Allahabad High Court
Chidu And Others vs State Of U.P. on 20 April, 2026
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 237 of 1988
Chhidu And Others .....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant (s)
:
K.K. Dixit, Kamlesh Kumar Gupta,
Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Govt. Advocate
Court No. -10
Reserved on 16.03.2026
Delivered on 20.04.2026
A.F.R.
HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
HON’BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.
(Per : Rajnish Kumar, J.)
(1) The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here-in-after referred to as Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the accused/convicts/appellants, Chhidu, Rohan, Smt. Sukhdevi, Dayaram, Kallu alias Ram Kishore and Raghubar, assailing the judgment and order dated 13.04.1988 passed by VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sitapur, in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 1985 ; State Versus Chhidu and others, emanating from Case Crime No. 200 of 1984, under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (here-in-after referred to as I.P.C.), Police Station Sandana, district Sitapur, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment and under Section 201 I.P.C. for seven years rigorous imprisonment, whereas appellant No.4, Daya Ram was acquitted under Section 148 and 364 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and rest of the appellants have been acquitted under Sections 147 and 364 read with Section 149 I.P.C.
(2) The prosecution case, in short, is that complainant Vijay Kumar, had submitted a written complaint (Ext. Ka.1) at police station Sandana, district Sitapur on 17.08.1984 alleging therein that his brother Ram Gopal seemed to having a secret illicit relationship with the wife of Chhidu Chamar of his village, because of which, Chhidu Chamar had beaten his wife. On 14.08.1984, at about 06:00 in the evening, wife of Chhidu took away his brother Ram Gopal to her house and Hajju son of Madhaee, Rambilash son of Badri and Ramkumar son of Amrit Lal etc. of his village saw them going towards the house of Chhidu. Since then, his brother has been missing and was not found anywhere among his relatives etc. In such circumstances, it appears that Chhidu Chamar and Rohan son of Deo and wife of Chhidu have made his brother disappear with the intention of killing him. It is possible that they have killed. Report may be written and necessary action may be taken.
(3) On the basis of the aforesaid written report, F.I.R., bearing Case Crime No. 200 of 1984, under Section 364 I.P.C. was registered at police station Sandana, district Sitapur on 17.08.1984 at 12:30 p.m.
(4) The investigation was entrusted to S.I. Radhey Shyam. He along with the police personnel reached to the place of incident and recorded the statements of uncle of complainant Ram Prasad, mother of complainant Kaushaliya, witness of F.I.R. Hajju, and witnesses Ram Khelawan and Ram Kumar. He, thereafter, prepared the site plan on the pointing out of complainant. On 18.08.1984, at 12:30 in the night, he apprehended accused Dayaram from his house and on his pointing out, police party along with witnesses proceeded further with accused Dayaram leading from the front. Upon reaching the house of Chhidu, accused Dayaram knocked at his door and called out Chhidu. However, on seeing the police, accused Chhidu fled by jumping over the back wall. Thereafter, Dayaram himself opened the door with his own hand and took the police party to eastern room where the dead body of Ram Gopal had been concealed. He recovered the dead body of Ram Gopal in the presence of witnesses Janki Prasad, Lallan and Jayram, who identified the dead body. Thereafter, he prepared recovery memo of the dead body of the deceased Ram Gopal and site plan. He prepared the Panchayatnama of the dead body of deceased Ram Gopal at 09:00 in the morning and the site plan of recovery of dead body at 09:30 in the morning. He also prepared challan lash, sample seal, photo lash, sample seal and letter to C.M.O. He, thereafter, sent the dead body of the deceased Ram Gopal for post-mortem along with Constable Bachu Lal at 09:30 in the morning. On 19.08.1984, at 06:00 in the morning, he arrested accused Chhidu, Sukhdei, Kallu and Raghubar.
(5) The post-mortam of the dead body of the deceased Ram Gopal was conducted by Dr. S.K. Srivastava, District Hospital, Sitapur on 19.08.1984 at 04:00 P.M. He found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of deceased Ram Gopal :-
1. Incised wound 16 cm x 10 cm x bone cut 7th cervical vertebras (sic) cut underneath trachea oesophagus as well as both carotid vessels and muscles are cut.
2. Incised wound 11 cm x 3 cm x bone cut head of Rt. humerus bone is cut on the tip of Rt. sholuder.
On external examination, Dr. S.K. Srivastava found that the deceased was of average built; rigor mortis passed from all extremities; mouth and eyes were closed; sutures of skull bones are loosed and brain matter is liquefied.
As per the opinion of Dr. S.K. Srivastava, cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries.
(6) On 22.08.1984, accused Rohan surrendered in Court. The Investigating Officer, after completing investigation, filed the charge sheet under Sections 364, 302, 201, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C. on 17.10.1984 against the accused persons.
(7) Learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Sitapur took cognizance on the aforesaid charge-sheet and committed the case to the Court of Session by means of order dated 28.01.1985, where the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 66 of 1985 : State Vs. Chiddu and others. The learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur, by means of the order dated 28.04.1987, framed charges against accused persons, Chhidu, Rohan, Sukhdei, Dayaram, Kallu alias Ram Kishore and Raghubar. Accused persons denied their charges and claimed to be tried.
(8) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, which are as under :-
P.W.1-Vijay Kumar
Complainant/brother of deceased Ram Gopal
P.W.2-Hajju
Neighbour of accused Chhidu and witness of last seen
P.W.3-Manna Lal
Witness of recovery of dead body and inquest report
P.W.4-Ram Shankar
Witness of accused persons coming out of the house of Chhidu
P.W.5-Maiku
Witness who heard the screaming coming out from the house of accused Chiddu
P.W.6-Bachan
Witness, who saw four accused persons coming to house of accused Ram Kishore and going all five together on the date of incident on their intimation that the matter is fit.
P.W.7-Rajaram
Witness who saw all five persons going together on the date of incident, saying that matter is fit.
P.W.8- Dr. S.K. Srivastva
Conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased Ram Gopal and proved the autopsy report
P.W.9-S.I. Radhey Shyam
Investigating Officer
(9) Apart from aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution produced material exhibits recovered during investigation and relevant documents have also been placed on record and proved by the prosecution, which are as under :-
Ext. Ka.1
Written Report
Ext. Ka.2
Recovery memo dated 18.08.1984 (recovery of dead body of deceased Ram Gopal on the pointing out of Dayaram)
Ext. Ka. 3
Recovery memo dated 18.08.1984 (recovery of Kathari and bora)
Ext. Ka.4
Inquest Report
Ext. Ka.5
Autopsy Report of deceased Ram Gopal
Ext. Ka.6
Carbon copy of check F.I.R.
Ext. Ka.7
Copy of GD No. 17 dated 17.08.1984 at 12:30 Oclock
Ext. Ka.8
Site plan dated 17.08.1984 (showing the place, from where wife of Chhidu took away the deceased Ram Gopal towards her house)
Ext.K.9
Site plan dated 18.08.1984 (showing the place, where dead body of the deceased was recovered)
Ext. Ka.10
Challan lash
Ext. Ka. 11
Sample seal on the sealed dead body of deceased
Ext. Ka. 12
Photo lash
Ext. Ka.13
Police Report dated 18.08.1984 requesting the Superintendent, District Hospital, Sitapur for post-mortem.
Ext. Ka.14
Charge-sheet
Ext. Ka. 15
GD No. 12 dated 18.08.1984 at 11:30 A.M.
(10) After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the occurrence and shown ignorance to many things placed from evidence. Accused Chhidu stated that a case under Section 107 is going on with Rajaram and Swamidayal and due to this enmity, he has been falsely implicated. He denied having any illicit relationship of his wife. He also denied that he had beaten his wife some days before on account of illicit relationship. Sukhdei also denied having any illicit relationship with Ram Gopal. Accused Chhidu and Sukhdei admitted the fact that accused Rohan is the real brother of accused Chhidu and first wife of accused Chhidu had died 15-16 years ago and thereafter he married to Sukdhei, from whom she has 4-5 minor children. From his first wife, he has a son, namely, Rampal. Accused Raghubar Dayal admitted that Rampal lives separately. He further stated that Ram Kumar had an enmity with Munna Bacchan arising out of case under Section 107. Accused Kallu alias Ram Kumar stated that he was at his maternal home on the date of the incident and he is residing there.
(11) The defence/accused persons have not produced any oral evidence, however, they produced two documents viz. (1) Certified copy of the order dated 06.03.1980 passed in case crime no. 590 of 1959, under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. Police Station Sandana by S.D.M., Mishrikh, District Sitapur (Ext. Kha.1) and (2) Certified copy of the order dated 06.03.1980 passed in case crime no. 589 of 1958, under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. Police Station Sandana by S.D.M., Mishrikh, District Sitapur (Ext. Kha.2).
(12) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court, by means of the impugned judgment and order dated 13.04.1988, convicted and sentenced the accused Chhidu, Rohan, Sukhdei, Dayaram, Kallu alias Ram Kishore and Raghubar under Sections 302 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment and under Section 201 I.P.C. to undergo 7 years R.I. Both the sentences were directed, by learned trial Court, to run concurrently.
(13) Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 13.04.1988, accused/convict persons Chhidu, Rohan, Sukhdei, Dayaram, Kallu alias Ram Kishore and Raghubar preferred the instant appeal.
(14) It is pertinent to mention that during pendency of this appeal, appellant no.1-Chhidu, appellant no.2-Rohan, appellant no.3-Smt. Sukhdevi (wrongly mentioned, it shall be read as Sukhdei’) and appellant no.6-Raghubar have died, therefore, the instant appeal filed on behalf of appellants no. 1, 3 and 6 stood abated by means of order dated 02.07.2001, whereas the instant appeal filed on behalf of appellant no.2 stood abated by means of order dated 16.03.2026. Hence, the present appeal survives only on behalf of appellant no. 4-Daya Ram son of Chillu and appellant no.5-Kallu alias Ram Kishore son of Shivadhar, who are in jail.
(15) Heard, Shri Narayan Dutt Tiwari holding brief of Shri Atul Bhushan Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Arunendra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
(16) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have wrongly and illegally been convicted and sentenced by means of the impugned judgment and order placing reliance on the testimony of highly inimical witnesses. He further submitted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the prosecution witnesses kept silence from the alleged date of incident i.e. 14.08.1984 to 17.08.1984, which creates doubt about the veracity of their testimony. He further submitted that in the F.I.R., only three persons, namely Chhidu, his wife Sukhdei and Rohan were shown alleged suspects, but the learned Trial Court has convicted all the six appellants without any evidence against them. He further submitted that the appellant No.4, Daya Ram was arrested from his house in the intervening night of 17/18.08.1984 and it has been alleged that he had admitted the guilt and got recovered the dead body, but if he would have participated in the alleged incident, he must have escaped from his house. He further submitted that the deceased was of bad character and was having affairs with several ladies, therefore, anyone could have invited him and murdered. He further submitted that the investigation was not made in proper manner and it was highly tainted and there was a long delay in lodging of F.I.R. and the prosecution story is highly improbable. He further submitted that the deceased had only two injuries, which itself creates doubt about the participation of six persons. He further submitted that the learned Trial Court, even after disbelieving the recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has wrongly and illegally convicted the appellants. Thus, he submitted that the impugned judgment and order has been passed in an illegal manner without considering the evidence and material on record appropriately and recording perverse findings, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside and the appellants are liable to be acquitted.
(17) Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants. He submitted that delay in lodging of F.I.R. is self-explanatory as the deceased had got missing from 14.08.1984 and looking to the previous conduct of the deceased, after coming to know that he was seen going in the house of Chhidu, the F.I.R. was lodged, therefore, the delay stands explained. He further submitted that the motive behind the occurrence is apparent because the wife of the accused Chhidu had relations with the deceased Ram Gopal, which has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants are wrong and misconceived and not tenable in the eyes of law as the learned Trial Court has rightly and in accordance with law passed the impugned judgment and order after considering and appreciating the evidence and material on record correctly. There is no illegality or error in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court and the appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed.
(18) We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
(19) The complainant Vijay Kumar appeared as P.W.-1. He deposed that the deceased Ram Gopal had illicit relations with wife of Chhidu, on account of which, Chhidu had beaten his wife about a week prior to the incident. He further stated that on 14.08.1984 at about 06:00 in the evening, Sukhdei, wife of Chhidu had called his brother, Ram Gopal and took him towards her house. He further stated that at that time, he, his uncle Ram Prasad and his mother were present at home. He further stated that his brother did not return on that night, therefore, he had searched for him in the village and other villages in his relationship but his whereabouts could not be known. He also stated that his brother used to go leaving home. Sometimes he used to come back on his own, but sometimes, he used to search and call him and only then, his brother used to return, therefore, when he came to know from Hajju, Ram Kumar and Ram Bilas on 17.08.1984 that they had seen Ram Gopal going with wife of Chhidu inside her home, then he suspected that Chhidu, Rohan and Sukhdei must have killed his brother and then he got the report written from Swami Dayal and signed it after it was read over to him and gave it to Munshi in the Police Station. On the basis of said report, F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-7) vide Case Crime No.200 of 1984, under Section 364 I.P.C. was lodged at Police Station Sandana, District Sitapur on 17.08.1984 at 12:30 PM. He further stated that after taking a copy of the F.I.R., he came back to his village, where Inspector came and took his statement.
(20) In view of above, the explanation for delay in lodging of F.I.R. has been given by the complainant, which is obvious in the facts and circumstances of the case, in which, the deceased used to go leaving home time and again and used to come on his own or on being searched and called by the complainant. Even otherwise the delay in lodging the F.I.R. can not be the sole ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. The learned Trial Court, after considering the evidence and material on record, has recorded a finding that in the circumstances of case, there is no undue delay in lodging of F.I.R. and whatever is the delay, it has sufficiently been explained. This Court does not find any illegality or error in the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court in this regard. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances, as disclosed in the F.I.R. and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, such delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be of any benefit to the defence or fatal to the prosecution case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Baldev Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2014) 12 SCC 473, has held that there can not be any doubt that delay in lodging of F.I.R. often results in embellishment as well as the introduction of a distorted version of what may have actually happened, but the facts of each case have to be examined to find out whether the delay in lodging the FIR is fatal for the prosecution case.
(21) The appellant No.1, Chhidu and the appellant No.3, Sukhdei, who have died, were husband and wife. The appellant No.3 was the second wife of the appellant No.1. The first wife of the appellant No.1 had died and the appellant No.1 had one son from the first wife. As per prosecution witnesses, the said son was living separately as he and the appellant No.3 were not on good terms. The appellant Nos.1 and 3 had five children. It is consistent case of the prosecution witnesses of fact that the appellant No.3, Sukhdei had illicit relations with the deceased, Ram Gopal, on account of which, about a week prior to the date of incident, the appellant No.1, Chhidu had beaten also to the appellant No.3. It has also been stated by the prosecution witnesses that the appellant No.3 had extra marital relations with many persons in the village but the most affinity was with the deceased, Ram Gopal. The motive behind the murder is the said extra-marital relationship.
(22) In regard to the illicit relations of the deceased with the appellant No.3 i.e. the wife of the appellant No.1, the P.W.-2, Hajju, P.W.-4, Ram Shankar, P.W.-5, Maiku and P.W.-6 Bachan have joined the P.W.-1, complainant in their evidence and have specifically stated that wife of the appellant No.1 i.e. the appellant No.3 was characterless and she had relations with many persons in the village, but the most affinity was with the deceased, Ram Gopal. Thus, the illicit relations of appellant No.3 with the deceased alongwith others have been proved, which can be the motive behind the murder of deceased. The learned Trial Court has recorded a finding that illicit relations of Sukhdei with the deceased was motive for her husband, Chhidu and his brother Rohan and Kallu, Raghubar and Daya Ram collided in crime not only on account of friendship with Chhidu but because of their love for Sukhdei, but she had special affinity with the deceased and Sukhdei must have been forced for calling the deceased and join them. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding recorded by the learned Trial Court. However, motive looses it’s significance if the prosecution case is otherwise proved, therefore, it may not of much significance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Subhash Aggarwal Vs. State of NCT of Delhi; (2025) 8 SCC 440, has held that when the circumstances are very convincing and provide an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the accused and not to any other hypothesis, the total absence of a motive will be of no consequence. The relevant paragraph 33 is extracted below:-
“33. The declaration in the cited decisions and the decisions relied on therein, is to the effect that if the case is built solely upon circumstantial evidence, absence of motive will be a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. Just as a strong motive does not by itself result in a conviction, the absence of motive on that sole ground cannot result in an acquittal. When the eyewitnesses are not convincing, a strong motive cannot by itself result in conviction, likewise when the circumstances are very convincing and provide an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the accused and not to any other hypothesis; the total absence of a motive will be of no consequence.”
(23) The P.W.-9, S.I. Radhey Shyam has stated that check F.I.R. was written by Liyakat Ali, Head Moharrir and he recognizes his writing and signatures. He further stated that the corresponding entry was made in the G.D. No.17 on the same date i.e. 17.08.1984 at 12:30 in the day by the said Liyakat Ali and the investigation of the same was entrusted to him. He further stated that after copying the check F.I.R. and entry of the G.D. in the Case Diary, he proceeded to the place of incident by cycle alongwith the force and upon reaching there, he, after lighting the lantern, recorded the statements of Constable Umesh Chandra Yadav and, thereafter, the statements of complainant, uncle of the complainant Ram Prasad, mother of the complainant Kaushalya, witnesses in the F.I.R., namely, Hajju, Ram Khelawan and Ram Kumar and inspected the spot as pointed out by the complainant and prepared the site plan (Ex. Ka-8). He further stated that he made enquiries from the villagers. The evidence of the Investigating Officer indicates that on the information received by him from an informant, he went to the house of Dayaram, found him and caught at 12:30 in the night on 18.08.1984 and on his pointing out alongwith the witnesses, he reached on the house of Chhidu and knocked the door of Chhidu and called Chhidu. Upon seeing the police, Chhidu ran away by jumping from the back wall. Then Dayaram opened the door and took them to the small room on the east side and pointed out the place, where the dead body of the Ram Gopal was hidden and hay was also put on it. In the presence of witnesses, Janki Prasad, Lallan, Mannalal and Jai Narayan, the hay was kept aside, a bad odour was coming and upon digging, a blanket (kathri) and gunny bag (tat bora) was found, where the dead body of Ram Gopal was buried. They had gas light and torch at that time and there was blood on the gunny bag and blanket. The dead body was taken out from the ditch, which was recognized by the witnesses as the dead body of Ram Gopal. The ditch was 5 feet long, 5 feet deep and 3 feet wide. It was in the residential house of Chhidu. The Investigating Officer also proved recovery memo, inquest report, challan lash, sample of seal, photo lash and letter to C.M.O. He also stated that the dead body was handed over to constable Bachu Lal at 09:30 in the morning for taking it to the Sitapur for post-mortem.
(24) The P.W.-3, Manna Lal has stated that the constable had come to call him at 12:30 in the night about 3 years back and when he reached on the door of Pradhan, he found Janki Prasad, Jai Narayan, Lallan, the accused Daya Ram and the Inspector of Police Station. He further stated that in their presence, Daya Ram admitted his guilt and stated that he can tell the place of dead body of Ram Gopal. Then the constable, Inspector and they proceeded and upon reaching the house of Chhidu, the door was found closed and when it was knocked, Chhidu ran away after jumping from the southern wall. He further stated that there was some space between the doors, from which, Daya Ram opened the door and upon reaching inside found that there was latch (कुंडी) on the door of small room on the western side of the courtyard, which was opened by Daya Ram. He further stated that after entering into the small room, Daya Ram kept aside the hay and started digging the mud, then the dead body of Ram Gopal was found in the ditch. He further stated that upon digging, the gunny bag and the blanket was found and, thereafter, the dead body was found under the same. He further stated that the Inspector had prepared the documents, which were signed and on the same, he put his thumb impression. He recognized his thumb impression on Ex. Ka-2. He further stated that the gunny bag and the blanket were also sealed and he also recognized his thumb impression on the recovery memo of the same, which is Ex. Ka-3. He also stated that the inquest report was prepared in the morning, thereafter, he had put his thumb impression on the same and recognized it, which is Ex. Ka-4. He also stated that when the dead body was found, Daya Ram was in custody. Thus, the recovery of dead body of the deceased Ram Gopal from the house of the appellant No.1 Chhidu is proved.
(25) The post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. S.K. Srivastava, who was posted as Medical Officer, E.S.I., Sitapur, on 19.08.1984. He appeared as P.W.-8. He deposed that post-mortem was conducted at 04:00 in the evening. He further stated that the dead body was brought by Constable 140 Bachu Lal of Police Station Sandana and he recognized the dead body. He further stated that the deceased had died about 5 days back. He proved the injuries in the post-mortem, which have been reproduced above. He also stated that the cause of death was shock and excess bleeding. He proved the post-mortem report as Ex. Ka-5. He also stated that the death could have been after 06:00 in the evening on 14.08.1984. In the cross-examination, nothing could be extracted which may create even a doubt on his testimony. He himself stated that brain liquefies in 5 days and it also depends on the place where the dead body was kept. No further cross-examination has been made from him.
(26) In view of above, the date and time of the death of the deceased is after six in the evening on 14.08.1984, which stands proved and the recovery of dead body was made from the house of accused-appellant No.1, who is dead now, which has been proved by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses and it is also apparent from the inquest report, which has been prepared on 18.08.1984 at 09:30 AM. It is also recorded in the inquest report that the dead body was recovered on the pointing out of the accused Daya Ram, who had admitted his guilt and also stated that the deceased was killed by cutting his neck with a knife and it was kept in the ditch. No cross-examination has been made in this regard from any of the witness. Thus, the injuries to the deceased also stand proved.
(27) Now, the question to be considered is in regard to the complicity of the accused-appellants and as to whether they were involved and what are the circumstances, on account of which, the appellants can only be said to have killed the deceased Ram Gopal and concealed the dead body of the deceased as there is no eye witness and it is a case of circumstantial evidence. The P.W.-1, complainant has stated that the house of Chhidu is about 150-200 steps away on the south of his house, where accused Chhidu (appellant No.1, now dead), accused Sukhdei (appellant No.3 and wife of appellant No.1, now dead) and their five children are residing and none else is residing. He further stated that Deo has two sons, namely, Chhidu and Rohan and both are accused. He further stated that the accused, Raghubar and Daya Ram are friends of Chhidu and Rohan and the accused, Sukhdei is the second wife of the accused, Chhidu. He further stated that first wife of Chhidu has died. Chhidu had one son from his first wife, whose name is Ram Pal, who lives separately in the old house of Chhidu. Rohan resides in half portion of that house. He further stated that wife of Chhidu and son from the first wife i.e. Ram Pal were not at good terms, therefore, about 2 3 years back, Chhidu, his second wife and children from her started residing separately in new house. He further stated that wife of Chhidu, namely, Sukhdei was characterless, therefore, she was on bad terms with Ram Pal. He further stated that his brother Ram Gopal had illicit relations with Sukhdei wife of Chhidu and it was known to the whole village. He also stated that Sukhdei had relations with many persons in the village and it was known to Chhidu also and Chhidu had beaten also his wife, Sukhdei about a week prior to the date of incident. He further stated that on 18.08.1984, the wife of Chhidu had come to his house in the evening and took his brother, Ram Gopal towards her house and at that time, he, his uncle Ram Prasad and his mother were at home and when the Ram Gopal did not return on that night then he searched for him in the village and another villages in his relations but his brother was not found. However, when he came back to his village in the morning on 17.08.1984, Hajju, Ram Kumar and Ram Bilas met and informed that they had seen his brother, Ram Gopal going with the wife of Chhidu inside her house on 14.08.1984, then he suspected that Chhidu, Rohan and Sukhdei had murdered his brother and, accordingly, he lodged the F.I.R. He also deposed that the dead body of his brother was recovered from the house of Chhidu on 18.08.1984. In the cross-examination, he stated that on 14.08.1984, he had gone to the house of Chhidu alone, where Chhidu and his wife, who were sitting on the door, met and when he asked about Ram Gopal, they informed that he had gone from there, thereafter, he searched for him at the places, wherever his brother used to sit.
(28) P.W.-2, Hajju has stated that Chhidu resides for the last 15-16 years on the south of house of Kailash and the name of wife of Chhidu is Kaushalya. Seeing the accused standing in the Court, he stated that this is Kaushalya. He further stated that this lady had illicit relations with Ram Gopal and she had relations with others also in the village but she had more affinity with Ram Gopal. He further stated that prior to 7 8 days of murder, Chhidu had beaten this lady and it was known in the village that wife of Chhidu is characterless and the relations of this lady with Ram Gopal were known to whole village. He further stated that about three years and two months ago, while he was coming back from his field at about 6:00 6:30 in the evening, Ram Kumar and Ram Bilas were with him and he saw that the wife of Chhidu and Ram Gopal were going inside the house of Chhidu and, thereafter, he went to his house. He further stated that on the third day, Vinay Kumar had met and then he informed it to him. In the cross-examination, nothing was asked in this regard except a suggestion, in response to which, he stated that it is wrong to say that he had not seen the Ram Gopal coming with Chhidu with his wife to his house. However, he also stated that while he was coming from his field to his house and passing through the house of Chhidu, Ram Bilas and Ram Kumar met him in the east of the village but he does not know as to from where they were coming. He also denied that it was 7:00 in the evening.
(29) Ram Shankar, the P.W.-4 has stated that about 3 years and 3 months back, he had gone towards the house of Chhidu and it was about 05:00 – 05:30 in the evening, at that time he saw Chhidu, Daya Ram, Raghubar, Kallu and Rohan, who all were going inside the house of Chhidu and he was astonished to see it. He also stated that wife of Chhidu is of loose character. Her name is Sukhdei. She had relations with many people in the village. He further stated that the deceased, Ram Gopal had special relations with her. In the cross-examination, he stated that he had come to know from the villagers that wife of Chhidu is characterless and besides it, Ram Gopal, Daya Ram, Kallu and Raghubar used to go to the house of Chhidu. He had also come to know it from Raj Kumar Shukla and Hajju etc., who are the neighbours. He had also seen the wife of Chhidu and Ram Gopal talking with each other in a hidden manner. He also stated in the cross-examination that he knows Ram Pal, who is aged about 27 28 years and he is son of first wife of Chhidu and resides in the old house of Chhidu and Chhidu resides in his new house. He denied the suggestion that the same is not the house of Chhidu, rather his courtyard. He also stated that he is son of witness, Manna Lal, Ram Bilas is his cousin uncle and Swami Dayal is the son of Ram Bilas and his cousin brother. However, he denied any information regarding any case under Section 107 and 117, in which the parties had compromised. He reiterated that his house is on the north-west of the house of Chhidu at about 10 steps and there are three houses between their houses. He also stated that he had seen the accused persons at about 05:30 in the evening, when he was going towards his field and in return he had not passed through the house of Chhidu.
(30) The P.W.-5, Maiku has stated that it was about 3 years and three months back, he was returning after cutting grass and it was about 6:00 06:30 in the evening, when he reached near the house of Chhidu, who is present in Court, he heard murmuring from the house of Chhidu and his main door was closed from inside. He further stated that he knocked on the door and asked what is the matter, then Chhidu told that children are playing and there is no matter. He also stated that wife of Chhidu, who is present in Court, is characterless and she had special relations with Ram Gopal and many others. In the cross-examination, he stated that since he brought the second lady i.e. the accused Sukhdei, therefore, Chhidu and Ram Pal live separately from 12 13 years. He further stated about murmuring that he had told this in his house about it and it was not told to anybody else, however, it was told to the Inspector also. He further stated that he had seen the Ram Gopal talking with this lady and whenever Chhidu was not at home, Ram Gopal used to go to his house. In further cross-examination, he also stated that in north-eastern corner of house of Chhidu, there is house of Ram Gopal and there is no other house between their houses.
(31) P.W.-6, Bachan has stated that about 3 years and 2 3 months back, when he reached near the house of Chhidu at about 07:30 in the evening when the darkness had started, he saw that Daya Ram, Kallu, Raghubar and Rohan coming out hurriedly, whereas Chhidu went inside and closed the door. He further stated that he asked from these persons as to what is the matter, in response thereof they told that there was nothing and then all the four persons went away and the P.W.-6 went to his house. He also confirmed that the wife of Chhidu had special relations with Ram Gopal alongwith others. In the cross-examination, he stated that he was coming back at 07:30 in the evening on the said date after seeing his field, which is at a distance of about half furlong from his house. He also told that his house is after about 5 6 houses on the south west of the house of Ram Gopal. He further stated that on the next morning, he went to Kulai Purwa and on third day, he came back.
(32) P.W.-7, Raja Ram has stated that about 3 years back, he had gone to drop a letter in the post-box, which is at the door of Ram Kishore at about 04:30 in the evening, when Ram Kishore was sitting at his door and in the meantime, Chhidu, Rohan, Raghubar and Dayaram came and stated to Ram Kishore that the matter is fit and why they are doing late and, thereafter, all the five persons went from there and he also went. In the cross-examination, he stated that he had written a letter to his maternal uncle in response to a letter received from him about 02 days back. He also disclosed that a letter-box is on the west side of door of Ram Kishore.
(33) In view of above, all the aforesaid witnesses had seen the accused persons in the evening of 14.08.1984 either going inside the house of Chhidu or going out of the house of Chhidu and the P.W.-7 had also seen the five accused persons, namely, Chhidu, Rohan, Daya Ram, Ram Kishore and Raghubar together in front of the house of Ram Kishore and thereafter going from there on the information of Chhidu, Rohan, Raghubar and Dayaram that the matter is fit.
(34) The dead body was found on the pointing out of the appellant No.4, Daya Ram, buried in the house of Chhidu and as per Doctor, the death could have occurred after six in the evening on 14.08.1984 and as per inquest report, the deceased was killed by cutting throat with a knife and injuries show cut underneath trachea oesophagus as well as both carotid vessels and muscles were cut and cut head of right humerus bone on the tip of right shoulder, which have been proved by the doctor and nothing could be extracted fromhim, which may create any doubt about veracity of his testimony and testimony of other witnesses.
(35) The Investigating Officer has proved various steps of investigation made by him and if there is any negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer, it can not be said that the same goes to the root of the matter and is fatal for the prosecution case.
(36) In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons have stated about enmity but it is settled law that enmity is double edged weapon, which may be a reason for false implication and/or motive. However, the defence could not adduce any evidence to show that there was any such enmity, on account of which, they could have been falsely implicated, therefore, if there was any enmity, it may be only the motive for the crime. The enmity suggested with the witnesses could not be proved. However, the enmity, on account of illicit relations between the appellant No.3 (now dead) wife of appellant No.1 (now dead) with the deceased, Ram Gopal, is apparent from the evidence and material on record, which was the motive, and nothing could also be extracted from the prosecution witnesses, on account of which, it may be said that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not believable.
(37) In view of above, it is a case of circumstantial evidence coupled with the last seen and the panchsheel i.e. the five golden principles for completing the chain of circumstances to record the guilt of accused, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra; AIR 1984 SC 1622, are to be considered and seen as to whether the chain of circumstances are complete in a manner, which refers to guilt of the appellants only and there is no hypothesis of their innocence. The 5 golden principles are as under:-
“(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established;
(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.”
(38) The following are the circumstances, which completes the chain of circumstances and refers to the guilt of the appellants:-
(i) The appellant No.3, Sukhdei had illicit relations with the deceased, on account of which, her husband Chhidu; the appellant No.1 had beaten her about a week ago from the date of incident.
(ii) The evidence of P.W.-7, Raja Ram, who had heard the conversation of accused persons near the letter-box, which was at the door of the accused, Raj Kishore, according to which, the matter is fit and upon hearing it, Ram Kishore also went with the accused persons.
(iii) The evidence of P.W.-4, Ram Shankar, who had seen accused persons going inside the house of Chhidu on the date of incident at 05:00 05:30 in the evening.
(iv) The evidence of P.W.-1, complainant Vinay Kumar, who proved that the appellant No.3, Sukhdei wife of the appellant No.1, Chhidu had called the deceased, Ram Gopal from his house and took him with her at about 06:00 in the evening on 14.08.1984 towards her house and P.W.-2, Hajju has deposed that he had seen Ram Gopal going inside the house of Chhidu with his wife. Hajju has also stated that he met Ram Bilas and Ram Kumar at about 06:00 06:30 in the evening, when he saw the wife of Chhidu i.e. Sukhdei and the deceased, Ram Gopal, going inside the house of Sukhdei.
(v) P.W.-5, Maiku has proved that on the date of incident, he heard murmuring from the house of Chhidu at about 06:00 06:30 in the evening, while he was going back after cutting grass and coming towards his house and upon his asking as to what is the matter, Chhidu had told that the children are playing.
(vi) P.W.-6, Bachan, whose house is about 5 6 house away from the house of Chhidu, has proved that when he was going back after seeing his field at about 07:00 in the evening, he saw the accused persons coming out of the house of Chhidu hurriedly.
(vii) The complainant (P.W.-1) i.e. the brother of the deceased, Ram Gopal searched his brother, when he did not return after he went with Sukhdei towards her house, when she had come to call him on 14.08.1984, in the village and in other villages in his relationship and on 17.08.1984 in the morning, when he came back to his village Hajju, Ram Kumar and Ram Bilas met him and informed that he had seen Ram Gopal going inside the house of Chhidu with his wife, Sukhdei.
(viii) The recovery of the dead body of the deceased, which was buried in a small room of Chhidu and recovery on the pointing out of the accused Daya Ram and recovery has been proved by the P.W.-9, S.I. Radhey Shyam and P.W.-3, Manna Lal and Chhidu ran away jumping wall when they reached to his house for recovery. The recovery from the house of Chhidu has not been disputed by the defence but only plea has been taken that it was brought from some other place and has been shown to have been recovered from the house of Chhidu. However, no such evidence has been adduced and no enmity could be proved, on account of which, they may have been falsely implicated.
(ix) The house, from where the dead body was recovered, was the house where Chhidu alongwith his wife Sukhdei and five minor children were residing because Ram Pal S/o of first wife of Chhidu was residing separately after the second marriage of the Chhidu as Ram Pal S/o first wife of Chhidu was residing in old house, on account of loose character of the second wife of Chhidu, which has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. The house, from where the dead body was recovered, has been proved by the Investigating Officer, who also found the elder son of Chhidu aged about 10 11 years, utensils and chapatis in the said house and grains, rice, clothes and blankets were also kept in the small room. However, a doubt has been tried to raise that it was not the residential house of Chhidu, rather it was courtyard (हाता), but no evidence in this regard has been adduced by the defence. Consequently, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to come to the conclusion that it was the house, where Chhidu alongwith his wife Sukhdei and children from her was residing after his second marriage and his son, Ram Pal from the first wife was residing separately.
(39) The aforesaid circumstances also leads us to consider the conduct of the appellants, particularly the appellant No.1, Chhidu, who, on account of illicit relations of his wife Sukhdei, the appellant No.3 involved with him not only other accused but his wife also for committing the murder and thereafter concealed the dead body to disappear the evidence of murder, which is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which alongwith illustrations (f) and (i), relevant in the case in hand are extracted herein below:-
“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.
Illustration (f) The question is, whether A robbed B.
The facts that, after B was robbed, C said in A’s presence – “the police are coming to look for the man who robbed B”, and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.
Illustration (i) A is accused of a crime.
The facts that, after commission of the alleged crime, he absconded, or was in possession of property or the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing it, are relevant.”
(40) In view of above, the conduct of an accused, previous or subsequent to the committing of crime is also relevant for considering his complicity because it is commonly seen that the conduct of an accused speaks of itself, as is a maxim in Hindi “चोर की दाढ़ी में तिनका होता है”. Before adverting to the relevant conduct of the appellants, particularly of appellant No.1, who is main author of crime, we would like to refer the consideration of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and it’s effect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(41) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjo Sandhu @ Afsan Guru; (2005) 11 SCC 600, has held that the conduct, in order to be admissible, must be such that it has close nexus with a fact in issue or relevant fact. The relevant paragraphs 205 and 206 are extracted below:-
“205. Before proceeding further, we may advert to Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Section 8 insofar as it is relevant for our purpose makes the conduct of an accused person relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. It could be either a previous or subsequent conduct. There are two Explanations to the section, which explain the ambit of the word conduct. They are:
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.
The conduct, in order to be admissible, must be such that it has close nexus with a fact in issue or relevant fact.
Explanation 1 makes it clear that the mere statements as distinguished from acts do not constitute conduct unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements. Such statements accompanying the acts are considered to be evidence of res gestae. Two illustrations appended to Section 8 deserve special mention:
(f) The question is, whether A robbed B.
The facts that, after B was robbed, C said in A’s presence the police are coming to look for the man who robbed B, and that immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.
(i) A is accused of a crime.
The facts that, after the commission of the alleged crime, he absconded, or was in possession of property or the proceeds of property acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been used in committing it, are relevant.
206. We have already noticed the distinction highlighted in Prakash Chand case [(1979) 3 SCC 90 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 656 : AIR 1979 SC 400] between the conduct of an accused which is admissible under Section 8 and the statement made to a police officer in the course of an investigation which is hit by Section 162 CrPC. The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where stolen articles or weapons used in the commission of the offence were hidden, would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct, falls within the purview of Section 27, as pointed out in Prakash Chand case [(1979) 3 SCC 90 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 656 : AIR 1979 SC 400] . In Om Prakash case [H.P. Admn. v. Om Prakash, (1972) 1 SCC 249 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 88 : AIR 1972 SC 975] this Court held that: (SCC p. 262, para 14)
[E]ven apart from the admissibility of the information under Section 27, the evidence of the investigating officer and the panchas that the accused had taken them to PW 11 (from whom he purchased the weapon) and pointed him out and as corroborated by PW 11 himself would be admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act as conduct of the accused.
(42) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of V. Prabhakara Vs. Basavaraj K. (Dead) by legal representatives and another; (2022) 1 SCC 115, has held that conduct of a party would be construed as a fact under Section 8 and such a conduct may either be a previous or subsequent one. It is the product of a motive or a preparation. The relevant portion of para 14 is extracted here-in-below:-
“14. Section 3 of the Evidence Act defines a fact. Conduct of a party would be construed as a fact under Section 8. Such a conduct may either be a previous or subsequent one. It is the product of a motive or a preparation. When evidence is given on the conduct of a party and if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court particularly when it involves an admission, adequate weightage is required to be given. Such a conduct would include a silence emanating from a party who is expected to speak and express…………..”
(43) Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, the conduct of accused/appellants as discussed above and particularly of the appellant No.1. Chhidu, who had beaten his wife about a week ago of incident on account of her illicit relations with the deceased, telling the complainant that his brother has gone from house on the date of incident after his wife had taken away the deceased towards her house, which shows that he had gone to his house with his wife, upon hearing murmuring when P.W.-5 asked as to what is the matter, he told that children are playing and the most important when P.W.-9 and P.W.-3 reached at his house with the accused-appellant Daya Ram for recovery of dead body on his pointing out, he ran away jumping the wall of his house, are relevant and also shows their complicity in the murder.
(44) In view of above, this Court is of the view that the chain of circumstances is complete in the manner, which refers only towards the guilt of the appellants and the aforesaid conduct of the appellants is also in aid of those circumstances and no hypothesis of innocence of the appellants coupled with the fact that no evidence and material could be placed on record, on account of which, any inference contrary to the aforesaid could be drawn by this Court.
(45) In view of above, once it has been proved that the appellants had assembled in the house of Chhidu and thereafter the dead body of the deceased, Ram Gopal was found buried in a small room of the house of the appellant No.1, Chhidu and the appellant No.3, Sukhdei as well as brother of the appellant No.1, Rohan and that the appellant No.1, Chhidu ran away jumping the wall of his house when the police reached at his house alongwith appellant No.3, Daya Ram to recover the dead body, the appellants were required to show/prove as to why they had assembled in house of Chhidu and as to how the dead body has been found in house of Chhidu, thereafter, buried in a small room and what had happened in the said house at that time because no other person could have the access or possession over the same, in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides that if any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him but the said appellants failed to adduce any evidence to clear the cloud on the appellants in this regard.
(46) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra; (2021) 5 SCC 626, has held that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not absolve the prosecution discharging its general or primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt and it is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof may lie upon the accused.
(47) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Balveer Singh; (2025) 8 SCC 545, has held that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 will apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding guilt of the accused. The relevant paragraph 97 is extracted herein below:-
“97. If an offence takes place inside the four walls of a house and in such circumstances where the accused has all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in the circumstances of its choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead direct evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. It is to resolve such a situation that Section 106 of the Evidence Act exists in the statute book. In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (supra), this Court observed that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. The Court proceeded to observe that a Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character, which is almost impossible to be led, or at any rate, extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence, which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.”
(48) The learned Trial Court has also considered the evidence and material on record under the aforesaid circumstances and has recorded a finding that it is a case of circumstantial evidence, in which the motive and the opportunity of murder was with the accused persons and, consequently, the chain of circumstances has been proved, even after considering the possibilities of innocence referred by the accused persons. The learned Trial Court considered the evidence and material on record and further it found that after murder of deceased Ram Gopal, which has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the dead body of the deceased was concealed in the house of Chhidu after digging a ditch to disappear the evidence of murder, therefore, the charge under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. have been found proved and, accordingly, the accused-appellants have been convicted.
(49) This Court, upon considering the evidence and material on record and the aforesaid findings recorded by this Court, does not find any illegality or error in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and nothing could be pointed out before this Court, on account of which, there may have been even a possibility of taking any other view on the evidence and material on record in favour of the accused-appellants.
(50) Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and order has rightly been passed in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order after considering the evidence and material on record and there is no illegality or error in it. This appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed.
(51) The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed upholding the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court. The conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. is upheld and the sentences awarded to them under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. are confirmed.
(52) Appellant no.1-Chhidu, appellant no.2-Rohan, appellant no.3-Smt. Sukhdei and appellant no.6-Raghubar have died, whereas the appellant no. 4-Daya Ram son of Chillu and the appellant no.5-Kallu alias Ram Kishore son of Shivadhar are alive and are on bail. The appellant no. 4-Daya Ram and the appellant no.5-Kallu alias Ram Kishore shall surrender within a period of two weeks from today before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur, who shall send them to jail to serve out the sentence, failing which, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law for their arrest to serve out the sentence.
(53) Let a copy of this judgment alongwith Trial Court’s Record be transmitted to the Court concerned forthwith and in any case within a period of one week from today for compliance.
(Zafeer Ahmad, J.) (Rajnish Kumar, J.)
Order Date : 20.04.2026
Saurabh