Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu vs State Of U.P.
- Court
- Allahabad High Court
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1306 of 2014
Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu …..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. …..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Salil Mohan, Devendra Pratap
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Govt . Advocate
A.F.R.
Reserved on 28.04.2026
Delivered on 27.07.2026
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.
(Per: Hon’ble Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.)
1. Heard Shri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned Counsel appearing
for and on behalf of the appellant, as well as Shri S.P. Singh, learned
Additional Government Advocate, appearing for and on behalf of the
State respondent and perused the materials available on record.
2. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) has been
preferred by the appellant- Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu, against the
impugned common judgment and order dated 02.09.2014, passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in (i) Sessions Trial No. 632 of 2009
( State vs. Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu ), arising out of Case Crime No.
2
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
353 of 2009; (ii) Sessions Trial No. 676 of 2009 ( State vs. Vinay Pratap
Singh @ Bablu ), arising out of Case Crime No. 355 of 2009; and
(iii) Sessions Trial No. 677 of 2009 ( State vs. Vinay Pratap Singh @
Bablu ), arising out of Case Crime No. 356 of 2009; all relating to Police
Station Sandi, District Hardoi, which all were tried together and wherein
the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 307, 404, of I.P.C
and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for the maximum punishment of life
imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and the default clause in
case of non-payment of fine.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. The factual matrix leading up to the filing of the present Criminal
Appeal is delineated herein-below : -
3.1) As per the prosecution story, on 24.06.2009, at about 8:00 AM,
complainant Nathulal (P.W.-1) went to the house of his relative Smt.
Nandrani (aged about 65 years) in Mohalla Nawabganj, Police Station
Sandi, District Hardoi. Upon entering her house, he found the dead
bodies of Smt. Nandrani (Deceased-1) and her Grand-Son Anshu, (aged
about 5 years) (Deceased-2) lying on a cot in the courtyard with cloth
(saree/dhoti) nooses tied around their respective necks. In the adjacent
thatched room, the bodies of Smt. Babita, (aged about 32 years)
(Deceased-3), daughter of Nandrani and her grand-daughter Kumari
Gunjan, (aged about 7 years) (Deceased-4) were lying on the floor, also
with cloth nooses around their necks. All four persons had been
strangulated to death.
3.2 ) The complainant alleged that the accused Vinay Pratap Singh @
Bablu, resident of Village Naumalikpur, P.S.- Bilgram, District Hardoi,
had been living in a relationship with Smt. Babita (daughter of
Nandrani) in the said house for about 1.5 years. On the intervening night
of 23/24.06.2009, a quarrel had taken place between Babita and the
accused at around 9:00 PM, which was heard and informed by
3
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
neighbours. The accused was last seen along with the Deceased-1/Babita
in her house and was not found there on the next morning, when her
dead body was found in the same house.
3.3) Evidently, all four deceased belonged to the Kori community,
which is a Scheduled Caste. The accused belonged to the Thakur
community.
3.4) On the basis of the aforesaid written information/ tehrir (Exhibit-
ka-1) of P.W.-1, F.I.R. No. 353/2009 was registered at P.S.- Sandi under
Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3.5) Panchayatnama was prepared of the four dead bodies of Nandrani
(aged 65 years), Babita (32 years), Kumari Gunjan (aged about 7 years)
and Anshu (aged about 5 years). After preparing the necessary
documents, the bodies were sent for post-mortem to the District
Hospital. Investigation was carried by inspecting the crime-site and
recording of statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
Post-mortem examinations confirmed that all four victims died due to
ante-mortem strangulation by ligature (saree/cloth).
3.6) During investigation, the accused was apprehended on the same
day at about 4:30 PM from Nandlal Shikshan Sansthan Higher
Secondary School, Suganwa, while he was allegedly trying to escape
from his hideout at a school. On seeing the police personnels, the
accused allegedly fired at them with a country-made 12-bore pistol. He
was arrested and from his possession, one 12-bore pistol with an empty
cartridge stuck in the barrel and one live cartridge were recovered. On
his disclosure and at his instance, a black bag was recovered from the
south-eastern corner of the school containing jewellery allegedly
belonging to the deceased persons, two mobile phones, and a red purse
containing ₹ 116/-. Separate cases under Section 307 I.P.C. (Crime
No.355/2009) and Section 3/25 Arms Act (Crime No.356/2009) were
also registered against the accused.
4
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
3.7) After investigation, charge sheets were filed and according
charges were framed against the accused under Sections 302, 404 I.P.C.
and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Section 307 I.P.C. and Section 3/25
Arms Act. The learned Trial Court framed charges under the aforesaid
Sections, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed false
implication due to enmity and property dispute, and claimed for Trial.
The Trial of all three connected cases was consolidated.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT
4. During Trial, in order to prove the charges against the
accused/appellant, the prosecution examined the following 14 witnesses:
P.W.-1
Nathulal Complainant, relative of the
deceased
P.W.-2
Smt. Malti Sister of Babita, daughter of
Nandrani
P.W.-3
Surendra Pal Independent Witness/Neighbour
P.W.-4
Dr. Laxmi Narayan
Formal expert witness/
Mishra
Fingerprint Expert
P.W.-5
Dr. Anil Kumar
Medical Officer
Srivastava
P.W.-6 HCP Lalji Head Moharrir and a formal
witness, proved G.D. entries and
registration of F.I.R.
P.W.-7 S.I. Ramesh Chandra Pal
Formal witness, Member of the
Investigation team
P.W.-8 Inspector Yogendra Singh Formal witness, Member of the
Investigation team
P.W.-9 S.S.I. Chandrabhan
Formal witness, proved inquest
Singh
proceedings (Exhibit-Ka-10 to
Ka-14) and seizure of the board
(Exhibit-Ka-2).
P.W.-10 S.I. Hausla Prasad
Formal witness, proved
preparation of inquest memos and
Awasthi
other documents.
5
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
P.W.-11 Const. Satti Deen Formal witness, proved G.D.
entries and registration of F.I.R.
P.W.-12 Piyush Ranjan Srivastava,
Formal witness, proved
investigation, spot maps (Exhibit-
C.O.
Ka-37, Exhibit-Ka-44), and
charge sheets.
P.W.-13 S.I. Satya Narayan Verma Formal witness, proved
investigation of Section 307 I.P.C.
and Arms Act cases, Maps
(Exhibit-Ka-42).
P.W.-14 B.B. Chaurasia, C.O. Formal witness, proved
investigation, spot maps (Exhibit-
Ka-37, Exhibit-Ka-44), and
charge sheets.
5. Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence, the prosecution has also
relied on the following documentary evidence exhaustively, to
substantiate its case: -
Written report/ Tehrir Exhibit-Ka-1
Fard/ small tin board for taking
Exhibit-Ka-2
possession
Fard /finger prints collected from the
Exhibit-Ka-3
scene of crime
Postmortem report of deceased
Exhibit-Ka-4
Kumari Gunjan
Postmortem report of deceased
Exhibit-Ka-5
Nandrani
Postmortem report of deceased Anshu Exhibit-Ka-6
Postmortem report of deceased
Exhibit-Ka-7
Mrs. Babita
Carbon copy of First Information
Report dated 24-06-2009, recorded on
Exhibit-Ka-8
the basis of written report/ Tahrir ,
General Diary (G.D.) Exhibit-Ka-9
Fard /recovery of country made pistol
Exhibit-Ka-10
12 bore
Panchayatnama of Smt. Nandrani Exhibit-Ka-11
Panchayatnama of Anshu Exhibit-Ka-12
6
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
Panchayatnama of Smt. Babita Exhibit-Ka-13
Panchayatnama of Kumari Gunjan Exhibit-Ka-14
Letter to the Inspector of Quarter
Exhibit-Ka-15, 21
Masters
Letter to the Chief Medical Officer,
Exhibit-Ka-16, 26, 31
Hardoi
Police Form No. 13 Exhibit-Ka-17, 22, 27, 32
Photo Lash Exhibit-Ka-18, 23, 28, 33
Sample Seal Exhibit-Ka-19, 24, 29, 34,
Letter written to the Chief Medical
Officer regarding postmortem of the
Exhibit-Ka-20
dead body of deceased Anshu
Letter written to the Inspector of
Records regarding the deceased Babita
Exhibit-Ka-25
Letter written to the Inspector of
Records regarding the post-mortem of
Exhibit-Ka-30
the deceased Gunjan
F.I.R. No. 355/09 under Section 307
Exhibit-Ka-35
I.P.C.
Carbon copy of the
General Diary/G.D.
Exhibit-Ka-36
Naksa-Nazri related to Case No.
Exhibit-Ka-37
353/2009
Charge sheet related to Case No.
Exhibit-Ka-38
353/2009
Naksa-Nazri related to Section 307
Exhibit-Ka-39
I.P.C.
Naksa-Nazri related to Section 3/25
Exhibit-Ka-40
Arms Act,
Charge sheet related to Section 307
Exhibit-Ka-41
I.P.C.
Prosecution sanction granted by
Exhibit-Ka-42
District Magistrate, Hardoi
Charge sheet related to Case No.
Exhibit-Ka-43
356/2009,
Naksa-Nazri related to Section 302
Exhibit-Ka-44
I.P.C.
Letter written to Director, Finger Print
Exhibit-Ka-45
Museum
7
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
6. Prosecution in order to prove its case before the learned Trial
Court has produced fourteen witnesses, wherein P.W.-1/Nathulal being
the Complainant, deposed that he was related to the family of the
deceased as his daughter was married into the family of Smt. Malti
(P.W.-2), the elder daughter of deceased Nandrani. Owing to such
relationship and also being a co-villager, he used to frequently visit the
house of Nandrani situated in Mohalla Nawabganj. He stated that
deceased Babita, younger daughter of Nandrani, after the death of her
husband Sanjay about 2½ to 3 years prior to the incident, had shifted to
the house of her mother Nandrani along with her children Gunjan and
Anshu and was working as an Anganwadi worker. P.W.–1 further
deposed that accused Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu had developed
intimacy with the deceased Babita and had been residing with her in the
said house for about one and a half years prior to the occurrence of the
fateful incident. On 24.06.2009 at about 8:00 A.M., when he visited the
house of Nandrani, he found the main door open. Upon entering the
house, he found Nandrani and Anshu lying dead on a cot in the courtyard
with cloth nooses tied around their necks. In the adjoining thatched
room, he found Babita and Gunjan lying dead on the floor with ligature
material around their necks. Being terrified, he rushed outside and raised
an alarm. P.W.–1 also deposed that neighbours, namely Surendra, Pappu
and Mohammad Salim, informed him that on the previous night at about
9:00 P.M. a serious altercation had taken place between the deceased
Babita and the accused. Subsequently, he got a written report/ Tehrir
prepared and lodged the same at Police Station Sandi. He proved the
written report/ Tehrir and also identified the tin board displayed at the
house bearing the name of the accused.
In his cross-examination, P.W.–1 admitted his relationship with the
family of the deceased. He, however, categorically deposed that the
accused had been residing in the house of deceased Babita and Nandrani
for about one and a half years before the incident. P.W.–1 also stated
regarding the quarrel between deceased Babita and the accused was
8
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
informed to him by the neighbours of deceased namely, Surendra, Pappu
and Mohammad Salim. He denied the suggestion that the First
Information Report had been dictated by the police. He further denied
that he had falsely implicated the accused due to any property dispute.
He specifically rejected the defence suggestion that he or Smt. Malti
(P.W.-2) had any role in the occurrence or had implicated the accused in
order to grab the property of the deceased family. Nothing substantial
was elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony regarding
the relationship of the accused with the deceased Nandrani or deceased
Babita, the discovery of the dead bodies, or the lodging of the prompt
F.I.R.
7. P.W.-2/Smt. Malti, daughter of deceased Nandrani and sister of
deceased Babita, deposed that after the death of Babita's husband Sanjay
in a railway accident, Babita shifted to her paternal home along with her
two children and started working as an Anganwadi worker. P.W.-2 stated
that accused Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu developed a relationship with
deceased Babita and had been living with her for approximately one and
a half years prior to the incident. P.W.-2 also deposed that the accused
was exerting pressure on Babita to solemnize a Court marriage with him.
Babita was unwilling for such marriage, which became a root of frequent
discord between them. P.W.-2 further stated that Babita often complained
that the accused was unemployed and dependent upon her earnings and
that she had to maintain him financially. Such circumstances created
suspicion and insecurity in the mind of the accused. P.W.-2 further
deposed that after receiving information regarding the incident, she
reached the house and found all four deceased persons lying dead. She
also noticed that certain jewellery articles usually worn by the deceased
were missing. She identified the recovered articles, including silver
anklets, toe rings, amulet, purse, cash and mobile phones, as belonging
to the deceased persons, which were recovered from a black bag on the
pointing of the accused/appellant.
9
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
During her cross-examination, P.W.-2 admitted that she was
unhappy with the relationship between deceased Babita and the accused.
She further stated that after the incident, P.W.-2 and her family had been
residing in the said house. P.W.-2 categorically denied the defence
suggestion that she, Nathulal or other family members had committed
the murders for securing possession of the property of Nandrani. She
reiterated that Babita herself had informed her regarding the intimate
physical relationship between her and the accused. She denied that the
accused had been falsely implicated. The cross-examination failed to
impeach her evidence regarding the relationship between the accused
and the deceased Babita, the motive arising from the proposed marriage,
or the identification of the recovered articles.
8. P.W.-3/Surendra Pal, an independent witness (neighbour),
residing in the vicinity of the house of deceased Nandrani, deposed that
accused Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu had been residing with the
deceased Babita in the said house for approximately one and a half years
prior to the occurrence of the incident. P.W.-3 deposed that on
23.06.2009 at about 9:00 P.M., while he was sitting outside his house, he
heard and witnessed a heated quarrel between the deceased Babita and
the accused near the entrance of the house. According to him, the
altercation was serious in nature. P.W.-3 further stated that he did not see
the accused leaving the house during the night after the said fight. On the
following morning, he came to know that Nandrani, Babita, Gunjan and
Anshu had been murdered.
During his cross-examination, P.W.-3 stated that he remained
present for a short duration and heard the exchange of words between
the deceased Babita and the accused before leaving the spot. He
consistently maintained that the quarrel had indeed taken place on the
night preceding the occurrence. P.W.-3 further reiterated that he had not
seen the accused leaving the house thereafter. No material contradiction
or improvement was brought out in his cross-examination. His testimony
10
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
remained consistent and provided an important link in the chain of
circumstances relating to motive and the "last seen" theory.
P.W.-3 being an independent witness, as well as neighbour, with
no demonstrated animus against the accused lends significant
corroboration to the prosecution case regarding the presence of the
accused in the house on the crucial night and the occurrence of a serious
quarrel immediately preceding the murders.
9. P.W.-4/Dr. Laxmi Narayan Mishra, the Fingerprint Expert, was
posted as ‘Senior Scientific Assistant’ in the Field Unit, Hardoi. He
deposed that upon receiving information regarding the incident, he
visited the place of occurrence on 24.06.2009 and conducted scientific
examination of the scene. He found a broken steel almirah, plastic
briefcase, utensils, plate, bowl and glass at the spot. Fingerprints were
taken from the steel cupboard, plastic briefcase, plate, bowl and glass
through scientific methods. P.W.-4 proved the fingerprint memo and the
report prepared by him during investigation. He identified the fingerprint
exhibits and stated that the same were handed over to the Investigating
Officer for further examination. P.W.–4 being a formal expert witness,
his testimony established the scientific examination of the crime scene.
Nothing substantial was elicited in his cross-examination to
challenge either his qualifications, the method adopted by him, or the
factum of lifting fingerprints from the scene of occurrence. The defence
could not demonstrate any procedural irregularity in the scientific
collection of fingerprints.
10. P.W.-5/Dr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, the Medical Officer,
conducted the post-mortem examinations of all four deceased persons,
namely Nandrani, Babita, Gunjan and Anshu, on 24.06.2009 and proved
the said post-mortem reports. P.W.–5 found ligature marks around the
necks of all four deceased . In the cases of Babita, Nandrani and Anshu,
fracture of hyoid bone and tracheal rings was noticed. Congestion of
internal organs was also found. In the case of Gunjan, injury to the right
11
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
eye was additionally noted. P.W.–5 categorically opined that all four
deaths were homicidal in nature and occurred due to asphyxia resulting
from ante-mortem strangulation by ligature material. According to him,
the deaths could have occurred during the intervening night of
23/24.06.2009.
During his cross-examination, the defence was unable to challenge
his medical findings. No suggestion was put indicating any possibility of
accidental or suicidal death. P.W.–5 remained firm that the deaths were
caused by ante-mortem strangulation .
P.W.–5 provides crucial medical corroboration to the prosecution
case and conclusively establishes homicidal death by strangulation.
11. P.W.-6/Head Constable Lalji, (Head Moharrir and a formal
witness) proved the registration of F.I.R. on the basis of the written
report/ tehrir lodged by P.W.–1 ( Exhibit-Ka-1) . He proved the chik F.I.R.
( Exhibit-Ka-8) and corresponding General Diary ( Exhibit-Ka-36) entry
prepared on 24.06.2009.
During his cross-examination, no material contradiction emerged.
The defence failed to establish any delay or manipulation in the
registration of the F.I.R.
12. P.W.-7/S.I. Ramesh Chandra Pal, was a member of the police
team constituted to apprehend the accused. P.W.–7 deposed that acting
on secret information, the police party reached Nandlal Shikshan
Sansthan Higher Secondary School, Sungwa, where the accused was
hiding. P.W.–7 further deposed that on noticing the police party, the
accused fired from a country-made 12-bore pistol with intent to kill
them. The police party took cover and succeeded in apprehending him
with some force. Upon personal search, one country-made pistol, one
empty cartridge stuck in the barrel and one live cartridge were
recovered. Thereafter, on disclosure made by the accused, a black bag
containing jewellery articles of the deceased, two mobile phones and a
12
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
purse containing cash was recovered from the school premises. The
recovery memos were also duly proved by the P.W.–7.
During his cross-examination, the defence suggested false arrest
and fabricated recovery to which P.W.–7 denied all such suggestions and
consistently maintained that the accused was arrested from the school
premises and that recoveries were made at his instance.
13. P.W.-8/Inspector Yogendra Singh, was the leader of the raiding
police party. P.W.–8 substantially corroborated the testimony of P.W.–7
regarding the receipt of information, arrest of the accused, firing by the
accused, recovery of the pistol and cartridges and recovery of stolen
property at the instance of the accused. P.W.–8 further stated that the
accused disclosed his involvement in the murders and thereafter, led the
police to the concealed articles.
Despite of his lengthy cross-examination, no material
contradiction was pointed out between his testimony and that of P.W.–7.
Suggestions regarding false implication and fabricated recovery were
categorically denied.
14. P.W.-9/S.S.I. Chandrabhan Singh, a formal witness, established
the condition of the bodies at the earliest stage of investigation and
conducted inquest proceedings of all the four deceased persons. P.W.–9
proved the inquest reports and also proved seizure of the tin board
displayed outside the house bearing the name of the accused. P.W.–9 also
described the condition of the dead bodies and the articles found on them
at the time of inquest.
During his cross-examination, no material contradiction was
elicited. P.W.–9 remained throughout consistent with respect to the
condition of the bodies and the preparation of inquest reports.
15. P.W.-10/S.I. Hausla Prasad Awasthi, a formal witness proved the
procedural compliance made during the investigation and assisted the
police team in the inquest proceedings and also proved the preparation of
various documents including, letters addressed to the Chief Medical
13
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
Officer, police forms, specimen seals and related papers. The witness
was not materially shaken during his cross-examination.
16. P.W.-11/Const. Satti Deen, formally proved the registration of
connected criminal cases being, Case Crime No.355/2009 under Section
307 I.P.C. and Case Crime No.356/2009 under Section 3/25 Arms Act on
the basis of recovery memos and reports submitted by the arresting
officers. No material discrepancy emerged during his cross-examination.
17. P.W.-12/Piyush Ranjan Srivastava, C.O., being one of the
Investigating Officers, proved substantial investigative steps culminating
in filing of charge-sheet. P.W.–12 deposed about the steps undertaken
during investigation, including recording of witness statements,
collection of post-mortem reports, preparation of Site plans and
examination of police witnesses. P.W.–12 also proved the Site plan and
Charge-sheet submitted against the accused under Sections 302 and 404
I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act.
During his cross-examination, no material irregularity in
investigation could be demonstrated by the opposite party. P.W.–12
strenuously denied suggestions of biased investigation.
18. P.W.-13/S.I. Satya Narayan Verma, investigated the offences
under Section 307 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 Arms Act. P.W.–13 also
deposed about recording statements of witnesses, preparing Site plans
relating to the encounter and recovery proceedings and obtaining
sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act. P.W.–13 proved the Site
plans, Sanction order and Charge-sheets filed in the connected cases.
During his cross-examination, P.W.–13 denied suggestions that the
encounter story was fabricated or that the accused had been falsely
implicated.
19. P.W.-14/B.B. Chaurasia, C.O., was the principal Investigating
Officer in the present case, whose testimony connects various pieces of
evidence collected during investigation and explains the sequence of
investigative steps resulting in submission of the charge-sheet. P.W.–14
14
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
during his examination-in-chief has deposed that after registration of the
F.I.R., he inspected the scene of occurrence, prepared the Site plan,
recorded statements of witnesses including, Nathulal and Surendra Pal,
and collected evidence during investigation. P.W.–14 proved the Site
map and various investigative documents. Upon completion of
investigation and finding sufficient evidence against the accused, he
submitted the Charge-sheet.
During his cross-examination, the defence attempted to suggest
that investigation was biased and conducted with a predetermined
intention to implicate the accused. P.W.–14 denied such allegations and
asserted that investigation was carried out fairly and on the basis of
material collected during investigation.
20. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement
of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the
accused, Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu, entered himself in the witness-
box as a Defence witness / D.W.-1 , wherein he deposed that he had been
falsely implicated in the present case. He stated that he never resided
permanently in the house of deceased Babita and was merely acquainted
with her. He denied having committed the murders of Nandrani, Babita,
Gunjan and Anshu and further denied the allegations regarding recovery
of jewellery articles and other belongings of the deceased from his
possession. D.W.-1 deposed that he had assisted Babita in securing
employment as an Anganwadi worker and, consequently, cordial
relations had developed between them. According to him, due to such
acquaintance, he occasionally visited Babita's residence. D.W.-1 further
asserted that the police had apprehended him from his native village
Naumalikpur and thereafter, fabricated a false story of arrest, recovery
and encounter in order to implicate him in the present case.
During his cross-examination, several significant admissions were
elicited from the accused. D.W.-1 admitted that he had developed
affection towards Babita and had become emotionally attached to her.
D.W.-1 further admitted that he had stayed at Babita's residence on
15
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
several occasions. Although in his examination-in-chief, D.W.-1
attempted to portray his visits as casual and seldom, but during his cross-
examination, he acknowledged that whenever he visited Sandi and it
became late in the evening, he used to stay at Deceased-1/Babita's house.
D.W.-1 admitted that such stays had occurred on more than one
occasion. D.W.-1 also admitted that apart from providing help in
facilitating Babita's appointment as an Anganwadi worker, he shared
physical relations with the deceased Babita. This admission substantially
corroborated the prosecution version that the relationship between the
accused and Babita was not merely casual but intimate in nature.
21. The Trial Court after considering and appreciating the evidence
available on record, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant
Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu vide judgment and order dated
02.09.2014, on all counts as mentioned herein below: -
In Session
Trial No.
632/2009
The accused was convicted under: -
Section 302 I.P.C. – Imprisonment for Life + fine
of Rs.20,000/- (in default, 6 months additional
Rigorous Imprisonment);
Section 404 I.P.C. – 2 years Rigorous
Imprisonment + fine of Rs.1,000/- (in default, 1-
month additional Rigorous Imprisonment);
Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act – Imprisonment for
Life + fine of Rs.20,000/- (in default, 6 months
additional Rigorous Imprisonment).
In Session
Trial No.
676/2009:
The accused was convicted under Section 307
I.P.C. – 8 years Rigorous Imprisonment + fine of
Rs.5,000/- (in default, 2 months Rigorous
Imprisonment)
In Session
Trial No.
677/2009
The accused was convicted under Section 3/25
Arms Act – 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment + fine
of Rs.1,000/- (in default, 1-month Rigorous
Imprisonment).
16
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
It was also directed that all the sentences were to run concurrently.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT
22. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and awarding of sentence,
the accused/appellant - Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu, has preferred the
instant Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 against the impugned common judgment and order
dated 02.09.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi as detailed herein above.
23. It is evident to note at this point that the First bail application
filed by the appellant was rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court,
vide a reasoned order dated 27.03.2015, passed in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 96058 of 2014. Subsequently, the Second bail
application came to be filed by the appellant vide dated 02.12.2024 in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 03 of 2024.
24 . However, while arguing the bail application, Shri Shashank
Shekhar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the
accused/appellant, has pressed that since the paper book is ready in the
present criminal appeal and he is willing to argue the appeal on merits,
as the accused/appellant is in jail since 24.06.2009, it was directed for
final hearing of the present criminal Appeal.
25. Accordingly, the Second bail application was dismissed as being
not pressed and the instant criminal appeal has been heard on its merits.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
26. That the hinge of the argument of the learned Counsel for the
accused/appellant is that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed
by the learned Trial Court is that the entire prosecution case rests solely
on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct ocular evidence
connecting the accused/appellant with the alleged murder of four
deceased persons. It has been submitted that the conviction recorded by
17
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
the Trial Court is based upon conjectures and surmises rather than
legally admissible evidence and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.
27. Learned Counsel for the accused/appellant has further contended
that the First Information Report itself, originates from pure suspicion
and lacks the requisite factual foundation to constitute a prima facie
case. P.W.-1 (Nathulal) admittedly did not witness the occurrence and
merely stated that after reaching the house he found the dead bodies of
the deceased persons. The allegation against the accused/appellant was
made only because the accused/appellant was known to be residing with
deceased-1/Babita and allegedlly certain neighbours informed the
Complainant that a quarrel had taken place between deceased Babita and
the accused/appellant on the preceding night of the incident. Thus,
according to learned Counsel, the F.I.R. discloses only suspicion and not
any direct incriminating circumstance against the accused/appellant.
28. Learned Counsel for the accused/appellant has also submitted that
the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances
as required by settled principles governing cases based upon
circumstantial evidence. Reliance has been placed upon some landmark
judgments rendered in the cases of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State
of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116; Hanumant v. State of
M.P., reported in (1952) 2 SCC 71; Ravishankar Tandon v. State of
Chhattisgarh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 526; and a judgment of
this Court rendered in the case of Vinod Chaudhari v. State of U.P.,
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine All 1420; to contend that every
circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be fully established
and all such circumstances must unerringly point towards the guilt of the
accused, while excluding every possible hypothesis consistent with
innocence. It was argued that the present case falls far short of the
aforesaid standard.
29. Learned Counsel for the accused/appellant has further contended
that no motive has been established by the prosecution in the present
case. It has been vehemently argued that the prosecution story regarding
18
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
alleged pressure by the accused/appellant upon deceased Babita for
marriage and the consequent quarrel is based solely upon the testimony
of interested witnesses, particularly P.W.-2 Malti. There is no
independent evidence to establish any such motive. It was submitted that
where a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive
assumes great significance and the prosecution having failed to establish
the same, the chain of circumstances remains incomplete. It has also
been submitted that the so-called “last seen” circumstance is inherently
weak and unreliable, in the present case. P.W.-3 Surendra Pal, merely
stated that he had heard a quarrel between the accused/appellant and the
deceased Babita at about 9:00 p.m. and thereafter, went inside his own
house. P.W.-3 did not witness any occurrence during the night. P.W.-3
also did not depose that the accused/appellant remained inside the house
throughout the night. Thus, according to learned Counsel, the testimony
of P.W.-3 is insufficient to establish exclusive presence of the
accused/appellant with the deceased immediately before the occurrence.
30. Learned Counsel for the accused/appellant has strenuously
submitted that four persons, including an elderly lady and two children,
were allegedly murdered by strangulation. The post-mortem reports
disclose ligature strangulation as the cause of death. It has been argued
that the nature and manner of occurrence of the incident itself suggest
participation of more than one assailant and render the prosecution story
that a single individual committed all four murders highly improbable.
No explanation has been offered by the prosecution, as to how a single
person could simultaneously overpower and murder four occupants of
the house without any sign of resistance or alarm by any of them.
31. Furthermore, the recovery of jewellery, mobile phones and other
articles allegedly belonging to the deceased has also been challenged.
Learned Counsel has submitted that the recovery proceedings are
doubtful and suffer from serious procedural irregularities. No
independent public witness was associated with the alleged recoveries.
Mandatory safeguards contemplated under Cr.P.C. were not complied
19
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
with. It has been further submitted that the alleged recoveries stand
contradicted by the inquest proceedings and therefore, cannot be treated
as reliable incriminating circumstances. It has also been contended that
the prosecution fabricated a false story of encounter in order to
strengthen an otherwise weak case. According to learned Counsel, the
accused/appellant was illegally apprehended and a fictitious version was
subsequently created regarding firing upon the police party. The entire
prosecution case under Section 307 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 Arms Act has
argued to be artificial and unsupported by any independent witness.
32. It has been further argued that all material witnesses of fact are
either related to the deceased or interested witnesses. P.W.-1 Nathulal, is
a close relative of the deceased family, whereas P.W.-2 Malti, is the sister
of deceased Babita and daughter of deceased Nandrani. Their
testimonies, according to the accused/appellant, required cautious
scrutiny. It has been also submitted that material contradictions and
inconsistencies exist in their evidence and the learned Trial Court failed
to appreciate such discrepancies.
33. Learned Counsel for the accused/appellant has also contended that
the defence version has not been properly considered. The
accused/appellant consistently maintained that he was falsely implicated
due to a dispute relating to the property of the deceased family. It has
been strenuously argued that after the incident, P.W.-2 Malti, and her
family occupied the property and therefore, possessed a strong motive to
implicate the accused/appellant. The possibility of involvement of other
interested persons was also not investigated by the police. Learned
Counsel for the accused/appellant has further submitted that the
investigation suffered from serious infirmities and was conducted with a
predetermined intention to implicate the accused/appellant. Material
lapses and procedural irregularities were ignored by the Trial Court. It
has been also argued that the statement of the accused/appellant under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not been properly recorded and all incriminating
circumstances were not fairly put to him.
20
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
34. Lastly, it has been argued that the prosecution has failed to
establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. At the highest, the
circumstances create suspicion against the accused/appellant; however,
suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. It has
been therefore prayed that the conviction and sentence recorded by the
learned Trial Court be set aside and the accused/appellant be acquitted of
all charges.
35. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has supported
the judgment of conviction and submitted that the learned Trial Court
has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has recorded
findings fully supported by law and evidence. Learned A.G.A. has
contended that the prosecution has succeeded in proving a complete and
unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence pointing solely towards the
guilt of the accused/appellant-Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu. The
evidence establishes that the accused/appellant was residing with
deceased Babita in a live-in relationship for about one and a half years
immediately preceding the occurrence of the incident. This fact stands
proved not only through P.W.-1 Nathulal, P.W.-2 Malti and P.W.-3
Surendra Pal, but also through admissions made by the appellant
himself, while deposing as D.W.-1.
36. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that the motive behind the
crime has been satisfactorily established. P.W.-2 Malti, specifically
deposed that the accused/appellant was pressurizing Babita to enter into
a Court marriage and that Babita was unwilling to do so. P.W.-2 has also
stated that Babita often complained about the accused/appellant's
unemployment and dependence upon her earnings. The resulting discord
created bitterness in the relationship and supplied a clear motive for the
crime. The accused/appellant himself admitted during his examination
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and as D.W.-1 that he intended to marry
Babita, thereby lending corroboration to the prosecution case regarding
motive.
21
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
37. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that the evidence of P.W.-3
Surendra Pal, an independent neighbour, having no animus against the
accused/appellant, assumes considerable significance. P.W.-3
categorically stated that on the night of 23.06.2009 at about 9:00 p.m. he
witnessed a serious quarrel between the accused/appellant and Babita.
He further stated that he did not see the accused/appellant leaving the
house thereafter. Thus, the accused/appellant was last seen in the
company of the deceased persons immediately prior to the occurrence. It
has been argued that the appellant's conduct after the incident constitutes
a strong incriminating circumstance. Although accused/appellant was
admittedly residing in the house of the deceased, however he went
missing when the dead bodies were discovered. No explanation
whatsoever has been furnished by him regarding the circumstances
under which four occupants of the house were murdered during the
night. The failure of the accused/appellant to offer any plausible
explanation attracts the principle embodied in Section 106 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
38. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that the medical evidence
completely supports the prosecution case. P.W.-5 Dr. Anil Kumar
Srivastava, conclusively proved that all four deaths were homicidal and
caused by ante-mortem ligature strangulation. The time of death
corresponds with the prosecution version that the murders occurred
during the intervening night of 23/24 June 2009. The medical evidence is
fully consistent with the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution.
It was next submitted that a highly incriminating circumstance is the
recovery of jewellery, mobile phones, purse and other articles belonging
to the deceased persons at the instance of the accused/appellant soon
after the occurrence. P.W.-2 Malti, identified all recovered articles as
belonging to the deceased. The recovery was duly proved by P.W.-7 and
P.W.-8 and remained unshaken during cross-examination. Such recovery
immediately after the occurrence provides strong corroboration to the
22
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
prosecution case and establishes the appellant's connection with the
crime.
39. It has also been submitted by learned A.G.A. that during Trial, the
prosecution also relied upon the conduct of the accused/appellant at the
time of arrest. P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 consistently deposed that when the
police party attempted to apprehend him, the accused/appellant opened
fire with a country-made pistol and thereafter was arrested with an
unlicensed firearm and cartridges. The evidence of these witnesses
remained consistent and no material contradiction could be elicited
despite extensive cross-examination. Learned A.G.A. argued that the
defence plea of false implication due to a property dispute is wholly
unsubstantiated. No documentary evidence was produced by the
accused/appellant to establish any property dispute. No independent
witness was examined in support of the defence theory. Mere
suggestions put during cross-examination cannot be treated as evidence.
40. It has been further submitted that the testimony of related
witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of relationship if
otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2
finds substantial corroboration from independent witness P.W.-3,
medical evidence, recoveries, documentary evidence and admissions
made by the appellant himself. Consequently, their testimony cannot be
rejected merely because of their relationship with the deceased. Learned
A.G.A. has also submitted that the defence evidence, rather than
demolishing the prosecution case, substantially strengthens the
prosecution case. As D.W.-1, the accused/appellant admitted his intimate
relationship with the deceased Babita, admitted staying at her residence,
admitted his desire to marry her and also admitted his close association
with the family. These admissions corroborate the prosecution version
regarding motive, opportunity and proximity.
41. It has been lastly argued that, in the present case every
circumstance relied upon by the prosecution has been proved beyond
reasonable doubt and all such circumstances collectively form a
23
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
complete chain leading only to the conclusion that the accused/appellant-
Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu, committed the murder of Babita,
Nandrani, Gunjan and Anshu. There is no reasonable hypothesis
consistent with innocence. The conviction recorded by the Trial Court is
therefore fully justified and calls for no interference in the present
criminal appeal.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
42. This Court has given its anxious thoughts to the facts and the
submissions advanced by both the parties at length and perused the
records.
43. The present case is relating to the gruesome murder of four people
in the dark of night. Allegation of committing the said murder is on the
person, who was last seen quarrelling with one of the deceased on the
preceding night and apparently had illicit relation with the said deceased.
Admittedly, since the murder was committed at night and the bodies of
the four deceased were found within the precincts of the house, wherein
these four people ordinarily resided, there is no ocular witness to the said
murder. Therefore, the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial
evidence. Before embarking on the arduous task of deciphering the
evidence brought on record, this Court find apposite to remind itself the
settled law propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for any
conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
44. The Apex Court in the well celebrated judgment of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC
116; held, relevant to the context :-
“152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court
we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature,
character and essential proof required in a criminal case
which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most
fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant
v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71: AIR 1952
SC 343: 1952 SCR 1091: 1953 Cri LJ 129]. This case has
24
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a
large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the
cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh
[(1969) 3 SCC 198: 1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and Ramgopal v.
State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC
656]. It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid
down in Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC
343: 1952 SCR 1091: 1953 Cri LJ 129] :
“It is well to remember that in cases where the
evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should in the first instance be fully
established, and all the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency and they should be
such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused.”
153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against
an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may
be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or
should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC
793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the
observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri)
p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused
must be and not merely may be guilty before a court
can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’
and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures
from sure conclusions.”
25
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to
say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute
the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence. ”
45. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment authoritatively
held that it was incumbent on the prosecution to fully establish the
circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn. The
transition of the Court before convicting an accused ought to be based on
the primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’
guilty. Apparently, there should be no room for any suspicion and the
evidence brought on record should be consistent only with the guilt of
the accused and there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities
the act must have been done by the accused.
46. In the light of these guiding principles, this Court proposes to
examine the present case.
47. As far as the homicidal death of the four deceased is concerned,
we find from the Inquest report of the deceased Nandrani, exhibited as
Exhibit-Ka-11, that her body was lying on a cot in the courtyard with the
neck tightly tied with a saree. The panchas after inspecting the physical
status of the dead body have unanimously opined that the deceased
26
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
Nandrani has been strangulated to death. Similar is the view of the
panchas for deceased Anshu, which is Exhibit-Ka-12 and whose body
was lying on the same cot in the courtyard along with the dead body of
his grandmother- Nandrani with his neck tied with a black dupatta and
the saree of deceased-Nandrani. Further, the panchas have also opined
that as far as deceased Babita is concerned, she has also been
strangulated to death and her dead body was found in the courtyard
beneath the chappar (thatched roof) with her neck tied to a saree and the
other end of the saree tied to the neck of her daughter, Kumari Gunjan,
whose body was lying beside her. The Inquest report of deceased Babita
is exhibited as Exhibit-Ka-13 and that of Kumari Gunjan as Exhibit-
Ka-14 .
48. Further, we find that subsequent to the Inquest report, the four
bodies were sent for Post Mortem to the District Hospital. The Post
mortem reports of all the deceased has been prepared and proved by
P.W.-5/Dr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, the Medical Officer, who
conducted the post-mortem examinations of all four deceased persons.
The post mortem report of deceased Nandrani has been exhibited as
Exhibit-Ka-5 , that of Babita as Exhibit-Ka-7 , Gunjan- Exhibit-Ka-4 and
Anshu as Exhibit-Ka-6 . The said medical officer has deposed that the
cause of death of all the four deceased is asphyxia as a result of Ante-
mortem strangulation. P.W.–5 found ligature marks around whole of
neck circumference below thyroid with underlying ecchymosis of all four
deceased . Generally, a ligature mark is a pressure abrasion or indentation
on the neck skin caused by the tight constriction of an object like a rope,
cord, wire, or clothing. The presence of a ligature mark below the
thyroid cartilage with underlying ecchymosis (deep tissue bruising) as
recorded in the post-mortem report is a classic forensic triad and furthers
the physical condition of the dead bodies as recorded in the Inquest
report. Moreover, in forensic pathology, these specific findings strongly
point toward a cause of death by ligature strangulation (homicide)
rather than hanging, which is also commensurate to the physical status of
27
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
the dead bodies, wherein they were found lying on the cot and on the
ground.
49. Moreover, in the cases of deceased Babita, Nandrani and Anshu,
fracture of hyoid bone and tracheal rings was noticed. This Court finds
that medical jurisprudence clearly mentions that fractures of the hyoid
bone and tracheal rings are indicators of significant force applied to the
neck region. In clinical and forensic contexts, these injuries are
associated with serious respiratory and circulatory complication. Thus,
suicide of any kind is ruled out altogether. The said witness has also
found Congestion of internal organs, which is a common finding during
post-mortem autopsies and indicates that blood pooled in organs like the
lungs, liver, spleen, or kidneys because it could not flow back to the
heart properly before death. This all indicates that an external force was
exerted for causing death. In the case of deceased - Gunjan, injury to the
right eye was additionally noted. According to P.W.-5 the deaths could
have occurred during the intervening night of 23/24.06.2009. During his
cross-examination, the defence was unable to challenge his medical
findings. No suggestion was put indicating any possibility of accidental
or suicidal death. P.W.–5 remained firm that the deaths were caused by
ante-mortem strangulation . In the considered view of this Court, P.W.–5
provides crucial medical corroboration to the prosecution case and
conclusively establishes homicidal death by strangulation of the four
deceased.
50. This Court does not find any serious challenge laid by the learned
Counsel for the Appellant to the cause of death being homicidal, except
that he has stressed on the proposition that the manner these deaths have
been caused of the four deceased, it cannot be a handiwork of a single
assailant. Although, we propose to deal with the said proposition later,
but the fact remains that there is not an iota of doubt that the death has
been caused by strangulation and it is homicidal.
28
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
51. That brings us immediately to the next pertinent question as to
whether the prosecution has been able to fully establish the
circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt of the Appellant is
to be drawn and as to whether the chain of evidence brought on record is
consistent only with the guilt of the Appellant and show that in all
human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.
52. Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellant
has laid various grounds to challenge the conviction order against the
appellant. We propose to deal with each of them in seriatim. The learned
Counsel has challenged the F.I.R. by submitting that there is no ocular
evidence connecting the Appellant with the alleged murder of four
deceased person. According to him, the complainant who lodged the
F.I.R. did not witness the occurrence and the entire fact stated by him is
on hearsay and thus, the learned Counsel has sought to conclude that the
F.I.R. is based on suspicion and there is no incriminating material stated
in the said F.I.R. against the Appellant. Before this Court deals with the
said contention of the Appellant, it should be well understood that an
F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence. If it cannot be the sole
reason to convict an accused, in the same logic it cannot be the sole
reason for acquittal of any accused. The law stands settled that F.I.R. is
primarily used to corroborate or contradict the person who filed the said
F.I.R . The acronym F.I.R. is First Information Report and the law does
not mandate that it should contain exhaustive information. F.I.R. merely
sets the criminal law into motion and does not anticipate minute details,
which are actually meant to be uncovered during investigation, which is
to take place subsequently after the F.I.R. comes into existence. F.I.R. is
merely a starting point and it does not matter whether a particular
accused is named or whether particular evidence is mentioned or not.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Naresh,
reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324; went on to hold that : -
“31 . The High Court has also fallen into error in giving
significance to a trivial issue, namely, that in respect of the
29
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
morning incident all the accused had not been named in the
complaint/NCR.
32. It is a settled legal proposition that an FIR is not an
encyclopaedia of the entire case. It may not and need not
contain all the details. Naming of the accused therein may
be important but not naming of the accused in FIR may not
be a ground to doubt the contents thereof in case the
statement of the witness is found to be trustworthy. The
court has to determine after examining the entire factual
scenario whether a person has participated in the crime or
has falsely been implicated. The informant fully acquainted
with the facts may lack necessary skill or ability to
reproduce details of the entire incident without anything
missing from this. Some people may miss even the most
important details in narration. Therefore, in case the
informant fails to name a particular accused in the FIR, this
ground alone cannot tilt the balance of the case in favour of
the accused. (Vide Rotash v. State of Rajasthan [(2006) 12
SCC 64 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 382] and Ranjit Singh v. State
of M.P. [(2011) 4 SCC 336 : JT (2010) 12 SC 167] ) ”
53. Further, it ought to be also well engraved in mind that the law
does not in any manner provide that an F.I.R. is required to be filed only
by an ocular witness or for that matter an F.I.R. can be filed only in those
cases which have direct witness. The proposition sought to be espoused
by the learned Counsel seems to be absolutely absurd and as such the
same has been noted merely to be rejected. Time and again the Courts
have held that F.I.R. cannot be expected to be an encyclopaedia and
requires every single detail to be mentioned. The concept of hearsay is
for evidence and not for an F.I.R. to be lodged for propelling a criminal
machinery for investigation. An F.I.R. can be lodged by any person, even
on the basis of hearsay evidence. There is no ground on which this Court
could subscribe to the opinion of the F.I.R. being suspicious as is being
contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
54. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is
that the manner of assault and deaths of the four deceased persons is
seriously doubted. According to him, the said incident cannot be
committed by a single person. He has highlighted the post mortem report
30
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
of the deceased, which shows that all the four deceased had been
strangulated to death as ligature mark has been found round the neck of
these deceased. This Court at the very outset, clarifies that it is one thing
to say that the Appellant could not have committed the crime in question
for various reasons and another thing to say that the crime itself could
not be committed by a single person i.e. impossibility of commission of
crime. As far as the Appellant could not have committed the crime in
question, this Court finds that there were other grounds agitated by the
learned Counsel, which shall be dealt with in the subsequent paragraphs.
However, presently the issue is the factum of crime could not have been
committed by a single person. Although, this Court does not wish to
enter into a debate as to whether the crime could be committed by a
single person or not, as essentially the Appeal and the trial has been
conducted on the premises as to whether the Appellant has committed
the crime or not rather than who has committed the crime?.
55. The evidence led in the present case is restricted to the culpability
of the Appellant and not to the culpability of anyone else. As regards this
particular contention raised by the Appellant is concerned, this Court
cannot reject the case of the prosecution simply because one person is
accused of multiple murders, keeping in view that the F.I.R. came to be
lodged against the Appellant and other unknown. Therefore, the first
view of this Court is that the inability of the investigating agency to find
and charge sheet other accused persons allegedly involved in the present
crime does not automatically gives any right or confirms acquittal of the
Appellant on this sole ground. Further, it is available from the facts of
the present case that the crime was committed at the dark of night, when
the deceased were all deep asleep. The vulnerability of the deceased is of
special significance because of their age and resultant infirmity. It has
come on record that the deceased Nandrani (aged 65 years), Babita (32
years), Kumari Gunjan (aged about 7 years) and Anshu (aged about 5
years) were found with clothes tied around their whole neck. It cannot be
ruled out these deceased persons because of their age and the rural
31
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
background could had been easily over powered as it has also come on
record that there was no resistance from any of these deceased. It is
common knowledge that elderly and young children lack the physical
strength to fight back effectively and it is natural for a determined adult
like the Appellant to strangulate one by one. The absence of struggle by
each of these deceased attributes to their physical vulnerability and fear
as the elderly and children is likely to freeze or become incapacitated by
shock during a violet assault, allowing a single assailant to execute the
crime without them fleeing. It has come in evidence that the Appellant
was very much present in the house and the only possible resistance
would be that of deceased- Babita, who was also an adult of 32 years,
but this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that if the presence of the
Appellant is proved in the same house as that of the elderly and the
children and the deaths happened at night, Section 106 of the Indian
Evidence Act immediately is invoked, wherein the Appellant will bear
the heavy burden of explaining how four vulnerable people were
strangulated under the same roof. This Court does not find any evidence
which has been led by the Appellant to come out from the shackles of
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, because of other compelling
circumstances of ‘motive’, ‘last seen theory’ proved against him which is
being dealt with hereinafter. This Court is clear in its mind that in case
the accused cannot give a plausible explanation, the appellate Court will
have to uphold the conviction as apparently the chain of circumstances
appears to be complete and pointing towards the only hypothesis of
culpability of the Appellant.
56. The next contention advanced by the learned Counsel on behalf of
the appellant is a kind of dual attack on the prosecution story, in as much
as according to the learned Counsel the prosecution failed to establish
any motive for the crime, on the part of the appellant. It has also been
argued that the so called ‘ last-seen” circumstances is inherently weak
and unreliable in the present case.
32
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
57. As far as the contention of the Appellant that since there was an
absence of motive, the chain of events could not be completed and as
such the appellant ought to have been given the benefit of doubt, the
argument appears to be attractive in the first blush, however on a deeper
scrutiny of evidence, this Court finds that the said argument to be devoid
of any merit. It is well settled that while motive may assume significance
in cases based on circumstantial evidence, its absence is not fatal where
the prosecution has led reliable and trustworthy testimony. Motive does
assume great importance, but to say that the absence of motive would
dislodge the entire prosecution story is giving this one factor an
importance which is not due. Motive operates in the realm of the
accused’s mind and is often difficult to establish and can seldom be
fathomed with any degree of accuracy. However, in the present case, we
find on reading of the evidence brought on record that a reasonable
motive has been appended by the prosecution for commission of the
crime of murder by the appellant, which cannot be ignored.
58. In the present case, we find that as far as motive is concerned, the
testimony of the fact witnesses P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 have
consistently stated that there was an ensuing physical relationship
between the appellant and the deceased- Babita. In fact, this Court finds
that the Appellant also entered the witness box as a defense witness to
depose and admit the fact of being in a physical relation with the
deceased-Babita and also visiting her house very often. The Appellant
has been ordinarily residing in the said house along with Babita can also
be well understood from the evidence that a tin name plate (Exhibit-
Ka-2) bearing the name of the Appellant as ‘General Secretary, Human
Right Social Animator Task Force’ was displayed in the front of the
house of Nandrani, wherein Babita was also residing along with her two
children. Further, we do not find any categorical statement that the
Appellant was not present in the fateful night of the incident in the said
house nor there is any statement to the effect that there was no
quarrel/fight on the preceding night of the incident. However, it has
33
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that motive could
not be proved, as all the witnesses have merely given a hearsay account
of the said love affair and in the absence of any motive, the appellant
cannot be assigned the culpability of the offence charged against him.
This Court is conscious of the fact that there cannot be direct evidence of
any motive and the same has to be gathered from the circumstances. It
has clearly come in evidence of P.W.-2 that the appellant had physical
relations with the deceased- Babita and was all set to have a Court-
marriage with her, but the deceased- Babita had been ignoring the said
offer for allegedly the Appellant had not been working and had been
living on the earnings of deceased- Babita. It has also come in the
evidence that the Appellant had been also physically beating and abusing
the deceased- Babita and for various reasons deceased- Babita was in
two minds to marry the Appellant or not. Apparently, these facts were
reasons for continuous fight between the Appellant and the deceased-
Babita. According to the deposition of P.W.-2, she was told by her
deceased sister- Babita that since the Appellant was being rebuked by
deceased- Babita for not working, physical abuse etc., the Appellant
started suspecting Babita of not continuing living along with the
appellant or planning to leave him altogether and marry someone else.
Thus, the prosecution was able to prove on record that the murder was
committed for a vengeance and out of fear that the deceased Babita may
leave the company of Appellant and marry someone else. Therefore, the
appellant had a motive to commit the said crime. Apparently it has been
also deposed by the Appellant that he wanted to marry the deceased-
Babita but it has not come in his evidence or explanation as to why the
said deceased - Babita ignored her said offer, although it seemed to be
attractive from her point of view as she being a widow and having two
children at of age 32 would require a company of man for spending her
rest of life in peace. However, we do not find any explanation from the
end of the Appellant. Therefore, a motive exists, which cannot be
altogether negated in the present facts and circumstances, however, we
34
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
are also clear in mind that this motive solely cannot be the edifice of
conviction. Be that as it may, we are also clear in our mind that inability
to prove motive would also not be always fatal to the prosecution case.
In this regard, this Court may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of G. Parshwanath vs. State of Karnataka,
reported in 2010 (8) SCC 593; in which, it has been held as follows:
“45. The argument that in absence of motive on the part of
the appellant to kill the deceased benefit of reasonable
doubt should be given, cannot be accepted. First of all
every suspicion is not a doubt. Only reasonable doubt
gives benefit to the accused and not the doubt of a
vacillating judge. Very often a motive is alleged to
indicate the high degree of probability that the offence
was committed by the person who was prompted by the
motive. In a case when the motive alleged against
accused is fully established, it provides foundational
material to connect the chain of circumstances. It afforts
a key on a pointer to scan the evidence in the case in
that perspective and as a satisfactory circumstance of
corroboration. However, in a case based on
circumstantial evidence where proved circumstances
complete the chain of evidence, it cannot be said that in
absence of motive, the other proved circumstances are of
no consequence. The absence of motive, however, puts
the court on its guard to scrutinize the circumstances
more carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjecture
do not take place of legal proof. There is no absolute
legal proposition of law that in the absence of any
motive an accused cannot be convicted under Section
302 I.P.C. Effect of absence of motive would depend on
the facts of each case. Therefore, this Court proposes to
examine the question of motive which prompted the
appellant to commit the crime in question. ”
(Emphasis Supplied)
59. Apparently, in the present case, a ‘motive’ has been sought to be
accorded to the said incident by unfolding the story by narrating that the
appellant had an illicit relations with the deceased-Babita and was all set
to have a Court-marriage with her, but the deceased-Babita had been
ignoring the said offer for allegedly the Appellant had not been working
and had been living on the earnings of deceased- Babita. Further, these
had been a reason for continuous fight between the Appellant and the
35
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
deceased-Babita. Evidence has come on record that even on the
preceding night of murder a fight had been ensued between the
Appellant and the deceased- Babita at about 9 PM in the last night,
which was witnessed by the neighbors namely, Surendra Pal (P.W.-3),
Pappu and Mohd. Salim.
60. There is another aspect of the matter, in as much as it is also
undisputed that the four bodies along with the body of deceased- Babita
was found in her house, where the Appellant was last seen along with
her at about 9 PM on the preceding night. The dead bodies were
discovered at 8 AM in the following morning. Apparently, it has come in
evidence that the Appellant was present in the said house, on the fateful
night of the incident as nothing contrary to that effect has come on
record. Therefore, the conduct of the appellant, both prior to and after
the incident, assumes significance in view of Section 8 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, which inter-alia states as herein under:
“Section 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent
conduct.
Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or
preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of
any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding,
in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact
in issue or relevant thereto, and 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 thereto.
Explanation 1. - The word "conduct" in this section does not
include statements; unless those statements accompany and
explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to
affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this
Act.
Explanation 2. - When the conduct of any person is relevant, any
statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which
affects such conduct, is relevant. ”
36
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
61. Admittedly, the Appellant was not found in the said house in the
morning and the house was open from outside. The Appellant was
immediately arrested on the same day from a different place, while he
was in a hideout and was trying to flee away. The Appellant has been
arrested after a gun fight and an unlicensed gun along with two bullets,
one stuck in the barrel was recovered from him after apprehending by a
team of police. The Appellant pursuant to his disclosure statement led to
recovery of a black bag, containing silver ornaments of the deceased and
two mobile phones. It is rather strange that when four dead bodies were
found and admittedly, the Appellant was into a physical relationship with
the deceased-Babita and as per his own version wanted to marry her
also, then as to why he did not approach the Police immediately and
rather would have been the complainant, in case he was not involved in
the present crime. This Court further notes that the non-participation of
the appellant in the ‘ panchayatnama ’ also, shows the conduct of the
appellant post-crime is under suspicion and a relevant fact under Section
8 of The Indian Evidence Act.
62. The next ground being agitated by the learned Counsel is that the
‘last seen theory’ being a very weak piece of evidence and as such
cannot be the sole ground of conviction. No doubt, there are consistent
line of judgment, starting from Arjun Marik Vs State of Bihar, reported
in 1994 Supp(2) SCC 372; Krishnan alias Ramaswamy and Ors. Vs
State of Tamil Nadu , reported in (2014) 4 SCC 715; and Kanahiya Lal
Vs State of Rajasthan , reported in (2014) 4 SCC 715; which have
consistently held that evidence of ‘last seen together’ is a weak evidence
and conviction only on the basis of ‘last seen together’ without there
being any other corroborative evidence against the accused will not be
sufficient to convict the accused for an offence under Sections 302 I.P.C.
63. However, in the present case, we find other corroborative evidence
and the conviction is not merely on ‘last seen’ or ‘motive’ independently,
37
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
but on an appreciation and consideration of each of the piece of evidence
brought on record. As far as the concept of ‘last seen theory’ is
concerned, this Court tries to decode the proposition of the learned
Counsel for the Appellant, wherein he submits that ‘last seen theory’ is
weak evidence for conviction. In other words, the learned Counsel is of
the view that a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of
last seen together. There is absolutely no quarrel on the said proposition
of law. However, it is also equally settled that last seen theory comes
into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the
accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is
found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the
accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. (please
see Rambraksh Vs State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2016) 12 SCC
2510). Thus, the theory of last seen would gain prominence in a given
fact and circumstances and would largely depend on the time-gap
between the event of deceased being alive in the company of the accused
and the event of death of the deceased, which would obviously form an
additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
64. So far as the facts in the present case is concerned, it was duly
proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The prosecution
story starts with the discovery of four dead bodies of namely, Nandrani
(aged 65 years), Babita (32 years), Kumari Gunjan (aged about 7 years)
and Anshu (aged about 5 years) by P.W.-1, when he visited the house of
the deceased person on 24.06.2009, at about 8:00 AM located in Mohalla
Nawabganj, Police Station Sandi, District Hardoi. It has been proved by
evidence that the Appellant was having a physical relationship with one
of the deceased namely, Babita since for about 1.5 years prior to the date
of incident. It has also come in evidence of P.W.-3, a neighbour of the
deceased and an independent witness that there was a quarrel between
the Appellant and the deceased- Babita on the preceding night of murder.
He has also deposed that he heard the said quarrel for some time, which
38
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
was happening on the chabutra of the house of the deceased person.
There is specific time provided of 9 PM in the preceding night, when a
quarrel was heard by the neighbours namely Surendra, Pappu and
Mohammad Salim, who also rushed to the crime-site on the discovery of
four dead bodies, including that of deceased- Babita, with whom they
had witnessed fight with the Appellant last night. It has also come in
evidence of P.W.-3 that after the said quarrel at 9 PM in the preceding
night of murder, he did not see the Appellant going away from the house
of the deceased- Babita, after the said fight. It has also come in evidence
of P.W.-1 that the dead body of the deceased- Babita was found at 8 AM
in the morning on the very next day of quarrel in the night. Apparently,
the time of murder is between 9 PM in the night and 8 AM in the
morning, which appears to be very proximate, keeping in view the rural
background of the present case, wherein ordinarily there is no night life
and generally villagers go early to sleep in the night. It is also true that
people come to visit any person in village mostly during the day time
only or may be in the night, but certainly not after 9 PM. Therefore,
there is remote or rather no chance of any third-party intervention during
the contiguous time of 9 PM in the night to 8 AM in the next morning,
which would interrupt the continuous togetherness between the
Appellant and the deceased- Babita. Further, we find that there is no
denial on the part of the Appellant that he was not in the house of the
deceased between 9 PM to 8 AM in the next morning, nor there is any
evidence on record, which would show that some other person could had
come in the rural village for committing murder of the four deceased
without any motive of looting etc. This Court finds that a direct question
was put to the Appellant under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, which is being quoted herein below, which goes to the root of the
controversy:
“Question 14 (Reference No. (Aakhya Sankhya-3): In the
testimony of Surendra Pal, it is stated that on the night prior to
the alleged incident, at approximately 9:00 PM, he was sitting
at his doorway and observed an altercation taking place
39
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
outside the house between you and Babita; subsequently, the
witness went inside his house and did not see you leaving the
house during the night. In the morning, he learned that
Nandrani, Babita, and Babita's two children had been
murdered. What do you have to say regarding this?
Answer: The statement about the altercation is incorrect. The
rest is correct.”
(Translated by this Court)
65. The answer to the specific question signifies the presence of the
Appellant in the house of the deceased person on the said fateful night.
Further, it is clear from the evidence brought on record that the appellant
was seen and heard fighting with the deceased on the preceding night at
9 PM and the very next day early morning at 8 AM, the dead body of the
deceased was found lying in her own house, where she was last seen
together quarrelling along with the appellant. The threshold of
explanation and responsibility of a person, who is having physical
relationship with the deceased and is also proved to living along with her
in the same house is on a higher pedestal than a normal person. Further,
the time gap between the period when the deceased was ‘last seen
together’ with the appellant and the recovery of the corpse of the
deceased being quite proximate, the non-explanation of the appellant
with regard to the circumstance under which and when the appellant had
departed from the company of the deceased is a very crucial
circumstance proved against him.
66. It may be noted that once the theory of ‘last seen together’ was
established by the prosecution, the appellant was expected to offer some
explanation as to when and under what circumstances he had parted the
company of the deceased. It is true that the burden to prove the guilt of
the accused is always on the prosecution, however in view of Section
106 of the Indian Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge
of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Of course,
Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve the prosecution of its
40
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
duty to prove the guilt of the accused, nonetheless it is also equally
settled legal position, that if the accused does not throw any light upon
the facts which are proved to be within his special knowledge, in view of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such failure on the part of the accused
may be used against the accused, as it may provide an additional link in
the chain of circumstances required to be proved against him. In the
present case, which is based on circumstantial evidence, furnishing or
non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a very crucial
fact, when the theory of “last seen together” as propounded by the
prosecution was proved against him.
67. Ergo, this Court finds that, in view of above, apparently, a
foundational fact was built successfully by the prosecution and thus, a
duty was cast upon the appellant to show and explain the evidence which
has been brought against him. As aforesaid, the entire evidence was put-
across the statements of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and
when it was specifically asked as to why this case has been filed against
him, he simply replied that it was a false case due to vengeance. This
Court finds that although a defence story had been narrated by the
appellant pointing towards usurping property by P.W.-2 (Malti), the elder
daughter of deceased-Nandrani and real sister of deceased- Babita, with
the help of her community, but no evidence has been led by him to either
name or bring any iota of evidence in that regard, although opportunity
of defence was granted to him by the learned Trial Court. The appellant
has merely denied or feigned ignorance to which necessary inference can
be drawn against him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Gopal v.
State of M.P., reported in (2023) 5 SCC 534; after considering the
judgment of the Apex Court in Rajendra Vs State of NCT of Delhi,
reported in (2019) 10 SCC 623; and Satpal vs State of Haryana,
reported in (2018) 6 SCC 610; has held as follows:
“9. In view of the afore-stated legal position, it is discernible that
though the last seen theory as propounded by the prosecution in a
case based on circumstantial evidence may be a weak kind of
evidence by itself to base conviction solely on such theory, when
41
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
the said theory is proved coupled with other circumstances such
as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and
the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time,
the accused does owe an explanation under Section 106 of the
Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death
might have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation or
furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established
and some other corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of
weapon etc. forming a chain of circumstances is established, the
conviction could be based on such evidence .”
68. The next limb of argument of the learned Counsel for the
Appellant is that recovery of jewellery, mobile phones and other articles
allegedly belonging to the deceased from the Appellant. Learned
Counsel has submitted that the recovery proceedings are doubtful and
suffer from serious procedural irregularities. No independent public
witness was associated with the alleged recoveries. Mandatory
safeguards contemplated under Cr.P.C. were not complied with. It has
been further submitted that the alleged recoveries stand contradicted by
the inquest proceedings and therefore, cannot be treated as reliable
incriminating circumstances.
69. As far as the recovery of Jewellery, mobile phones and other
articles from the Appellant is concerned, this Court finds that P.W.-2
(Malti), the real sister of the deceased- Babita has identified the
jewellery, Mobile phones and other Articles in her deposition. This Court
had carefully examined the Inquest report of the four deceased as well as
the evidence of P.W.-9 and P.W.-10 and does not find any marked
inconsistencies between the recovery made and the Inquest report as has
been sought to be agitated by the Appellant. As far as non-associating of
independent public witnesses for recoveries is concerned this Court is of
the view that this is not such an impelling ground to throw the case of
the prosecution. It is clear that besides the complainant, P.W.-1 and other
fact witness, P.W.-2, the prosecution has also examined one independent
witnesses of last seen theory i.e. P.W.-3, the prosecution has also
presented P.W.-7 and P.W.-8, who were witness to the said recoveries.
42
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
No doubt P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 are police officers, however, the fact
remains that they have entered the witness box and testified of the
recoveries made from Appellant and were available for cross-
examination. We do not find any noticeable contradiction in their
deposition nor the Appellant was able to elicit anything from them
during their cross-examination. Not only this it is a matter of common
experience that the public persons are not interested in deposing in
Courts in cases in which they do not have any personal interest. There
are cases where even the victim of the offence and the persons who are
related to that case also shy away from coming to the Courts. As far as
the defence that no public person was made a witness is concerned, the
answer lies in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1988 Supp SCC 241: AIR
1988 SC 696; where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to
observe:
“ It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to
produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at
the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But
the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that
ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are
generally insensible when a crime is committed even in their
presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilant.
They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable.
They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals
or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of
apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate but it is there,
everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot
ignore this handicap with which the investigation agency has to
discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the
prosecution case for want of independent witnesses must consider
the broad spectrum or the prosecution version and search for the
nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by
the accused. ”
70. It has been next submitted that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 were related to
the deceased in as much as P.W.-2 (Malti) is the real sister of the
deceased- Babita and daughter of deceased-Nandrani. Further P.W.-1, the
informant is also related to the deceased-Nandarani as he is not only a
neighbour but also her relative. Thus, according to the learned Counsel,
43
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
both P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are interested witnesses and as such their
testimony must be examined with certain circumspection. No doubt, the
informant/P.W.-1 is a relative of the deceased person, however, it must
also be understood that he is also a neighbour and a co-villager of the
deceased person. Further, it has also come on record that as being a co-
villager and also a relative, the informant used to often visit the deceased
-Nandrani. The presence or the visit of the said witness on the fateful
morning of on 24.06.2009, at about 8:00 AM at the house of deceased
person cannot be doubted and appears to be normal and usual. The
contention that P.W.-1 is an “interested witness” is misconceived.
Further, there is a marked difference between ‘interested witness’ and
‘related witness’, as a related witness is not necessarily an interested
witness. The law on this aspect is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Md. Rojali Ali v. The State of Assam reported in (2019) 19 SCC 567 :
AIR 2019 SC 1128; wherein it was held that :-
“13. As regards the contention that all the
eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is
by now well-settled that a related witness cannot be
said to be an “interested” witness merely by virtue
of being a relative of the victim. This Court has
elucidated the difference between “interested” and
“related” witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating
that a witness may be called interested only when he
or she derives some benefit from the result of a
litigation, which in the context of a criminal case
would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect
interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior
enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to
falsely implicate the accused (for instance, see State
of Rajasthan v. Kalki [State of Rajasthan v. Kalki,
(1981) 2 SCC 752 : 1981 SCC (Cri)
593] ; Amit v. State of U.P. [Amit v. State of U.P.,
(2012) 4 SCC 107 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 590] ;
and Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat
Reddy [Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy,
(2013) 15 SCC 298 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 182] ).
Recently, this difference was reiterated
in Ganapathiv. State of T.N. [Ganapathi v. State of
T.N., (2018) 5 SCC 549 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 793] ,
in the following terms, by referring to the three-
44
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
Judge Bench decision in State of
Rajasthan v. Kalki [State of Rajasthan v. Kalki,
(1981) 2 SCC 752 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 593] :
(Ganapathi case [Ganapathi v. State of T.N., (2018)
5 SCC 549 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 793] , SCC p. 555,
para 14)
“ 14. “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 eyewitness in
the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be
“interested”. ”
71. Further, i t is true that while considering the evidence of a close
relative, the Court has to be cautious with such evidence but the entire
evidence cannot be rejected only on the ground that he is close relative.
The Supreme Court in the case of Masalti v. State of U.P., reported in
1964 SCC OnLine SC 30 : AIR 1965 SC 202; has held as under :-
"14. ……But it would, we think, be unreasonable to
contend that evidence given by witnesses should be
discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of
partisan or interested witnesses ... The mechanical
rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it
is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice.
No hard - and - fast rule can be laid down as to how
much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial
approach has to be cautious in dealing with such
evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be
rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as
correct. "
72. The learned Counsel for the defense has also argued that P.W.-3
cannot be construed to be an independent witness as he is a neighbour of
the deceased person. Admittedly, the incident in the present case,
rd th
occurred in the dark of night on the intervening night of 23 and 24 of
June, 2009. The place of the incident is a rural village. His house is
adjoining the house of the deceased person and therefore his hearing of
45
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
the quarrel between the deceased- Babita and the Appellant on the
preceding night appears to be natural and reliable. He has also
specifically deposed that he heard the Appellant quarrelling on the
preceding night of the incident and also did not see the Appellant going
away from the house of the deceased. The presence of the neighbour
P.W.-3 at the scene of the incident is natural and reliable. No animosity
has been brought on record, so as to discredit the said witness. There is
no evidence of prior enmity or motive for false implication. Indeed, one
of the earliest statements with respect to ‘interested witnesses’ in
criminal cases was made by the Supreme Court in the case of Dalip
Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1953) 2 SCC 36 : 1954 SCR 145;
wh erein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed :-
"24 . A witness is normally to be considered independent
unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to
be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has
cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to
implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would
be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate
an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high
and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a
tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a
witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but
foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the
mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is
often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not
attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must
be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only
made to combat what is so often put forward in cases
before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such
general rule. Each case must be limited to and be
governed by its own facts. "
Thus, this Court does not find any force in the submission of the learned
Counsel for the defense and as such the same is rejected.
73. It has been highlighted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that
there are inconsistencies in the deposition of the witness and the entire case
has been built on suspicion. As far as the inconsistency is concerned, the
46
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
Appellant failed to point out any real consistencies in the statement of any
of the witnesses. The suspicion being raised are merely surmises and a last
ditch effort on the part of the learned Counsel to defend the Appellant,
which appears to be merely illusory. In any case, even giving the
concession that there are some remote inconsistencies, we need to
understand that these inconsistency does not go to the root of the merits of
the case and are normal errors of memory due to lapse of time or mental
disposition of a witness. Such minor variations are natural and have been
held to be insignificant by this Court in Jitendra Pal Vs State of Uttar
Pradesh, Neutral Citation No. :2025:AHC-LKO:79401-DB; reported in
2025 SCC OnLine All 8144; wherein this Court had an occasion to deal
with minor discrepancy in the statement of witnesses recorded in the Court
after a periodic lapse of time of occurrence of incident. This Court has held
in paragraph no.17 as follows :-
“17. No doubt, discrepancies or inconsistencies in
prosecution evidence is a short fall from which no
criminal case is free. However, this court cannot be
oblivious to the fact that while considering the
deposition of a witness, this Court has to take into
consideration the process in which the facts are
perceived and testified by a witness. Time and again, it
has been held in a catena of judgments that when an
incident occurs, a witness perceives facts according to
his intelligence and experience in life and subsequently
when he or she is called upon to recollect those facts,
after a long gap of time, his or her memory may help or
deter him/her in recollection of those facts and he/she
may flounder on the precise time, place and sequence of
events. This human process brings discrepancy in the
deposition of a witness, which may be termed as normal.
The testimony of PW-4 as far as the timing relating to
having seen the deceased and the appellant together on
the fateful day at 6 PM in the evening is an outcome of
such a discrepancy. However, when this discrepancy is
weighed and marshalled along with other evidence,
which has come on record, it can be safely deduced that
both the deceased and the appellant were last seen
together on the said fateful day. Further, it cannot be
discounted that this kind of discrepancies in time,
especially in a village, may occur on account of errors
of observation of facts, normal errors of memory due to
47
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
lapse of time or mental disposition of a witness. These
discrepancies are those which are normal and expected
of a normal person and cannot be termed as any
material discrepancies, which may affect the substratum
of the story itself. When the discrepancies, highlighted
by the learned Counsel for the appellant are being
considered, whether it is relating to the time when PW-4
last saw both the deceased and the appellant together on
a motor-cycle or the time-line given by these witness,
this court is of the opinion that these are normal and not
material discrepancies. Thus, it is concluded that the
inconsistencies in the prosecution case, as far as the
presence of the appellant during the course of day on the
date of incident on 09.03.2015 is immaterial and do not
have any impact on the facts, deposed by the witnesses.
Thus, the presence of the appellant at Sheetal Kheda on
09.03.2015 stands proved by a co-joint reading of the
evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 and even the last
seen together evidence of PW-4 could not be impeached
by the defense, although the said witness was subjected
to intense cross-examination. ”
(Emphasis Supplied)
74. An important circumstance which emerged from the record was
that in answer to Question No. 30 recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
the accused Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu, admitted that he intended to
marry Babita. This statement assumes significance when viewed in
conjunction with the prosecution evidence suggesting that disputes had
arisen between the accused and Babita regarding marriage and their
future relationship. The assertion was made by the accused/D.W.-1 that
he was falsely implicated due to enmity and that all recoveries shown by
the prosecution were fabricated. However, he failed to disclose any
specific ‘motive’ on the part of the informant, the relatives of the
deceased or the police authorities for falsely implicating him in a case
involving the brutal murder of four persons. No independent defence
evidence was adduced to substantiate the plea of false implication.
D.W.-1 also failed to furnish any explanation regarding the
circumstances in which the deceased persons, with whom he admittedly
maintained close relations, were found murdered during the night
48
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
immediately following the quarrel, as deposed to by P.W.-3 Surendra
Pal. Nor could he explain his absence from the house thereafter or
presence anywhere else or provide any plausible account inconsistent
with the prosecution case.
75. Keeping in view the totality of the evidence brought on records,
this Court is of the opinion that it was duly proved that the death of the
four deceased was homicidal. It has also been proved that the deceased-
Babita was last seen together with the appellant, quarreling at 9 PM on
the preceding night of her death. The dead body of deceased- Babita, her
mother and two minor children were found in the very next morning at 8
AM. There is corroborative evidence to show the presence of the
Appellant in the house of the deceased, wherein the dead bodies were
found. Further, the time gap between the period when the deceased was
last seen together with the appellant and the recovery of the corpse of the
deceased being quite proximate, the non-explanation of the appellant
with regard to the circumstance under which and when the appellant had
departed from the company of the deceased is a very crucial
circumstance proved against him. Having regard to the oral evidence of
the witnesses P.W.-2, the motive for such a crime had also surfaced,
which also finds corroboration from the own admission of the Appellant
who produced himself as D.W.-1 during the Trial. The corroborative
evidence with regard to the conduct of the Appellant before and after the
incident, his arrest along with arms and his disclosure statement leading
to recovery of articles of ornaments, mobiles etc. in the black bag and
the Inquest report showing the status of the body, also substantiated the
case of prosecution. Hence, it is proved in the present case that the link
and the circumstances are so interconnected that they lead to the only
hypothesis of culpability of the Appellant.
76. We hold that the circumstantial evidence brought on record,
adheres to the five golden principles, as enunciated by the Hon’ble
49
CRLA No. - 1306 of 2014
Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda (Supra) and
there exists no material illegality, which has been committed by the
learned Trial Court in appreciating the evidence against the appellant.
The grounds raised by the Appellant are without any basis and does not
have any factual or legal flavour to be considered in any manner.
77. Thus, this Court is of considered view that the prosecution has
been successful in establishing the guilt of the accused/appellant beyond
the pale of doubt and that there exists a ring of truth in the prosecution
story, therefore, we uphold the conviction of the appellant for the offence
punishable under Sections 302, 307, 404, of I.P.C and Section 3(2)(5) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. Keeping in view the gravity of the offences committed,
wherein four innocent and gullible persons have been murdered, we do
not find this to be a fit case to reduce the sentence of the Appellant.
78. For all the reasons as stated herein above, we find no merits in the
present Appeal and as such the same is accordingly dismissed .
79. There shall be no order as to cost(s).
80. The Registry is directed to send the Lower Court record along
with the certified copy of this judgment to the learned Trial Court,
without any delay, preferably within two weeks from today.
(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)
July 27, 2026
Anuj Singh
Digitally signed by :-
ANUJ PRATAP SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench