Uttam Verma and Another vs Party(s)

the trial court.

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Shatrohanlal on

17.10.2000 gave a written report to the police station Lakhimpur Kheri stating that today at 12 O’ clock noon he was going from his house to Rampur market and as soon as he reached near the drain on the side of the corridor in front of Gopal kiln in the north of the village, he saw a person lying there, whose throat was slit with a sharp weapon, a bicycle was lying nearby, the passers-by who saw him did not give any information about the deceased whereas a crowd of some people was present. 2 A378 No. 139 of 2009

4. On the basis of the written report, a chick F.I.R.(Ext. Ka-14) was registered against unknown, and the details of the case were entered in the G.D.(Ext. Ka 15). During investigation the name of accused surfaced. On

3.1.2020, the accused Uttam Verma, during investigation, told SHO Tejpal Singh Verma, accompanied Constable Radhey Shyam Tewari and Sri Ram Tewari that he can get recovered the weapon used in the murder of the deceased Rajesh from the place where he and his relative Gangaram Verma had murdered him. On relying his statement, the police took the accused along-with the witnesses Awadhesh Kumar and Rajkishore at the place where the dead body was found and after entering about 15 steps into the sugarcane field adjacent to the northern chak-road, they took out a knife. The recovered knife having placed in a cloth stitched and sealed. The Fard was prepared and witnesses were made to testify.

5. The accused persons appeared in the court and were charged under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of the S.C./S.T. Act on

4.7.2022. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed the case to be tried.

6. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses :- P.W. 1 Savitri wife of Rajaram, P.W. 2 Savitri Devi wife of Rajesh Kumar(deceased), P.W. 3 S.I. Durgesh Kumar Tewari, P.W. 4 Shivratan, P.W. 5 Dr. A.K. Tyagi, P.W. 6 Tejpal Singh(Investigating Officer).

7. Statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the trial court has 3 A378 No. 139 of 2009 erred in appreciating the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the accused-respondents.

9. P.W. 1 Savitri wife of Rajaram has deposed that she first married with Babu and second married with Rajaram. From the first husband, she had one son Rajesh(deceased) and two daughters namely Pushpa and Anita. The accused Uttam Verma has married with Pushpa. The accused Uttam Verma used to visit her house. She deposed that her house is quite big. The accused-respondent Uttam Verma came to her house in the morning on the day of Karva Chauth and took her son Rajesh away saying that he had to visit Jind Baba. Since then, the boy did not return and when the boy did not return for three days, she started searching for him among relatives. After that she went to the Uttam’s house, he was not at home at that time. After some time, when the respondent Uttam Verma came and he was asked he said that the deceased Rajesh had not come with him. After that she went to the police station and the Inspector at the police station shown the blood stained clothes and photographs wherein Rajesh’s neck was cut and the bicycle of Rajesh was also shown. Thereafter, P.W. 1 went to the house of the accused Uttam Verma but she did not find and on the second day she found him. She further deposed that she went to the house of the respondent Uttam Verma as the Inspector told her to bring the respondent Uttam Verma at the police station but the accused respondent did not go to the police station. She further deposed that the accused Uttam Verma also murdered earlier. She deposed that one Anil told her that the accused respondents were taking the deceased towards Oyal (some place). She deposed that the deceased Rajesh is her only son and the accused respondents killed the deceased in the greed of House. The complainant Shatrohan Lal who was complainant stated to be died. 4 A378 No. 139 of 2009

10. P.W. 2 Savitri Devi, who is wife of the deceased, has deposed that the P.W. 1 had married his daughter Pushpa with the accused Uttam Verma. The accused Uttam Verma used to come her house. She deposed that on the day of the incident, the accused Uttam Verma took the deceased saying that he had to offer the Prasad to Jind Baba. It was 2 o’clock in the day. His husband Rajesh went out from the bicycle. When his husband did not return, then after three-four days, P.W. 1 asked Rajesh did not come, then the Nanad of P.W. 2 replied that the deceased went to Takiya. She further deposed that her mother-in-law i.e. P.W. 1 went to search him in Takiya but did not find him. She deposed that she got information to have found one dead body in Muriya Khera and one bicycle lying nearby. She deposed that his mother-in-law went to the Muriya Khera where police did not come. She further deposed that she along-with P.W. 1 and the accused Uttam Verma went to the police station where the dead body was lying and the bicycle and Angochha were also there. She deposed that she identified the dead body of the deceased. His house is quite big and in the greed of house, the accused Uttam Verma murdered his husband Rajesh.

11. P.W. 4 Shivratan who is brother-in-law of the deceased deposed that while he was sitting at the house of Jairam, the accused Uttam Verma came and told that his father-in-law Rajaram wants to give the half of the house to the accused Uttam Verma but the deceased did not want to give the property. The accused Uttam Verma was Bahnoi of the deceased, therefore, the accused Uttam Verma and Ganga Ram killed the deceased.

12. P.W. 6 who is Investigating Officer in this case has deposed that he was handed over the investigation on 19.10.2000 and he arrested the accused Uttam Verma on 3.1.2001. He recovered the knife on the 5 A378 No. 139 of 2009 pointing out of the accused Uttam Verma.

13. From perusal of the statements and the evidence on record, this Court finds that there is major contradictions in the statement of the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. P.W.1 has stated that when his son did not return she went to the police station and the Inspector at the police station showed the blood stained clothes and photographs wherein Rajesh’s neck was cut and the bicycle of Rajesh was also shown and thereafter P.W. 1 went to the house of the accused Uttam Verma but she did not find him and it was on the second day that she found him. P.W. 1 has also stated that she went to the accused Uttam’s house when the Inspector told her to bring the respondent Uttam Verma at the police station but the accused-respondent did not go to the police station whereas P.W. 2 has stated that she got information to have found one dead body in Muriya Khera and one bicycle lying nearby then her mother-in-law i.e. P.W. 1 went to the Muriya Khera where police did not come. P.W. 1 stated that she along- with P.W. 1 and the accused Uttam Verma went to the police station where the dead body was lying and the bicycle and Angochha were there. P.W. 2 identified the dead body of the deceased. The statements made by the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are contradictory and do not inspire confidence.

14. P.W. 4 is the interested witness and he is not the eye-witness. He has only stated a probability that due to greed of property the accused Uttam Verma killed the deceased Rajesh.

15. P.W. 6 who was the Investigating Officer was handed over the case on

19.10.2000 but he arrested the accused on 3.1.2001 after about two months when the accused Uttam Verma confessed that he may get recovered the knife used in the commission of crime. The accused respondents were not named in the F.I.R. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have stated 6 A378 No. 139 of 2009 that the accused respondents took the deceased two days before the incident but the police arrested the accused-respondent after about two months when the accused Uttam Verma stated that he may get recovered the knife used in the commission of crime. P.W. 1 has stated that one Anil told that he saw the deceased along-with accused Uttam Verma and Ganga Verma but the said witness was not examined.

16. If the prosecution would have examined one Anil, then the fate of the prosecution would certainly be different, because he is the witness of last seen and non-examination of this important witness would destroy the whole prosecution case. The law with regard to the circumstantial evidence is no longer res integra. The conditions for basing a conviction on circumstantial evidence were crystallised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 and have been consistently followed thereafter. Five golden principles laid under the aforesaid case are as follows :- (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (ii) The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v) 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.

17. It must be noted that the Investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer is very shaky and whole prosecution story fails and does not inspire confidence. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on 7 A378 No. 139 of 2009 record and acquitted the accused-respondents.

18. On perusal of the trial court judgment and facts and evidence, this Court finds that the judgement passed by the trial court is well reasoned and rightly acquitted the respondents.

19. The Leave to Appeal is accordingly dismissed and consequently the appeal filed by the State is also dismissed. November 12, 2025 kanhaiya (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

the trial court.

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant Shatrohanlal on

17.10.2000 gave a written report to the police station Lakhimpur Kheri stating that today at 12 O’ clock noon he was going from his house to Rampur market and as soon as he reached near the drain on the side of the corridor in front of Gopal kiln in the north of the village, he saw a person lying there, whose throat was slit with a sharp weapon, a bicycle was lying nearby, the passers-by who saw him did not give any information about the deceased whereas a crowd of some people was present. 2 A378 No. 139 of 2009

4. On the basis of the written report, a chick F.I.R.(Ext. Ka-14) was registered against unknown, and the details of the case were entered in the G.D.(Ext. Ka 15). During investigation the name of accused surfaced. On

3.1.2020, the accused Uttam Verma, during investigation, told SHO Tejpal Singh Verma, accompanied Constable Radhey Shyam Tewari and Sri Ram Tewari that he can get recovered the weapon used in the murder of the deceased Rajesh from the place where he and his relative Gangaram Verma had murdered him. On relying his statement, the police took the accused along-with the witnesses Awadhesh Kumar and Rajkishore at the place where the dead body was found and after entering about 15 steps into the sugarcane field adjacent to the northern chak-road, they took out a knife. The recovered knife having placed in a cloth stitched and sealed. The Fard was prepared and witnesses were made to testify.

5. The accused persons appeared in the court and were charged under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of the S.C./S.T. Act on

4.7.2022. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed the case to be tried.

6. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses :- P.W. 1 Savitri wife of Rajaram, P.W. 2 Savitri Devi wife of Rajesh Kumar(deceased), P.W. 3 S.I. Durgesh Kumar Tewari, P.W. 4 Shivratan, P.W. 5 Dr. A.K. Tyagi, P.W. 6 Tejpal Singh(Investigating Officer).

7. Statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded their innocence and false implication.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the trial court has 3 A378 No. 139 of 2009 erred in appreciating the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the accused-respondents.

9. P.W. 1 Savitri wife of Rajaram has deposed that she first married with Babu and second married with Rajaram. From the first husband, she had one son Rajesh(deceased) and two daughters namely Pushpa and Anita. The accused Uttam Verma has married with Pushpa. The accused Uttam Verma used to visit her house. She deposed that her house is quite big. The accused-respondent Uttam Verma came to her house in the morning on the day of Karva Chauth and took her son Rajesh away saying that he had to visit Jind Baba. Since then, the boy did not return and when the boy did not return for three days, she started searching for him among relatives. After that she went to the Uttam’s house, he was not at home at that time. After some time, when the respondent Uttam Verma came and he was asked he said that the deceased Rajesh had not come with him. After that she went to the police station and the Inspector at the police station shown the blood stained clothes and photographs wherein Rajesh’s neck was cut and the bicycle of Rajesh was also shown. Thereafter, P.W. 1 went to the house of the accused Uttam Verma but she did not find and on the second day she found him. She further deposed that she went to the house of the respondent Uttam Verma as the Inspector told her to bring the respondent Uttam Verma at the police station but the accused respondent did not go to the police station. She further deposed that the accused Uttam Verma also murdered earlier. She deposed that one Anil told her that the accused respondents were taking the deceased towards Oyal (some place). She deposed that the deceased Rajesh is her only son and the accused respondents killed the deceased in the greed of House. The complainant Shatrohan Lal who was complainant stated to be died. 4 A378 No. 139 of 2009

10. P.W. 2 Savitri Devi, who is wife of the deceased, has deposed that the P.W. 1 had married his daughter Pushpa with the accused Uttam Verma. The accused Uttam Verma used to come her house. She deposed that on the day of the incident, the accused Uttam Verma took the deceased saying that he had to offer the Prasad to Jind Baba. It was 2 o’clock in the day. His husband Rajesh went out from the bicycle. When his husband did not return, then after three-four days, P.W. 1 asked Rajesh did not come, then the Nanad of P.W. 2 replied that the deceased went to Takiya. She further deposed that her mother-in-law i.e. P.W. 1 went to search him in Takiya but did not find him. She deposed that she got information to have found one dead body in Muriya Khera and one bicycle lying nearby. She deposed that his mother-in-law went to the Muriya Khera where police did not come. She further deposed that she along-with P.W. 1 and the accused Uttam Verma went to the police station where the dead body was lying and the bicycle and Angochha were also there. She deposed that she identified the dead body of the deceased. His house is quite big and in the greed of house, the accused Uttam Verma murdered his husband Rajesh.

11. P.W. 4 Shivratan who is brother-in-law of the deceased deposed that while he was sitting at the house of Jairam, the accused Uttam Verma came and told that his father-in-law Rajaram wants to give the half of the house to the accused Uttam Verma but the deceased did not want to give the property. The accused Uttam Verma was Bahnoi of the deceased, therefore, the accused Uttam Verma and Ganga Ram killed the deceased.

12. P.W. 6 who is Investigating Officer in this case has deposed that he was handed over the investigation on 19.10.2000 and he arrested the accused Uttam Verma on 3.1.2001. He recovered the knife on the 5 A378 No. 139 of 2009 pointing out of the accused Uttam Verma.

13. From perusal of the statements and the evidence on record, this Court finds that there is major contradictions in the statement of the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. P.W.1 has stated that when his son did not return she went to the police station and the Inspector at the police station showed the blood stained clothes and photographs wherein Rajesh’s neck was cut and the bicycle of Rajesh was also shown and thereafter P.W. 1 went to the house of the accused Uttam Verma but she did not find him and it was on the second day that she found him. P.W. 1 has also stated that she went to the accused Uttam’s house when the Inspector told her to bring the respondent Uttam Verma at the police station but the accused-respondent did not go to the police station whereas P.W. 2 has stated that she got information to have found one dead body in Muriya Khera and one bicycle lying nearby then her mother-in-law i.e. P.W. 1 went to the Muriya Khera where police did not come. P.W. 1 stated that she along- with P.W. 1 and the accused Uttam Verma went to the police station where the dead body was lying and the bicycle and Angochha were there. P.W. 2 identified the dead body of the deceased. The statements made by the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are contradictory and do not inspire confidence.

14. P.W. 4 is the interested witness and he is not the eye-witness. He has only stated a probability that due to greed of property the accused Uttam Verma killed the deceased Rajesh.

15. P.W. 6 who was the Investigating Officer was handed over the case on

19.10.2000 but he arrested the accused on 3.1.2001 after about two months when the accused Uttam Verma confessed that he may get recovered the knife used in the commission of crime. The accused respondents were not named in the F.I.R. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have stated 6 A378 No. 139 of 2009 that the accused respondents took the deceased two days before the incident but the police arrested the accused-respondent after about two months when the accused Uttam Verma stated that he may get recovered the knife used in the commission of crime. P.W. 1 has stated that one Anil told that he saw the deceased along-with accused Uttam Verma and Ganga Verma but the said witness was not examined.

16. If the prosecution would have examined one Anil, then the fate of the prosecution would certainly be different, because he is the witness of last seen and non-examination of this important witness would destroy the whole prosecution case. The law with regard to the circumstantial evidence is no longer res integra. The conditions for basing a conviction on circumstantial evidence were crystallised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 and have been consistently followed thereafter. Five golden principles laid under the aforesaid case are as follows :- (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (ii) The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v) 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.

17. It must be noted that the Investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer is very shaky and whole prosecution story fails and does not inspire confidence. The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on 7 A378 No. 139 of 2009 record and acquitted the accused-respondents.

18. On perusal of the trial court judgment and facts and evidence, this Court finds that the judgement passed by the trial court is well reasoned and rightly acquitted the respondents.

19. The Leave to Appeal is accordingly dismissed and consequently the appeal filed by the State is also dismissed. November 12, 2025 kanhaiya (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench