# Yashin v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 50
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1715 of 2011
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yashin-v-state-of-u-p-54056
- **Pages:** 22

## Text

_Characters 0–39,868 of 76,739. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39868 for what follows._

50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
observed that the suggestion of the defence that he has been falsely implicated in the case because
he continued to demand Rs.5,000/-,which the accused had advanced to the mother of the deceased,
cannot be believed in view of the independent reliable and convincing testimony in this case.
Learned trial court also found that the statement of the appellant that he had advanced Rs.5,000/- to
Smt. Haseen Jahan as loan, which was not returned to him, even after demands shows that he had
visited the house of Smt. Haseen Jahan, which is as per the prosecution case. It also shows the
motive of committing the crime. None of the grounds taken by appellant are tenable.

(33) In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or error in the findings recorded
by the trial court, by means of which, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by a
reasonable and speaking order. Thus the judgment passed by the trial court is upheld and
punishment confirmed. The appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds and it is
liable to be dismissed.

(34) The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(35) The appellant is on bail. He is directed to surrender within two weeks from today before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, who shall send the appellant to jail to serve out the
sentence. In case the appellant does not surrender within a period of two weeks from today, the
Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall take appropriate steps for arrest of the appellant.

(36) Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the Trial Court's record be sent back forthwith and
in any case within a period of one week from today for compliance.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 50
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1715 of 2011

Yashin ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to conviction of the appellant under S. 302 I.P.C. based on circumstantial evidence, including
extra-judicial confession, recovery of firearm, medical evidence, conduct of accused, and burden under S. 106
of the Indian Evidence Act, arising out of homicidal death of wife inside matrimonial home during night hours.
(Paras 40 - 41)

Headnotes
1 All. Yashin Vs. State of U.P.
51
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Murder of wife - Circumstantial evidence - Chain of
circumstances - Must be complete - Death in matrimonial home - Burden of proof - Deceased
died a homicidal death as a result of ante-mortem firearm injuries caused from a close range -
Criminal Appeal - S. 374(2) Cr.P.C. - Appeal against conviction under S. 302 I.P.C. - Life
imprisonment - Validity - Extra-Judicial Confession - Evidentiary value - Can be relied upon if
voluntary and corroborated - Conduct of Accused - Attempt to bury dead body - False
explanation of death - Relevant under S. 8, Evidence Act - Recovery of Weapon - Disclosure by
accused - Minor discrepancies not fatal - S. 106 Evidence Act - Burden on accused to explain
facts within special knowledge -Failure to discharge - Motive - Marital discord over daughter's
marriage -Significance in circumstantial cases. (E-7)

Held: The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died a homicidal death due to
ante-mortem firearm injuries, as established by P.W.-9 (Doctor) and post-mortem report - the death occurred
inside the matrimonial home during night hours when the appellant was present, and the appellant failed to
offer any plausible explanation, attracting S. 106 of the Indian Evidence Act - the conduct of the appellant in
giving a false explanation of death, not informing police, and attempting to bury the body, is a relevant
incriminating circumstance under S. 8 of the Evidence Act - though extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of
evidence, the confession made before P.W.-6 was voluntary, credible, and corroborated by medical evidence,
conduct, and recovery - discrepancies in recovery evidence are minor and do not affect the prosecution case
when read with ballistic and medical evidence - existence of motive, though not decisive by itself, lends
assurance to prosecution case in a circumstantial evidence matter - the chain of circumstances is complete
and points only to the guilt of the appellant, excluding every hypothesis of innocence - conviction under S.
302 I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment with fine requires no interference - appeal partly allowed. (Paras
20,39 - 52)

Case Law Cited
Ramu Appa Mahapatar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 147 Makhan Singh Vs. State of Punjab,
AIR 1998 SC 1705 Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2023 SC 2795 Jose @ Pappachan Vs.
The Sub-Inspector of Police & Another, 2016 (3) JIC 636 (SC) Nagendra Sah Vs. The State of Bihar,
(2021) 10 SCC 725 Balvir Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2023) 16 SCC 575 Ram Gopal VS. State of
M.P., (2023) 5 SCC Online 158 S.D. Soni v. State of Gujarat, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 567 Union of India v.
J.S. Brar, (1993) 1 SCC 176 Tarseem Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 367 Shiva
Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 SCC 262 Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of
Bihar, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 Subhash Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 INSC 499; Paras Nath
Sahu and Another Vs. State of U.P. reported as 2025:AHC-LKO:83391-DB

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

List of Keywords
Homicidal death; Circumstantial evidence; Extra-judicial confession; Ante-mortem firearm injury; Conduct of
accused; False explanation; Recovery of weapon; S. 106 Evidence Act; Motive; Chain of circumstances.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal against judgment and order dated 22.09.2011 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Gonda, in Sessions Trial No. 371 of 2009, arising out of Case Crime
No. 154 of 2009, Police Station Katra Bazar, District Gonda.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Mr. Kailash Nath Mishra
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Meera Tripathi, Learned A.G.A.
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.)

1. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred as to "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the appellant/ accused-Yasin against
the judgment and order dated 22.09.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11,
Gonda, in Sessions Trial No. 371 of 2009 (State Vs. Yasin and others) arising out of Crime Case
No. 154 of 2009, wherein he has been convicted for commission of the offence under Section 302
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In case of
default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to further undergo one-year simple
imprisonment.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that Appellant's wife Haseena Bano died in
suspicious circumstances in the intervening night of 29th/30th April, 2009. The Village Chowkidar
-Ramzan (P.W.-3), on receiving such information reached the house of the Appellant/his Wife,
wherein he noticed certain injury marks on the body of the deceased-wife, suggesting that the death
was unnatural. Hence, the said Village Chowkidar gave a written report of the incident to Station
House Officer, Police Station- Katra Bazar, District- Gonda. The Police recorded the said
information in the General Diary as G.D. No.14, dated 30.04.2009 at 10:30 AM and thereafter,
proceeded to the place of incident.

3. Upon arriving, Police took possession of the body of deceased and conducted a
"Panchayatnama" wherein all the members (Panchs) unanimously said that the death of deceased
appeared to be unnatural and therefore, opined for ascertaining the real cause of death.
Accordingly, the dead body of the deceased was sent to District Hospital, Gonda for post-mortem.
Dr. R.C. Verma (P.W.-9) conducted post-mortem of deceased on 30.04.2009 and submitted a postmortem report, which revealed the cause of death as "Shock and Hemorrhage as a result of AnteMortem fire arm injuries". The said post-mortem report also revealed various internal and external
Anti-Mortem Injuries on the body of deceased.

4. Following the post-mortem report (Exhibit- Ka-4), police registered Case Crime
No.154/2009 under Section 302 I.P.C. on 01.05.2009 and started investigation of the case. During
the course of investigation, Investigating Officer collected the blood-stained soil and normal soil
from the place of occurrence and seized the clothes worn by deceased at the time of incident and
then sent the same to Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow for analysis. Furthermore,
Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses, namely Nanka @ Heena (P.W.-1), Smt.
Ahmada (P.W.-2), Ramjan -Village Chowkidar (P.W.-3) and Munawar under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
on 02.05.2009.

5. The statement of the Appellant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 03.05.2009 and
statement of Shyam Dhar Pandey (P.W.-6), Krishna Dev Shukla (P.W.-4) on 01.06.2009.

6. Subsequently, on 07.06.2009 i.e. after more than a month, the Appellant was arrested and,
on his disclosure, the police recovered a country made 12 Bore Katta, used by him for committing
1 All. Yashin Vs. State of U.P.
53
offence of murder of deceased from the agriculture field of one Babu Khan. The Police took
possession of the said Katta and sent the same to Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow and
recorded the statement of witness of recovery namely Siddiq and Vikrama(P.W.-7) under Section
161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

7. Investigating Officer after completion of investigation found sufficient incriminating
material against the Appellant/Accused and therefore filed a charge sheet against him for Trial
under Section 302 I.P.C. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, took cognizance of the
offence and vide order dated 12.11.2009 committed the case for trial before the Learned Sessions
Court. Consequently, Session Trial No.371/2009 was registered.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

8. Learned Sessions Court vide order dated 14.12.2009 framed charge against the Appellant
under Section 302 I.P.C. for committing offence of murder of his wife- Haseena Bano. However,
the Appellant denied the charge and claimed for trial. Therefore, the case was taken up for Trial.

9. During Trial, Ms. Nanka @ Heena (P.W.-1) and Smt. Ahmada (P.W.-2), both daughters of
the Appellant, stated in their deposition that the murder of the deceased-Haseena Bano had been
committed by Mr. Babu, Mr. Munnawar and Mr. Shakir Ali, all resident of the same village, on
account of a prior land dispute. In view of the said statement recorded during the Trial, the
Prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning and trying the
aforesaid three persons. The Learned Trial Court allowed the said application and summoned them
to face trial. Upon their appearance, Learned Trial Court vide order dated 30.03.2010, framed
charge against the newly added accused under Section 302 I.P.C. for committing offence of murder
of Deceased, to which they denied and claimed for Trial.

10. Prosecution examined following witnesses during the course of trial, for proving the
charge against the Appellant:

Sl.
No.
Name
P.W.
Role
1.
Nanka @ Heena
P.W.-1
Witness of Fact/ Daughter of Deceased (Eye
Witness)
2.
Smt. Ahmada
P.W.-2
Witness of Fact/ Daughter of Deceased (Eye
Witness)
3.
Ramzan
P.W.-3
Informant (Village Chowkidar)
4.
Krishna Dev Shukla
P.W.-4
Witness of Fact (Court marriage of daughter-PW1
with Salim)
5.
Lakshmi
Narayan
Shukla
P.W.-5
Witness of Fact
6.
Shyamdhar Pandey
P.W.-6
To prove extra judicial confession of the Appellant
7.
Vikram
P.W.-7
To prove the recovery of fire arm
8.
Keshari Prasad
P.W.-8
To prove the Inquest Report
54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sl.
No.
Name
P.W.
Role
9.
Dr. R.C. Verma
P.W.-9
Medical Officer to prove the conduct and report of
Post-Mortem
10.
Constable Danbahadur
Singh
P.W.-10
To
prove
the
registration
of
Case
Crime
No.154/2009
11.
S.I. Shashikant Mishra P.W.-11
Investigating Officer

11. Apart from the oral evidence led by the prosecution, various documents have also been
exhibited and proved running from Exhibit Ka-1 to Exhibit Ka-15 and Article Exhibit-1 to
Exhibit-3.

12. P.W.-1, Ms. Nanka alias Heena is the daughter of the appellant. P.W.-1 in her
examination-in-chief deposed that on the date of incident, all the family members were sleeping on
the rooftop of the house, whereas the deceased was sleeping in a room on the ground floor. At
about 12:00 midnight, a blast like sound occurred, upon hearing which the P.W.-1 came downstairs
through the staircase and switched on her torch. In the said light of torch, she saw Babu, Munnawar
and Shakir Ali fleeing from the place of occurrence. Shortly after the incident, all the three
aforesaid persons returned after changing their clothes and began digging a grave, uttering that
deceased should be buried immediately, otherwise the matter would turn into a police case and you
all will get implicated. P.W.-1 further deposed that the appellant had a land dispute with the
aforesaid persons and that due to said dispute, they had inimical relationship with her family. She
also deposed in her examination-in-chief that on an earlier occasion, the said persons had beaten
and broken the hands of deceased and had also set the house on fire and a case in respect thereof
was still pending. According to P.W.-1, it was on account of said enmity that Babu, Munnawar and
Shakir Ali had killed her mother. The witness further stated that she, along with her father went to
police station to lodge a report, however, the police did not register the same. She specifically
stated that the Appellant had not committed the murder of the deceased.

During her cross-examination, P.W.-1 stated that she woke up after hearing explosion like
sound and by the time she reached to the deceased- Haseena Bano, she had died. P.W.-1 admitted
that she had not seen anyone causing the blast like sound. Although, P.W.-1 in her cross
examination admitted that Investigating Officer had recorded her statement on the very next date of
incident, however, denied the fact that she had not disclosed the name of Babu, Munnawar and
Shakir Ali in her said statement made under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

13. The Prosecution produced Ms. Ahmada as P.W.-2. She is the elder sister of P.W.-1 and the
daughter of Appellant and the deceased. P.W.-2 in her testimony supported the version of P.W.-1
and stated that the deceased was murdered by neighbors Babu, Munnawar and Shakir Ali due to a
land dispute. Furthermore, P.W.-2 in her testimony stated that she saw Babu, Munnawar and Shakir
Ali, fleeing from the place of occurrence from a distance of 10 feet and there was nothing in their
hands. P.W.-2, contrary to the testimony of P.W.-1, denied any incident of hearing any sound like
bomb explosion etc. Although, P.W.-2 in her cross examination admitted that one Mr. Krishna Dev
Shukla had mediated and counseled her parents over their dispute regarding Court marriage issue
1 All. Yashin Vs. State of U.P.
55
of P.W.-1 (Heena), however, at the same time she denied that there was any dispute between her
parents prior to the incident.

14. Prosecution examined Mr. Ramzan, the village chowkidar and informant of the case as
P.W.-3. In his testimony, the said P.W. stated that upon hearing the death of deceased, he went to
the Appellant's house, wherein the deceased was lying dead, covered by a white sheet. There was
blood stained on the sheet. Being curious, P.W.-3 inquired about the cause of death from Appellant.
The Appellant stated that the deceased was suffering from cholera and consistent vomiting. He also
told that the deceased had fallen down from roof/terrace, which caused her death. According to the
said witness, since the circumstances appeared suspicious, he stopped the Appellant and other
people from digging the grave and informed the police about the incident. P.W.-3 has proved the
original information being G.D. No.14 given by him on 30.04.2009 (Exhibit- Ka 1) to the police.

P.W.-3 in his cross examination testified that Appellant and his relatives were intending to sort
out the matter by burying the dead body of the deceased. He further testified that although,
deceased Haseena Bano and the accused persons Babu, Munnawar and Shakir Ali used to quarrel
over a small piece of land belonging to Gram Samaj, however, Babu, Munnawar and Shakir Ali
have not committed murder of the deceased due to the said land dispute. P.W.-3 further deposed in
his cross examination that the Appellant after his arrest had admitted before the police the
commission of the offence of murder, and P.W.-3 was present at the relevant time. He also stated
that pursuant to the said confessional statement of the appellant, a firearm was recovered on the
appellant's disclosure/identification.

15. The prosecution produced Mr. Krishna Dev Shukla, belonging to the village of appellant
as P.W.-4. Mr. Shukla, in his testimony, stated that the appellant had confessed the commission of
offence of murder before Mr. Shayamdhar Pandey (P.W.-6) on 31.05.2009. He further deposed that
in the said extra-judicial confessional statement made before P.W.-6, the appellant admitted that he
had killed his wife i.e. the deceased in a fit of anger following an altercation related to marriage of
his daughter Heena. P.W.-4 also deposed that appellant and the deceased had strained relationship
over the issue of marriage of their daughter Heena. He also deposed that the appellant was against
the marriage of his daughter Heena (P.W.-1) with Mr. Salim, the son of Mr. Subarati, while the
deceased was willing to marry Heena with Salim. P.W.-4, in his further deposition stated that on
the request of the deceased Ms. Haseena Bano, he had counselled and attempted to mediate
between the appellant and the deceased the day preceding the date of incident, relating to the
marriage of their daughter Heena (P.W.-1).

16. Mr. Laxmi Narayan Shukla was examined as P.W.-5. In his testimony, this witness has
stated that upon learning about the death of the deceased, he reached the appellant s house at about
7:30 AM. At that point of time, no one was aware as to who had committed the murder. He further
deposed that the daughters of the appellant had not named or implicated any person in the
commission of the said offence.

17. Mr. Shyamdhar Pandey, son of incumbent Village Pramukh was examined as P.W.-6. Mr.
Pandey in his testimony, stated that upon learning about the death of the deceased, he visited the
appellant s house and found the deceased lying dead. He further deposed that when he inquired
56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
about the cause of death, the appellant informed him that the deceased had died after falling from
the rooftop. However, noticing a firearm injury on the body of the deceased, P.W.-6, advised the
appellant not to bury the body and to inform the police about the incident. Thereafter, P.W.-6
proceeded to attend his day-to-day duty. P.W.-6 further deposed that after about one month of the
incident, appellant came to meet him and confessed that he had killed his wife by firing a bullet and
requested to save him. Upon being asked about the reason for committing the murder, the appellant
stated that his wife was intending to solemnize their daughter s marriage against his wishes, which
led to an altercation, and that in a fit of anger he had committed murder. Since, the appellant had
committed the offence, P.W.-6 denied to extend any help to him. P.W.-6 denied the suggestion that
Babu, Munnawar and Shakir Ali had murdered the deceased due to any prior land dispute, or
having more member in the vote-list.

18. Thereafter, Prosecution produced Mr. Vikram as P.W.-7. The said witness in his
testimony, stated that the appellant was arrested by the police on 07.06.2009 and that pursuant to
his disclosure statement and identification, a 12-bore Katta (Country made Pistol) was recovered
after being dug out from a maze field belonging to one of the co-accused Babu. The said Katta was
wrapped in a polythene and was recovered in his presence. P.W.-7 identified and proved the
recovery of the aforesaid firearm and also identified his signature appended on the recovery memo,
which was exhibited as Exhibit Ka 2.

19. Mr. Kesari Prasad was produced as P.W.-8 by the prosecution. He testified that police
came and took possession of the dead body of deceased and thereafter prepared a Panchayatnama
in his presence. P.W.-8 identified his signature appended on the Panchayatnama (Inquest Report)
which was exhibited as Exhibit Ka 3. He further testified that Appellant was present when the dead
body was sealed and Panchayatnama was prepared by the police.

20. The prosecution examined Dr. R.C. Verma, Senior Consultant, District Hospital, Gonda,
as P.W.-9 in order to prove the post-mortem report. P.W.-9, in his testimony, stated that on
30.04.2009, Constable Sevalal and Home guard Gangesh Pandey brought the dead body of
deceased Haseena Bano, for post-mortem. The dead body was duly sealed and that the seal was
opened in his presence. The dead body was identified by the aforesaid police personnel. PW-9
further stated that the deceased was of normal physique and deposed that following ante-mortem
injuries were found on her body:

i. Firearm wound measuring 3 x 2.5 cm deep, on the right side of the chest, 5 cm below
the right mid-clavicular bone with blackening and tattooing.

ii. Firearm injury measuring 3 x 2.5 cm deep to the flesh on the right side of the upper lip,
just below the right nostril. blackening and tattooing was present.

ii. Lacerated wound measuring 4 x 5 cm deep on the flesh was on the right side of the
face, just below the angle of the mouth.

P.W.-9 deposed that so far as internal injury is concerned, the pleura was ruptured.
Approximately, two liters of clotted blood was found in the chest cavity. There was 200gm
1 All. Yashin Vs. State of U.P.
57
undigested pulp in the stomach. The uterus was empty. The time of death of deceased was within
one day.

P.W.-9 opined that the deceased died due to ante-mortem shock and excessive bleeding. As
regards the timing of death, the said PW deposed that the deceased might have died during the
night of 29th/30th April, 2009. P.W.-9 stated that the post-mortem was conducted and report was
prepared at 4:45 PM. A large bullet was recovered from the rear side of the deceased s chest. P.W.-
9 identified the autopsy report and his signature appended thereon, which is exhibited as Exhibit
Ka- 4.

During his cross examination conducted by advocate appearing for the Accused Babu,
Munawaar and Shakir Ali, P.W.-9 testified that injury No.1 and 2 might occur if the firearm is fired
from within three feet, i.e. from very close range. He further testified that both the said injuries
might be caused by the same firearm. The said witness also deposed that the injury no.3 may occur
due to falling on a hard object. Interestingly, no cross examination was done by the Appellant,
although opportunity was given to him.

21. Constable Danbahadur Singh, a Moharir posted in Katra Bazar Police Station, was
examined as P.W.-10 by the prosecution. P.W.-10, in his testimony, deposed that Crime Case
No.154/09 under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered by him on 01.05.2009 pursuant to receipt of
post-mortem report and that in accordance with the directions of S.H.O. He proved the original
G.D. Entry and identified his signature appended thereon, which is exhibited as Exhibit Ka 5.

22. S.I. Shahsikant Sharma, the Investigating Officer of the case, appeared as P.W.-11. He
deposed that he had investigated the matter. He identified his signatures appended on the various
recovery memos and proved the same. He further testified that the site-map of the crime scene was
prepared by him and identified his signature appended thereon. P.W.-11 exhibited and proved
various documents running from Exhibit Ka 6 to Exhibit Ka 15 and Article Exhibit 1 to Article
Exhibit 3. S.I. Shahsikant Sharma deposed that appellant or any of his family member did not
report the incident to the police and that the incident was reported by Village Chowkidar - Mr.
Ramzan (P.W.-3). He further deposed that when he reached at the spot, he found that the appellant
had dug a grave for burying the deceased. He stated that the police took control of the dead body of
deceased and prepared a Panchayatnama. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent to
District Hospital, Gonda, for post mortem. Subsequently, statement of witnesses was recorded and
that during the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested on 07.06.2009. Thereafter,
pursuant to a disclosure statement made by the appellant and on his pointing a firearm (Country
made pistol/Katta), used in commission of the crime, was recovered. Upon completion of
investigation sufficient incriminating material was found against the appellant and therefore, charge
sheet was filed against him.

During the cross examination, P.W.-11 testified that all the family members of appellant were
present at the time of preparation of site-map of crime scene. He further testified that he had
recorded the statement of Ms. Heena (P.W.-1) and Ms. Ahmada (P.W.-2), both the daughters of
appellant, during the course of investigation, however, in their statement they had not named Babu,
Munnawar and Shakir Ali for committing the murder of deceased Haseena Bano.
58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. After conclusion of the prosecution witness, the statement of Appellant and the other
accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 17.01.2011, wherein they
denied the various circumstances put to them of being involved in the present incident and claimed
that the allegation against them are false and motivated.

24. None of the accused persons, including the Appellant produced any defence witness in
their favour.

25. Learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments of both sides and perusal of evidence
adduced, returned a finding that the appellant/accused have committed the offence of murder under
Section 302 I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted the appellant and directed him to undergo a
sentenced of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- In case of default in payment of fine, the
appellant have been directed to further undergo a simple imprisonment of one year. However, the
Learned Trial Court acquitted the newly added accused persons Babu, Munnawar and Shakir Ali
giving them benefit of doubt.

26. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 374(2)
Cr.P.C. before this Court.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT

27. During the pendency of the present Appeal, the Appellant is in jail since 22.09.2011 i.e for
more
than
14
years
and
four
months
without
remission.
28. The first Bail Application of the Appellant was rejected for want of prosecution by a coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.11.2018 passed in C.M. Application No. 103783 of 2011.

29. The second Bail Application (C.M. Application No. 174728 of 2021) was dismissed on
merits vide an order dated 03.03.2022. The third Bail Application also came to be rejected by a
coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 24.05.2022 passed in C.M. Application No. 08
of 2022. However, when the fourth Bail Application (C.M. Application No. 09 of 2023) came up
for hearing on 31.10.2025, the learned Counsel for the Appellant elected to address his final
arguments on merits, rather than for pressing his Bail Application and as such this Court heard both
the counsel for the Appellant and the Counsel for the State and vide an order dated 31.10.2025
reserved the present Appeal for judgment, while dismissing the fourth Bail Application of the
Appellant, being not pressed.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES

30. Heard rival submissions of Ms. Meera Tripathi, Ld. A.G.A. for State as well as Mr.
Kailash Nath Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

31. Mr. Kailash Nath Mishra, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
judgment dated 22.09.2011 is illegal, perverse and have been passed only on surmises and
conjectures. He submits that there are major contradictions in the statement of prosecution
witnesses. That neither anyone has seen the appellant committing the alleged offence nor there is
1 All. Yashin Vs. State of U.P.
59
any reason or motive for committing such crime by the appellant. Mr. Mishra has further submitted
that learned Trial Court has erroneously held that the deceased was willing to marry her daughter,
Ms. Nanka @ Heena (P.W.-1), to Mr. Salim, son of Mr. Subarati, whereas the appellant was
opposed to such marriage, although the fact remains that P.W.-1 had already solemnized a Court
marriage, much earlier to the incident. Thus according to him, the opposition of the appellant which
has been viewed as a strong motive by Trial Court behind committing murder of the deceased
factually did not exist. The learned Counsel further submitted that the said finding of the Trial
Court is belied by the testimony of Ms. Nanka @ Heena (P.W.-1) wherein she has categorically
stated in her evidence that both of her parents were in favour of her marriage with Salim. Hence,
learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there existed no motive whatsoever on the part of
appellant-Yasin to commit murder of his wife Haseena Bano.

32. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in so far as extra judicial confession is
concerned, the same is stated to have been made before Mr. Shyamdhar Pandey (P.W.-6).
However, the said witness, in his evidence before the learned Trial Court, has failed to disclose
either the date or the day on which such alleged extra judicial confession was made. Furthermore,
Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Appellant has tried to weave a story around the statement of
P.W.-6, wherein he has stated that his mother is the Village Pradhan and that the family of accused
Babu and Munnawar comprises about twenty members, whereas the appellant is alone. Thus,
according to Mr. Mishra the testimony relating to alleged extra judicial confession made by the
Appellant appears to have been motivated by vote bank politics. In these circumstances, it was
argued by him that P.W.-6 cannot be regarded as an independent or neutral witness. It has been
argued that, in any case, extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence. He has
submitted that wherever the Court intends to base a conviction on an extra judicial confession, it
must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence
and has placed reliance in this regard on the judgment of Ramu Appa Mahapatar Vs. The State of
Maharashtra, in Criminal Appeal No.608 of 2013 reported as 2025 INSC 147; passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Counsel for appellant has further urged that there is nothing
to show that Shyamdhar Pandey (P.W.-6) had any influence with police or had some status to
protect the appellant from harassment of police as such there was no reason for appellant to confess
his guilt before him and to request him to save him. The reliance in this regard has been placed on
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Makhan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in
AIR 1998 SC 1705.

33. Learned Counsel for appellant, while addressing the issue of recovery of weapon of
assault, submitted that the said weapon was recovered from the agricultural field of accused Babu
allegedly on the pointing out of appellant. Mr. Vikram (P.W.-7) was produced by prosecution as a
witness to the said recovery. Mr. Vikram (P.W.-7) in his examination-in-chief stated that the
appellant himself dug the ground and handed over the weapon of assault to police, whereas in his
cross examination, he contradicted the said version by stating that the weapon was dug out by two
police personnel and they handed over the weapon to the Investigating Officer. Further, P.W.-7
deposed that the weapon was recovered after a period of three to four months from the date of
incident, whereas as per the prosecution case, the recovery is stated have to been made on
07.06.2009 i.e. after one month and seven days from the date of incident. The witness has also
stated that appellant Yasin, another witness Siddique and the Investigating Officer did not append
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
their signature on the recovery memo of the alleged weapon in his presence. In view of the
aforesaid infirmities, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to
establish that the alleged recovery of the weapon of assault was affected on the pointing of
appellant. Learned Counsel for appellant has further submitted that as per post mortem report a big
bullet was found in the body of the deceased but no pellet is said to be recovered from the dead
body of deceased. Further, according to the learned Counsel, the alleged recovered weapon is a 12
bore country made pistol as such the injury in the post mortem report is not corresponding to
weapon allegedly recovered on the pointing out of appellant. Moreover, even in the ballistic report,
the expert has opined that it is impossible to conclude that the recovered weapon (Katta) only, was
used in the commission of offence.

34. Finally, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that burden under Section 106 of the
Indian Evidence Act cannot be shifted upon the appellant, particularly when there is evidence to the
effect that several other family members and relatives were present at the time of occurrence and
the appellant Yasin was sleeping with them on the roof while the deceased was sleeping inside the
room. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 in their
testimony have stated that the appellant had gone to the police station to lodge a F.I.R. against the
said Babu, Munnawar and Shakir Ali, however, the police did not lodge the F.I.R. Thus, it has been
vehemently submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the learned Trial Court has
wrongly come to the conclusion that appellant has not discharged his burden cast under Section 106
of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the entire
case of the prosecution against appellant is based on circumstantial evidence which is not so
complete that on the basis of which it can be said that it is the appellant only and no one else would
have committed the murder of deceased. The appellant has placed reliance on the principle of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana, reported
in AIR 2023 SC 2795; Jose @ Pappachan Vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police & Another, reported
in 2016 (3) JIC 636 (SC); and Nagendra Sah Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in (2021) 10 SCC
725.

35. Per contra, Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State, has submitted that
the deceased Haseena Bano, wife of appellant Yasin, died in suspicious circumstances during the
intervening night of 29/30.04.2009. The deceased had bodily injury. However, despite that the
appellant and his family members attempted to bury the deceased without there being given any
such information to the Police or taking the deceased to a Doctor. The incident was reported to the
police station Katra Bazar, District Gonda, by Mr. Ramzan (P.W.-3), the village chowkidar.
Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that the appellant did not participate in the inquest
proceedings and also did not engage in any act indicating that, subsequent to the incident, the
accused had taken the deceased to a hospital or had consulted any doctor with regard to her
treatment.

36. Learned A.G.A. submitted that it is clear from the testimony of P.W.-3 (Informant- Mr.
Ramzan) that firstly, the appellant attempted to project a false narrative by claiming that the
deceased was suffering from cholera due to which she was vomiting continuously and that on
account thereof, she fell down from the roof, resulting in her death. Secondly, when this version
was disclosed in public, both the relatives of deceased as well as those of accused/appellant refused
1 All. Yashin Vs. State of U.P.
61
to dig the grave for deceased, which clearly demonstrates that the version narrated by appellant had
not been accepted by the gathering present at the spot. Thirdly, it came to the knowledge of the
informant that on the date of incident, an altercation had taken place between the deceased and the
appellant/ accused with regard to the marriage of the daughter, namely Heena, which clearly
establishes the motive attributable to the deceased. Lastly, P.W.-3 has also duly affirmed the
recovery of the country made pistol, thereby corroborating the recovery memo.

37. Learned A.G.A stressing on the point of motive submitted that Mr. Krishna Dev Shukla
(P.W.-4) in his testimony has clearly stated that there was some altercation going on between the
deceased and the appellant/accused, which was told to P.W.-4 by none other than deceased herself,
when she had visited the house of said P.W.-4 on 29.04.2009 in the morning. She submitted that
the testimony of P.W.-4 corroborates the motive of the appellant.

38. The learned A.G.A., in her concluding submissions, contended that the chain of
circumstantial evidence stands fully complete in the present case. It was submitted that the
deceased was shot dead inside the house when Appellant was present in the house; the deceased
was never taken to any hospital for medical treatment; the accused created a false narrative by
claiming that the deceased was suffering from cholera and had sustained injuries after falling from
roof; the concerned authorities were never informed about her death. It was further submitted that
the accused had clear motive for commission of offence inasmuch as an altercation had taken place
between the deceased and the accused a day prior to the incident with regard to the marriage of
their daughter. The recovery of the firearm at the instance of the accused was also duly proved, and
the firearm injury sustained by the deceased clearly indicated that the shot was fired from a close
range thereby corroborating the prosecution version. Moreover, when examined under Section 313
of Cr.P.C., the appellant/accused failed to furnish any reasonable or plausible explanation with
regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him.

39. Ms. Meera Tripathi has further vehemently argued that in the aforesaid circumstances, the
burden stood rightly shifted upon the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
which was never discharged. It was urged that the accused was present at the same place where the
deceased died and therefore was obliged to explain the facts specially within his knowledge;
however, no such explanation was spelt out by the accused.