# Sukh Lal Bunkar & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 563
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 6805 of 2019
- **Bench:** Rajiv Gupta, Rajiv Lochan Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sukh-lal-bunkar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-52700
- **Pages:** 18

## Headnote

G.A.

Issue for consideration
The matter pertains to the appellants who
appealed their conviction for the murder of one
Hari Kishan who was found with his neck slit
while sleeping outside his house. the central
issue for consideration before the court was
whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the
appellants beyond all reasonable doubt, in the
light of contradictions between the initial First
Information
Report
and
the
subsequent
eyewitness accounts, unproven motive and
doubtful nature of the recovery of the crime
weapon.

Headnotes
A.
Criminal
law-Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections
302/34-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section
374(2)-
Challenge to- conviction-The court found
fatal contradiction where the FIR lodged
by PW-1(wife of the deceased), merely
stated she woke up to find her husband
dead and nominated the accused based on
prior threats/suspicion-recovery of bloodstained axe on the disclosure statement
was discredited-the recovery site was an
open place accessible to all and the
recovery witness (PW-3) stated that no
recovery was made in his presence, but
the police merely got the memo signedDuring trial, PW-1 and brother (PW-2)
changed their version, claiming they had
directly witnessed the appellants assault
the deceased with an axe due to an
animosity related to illicit relations-The
court found the entire story was an
afterthought-the High Court set aside the
trial court's judgment and acquitted both
appellants-Allowed.
B.

Held
The court rejected the testimony of PW-1 and
PW-2 who claimed to have witnessed the
murder because the FIR, lodged by PW-1
herself, made no mention of them being
eyewitnesses, suggesting the direct evidence
was
a
concocted
afterthought
and
the
independent
recovery
witness
denies
the
recovery was made in his presence, thereby
challenging the genuineness and procedure
followed by the investigating officer. If the
material evidence fails to inspire confidence or is
tainted by improbabilities and contradictions,
the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt
and must be acquitted.The court held that the
prosecution failed to prove the chain of
circumstances and the guilt of the appellants
beyond
reasonable
doubt-The
appeal
allowed.(Para 45 to 73) (E-6)

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

List of Keywords
Murder,
Common
Intention,
Eyewitness/testimony, First Information Report,
Contradiction/Embellishment, Suspicion, Crossexamination, motive, Recovery of weapon,
Disclosure of statement, benefit of doubt ,
conviction, acquittal.
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.- 6805 of 2019
Sukh Lal Bunkar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Appellants:-
Abhishek Mayank, Kamlesh Ratan Yadav, Nanhe
Lal Tripathi Shashikala Mani Tripathi
Adv for Respondent:-
G.A.

Case law cited:
B.N.John Vs State of U.P. (2025) SCC OnLine SC
7, Babu Sahebagauda Rudragoudar & Ors Vs
State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149, State of
U.P. Vs Deoman Upadhyayay AIR (1960) SC
1125, Mohd. Abdul Hafeez Vs State of A.P
(1983) 1 SCC 143,Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti
Vs State of U.P. (2022 SCC Online SC 1396)-
referred to.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,522 of 59,493. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39522 for what follows._

10 All. Sukh Lal Bunkar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
563
forthwith for necessary information and
compliance.

68. The office is further directed to
enter the judgement in compliance register
maintained for the purpose of the Court.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 563
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: 30.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 6805 of 2019

Sukh Lal Bunkar & Anr. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Abhishek Mayank, Kamlesh Ratan Yadav,
Nanhe Lal Tripathi, Shashikala Mani
Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Issue for consideration
The matter pertains to the appellants who
appealed their conviction for the murder of one
Hari Kishan who was found with his neck slit
while sleeping outside his house. the central
issue for consideration before the court was
whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the
appellants beyond all reasonable doubt, in the
light of contradictions between the initial First
Information
Report
and
the
subsequent
eyewitness accounts, unproven motive and
doubtful nature of the recovery of the crime
weapon.

Headnotes
A.
Criminal
law-Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections
302/34-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section
374(2)-
Challenge to- conviction-The court found
fatal contradiction where the FIR lodged
by PW-1(wife of the deceased), merely
stated she woke up to find her husband
dead and nominated the accused based on
prior threats/suspicion-recovery of bloodstained axe on the disclosure statement
was discredited-the recovery site was an
open place accessible to all and the
recovery witness (PW-3) stated that no
recovery was made in his presence, but
the police merely got the memo signedDuring trial, PW-1 and brother (PW-2)
changed their version, claiming they had
directly witnessed the appellants assault
the deceased with an axe due to an
animosity related to illicit relations-The
court found the entire story was an
afterthought-the High Court set aside the
trial court's judgment and acquitted both
appellants-Allowed.
B.

Held
The court rejected the testimony of PW-1 and
PW-2 who claimed to have witnessed the
murder because the FIR, lodged by PW-1
herself, made no mention of them being
eyewitnesses, suggesting the direct evidence
was
a
concocted
afterthought
and
the
independent
recovery
witness
denies
the
recovery was made in his presence, thereby
challenging the genuineness and procedure
followed by the investigating officer. If the
material evidence fails to inspire confidence or is
tainted by improbabilities and contradictions,
the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt
and must be acquitted.The court held that the
prosecution failed to prove the chain of
circumstances and the guilt of the appellants
beyond
reasonable
doubt-The
appeal
allowed.(Para 45 to 73) (E-6)

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

List of Keywords
Murder,
Common
Intention,
Eyewitness/testimony, First Information Report,
Contradiction/Embellishment, Suspicion, Crossexamination, motive, Recovery of weapon,
Disclosure of statement, benefit of doubt ,
conviction, acquittal.
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.- 6805 of 2019
Sukh Lal Bunkar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Appellants:-
Abhishek Mayank, Kamlesh Ratan Yadav, Nanhe
Lal Tripathi Shashikala Mani Tripathi
Adv for Respondent:-
G.A.

Case law cited:
B.N.John Vs State of U.P. (2025) SCC OnLine SC
7, Babu Sahebagauda Rudragoudar & Ors Vs
State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149, State of
U.P. Vs Deoman Upadhyayay AIR (1960) SC
1125, Mohd. Abdul Hafeez Vs State of A.P
(1983) 1 SCC 143,Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti
Vs State of U.P. (2022 SCC Online SC 1396)-
referred to.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, J.)

1. The instant criminal appeal has been
filed against the judgment and order dated
06.06.2019, passed by Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected
Areas Act), Lalitpur in Sessions Trial No. 6
of 2018 (State Vs. Sukh Lal Bunkar and
another), arising out of Case Crime No. 754
of 2017, under Section 302/34 IPC, Police
Station Baar, District Lalitpur whereby the
trial court has convicted both the appellants
under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC
and
awarded
the
sentence
of
life
imprisonment with default stipulation.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, as per
the allegations made in the FIR, the
incident is alleged to have taken place in
the intervening night of 15/16.09.2017,
while the first informant along with her
husband Hari Kishan were sleeping at their
doorstep in separate cots after taking their
meals. It is further alleged in the FIR that at
about 02:30 AM in the night, when she
woke up, she found her husband lying dead
with his neck slit. It is further alleged that
some days prior to the said incident, there
was an altercation between her husband
and one Sukh Lal aged about 45 years and
Pappu Bunkar aged about 35 years, both
sons of Chandi Bunkar, who had threatened
to kill him and consequent to the said
threat, last night, while her husband was
sleeping, his neck had been slit by some
sharp object, causing his death. On the
basis of the said written report of one
Sangeeta, wife of Hari Kishan, an FIR was
registered at Police Station Bar, District
Lalitpur,
under
Section
302
IPC
nominating both the appellants as accused.

3. On the basis of the written report
handed over by the first informant
Sangeeta, wife of Hari Kishan, Head
Constable Tek Singh (P.W.-5) had drawn
the chik FIR registered as Case Crime No.
754 of 2017, under Section 302 IPC, which
has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka5 and thereafter, its corresponding G.D.
entry was made, carbon copy whereof has
been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-6.

4. After registration of the FIR, the
investigation of the said case was entrusted
to P.W.-6 Rajendra Kishor Tripathi, who
thereafter reached the place of incident and
conducted an inquest on the person of the
deceased, which has been proved and
marked as Exhibit Ka-2. Thereafter, the
Investigating
Officer
prepared
other
relevant documents, namely, photo-nash,
challan-nash, letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O.,
proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-7 to Ka10, and sealed the dead body after
preparing its sample seal and handed over
the same to the constable for taking it to the
mortuary for post-mortem. An autopsy was
conducted on the person of the deceased on
10 All. Sukh Lal Bunkar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
565
16.09.2017 by Medical Officer Dr. L.V.
Gupta (P.W.-4), who has noted the
following injuries on the person of the
deceased :-

The ante-mortem injuries have been
noted to be:

बाहय परीक्षण-

मृतक के पूरे शर र में मृत्यु पचचात
की अकडन उपजस्थत थी। मृतक के शर र पर
ननम्न चोटें थीं -

(1). 5 x 1 से०मी० पैना घाि ऊपर
होठ के िादहने ओर था तथा मांस का टुकडा
खाि से जुडा हुआ था।

(2). 1 x 1.5 से०मी० का पैना घाि
मुंह के ककनारे पर बांयी ओर गाि की गहराई
तक था।

(3). गिान के बांयी ओर ठुड्डी से 8
सेमी० नीचे आगे और ककनारे के दहस्से में 6 x 4
से०मी० का पैना घाि था। जो गिान के अंिर
चिास की नि एिं खाना की नि को काटता
हुआ छठी र ढ की हड्डी को काटता हुआ
उपजस्थत था। गिान के अंिर जमा हुआ खून
तथा कट हुयी खाने की नि से पचा हुआ खाना
ननकि रहा था।

(4). चोट नं० 3 के नीचे 1.5 से०मी०
पर एक पैना घाि 1 x 1 से०मी० का मााँस की
गहराई तक उपजस्थत था।

आंर्ररक परीक्षण-

लसर मजस्तष्क - रक्त विह न था।

फेफडे - िोनों फेफडे रक्त विह न थे।

हृिय - िोनों चेम्बर खाि थे।

आमाशय - िगिग 500 एमएि०
पचा हुआ िोजन

यकृत - रक्त विह न वपत्त की थैि
खाि ।

प्ि हा और िोनों गुिे रक्त विह न थे।

Opinion- मृत्यु का संिावित कारण -

िम घुटना एिं अत्यचिक रक्त स्त्राि
से होने िािे शॉक के कारण जो कक मृत्यु पूिा
आयी हुयी चोटों से संिि है।

मृत्यु का संिावित समय - सिी
कारकों को ध्यान में रखते हुये िगिग 12 से 18
घंटे होना संिि है।"

5. The Investigating Officer (P.W.-6)
has further collected the plain earth and
blood-stained earth from the place of the
incident and also taken blood-stained
Niwad from the cot and prepared its
recovery memo, which has been proved
and marked as Exhibit Ka-11.

6. Thereafter, on 17.09.2017, the
investigation of the said case has been
transferred to P.W.-7 Ram Sahai Singh,
who reached the place of the incident and
recorded
the
statement
of
the
first
informant Sangeeta and on 18.09.2017,
recorded the statement of another witness
Tudwa (P.W.-2), real brother of the
deceased. Thereafter, on 20.09.2017, both
the nominated accused persons Sukh Lal
and Pappu Bunkar are shown to have been
arrested by the police and their statements
have been recorded, who in their statement,
confessed their guilt and made a disclosure
statement for the recovery of an axe,
alleged to have been used in the incident.
On the basis of the said statement, the
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused Pappu in presence of Ramlu @
Bhajju, brother of the deceased is shown to
have got recovered a blood-stained axe
lying under a Neem tree from inside the
bushes that had grown there and stated that
with the said axe, he along with his brother
Sukh Lal had caused the death of Hari
Kishan. The recovered axe was taken in
possession and its recovery memo was
prepared, which has been proved and
marked as Exhibit Ka-3. After five days of
the said recovery, on 25.09.2017, the site
plan, from where the alleged axe was
shown to be recovered, was prepared by the
Investigating Officer, which has been
marked as Exhibit Ka-13.

7. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer
had recorded the statement of other
witnesses, namely, Roopan Singh, Jaipal @
Asharam, Ramlu @ Bhajju and on
05.10.2017, the recovered blood-stained
earth and plain earth were sent to Vidhi
Vigyan
Prayogshala
for
forensic
examination and ultimately, after collecting
all the cogent and relevant material, the
Investigating
Officer
concluded
the
investigation and submitted the chargesheet against the accused-appellants on
15.10.2017, which has been proved and
marked as Exhibit Ka-14.

8. On the basis of the said chargesheet,
learned
Magistrate
had
taken
cognizance, however, since the case was
exclusively triable by the court of Sessions,
as such, it was committed to the court of
Sessions, where it was registered vide
Sessions Trial No. 6 of 2018 (State Vs.
Sukh Lal and another). Consequent thereto,
learned Sessions Judge, Lalitpur framed the
charges under Section 302 read with
Section 34 IPC against both the accusedappellants vide order dated 21.07.2018,
which was read out and explained to them,
who abjured the charges, pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.

9. After framing of the charges, the
trial of the instant case was transferred to
the court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas
Act),
Lalitpur,
who
recorded
the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

10. The prosecution in order to prove
its case against the appellants has produced
as many as seven witnesses, namely, P.W.-
1 Smt. Sangeeta, wife of the deceased and
first informant, P.W.-2 Tudwa, real brother
of the deceased, another witness, P.W.-3
Roopan Singh, witness of the recovery of
axe, alleged to be used in the incident,
P.W.-4 Dr. L.V. Gupta, Medical Officer,
who conducted an autopsy on the person of
the deceased, P.W.-5 Head Constable Tek
Singh, who has drawn the chik FIR and
corresponding G.D. entry, P.W.-6, first
Investigating Officer Raj Kishor Tripathi
and P.W.-7, second Investigating Officer
Ram Sahai Singh, who concluded the
investigation and submitted the chargesheet.

11. In order to appreciate the entire
controversy, in question, it would be apt to
discuss, in brief, the statements of the
witnesses recorded during the course of
trial.

12. P.W.-1 Smt. Sangeeta is the first
informant and wife of the deceased. She, in
her statement, stated that about one year
back, she alongwith her husband Hari
Kishan were sleeping at their doorstep and
at about 2:30 AM in the morning, when she
woke up, she found her husband lying dead
with his neck slit. It is further stated that
few days prior to the said incident, there
had been some quarrel between her
10 All. Sukh Lal Bunkar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
567
husband Hari Kishan and Sukh Lal as well
as Pappu Bunkar, who had extended death
threats to her husband and consequent
thereto, in the night, they have murdered
her husband by slitting his neck.

13. She further stated that in fact, the
appellant Pappu @ Tejram had seen his
wife in a compromising position with her
husband Hari Kishan and since then, Pappu
and his relatives started bearing animosity
with him and in the backdrop of the said
enmity, Pappu @ Tejram armed with axe,
accompanied with his elder brother Sukh
Lal, came there and Sukh Lal caught hold
of her husband while Pappu assaulted him
with an axe, however, she, on account of
fear, kept mum and quietly witnessed the
said incident. The said persons after killing
her husband made their escape good behind
her house towards a 'nala'. The said
incident is said to have also been witnessed
by her brother-in-law Tudwa in the torch
light, however, on account of fear, she
could not visit the Police Station in the
night itself but reached there in the morning
and lodged the report.

14. On her attention being drawn to
Paper No.5, she stated that it is the same
application, which she got scribed outside
the Police Station and handed it over in the
Police Station, which bears her thumb
impression and proved the same, which has
been marked as Exhibit Ka-1.

15. During cross-examination, she
stated that she was married about eight
years back and her husband's conduct
towards her was good and he had no
shortcomings
and
was
engaged
in
agricultural work. She further stated that
her husband had three brothers and a sister
and they live together in one house. The
accused persons are also distantly related to
them, who are also engaged in agricultural
work. There are about 50 members in her
family, who live in one house or in the
houses nearby and there was no animosity
between her husband and other family
members. On the day of incident, her
husband was sleeping outside his house
whereas she was sleeping in the veranda
inside the house and her sister-in-law along
with her children were also sleeping nearby
whereas her brother-in-law Tudwa was
sleeping inside the house. His another
brother, at the relevant time, was not
present in the house and had gone out and
returned back in the morning at about 8:009:00 AM after being informed of the
incident.

16. During further cross-examination,
she stated that her another brother-in-law
Bhajju is unmarried, who was living with
his sister as he had already sold his land
and as such, he was questioned by her
husband, who did not scold him. She
further stated that immediately after the
incident of murder of her husband, she had
reached there but then clarified that she had
reached, thereafter the assailants had
already run away. After the incident, she
had first called her brother-in-law, who
immediately reached there, and on her
raising alarm, other villagers had also
reached there. The axe, by which the
assailants had killed her husband, was
taken away by them and kept by the
assailants at their well and later, it was got
recovered. At about 4:00 AM, she all alone
had gone to lodge the report, which was
scribed by an unknown person outside the
Police Station and she had put her thumb
impression on it. She further reiterated that
the contents of the FIR were the same,
which were dictated by her. Her statement
was recorded by the police on the next day.
There was no quarrel between her and her
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
brother-in-law. She further denied the
suggestion that there were illicit relations
between her and her brother-in-law, which
resulted in a quarrel between her husband
and her brother-in-law. It is also wrong to
state that on account of her illicit relations,
her brother-in-law in collusion with her,
had killed her husband. She further denied
the suggestion that in respect of quarrel
between her husband and accused Pappu,
any report was lodged. She further denied
that in order to defend herself, she is falsely
deposing. She further denied the suggestion
that the assailants did not commit any
murder.

17. P.W.-2 Tudwa is the another
witness of the incident and is the elder
brother of the deceased. He deposed that
accused Pappu had seen Hari Kishan
conversing with his wife, consequent to
which, he along with his brother Sukh Lal
started bearing animosity, which later
resulted in a quarrel between them. He
further stated that about one year back,
during night hours, he was sleeping in his
hutment and on the alarm raised by
Sangeeta, wife of Hari Kishan, he reached
the place of the incident, lighting a torch
and in the torch light, had seen Pappu and
Sukh Lal assaulting his brother Hari Kishan
with an axe and had slit his neck, who after
committing the incident, made good their
escape and his brother died on the spot. The
information about the incident was given
by Sangeeta in Police Station Baar, upon
which, the Investigating Officer reached
the place of the incident, where the dead
body was lying and conducted the inquest,
of which, he was also an inquest witness,
which has been proved and marked as
Exhibit Ka-2.

18. During cross-examination, he
stated that he is the eldest amongst all the
brothers and his younger brother was
married 4-5 years earlier to his marriage.
After two years of their marriage, Hari
Kishan
and
Sangeeta
started
living
separately.
He
further
denied
the
suggestion
that
since
they
used
to
misbehave with his sister-in-law, as such,
they separated. He further stated that
assailants Pappu etc. were his cousins and
sons of his Bua, who died after the
incident. The dispute between Pappu and
Hari Kishan was reported to the police by
Sangeeta, however, there is no written
record of the Panchayat held between
Pappu and Hari Kishan. Till the time of his
death, Hari Kishan had never committed
any incident of misbehavior or of rape with
any woman and if any such incident of
misbehavior or of rape with wife of Pappu
or any other woman, is pointed out, then it
is false.

19. It is further stated by P.W.-2 that
Bhajju @ Ramlu is his younger brother, on
the date of incident, was at his sister's
house and reached the place of incident in
the morning, when he himself had left for
Lalitpur and stayed there till evening. He
further stated that in between, deceased
Hari Kishan and his younger brother
Bhajju, not only there was a quarrel but a
real fight took place between them,
however, he has no knowledge, if the cause
of fight between the two, was the illicit
relations between Sangeeta and Bhajju. On
the date of the incident, he was sleeping in
the Chhapra but not inside the house. There
is electric supply in the locality but not at
his house. Pappu used to stay at a distance
of about 10 paces from his house and in
between, there is a C.C. road. The incident
took place in the dark night. He further
stated that he, in his statement to the
Investigating Officer, had pointed out that
Chaliraj, Pushpendra Singh, Prithviraj,
10 All. Sukh Lal Bunkar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
569
Naune Raja had seen Pappu and Sukh Lal
before and after the incident but they did
not state anything to him and they had
reached the place of incident, on alarm
being raised and later, Sukh Lal etc. had
also reached there. He woke up on the
alarm raised by his sister-in-law and had
himself witnessed the incident. At the
relevant time, Pappu was working in Agra
and was living there along with his wife
and children. He further candidly stated
that he had not gone to lodge the report,
rather his sister-in-law had gone at the
Police Station to lodge the report as the
police had only taken her. He further
candidly stated that, first, police reached
the place of incident, and had then taken
her to lodge the report. The police had
taken Sangeeta, boarding a car. Sangeeta
had not gone alone to lodge the report but
his
uncle's
son
Ramlu
had
also
accompanied her. Since he was crying, as
such, Sangeeta had not taken him to the
Police Station and had reached there before
he left for Lalitpur. He knew that Sangeeta
had gone to lodge the report, however, he
had no knowledge about the fact that in the
report, Sukh Lal and Pappu have been
nominated as an accused. In respect of the
FIR, Sangeeta had neither informed him
nor he had questioned her about it. It is
further wrong to state that he did not
question Sangeeta about the incident nor
Sangeeta informed him anything.

20. P.W.-2 further denied that he was
annoyed with Sangeeta. He further denied
the suggestion that his brother's wife
Sangeeta in collusion with her brother-inlaw killed his brother, however, it is true
that his younger brother Bhajju is still
unmarried.
He
further
denied
the
suggestion that though he is aware of the
truth but just to defend his younger brother
and sister-in-law, he is falsely deposing and
false FIR has been lodged. He further
denied the suggestion that Pappu and Sukh
Lal had not committed any incident.

21. P.W.-3 Roopan Singh is a witness
of recovery of axe, which is alleged to have
been recovered on 20.09.2017 at the
pointing out of Pappu from inside the
bushes under the Neem tree, which was
blood-stained and it was stated that by the
said axe, Hari Kishan was done to death.
On the basis of the said recovery, the
recovery memo was prepared by the
Investigating Officer, which is signed by
him and other witnesses, namely, Asharam
and Ramalu and also bears the signature of
accused Pappu @ Tejram, which has been
proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-3.

22. During cross-examination, he
stated that he is not an eye-witness of
murder of the deceased nor had witnessed
any incident. He further stated that he was
returning after purchasing diesel from
Kanpur and en-route, the Investigating
Officer met him and got the recovery
memo signed by him and other witnesses.
The
Investigating
Officer
after
apprehending them had got the recovery
memo signed, however, since they were
police officials, he did not oppose them. He
further candidly stated that it is true that no
recovery whatsoever was made in his
presence. He further candidly stated that
the statement given by him in the
examination-in-chief was given on the
persuasion of the police.

23. P.W.-4 Dr. L.V. Gupta is the
Medical Officer, who had conducted an
autopsy on the person of the deceased on
16.09.2017 and prepared the autopsy report
pointing out four injuries on the person of
the deceased, which have already been
discussed in the earlier part of the
judgment.
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. During cross-examination, the said
witness candidly stated that injury nos.1
and 2 could not be caused while one person
is gagging him by his neck and mouth and
the other assaulting him. He further stated
that all injuries are caused from one
direction and the injury nos.1 and 2 could
be caused together.

25. P.W.-5 is the Head Constable Tek
Singh, who, on the basis of the written
report handed over by the first informant-
Sangeeta,
had
drawn the
chik
FIR
registered vide Case Crime No. 754 of
2018, under Section 302 IPC and on that
basis the corresponding G.D. entry was
also prepared by him, which has been
proved and marked as Exhibit Ka-5 and
Ka-6.

26. During cross-examination, he
stated that Exhibit Ka-5 has not been typed
out by him but was typed out by another
person on his dictation. He further stated
that neither Exhibit Ka-5 nor Exhibit Ka-6
bears his signature. He further denied the
suggestion that the FIR was lodged by
making it ante-timed. He further denied the
suggestion that despite S.H.O. being
conversant with the said incident, colluded
with the first informant and lodged false
FIR against the accused persons.

27. P.W.-6 Inspector Rajendra Kishor
Tripathi is the first Investigating Officer,
who, just after the registration of the FIR
on 16.09.2017, was entrusted with the
investigation. He thereafter visited the
place of the incident and conduced the
inquest on the person of the deceased and
prepared the inquest memo and other
relevant documents, namely, photo-nash,
challan-nash, letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O.
etc. and after sealing the dead body,
prepared the sample seal and sent it for the
post-mortem. He also collected blood
stained earth and plain earth from the place
of the incident and blood-stained Niwad
from the cot, which has been proved and
marked as Exhibit Ka-7 to Exhibit Ka-11.

28. During cross-examination, he
stated that the information about the
incident was received at 06:15 AM through
Sangeeta, wife of the deceased. He further
stated that the information about the
incident was given by Sangeeta after
reaching the police station and and it is not
so that he first reached the village and
brought Sangeeta at Police Station and
then, the FIR was lodged. He further denied
the suggestion that the inquest was first
prepared and then, Sangeeta was brought at
the Police Station and the FIR was lodged
by making it ante-time. He reached the
place of the incident one hour after the
information was received and met Sangeeta
at the place of the incident and the family
members and other brothers were also
present. The dead body was kept on a cot,
however, he did not record the statement of
any of the witnesses. He further denied the
suggestion that after much delay, he had
lodged the FIR by making it ante-time. He
further
denied
the
suggestion
that
information about the incident was received
by him after considerable delay and
through some other sourse.

29. P.W.-7 Inspector Ram Sahai Singh
is the second Investigating Officer, who
was entrusted with the investigation on
17.09.2017. He recorded the statement of
the
witnesses
on
18.09.2017
and
19.09.2017 and had arrested the accused
persons on 20.09.2017 and on their
disclosures, had got recovered an axe at the
pointing out of the appellant Pappu from
inside the bushes grown in his field under
the Neem tree and prepared the recovery
10 All. Sukh Lal Bunkar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
571
memo and got it signed by the witnesses.
He further candidly stated that the site plan,
from where, the recovery of an axe was
made was prepared on 25.09.2017, which
has been proved and marked as Exhibit Ka13. The charge-sheet was submitted by him
on 30.07.2017, on the basis of which, the
trial started.

30. During cross-examination, he
stated that information about the incident
was given to him by telephone and on the
next day, he reached the Police Station.
Exhibit Ka-15 is the Forensic Report of the
Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, in which, it is
noted that on the relevant articles, marked
as 3 to 6, the blood has been found to be
disintegrated. Article No.3 is the crime
weapon axe and Article No.6 is the
Kalawa. The blood found on the crime
weapon axe and Article Nos.3 to 6, is
distinct or not, cannot be commented upon
by him. The recovery of crime weapon axe
was made at the instance of co-accused
Pappu. At the time of recovery, two public
witnesses were appointed and out of them,
Roopan Singh has already been examined
as P.W.-3. On his attention being drawn to
the statement of P.W.-3 regarding recovery,
it was stated that:-

"मैं कानपुर से डीजि िेकर आ रहा
था रास्ते में िरोगा जी ने रोककर पप्पू की
कुल्हाडी बरामि होने िाि फिा पर मेरे
िस्तखत कराये थे ि अन्य गिाहों के िस्तखत
कराये थे कफर िरोगा जी थाने चिे गये थे हम
िोग घर िापस आ गये थे। िरोगा जी ने
पकडकर िस्तखत कराये थे।------- यह बात
सह है कक मेरे सामने कोई बरामिगी नह ं
हुयी।" यह बयान गिाह ने कैसे िे दिया मैं
इसकी िजह नह ं बता सकता हूाँ। फिा बरामिगी
का िूसरा गिाह मृतक का सगा िाई है।"

31. He further stated that he cannot
assign any reason for the said statement of
the witness, however, further candidly
stated that other witness of the recovery is
the real brother of the deceased. The
recovery memo has not been signed in the
name of Pappu and the recovery memo of
blood-stained earth and plain earth has not
been signed by the accused. He further
denied the suggestion that recovery of axe
is planted. He further denied the suggestion
that by manipulating the blood of some
other person, the axe was sent for forensic
examination.
He
further
denied
the
suggestion that the wife of the deceased, in
collusion with her brother-in-law, killed her
husband and falsely implicated the accused
persons. He further denied the suggestion
that after making fake investigation, false
charge-sheet has been submitted.

32. After concluding the statement of
the witnesses, the statement of the accused
persons has been recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the
incident. Appellant further stated that he
lives in Agra and has no knowledge of the
incident and only on suspicion, he has been
falsely implicated.

33.
After
concluding
the
entire
testimony, the trial court found that the
prosecution has successfully proved the
case against the accused-appellants beyond
all reasonable doubts and, accordingly,
convicted both the accused persons for the
offence punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC and sentenced both of
them to undergo imprisonment for life
along with fine.
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

34. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment and order, the appellants have
preferred the instant criminal appeal before
this Court.

35. We have heard Shri Abhishek
Mayank, learned counsel for the appellants,
Shri Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal, learned AGA
for the State and perused the material
available on record.

36. Learned counsel for the appellants
has submitted that appellants are wholly
innocent and have been falsely implicated
in the present case due to ulterior motive. It
is further submitted that the trial court has
not appreciated the evidence and material
in right perspective and on the basis of
surmises and conjectures, has recorded the
finding of conviction and sentence against
the appellants, which is wholly illegal, bad
in law and is liable to be set aside.

37. Learned counsel for the appellants
has next submitted that the trial court has
misread, misinterpreted and misappreciated
the evidence available on record and has
illegally recorded the finding of conviction
and sentence against the appellants, which
is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

38. Learned counsel for the appellants
has next submitted that even according to
the prosecution's own case, the incident had
taken place in the dark hours of night, when
the deceased was sleeping outside the
house in an open place and no one had
actually witnessed the killing of the
deceased and in the morning, when the
inmates of the house woke up and found
the deceased lying dead with his neck slit,
then the hue and cry was raised and by
concocting a false and imaginary story, the
appellants have been made an accused
though they are residing in the same
vicinity and their houses are situate just at a
distance of ten paces from the place where
the incident is alleged to have taken place.

39. It is further submitted that only on
the basis of suspicion by cooking up and
concocting
a
false
story,
which
is
completely
contrary
to
the
version
mentioned in the FIR, viz-a-viz to their
statement recorded during the course of
trial, however, the trial court completely
overlooked this vital aspect of the matter
and has illegally recorded the finding of
conviction
and
sentence
against
the
appellants.

40. Learned counsel for the appellants
has next submitted that both P.W.-1 and
P.W.-2, in their testimony before the trial
court,
have
subsequently
projected
themselves to be the eye-witness of the
incident and falsely stated that the accusedappellant Pappu @ Tejram alongwith his
brother Sukh Lal on account of past
animosity, had killed the victim by
assaulting him with an axe and thereafter,
ran away, though in the FIR lodged at the
instance of PW-1, there is not a whisper
that either of the two witnesses actually
witnessed the incident of killing of the
deceased and it has been categorically
stated that when PW-1 Sangeeta woke up
in the midnight at 2:30 AM, she found her
husband lying dead with her neck slit and
thereafter, raised alarm, when the witnesses
reached at the place of incident.

41. This circumstance clinchingly
suggests that on the day of incident, while
the victim was sleeping at his doorstep in
an open place outside his house, he was
done to death by some unknown person and
subsequently in the morning, when his wife
woke up, she found her husband lying dead
with his neck slit. She lodged the FIR
10 All. Sukh Lal Bunkar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
573
nominating the accused persons to be
assailants, though the incident of killing
was not witnessed by anyone and only on
the basis of suspicion, both the accusedappellants have been nominated as an
accused. Had both the witnesses PW-1 and
PW-2 seen the assailants killing the
deceased and running away, the said
factum would have been clearly mentioned
in the FIR, non-mentioning of the said
factum in the FIR clearly suggests that
nobody had actually witnessed the actual
incident of killing in the dark hours of the
night and subsequently, by cooking up and
concocting a false and imaginary story on
the basis of an afterthought motive, which
too has not been proved. The prosecution
story has been developed, which does not
inspire any confidence and is liable to be
discarded, however, the trial court by
ignoring this vital aspect of the matter, has
illegally recorded the finding of conviction
and sentence against the appellants, which
is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

42. Learned counsel for the appellants
has next submitted that even the motive,
which
has
been
suggested
by
the
prosecution, has not been proved at all by
the
prosecution
witnesses
in
their
testimonies yet by placing implicit reliance
on their testimony, the trial court has
illegally convicted the appellants and
sentenced them for life imprisonment,
which is patently against the material on
record and, therefore, is liable to be
reversed.

43. Learned counsel for the appellants
has next submitted that even the recovery
of axe has not been cogently and
clinchingly established by the witnesses
and
P.W.-3,
in
his
statement,
has
categorically
stated
that
the
police
subsequently got the recovery memo signed
by them, which completely rules out the
evidence of recovery alleged to be made at
the pointing out of the appellant Pappu, yet
the trial court by relying upon the said
testimony has illegally recorded the finding
of conviction and sentence against the
appellants, which is bad in law and is liable
to be set aside.

44. Per contra, learned AGA has
supported the prosecution story and has
submitted that findings of the trial court are
based upon cogent appreciation of evidence
and as such, no interference is warranted
and the impugned judgment and order
passed by the trial court is just, proper and
illegal
and
does
not
call
for
any
interference by this Court.

45. Having considered the rival
submissions made by learned counsels for
the parties and recapitulating the entire
evidence and material available on record,
we find that the incident, in question,
occurred in the intervening night between
15/16.09.2017,
when
the
deceased
alongwith
his
wife
Sangeeta
(first
informant) was sleeping at his doorstep. It
is further stated that in the night at about
2:30 PM, his wife woke up and saw the
deceased lying dead with his neck slit and
thereafter, on the basis of suspicion, FIR
was lodged against the two accusedappellants, however subsequently, when we
go though the entire evidence of the two
witnesses, namely, Smt. Sangeeta as PW-1
and Tudwa, brother of the deceased as PW2, we find that the prosecution story has
been developed and PW-1, in her testimony
before the court, testified that since the
appellant Pappu had seen his wife in a
compromising position with her husband,
as such, he started bearing enmity with him
and consequent thereto, on the date and
time of the incident, he armed with an axe
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accompanied with his elder brother Sukh
Lal, reached at the place of the incident and
started assaulting her husband by an axe
and after killing him, they made their
escape good. The said incident is said to
have been witnessed by her, however, on
account of fear, she kept mum. The said
incident is also said to have been witnessed
by PW-2 Tudwa, real brother of the
deceased.

46. It is germane to point out here that
PW-1 Sangeeta, in her examination-inchief, has candidly stated that on the date
and time of incident, she alongwith her
husband Hari Kishan were sleeping at their
doorstep and when she woke up in the
midnight at 2:30 AM, she saw her husband
lying dead with his neck slit, however
subsequently, in her cross-examination, she
had candidly stated that on the date and
time of the incident, her husband was
sleeping outside while she was lying in
verandah inside the house, where her
sisters-in-law and their children were also
sleeping, while her elder brother-in-law
Tudwa was sleeping inside the house.

47. Thus, we find that there is marked
improvement in the testimony of PW-1
Sangeeta in respect of the actual place,
where she was sleeping at the time of
incident and as such, the prosecution story,
which has been developed at a later stage
during the course of trial that she was an
eye-witness of the incident of assault by the
accused-appellants, who after killing her
husband, had made good their escape
towards the 'Nala'. This inconsistent
statement
made
by
PW-1
Sangeeta
regarding the place, where she was actually
sleeping at the date and time of the
incident, creates a big question mark
regarding the truthfulness of her eyewitness account and further makes her
testimony highly doubtful, which do not
inspire confidence.

48. Further, when we analyze the
testimony of PW-1 Sangeeta in the light of
the allegations made in the FIR, which
admittedly has been drawn at the dictation
of the first informant-PW-1 and again
reiterated by her in her cross-examination,
we find that the prosecution story as stated
in the FIR and as stated in the testimony of
PW-1, is in sharp contrast to each other. In
the FIR, it has been categorically stated by
the first informant- PW-1 Sangeeta that on
the fateful day, she alongwith her husband
was sleeping at their doorstep and in the
night at about 2:30 AM, when she woke up,
she found her husband lying dead with his
neck slit. As per the allegations made in the
FIR, there is absolutely not a whisper that
PW-1 Sangeeta had actually seen the
appellant Sukh Lal holding the deceased
and the appellant Pappu assaulting him
with an axe causing the death of her
husband.
However,
in
the
statement
recorded during the course of trial, the said
version has been improved and specific
role of assault has been assigned to the
appellants. Even in the FIR, there is not a
whisper that the said incident was also
witnessed by her brother-in-law Tudwa
(PW-2) in the torch light.

49.