Goverdhan Alias Godhu vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 11745 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Goverdhan Alias Godhu vs State Of U.P. on 27 October, 2025

Author: Siddharth

Bench: Siddharth

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:189117-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6436 of 2023   
 
   Goverdhan Alias Godhu    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Santosh Kumar Tiwari   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 46
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.  

HON'BLE PRASHANT MISHRA-I, J.

1. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the trial court record.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.05.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 380 of 2018 (State Vs. Goverdhan alias Godhu), arising out of Case Crime No. 59 of 2018, Police Station Chilkana, District Saharanpur, whereby appellant-Goverdhan Alias Godhu, has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, one year's additional imprisonment.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the deceased 25 years back. From their wedlock two sons and one daughter were born. The appellant has already solemnized marriage of their daughters. Wife of the informant (now deceased) developed illicit relationship with one Vikram who is resident of the same village. On 02.03.2018 Vikram came to the house of the appellant and started misbehaving with his wife, on resisting, he started arguing with the appellant. Thereafter the appellant questioned his wife and went outside the house. Thereafter her wife consumed some poisonous substance. When he received information about the same, he took his wife to Saharanpur, but on the way his wife died.

4. The appellant was charged with commission of offences under Section 302 I.P.C. He denied the charges and sought trial.

5. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Raja Ram, PW-2 Sanjay Kumar, PW-3 Smt. Vimla, PW-4, Jai Singh, PW-5 Sonu, PW-6 Bablu, PW-7 Dr. Vinod Kumar and PW-8 Inspector Prem Prakash Sharma as witnesses of fact and rest PW-9 to PW-11 are formal witnesses along with PW-13. One Vikram has also been examined as PW-12.

6. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he claimed his innocence and said that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant denied to furnish any evidence in his defence.

7. In documentary evidence post mortem report of the deceased, charge-sheet, inquest report, challan of dead body, photo of dead body, RI report, report of CMO, arrest memo, site plan (Naksha Nazri), F.I.R., GD, written complaint, copy of report and CD were filed.

8. The prosecution witnesses of fact turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. The doctor, PW-7, who conducted the postmortem of deceased, Vimlesh, wife of the accused-appellant, found following ante-mortem injuries:

(i) Lacerated wound sized 1 cm x 0.5 cm x through & through on right ear,

(ii) Linear abrasion size 4 cm in length on left side face,

(iii) Abraded contusion size 8 cm x 6 cm on front and both side neck.

On the ground of aforesaid injuries, the doctor recorded that Vimlesh died of asphyxia as a result of ante mortem throttling.

9. The trial court after considering the evidence on record exonerated the appellant of charge under Section 195 I.P.C., but convicted and sentenced him for life under Section 302 of I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 50,000/-, and hence this Appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that none of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution version. One important witness-Amit, who is the son of the appellant was not examined in the trial court. Actual incident was not seen by any of them. The deceased herself consumed poison and ended her life. The prosecution completely failed to establish the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Even then, the learned trial court convicted the accused and passed sentence against him.

11. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State has opposed the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the appellant and argued that it was the appellant who was responsible for the murder of his wife as there was no one present on the seen of occurrence except him. The learned trial court after evaluating the evidence of doctor and after taking into account the injuries found on the body of the deceased arrived at the conclusion of the guilt of the appellant, and hence rightly sentenced the appellant.

12. After hearing the rival submissions and going through the material on record, this court finds that since all the witnesses of fact turned hostile, none was there to support the prosecution case, even then on account of evidence given by the doctor, PW-7, it was found that three injuries were there on the body of the deceased and she died of asphyxia as a result of ante mortem throttling. The learned trial court came to the conclusion after examining the materials on record that the deceased did not consume poison on her own, as has been stated in the F.I.R., but she was subjected to death by throttling as her hyoid bone was also found fractured. Learned trial court relied on the evidence given by PW-7, the doctor, who proved the post mortem report, and convicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. On perusal of evidence on record, there is nothing to show that the story stated in the F.I.R. is true. There is no explanation from the side of accused-appellant as to how his wife-Vimlesh sustained injuries on her ear, face, neck, trachea and hyoid bone. As the prosecution case is not supported by any of its witnesses, the learned trial court relied on the circumstantial evidence and found that the circumstances, under which the alleged incident took place, reflect that the incident was caused by the appellant himself.

13. In the F.I.R. the accused appellant has himself accepted that his wife/deceased developed illicit relationship with one Vikram, a resident of the same village. He had also accepted that he had a scuffle with Vikram. The learned trial court also found that the appellant was last seen with the deceased. The whole chain of events was connected to show that it was none other than appellant who caused the murder of the deceased Vimlesh.

14. In this regard Section 300 I.P.C., Exception (4) is attracted which states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The explanation says that it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.

15. In the case in hand the appellant who is husband of the deceased accepted in his F.I.R. that his wife had illicit relationship with one Vikram, a resident of the same village on the fateful day Vikram came to his house and started misbehaving with his wife. On being objected Vikram started quarreling. It appears that the appellant in the heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel, caused injuries to his wife as his wife had illicit relationship with Vikram, who was also present there on the date of incident. It also appears that the incident was not at all premeditated or well planned.

16. We find that the case in hand is of culpable homicide not amounting murder since the appellant was well aware of the illicit relationship of his wife with Vikram. It appears that the appellant, in a rage, throttled his wife to death, thereafter, created a version that his wife consumed some poisonous substance. After considering the materials on record, this Court is inclined to the conclusion that the appellant has committed the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Accordingly, the appellant is held liable to be convicted and sentenced under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. Consequently, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned trial court under Section 302 I.P.C. sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life deserves to be modified to nine years sentence with fine of Rs. 25,000/-. In case of non deposit of the fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.

17. Hence, we modify the judgment and order of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. for life, to conviction under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. and sentence is reduced to the period of nine years with fine of Rs. 25,000/-. In case of non deposit of the fine by the appellant he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.

18. Appeal is partly allowed.

19. Office is directed to return the trial court record within 15 days and notify this judgment to the trial court too.

(Prashant Mishra-I,J.) (Siddharth,J.)

October 27, 2025

Kashifa