Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya vs State Of U.P.

AFR
RESERVED

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6307 of 2022
Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rajeev Chaddha
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
(Delivered by Hon’ble Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
This criminal appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant
Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya, against the judgment and order of the
th
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC-II), under 14
Finance Commission, Gorakhpur, delivered in Sessions Trial No. 40 of
2016 State Vs. Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya in Crime No. 431 of
2015, under Section 302 IPC., Police Station Chiluwatal, District
Gorakhpur. The learned trial Court has held guilty to accused-appellant
under Section 302 IPC for rigorous life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, six months additional simple
imprisonment was imposed.

2
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
2. Brief fact of the case is that informant Munni Devi PW-1 has got
ascribed a written report Exhibit Ka-1 from Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-5
and lodged the written report at Police Station Chiluwatal, District
Gorakhpur. The informant Munni Devi PW-1 has stated that applicant
Munni Devi wife of Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya is a resident of
Nakha No.1 as tenant in the house of Gheesey Yadav, near Scholars
School. She is original resident of Village Laxmipur Ekdanga, P.S.
Kothibhar, district Maharajganj; my husband name is Pradeep @ Aman
Chaurasaiya; often my husband had beaten my elder son Abhimanyu;
Abhimanyu was born from my ex-husband, due to this reason, he
regarded enmity with him; Today on 28.10.2015 about 11:00 am., he was
beating Abhimanyu in the room; On hearing the voice of weeping of
Abhimanyu, I reached and saw that my husband is beating him; Blood
was oosing from the mouth of my son and he was lying on the bed; On
seeing me, my husband ran away. I have seen that Abhimanyu has died; I
began to weeping and crying then people of the house, people of the
nearby place have come and seen him to ran away. Dead body of my son
is lying on spot.
3. After lodging of the written report Exhibit Ka-1, by informant
Munni Devi PW-1, and on the basis of it, the First Information Report
Exhibit Ka-3 was registered against the accused-appellant by Head
Muharir Dinesh Kumar Mishra, PW-6 on 28.10.2015 at 12:15 PM under
Section 302 IPC at Police Station Chiluwatal, District Gorakhpur against
accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya. Inspector Ram Pal
Yadav, PW-8, who was posted at Police Station Chiluwatal, District
Gorakhpur at the time of the incident, took the investigation of the case
into his hands. He visited the place of occurrence. He got prepared
Panchayatnama from his companion Govind Ji Singh PW-8, of deceased
Abhimanyu. The Investigating Officer also prepared other necessary
police papers and prepared site plan of the place of occurrence. The
Investigating Officer taken the statement of the witnesses under Section
161 Cr.P.C.; The Investigating Officer sent the dead body of the
deceased Abhimanyu for postmortem examination. After completing all

3
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
the formalities of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted
charge-sheet Exhibit Ka-7, against accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman
Chaurasaiya in the concerned Magistrate Court having jurisdiction.
4. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the
learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.
The learned trial Court has framed charge on 15.07.2016 against
accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya under Section 302 IPC.
The accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya denied from the
charge and claimed for trial.
5. To substantiate its case, prosecution adduced in total nine
witnesses in the Court, such as, informant Munni Devi PW-1, Anita PW-
2, Dharmendra Yadav PW-3, Gulecha PW-4, Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-
5, Dinesh Kumar Mishra PW-6, Dr. Ghanshyam Raman PW-7, Ram Pal
Yadav PW-8, and Govind Ji Singh PW-9.
6. Apart from oral evidence, prosecution has also relied as
documentary evidence from Exhibit Ka-1 to Exhibit Ka-11 in support of
its case.
7. After recording of the prosecution evidence, the accused-appellant
was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In his statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C., accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya has stated
that wrong case has been registered against him. He is innocent. The
police has not investigated the case on true facts. Wrong charge-sheet
has been filed in the wrong way and investigation has been done in a
cavalier manner. He also stated that due to enmity the case was
registered against him and he is totally innocent. He submitted that he
has to adduce defence evidence. In his defence accused-appellant
Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya has adduced Ram Awadh Pandey as DW-
1 in his defence.
8. After recording the evidence of the prosecution and defence, the
trial Court heard arguments of both sides. The trial Court found guilty to
accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya under Section 302 IPC
and convicted and sentenced to accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman
Chaurasaiya under Section 302 IPC for rigorous life imprisonment and a

4
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
fine of Rs.20,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, six months
additional simple imprisonment was also imposed upon the accused-
appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya. Aggrieved by the judgment
and order of the trial Court dated 27.05.2022, the accused-appellant
Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya has preferred this criminal appeal in this
Court challenging the judgment and order of the learned trial Court
passed in S.T. No.40 of 2016 State Vs. Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya in
Crime No. 431 of 2015 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station
Chiluwatal, District Gorakhpur.
9. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for accused-appellant
and the learned AGA on behalf of the State-respondents.
10. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for accused-
appellant that the judgment and order of the trial Court dated 27.05.2022
is against the facts and circumstances of the case. The first information
report of the alleged incident was got lodged after inordinate delay
without giving any satisfactory explanation of delay occurred in lodging
the same, which itself goes to show that the same was got lodged
afterthought on the basis of the concocted and false story. From the
evidence, it is very much clear that the F.I.R. was written on the dictation
of the police personnel which also goes to prove that the appellant has
been falsely implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that
during investigation, prosecution got examined nine witnesses out of
which five witnesses of the facts during deposition of the aforesaid
witnesses, four have turned hostile, but while passing the impugned
judgment and order, the learned trial Court has failed to consider and
appreciate their evidence in its true perspective. It is also submitted that
informant Munni Devi PW-1, who claims herself to be the wife of
appellant, no other witness has supported the prosecution story. There
are material contradiction in the statements of the witnesses which also
goes to prove that appellant has been falsely implicated in this present
case, but while passing the impugned judgment the learned trial Court
has failed to consider the same.

5
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
11. It is also submitted on behalf of the accused-appellant that even
the medical evidence is not in consonance with the alleged allegations
made in the FIR, and the statements of the witnesses. From the evidence
of the Investigating Officer, who has been examined as PW-8, it is very
much clear that he had not prepared any site plan. This fact has also
create doubt with regard to the place of occurrence. From the entire
evidence recorded during trial, it is very much clear that appellant had no
motive for committing such a heinous crime. However, while passing the
impugned judgment convicted the appellant, the learned trial Judge only
on conjectures and surmises scrutinized the evidence, which is against
the law. Conviction of the appellant is against the evidence on record, as
the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, it is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the accused-
appellant that there is no cogent and reliable evidence against the
accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya. Prosecution is totally
unsuccessful to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the
above, the present criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellant
deserves to be allowed and the judgment and order of the learned trial
Judge dated 27.05.2022 deserves to be set-aside.
12. Against the above arguments of the learned counsel for the
accused-appellant, learned AGA on behalf of the State-respondents has
submitted that there is no delay in lodging the FIR at police station. The
first information report has been lodged promptly and without any
afterthought or concoction by informant Munni Devi PW-1. The
informant Munni Devi PW-1, who is helpless lady, whose son deceased
Abhimanyu was itself killed by her husband accused-appellant Pradeep
@ Aman Chaurasaiya. None was ready to ascribe a written report
Exhibit Ka-1, due to this reason, got ascribed written report Exhibit Ka-1
from Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-5. The informant Munni Devi PW-1,
who is the mother of the deceased Abhimanyu and she is also the wife of
the accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya, has fully supported
the prosecution story by her evidence in the Court. Only on the ground
of turning hostile of other prosecution witnesses of the fact, the evidence

6
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
of the sole reliable eye-witness informant Munni Devi PW-1 could not
be rejected and doubted on any other ground. The informant Munni Devi
PW-1 was living in her room with her husband Pradeep @ Aman
Chaurasaiya in the house of Gheesey Yadav as a tenant. At the time of
happening of the incident, informant Munni Devi PW-1, was present, she
has seen with her own eyes the commission of the crime by accused-
appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya. The learned Trial Court has
appreciated the prosecution evidence in a very right perspective without
any perversity and illegality and found guilty to accused-appellant and
convicted him accordingly. The trial Court convicted and held guilty to
accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya on the basis of cogent
and reliable evidence. There is no conjecture and surmises in the
impugned judgment of the learned trial Court. In this way, the learned
AGA for the State respondents has submitted that there is no illegality,
perversity in the impugned judgment as delivered by trial Court.
Prosecution has successfully proved its case by its evidence beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, there is no merit in the criminal appeal as filed
by the accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya, therefore, the
same is liable to be rejected.
13. In view of the above arguments and counter arguments advanced
on behalf of the accused-appellant and the learned AGA for the State, we
have gone through the whole evidence as available on records and we
have also perused the finding and reasoning of the learned trial Court in
this regard.
14. According to the postmortem report Exhibit Ka-4, which was
prepared by Dr. Ghan Shyam Raman PW-7, following ante mortem
injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased Abhimanyu:
1. The body was in a moderate condition; rigor mortis was
present; eyes and mouth were closed. A ligature mark/swelling
measuring about 12 cm × 4 cm was present on the front of the
neck.

7
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
2. On internal examination, hematoma was found beneath the skin
of the neck; the trachea was congested; and the hyoid bone was
fractured.
3. The brain weighed about 300 grams. The lungs were congested
(right 120g, left 100g). The heart weighed about 90g and
contained blood in the right chamber. The stomach contained
partially digested food; the small intestine was empty; the large
intestine contained fecal matter and gases. The liver, spleen, and
kidneys were congested. The urinary bladder was not opened.
4. The time since death was approximately one day prior to the
post-mortem.
5. The cause of death was asphyxia due to ante-mortem neck
injury. No other external injuries were found on the body. No
injuries were found on the feet or head, and no external bleeding
was present. No marks of fingernail pressure were found on the
hands. The neck injury indicated pressure by a blunt object
causing obstruction of breathing.
6. The injury could have been caused on 28.10.2015 at about
11:00 AM.
Thus, from the perusal of the postmortem report of the deceased
Abhimanyu, Exhibit Ka-4, it reveals that Abhimanyu was of two years
and his death was caused by asphyxia due to ante-mortem neck injury.
Thus, from the perusal of the postmortem report Exhibit Ka-4, it is clear
that death of the deceased Abhimanyu was homicidal and it was not a
natural death.
15. From the perusal of the FIR, Exhibit Ka-3, it is clear that the
incident happened on 28.10.2015 at 11:00 am and informant Munni Devi
PW-1 has given information by written report Exhibit Ka-1 immediately
to the police station and a case was registered itself on 28.10.2015 at
12:15 PM. Thus, it is amply clear that within one hour and fifteen
minutes, informant Munni Devi PW-1, who is the mother of deceased
Abhimanyu has lodged the written report promptly at the police station

8
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
Chiluwatal, District Gorakhpur. From the prompt lodging of the FIR, it
is evident that informant Munni Devi PW-1, without any deliberation,
consideration and afterthought, has lodged written report against
accused-appellant. Thus, we find that there is no deliberation,
afterthought, concoction and consideration in lodging the FIR by
informant Munni Devi PW-1. In view of this, we find no force in the
arguments of learned counsel for the accused-appellant in this respect.
16. The informant Munni Devi PW-1 has deposed in her examination-
in-chief that she is the wife of Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya. She is a
resident of Village Laxmipur Ekdanga, Police Station Kothibhar, District
Maharajganj and she and Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya had been living
as husband and wife before one year from the incident. This incident
happened on 28.10.2015 at 11:00 am in the day. At the time of incident,
we had been living in Nakah No.1, near Scholars School, in a rented
house; she was washing the utensils at the home that then my son
Abhimanyu who was two years old from the room loud voice of
weeping has come, then I ran to the room and saw that my husband
Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya was beating my child. Blood was oosing
from the mouth and head of my son Abhimanyu; on seeing blood, I
began to weep then my husband Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya had ran
away from there; After that I weep, cried and seeing the condition of the
child, became unconscious; after that on hearing cry, an unknown person
of the locality has telephoned and call the police; the above examination-
in-chief of the informant Munni Devi PW-1 was recorded on 29.06.2017,
her examination-in-chief could not be completed because it has been
written that witness become emotional and weeping, due to this,
examination-in-chief was deferred for other day. Thus, the learned trial
Court has noticed the demeanor of the informant Munni Devi PW-1.
17. Further in her examination-in-chief, informant Munni Devi PW-1
has stated that my son Abhimanyu was about two years of age. He was
born from my first husband Mantu, due to this reason, Pradeep @ Aman
Chaurasaiya, who is my second husband, had got enmity with my son
and always he was beaten and assaulted by him. Even before me, he was

9
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
assaulted and beating him; I requested him by falling down on his feet
and prayed not to beat him, even upon this, he annoyed and beating him;
I had got written application with police, who had written the
application; I do not remember his name, who has written the
application; then I have signed on the application.
18. In her cross-examination informant Munni Devi PW-1 has stated
that my first marriage was solemnized with Mantu. I could not tell the
name of his father. He was resident of Mahadeva Chhapra Hata, district
Kushinagar. This marriage was solemnized eight years back from today.
Mantu was working as a carpenter. This work he was doing in Surat
(Gujarat); I had stayed with Mantu for eight years, again said that I
stayed for five years; after one year of marriage, my son Abhimanyu was
born. Name of this child was Abhimanyu. At the time of his death, he
was two years old; I had two child, name of the second child is Krishna.
Krishna was one year younger from Abhimanyu; my paternal home
(Maika) is in Village Laxmipur Ekdanga, P.S. Kothibhar, district
Maharajganj; my marriage with Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya was
solemnized in a temple. It was not according to the tradition and
customs; at the time of marriage, mother and father of Pradeep @ Aman
Chaurasaiya were present.
19. In her cross-examination, informant Munni Devi PW-1, has also
stated that I had given tahreer of this case at police station. This thing,
written in tahreer, is true that on 28.10.2015 at 11:00 am in day, Pradeep
@ Aman Chaurasaiya was beating my son in the room; I told this thing
to Daroga Ji; I told this thing of beating my son at 11:00 am in day in
Court also. Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya had assaulted on the leg of my
child on 28.10.2015 at 8:00 am in the morning, due to this reason, he
was not able to stand up; after that I went to wash the utensils and came
back then Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya was again beating Abhimanyu
at 11:00 am. Further, during the course of cross-examination, she also
stated that I have taken utensils at 9:00 am morning and went to wash
them. When I was washing utensils, voice of weeping came, I rush to the
room and saw that Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya was beating my elder

10
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
child; he dashed him to the floor, raised above and thrown my child, due
to which back side of head of my child was injured. Blood was fallen on
the floor and spread. Pradeep tried to press the neck of the child and
while seeing all this, I became unconscious by weeping. At the time
when I came with Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya, the age of Abhimanyu
was two years. Pradeep had taken me from the house of my ex-husband;
after one year, Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya has killed Abhimanyu;
Abhimanyu lived with us for one year. Pradeep had not given food and
cloths to him; I provide cloth for his own child; he was doing all things; I
had complained to mother and father of Pradeep.
20. Thus, from the perusal of the evidence of informant Munni Devi
PW-1, as deposed by her in Court, this fact emerged that firstly she was
married with Mantu, who was a resident of Mahadeva Chhapra Hata,
district Kushinagar. First marriage of the informant Munni Devi PW-1
was solemnized about eight years before; her ex-husband Mantu was
doing carpenter work at Surat (Gujarat); thereafter, after about five years
of her first marriage with Mantu, informant Munni Devi PW-1 left her
husband Mantu; deceased Abhimanyu was born from wedlock of
informant Munni Devi PW-1 with Mantu, by any means and
circumstances, she became familiar with accused-appellant. After
leaving house of her first husband Mantu, she came with appellant to the
house of accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya along with
her deceased son Abhimanyu, who was born from her first husband.
After leaving her first husband Mantu, informant Munni Devi began to
live with accused-appellant. The accused-appellant had taken a rented
room in the house of Gheesey Yadav at Nakha No.1, near Scholar
School. Informant Munni Devi PW-1, got a second child from her
second husband Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya. According to this
witness, since deceased Abhimanyu was born from her first husband
Mantu, due to this reason, accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman
Chaurasaiya had kept jealousy and enmity with deceased Abhimanyu.
According to informant Munni Devi PW-1, accused-appellant often
beated and assaulted deceased Abhimanyu. He likes and loved his own

11
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
second child, who was born from him with the informant Munni Devi
PW-1. On the day of incident on 28.10.2015, at 11:00 am in day,
informant Munni Devi PW-1, was living in her rented room with
Abhimanyu, her first child and with her husband Pradeep @ Aman
Chaurasaiya and also with her second child Krishna. At the time of
incident, informant Munni Devi PW-1, was washing utensils out of
room; when she heard voice of her son Abhimanyu, who was loudly
weeping then, on hearing the loud weeping voice of her son, she came in
the room and she saw that accused-appellant, Pradeep @ Aman
Chaurasaiya was beating the deceased Abhimanyu. Before informant
Munni Devi PW-1, accused-appellant pressed the neck of the deceased
Abhimanyu, by which he died on the spot. Although, there is
contradictions in respect of the time, manner of the incident committed
by accused-appellant. However, in view of the above, the contradictions
and discrepancies that crept into the cross-examination of the informant
Munni Devi PW-1 and that was pointed out by the learned counsel for
the accused-appellant, are not found to be major and material
contradictions, by reason of which, evidence of this witness could be
recorded as false and doubtful. This is a fact that informant Munni Devi
PW-1 is mother of the deceased Abhimanyu and the accused-appellant
Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya, was husband of the informant Munni
Devi PW-1. For accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya,
informant Munni Devi PW-1 has deserted and left her first husband
Mantu and began to live as wife after marrying with him at temple. A
woman like informant Munni Devi PW-1, who deserted and left her first
husband and came to live with the accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman
Chaurasaiya, how and why she falsely implicate her second husband for
the murder of her elder child Abhimanyu, aged about two years. In
Indian social framework and cultural, traditions of society, a mother
would not exonerate and exculpate real culprit and falsely implicate her
second husband for whom she had deserted and left her first husband
Mantu. We also find that demeanor of informant Munni Devi PW-1 has
been noted by the learned trial Court on 29.06.2017, when her

12
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
examination-in-chief was being recorded in the Court, since by
becoming very emotional, she was weeping due to this reason, trial
Court adjourned the examination-in-chief of informant Munni Devi PW-
1 for next date i.e. 25.01.2018.
21. It is very natural that when a witness states the same thing to
different persons on different dates and occasions, a contradiction and
inconsistency in the statement of the witness is likely to and naturally
would crept into the statements. It is also a natural fact that a mother,
like informant Munni Devi PW-1 in this case, whose two years old son
Abhimanyu was killed by her own husband accused-appellant Pradeep
@ Aman Chaurasaiya, why she falsely implicate her beloved second
husband Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya for whom she deserted and left
her first husband Mantu.
22. Thus, from the perusal of the whole evidence of this witness,
including cross-examination, we find no contradiction, inconsistency,
exaggeration or embellishment in the evidence of informant Munni Devi
PW-1 of this nature by reason of which, we could doubt the truthful and
creditworthy evidence of this witness. Only on the ground of minor
contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggeration and embellishment, reliable
and trustworthy evidence of the informant Munni Devi PW-1, could not
be doubted and rejected. We find that the evidence and testimony of the
informant Munni Devi PW-1 as wholly reliable and creditworthy in
respect of the prosecution story.
23. The Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh reported in (2002) 8 SCC 39 has held on the points of
contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations or embellishments, that:
“when an incident is narrated by the same person to
different persons, on different occasions, some difference in
the mode of narrating the incident is bound to arise.
However, such difference do not militate against the
trustworthiness of the narration unless the variations can be
held to be so abnormal or unnatural as would not occur if

13
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
the witness would have really witnessed what he was
narrating”.
24. In the light of the legal principles, as laid down by the Supreme
Court in Shyam Sunder (supra), from the perusal of the postmortem
report Exhibit Ka-4, which was prepared by Dr. Ghanshyam Raman PW-
7, we find that postmortem report of deceased Abhimanyu Exhibit Ka-4,
hyoid bone of deceased Abhimanyu was found fractured, meaning
thereby that due to heavy pressure by accused-appellant Pradeep @
Aman Chaurasaiya’s hands as informant Munni Devi PW-1, mother of
deceased Abhimanyu has also clearly stated in her evidence that
accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya had pressed the neck of
the deceased Abhimanyu, this fact was also corroborated by Dr.
Ghanshyam Raman PW-7, who prepared the postmortem report Exhibit
Ka-4 that deceased Abhimanyu’s hyoid bone was fractured, the cause of
death was asphyxia due to ante-mortem neck injury. It was found that
heavy pressure was applied on the neck, and due to this pressure,
breathing had stopped. In this way, we find that in relation to the main
incident that accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya has
assaulted and beated the deceased-Abhimanyu, a child of two years of
age and forcibly pressed the neck of the deceased, due to which his
hyoid bone was fractured and breath was stopped and he died on the spot
itself. Thus, we find no force in the arguments of the learned counsel for
the accused-appellant in this regard.
25. Prosecution witness Smt. Anita PW-2, although becomes hostile
and has not supported the prosecution story, however, from the evidence
of this witness, this fact become clearly established that in the house of
this witness in the year 2015, an incident happened, the accused-
appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya son of Bechu Chaurasaiya was
living with his wife Munni Devi and his children as tenant. Munni Devi
had a child of two and half years, his name was Abhimanyu. Anita is
wife of Dharmendra Yadav, daughter-in-law of Gheese Yadav in whose
house accused-appellant was residing with informant Munni Devi PW-1
and his children at the time of the incident. The prosecution witness

14
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
Dharmendra Yadav son of Gheese Yadav had also proved this fact that in
the year 2015, accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya son of
Bechu Chaurasaiya was residing with his wife Munni Devi PW-1 and his
children in his house and Munni Devi was wife of accused-appellant
Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya of whom, had a child of two and half
years, whose name was Abhimanyu, suddenly one day he died. How he
died, this witness do not know. Thus, from the evidence of hostile
witness Dharmendra Yadav PW-3, this fact again being proved and
established that in the year 2015 when this incident happened, accused-
appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya was living as a tenant with his
wife informant Munni Devi PW-1 and his children in a rented room in
the house of this witness. From the evidence of hostile witness Gulecha
PW-4, the fact of living of Munni Devi PW-1 wife of accused-appellant
Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya with her child in the rented room of the
house of this witness, also proved.
26. From a perusal of the evidence of Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-5,
who ascribed written report Exhibit Ka-1, we find that this witness has
also became hostile in the Court and has not supported the prosecution
story, but from the evidence of this hostile witness, we find that this
witness was also living in a room in the house of same landlord Gheese
Yadav and in the same house informant Munni Devi PW-1 wife of
accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya was also living with
her child Abhimanyu. According to this witness, the incident happened
on 28.10.2015 in the morning at 11:00 hours that Munni Devi suddenly
began to weep and she began to knock the door thereafter we all people
went there in the room and saw that Abhimanyu son of Munni Devi PW-
1 was lying dead and Munni Devi was weeping. This witness has
accepted in his examination-in-chief that tehreer/written report Exhibit
Ka-1 was written by him and name of this witness was written as writer
of the tehreer. Although, this witness has accepted in his cross-
examination that tehreer was written by him and writing of tehreer is in
his writing and name of this witness is written as a writer of the tehreer.
However, this witness become hostile and has not supported the

15
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
prosecution story. During the cross-examination by the defence, this
witness has stated that Daroga Ji has as dictated and as told me, I have so
and so written the application. On seeing tehreer/written report, Exhibit
Ka-1, this witness has stated that I had written the tehreer on the
dictation of Daroga Ji.
27. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant during his arguments in
Court, heavily hammered on the statement of Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-
5 and draw the attention of this Court towards the statement of Subhash
Dhar Dubey PW-5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has
submitted, on the above evidence as given by this hostile witness PW-5
Subhash Dhar Dubey in his cross-examination, that written report
Exhibit Ka-1 was written on the dictation of Daroga Ji in the police
station, hence whole prosecution story and truthfulness become highly
doubtful and suspicious. However, when we see the whole facts and
circumstances of the case, in totality and also in view of the fact that
informant Munni Devi PW-1 was a helpless lady when her second
husband accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya killed his son
Abhimanyu, who is aged about two years and after killing, ran away
from the place of incident then family members of the landlord and other
tenants living in the same house, came to help and to give consolation to
informant Munni Devi PW-1. On the dictation of informant Munni Devi
PW-1, Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-5, who was a Purohit by profession
performing pooja and other religious rituals at the houses of the peoples,
Munni Devi PW-1 dictated and narrated the story to Subhash Dhar
Dubey PW-5 and Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-5 had written the written
report Exhibit Ka-1, thereafter Munni Devi PW-1, went to police station
Chiluwatal and lodged the written report/FIR to the police station with
Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-5. At the time of lodging of the FIR, Subhash
Dhar Dubey PW-5 was also present at the police station with the
informant Munni Devi PW-1. This fact finds corroboration from the
prosecution witness Head Muharir Dinesh Kumar Mishra, PW-6 and
who registered the FIR on the basis of the written report Exhibit Ka-1.
During the cross-examination, Head Muharir Dinesh Kumar Mishra,

16
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
PW-6 has stated that the complainant alone had not came at police
station while with one person Subhash Dhar Dubey had also came,
meaning thereby, that informant Munni Devi PW-1 was helpless lady,
none came forward to help in this unfortunate incident. Subhash Dhar
Dubey PW-5, who was also a tenant in the same house of Gheese Yadav
came forward and has written the written report on the dictation of the
informant Munni Devi PW-1 and both Munni Devi and Subhash Dhar
Dubey PW-5 had went at police station to lodge the FIR.
28. However, when the trial began and evidence was recorded of the
prosecution witnesses, all the witnesses of prosecution such as, Anita
PW-2, Dharmendra Yadav PW-3, Gulecha PW-4, Subhash Dhar Dubey
PW-5 became hostiles. Since informant Munni Devi PW-1 was a
helpless lady, who was residing with her husband accused-appellant
Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya along with her children in a rented room
in the house of Gheese Yadav. Anita PW-2, Dharmendra Yadav PW-3,
Gulecha PW-4, were members of the landlord’s family. Subhash Dhar
Dubey PW-5 was also a tenant in the same house of Gheese Yadav. All
these above prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution
story and became hostile. Reason for this was that when Munni Devi
PW-1 was betrayed by her husband accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman
Chaurasaiya, then seeing this situation and circumstances, prosecution
witnesses including the writer of the tehreer Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-5,
all have become hostile. Munni Devi PW-1 was a resident of other
district then none prosecution witness was desirous and willing to
support her and all prosecution witnesses with a view to make a ground
for the acquittal of accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasiya, have
become hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Prosecution
witness, Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-5, writer of the tehree/written report
Exhibit Ka-1 also becomes hostile with a view to help the accused-
appellant, purposely and intentionally stated in his cross-examination
that in the police station on the dictation of Daroga Ji, he had written the
tehreer. What was dictated and told by Daroga Ji, so and so was written
by me. Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-5 has stated the above facts in his

17
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
cross-examination falsely and with an intention to make acquittal of the
accused-appellant sure and certain. Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-5 with an
intention and planning to help accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman
Chaurasaiya, has stated this false statement in his cross-examination.
Thus, Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-5 has stated the above statement in his
evidence with a view that by his above statement, all prosecution story
would become suspicious and doubtful and shall fall to the ground, but
from a perusal of the above statement of hostile prosecution witness
Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-5, we find that accused-appellant Pradeep @
Aman Chaurasaiya is not entitled and eligible for any benefit from the
statement of Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-5 about the manner in which the
tehreer Exhibit Ka-1 was written at police station. Thus, from the above
discussions, we are of the considered opinion that only on the statement
of Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-5 in respect of the written report Exhibit-
Ka-1 and few minor contradictions and inconsistencies in evidence of
informant Munni Devi PW-1, it is not legal to reject the prosecution
story and reliable, creditworthy evidence of informant Munni Devi PW-
1.
29. In view of the above discussion, we find that accused-appellant
would not get any benefit on this ground that Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-
5 has stated that he has written tehreer Exhibit Ka-1 on the dictation of
Daroga Ji because Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-5 has stated the above
statement after becoming hostile and he has not supported the
prosecution case. Thus, we find that when informant Munni Devi PW-1
was betrayed by her second husband accused-appellant Pradeep @
Aman Chaurasaiya, then the prosecution witnesses, such as Anita PW-2,
Dharmendra Yadav PW-3, Gulecha PW-4, Subhash Dhar Dubey PW-5,
all have also betrayed to Munni Devi and tried to ensure acquittal of the
accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya by becoming hostile.
Thus, therefore, in the light of the above discussion, we find no force in
the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the accused-appellant
in this respect.

18
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
30. Although, no other prosecution witnesses have supported the
prosecution story except informant Munni Devi PW-1. However, at the
time of incident, Munni Devi was present with accused-appellant and her
deceased child Abhimanyu in the room where incident happened,
meaning thereby that Munni Devi is a helpless and sole witness, who
testified and proved the prosecution story in respect of her deceased
child Abhimanyu. A mother of deceased child, such as Munni Devi PW-
1 would not spare real culprit of the crime and would not falsely
implicate his second husband Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya, for whom
she has deserted and left her first husband Mantu and his family. We find
that from the evidence of sole witness, informant Munni Devi PW-1,
there is an ample reliable evidence against accused-appellant in respect
of his alleged commission of the crime. The evidence of informant
Munni Devi PW-1 is trustworthy, reliable that inspires confidence as
credible and truthfulness.
31. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and Another
reported in (1981) 2 SCC 752, the Supreme Court has held on the point
of interested witness in paragraphs 7 and 8, which are as under:
“7. As mentioned above the High Court has declined
to rely on the evidence of P.W.1 on two grounds: (1) she
was a "highly interested" witness because she "is the wife
of the deceased", and (2) there were discrepancies in her
evidence. With respect, in our opinion, both the grounds are
invalid. For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the
only and most natural witness; she was the only person
present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the
occurrence, and the only person who saw the occurrence.
True, it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be
called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased.
'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be
called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit
from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case,
or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a
natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the
circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'. In
the instant case P.W.1 had no interest in protecting the real
culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents.
8…………….. In the depositions of witnesses there
are always some normal discrepancies however honest and
truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal

19
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse
of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror
at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material
discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not
expected of a normal person. As indicated above we have
not found any material discrepancies in the evidence of the
P. W. 1.”
32. In the case of Sucha Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab (2003)
7 SCC 643, the Supreme Court has held in paragraph-13 of the judgment
that:
“Relation is not a factor to affect the credibility
of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation
would not conceal the actual culprit and make
allegations against an innocent person. Foundation
has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In
such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach
and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent
and credible”.
33. Thus, in the light of the legal principles as laid down by the
Supreme Court in the above cases, we find that although informant
Munni Devi PW-1 is the sole and related witness in this case because she
was mother of the deceased Abhimanyu, but this is also a fact that she is
the wife of the accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya, the
evidence and testimony of informant are wholly reliable and trustworthy.
She has fully supported and has given evidence against her husband
Pradeep @ Aman Chaurasaiya, who killed her son Abhimanyu aged
about two years, no woman of the Indian culture would falsely implicate
her husband. Prosecution story has also find support and corroboration
from the statements of Investigating Officer Ram Pal Yadav PW-8 in his
cross-examination, he stated that evidence was found that in the room of
incident, informant Munni Devi PW-1 and accused-appellant Pradeep @
Aman Chaurasaiya was residing. In the light of the above discussion, we
find no force in the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
accused-appellant in this respect.
34. We have also gone through the finding and reasoning as given by
the learned trial Court in its judgment and order dated 27.05.2022. The

20
CRLA No. - 6307 of 2022
learned trial Court has given cogent and reliable findings and reasoning
based on the prosecution evidence such as informant Munni Devi PW-1.
We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence of the trial Court dated 27.05.2022. In view of
this, we find that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court requires no interference by this Court. We also
find that the judgment and order dated 27.05.2022 of conviction and
sentence of trial Court is liable to be affirmed.
35. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that
criminal appeal as filed by the accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman
Chaurasaiya is devoid of merit and hence liable to be rejected. We,
therefore, affirmed the judgment and order of the trial Court dated
27.05.2022 as passed in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2016 State Vs. Pradeep
@ Aman Chaurasaiya in Crime No. 431 of 2015, under Section 302
IPC., Police Station Chiluwatal, District Gorakhpur.
36. The criminal appeal filed by accused-appellant Pradeep @ Aman
Chaurasaiya is dismissed, as being devoid of merit. The accused-
appellant is in jail since 31.10.2015.
37. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the learned Trial Court
along with the lower Court records forthwith for necessary compliance.
(Vinai Kumar Dwivedi,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)
July 01, 2026
NSC
Digitally signed by :-
NARENDRA SINGH CHAUDHARY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad