Anil Kumar Sagar vs State of U.P.

RESERVED
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3823 of 2024
Anil Kumar Sagar
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ghan Shyam Das, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 42
HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant
who is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
30.03.2024 and 03.04.2024 passed by the court of the learned
Special Judge, Gangster Act / Additional Sessions Judge,
Farrukhabad, convicting the appellant Anil Kumar Sagar in S.T.
No.374 of 2013 for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, for the
murder of his wife Mamta Rani on 08.09.2013 and for attempting to
pass off as an accident.
2. The undisputed facts in this case are that the incident took place
on 08.09.2013 at 7:15 pm. The place of the incident is near village
Nagla Jhabbu Singh situated on the Nawabganj-Veerpur Road. The
first information report was registered on 09.09.2013 at 00:30 hours.
The first information report was originally registered for the offences
under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC. The informant in this case is the
appellant Anil Kumar Sagar who is also husband of the deceased. It
is undisputed that immediately after the incident took place, the
appellant himself informed the family members of the deceased. It is
also undisputed that the incident occurred as the vehicle collided
with the deceased who suffered injuries and died as a result thereof.

CRLA No. 3823 of 2024
2
3. What is disputed is that the incident of homicide amounting to
murder committed by the appellant against his wife Mamta Rani, as
stated by the prosecution. It is disputed that the deceased died on
account of the motor vehicle accident and the appellant staged the
murder of his wife in order to pass it off as an accident.
4. The witnesses relating to the factual aspects in this case are PW-
1 Shiv Saran Lal (father of the deceased), PW-2 Mayank Gautam
(brother of the deceased), PW-9 Satish Chandra (husband of the co-
accused Mamta Sagar).
5. Formal witnesses in this case are PW-3 Dr. Pradeep Singh
(autopsy surgeon), PW-4 Dhirendra Singh (scribe of chik FIR), PW-5
SO Pradeep Kumar Yadav (Second Investigating Officer), PW-6 SI
Man Singh (First Investigating Officer), PW-7 SI Chandra Dev Yadav
(Third Investigating Officer), PW-8 SO Ram Narain Singh (Fourth
Investigating Officer).
6. The defence from its side examined two witnesses who are DW-1
Manoj Kumar (Chief Cashier at Treasury Fatehgarh, District
Farrukhabad) and DW-2 Anil Kumar Sagar (who is appellant
himself).
7. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The incident has taken place allegedly on 08.09.2013 at 7:15 pm on
the Nawabganj-Veerpur Road near Village Nagla Jhabbu Singh on
which the appellant and his wife (since deceased) were travelling on
the motorcycle when they stopped at the aforementioned place
Village Nagla Jhabbu Singh because the appellant wanted to answer
nature's call. The motorcycle and the deceased were on the
pavement when a speeding vehicle - mini truck carrying milk cans
negligently knocked down the wife of the appellant and sped away in
the darkness of the night. The appellant immediately informed the
immediate relatives of the deceased, dialled emergency no.108 and

CRLA No. 3823 of 2024
3
took the deceased to the hospital in the said ambulance where she
was declared dead. The post mortem report which is Exhibit-3
reflects injuries which are consistent with the motor vehicle accident
which, however, does not reflect any internal injury and the opinion
of the doctor is that she died on account of asphyxia which was
based upon bluish lips and the fingers' nail of the deceased. The
entire case has been turned from a case of accidental death to
murder on account of opinion relating to the cause of death given by
the doctor who performed the post mortem report which is mentioned
hereinabove.
8. Thereafter, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant who
was in relationship with co-accused Mamta Sagar, the wife of PW-9,
had conspired with the co-accused, murdered the deceased
elsewhere and threw her body on the Highways to make it appear as
a case of accident. Co-accused Mamta Sagar was not sent up for
trial as the police filed a final report in her favour. It is further case of
the prosecution that the appellant Anil Kumar Sagar who was
Principal of Higher Prathmik Vidhyalay, Mamapur Vikas Khand,
Nawabganj was in relationship with the co-accused Mamta Sagar
who was also teaching in the same school. The first information
report was registered on the Tehrir given by PW-1 who is father of
the deceased.
9. PW-1 is the father of the deceased whose name is Shiv Saran Lal.
To summarize his evidence, he has stated that he had got his
daughter married to the appellant on 18.11.1992 and three children
were born out of the wedlock. The appellant was working as
Headmaster in junior high school in Village - Beg under Police
Station Nawabganj. By way of motive, the witness says that the
appellant had entered into relationship with the co-accused Mamta
Sagar (who was subsequently acquitted by the learned trial court)
who herself was a married woman and was also a teacher in the said

CRLA No. 3823 of 2024
4
school. He further states that in order to continue with the said illicit
relationship, the appellant and co-accused Mamta Sagar murdered
his daughter on 08.09.2013 and to destroy the evidence gave a
report of a motor vehicle accident at Police Station Nawabganj, the
information of which he received over telephone. When he arrived in
the hospital along with 10 to 12 persons, he found that his daughter
was already lying dead there and that upon looking at the body, it did
not appear to have been a case of the motor vehicle accident. He
further says that he is convinced that his daughter was murdered by
the appellant and the co-accused Mamta Sagar. He further says that
his daughter - the deceased has told herself several times that the
appellant would kill her and in relation to this, he has even informed
the Superintendent of Police by giving a typed representation dated
13.09.2013 which is shown as Paper 7-A (Ext. Ka-1)
10. In cross examination, PW-1 says that he had given a
representation to the Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad on
13.09.2013 after the death of his daughter on 08.09.2013. Before the
incident, he had never given any complaint to the Superintendent of
Police or any other authority. He also admits that before his
representation dated 13.09.2013 to the Superintendent of Police, his
daughter had also never given any kind of complaint to the police
while she was alive. To a suggestion, he has admitted as correct that
his daughter never filed any case against the appellant in any court
of law and neither any case is pending against the appellant. It is
admitted situation that this witness is not an eyewitness to any
incident.
11. PW-2 Mayank Gautam who is the brother of the deceased. He
has stated that he has given background relating to the relationship
between the appellant and the deceased similarly as that of PW-1
who is the father of the deceased. He has also given a motive for the
incident as illicit relationship between the appellant and co-accused

CRLA No. 3823 of 2024
5
Mamta Sagar and like his father, he has stated that on 08.09.2013,
the appellant murdered the deceased and filed a false complaint of
the accident in the police station and tried to pass away the murder
as an accident. However, he admits that he was informed by the
appellant herein relating to the incident. He is also not an eyewitness
to the incident.
12. The third witness is purportedly material witness in this case as
PW-9 who is the husband of the co-accused Mamta Sagar. His name
is Satish Chandra. He states in his examination in chief that he has
given an affidavit of evidence to the Superintendent of Police during
course of the investigation in which he has stated that he is the
husband of Mamta Sagar who is a teacher in the junior high school
in Village Beg Police Station Nawabganj of which the appellant was
the headmaster. He further says that the appellant had illicit
relationship with his wife of which he had given a complaint about
which he has shown displeasure to his wife Mamta Sagar who is
alleged to have threaten him with false cases which she would file in
the event he came in between her and the appellant. He further says
that the deceased - wife of the appellant who also knew the affairs
had opposed the same. He says that his wife is estranged and is
living separately from him. The document bearing no.8B/84 to 8B/85,
the witness says, is the photocopy of his affidavit given to the
Superintendent of Police. He further says that the affidavit bears his
photograph and his signature. He says that the original affidavit had
been given by him to the Superintendent of Police and photocopy of
which he had given to PW-1, the father of the deceased. Thereafter,
he has also shown the document 11A/1 to 11A/2, which he says, is
the agreement for marriage on which photographs of the appellant
and his wife are there. He has further identified the signature of his
wife Mamta Sagar on the said document. He also states in his cross
examination that he is unable to produce the original of both

CRLA No. 3823 of 2024
6
documents i.e. his affidavit given to the Superintendent of Police and
the purported agreement of the marriage entered into by the
appellant and his wife Mamta Sagar. These are three material
witnesses who can show credence in this case.
13. The formal witness is PW-3 Dr. Pradeep Singh who performed
the autopsy. He says that he was posted at Farrukhabad. He
performed the post mortem of the deceased on 09.09.2013 and
thereafter he gave the list of 12 injuries that he found externally on
the body of the deceased. It is necessary to mention here that all
these injuries are in the form of linear abrasions, friction injuries and
contusions on various part of the body of the deceased. He did not
find any abnormality in any of the internal organs. However, on
account of psoriasis on the face, lips and nose, he gave an opinion
that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem
injuries. In his cross examination, he has agreed to the suggestion
that the nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased could be
on account of the motor vehicle accident also.
14. PW-4 is the scribe of the first information report. PW-5 is the
second investigating officer. PW-6 is the first investigating officer.
PW-7 is the third investigating officer and PW-8 is the fourth
investigating officer who filed the charge sheet before the learned trial
court.
15. The defence from its side examined two witnesses who are DW-1
Manoj Kumar (Chief Cashier at Treasury Fatehgarh, District
Farrukhabad) and DW-2 Anil Kumar Sagar who is the appellant
himself under Section 315 Cr.P.C.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there are no
eyewitnesses in this case and that case being fully based on
circumstantial evidence and the statement of the appellant himself
which has been recorded under Section 315 Cr.P.C., and the
statement of PW-3 who is the doctor who performed the post mortem

CRLA No. 3823 of 2024
7
of the deceased and the post mortem report itself which reflects that
all external injuries suffered by the deceased which are ante mortem
in nature are consistent with the motor vehicle accident. He further
submits that the entire contusions have arisen only on account
of psoriasis which was seen by the doctor on the face, lips and nose
of the deceased which may occur on account of deficiency of the
oxygen in the body which made the doctor to opine that the cause of
death was asphyxia on account of the ante mortem injuries.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was
neither ligature mark around the neck of the deceased nor were there
any finger marks of strangulation externally seen on the neck of the
deceased. Neither the hyoid bone nor the hyoid cartilage was broken
which may raise suspicion of the deceased having been first put to
death by garrotting and then to destroy evidence, external injuries
were created to show that the cause of death was on account of
motor vehicle accident. He has further submitted that the appellant
proved his bonafide instantaneously informing the father and brother
of the deceased immediately after the accident, that it was he who
called emergency services by dialing 108 and took the deceased to
the hospital in the ambulance and, therefore, the case was clearly
one of motor vehicle accidents.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that PW-
1 and PW-2 are not eyewitnesses to the incident and have made up
the case of murder without any material suggestive of such offence
and that there was never any relationship between the appellant and
co-accused Mamta Sagar.
19. As regards the evidence of the complaint made by PW-1 to the
Superintendent of Police, learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the same was an afterthought after the incident and
moreover, only photocopy has been produced before the learned trial
court and without any application being moved to adduce secondary

CRLA No. 3823 of 2024
8
evidence and, therefore, the same could not be considered. Likewise,
he has also stated that the purported copy of the agreement of
marriage between the appellant and Mamta Sagar produced by PW-9
is only a photocopy and not original and the same too cannot be
considered without an application to secondary evidence being filed
and the same being allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant has
further argued that as regards both the aforementioned copies of the
documents, no permission was taken before the learned trial court to
adduce secondary evidence and, therefore, those photocopies of the
said document are irrelevant in this case.
20. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted
that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the State has argued that PW-
1 and PW-2 have clearly stated in their testimonies that it was the
appellant along with co-accused who had murdered the deceased
and then to destroy the evidence, took the body to the highways and
created external injuries and tried to pass off the same as an
accident.
21. Learned counsel for the State has also argued that the appellant
did not adduce any evidence by examining the driver of the
ambulance, whom he had called to the scene of occurrence which
allegedly took the deceased to the hospital and neither he examined
any of staff at the hospital as witnesses to prove his case. She has
further argued that the incident took place in the evening and the
body was placed on the road after all the shops had closed so that
there would be no natural witness at the site. She has further argued
that if the case put forth by the appellant was true, there would have
been at least some witnesses on the road at that time who would
have seen the incident and would have corroborated the case of the
appellant.
22. Learned counsel for the State has also argued that hypothesis set

CRLA No. 3823 of 2024
9
up by the appellant seems highly improbable. She says that both the
motorcycle and the deceased were standing on the pavement when
the incident occurred but no damage had been caused to the
motorcycle. She says that it is highly improbable as if the deceased
was near the motorcycle and the offending vehicle had climbed over
the pavement, it would not have knocked down the deceased alone
but also it would have collided with the motorcycle.
23. Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Ghan Shyam Das, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Divya Ojha,
learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
24. In this case, PW-1 and PW-2 are not eyewitnesses to the incident
and their statements are not corroborated by any independent
witness. Their contention that the appellant murdered the deceased
along with co-accused and placed the body on the highway is
improbable as they are not eyewitnesses to the incident. The letter
written by PW-1 to the Superintendent of Police is after the entire
incident and, therefore, it cannot be stated that the witnesses had
ever informed the police with regard to the previous ill-will of the
appellant towards his wife. Besides, the said document is only a
photocopy and not the original and, therefore, cannot be considered
relevant in this case.
25. It is also necessary to mention here that PW-1 has very clearly
stated that his daughter - deceased had never written any letter to the
police intimating of any problem that she may have had with her
husband - the appellant herein. Likewise, the statement of PW-2 who
is not eyewitness in this case. Therefore, testimonies of PW-1 and
PW-2 do not go to prove the case against the appellant at all.
26. As regards PW-9 is concerned, he is the husband of the co-
accused who has been acquitted by the learned trial court. All that he
has stated is that there was illicit relationship between his wife and
the appellant herein. In his examination in chief, he has not stated

CRLA No. 3823 of 2024
10
how he has come to the knowledge that his wife was having illicit
affair with the appellant by stating that he had either seen both of
them in compromising position or any objectionable manner in order
for him to perceive that they were in illicit relationship. As regards the
document relating to the purported marriage agreement between the
appellant and co-accused is concerned, the same is a photocopy
and, therefore, is not relevant to be considered as evidence. Further,
in line with the statement of DW-1, who is a treasure clerk who has
testified that the stamp paper on which the said agreement for
marriage is made was issued after on a date after the execution of
the agreement to marriage itself, which is an impossibility. Therefore,
the said document does not come to the assistance of the
prosecution and neither statement of PW-9.
27. As regards, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the
State, that the appellant did not adduce evidence in order to show
how his wife could have been struck down by the vehicle without his
motorcycle suffering any damage, or the appellant not having
adduced any evidence to prove that he had in fact called for the
ambulance and took her to the hospital is concerned, the contention,
if accepted, would go against the very basic tenets of the criminal
law. It is one of the first principle of criminal law that throughout every
criminal trial, it shall be the duty of the prosecution to prove the fact in
issue and every relevant fact in support of the fact in issue and at no
point shall defence be called upon to prove its innocence unless, it is
a fact that must be proved by the defence under the Evidence Act or
general exceptions.
28. It is also necessary to state here that in the case of Special
Statutes providing for reverse burden also, the prosecution has to first
of all cross the threshold of establishing at least the actus reus
attributable to the co-accused after which the onus shifts to the
accused. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is also an exception where

CRLA No. 3823 of 2024
11
the accused may be called upon to prove a fact which is exclusively
within his knowledge. But for these exceptions, it is the duty of the
prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
29. In view of what has been argued, discussed and considered
hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not
been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the
appellant. Therefore, the present appeal succeeds and is allowed .
The appellant, if still undergoing his sentence, shall be set at liberty. If
his sentence has been suspended and he is on bail, his bail bonds
shall stand discharged.
October 27, 2026
rkg
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad