respondents have
committed offences of murder, rape and
robbery and also stated that the robbed gold
articles were recovered at the instance of
accused from the Almirah kept in the room
of their house and the same were handed
over to the Investigating Officer and police
personnel in the presence of the witnesses;
learned lower Court has not properly
appreciated the evidence on record and the
impugned judgment and order is based on
conjuncture and surmises; the trial Court
despite cogent and clinching evidence
against the accused has committed gross
illegality and perversity by acquitting the
accused, thus, the impugned judgment and
order is erroneous in the eyes of law and
not sustainable, therefore, it is urged that
the impugned judgment and order dated
11.11.2020
be
set
aside
and
respondent/accused
convicted
and
sentenced in accordance with law.

Analysis

17.

P.W.-1
Veerpal,
in
his
examination
in
chief
recorded
on
09.11.2017 has stated that his daughter was
married to one Morpal and she had come to
his house to celebrate the festival of Holi;
she had gone to the house of his neighbour
Nanhe Lal at about 1.00 p.m. to watch T.V.
but till evening she did not return,
whereupon, he searched her daughter but
she could not be traced out; on the
following day at about 7 O clock, her dead
body was found in the wheat field near
canal which flows in the western side of the
village. Under suspicion, that his neighbour
Nanhe Lal and his wife had murdered her
daughter, he presented a written First
Information Report at the concerned police
station.

18. P.W.-1, Veerpal states that he has
not found jewellery, which was wore by the
deceased, on her dead body. In his
remaining examination in chief, P.W.-1
Veerpal, was recorded before the learned
Court below on 17.04.2019, wherein, he
had stated that the recovered jewellery
articles were not before him.

19. P.W.-1, Veerpal, in his cross
examination which was on 09.11.2017 has
deposed that house of the accused is
opposite to his house and they enjoy good
relation with them; they also exchange
visits to their houses; he has not seen her
daughter to have gone to house of Nanhe
Lal to watch Television. On his dictation
one Raj Kumar had written his First
Information Report and Partibandi prior to
the alleged incident was existing between
Nanhe Lal and Rajkumar.

20. P.W.-1 Veerpal, next states that
scribe Rajkumar is a home guard, and was
posted
in
Police
Station-Bhamora;
Rajkumar, had said to him that he will
write his First Information Report; he, does
not know as to what is written in the First
Information
Report;
in
the
First
Information Report he did not read that the
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
murder of his daughter had taken place in
his presence; he had not told Rajkumar to
nominate accused Nanhe Lal and Smt.
Nisha Devi; accused cannot murder his
daughter; his previous statement in the
Court was given due to fear of police and
the statement he is giving today is true
because it is not the result of any fear.

21. P.W.-1-Veerpal, who has got the
First
Information
Report
written
by
Rajkumar has not mentioned in the First
Information Report that his daughter, in his
presence on 15.03.2017 at around 1 p.m.,
had gone from his house, to watch
television, to the house of accused Nanhe
Lal; he has also not stated in his
examination in chief that his daughter had
gone to the house of the accused in his
presence and in this connection he has
specifically deposed that he merely on the
basis of suspicion had named both the
accused in the First Information Report; he
in his cross examination has categorically
denied the involvement/ complicity of both
the accused in the murder of his daughter
and he has deposed that accused are
friendly to him and enjoys good relations
with them. He has said that he can not even
imagine that accused can kill his daughter.
P.W.-1 Veerpal has also admitted that out
of enmity existing between Raj Kumar and
accused Nanhe Lal, prior to alleged
incident, Rajkumar at his own has noted the
name of both accused. P.W.-1 Veerpal has
not cast doubt upon accused about their
complicity in the alleged incident.

22. P.W.-1 Veerpal, in his entire
testimony has not deposed to have seen the
commission of the incident.

23. P.W.-2, Rajdulari, who is wife of
P.W.-1, Veerpal and mother of the
deceased states in her examination in chief
that she has not seen her daughter going to
the house of accused to watch Television;
they had tried to search and trace out their
daughter as she had not returned to their
house till evening; on the following day her
dead body was found in the wheat field.
She also has candidly denied in her
deposition that accused had killed her
daughter by strangulation.

24. P.W.-2 Rajdulari, on being
declared hostile was on the request of the
prosecution put to cross examination,
wherein, she has specifically denied that
her daughter had gone to the house of
accused to watch Television; however, she
admits that she had not seen her daughter
while she had gone out of their house; she
also expresses her ignorance as to who had
called her daughter but she unequivocally
deposes that accused had not called her
daughter.

25. P.W.-5 Rajendra, also feigns
ignorance in his statement by saying
daughter of his brother Veerpal had gone to
the house of the accused to watch
Television because on that date, he was out
of the village and when he had returned on
the next day he had came to know about the
dead body of victim was lying in the wheat
field. He also deposes that it is true that his
brother on the basis of suspicion has
registered the case against both accused.

26.

P.W.-4
Rajkumar
in
his
examination in chief has also stated that his
house is situated at a distance from the
house of Veerpal; On 16.08.2017 dead
body of the deceased was found in the
wheat filed.

27. Like P.W.-3 Rajendra, P.W.-4Rajkumar, as well has turned hostile and
they were also cross examined on behalf of
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Nanhe Lal & Anr.
483
the
prosecution
but
in
their
cross
examination too, they have not supported
the prosecution story against the accused.

28.

P.W.-1-Veerpal,
in
his
examination in chief, has deposed that on
the pointing out of the Nanhe Lal and Smt.
Nisha Devi, earrings (Kundal), which the
deceased had wore on the date of
occurrence and one locket was also
recovered from the Almirah in the room of
their house in the presence of Rajendra and
his wife Rajdulari and in this respect both
accused had confessed to have called his
daughter and they had also confessed that
they had got recovered the articles they had
snatched from the deceased Daroga Ji had
prepared a memo of recovery, which was
not only witnessed by him but other police
personnel accompanied Daroga Ji were also
present.

29. P.W.-1 Veerpal, had also stated
that the memo of recovery, paper No.
6Ka/A was prepared in his presence and
after being readover he had signed the said
paper. He also next states that the
recovered jewellery was also taken by
Daroga Ji, in his possession and the same
was sealed at the place of recovery.

30. Due to paucity of time complete
statement of P.W.-1 Veerpal could have not
been recorded on 09.11.2017, therefore, for
remaining
statement
he
was
again
examined on 17.04.2019 and in his cross
examination
he
contradicted
his
aforementioned statement given in his
examination in chief by saying that on the
pointing out of accused Nanhe Lal and
Smt. Nisha Devi no recovery of jewellery,
belongings of his daughter, was made in his
presence; nor Daroga Ji had prepared
recovery memo in his, or his wife, or in
presence of his brother; Daroga Ji had
taken
their
signatures
and
thumb
impression on a plain paper.

31. He also denies that the recovered
articles were sealed in his presence. He also
expresses his ignorance as to how the memo of
recovery came to be written, as such, P.W.-1,
Veerpal, with regard to alleged recovery of
jewellery and, belongings of the deceased, has
given contradictory and inconsistent statement.

32. P.W.-2 Rajdulari, P.W.-3 Rajendra
and P.W.-4 Rajkumar, have also made
somersault over their statements stated to have
been recorded by the Investigating Officer,
during investigation and have stated that
Daroga Ji, during investigation, did not record
their statements and no recovery of jewellery
etc. was made in their presence by Daroga ji, on
the pointing out of the accused. These witnesses
have also claimed in their ocular evidence that
their signatures/ thumb impression were having
been taken by Daroga Ji on a plain paper and
they also deny the memo of recovery to have
been written in their presence by Daroga Ji.

33. It transpires from the analysis and
scrutiny of the ocular evidence of P.W.-1 to
P.W.-5 that none of them have admitted to have
seen the deceased, to have gone in their
presence, to the house of accused to watch T.V.
and have also denied that the deceased was
strangulated or killed by the accused. All
witnesses of facts have also categorically denied
the complicity of the accused in alleged
incident.

34. All the witnesses have also admitted
in their ocular evidence that they are on good
terms with accused.

35. Hon'ble Apex Court has observed
consistently that in a criminal case based on
the strength of circumstantial evidence,
chain of circumstances must be complete
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and on completion of such chain only one
conclusion can be drawn that it is only the
accused who had committed the crime.

36. In Suraj Singh vs. State of U.P.,
reported in 2008 (11) SCR 286 the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held as follows:

"The evidence must be tested for
its inherent consistency and the inherent
probability of the story; consistency with the
account of other witnesses held to be
creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed
facts, the "credit" of the witnesses; their
performance in the witness box; their power
of observation etc. Then the probative value
of such evidence becomes eligible to be put
into the scales for a cumulative evaluation."

37. In C. Magesh & Ors.v/s State of
Karnataka, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1028-1029
OF 2008, decided On 30 April 2010, the
Apex Court has held as under:

"In a criminal trial, evidence of the
eye witness requires a careful assessment and
must be evaluated for its creditability. Since
the
fundamental
aspect
of
criminal
jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle
that "no man is guilty until proven so", hence
utmost caution is required to be exercised in
dealing with situations where there are
multiple testimonies and equally large
number of witnesses testifying before the
court. There must be a string that should join
the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby
satisfying the test of consistency in evidence
amongst all the witnesses."

38. Section 27 of the Evidence Act laws
down as follows:

"When any fact is deposed to as
discovered in consequence of information
received from a person accused of any
offence, in the custody of police officer, so
much of such information, whether it
amounts to a confession or not, as relates
distinctly to the fact thereby discovered,
may be proved."

39. Hon'ble Apex Court in Silash
Singh Kurid vs. The State, reported in
2018 Cr.L.J. 3944 had held that;

"Where
no
eye
witness
is
available in a murder case and the case is
only based on circumstantial evidence,
recovery of weapon and evidence on the
basis of disclosure of the accused alone
would
not
automatically
lead
the
conclusion that offence was also committed
by the accused. Ho'ble Supreme Court
further held that in fact burden lies on the
prosecution to establish close link between
the discovery of the material objects and its
use in the commission of offence and what
is admissible under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act is the information leading to
discovery and not any opinion formed on it
by the prosecution."

40. Present case rests upon the
circumstantial evidence. In the case of
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of
Maharasthra (1984) 4 SCC 116, in
paragrah 153, Hon'ble Apex Court has laid
down five golden principles (Panchsheel).
Para 153 is reproduced as follows:

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

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

It may be noted here that this
Court indicated that the circumstances
concerned 'must or should' and not 'may
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Nanhe Lal & Anr.
485
be' established. There is not only a
grammatical
but
a
legal
distinction
between 'may be proved' and 'must be or
should be proved' as was held by this Court
in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State
of Maharashtra where the following
observations were made:

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

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

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

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

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

41. C.W.-1, Ajab Singh, Investigating
Officer, deposed in support of the memo of
recovery
but
that
does
not
find
corroboration from any witness of fact, on
the contrary P.W-1 to P.W.-4 have
categorically denied the alleged recovery of
belonging of the deceased from the
Alimarh in the room of the house of the
accused. They have also deposed that their
signatures, thumb impression were taken
by Daroga Ji on plain paper, therefore, it is
not safe and expedient in the interest of
justice to place reliance upon the testimony
of C.W.-1 to the extent that conviction of
the accused for offences under afore stated
sections could be held.

42. P.W.-1 to P.W.-4, in their cross
examinations have said that it would be
wrong to suggest that they are not
supporting the prosecution case on account
of any compromise having been arrived at
between them and accused.

43. P.W.-6, H.M. 474 Yaduvir Singh,
has proved First Information Report Chik
and copy of GD as Exhibit Ka-4 and Ka-5
thus only the First Information Report Chik
and G.D. stand proved, however, the
deposition of this witness does not help to
prove charges against the accused.

44. This case rests on circumstantial
evidence; no witness has come forward to
depose that she or he had seen the deceased
going to the house of the accusedrespondent to watch Television. Even
P.W.-1, Veerpal, on whose instance First
Information Report came to be lodged and
crime was investigated has turned hostile
and he has not supported the allegations in
this respect contained in his written First
Information Report. P.W.-2 Rajdulari w/o
P.W.-1 has also turned hostile. It has also
emerged from the above discussion that
independent witnesses have also turned
hostile and these witnesses in their cross
examination have not stated any thing
which may support the prosecution story.
Even the witnesses, stated to have seen the
alleged recovery of jewellery, said to have
been worn by the deceased have not
supported the prosecution story. However,
the recovery memo, prepared by the
Investigating Officer who stated that the
alleged recovery was made, at the instance
of the accused, from the Almirah in a room
owned by accused. P.W.-1 is an interested
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
witness of fact, has not supported his
evidence,
declared
hostile,
therefore,
alleged recovery of articles from the
Almirah of the accused is also not proved.

45. In the light of foregoing
discussion, we are of the opinion that
learned trial Court has held and recorded
the findings on considering each and every
aspect of the case, both factual, as well as,
legal. In this case, there is no worthy
evidence which may connect the accused
with the commission of crime except the
testimony of CW-1 Ajab Sigh, I.O., thus,
we find that the impugned judgment and
order dated 11.11.2020, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court, Bareilly, in connection with
Session trial No. 275 of 2017, is not
erroneous or perverse and we also find that
the same is sustainable in the eyes of law.

46. Accordingly, the judgment and
order dated 11.11.2020, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court, Bareilly, in Session trial No.
275 of 2017, State vs. Nanhe Lal and
another, arising out of Case Crime No. 89
of 2017, under Sections-302, 376, 394 and
411
I.P.C.,
Police
Station-Bhamora,
District-Bareilly is affirmed and upheld.

47. In the result the instant appeal is
dismissed.

48. Registry to return the record to the
Court below along with this order.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 486
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED WAIZ MIAN. J.

Government Appeal No. 411 of 2019

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Firoj ...Accused-Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
G.A.

Counsel for the Respondent:

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 342 & 376 - Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -
Sections 3 & 4 - Government Appeal,
against the order of acquittal - First
Information Report, under Sections 342 &
376 I.P.C. - Sections 3 & 4 POCSO Act -
PW -2 victim, in her cross examination,
stated that she has given her statement
under the pressure of her uncle Bhole,
who is younger brother of her father, as
she had apprehension if she did not give
that statement she would be subjected to
harassment - Her uncle had also exerted
pressure upon her father also - P.W.4Dr.Isha
Soni,
deposed
in
her
cross
examination that victim on one hand was
saying that rape was committed upon her
but
on
the
other
hand
she
was
contradicting herself by saying that no
rape was committed upon her - victim's
Hymen
was
also
found
intact
-
accused/respondent
stated
in
his
statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that prior to
alleged incident dispute with regard to
payment was existing and thus he has
been falsely implicated in this case - doubt
is created regarding the authenticity of
the
prosecution
case
against
the
accused/respondent - no worthy evidence
on record to prove the charges against the
accused - learned trial Court rightly
appreciated the facts and circumstances
of the case, no illegality or material
irregularity in the impugned judgment and
order and the same is sustainable in eyes
of law as it does not suffers from
perversity. (Para 36, 37, 38, 39 )