Ram Prasad And Anr. vs State Of U.P.

AFR
RESERVED
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1271 of 2019
Ram Prasad and Anr.
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : A Kumar Srivastava, Premshankar
Shukla, Rajesh Kumar
Vishwakarma, Ratnesh Srivastava,
Swati Agrawal Srivastava, Virendra
Singh
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.)
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the
appellants in support of the appeal, Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, learned
Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State and perused the
record.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the convicts, to wit ,
Ram Prasad and Chandra Bhanu @ Chandra Bhan , against the
judgment and order dated 15.01.2019, passed by the Additional District
& Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II), Amroha (Jyotiba Phule Nagar),
in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2017 ( State v. Ram Prasad and anothe r),
arising out of Case Crime No. 198 of 2016, under Sections 302 & 201

2
CRLA No. - 1271 of 2019
IPC, Police Station Saidnagli, District Amroha, by which appellants
were convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
3. Brief facts of this case are that Gangadas (PW-1), Ex-Gram
Pradhan, along with Nardev (PW-3), Chowkidar of the village, got a
written report (Ex.Ka-1) scribed on 17.10.2016 by Rajpal Singh (PW-4)
and lodged the same at Police Station Saidnagli. In this written report
(Ex.Ka-1), Gangadas (PW-1) has stated that yesterday, on 16.10.2016,
Ram Prasad S/o Thakur Singh, resident of Sundi Mafi Khadar , Police
Station Saidnagli, was going to visit his relatives in the morning. Before
leaving, over some issue, he scolded his daughters, Dayawati (aged
about 13 years) and Dharmwati (aged about 11 years), and then left for
his relatives' house. Following this, both of Ram Prasad's daughters went
to the field to fetch fodder or straw. Near the field, inside a mango
orchard, both hung themselves using their dupattas from the branch of a
mango tree. Ram Prasad and his family members, without informing the
police, took the dead bodies of the both girls to the Ganga river and
buried or disposed them off. He requested to take appropriate action in
this regard.
4. On the basis of the above written report (Ex.Ka-1), a first
information report was registered at Police Station Saidnagli on
19.10.2016 at 00:10 A.M. as Case Crime No. 198 of 2016, under
Sections 302 & 201 IPC, against unknown offenders by the Constable
Clerk Atul Kumar Pandey (PW-7).
5. Upon receiving this information, the SHO Mustakim Ali (PW-10),
along with a police party and the Circle Officer, Hasanpur, reached the
place where the dead bodies of both girls were buried. He sent a letter to
the District Magistrate and requested for the appointment of a Magistrate
for exhumation of dead bodies of the deceased girls. After obtaining
permission from the District Magistrate, in the presence of Jasveer
Singh, Tehsildar of Hasanpur, dead bodies of the deceased girls,
Dayawati and Dharmwati, were exhumed from the earth. Thereafter,
proceedings of Panchnama were conducted by S.I. Lal Singh (PW-13)

3
CRLA No. - 1271 of 2019
under the supervision and direction of Jasveer Singh, Tehsildar,
Hasanpur.
6. Under the direction of Jasveer Singh, Tehsildar, Hasanpur, S.I. Lal
Singh (PW-13) prepared the Panchayatnama of deceased Dayawati
(Ex.Ka-9), Police Papers No. 13 (Ex.Ka-10), Police Papers No. 33
(Ex.Ka-11), Photolash (Ex.Ka-12), Letter to C.M.O. (Ex.Ka-13), Letter
to R.I. (Ex.Ka-14), and Seal of Sample (Ex.Ka-15). S.I. Lal Singh (PW-
13) also prepared the Panchayatnama of deceased Dharmwati (Ex.Ka-
16), Police Form No. 13 (Ex.Ka-17), Police Form No. 33 (Ex.Ka-18),
Photolash (Ex.Ka-19), Letter to C.M.O. (Ex.Ka-20), Letter to R.I.
(Ex.Ka-21), and Seal of Sample (Ex.Ka-22).
7. After preparing the Panchayatnama and other necessary police
papers, the dead bodies of the deceased Dayawati and Dharmwati were
handed over for postmortem examination to Lady Constable Nazma
Begam, Lady Constable Chanchal, Constable Durgpal and Constable
Phool Chandra. The dead bodies of the deceased Dayawati and
Dharmwati were transported to the Postmortem House, Amroha, for
autopsy.
8. Dr. Aadesh Kumar Singh (PW-12) examined the dead body of the
deceased Dharmwati and prepared the postmortem report (Ex.Ka-9). He
found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-
" Injury No. 1: A bluish bruise measuring 2 cm x 1 cm with
abrasion present on the front aspect of the neck.
Injury No. 2: A bluish bruise measuring 3 cm x 1 cm with abrasion
present on the front aspect of the neck, situated 2 cm above Injury
No. 1.
Injury No. 3: A bluish bruise measuring 8 cm x 5 cm present on the
left posterior (back) part of the head.
Injury No. 4: A bluish bruise measuring 3 cm x 2 cm present 10 cm
above the elbow joint on the outer aspect of the right arm."

4
CRLA No. - 1271 of 2019
In the opinion of the Dr. Aadesh Kumar Singh (PW-12), the immediate
cause of death of the deceased Dharmwati was Asphyxia due to
throttling.
9. Dr. Aadesh Kumar Singh (PW-12) also examined the dead body of
the deceased Dayawati and prepared the postmortem report (Ex.Ka-10).
He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the
deceased:-
" Injury No. 1: A torn wound (laceration) measuring 3.5 cm x 3 cm
between the index and middle fingers of the right hand.
Injury No. 2: A bluish bruise with abrasion measuring 2 cm x 1 cm
on the left side of the neck, below the lower jaw.
Injury No. 3: A bluish bruise with abrasion measuring 3 cm x 2 cm
parallel to the outer angle of the left eye.
Injury No. 4: A bluish bruise with abrasion measuring 5 cm x 2 cm
on the left side of the neck, 2 cm above the collarbone."
According to the Dr. Aadesh Kumar Singh (PW-12), the immediate
cause of death of the deceased Dayawati was also Asphyxia due to
throttling.
10. Investigating Officer, Mustakim Ali (PW-10) recorded the
statements of the informant and other witnesses under Section 161
Cr.P.C. He also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a site
plan as Ex.Ka-5. He also inspected the place from where the dead bodies
of the deceased Dayawati and Dharmwati were exhumed from the
ground and prepared a site plan as Ex.Ka-6.
11. After completing all the necessary formalities of investigation,
I.O. Mustakim Ali (PW-10) filed a Charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-7) against the
appellants, namely, Ram Prasad and Chandra Bhan before the learned
Magistrate having jurisdiction. Since the case was exclusively triable by
the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the
Sessions Court for trial.

5
CRLA No. - 1271 of 2019
12. In the Trial Court, charges were framed against the appellants on
02.05.2017 under Sections 302/34 & 201 IPC. The appellants pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
13. To substantiate the charges against the appellants, the prosecution
has produced a total of 15 prosecution witnesses, namely, Gangadas as
PW-1, Smt. Suman as PW-2, Nardev as PW-3, Rajpal Singh as PW-4,
Pawan Kumar as PW-5, Nazma Begam as PW-6, Atul Kumar as PW-7,
Rishipal as PW-8, Malwati as PW-9, Mustakim Ali as PW-10,
Dharmveer as PW-11, Dr. Aadesh Kumar Singh as PW-12, Lal Singh as
PW-13, Chhatrapal as PW-14, and Shishpal @ Shishram as PW-15.
Apart from the above oral evidence, the prosecution also relied upon
documentary evidences, marked as Exhibits Ka-1 to Ka-16.
14. After hearing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the appellants
were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In their statements recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants expressed ignorance about the
questions put to them. They stated that the prosecution witnesses gave
false and wrong statements against them and that they were falsely
implicated in this case due to enmity. Furthermore, they stated that they
are innocent and have not committed any crime. They also stated that
they would not adduce any evidence in their defence.
15. After hearing arguments of the prosecution as well as the defence,
the learned Trial Court found the appellants, namely, Ram Prasad and
Chandra Bhan, guilty of the murder of the deceased, Dayawati and
Dharmwati, and also found them guilty for causing the disappearance of
evidence of the offence. Accordingly, the Trial Court has sentenced each
of them for life imprisonment under Section 302/34 I.P.C. along with a
fine of Rs 10,000/- each. The appellants were also convicted of the
offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous
imprisonment on this count. along with a fine of Rs 5,000/- each. In
default of payment of fine, they were also sentenced to three months of
additional imprisonment. All the sentences imposed on the appellants
were ordered to run concurrently.

6
CRLA No. - 1271 of 2019
16. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence dated 15.01.2019, passed by the Trial Court, the appellants
have preferred this criminal appeal.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no
eyewitness to the incident and the entire prosecution case is based on
circumstantial evidence, with no complete chain of circumstances. It is
further contended that, even according to the prosecution case, there is
no evidence of last seen, nor there is any witness who had seen the
accused persons comitting the alleged crime. All the prosecution
witnesses of fact have not supported the prosecution case and stated that
the police called the chowkidar, Nardev, Rajpal and Gangadas, the father
and brother of the deceased, and upon being informed, they arrived. On
the advice of the villagers that both the deceased were minors, their
bodies were buried. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that
all the prosecution witnesses of fact have turned hostile and have not
supported the prosecution story. Thus, from the entire evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, there is no material to show that the appellants
had committed the offence, nor was there any motive for the appellants
to commit the offence. All the circumstances are not linked together, and
in the absence of a complete chain of the circumstantial evidence, it
cannot be said that the appellants have committed the offence.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the Trial
Court has convicted the appellants on the basis of statements of
witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which is not substantive
evidence under the law and can only be used for contradictions. All the
witnesses of fact have denied the prosecution case before the Trial Court.
As such, the conviction of the appellants is illegal and without any
material on record. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellants. However, the Trial
Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and in the
manner countenanced by law and wrongly without the support of any
cogent evidence and against the settled principles of law, held the
appellants guilty and convicted them for the commission of the alleged

7
CRLA No. - 1271 of 2019
crime. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.2019 is
not sustainable in the eyes of law which is liable to be set aside and this
criminal appeal preferred by the appellants deserves to be allowed.
19. Per contra , the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent has
vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the appellants and submitted that although all witnesses of fact have
turned hostile before the Trial Court during the recording of their
evidence and have not supported the prosecution story, however, all
incriminating circumstances are against the appellants, Ram Prasad and
Chandra Bhan. They were legally duty bound to give information at the
concerned police station about the incident, if they really were innocent,
but the appellants have not given any information about this incident that
Dharmwati and Dayawati hanged themselves by using their dupattas
from the branch of a tree in the mango orchard. On one side, the
appellants have not given any information about the unnatural death of
their daughters, Dayawati and Dharmwati, and on the other side, silently
buried their dead bodies in the khadar of river Ganga. After obtaining
permission from the District Magistrate, the dead bodies of the deceased
Dayawati and Dharmwati were exhumed from the burial ground, and
postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. Aadesh Kumar Singh
(PW-12).
20. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that according to the
postmortem examination and in the opinion of the Dr. Aadesh Kumar
Singh (PW-12), the immediate cause of death of both the deceased girls
was Asphyxia due to throttling. All the incriminating and inculpatory
circumstances are totally against the appellants, Ram Prasad and
Chandra Bhan. This case was a case of honor killing and the appellants
have committed the murder of Dayawati and Dharmwati as a measure of
honor killing. He also submitted that since the appellants have
committed honor killing by murdering Dayawati and Dharmwati, this is
a brutal murder committed by the father and brother of the deceased. In
spite of the hostility of the prosecution witnesses, there is ample
evidence against the appellants. The Trial Court has appreciated the

8
CRLA No. - 1271 of 2019
prosecution evidence in the right perspective and legal manner. There is
no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order passed by
the Trial Court. In view of the aforesaid, there is no force and merit in
the criminal appeal preferred by the appellants. Hence, the impugned
judgment and order of the Trial Court deserves to be affirmed and the
instant criminal appeal preferred by the appellants is liable to be
dismissed.
21. In the light of the above submissions and counter submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused all evidence,
including oral as well as documentary, and also gone through the
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
15.01.2019 passed by the Trial Court.
22. In the light of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, from perusal of the written report (Exhibit Ka-1), it is an
established fact that Gangadas (PW-1), who was an Ex-Gram Pradhan,
lodged the written report (Exhibit Ka-1) at the police station, with a view
to indirectly throw a curtain over the crime committed by the appellants.
Gangadas (PW-1) had filed the said written report about the incident at
Police Station Saidnagli. However, after receiving the written report
(Exhibit Ka-1), a case was registered against unknown offenders under
Sections 302 & 201 IPC and investigation into the crime commenced.
23. The Investigating Officer Mustakim Ali (PW-10) sent a letter
(Exhibit Ka-8) to the District Magistrate, Amroha requesting therein for
the exhumation of the dead bodies of the deceased Dayawati and
Dharmwati, as the incident appeared to be doubtful as narrated in the
written report (Exhibit Ka-1). Upon this, the District Magistrate, Amroha
nominated the S.D.M., Hasanpur for the exhumation of the dead bodies
of the deceased Dayawati and Dharmwati. Thereafter, in the presence of
the Tehsildar, Hasanpur, buried dead bodies of the deceased girls,
Dayawati and Dharmwati, were exhumed from the burial place near
Ganga River and their dead bodies were sent for post-mortem
examination to know the real cause of their death.

9
CRLA No. - 1271 of 2019
24. Dr. Aadesh Kumar Singh (P.W.-12) examined the dead bodies of
the deceased, Dayawati and Dharmwati, and prepared the post-mortem
reports as Exhibit Ka-9 and Exhibit Ka-10, respectively. On the dead
body of deceased Dharmwati, four ante-mortem injuries were found, in
which Injury No. 1 and Injury No. 2 were found in the front of the neck;
Injury No. 3 was found on the back portion of the head; and Injury No.
4, 10 cm above the right elbow. The cause of death was found to be
Asphyxia as a result of throttling. In the same way, on the dead body of
the deceased Dayawati, four ante-mortem injuries were also found.
Injury No. 1 was on her first and middle fingers in the right hand; Injury
No. 2 on the left side of the neck, below the jaw; Injury No. 3 parallel to
the left eye; and Injury No. 4 on the left side of the neck, 2 cm above the
collarbone. According to Dr. Aadesh Kumar Singh (P.W.-12), the cause
of death was Asphyxia due to throttling. The tongues of both girls were
found protruding, and in the case of Dharmwati, fecal matter was found
discharged.
25. The above injuries, in the opinion of Dr. Aadesh Kumar Singh
(P.W.-12), clearly indicate and establish the fact that both girls were
forcibly held by their necks and killed by throttling. According to the
doctor, there were no ligature marks or injuries indicative of hanging.
Thus, it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the deceased
girls, Dayawati and Dharmwati, were murdered by throttling, and their
deaths were homicidal that occurred under abnormal circumstances.
26. The prosecution witness, Smt. Suman (PW-2), who is the wife of
appellant no. 2, Chandra Bhan, did not support the prosecution story and
turned hostile. She resiled from her previous statement given to the
Investigating Officer, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she
had stated that on 16.10.2016 at about 5:00 to 6:00 A.M., her husband,
Chandra Bhan and father-in-law, Ram Prasad, had not gone with
Dayawati and Dharmwati to collet fodder (straw) in the jungle. Instead,
she made a contrary statement asserting that both girls had gone alone to
fetch fodder (straw). PW-2 also resiled from her statement given to the
Investigating Officer wherein she had stated that she had seen sisters-in-

10
CRLA No. - 1271 of 2019
law (nanands), Dayawati and Dharmwati with Pawan in an objectionable
condition. She further stated that she had not given any statement to the
Investigating Officer that on 16.10.2016, early in the morning at about
5:00 to 6:00 A.M., her husband and father-in-law had gone to collect
fodder (straw) with both of her sisters-in-law.
27. From a perusal of the evidence of Nardev (PW-3), it emerges that
on the date of the incident i.e., 16.10.2016, he was posted as the
Chowkidar of Village Sundi Mafi khadar . He stated that on that day he
received information that two daughters of Ram Prasad had allegedly
hanged themselves from the branch of a tree in the mango orchard using
their dupattas . He further stated that the family members had taken the
bodies to khadar of the Ganga River and buried them there. This witness
also admitted during his deposition that, along with the Gram Pradhan,
Gangadas, he had conveyed the said information to the police station.
28. Rajpal Singh (PW-4), who wrote the written report (Ex. Ka-1) on
the dictation of Gangadas (PW-1), turned hostile and did not support the
prosecution case. He stated in his testimony that the Daroga Ji dictated
the tahreer to him, and he wrote it at the police station.
29. Pawan Kumar (PW-6) also turned hostile and stated that he was
not present in the village on 16.10.2016. Therefore, he did not witness
who killed and hanged the deceased, Dayawati and Dharmwati, in the
mango orchard of Ram Prasad.
30. From a perusal of the evidence of Rishipal (PW-8), it is revealed
that the dead bodies of the deceased, Dharmwati and Dayawati, were
exhumed from the khadar of the Ganga River in his presence. He further
stated that the police and the Magistrate prepared the Panchayatnama of
the deceased in his presence. However, this witness also turned hostile
and did not support the prosecution's case.
31. Prosecution witness Malwati (PW-9) also proved the fact that the
dead bodies of the deceased, Dayawati and Dharmwati, were exhumed

11
CRLA No. - 1271 of 2019
from the khadar of the Ganga River by the police and the Magistrate and
that the Panchayatnama of the deceased was prepared in her presence.
32. Prosecution witnesses Chhatrapal (PW-14) and Shishpal @
Shishram (PW-15) also did not support the prosecution's case and turned
hostile.
33. Thus, from a perusal of the entire evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, it is clear that although they did not support the prosecution
story and resiled from their statements given to the Investigating Officer
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., their evidence nevertheless clearly establishes
that the deceased, Dayawati and Dharmwati, were not found hanging.
This claim was set up by these witnesses merely to divert the attention of
the police and create a false impression of suicide by hanging.
34. It is further revealed that Dayawati and Dharmwati did not die
under normal circumstances. Their death was abnormal and their father
and brother (the appellants herein) buried their bodies in haste in the
khadar of the Ganga river without giving any information to the police.
It is also apparent that the appellants managed the prosecution witnesses,
causing them to turn hostile and fail to support the prosecution case
before the Trial Court.
35. From the record and the evidence of witnesses, it is also revealed
that appellants, namely, Ram Prasad and Chandra Bhan (father and
brother of the deceased girls), have not given any information about this
incident at Police Station Saidnagli. If, according to the defence version,
both the deceased, Dayawati and Dharmwati, had hanged themselves
using their dupattas from the branch of a tree in the mango orchard and
if the appellants were truly innocent, they would have surely given
information about this incident at the concerned police station. However,
the appellants have not given any information about this incident or
occurrence to the Police. This fact indicates and reveals their intention to
conceal the crime committed by them.
36. On 16.10.2016, the appellants, with a view to cause
disappearance of the evidence of the offence, buried the dead bodies of

12
CRLA No. - 1271 of 2019
the deceased, Dayawati and Dharmwati, in the khadar of the Ganga
River and went to their relatives' places. Thus, the conduct of the
appellants, both before and after the commission of the crime, is highly
relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the present
case, the conduct of the appellants after the commission of the crime
becomes relevant and goes against them.
37. The Supreme Court in Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan, (2014)
12 SCC 439 , has held:
"9. It is true that PW-5 has stated that the appellant had a good
behaviour and had no bad habit. Section 8 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, however, provides that the conduct of any person an
offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant,
if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or
relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent to it.
Hence, any behaviour or conduct of the appellant would be
relevant if it had nexus with the offence under Section 302 alleged
to have been committed by him. This Court has held in Vikramjit
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2006) 12 SCC 306 at page 314:
"17. ...Conduct of an accused must have nexus with the
crime committed. It must form part of the evidence as
regards his conduct either preceding, during or after the
commission of the offence as envisaged under Section 8
of the Evidence Act."
The general good behaviour of the appellant and the fact that he
had no bad habit have no nexus with the offence alleged against
the appellant and are not relevant when other circumstances have
established beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellant and the
appellant alone who has committed the murder of the deceased."
38. The Supreme Court in Mandhari v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2002)
4 SCC 308, has observed:
"4. The most culpable circumstance found to have been proved and
accepted by the courts below against the accused is that he had

13
CRLA No. - 1271 of 2019
himself made a false report of commission of suicide by his wife
and admitted in his examination under Section 313 Criminal
Procedure Code that he was present in the house at the time of
incident. His case was that he heard some sound in the adjoining
room and when went inside, found his wife hanging by neck with a
sari tied on the rafter of the roof of the house. He then untied the
sari, brought down the dead body, first reported the matter to the
villagers and then to the police. The post-mortem report prepared
on autopsy conducted by Dr. PC Jain (PW-8) shows that there was
ligature mark on the neck of the deceased which was anti-mortem.
The opinion of the doctor is clear and definite that such ligature
mark of 5 cm width in horizontal position cannot be caused by
hanging but could have been caused by strangulation. Medical
evidence, therefore, completely falsifies the case of the appellant
that on his return from the field to his house he had found his wife
hanging and thus she had committed suicide. The conduct of the
accused is also not natural. When he found his wife hanging by
neck he neither raised any hue and cry nor called any villagers
living nearby. He all alone brought down the body hanging from
the roof. He thereafter did not report the matter immediately. When
villagers collected he took a plea that she had committed suicide.
He also did not report the matter on his own but, as is deposed by
Dilboodh (PW-2), Kotwar, it is on his insistence and of the
Sarpanch that he reported the matter to the Police. These witnesses
also stated that the wife had complained in the past to the
Panchayat that the appellant was ill-treating her and was not
providing her food.
5.After hearing learned counsel appearing and on going through
the record we find no ground to take a different view of the
evidence. The accused in his examination under Section 313
Cr.P..C. had admitted that he was in the house and on hearing a
sound had rushed to find his wife hanging by neck. His defence that
his wife committed suicide has been found to be false and the same
is not corroborated by medical evidence. The above facts coupled
with the circumstances that they were not leading a congenial

14
CRLA No. - 1271 of 2019
marital life, the unnatural conduct of the accused subsequent to the
incident; the spot map (Ex.7) showing that the rafter of the roof to
be at such height as was unapproachable for committing suicide -
cumulatively lead only to one irresistible conclusion that the
accused alone was the author of the crime and had taken a false
defence that he had seen the deceased to have committed suicide by
hanging herself."
39. In the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in
the case of Vivek Kalra (supra) and Mandhari (supra) , the conduct of
the appellants in the present case is highly relevant. According to the
prosecution story and the written report (Exhibit Ka-1), the deceased
girls, Dayawati and Dharmwati, were throttled to death. Conversely, as
per the defence version, both deceased allegedly hanged themselves
using their dupattas from the branch of a tree in the appellants' mango
orchard. However, the fact that the appellants, namely, Ram Prasad,
father of the deceased, and Chandra Bhan, elder brother of the deceased,
remained silent, failed to inform any villager, and did not prepare a
formal panchnama , points strongly to their involvement. Furthermore, in
the absence of villagers, the appellants carried the dead bodies near the
Ganga River and buried them in the khadar with the clear intention of
destroying evidence.
40. Thus, it is clear that the appellants are directly and closely related
to the crime. The conduct and behaviour of the appellants surely and
certainly, without any doubt, indicate their guilty minds. Therefore, in
light of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Vivek Kalra (supra) and Mandhari (supra) , the appellants are
undoubtedly found guilty of committing the alleged crime.
Consequently, it is established beyond reasonable doubt by
circumstantial evidence that no other person, except the appellants,
committed this crime and murdered the deceased by throttling their
necks.
41. The Supreme Court in Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007)
13 SCC 90 , has held in paragraph 17 of the report as under:

15
CRLA No. - 1271 of 2019
"17. ...It is true that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence
motive does assume great importance but to say that the absence of
motive would dislodge the entire prosecution story is perhaps
giving this one factor an importance which is not due and (to use
the cliche) the motive is in the mind of the accused and can seldom
be fathomed with any degree of accuracy."
42. Thus, a perusal of the entire evidence and circumstances on record
unequivocally establishes that the appellants, Ram Prasad, the father of
the deceased girls, and Chandra Bhan, their elder brother, committed the
murder of Dayawati and Dharmwati by throttling. This act was
committed for the sake of honor and dignity of the family by applying
high pressure while throttling them, as a result of which, the tongues of
both deceased girls protruded out of their mouth and Dharmwati also
discharged fecal matter. The complete chain of incriminating
circumstantial evidence points exclusively toward the guilt of the
appellants. Consequently, it is conclusively proved beyond reasonable
doubt that no one other than the appellants committed the offence.
43. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 15.01.2019, passed by the learned Trial
Court. We find that the findings and reasoning of the Trial Court are
based on unimpeachable circumstantial evidence. The Trial Court has
thoroughly evaluated the entire prosecution evidence, both oral and
documentary. After proper consideration, it successfully linked every
chain of circumstantial evidence to find guilt of the appellants in the
crime.
44. The Trial Court has evaluated the evidence and circumstances in
the proper perspective and lawful manner. The impugned judgment and
order have been passed in accordance with settled principles of law, and
we find no perversity or illegality in it. In view of the above, the
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 15.01.2019
deserves to be affirmed.

16
CRLA No. - 1271 of 2019
45. Accordingly, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 15.01.2019, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge
(Fast Track Court-II), Amroha (Jyotiba Phule Nagar) in Sessions Trial
(S.T.) No. 22 of 2017 ( State v. Ram Prasad and Another ), arising out of
Case Crime No. 198 of 2016, under Sections 302 & 201 IPC, Police
Station- Saidnagli, District- Amroha, is hereby affirmed .
46. Consequently, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of merit,
stands dismissed .
47. The appellants are in jail. They shall remain in jail to serve out the
sentence awarded by the Trial Court vide order dated 15.01.2019.
48. Let a copy of this judgment and order, along with the Lower Court
record, be sent to the Trial Court forthwith for necessary compliance.
(Vinai Kumar Dwivedi,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)
July 30, 2026
Aditya
Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad