# Suresh Chandra (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 781
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-31
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.4098 of 2004
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suresh-chandra-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-48854
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal
Code,
1860-Sections
302/201Challenge to-conviction- FIR lodged as per
the story narrated by PW-1 and PW-2 but
they did not see the deceased going along
with the accused-Hence, FIR becomes
doubtful-Statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW3 & PW-4 clearly shows that the accused
was a person of unsound mind at the time
of incident- As per opinion of the doctor,
the cause of death was coma as a result of
ante
mortem
injury-there
was
no
eyewitness-there are discrepancies in the
testimonies of the witnesses- death was
caused by some hard and blunt objectTrial
court
overlooked
this
part
of
testimony-the instant case purely rests on
circumstantial
evidence-DW-1
clearly
stated that her husband was suffering
from mental illness-prosecution witness of
mental witness of appellant found to be
substantiated from the medical report
called by the Court itself-No cogent
evidence on record which proves the guilt
of the accused-benefit of doubt has to go
to the accused/appellant.(Para 1 to 53)

B. To examine the guilt of the accused, we
must appreciate the evidence adduced by
782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the prosecution. The present case being a
case of circumstantial evidence, it is a
well settled law that where there is no
direct evidence against the accused, the
inference of the guilt can be justified only
when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances
are
found
to
be
incompatible with the innocence of the
accused. Those circumstances should be
of a definite tendency unerringly pointing
towards guilt of the accused.(Para 21 to
28)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,856 of 52,442. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39856 for what follows._

6 All. Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P.
781
testimony of eye witnesses namely PW-1
and PW-2. Rejecting the plea of alibi of
appellants Laxmi Narain Pandey, Pawan
Kumar Pandey and Shyam Narain Pandey,
we find that the prosecution had proved the
involvement of all the appellants in the
occurrence beyond all reasonable doubt.

251. No other point has been pressed.

252. The judgement and order dated
07.08.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.2 Azamgarh in Session Trial
No.435 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime
No.65 of 2006 under Section 147, 148 149,
302, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7
Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police
Station Atraulia, District Azamgarh is hereby
affirmed.

253. The accused appellants Pawan K

254. The appellant Ramesh Kumar
Pandey had died in April, 2021 and the
appeal on his behalf has been abated vide
order dated 02.02.2022.

255. The accused persons Shyam Narain
Pandey, Laxmi Narain Pandey, Umesh
Kumar Pandey are on bail. Their bail bonds
are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
They shall surrender forthwith before the
concerned court and be taken into custody
and sent to jail to serve their sentence.

256. The appeals are, accordingly,
dismissed.

257. Certify this judgement to the court
below immediately for compliance.

258. The compliance report be
submitted through the Registrar General,
High Court, Allahabad.
----------
(2022)06ILR A781
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No.4098 of 2004

Suresh Chandra ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri SK.Tiwari, Sri Shashank Shekhar Giri

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 374(2) - Indian
Penal
Code,
1860-Sections
302/201Challenge to-conviction- FIR lodged as per
the story narrated by PW-1 and PW-2 but
they did not see the deceased going along
with the accused-Hence, FIR becomes
doubtful-Statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW3 & PW-4 clearly shows that the accused
was a person of unsound mind at the time
of incident- As per opinion of the doctor,
the cause of death was coma as a result of
ante
mortem
injury-there
was
no
eyewitness-there are discrepancies in the
testimonies of the witnesses- death was
caused by some hard and blunt objectTrial
court
overlooked
this
part
of
testimony-the instant case purely rests on
circumstantial
evidence-DW-1
clearly
stated that her husband was suffering
from mental illness-prosecution witness of
mental witness of appellant found to be
substantiated from the medical report
called by the Court itself-No cogent
evidence on record which proves the guilt
of the accused-benefit of doubt has to go
to the accused/appellant.(Para 1 to 53)

B. To examine the guilt of the accused, we
must appreciate the evidence adduced by
782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the prosecution. The present case being a
case of circumstantial evidence, it is a
well settled law that where there is no
direct evidence against the accused, the
inference of the guilt can be justified only
when all the incriminating facts and
circumstances
are
found
to
be
incompatible with the innocence of the
accused. Those circumstances should be
of a definite tendency unerringly pointing
towards guilt of the accused.(Para 21 to
28)

The appeal is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. Padala Veera Reddy Vs St. of A.P. (1990)
AIR SC 79

2. St. of U.P. Vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava
(1992) 1 SCR 37

3. Sanatan Naskar & anr. Vs St. of W.B. (2010)
8 SCC 249

4. Sharad Birdhichand Sharda Vs St. of Mah.
(1984) Cri. L.J. 178

5. Hanumant Vs St. of M.P.

6. Tufail @ Simmi Vs St. of U.P.

7. Ramgopal Vs St. of Mah.

8. Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & anr. Vs St. of
Mah.

9. The King Vs Horry

10. Deonandan Mishra Vs St. of Bih.

11. Sampath Kumar Vs Inspr. of Police
Krishnagiri (2010) Cri, LJ 3889 SC

12. Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs St. of Mah.
(2016) 10 SCC 537

13. Ratan Lal Vs St. of M.P. (1970) Law Suit SC 495

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita
Agarwal, J.
&
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. This appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 22.07.2004
passed by Additional Sessions Judge Fast
Track Court Maharajganj in Session Trial
No. 19 of 2002, State Vs. Suresh Chandra,
arising out of Crime No. 128 of 2002,
under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police
Station Farenda, District Maharajganj,
convicting the appellant and sentencing
him to undergo imprisonment for life under
Section 302 IPC, undergo three years
rigorous imprisonment under Section 201
IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- and in
default of payment of fine to further
undergo six months imprisonment. All the
sentences
were
directed
to
run
concurrently.

INTRODUCTORY FACTS

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is
that a written report dated 03.02.2002 was
given by Ram Kishore, S/o Shiv Harsh
resident of Gram Ranipur Chauraha, P.S.
Purandarpur District Maharajganj with the
averment that his nephew Suresh Chandra,
S/o Mewa Lal, who was slightly deranged
for about a week, went missing since night
of 01.03.2002, without telling anyone. On
the next day, he came at around 12:00
o'clock in the noon and took his younger
son Amarnath and went out of the house
quietly. The first informant along with
other family members searched Amarnath
in the village and nearby places but his
whereabouts could not be known. When the
first informant was searching Amarnath in
the morning at about 8.00 a.m. on
03.02.2002, the other family members
enquired from the appellant about his son
Amarnath, whereupon he started doing
maarpeet with them. When the villagers
6 All. Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P.
783
took the appellant to one side and asked
about the child, the appellant told that he
had murdered his own son. On being
further enquired, the appellant told that he
had thrown the dead body of the child in
the gutter of the railway line near
Bargadwan
village.
When
the
first
informant along with other villagers went
there, the dead body of son of Suresh
Chandra namely Amarnath was found lying
in the water. Leaving the dead body on the
spot, the first informant went to lodge the
report.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid
written report, a first information report
was registered on the same day, i.e.,
03.02.2002 being Crime No.128 of 2002
for the offence under Section 302 and 201
IPC at the Police Station Farenda District
Maharajganj. The investigation of the case
was entrusted to S.I. Ganesh Prasad Shukla.
On 03.02.2002, brief details of offence was
made in the G.D. (Ext. Ka.4). On
03.02.2002 itself, a special report was
forwarded from P.S. Farenda, carbon copy
of which is Ext. Ka.5. The Investigating
Officer went to the spot and prepared
Panchnama of the dead body which is Ext.
Ka.6. The dead body of deceased Amarnath
was found on the banks of railway gutter.
Thereafter, inquest of the body was
conducted in the presence of witnesses and
for finding out the exact reason of death,
Photo Nash (Ext. Ka.7), Police Paper
No.13 (Ext. Ka.8), letter to Inspector
Gorakhpur (Ext. Ka.9), letter sent to CMS
Gorakhpur (Ext. Ka.10) were prepared and
the body was sent for post mortem
examination
after
giving
custody
to
Constable Surendra Nath Maurya and
Constable Pawan Kumar Singh. The
Investigating Officer inspected the spot on
03.02.2002
and
prepared
site
plan
(Ext.Ka.11). The return of SHO was
disclosed in the Rapat and accordingly,
Rojnamcha was prepared, which is Ext.
Ka.12.

4. The written report of the first
informant was mentioned in Parcha No.1 of
case diary on 03.02.2002. The written
report of informant, Nakal Rapat, Nakal
Panchnama and the statement of inquest
witnesses namely, Uma Shankar Chaurasia,
Jai Prakash Sharma, Sri Vindeshwari, Sri
Bechan and Sri Ram Kishore. Thereafter
statement of neighbours namely Krishna
Dev Mishra, Sri Ori Lal, Rajman Yadav
and Sri Nibu Lal and the statements of
Shopkeeper Ram Kewal and villager Shakir
under Section 161 CrPC were mentioned in
Parcha No.2 of case diary on 04.02.2002.
The statements of other witnesses were
mentioned in Parcha Nos. 3 to 6 of the case
diary.

5. After recording statements of
witnesses and collection of evidence,
charge-sheet no.35 of 2002 for offence
under Section 302 and 201 IPC was
submitted against accused Suresh Chandra
and the case was remitted to the Court of
Sessions for trial.

6. During the course of investigation,
post mortem was conducted on 04.02.2002
by Dr. R.A.N Rai at District Hospital,
Gorakhpur. According to the post mortem
report, contused traumatic swelling of size
6.0 cm x 4.0 cm on back of head on entering
haematoma was present underneath. There
was haematoma on membrane and brain all
over. In the opinion of doctor, the cause of
death was coma as a result of ante mortem
injury. The proximate time of death was
about two days back and was caused due to
some hard blunt object.

7. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Maharajganj vide order dated 07.05.2002
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
remitted the case to the Court of Sessions
for trial. Thereafter, the Sessions Judge,
Maharajganj vide order dated 11.07.2002
transferred the case to the court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Maharajganj.
The trial Court framed charges against
accused Suresh Chandra for the offence
under Section 302 and 201 IPC. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be
tried.
Thereafter,
the
case
was
transferred to the court of Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Maharajganj
by Sessions Judge, Maharajganj vide order
dated 01.07.2003 for disposal.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

8. To bring home the guilt of the
accused
appellant,
the
prosecution
examined as many as twelve witnesses,
viz.-
informant
Ram
Kishore(P.W.1),
Dharmraj (P.W.2), Uma Shankar Chaurasia
(P.W.3), Bindeshwari Pandey (P.W.4),
Krishnadev
(P.W.5),
Rajman
Yadav
(P.W.6), Dr. R. N. Rai (P.W.7), Sub
Inspector Ganesh Prasad Shukla (P.W.8),
Smt. Gyanwati Devi (P.W.9), Bechu Prasad
Chaurasia (P.W.10), Indrawati (P.W.11),
Vijaylaxmi (P.W.12).

9. After completion of the prosecution
evidence, the statements of the accused
appellant was recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. He was confronted with the
incriminating evidence adduced against
him during the course of trial, which he
denied and pleaded innocence and stated
that he was falsely implicated. In defence
the accused appellant produced his wife as
a witness, Smt. Meena Jaiswal (D.W.1).

TRIAL COURT FINDINGS

10. The trial court after examining the
evidence available on record believed the
evidence
of
prosecution
witnesses
trustworthy and reliable, hence, by means
of the impugned judgment and order
convicted and sentenced the accused
appellant
for
the
offence
as
stated
hereinabove.

11. Hence, this appeal at the behest of
the convicted appellant.

12. Heard Sri S. K. Tiwari, learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri Patanjali
Mishra, learned AGA for the Staterespondent and scanned the entire record
and considered the arguments advanced.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
APPELLANT

13. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that the accused-appellant
has been convicted and sentenced under
Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. without there
being any concrete evidence against him.
The judgment of the trial court is based on
surmises and conjectures. It is a case of
circumstantial evidence and without there
being a chain of circumstances, the
appellant has been convicted.

14.

To
substantiate
the
aforesaid
submission, it has been argued by the
learned counsel for the appellant that the
informant Ram Kishore (P.W.1) had lodged
the first information report against the
appellant merely narrating a false story. No
one had seen the alleged incident and there
is no eye witness account of the alleged
incident. There are discrepancies in the
testimonies of the witnesses.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that in the postmortem of
the deceased a contused swelling of size
6.0 c.m. x 4.0 c.m. on the back side of head
6 All. Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P.
785
was found and on entering haematoma was
present
underneath
and
there
was
haematoma on membrane and brain all
over. In the opinion of doctor cause of
death of the deceased was due to coma. The
death was about two days back and was
caused by some hard and blunt object.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant
further argued that the case rests on
circumstantial evidence but none of the
circumstances from which inference of
guilt against the accused appellant can be
drawn
could be
established
by
the
prosecution. The mental condition of the
appellant was not sound, he was a person of
unsound mind at the time of the alleged
incident and was suffering from mental
disorder and was in fact insane within the
meaning of Section 84 I.P.C.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant
has also argued that motive to commit
murder of deceased Amarnath was not
proved by the prosecution but even then,
the trial court has convicted the accused
appellant
by
misappreciation
of
the
evidence adduced by the prosecution.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF
STATE RESPONDENT

18. Learned counsel appearing for
State-respondent, on the other hand,
submitted that though the case rests on
circumstantial evidence, but the chain of
circumstances was established on the basis
of cogent evidence available on record
which clearly indicate involvement of the
accused-appellant in the commission of the
crime in question.

19. It is pointed out that the accusedappellant committed murder of Amarnath
(deceased) who was his own son and threw
his body. The dead body of the deceased
Amarnath was discovered at the pointing out
of
the
accused
appellant.
All
these
circumstances established the guilt of the
accused appellant in committing the murder
of the deceased.

ANALYSIS

20. We have heard learned counsel for
the parties and gone through the material
brought on record. It is manifestly clear that
the trial Court has convicted the accused
appellant merely on the basis of testimonies
of the witnesses.

21. To examine the guilt of the accused
appellant, we must appreciate the evidence
adduced by the prosecution. The present case
being a case of circumstantial evidence, it is a
well settled law that where there is no direct
evidence against the accused and the
prosecution rests its case on circumstantial
evidence; the inference of guilt can be
justified only when all the incriminating facts
and
circumstances
are
found
to
be
incompatible with the innocence of the
accused. In other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so complete as not to leave
any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused
and it must be such as to show that within all
human probability, the act must have been
done by the accused. All the links in the chain
of circumstances must be complete and
should be proved by cogent evidence.

22. In the case of Padala Veera Reddy
v. State of A.P. : AIR 1990 SC 79, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the
guiding principle with regard to appreciation
of circumstantial evidence:-

"(1)
the
circumstances
from
which an inference of guilt is sought to be
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
drawn, must be cogently and firmly
established;

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

(3)
the
circumstances,
taken
cumulatively, should form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion
that
within
all
human
probability the crime was committed by the
accused and none else; and

(4) the circumstantial evidence in
order to sustain conviction must be
complete and incapable of explanation of
any other hypothesis than that of guilt of
the accused and such evidence should not
only be consistent with the guilt of the
accused but should be inconsistent with his
innocence."

23. In the case of State of U.P. v.
Ashok Kumar Srivastava : [1992] 1 SCR
37, the Apex Court pointed out that great
care
must
be
taken
in
evaluating
circumstantial evidence and if the evidence
relied on is reasonably capable of two
inferences, the one in favour of the accused
must be accepted. It was also pointed out
that the circumstances relied upon must be
found to have been fully established and
the cumulative effect of all the facts so
established must be consistent only with
the hypothesis of guilt.

24. In the case of Sanatan Naskar
and Anr. v. State of West Bengal reported
in (2010) 8 SCC 249, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court propounded as under:-

"13. There cannot be any dispute
to the fact that it is a case of circumstantial
evidence as there was no eye witness to the
occurrence. It is a settled principle of law
that an accused can be punished if he is
found guilty even in cases of circumstantial
evidence provided, the prosecution is able
to prove beyond reasonable doubt complete
chain of events and circumstances which
definitely points towards the involvement
and guilt of the suspect or accused, as the
case may be. The accused will not be
entitled to acquittal merely because there is
no eye witness in the case. It is also equally
true that an accused can be convicted on
the basis of circumstantial evidence subject
to satisfaction of accepted principles in that
regard. "

25. In regard to appreciation of
circumstantial
evidence,
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sharad
Birdhichand
Sarda
Vs.
State
of
Maharshtra : 1984 Cri. L.J. 178 was
pleased to observe in paras-150 to 158,
which are quoted below:-

"150. It is well settled that the
prosecution must stand or fall on its own
legs and it cannot derive any strength from
the weakness of the defence. This is trite
law and no decision has taken a contrary
view. What some cases have held is only
this: where various links in a chain are in
themselves complete than a false plea or a
false defence may be called into aid only to
lend assurance to the Court. In other words,
before using the additional link it must be
proved that all the links in the chain are
complete and do not suffer from any
infirmity. It is not the law that where is any
infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case,
the same could be cured or supplied by a
false defence or a plea which is not
accepted by a Court.

151. Before discussing the cases
relied upon by the High Court we would
6 All. Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P.
787
like to cite a few decisions on the nature,
character and essential proof required in a
criminal case which rests on circumstantial
evidence alone. The fundamental and basic
decision of the Apex Court is Hanumant
v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.(1) This
case has been uniformly followed and
applied by this Court in a large number of
later decisions uptodate, for instance, the
cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of
Uttar Pradesh(2) and Ramgopal v. State
of Maharashtra(3). It may be useful to
extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in
Hanumant's case (supra):

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

152. 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 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.

153. These five golden principles,
if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel
of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence.
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

154. It may be interesting to note
that as regards the mode of proof in a
criminal case depending on circumstantial
evidence, in the absence of a corpus
deliciti, the statement of law as to proof of
the same was laid down by Gresson, J. (and
concurred by 3 more Judges) in The King
v. Horry,(l) thus:

"Before he can be convicted, the
fact of death should be proved by such
circumstances as render the commission of
the crime morally certain and leave no
ground
for
reasonable
doubt:
the
circumstantial evidence should be so
cogent and compelling as to convince a
jury that up on no rational hypothesis other
than murder can the facts be accounted
for."

155.
Lord
Goddard
slightly
modified the expression, morally certain by
'such
circumstances
as
render
the
commission of the crime certain'.

156. his indicates the cardinal
principle' of criminal jurisprudence that a
case can be said to be proved only when there
is certain and explicit evidence and no person
can be convicted on pure moral conviction.
Horry's case (supra) was approved by this
Court in Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State
of Bombay(2) Lagu's case as also the
principles enunciated by this Court in
Hanumant's case (supra) have been uniformly
and consistently followed in all later
decisions of this Court without any single
exception. To quote a few cases Tufail's case
(supra),
Ramgopals
case
(supra),
Chandrakant Nyalchand Seth v. The State of
Bombay (Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 1957
decided on 19.2.58), Dharmbir Singh v. The
State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 98 of
1958 decided on 4.11.1958). There are a
number of other cases where although
Hanumant's case has not been expressly
noticed but the same principles have been
expounded and reiterated, as in Naseem
Ahmed v. Delhi Administration(l). Mohan
Lal Pangasa v. State of U.P.,(2) Shankarlal
Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra(3)
and
M.C.
Agarwal
v.
State
of
Maharashtra(4)-a five-Judge Bench decision.

157. It may be necessary here to
notice a very forceful argument submitted by
the Additional Solicitor-General relying on a
decision of this Court in Deonandan Mishra
v. The State of Bihar(5), to supplement this
argument that if the defence case is false it
would constitute an additional link so as to
fortify the prosecution case. With due respect
to the learned Additional Solicitor General we
are unable to agree with the interpretation
given by him of the aforesaid case, the relevant
portion of which may be extracted thus:

"But in a case like this where the
various links as started above have been
satisfactorily made out and the circumstances
point to the appellant as the probable
assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in
proximity to the deceased as regards time and
situation-such absence of explanation of false
explanation would itself be an additional link
which completes the chain."

158. It will be seen that this Court
while taking into account the absence of
explanation or a false explanation did hold
that it will amount to be an additional link to
complete the chain but these observations
must be read in the light of what this Court
said earlier, viz., before a false explanation
can be used as additional link, the following
essential conditions must be satisfied:

(1) various links in the chain of
evidence led by the prosecution have been
satisfactorily proved.
6 All. Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P.
789

(2) the said circumstance point to
the guilt of the accused with reasonable
definiteness, and

(3)
the
circumstance
is
in
proximity to the time and situation."

26. In regard to motive, in the case of
Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police
Krishnagiri : 2010 Cri. L.J. 3889 (SC),
the Apex Court was pleased to observe in
para 15 which is quoted below :-

"15. ...........One could even say
that the presence of motive in the facts and
circumstances of the case creates a strong
suspicion
against
the
appellant
but
suspicion, howsoever strong, also cannot be
a substitute for proof of the guilt of the
accused beyond a reasonable doubt."

27. In the case of Bhagwan Jagannath
Markad v. State Of Maharashtra : (2016)
10 SCC 537 the Hon'ble Apex Court
summarized
the
principles
for
the
appreciation of the credibility of witness
where there are discrepancies or infirmaries
in the statement:

"19.
While
appreciating
the
evidence of a witness, the Court has to assess
whether read as a whole it is truthful. in doing
so the court has to keep in mind the
deficiencies, drawback and infirmaries to find
out whether such discrepancies shake the
truthfulness. ...Only when discrepancies are
so incompatible as to effect the credibility of
the version of witness , the Court may reject
the evidence. ...The Cout has to sift the chaff
from the grain and find out the truth. A
statement may be partly rejected accepted."

28. In the case of Ratan Lal vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh : 1970 LawSuit (SC)
495, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased
to observe in paragraphs-14 and 15 as
under:

14. We are inclined to agree with
the conclusion arrived at by the learned
Magistrate. We hold that the appellant has
discharged the burden. There is no reason
why the evidence of Shyam Lal, D.W.1,
and Than Singh, D.W.2, should not be
believed. It is true that they are relations of
the appellant, but it is the relations who are
likely to remain in intimate contact. The
behaviour of the appellant on the day of
occurrence, failure of the police to lead
evidence as to his condition when the
appellant was in custody, and the medical
evidence indicate that the appellant was
insane within the meaning of Section 84,
I.P.C.

15. We accordingly allow the
appeal and acquit the appellant of the
offence under Section 435, I.P.C., because
at the time of the incident he was a person
of unsound mind within the meaning of
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. His
bail bond shall stand cancelled.

Appeal allowed.

29. For the sake of convenience, in
the present case the testimonies which have
been relied upon by the trial court are being
referred hereinafter, which would go to
show
that
there
are
material
contradictions in their statements, which
cannot be thrown away lightly.

30. PW-1 Ram Kishore who is the
informant of the case and the grand-father
of deceased Amarnath, stated that the
incident occurred 1-1/2 years back. He
further stated that the incident occurred
near the bridge of railway line at the
distance of one kilometre towards the south
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Purandarpur. He also stated that prior to
one week of the incident his nephew Suresh
had gone mad and he went somewhere one
day before the incident and on the next day
he came at 12 o'clock and took his son
Amarnath whose age was 8 years and went
out of the house. The accused appellant
took his son Amarnath from the school
itself. Thereafter he came to know only
after the children of the school had told him
that the accused-appellant Suresh had taken
away Amarnath. The first informant along
with other family members searched
Amarnath in the village and nearby places
but his whereabouts could not be known.
On the next day at about 7.00 a.m. The
accused-appellant himself came to the
house and started behaving with the family
members like a mad. After some time when
the family members and other villagers
enquired from the appellant about his son,
Amarnath, he started maarpeet with them
and abused them. When the villagers
cajoled and asked about his son, he told
that he had murdered his son and thrown
his dead body down the gutter of railway
line. This witness in his cross-examination
stated that Suresh had gone mad one week
prior to the incident and during his madness
he tried to kill them also. He further stated
that the appellant was not having the ability
to understand the consequences of the act
done by him. He was also not having the
ability to differentiate between legal and
illegal acts and stated that P.W.1 was not
present on the spot at the time of the
alleged incident.

31. PW-2, Dharmraj, who is the uncle
of accused Suresh Chandra and younger
brother of PW-1, has reiterated almost the
same statement which was made by PW-1
Ram Kishore. He stated that on 2nd
February, 2002 the son of Suresh Chandra,
namely Amarnath fallen sick due to fever.
Suresh Chandra took his son saying that he
was going for his treatment. Thereafter, the
whereabouts of Amarnath could not be
known to anyone. On suspicion of some
untoward incident, the family members
started searching him. On the day of the
incident deceased Amarnath had gone to
the school in the state of fever itself and
after school was over, the accusedappellant took his son from the school.
Thereafter, on the next day, in the morning
at about 7:00-8:00 o'clock, the accusedappellant came home and on being
enquired about his son Amarnath, he told
that he had murdered his son and thrown
his dead body down the gutter of the
railway line. In the cross-examination, PW2 stated that when the accused-appellant
was in the state of madness, during that
period he used to assault his family
members or neighbours with bricks and
danda. During the period of fits of insanity,
on many occasions, the accused-appellant
had been tied with string. Once before the
incident,
the
accused-appellant
had
assaulted a person with bricks, due to
which he sustained injuries in his head.
P.W.2 stated that the Investigating Officer
had not recorded his statement regarding
this incident. When the statement under
Section 161 CrPC of this witness was read
over to him, he stated that he did not give
the statement and he could not tell as to
how it was recorded.

32. PW-3, Uma Shankar Chaurasia
stated that on 03.02.2002 when he was
informed that the dead body of a boy was
lying in a ditch near the gutter of the
railway line in village Bargadwan Ram
Sahai, he went at the spot and came to
know that the body was sent to the police
station, where the Investigating Officer
took his signature on a blank paper. He
stated that the inquest was not conducted
6 All. Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P.
791
before him. In the cross-examination, this
witness stated that his signature was taken
on a blank paper at the police station. When
his signature on the inquest was shown to
him
he
admitted
that
when
the
Investigating Officer took his signature, the
paper was blank and stated that his
signature was taken at the police station.

33. PW-4 Vindeshwari Pandey stated
that he did not know Suresh of Raniyapur
and inquest of deceased Amarnath, son of
Suresh, was not conducted before him. He
admitted that at the back side of the paper
No. 8Ka/2 which is inquest his signature
were there, which he did recognize, but
stated that when his signature was taken at
the last page of the inquest, it was blank
and nothing was written on it. This witness
stated that the Investigating Officer took
his signature, naked dead body was lying in
the jeep, but he did not enquire about the
dead body from the Investigating Officer.
He further stated that he met
the
Investigating Officer at the side of the
railway line of the village and at that time it
was 12:00-1:00 o'clock in the day.

34. PW-5 Krishna Dev Mishra stated
that accused Suresh is the resident of
Ranipur Chauraha and his father was Mewa
Lal, who was working in BSF Military.
Suresh is the only son of Mewa Lal.
Accused Suresh was not doing any job and
used to roam around the whole day. He
stated that Dr. V.P. Chaurasia resides in
Ranipur Chauraha itself; Suresh went to the
doctor with his son for his treatment, but he
did not remember the date and did not
know as to where Suresh had gone along
with his son after treatment. On the next
day, when he met Suresh, but he did not
meet Amarnath. On being asked about the
deceased Amarnath from accused Suresh,
he told that the deceased Amarnath went
there from where he came. The dead body
of Amarnath was found lying near the
bridge of the railway line but he did not go
to see it. In the cross-examination, this
witness stated that accused Suresh had
gone mad about 10-12 months prior to the
incident, his mental condition was not
sound. The accused-appellant used to
assault people randomly. In a day itself,
sometimes he remained in sound mental
condition and sometimes in unsound state
and when he was in sound state, he used to
speak properly. P.W.5 further stated that
the accused-appellant had committed the
murder when he was in unsound state of
mind and was not having the ability to
make out difference between legal and
illegal acts.

35. PW-6, Rajman Yadav, stated that
his shop of scrape was at the distance of
20-25 paces from the house of Suresh.
Deceased Amarnath was the son of Suresh.
The dead body was found lying near the
gutter of the Bargadwa railway line. The
age of the deceased Amarnath might be 7-8
years. The son was killed by his father
accused Suresh who thrown the dead body
in the water. He did not know as to why the
accused killed his son, but the accusedappellant was of unsound mind. On the
day, before to the day, when the dead body
of child Amarnath was found, the accused
Suresh took the deceased to Dr. Chaurasia
at Ranipur Chauraha and thereafter, the
child Amarnath did not return to his home.
In the cross-examination, this witness
stated that when Suresh was in sound
mental condition, he used to treat his wife,
children and neighbours properly but when
he was in unsound state of mind, he some
times used to beat people randomly. When
accused
Suresh
had
taken
deceased
Amarnath to the clinic of Dr. Chaurasia, the
doctor had given him a dose of medicine.
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

36. PW-7, Dr. R.A.N. Rai stated that,
on 04.02.2002, he was posted as Assistant
at the District Hospital, Gorakhpur. On
04.02.2002, he conducted the post mortem
of the body of Master Amarnath whose age
was 7 years. The injuries found the dead
body were contused traumatic swelling 6.0
cm x 4.0 cm on back of head on internal
examination haematoma was found present
underneath. There was haematoma on
membrane and brain all over. The doctor
stated that, in his opinion, the cause of
death was due to coma as a result of antemortem injuries. The proximate time of
death was about two days prior to the
postmortem and the injury was caused by
some hard blunt object. The post mortem
examination report was prepared by him,
which was exhibited as Ext.Ka.2.

37. PW-8 Ganesh Prasad Shukla, who
was the S.I. Kotwali Chowki Incharge
Collectrate Maharajganj, stated that he was
the prior investigating officer of the case
and,
thereafter,
on
06.02.2002,
the
investigation was entrusted to S.H.O. Sri
Arun Kumar Singh, but due to injury in his
finger the reports of the proceedings were
written by him. In the cross-examination,
this witness stated that according to law,
the investigation of the case started only
after registration of the first information
report. It was clearly mentioned in the first
information report that the accused was of
unsound mind and during the course of the
investigation he enquired about the mental
condition of the accused from his family
members and witnesses but no one told him
about any unsound mental condition, that is
why he did not get his medical done to
ascertain the fact of unsoundness of the
accused. P.W.8 further stated that the
informant had given his statement during
the course of the investigation that accused
Suresh was of unsound mind. Except the
informant, none of the other witnesses said
about the accused being of unsound mind.
He had recorded the statement of a
neighbour Krishna Dev Mishra, who also
stated one week prior to the incident,
accused Suresh was not in the sound mental
condition. On being confronted that once
the mental condition of accused was
disclosed by the witnesses, why did he not
take steps to ascertain the mental condition
of the accused, this witness offerred an
explanation that the investigation was
entrusted to him only for a period of three
days w.e.f. 03.02.2002 to 05.02.2002 and,
thereafter, the investigation was handed
over to S.H.O. He stated that during three
days of investigation he only made
searches for accused Suresh Chandra, due
to which the mental condition test of the
accused or expert opinion could not be
done/ obtained. This witness further stated
that when the accused was arrested, the
investigation was with the S.H.O. and that
he was present at the time of the arrest.

38. PW-9, Smt. Gyanmati Devi,
grandmother of the deceased, stated that
she had only one son namely accused
Suresh and two daughters Neelam and
Poonam. Poonam was married but Neelam
was unmarried. The deceased Amarnath
was the son of accused Suresh and at the
time of the incident, the accused-appellant
was not in sound mental condition and he
had cut his fingers also. Due to his
madness, the accused was locked in a room
inside the house. She came to know,
thereafter, that someone had killed her
grand-son and thrown his dead body. The
people started asking from her as to why
her son was locked in the room while her
grand-son was killed. She further stated
that Meena, her daughter-in-law was at
home at that time and on the day of the
incident,
deceased
Amarnath
went
6 All. Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P.
793
somewhere on his own. She further stated
that on the day of the incident deceased
Amarnath was suffering from fever and
Meena went to Dr. V.P. Chaurasia with
Amarnath and after taking medicines, she
returned back home while the child
Amarnath went outside. On confrontation
she stated that on 02.02.2002, accused
Suresh did not got to Dr. V.P. Charuasia
with his son Amarnath for his treatment
and she never came to know that after
taking
medicines,
Suresh
had
gone
somewhere else. He suggestion in this
regard had been given categorically denied
by P.W.9. A further suggestion was given
to P.W.9 that the accused-appellant Suresh
had suspicion that the child was not his son
as the child's face did not resemble with his
face and killed him for that reason, was
categorically denied by P.W.9.