Allahabad High Court
Sonu vs State Of U.P. on 25 July, 2025
Author: Siddhartha Varma
Bench: Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122604-DB
Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1156 of 2020
Appellant :- Sonu
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey,Sunil Kumar Shukla,Vikash Chandra Tiwari,Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J.)
1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no. 7, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2014 (State Vs. Sonu and another), arsing out of Case Crime No. 710 of 2013, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Murad Nagar, District Ghaziabad, whereby the appellant had been convicted and sentenced as follows:
(i). 302 IPC : Rigorous life Imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine one year simple imprisonment.
(ii). 201 IPC : Three years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/ and in default of payment of fine six months simple imprisonment
2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarised as under:
(i) As per the written report of Billu (informant), the informant married his daughter Meenu to accused-appellant Sonu, who lived at Ghaziabad. The marriage had taken place about eight years ago. Since no children were born out of the wedlock, the appellant used to harass and beat her and ultimately threw her out of the house. His daughter repeatedly told this fact to the first informant, and he frequently persuaded his daughter and son-in-law to live peacefully. Thereafter he used to leave his daughter at her marital home. After that, the daughter went missing for about six months, during which the informant attempted to ask about his daughter's whereabouts from her in-laws but received only vague responses. Thereafter, one day the informant went to Shanti Nagar Mohalla in search of his daughter, where he met his friend Balveer, who told him that about six months ago, he had seen his son-in-law i.e. accused- appellant with his two friends namely Sameem and Kamal, who were taking his daughter, who was weeping. He said that they were going in a maruti van in the night. The informant had also stated in the written report that his brother-in-law (behnoi) had also told him that on 27.09.2013 the son-in-law had approached him and had requested that he may help in getting rid of his sala (brother-in-law). He had said that the appellant had told him that he along with his two friends had murdered Meenu on 20.03.2013, and had thrown her body near the canal in the jurisdiction of Police Station- Muradnagar.
(ii). On the basis of written report submitted by the informant, Case Crime No. 710 of 2013, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad, was registered against the appellants. Prior to lodging of the F.I.R of this case, on 21.3.2013 police had prepared inquest report of the dead body, information thereof was received by the general public which was marked as Ext. Ka-5. and body was sent for postmortem. On 10.12.2013, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet had been filed against the appellant in the court concerned, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, cognizance thereupon was taken and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 3.7.2014 for trial.
(iii) The charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302, 201 IPC who denied the charges and claimed trial.
(iv). That the prosecution to prove its case has examined P.W.1-Billu (Informant), P.W.2-Kamal Kishor, P.W.3-Balveer Singh, P.W.4-Sub Inspector- Ram Prasad Sharma, P.W.5- Sub Inspector Vinod Kumar Tripathi, P.W.6- Constable Mukesh Dabas, P.W.7- Madan Kashyap and P.W.8- Constable Sunil Kumar, P.W.9- Doctor Sanjay Kumar, P.W.10- the then Constable Clerk Nisar Ahmad, P.W.11- S.S.I. Brijendra Kumar Singh (Investigating Officer). The defense had also produced Guldhari Lal as defence witness D.W.-1.
(v). That the prosecution in support of its case has also produced oral as well as documentary evidence, which have been marked as Written report Ext. Ka-1, First Information Report Ext. Ka-11, Panchayatnama Ext. Ka-5, Postmortem Report Ext. Ka-12, Chik FIR Ext. Ka-13, Site Plan of the place of incident Ext. Ka-14 and Charge-sheet Ext. Ka-4.
3. Heard Shri Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, Shri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A for the State-respondent and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant for life imprisonment. He further submits that the trial court has not followed the ingredients of sections 302 and 201 IPC while holding the appellant guilty, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside and quashed and further appellant is liable to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there are material contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and he had been held guilty of the offences, which he had not committed. Learned counsel for the appellant again submits that there is no independent witness of the incident who had come forward to support the prosecution case. The trial court had committed manifest error of law in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC whereas the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Shri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State-respondent vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant by submitting that the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2019 is based on proper appreciation of evidence which does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, the present criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellant had to be dismissed.
7. Before discussing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to have a glance on the evidence recorded by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment.
8. P.W.1- Billu, who is the informant, stated that he married his daughter Meenu to accused-appellant Sonu. who lived at Ghaziabad about eight years ago. Since no children were born out of their wedlock, so the appellant used to harass and beat her and ultimately threw her out of the house. His daughter repeatedly used to tell this fact to the first informant. The informant frequently persuaded his daughter and son-in-law and used to leave his daughter at her marital home. He had further stated that the accused appellant kept his daughter hidden for about six months. During this period he attempted to inquire about his daughter from her in-laws but received only ambiguous responses. Thereafter, he went to Shanti Nagar mohalla in search of his daughter, where he met his friend Balveer, who told him that he had seen his son-in-law i.e. the accused- appellant with his two friends namely Sameem and Kamal, who were taking his daughter, away with them at night about six months ago. At that time she was weeping. He further deposed that Kamal Kumar, his brother-in-law (behnoi) also informed him that his son-in-law along with two accomplices, had murdered his daughter on 20.03.2013 and had disposed of her body in the Murad Nagar Canal. This fact he had stated was disclosed to him by Sonu himself on 27.09.2013. The dead body was identified through photographs. The said written report had been exhibited as Ext. Ka-1 which bears the signature of the said witness.
9. P.W.-2 Kamal Kishor has stated in his examination-in-chief that informant is his real brother-in-law(bahnoi) and father of the deceased and Sonu (accused- appellant) is the son of his friend Mahipal. About eight years before the incident, accused Sonu got married with daughter of his brother-in-law. His daughter was not blessed with any issue, and therefore the accused used to beat her and threaten her to kill. About one year and six months ago, accused along with his associates killed the deceased and threw her dead body near the canal at the police station- Murad Nagar. Thereafter, accused came to him and confessed that he committed the murder of the deceased (Meenu), as he wanted to perform second marriage so that he could be blessed with children.
10. P.W.-3 Balveer Singh has stated in his examination-in-chief that he is a childhood friend of the informant. About six months before the incident, informant came to him and asked about his daughter. He further stated that on 20.03.2013 around 2:30 p.m., he saw accused along with his associates, who were taking the deceased away in a Maruti Van. At that time she was weeping. On his asking, the accused had told him that it was their family matter.
11. P.W.-4 Ram Prasad Sharma (Sub Inspector) has stated in his examination- in-chief that on 12.11.2013 he was posted as SHO at Police Station Murad Nagar. On 28.11.2013, he got the information that accused Kamal had surrendered in the court and on 29.11.2013, he recorded the statement of Kamal, who is the friend of accused- appellant and he confessed his crime. Thereafter, on the basis of evidence collected during the investigation, on 10.12.2013 charge- sheet under Sections 302 and 201 IPC had been submitted in the concerned court. He proved the charge sheet as Ext. Ka-4.
12. P.W.-5 Vinod Kumar (Sub-Inspector) had stated in his examination-in-chief that on 21.03.2013 he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station - Murad Nagar. On receiving information he went to the place of incident where the dead body of the deceased was found and thereafter Panchayatnama was prepared by him, which had been proved as Ext. Ka-5.
13. P.W.-6. Constable Mukesh Dabas has stated in his examination-in-chief that the written report was typed by him which was registered subsequently as chik no. 457/13, which has been proven as Ext. Ka-13.
14. P.W.7- Madan Kashyap has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 21.03.2013 in the morning when he went to answer the nature's call, he saw there, a dead body of a women lying near the side of the canal which could not be identified. A scarf (duppatta) was tied around the neck of the deceased and her tongue was stuck out. The police had prepared panchnama in his presence, of which, he was a witness.
15. P.W.-8 Constable Sunil Kumar has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 21.03.2013, he was posted at Gang Nahar Police Station Murad Nagar. On the basis of information received by general public he went at the place of incident and the dead body was taken into custody. Thereafter, dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. After that the dead body was kept in mortuary for identification. When the dead body was not identified for three days, cremation was done on the river bank.
16. P.W.-9 Doctor Sanjay Kumar has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 21.03.2013 he was posted as Senior Consultant at District Hospital Sanjay Nagar. He conducted the postmortem of the deceased at 3.30 p.m. which had been proved as exhibit Ext. Ka-12. He further stated that dead body was not identified till the postmortem was conducted. On external examination, he had found following atne mortem injuries on the body of the deceased which are as under :
(i) Neck Circumference 25 cm , ligature mark 25 cm x 3 cm around the neck 5 cm below left ear, 5 cm below right ear, 5 cm below chin, Base of ligature mark reddish and soft Subcutaneous tissue under ligature mark is Echymosis, Hyoid bone was found fractured.
(ii) Abrasion size 6 cm x 4 cm on right side of face just below right lower eyelid.
(iii) Abrasion 12 cm x 3 cm on upper part right side of chest just below right clavicle.
(iv) Abrasion 6 cm x 3 cm on back of left upperarm just above left elbow.
(v) Abrasion 6 cm x 2 cm on front of the left upperarm 2 cm above left cubital fossa.
(vi) Multiple abrasion which contusion present all over body size of biggest 0.8 cm x 0.3 cm size of smallest 0.5 cm x 0.1 cm.
17. On internal examination of the dead body of the deceased P.W.-9 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as result of ante mortem strangulation.
18. P.W.-10 Nishar Ahmad has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 28.09.2013 he was posted as Constable Clerk at Police Station- Murad Nagar, District - Ghaziabad. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, he had made entry in the General Diary as GD No. 63 at 20.15 hours.
19. P.W.-11 S.S.I. Brijendra Kumar (Investigating Officer) has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 28.09.2013, he was posted as Senior Sub-Inspector at police Station Murad Nagar and the investigation of this case was handed over to him. Before the trial court he proved the site plan of the place of incident, which was prepared by him as Ext-Ka-14.
20. D.W.-1 Girdhari Lal has stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused-appellant was living in front of his house. He used to visit his house. He had further stated that while he used to be present, the relations between the accused-appellant and deceased were very cordial. On 10th or 11th January 2013, deceased left her matrimonial house without informing anyone.
21. After closing of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which the accused had stated that they had been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion.
22. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence available on record.
23. Basically three witnesses of facts have been examined by the prosecution. So far as the testimony of P.W.-1 Billu (informant) is concerned, we find that the informant is not the witness of any fact regarding the incident. All the facts had been told to him by P.Ws.-2 and 3. P.W.- 2 Kamal Kishor had told him regarding extra judicial confession made by the accused Sonu before him in which, he told him that he along with his two associates had murdered Meenu and had thrown her dead body in the canal at Murad Nagar. Likewise, P.W.-3 Balbeer Singh, who told the informant that he had seen his daughter along with the accused Sonu and his two associates while she was being taken away on 20.3.2013 at about 2:00 p.m. On the basis of information received from the above two witnesses regarding incident, FIR of this case was lodged by the informant. Thus, appreciation of the testimony of P.W.-1 would not serve any purpose as the testimony of informant regarding incident is based on hearsay only which had no evidentiary value in the eyes of law.
24. Now, we proceed to evaluate the testimony of the P.W.-2 Kamal Kishore. Though he had supported the prosecution story in his examination-in-chief but in his cross-examination he had stated that the informant Billu was his brother-in-law. He further stated that the deceased Meenu was mentally sick and in distress prior to the incident. On several occasions, she left her matrimonial house without informing anyone. He further stated that when deceased Meenu went missing, she was residing with her father. This witness further stated that after disappearance of the deceased, neither the appellant met him nor he made any confession regarding murder of the deceased along with his two associates. This witness also stated that he had not made any statement before the police with regard to the fact that appellant had confessed before him regarding murder of the deceased. He does not know how the Investigating Officer had recorded his statement. He also denied the fact that he never identified photo and clothes of the deceased at the police station, Murad Nagar. Thus, this witness has completely resiled from his earlier statement made before the Court. From the perusal of the records, we find that this witness has not been declared hostile, hence, to arrive at any conclusion, his entire testimony is to be looked into. Though, it is settled law that the court can rely on the statement, which supports the prosecution and appears to be reliable, in case, the witness turned hostile but in the present case, this witness has not been declared hostile as stated above and the veracity of his testimony can be tested by his cross-examination. If the witness has supported the prosecution version in his examination-in-chief and thereafter resiled from his earlier statement made in his cross-examination, then the testimony of such witness becomes doubtful and placing reliance upon such witness may be risky.
25. Moreover, P.W.-2- Kamal Kishor is an ordinary man and has no such authority by which accused could reasonably believe that he would be able to protect him from any criminal proceedings. So the fact that accused would have ever made a confession before this witness does not inspire any confidence. Further more, according to the prosecution case, the deceased was murdered on 20.3.2013 and the accused were not under the cloud of any doubt, in such circumstances, why the accused would confess before him. On this premise also, his confession before P.W.-2 does not appear to be believable and in our view the story as has been set up by the P.W.-2 regarding confession made by the accused becomes wholly doubtful.
26. So far as the testimony of P.W.-3 Balveer Singh is concerned, the story of prosecution if believed would establish the fact that he had seen the deceased along with appellant and his two associates while the deceased was being taken away by them in a Maruti Van on 20.3.2013 at 2:30 p.m. but from a perusal of written report, we find that in the written report submitted by the informant, he mentioned that he was in fact told by Balveer Singh that he had seen his daughter with the accused Sonu along with two associates in the night of 20.03.2013, thus, there is a material contradiction in the testimony of this witness regarding the time and place at which the deceased was seen with accused Sonu. Moreover, no reason has been given by this witness as to why he had gone there and for what purpose. From perusal of evidence, it also appears that P.W.-3 claimed himself to be a childhood friend of the informant and it was in the knowledge of his that the daughter of the informant was being taken by the accused in an abnormal circumstance and that she was also weeping, in such circumstances, why he had not informed his friend (informant) regarding such an incident immediately puts a question mark on his testimony. The behaviour of this witness does not inspire confidence. Further more, this witness claimed that he had seen the deceased with the accused on 20.3.2013 while the informant stated in his cross-examination that after two months of disappearance of his daughter, Balveer Singh met him but he told him about the incident after three months. Thus, it is beyond our understanding as to why he kept mum for such a long time. Missing of a young girl or a married women from her home, in our Indian society, is not a normal phenomena because this issue not only creates a doubt about where the missing person was but the reputation is also at stake of the family. Hence keeping mum by this witness regarding the incident appears quite unnatural even when he claims himself to be a childhood friend of the informant. Thus, this witness also does not appear reliable.
27. Moreover, when this witness was cross-examined, he also resiled from his earlier statement made in examination-in-chief and stated that without informing anyone the deceased often used to leave her matrimonial and parental house and before she went missing this time also she was staying at her father's house and she had gone missing from there also. Specifically this witness also denied the fact that he did not tell to the informant that on 20.3.2013 he had seen the deceased with accused while she was being taken away. He further stated that he never made any statement before the police claiming himself as the last seen witness on 20.3.2013. He does not know how his statement had been recorded by the police. He also clarified that his statement in the examination-in-chief was made at the behest of police. Thus, the testimony of this witness also becomes unreliable and the story as had been setup by the prosecution on the basis of the testimonies of the P.W-2 and P.W.-3 becomes unbelievable.
28. We also find from the record that, admittedly, the FIR was lodged six months after the deceased went missing. If the deceased was missing while residing at her husband's residence, then it was quite natural that the FIR would have been lodged by her husband and in case the husband of deceased would have lodged the FIR regarding her going missing then certainly the F.I.R. would have been lodged by the father of deceased against his son-in-law, but non lodging of FIR by the father of the deceased for six month of her disappearance, proves that indeed she was residing at her father's residence, while she went missing and the father was hoping that she would come back to her home at some point of time. Thus in our view when the informant (father of the deceased) could not lodge the FIR for six months from the date of her missing gives credence to the case of the defence. The explanation made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he clarified that his wife had gone missing while she was residing at her parental house, finds support.
29. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Apex Court evolved five tests to be established by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of accused based on circumstantial evidence. Five golden principles have been enumerated in paragraph nos. 152 to 154, which are reproduced hereinafter:
"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 Hunumant vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions uptodate, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ramgopal v. Stat of Maharashtra. It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant's case (supra):
"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 far 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 & Anr. V. State of Maharashtra, where the following observations were made:
"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."
(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."
30. Keeping in view the discussions made above, we find that there is no reliable evidence on record against the appellant regarding the fact that deceased was being taken away by the appellant and his associates. Admittedly, no one had seen the accused Sonu committing the murder of his own wife Meenu. It also transpires from the evidence on record that the accused was not seen immediately before or after at the place of incident and nothing had been recovered either on his pointing out or from his possession and witnesses of fact, who claimed to be last seen had also resiled from their earlier statements made in their examination-in- chief. These are the facts, on the basis of which, we are of the view that no conclusion can be drawn that accused is the only one who committed the murder of the deceased. It is a settled principle that merely on the basis of suspicion an accused cannot be convicted, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Ravishankar Tondon Vs. State of Chattishgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 3869 of 2023 decided on 10.4.2024
31. Apart from the above, a perusal of the judgment passed by the trial court, it transpires that the learned trial court has relied upon the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2, while both the witnesses have resiled from their earlier statements made in their examination-in-chief. The motive which had been set up by the prosecution that the deceased had not been able to give birth to a child, also could not be established and it has gone uncorroborated.
32. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While recording conviction against the appellant, the trial court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective and had recorded erroneous finding of conviction, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The appeal deserves to be allowed.
33. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the instant Appeal is accordingly, allowed. The appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The judgment and order dated 11.12.2019 is set-aside and quashed.
34. The Appellant - Sonu is in jail, he shall be set free forthwith, provided he is not wanted in any other case.
35. Copy of this order be sent by the Registrar (Compliance) to the court concerned for compliance and necessary action.
Order Date :- 25.7.2025
Akbar
(Madan Pal Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
