# State of U.P v. Premchandra @ Pappu Dixit

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 14
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-18
- **Case number:** Capital Cases No. 4 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar, Rajeev Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-premchandra-pappu-dixit-52753
- **Pages:** 32

## Headnote

Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to reference for confirmation of
the death sentence of convict.

Headnotes
Death Penalty-Indian penal Code-Sec.
302, 376-reference made by the trial Court- for
confirmation of the death sentence of convict-
facts based on circumstantial evidence in regard
to the offences under Sections 376 and 302
I.P.C.- learned trial Court has considered the
circumstances in detail but without any report of
Probation
Officer,
Jail
Administration
and
Psychologist of evaluation - no criminal history -
no evidence that offence was committed with
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Premchandra @ Pappu Dixit
15
pre-meditated mind- death sentence awarded
for the offences under Section 302 I.P.C. and
under Section 376(ka)(kha) I.P.C. read with
Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012 are commuted to
that of life imprisonment for his natural life
without remission. Reference not confirmed.
(E-9)

Case Law Cited

## Text

_Characters 0–39,937 of 108,018. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39937 for what follows._

14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
embraced another faith wherein the caste
system is not recognized.

20. In view of aforesaid fact, District
Magistrate, Maharajganj is directed to
enquire into the matter regarding religion
of the applicant, within three months and
if he is found guilty of forgery, take strict
action against him in accordance with law
so that such affidavits may not be filed
before this Court in future.

21. Apart from above, Cabinet
Secretary, Government of India, Chief
Secretary,
Government
of
U.P.
are
directed to look into the matter of
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
other Backward Classes as well as the
provisions of law and act in accordance
with law, as mentioned above.

22.
Principal
Secretary/Additional
Chief
Secretary,
Minorities
Welfare
Department, Government of U.P. is also
directed to look into the matter and take
appropriate action or pass appropriate order
giving direction to the authorities so that
law may be executed in reality/true sense.

23. Additional Chief Secretary, Social
Welfare Department is also directed to act
in accordance with law.

24. All the District Magistrates of
State of U.P. are directed to act in
accordance with law within four months
and communicate to the Chief Secretary,
State of U.P. and other Principal/Additional
Chief Secretary, so that such fraud on
Constitution
may
not
occur
as
per
observation made by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of C. Selvarani (supra).

25. Learned A.G.A. is directed to
communicate this order to the Cabinet
Secretary, Government of India/ Chief
Secretary, Government of U.P./Principal
Secretary/Additional
Chief
Secretary,
Minorities
Welfare
Department,
Government of U.P. and Additional Chief
Secretary, Social Welfare Department and
all the District Magistrates within State of
U.P. to act upon and take action in
accordance with law.
---------
(2025) 11 ILRA 14
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

Capital Cases No. 4 of 2021
&
Criminal Appeal No. 1626 of 2021

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Premchandra @ Pappu Dixit ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Dr. V.K. Singh, GA, Sri Raj Deep Singh,
AGA

Counsel for the Respondent:
Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to reference for confirmation of
the death sentence of convict.

Headnotes
Death Penalty-Indian penal Code-Sec.
302, 376-reference made by the trial Court- for
confirmation of the death sentence of convict-
facts based on circumstantial evidence in regard
to the offences under Sections 376 and 302
I.P.C.- learned trial Court has considered the
circumstances in detail but without any report of
Probation
Officer,
Jail
Administration
and
Psychologist of evaluation - no criminal history -
no evidence that offence was committed with
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Premchandra @ Pappu Dixit
15
pre-meditated mind- death sentence awarded
for the offences under Section 302 I.P.C. and
under Section 376(ka)(kha) I.P.C. read with
Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012 are commuted to
that of life imprisonment for his natural life
without remission. Reference not confirmed.
(E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Marudanal Augusti Vs. State of Kerala ;
(1980) 4 SCC 425
2. Ishwar Singh Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh ;
AIR 1976 SC 2423,
3. Ganpat Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ;
(2017) 16 SCC 353
4. State of U.P. Vs. Satish ; 2005 (51) ACC 941
5. Mani Ram Vs. State of U.P. ; 2004 (48) ACC
767,
6. Ubhan Yadav alias Abhai Kumar Yadav Vs.
State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 1202 of 2014)
connected with Capital Sentence No. 6 of 2014 ;
State of U.P. Vs. Ubhan Yadav alias Abhay
Kumar Yadav, decided on 02.06.2021
7. Anjan Kumar Sarma and others Vs. State of
Assam ; (2017) 14 SCC 359
8. Harendra Narain Singh and others Vs. State
of Bihar ; (1991) 3 SCC 609
9. Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam ; (2013) 12
SCC 406
10. Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana ;
AIR 2011 SC 2877
11. Prem Singh Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. and
another ; Capital Cases No. 17 of 2021 decided
on 17.05.2024
12. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh; Criminal Appeal Nos. 64-65 of
2022 decided on 13.10.2022
13. Vijay Kumar Vs. State of J & K ; 2019 (107)
ACC 731
14. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and another vs.
State of Maharashtra ; (1973) 2 SCC 793.
15. C. Chenga Reddy Vs. State of A.P.; 1996
(10) SCC 193,
16. Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A.P.; 1990
(27) ACC 32 (SC)
17. State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava;
1991 (Suppl.) ACC 325 (SC)
18. Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of
M.P.; AIR 1952 SC 343
19. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharashtra; AIR 1984 SC 1622
20. Veerendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh;
(2022) 8 SCC 668
21. State Of West Bengal vs Mir Mohammad
Omar & Ors; (2000) 8 SCC 382
22. Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (1980) 2
SCC 684
23. Sundar @ Sundarrajan Vs. State of
Inspector of Police; 2023 SCC Online SC 310
24. Mohd. Arif alias Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme
Court of India and others; (2014) 9 SCC 737
25. Jai Prakash Vs. State of Uttarakhand ;
(2025) INSC 861
26. Shatrughna Baban Meshram Vs. State of
Maharashtra; (2021) 1 SCC 596

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860

List of Keywords
Confirmation
of
the
death
sentence,
circumstantial evidence, no criminal history, premeditated mind.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dr. V.K. Singh, GA, Sri
Raj Deep Singh, AGA Counsel for Respondent
(s) : Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

(1) The instant Capital Case No. 4 of
2021 arises out of the reference made by
the trial Court/Special Judge (POCSO
Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow
under Section 366 (1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') to this Court for
confirmation of the death sentence of
convict Premchandra alias Pappu Dixit
(here-in-after referred as convict/appellant)
awarded by means of judgment and order
dated 30.09.2021 in Sessions Trial No. 399
of 2020 (C.N.R. No. UPLK01-003380
2020): State Vs. Premchandra alias Pappu
Dixit, arising out of Case Crime No. 164 of
2020, under Sections 376 (Ka) (Kha), 364,
302
of
Indian
Penal
Code,
1860
(hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') and
Section 6 of the Protection of Children
From
Sexual
Offences
Act,
2012
(hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act,
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2012'), Police Station Madiyaon, District
Lucknow.

(2) Criminal Appeal No. 1626 of 2021
has been preferred by convict Premchandra
alias Pappu Dixit against the aforesaid
judgment and order dated 30.09.2021. Jail
Appeal No. 1579 of 2021 was also
preferred on behalf of convict Premchandra
alias Pappu Dixit against the aforesaid
judgment and order, which has been
consigned to record with liberty to the
convict/appellant Premchandra alias Pappu
Dixit to pursue his Criminal Appeal No.
1626 of 2021 through his Counsel Shri
Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi by means of order
dated 14.03.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court.

(3) Section 366 (1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that
when the Court of Session passes a
sentence of death, the proceedings shall be
submitted to the High Court, and the
sentence shall not be executed unless it is
confirmed by the High Court. Section 368
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
provides power of High Court to confirm
sentence or annul conviction. Proviso to
Section 368 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 provides that no order of
confirmation shall be made under this
section until the period allowed for
preferring an appeal has expired, or, if an
an appeal is presented within such period,
until such appeal is disposed of. In the
present case, an appeal has been filed by
the convict/appellant also, therefore, the
said appeal is to be disposed of before
taking decision on reference made by
learned trial Court. Thus, both Capital Case
No. 4 of 2021 and Criminal Appeal No.
1626 of 2021 arising out of one and the
same judgment and order dated 30.09.2021
have been clubbed and are being decided
together by means of this common
judgment and order.

(4) The prosecution case, as per the
F.I.R., is that on 16.02.2020, the marriage
of daughter of Rajkumar Mishra of the
village of complainant Satya Prakash Dixit
was in S.R. Marriage Lawn, Daud Nagar,
Near Jaglal Petrol Pump, Lucknow, in
which wife of the complainant and his
sister-in-law (bhabhi) along with children
had come. At about 07:00 in the evening of
16.02.2020, the real nephew of the
complainant, Premchandra alias Pappu
Dixit, son of Ram Prakash Dixit, took his
daughter aged about five months from his
wife on the pretext of playing and went
away. For a long time, Premchandra alias
Pappu Dixit did not return along with his
daughter, therefore, his wife searched for
her but she could not find her. After
extensive search for a long time, it came to
light that his daughter has been found lying
in an unconscious condition amidst the
bushes of a vacant plot at some distance
from the marriage lawn, who was got
admitted in K.G.M.U., Trauma Centre,
where his daughter died. Thus, the nephew
of the complainant Premchandra alias
Pappu Dixit had killed his daughter after
kidnapping and doing misdeed with her,
who died at about 04:00 in the morning.
Accordingly, on the written complaint of
Satya Prakash Dixit, F.I.R. No. 0164 dated
17.02.2020 under Sections 302, 364, 376
(2) (i) I.P.C. and Sections 5m and 6 of
POCSO Act, 2012 was registered at Police
Station Madiyaon district Lucknow.

(5) The investigation was conducted in
pursuance of the aforesaid F.I.R. The
Investigating
Officer,
after
collecting
material evidences, recording statements of
witnesses
and
preparing
site-plans,
submitted the charge-sheet. The cognizance
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Premchandra @ Pappu Dixit
17
on
the
charge-sheet
was
taken
on
26.02.2020. Thereafter, compliance of
Section
207
Cr.P.C.
was
made
on
02.03.2020 and the report of the F.S.L. was
provided to the convict/appellant on
19.02.2021. On an application moved by
accused, Premchandra alias Pappu Dixit,
an amicus curiae was appointed on the
Government expenses by the trial Court.

(6)
The
charge
against
the
accused/convict was framed on 07.03.2020
under Sections 376 (Ka) (Kha), 364, 302
I.P.C. and Section 6 of the POCSO Act,
2012. Accused/convict denied the charges
and prayed for trial.

(7) To prove its case, the prosecution
produced complainant-Satya Prakash Dixit
(father of the victim/deceased) as P.W.1,
Satya Devi alias Mahalaxmi (mother of the
victim/deceased) as P.W.2, HC 411 Suresh
Kumar (scribe of chik F.I.R.) as P.W.3,
Kailash Baba as P.W.4, Dr. Anamika
Gupta as P.W.5, Avdhesh Sahu as P.W.6,
S.I. Shah Alam as P.W.7, Dr. Ramesh
Kumar as P.W.8, Mohd. Anish as P.W.9,
and S.I. Brijraj Yadav; the Investigating
Officer as P.W.10.

(8) In order to prove its case, the
prosecution also placed on record and
proved written complaint given by Satya
Prakash Dixit (P.W.1) as Ext. Ka.1, Chik
F.I.R. as Ext. Ka.2, GD recording the F.I.R.
as
Ext.
Ka.3,
inquest
report
(panchayatnama) as Ext. Ka.4, Form No.33
(Challan lash) filled by Police Chowki
Medical College, Chowk, district Lucknow
for post-mortem dated 17.02.2020 as Ext.
Ka.5, photo lash as Ext. Ka.6, challan in
Police Form No.13 sent along with dead
body as Ext. Ka.7, post-mortem report as
Ext. Ka.8, Birth Registration Register of
Community Health Centre, Bharawan,
Tehsil Sandila, District Hardoi showing
date of birth of the deceased as 03.09.2019
as Registration No. 3637 dated 26.12.2019
as Ext. Ka. 9, site plan-II showing the place
from where the deceased and bluish golden
colour button and three heirs were
recovered and also the place from where
inner of the deceased was recovered as Ext.
Ka.10/A, site plan-I showing the place
from where the deceased was taken away
by the accused and the place of recovery of
the deceased as Ext. Ka. 10/B, recovery
memo of one golden-bluish colour button,
three heirs, one inner and upper from the
place where the deceased was recovered as
Ext. Ka.11, Arrest Memo of the accused as
Ext. Ka. 12, recovery of clothes of the
accused as Ext. Ka. 13, Birth Certificate of
the deceased as Ext. Ka. 14, charge-sheet
as Ext. Ka.15, Reports of Forensic Science
Laboratory (F.S.L.) as Ext. Ka. 16, Ext.
Ka.17, Ext. Ka. 18 and Ext. Ka. 19,
Supplementary F.S.L. report as Ext. Ka. 20,
Certificate
issued
by
Shri
Swami
Muktinathananda, Secretary, Vivekanand
Polyclinic & Institute of Medical Sciences,
Lucknow dated 23.07.2021 as Ext. Ka. 21
in documentary evidence.

(9) After recording the evidences of
prosecution
witnesses,
two
Court
witnesses, namely, Dr. Nazreen Khatoon as
C.W.1 and Dr. Satyajeet Maurya as C.W.2,
were
summoned
and
examined
in
pursuance of orders dated 31.03.2021 and
16.07.2021. C.W.2-Dr. Satyajeet Maurya
has placed on record and proved the
photocopy
of
registration
slip
of
Vivekanand Polyclinic & Institute of
Medical Sciences, Lucknow issued in the
name of the deceased as Ext. Ka. 21.

(10)
The
statement
of
accused
Premchandra alias Pappu Dixit under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15.03.2021 and his additional statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on
27.07.2021. The additional statement was
recorded on account of the examination of
two Court witnesses. In his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied the
incident and stated that P.W.1, P.W.2,
P.W.4 and P.W.6 have given false
evidences. In regard to the evidence of
P.W.3, he stated that on account of the
enmity, the prosecution has lodged false
case. He has stated nothing in regard to the
statements of P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.8 and
P.W.9. In regard to the statement of
P.W.10, he stated that wrong investigation
has been done and he has falsely been
implicated on account of enmity. He also
stated that the report of F.S.L. dated
22.12.2020, 15.01.2021, 16.1.2021 (two
reports of the date) and 19.02.2021 are
wrong. He, in regard to prove of cloths of
the accused and articles recovered from the
place of the incident by the Investigating
Officer, stated that they have wrongly been
proved by the Investigating Officer and
similarly in regard to Inner of the victim
(Ext. Ka.5), it has wrongly been proved. In
regard to the evidence of C.W.1 and
C.W.2, he stated that he does not want to
say anything. He stated that witnesses have
given false evidence on account of enmity
and the Investigating Officer out of greed
had made wrong investigation and falsely
implicated him. He also stated that he had
not attended the marriage connected with
the incident. The complainant on account
of co-tenure holder and enmity has
implicated him as an accused. The
deceased was his cousin sister. He is sorry
for the incident. He also stated for giving
evidence in defence.

(11)
In defence,
two
witnesses,
namely, Raju as D.W.1 and Rakesh Baba
as D.W.2, have been examined. D.W.1Raju also placed on record the medical
documents
of
victim/deceased
of
Vivekanand Polyclinic & Institute of
Medical Sciences, Lucknow as Ext. Kha. 1,
Ext. Kha. 2 and Ext. Kha 3.

(12) After hearing the Special Public
Prosecutor and Amicus Curiae on behalf of
the defence and considering the evidence
and material on record, learned trial Court
convicted the appellant, Premchandra alias
Pappu Dixit and after affording opportunity
of hearing on sentence, awarded following
sentences :-

i. Under Section 302 I.P.C. death
sentence to be hanged from neck till he is
dead and fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of
payment of fine to undergo additional three
years' rigorous imprisonment;

ii. Under Section 376 (ka) (kha)
I.P.C. read with Section 6 of POCSO Act,
2012 death sentence i.e. to be hanged from
neck till he is dead; and

iii. Under Section 364 I.P.C. to
undergo life imprisonment and a fine of
Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of fine
to undergo additional one year rigorous
imprisonment;

It has further been provided that
all the sentences shall run concurrently and
the period of incarceration would be
adjusted in the period of sentence. It has
further been provided that the death
sentence would not be executed unless it is
confirmed by the High Court under Section
366 (1) Cr.P.C. The fine awarded by the
trial Court has been directed to be paid to
the father of the victim as compensation.
Accordingly, the reference along with the
records have been sent by the trial Court by
means of the order dated 30.09.2021.
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Premchandra @ Pappu Dixit
19
Criminal Appeal No. 1626 of 2021 has also
been filed by the convict raising several
grounds.

(13)
Heard
Shri
Rajesh
Kumar
Dwivedi,
learned
Counsel
for
the
convict/appellant and Dr. V.K. Singh,
learned Government Advocate assisted by
Shri Raj Deep Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for
the State of U.P.

(14)
Learned
Counsel
for
the
convict/appellant
submitted
that
convict/appellant
has
falsely
been
implicated in the case with a false and
concocted story on account of enmity,
whereas he had not attended the marriage
and was not present at the place of incident.
He further submitted that the F.I.R. of the
case was lodged with inordinate delay and
it is ante-dated and ante-timed also, which
is apparent from the evidence of the mother
of the victim, who appeared as P.W.2. The
prosecution has not produced the scriber of
the written report, on the basis of which
F.I.R. was lodged and the Report was not
forwarded to Ilaqua Magistrate forthwith.

(15)
Learned
Counsel
for
the
convict/appellant has further submitted that
nobody
has
identified
the
accused,
allegedly seen with the victim in the plot
and no identification parade of convict was
conducted. He also submitted that there
was no source of light in the plot, where the
convict/appellant and the victim were
allegedly seen by the witnesses. There is no
eye-witness of the alleged occurrence.
Thus, the prosecution case rests entirely on
the circumstantial evidence and the chain
of circumstances proved by the prosecution
is not complete to bring home the guilt of
the convict/appellant only. The prosecution
has failed to establish the motive to commit
the crime and there is contradiction in
recovery of the victim also from the alleged
plot, therefore, he could not have been
convicted and sentenced.

(16)
Learned
Counsel
for
the
convict/appellant has further submitted that
P.W.1 and P.W.2 are related, interested and
inimical witnesses. Further, there are
variations,
inconsistencies
and
major
contradictions
in
the
testimonies
of
prosecution witnesses, therefore, they could
not have been relied. He also submitted that
the medical evidence does not corroborate
the prosecution case. Even otherwise,
convict was not medically examined.

(17) Lastly, learned Counsel for the
convict/appellant
submitted
that
the
extreme penalty of death sentence has been
awarded to the convict/appellant by the
learned trial Court, which is too harsh and
excessive in nature. Thus, submission is
that the impugned judgment and order of
the conviction and sentence suffers from
material irregularity and infirmities, which
does not sustain in law and is liable to be
set-aside and the appeal is liable to be
allowed
and
reference
dismissed.
Consequently, appellant is liable to be
acquitted.

(18) In support of his submissions,
learned Counsel for the convict/appellant
has relied on Marudanal Augusti Vs.
State of Kerala ; (1980) 4 SCC 425,
Ishwar Singh Vs. the State of Uttar
Pradesh ; AIR 1976 SC 2423, Ganpat
Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ;
(2017) 16 SCC 353, State of U.P. Vs.
Satish ; 2005 (51) ACC 941, Mani Ram
Vs. State of U.P. ; 2004 (48) ACC 767,
Ubhan Yadav alias Abhai Kumar Yadav
Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No.
1202 of 2014) connected with Capital
Sentence No. 6 of 2014 ; State of U.P. Vs.
20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ubhan Yadav alias Abhay Kumar
Yadav, decided on 02.06.2021, Anjan
Kumar Sarma and others Vs. State of
Assam ; (2017) 14 SCC 359, Harendra
Narain Singh and others Vs. State of
Bihar ; (1991) 3 SCC 609, Sujit Biswas
Vs. State of Assam ; (2013) 12 SCC 406,
Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of
Haryana ; AIR 2011 SC 2877, Prem
Singh Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. and
another ; Capital Cases No. 17 of 2021
decided on 17.05.2024, Ramanand @
Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh; Criminal Appeal Nos. 64-65 of
2022 decided
on 13.10.2022, Vijay
Kumar Vs. State of J & K ; 2019 (107)
ACC 731 and Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade
and another vs. State of Maharashtra ;
(1973) 2 SCC 793.

(19) Learned Government Advocate
vehemently opposed the submissions of
learned Counsel for the convict/appellant.
He submitted that the impugned judgment
and order has rightly been passed in
accordance with law by the trial Court after
considering the evidence and material on
record. He further submitted that the
prosecution witnesses have proved the
prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt,
which is supported by the evidence of
doctor and the Investigating Officer and
nothing could be extracted by the defence
which may create any doubt about the
veracity of evidence of the prosecution
witnesses. He further submitted that a very
brutal offence has been committed by the
convict with a minor child of five months
and also killed him. Thus, he submitted that
on account of brutal crime committed by
the convict, the learned trial Court has
rightly and in accordance with law has
convicted
him
after
considering
the
evidence and material on record and
awarded the sentence after affording
opportunity of hearing by reasoned and
speaking order, which does not suffer from
any illegality, error or perversity, therefore,
the appeal filed by the convict/appellant is
liable to be dismissed and the reference
made by the learned trial Court is liable to
be confirmed by this Court.

(20)
We
have
considered
the
submissions of learned Counsel for the
parties and perused the records.

(21) The deceased, who was aged
about 5 months at the time of incident on
16.02.2020, was brought by her mother
Satya Devi alias Mahalaxmi (P.W.2) wife
of
Satya
Prakash
Dixit
(P.W.1complainant)
to
attend
the
marriage
ceremony of daughter of one Rajkumar
Mishra of her village, who was also a
distant relative of her, along with sister-inlaw (bhabhi) at S.R. Marriage Lawn, Daud
Nagar, Near Jaglal Petrol Pump, district
Lucknow. In order to prove the age of the
deceased, the prosecution placed on record
the
Birth
Certificate
issued
by
the
Government of U.P. as Ext. Ka. 14 and also
the
Birth
Registration
Register
of
Community Health Centre, Bharawan,
Tehsil Sandila, district Hardoi as Ext. Ka. 9
and the date of birth of the deceased
recorded in the same is 03.09.2019. To
prove the Birth Registration Certificate, the
prosecution had produced Mohd. Anish,
Computer Operator of Community Health
Centre, Bharawan, Tehsil Sandila, district
Hardoi, as P.W.9, who proved the date of
birth of the deceased registered from the
original Birth Registration Register, which
was brought by him. He proved the date of
birth of the deceased as 03.09.2019
recorded as Registration No. 3637 in the
Birth Registration Register and he also
filed photocopy of the same with his
signature
as
Ext.
Ka.9.
The
Birth
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Premchandra @ Pappu Dixit
21
Certificate placed on record as Ext. Ka.14
was proved by the Investigating Officer S.I.
Brijraj
Yadav
(P.W.10),
which
was
received by him from the father of the
deceased.
Learned
trial
Court,
after
considering the evidence of P.W.9-Mohd.
Anish and P.W.10-S.I. Brijraj Yadav and
the documentary evidence placed on
record, has recorded a finding that on the
basis of evidence of P.W.9-Mohd. Anis and
documentary evidence placed on record as
Ext. Ka.9 and the evidence of P.W.10-S.I.
Brijraj Yadav and Birth Certificate placed
on record as Ext. Ka.14, the date of birth of
the
deceased
has
been
proved
as
03.09.2019. It has further been recorded by
the learned trial Court that the date of
incident is 16.02.2020 and on the basis of
date of birth of the deceased as 03.09.2019,
it is proved that the age of the deceased was
5 months and 13 days on the date of the
incident. This Court does not find any
irregularity or illegality in the finding
recorded by the trial Court in this regard.

(22) The F.I.R. of the incident dated
16.02.2020 was lodged on the basis of
written complaint submitted by Satya
Prakash Dixit (P.W.1, complainant), which
was lodged on 17.02.2020 at 11:19 hours
under Sections 302, 364, 376 (2) (i) of
I.P.C. and Sections 5m and 6 of POCSO
Act, 2012 at Police Station Madiyaon,
district Lucknow as Ext. Ka. 2.

(23) Though it has been argued by the
learned Counsel for the convict/appellant
that F.I.R. was not forwarded to Ilaqua
Magistrate
forthwith but the learned
Counsel for the convict/appellant has failed
to indicate as to when it was forwarded and
what was the delay, whereas the F.I.R. on
records indicates that the Assistant Police
Commissioner, Aliganj, Lucknow had
directed to send F.I.R. to concerned Court,
therefore, the contention in this regard of
the
learned
Counsel
for
the
convict/appellant is misconceived and not
tenable.

(24)
Learned
Counsel
for
the
convict/appellant has also argued that the
F.I.R. was ante-dated and ante-timed. The
lodging of the F.I.R. and date and time
mentioned in the same is as 17.02.2020 at
11:19 hours, which have been proved by
the
prosecution
by
producing
Head
Constable 411 Suresh Kumar as P.W.3,
who proved the typing of the chik F.I.R. by
him on computer along with lodging
Report
No.27
at
11:19
hours
on
17.02.2020, which is Ext. Ka.2. P.W.1Satya Prakash Dixit (complainant) also
proved the written complaint given by him
as Ext. Ka.1, stating that since he is
illiterate and is able to make signature only,
the same was got scribed by one of his
relative, who, after scribing it, read it over
to him and thereafter he put signature
thereon and proceeded to Police Station
Madiyaon, District Lucknow, where the
F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of his
complaint on 17.02.2020 at 11:19 hours.

(25) The plea of the convict/appellant
that F.I.R. was ante-dated and ante-timed,
was raised on the basis of evidence of
P.W.2-Satya Devi alias Mahalaxmi, mother
of the deceased, on the ground that she
stated that after post-mortem, the dead
body of the deceased was received by them
and they went to their village, where
cremation of the deceased was done and the
F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by her
husband on the next date after coming from
the village. When we see the said statement
of P.W.2 in cross-examination, then, we
found that the contention of learned
Counsel
for
the
convict/appellant
is
misconceived and not tenable for the
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reason that two separate sentence written in
continuation have been shown as one and
on the basis thereof, the plea of lodging the
F.I.R. ante-dated and ante-timed has been
raised. The evidence is "पोस्टमाटटम के बाद शव
हमको ममला तो उसको लेकर हम अपने गाांव चले गये वहीं पर
उसका दाह सांस्कार मकया । थाने पर मेरे पमत ने अगले मदन आ कर
घटना के बाबत FIR पांजीकृत करायी । "

(26) In view of above, it is apparent
that answers have been given by P.W.2 in
reference to two separate questions. When
we consider it in the light of evidence of
P.W.1-Satya Prakash Dixit, who stated in
regard to the lodging of the F.I.R. that
information of the incident was given to
him by brother-in-law Karan of Raju at
about 04:00 in the morning on the next day,
then, he came in the morning at about
07:00
and
reached
Medical
College
directly. Then he came to know about the
incident and thereafter on 17.02.2020, he
got the written complaint scribed by his
relative, who, after scribing it, read it over
to him and thereafter he put signature
thereon and proceeded to Police Station
Madiaon, district Lucknow, where he filed
it, on the basis of which, F.I.R. was lodged,
which is proved by P.W.3-HC411 Suresh
Kumar, who proved the lodging of the
F.I.R. on 17.10.2020 at 11:19 hours.
Merely because just before the statement of
P.W.2 that her husband (P.W.1) had lodged
the F.I.R. after coming to police station on
the next day, she stated that dead body was
received by them after post-mortem and
thereafter they went to the village, where
cremation was done and after the statement
of lodging of the F.I.R., her separate
statement is that she came on the next day
to Lucknow and thereafter she stated that
she went along with darogaji to the place
of the incident, where the deceased was
found, it cannot be said that F.I.R. was
lodged by the complainant on the next day
of cremation after coming back from
village. It is only because of the manner of
cross-examination with a village illiterate
lady. However, when we consider it in
connection with the record, we do not find
any such reference.

(27) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Murudanal Augusti Vs. State
of Kerala (supra), has held that the High
Court seems to have overlooked the fact
that the entire fabric of the prosecution case
would collapse if the FIR is held to be
fabricated or brought into existence long
after the occurrence and any number of
witnesses could be added without there
being anything to check the authenticity of
their evidence.

(28) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Ishwar Singh Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh (supra), has held that the
extraordinary delay in sending the F.I.R. is
a circumstance which provides a legitimate
basis
for
suspecting
that
the
first
information report was recorded much later
than the stated date and hour affording
sufficient time to the prosecution to
introduce
improvements
and
embellishments and set up a distorted
version of the occurrence.

(29) In view of above, the contention
of learned Counsel for the convict/appellant
in this regard is misconceived and not
tenable.
Even
otherwise,
the
minor
discrepancies in the evidence of an illiterate
village lady, whose five months daughter
was killed after misdeed with her could not
give any benefit to the defence.

(30) An argument was also raised by
the
learned
Counsel
for
the
convict/appellant that the convict/appellant,
Prem Chand alias Pappu Dixit, had not
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Premchandra @ Pappu Dixit
23
come to attend the marriage of the daughter
of Rajkumar Mishra on 16.02.2020 at S.R.
Marriage Lawn, therefore, the incident of
committing any crime by him does not
arise.

(31) In order to prove the presence of
convict/appellant at S.R. Marriage Lawn,
where the deceased along with her mother
and aunt (chachi) had also come to attend
the marriage of Rajkumar Mishra of their
village, the Investigating Officer Brijraj
Yadav (P.W.10) procured CCTV footage of
Camera installed at S.R. Marriage Lawn in
Pen Drive alongwith a certificate under
Section 65(B) of Evidence Act and it was
placed on record of the trial Court in a
Compact Disc. The said Compact Disc was
found broken by this Court on 17.07.2025,
therefore, this Court directed the Manager
of S.R. Marriage Lawn Shri Santosh
Mishra, who had given certificate under
Section 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act
and the CCTV footage in the Pen Drive to
the Investigating Officer, to find out
whether he has retained a duplicate
recording
of
the
CCTV
footage
of
16.02.2020, when the alleged incident of
rape of minor child of five months took
place.
In
compliance
thereof,
on
24.07.2025, learned AGA had produced
before this Court a copy of the letter sent
by Amit Kumar Sahu, Sub-Inspector,
Police Station Madiaon, district Lucknow
dated 24.07.2025, wherein it has been
stated that Shri Santosh Mishra (supra) has
informed that he did not keep any record
relating to CCTV footage in question with
regard to the incident that occurred in the
night of 16.02.2020 and he had handed
over it to the then Investigating Officer,
therefore, this Court had summoned the
Investigating Officer Sri Brij Raj Singh, by
means of order dated 24.07.2025. In
deference to the order dated 24.07.2025,
the Investigating Officer Brij Raj Singh
appeared before this Court on 11.08.2025
and informed that on the basis of Pen Drive
procured by him, the Compact Disk was
prepared, which was made part of the
charge-sheet, but Pen Drive was not made
part of the charge-sheet, therefore, he had
not presented the Pen Drive during the trial
before the trial Court. Thus, the Compact
Disc of the CCTV footage of the date of
incident i.e. 16.02.2020 is not available,
therefore, we have to examine on the basis
of evidence and material on record as to
whether convict/appellant was present at
S.R. Marriage Lawn on the date of the
incident or not and as to whether he had
taken away the deceased from her mother
(P.W.2) from the S.R. Marriage Lawn or
not.

(32) The Investigating Officer Sri Brij
Raj
Yadav
(P.W.10)
has
stated
in
examination-in-chief that he had procured
the CCTV footage of the date of the
incident at S.R. Marriage Lawn along with
the certificate under Section 65 (B) of the
Indian Evidence Act issued by the Manager
of S.R. Marriage Lawn. After procuring the
CCTV footage in Pen Drive, it was seen in
Laptop.
Then,
it
was
found
that
convict/appellant, Premchandra alias Pappu
Dixit, after taking his niece 'X' (however
she was his cousin) from the lap of her
mother in S.R. Marriage Lawn at 18:28:29
in his lap, is going and it is being seen
clearly that he went out of gate of S.R.
Marriage Lawn at the said time. The
convict/appellant was wearing the same
clothes, which were recovered from him at
the time of his arrest. In cross-examination
by defence, P.W.10 reiterated the same
and nothing could be extracted from him,
which may create any doubt about the
testimony of the Investigating Officer in
this regard.
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(33) The presence of convict/appellant
at S.R. Marriage Law and taking away girl
child i.e. his cousin from the custody of her
mother also cannot be doubted and is
proved
because
mother
of
the
convict/appellant and aunt (chachi) of the
deceased, namely, Smt. Kusuma Devi wife
of Ram Prakash Dixit, was indisputably
present in S.R. Marriage Lawn and sitting
alongwith the mother of deceased (P.W.2)
as stated by her in cross-examination,
which could not be contradicted by any
evidence and she was also a witness of the
inquest report dated 17.02.2020, which has
been proved not only by P.W.7-S.I. Shah
Alam, who had conducted and prepared the
inquest report but by P.W.1-Satya Prakash
Dixit
and
P.W.2-Satya
Devi
alias
Mahalaxmi also, who were also witness of
the inquest report. In the inquest report, the
opinion of the witnesses of inquest is
recorded that 'the deceased was taken away
by her cousin brother for playing and
thereafter committed misdeed with her and
tried to kill her and she was brought in an
unconscious condition to the Vivekanand
Polyclinic & Institute of Medical Sciences,
Lucknow for treatment, from where he was
referred to Medical College, Lucknow,
where during treatment, she died. However,
to know the exact reason of her death, postmortem may be got conducted.' This
opinion was signed by the mother of the
convict/appellant Smt. Kusuma Devi also,
who has not disputed the presence of
convict/appellant at the place of incident,
otherwise,
it
would
have
been
got
mentioned in the inquest report. Thus, the
contention of learned Counsel for the
convict/appellant that convict/appellant had
not attended the marriage ceremony in S.R.
Marriage Lawn is misconceived and not
tenable and it cannot be discarded only on
the basis of evidence of D.W.1-Raju son of
Ram Prakash, as, he is not only the real
brother of the convict/appellant but may
have given a false evidence to save his
brother from conviction. The mother of the
convict/appellant, who was a member of
the inquest report, has not stated that the
convict/appellant was not present, so it
does not create any doubt about the opinion
of the members of inquest in the inquest
report. Thus, the learned trial Court has
rightly recorded the finding of presence of
the convict/appellant in S.R. Marriage
Lawn.

(34) So far as the plea of false
implication of the convict/appellant on
account of enmity is concerned, the same
also could not be proved because, firstly,
admittedly, the deceased and her brother
had come with sister-in-law (bhabhi) and
secondly it has been stated by P.W.1-Satya
Prakash Dixit in his evidence that the
relation with his elder brother Ram Prakash
is right, therefore, merely on the basis of
his statement that they do not come and go
in their family, it cannot be said that there
was enmity between the family of the
deceased and the convict/appellant. If the
relations between the family members were
not good, the deceased and her mother
would not have come with her and the
mother would not have given the girl child
to the convict/appellant for playing. P.W.2
has also stated in cross-examination that
relation between her and Jethani (sister-inlaw) were good. Nothing could be extracted
from P.W.1 and P.W.2, which may create
any doubt about their testimony in this
regard.

(35) The deceased was taken away
from the lap of her mother (P.W.2) and she
was found in an open field at some distance
from S.R. Marriage Lawn, from where she
was taken away. She was found by Kailash
Baba (P.W.4), who was warming from fire
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Premchandra @ Pappu Dixit
25
at the house of Rakesh Baba, who has been
produced by defence as D.W.2. Kailash
Baba (P.W.4) has stated in his statement
that while he was warming from fire at the
house of Rakesh Baba at about 11:00 in the
night, Avadhesh Sahu (P.W.6), who has a
sweet shop in front of the house of Rakesh
Baba, came and informed that a man is
sitting in the vacant plot in front of his
house clinging a girl child. Then he went to
the spot along with Rakesh Baba and
Avadhesh Sahu. They saw a man sitting on
the vacant plot under the bushes with the
girl child, who was naked and cloth on the
lower part of her body was missing and
there was blood all over her clothes and
body. On asking his name from the man,
instead of telling his name, the said man
gave a mobile number. He called on the
said mobile number, upon which Raju Dixit
answered from the other side. He gave
information of the incident to him. After
some time, Raju Dixit and 3-4 persons
came and on seeing them, accused fled
from the spot leaving the girl child. The
condition of the girl child was very bad.
Her family members also came on the spot
and took her to hospital. He came to know
from them that the accused is Premchand
alias Pappu Dixit, who is younger brother
of Raju Dixit and small girl child is the
daughter of uncle (chacha) of Raju.
Subsequently, he came to know that girl
child died in the hospital. He recognized
the accused, who was present in Court.
Though in cross-examination, he stated that
there was dark, when he saw the accused
with a girl child but he further said that he
had seen the face of the accused in the light
at the door of Rakesh Baba.

(36)
P.W.2-Satya
Devi
alias
Mahalaxmi, mother of the deceased, has
also stated that after the deceased was taken
away from her lap by her real nephew
Premchand
alias
Pappu
Dixit
on
16.02.2020, he had not returned, therefore,
they started searching for him and she
found the deceased at about 02:00 in the
night near the bushes. At the said time, her
nephew Raju, his brother-in-law Karan,
Pankaj and her other relatives of village
were present. Premchand alias Pappu Dixit
upon seeing them ran away from the spot
and when they reached near the deceased,
she was unconscious. In cross-examination
also, P.W.2 has reiterated that on hearing
her noise, Premchand alias Pappu Dixit ran
away in her opposite direction.