Ghanshyam Gupta Alias Ghanshyam Vaish vs State Of Uttarakhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5592 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Ghanshyam Gupta Alias Ghanshyam Vaish vs State Of Uttarakhand on 19 November, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

                                                 Reserved On: 04.11.2025
                                                 Delivered On: 19.11.2025

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

               Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 2016

Ghanshyam Gupta alias Ghanshyam Vaish                 .... Appellant

                                 Vs.
State of Uttarakhand                                ....Respondent



Present:
            Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate, through video
            conferencing assisted by Ms. Devanshi Joshi, Advocate for
            the appellant.
            Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.

                            JUDGMENT

Coram: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Per: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgment and order

dated 16.08.2016, passed in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2014, State Vs.

Ghansyam Gupa @ Ghansyam Vaish, by the court of 3rd Additional

Sessions Judge, Haridwar. By it, the appellant has been convicted

under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment

with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo,

imprisonment for a further period of one year.

2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly

stated, are as follows. On 09.10.2013, the appellant alongwith a

woman took a room on rent in Chitragupt Dharamshala, Haridwar

("the Dharamshala"). He was given room No.1 on the first floor. When

on 10.10.2013, till 2:00 p.m., the appellant did not check out, PW1

Jagdish Prasad Saxena, the informant, who was the Manager and

Trustee of the Dharamshala alongwith his son PW4 Rajeev Saxena

knocked at the door. When they did not get any response, they

approached the room from behind through balcony. The door on the

balcony was open. When PW1 Jagdish Prasad Saxena and PW4 Rajeev

Saxena entered into the room, they did not find any person there, but

a woman was lying on the floor below a bed. She was not responding

to any call. PW1 Jagdish Prasad Saxena lodged a First Information

Report on 10.10.2013 at 2:20 p.m. and Case Crime No. 763 of 2013

under Section 302 IPC was lodged against the appellant.

3. In fact, in the FIR, Jagdish Prasad Saxena raised a

suspicion that it is the appellant who had killed his daughter and ran

from the back door. After lodging of the FIR, PW10 Dilmohan Singh

visited the spot. He took certain fingerprints, and took the

photographs. It was then revealed that, in fact, the deceased was one

Upasana, the daughter of the appellant, who had married to a person

in Lucknow, but she had divorced him. She was in relationship with a

person of different religion, due to which, the appellant and his family

members were not happy. The dispute had reached to the Police

Station Laxman Jhula, District Pauri Garhwal on 29.09.2013, where a

text was written by the deceased that she wanted to marry another

person, but her parents are not agreeable to it. They had come to visit

Neelkanth and thereafter, they visited the Police Station. According to

the text, the deceased had written that she willingly wants to

accompany the appellant, her father and others. This text is Ex. A15.

In fact, due to some mistake, two documents have been marked Ex.

A15, but it makes less difference. It has been proved by PW11

Constable Bhupendra Singh, who was then posted at Police Station

Laxman Jhula, District Pauri Garhwal. According to him, this text Ex.

A15 was written and signed by the appellant and the deceased. This

document was taken into custody by PW10 Dilmohan Singh. The

recovery memo was prepared. The inquest report of the dead body was

prepared. At the time of inquest, the dead body was found below a

bed. The ceiling fan was running. Various other articles were taken

into custody by the police, which include the broken glass of the

spectacles, which was lying on the bed and one of its glass was below

the legs of the deceased. The post mortem of the deceased was

conducted on 11.10.2013. According to PW12 Dr. Sandeep Nigam, the

cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation.

4. After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet

against the appellant. On 20.05.2014, the charge under Section 302

IPC was framed against the appellant. To which, he denied and

claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 13

witnesses, namely, PW 1, Jagdish Prasad Saxena, PW2 Dileep Kumar

Porwal, PW3 Kalpna @ Kapila Porwal, PW4 Rajeev Saxena, PW5 Smt.

Annapurna Gupta, PW6 Deepak Gupta, PW7 Manoj Sharma, PW8

Head Constable, Ajeet Singh, PW9 Pradeep Pandey, PW10 Dilmohan

Singh, PW11 Constable Bhupendra Singh, PW12 Dr. Sandeep Nigam

and PW13 Mahendra Singh Negi. In defence, the appellant produced

three witnesses, namely, DW1 Radhey Shyam Gupta, DW2 Tilak Ram

and DW3 Sushila.

6. After prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined

under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the

Code"). According to him, he has been falsely implicated. He did not

commit any wrong.

7. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and

order, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 IPC and

sentenced as stated hereinbefore. Aggrieved, the appellant has

preferred the instant appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

9. Learned senior counsel for the appellant would submit

that the entire case is based on the circumstantial evidence, the

prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt. He submits that at the time of post mortem, inside the

brassiere of the deceased, a piece of paper was recovered, which was

purportedly written by the deceased. According to which, she was in

relation with a boy of different religion and wanted to live with him

throughout her life, but, her father, the appellant was not happy with

it. Its proof is the document written in the Police Station Laxman

Jhula. It records that she should be given justice. It is argued that this

is a kind of dying declaration, which indicates that the deceased had

committed suicide. Learned senior counsel submits that this

document could not have been written by the appellant for the

following reasons:-

(i) It implicates the appellant. Therefore, the appellant

could not have kept such document in the dead

body of the deceased; and

(ii) The document was kept inside the brassiere of the

deceased. At such place, the father could not have

kept the paper. It is argued that it indicates that the

deceased had committed suicide and rules out any

possibility of homicidal death.

10. Learned Senior Counsel also raised the following points:-

(i) According to the post mortem report, on cutting the

ligature mark, white parchment like glistening white

tissue was seen. It is argued that it is a sign of

suicidal hanging, not strangulation.

(ii) Mere positioning of ligature cannot determine as to

whether the death was suicidal or homicidal. Even

otherwise, it is argued that the ligature mark is 7

cm below the right ear, 6 cm below chin, 6 cm below

left ear, therefore, it cannot be said to be horizontal,

which it is argued indicates that it is suicidal

hanging.

(iii) The inquest report Ex. A9 is doubtful because

according to PW7 Manoj Sharma, the dead body had

already been removed from the first floor. Therefore,

it is argued that it cannot be believed that the dead

body was found below the bed.

(iv) Prosecution has not proved that the appellant was

the only occupant of the room where allegedly the

dead body was found because according to PW1

Jagdish Prasad Saxena, though the room was

allotted to the appellant, but on the same day at

about 4:00 p.m. a person with three women and a

girl of 8 to 10 years had visited the Dharamshala

and it has not been established as to who stayed in

the Dharamshala in the intervening night of

9/10.10.2013. Therefore, the appellant cannot be

held guilty.

11. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that

the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt; PW1 Jagdish Prasad Saxena is the Manager and Trustee of the

Dharamshala, where the appellant had stayed on 09.10.2013; he had

booked a room for a night, but he did not vacate it; On the next date,

the dead body of the deceased was found below the bed in the room. It

is argued that it is proved by the Dharamshala register and

fingerprints, which were taken by PW10 Dilmohan Singh from the

place of incident and the forensic report confirms that the fingerprints

in the room were that of the appellant. It is also argued that the death

is homicidal. PW12 Dr. Sandeep Nigam has stated that death was due

to strangulation. Learned State counsel also submits that there is a

motive to kill the deceased. She was apprehending her death. She had

put a note in her person. Not only this, it is argued that on 29.09.2013

also Ex. A15 was written at Police Station Laxman Jhula, District

Pauri Garhwal, wherein the deceased had categorically stated that she

wanted to marry a person of different religion, due to which, her

parents were not happy and on that date, she had unwillingly went

with the appellant. It is argued that this was the motive for the

appellant to kill his own daughter. Therefore, it is argued that the

prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt;

the impugned judgment and order is in accordance with law. It does

not warrant any interference.

12. Before the arguments are appreciated, it would be apt to

examine as to what the witnesses have stated in their deposition.

13. PW 1 Jagdish Prasad Saxena is the informant, who is

Manager and Trustee of the Dharamshala. According to him, on

09.10.2013 at about 1:30 in the afternoon, he had gone to the house

of his son. When he returned, his wife told him that a Nepali person,

who had visited the Dharamshala on 6th -7th October, had again

come and had taken the keys of the room no.1. Thereafter, this

witness reached in room no.1 and found the appellant in the room,

who then told that 2-3 people will stay in the room and the room may

be booked in his name. Therefore, in the entry register of the

Dharamshala at Serial No. 1144, his entry was made and signature

obtained. According to him, on the same day, some other persons

visited the Dharamsala, then the appellant had told that they are his

brother, sister in law and their children, who were staying in Shanti

Kunj. According to the PW1 Jagdish Prasad Saxena, on 10.10.2013,

till 2:00 p.m., when nothing was heard from the room of the appellant.

He knocked at the door and when he did not get any response, he

reached on the first floor, through a staircase and found that the back

door was open, room was empty and a woman was lying on the floor

below a bed. She did not respond. The appellant was not in the room.

He gave a report Ex. A1 to the police. Police reached at the spot. He

has proved the Dharamshala entry register of 09.10.2013 as Ex. A2.

According to him, it bears his signatures and the signatures of the

appellant also. This document, according to him, was taken into

custody by the police. PW1 Jagdish Prasad Saxena is also the witness

of recovery memo Exs. A26, A27 and A28 prepared by the

Investigation Officer, by which the police had taken various articles

from the place of incident. This witness has identified his signatures

on Exs. A26, A27 and A28. He has also identified various articles that

were taken into custody by the police from the place of incident.

14. PW4 Rajeev Saxena is son of the PW1 Jagdish Prasad

Saxena. He has corroborated the statement of the PW1 Jagdish Prasad

Saxena. In fact, he had accompanied PW1 Jagdish Prasad Saxena,

when the room was opened and they entered into the room from the

balcony.

15. PW2 Dileep Kumar Porwal, PW3 Kalpana @ Kapila

Porwal, PW5 Smt. Annpurna and PW6 Deepak Gupta are relatives of

the deceased and the appellant. Though they have not supported the

prosecution case and they were declared hostile, but, their evidence

also requires little deliberation because it establishes the motive.

16. PW 2 Dileep Kumar Porwal is brother in law of the

appellant. He speaks that the deceased was married to Manas on

13.02.2013, but deceased had an affair with some person with whom

she had eloped and had divorced Manas. According to this witness, on

20.09.2013, the appellant along with his wife and the deceased had

visited his home. Thereafter, on 12.10.2013, he received a telephone

call from Haridwar. He went to the hospital at Haridwar and identified

the dead body of the deceased. He was given supurdgi of the dead

body. He has identified his signatures on those documents. This

witness has also stated that the appellant was arrested in his

presence. He has identified his signatures on the arrest memo Ex.

A18.

17. PW3 Kalpana @ Kapila Porwal has also identified the dead

body of the deceased. She is relative of the appellant and the deceased.

According to her, they were given custody of the dead body. She has

identified her signatures on the supurdginama.

18. PW5 Annpurna Gupta is an important witness. According

to her, the appellant is her real brother. On 29.09.2013, she was told

by her husband that the appellant, the daughter and the wife of the

appellant are at Police Station Laxman Jhula. Her family members

visited the police station and returned alongwith the appellant, his

wife and daughter. This witness has stated that she has heard that the

deceased wanted to marry a person of different religion. She did not

want to stay with her first husband, with whom she had taken divorce.

On 29.09.2013, the appellant alongwith the deceased stayed in the

house and thereafter, they left.

19. PW6 Deepak Gupta is another relative of the deceased and

the appellant. He is husband of PW5 Annapurna. He has also stated

that he had identified the dead body and cremated it. This witness has

also identified the photograph paper no. 10 B/50 to 10B/52 on record

stating that they are the photographs of the deceased. He was also

declared hostile by the prosecution.

20. PW7 Manoj Sharma and PW9 Pradeep Pandey are

witnesses of inquest Ex. A9. They have stated about it.

21. PW8 Constable Ajeet Singh has received the FIR and

recorded Chik FIR and made entry in the General Diary of the Police

Station. He has stated about it.

22. PW10 Dilmohan Singh is the Sub Inspector, who on

10.10.2013 was at the police station, when FIR was lodged. He is the

first person, who through balcony entered into the room where the

appellant was staying and found the dead body of the deceased below

a bed. He has stated about it. This witness states that he had taken

fingerprints from the place of incident which are Ex. A5 to A8. This

witness has also proved the inquest report Ex. A9, which was prepared

by him. He also prepared various other documents. According to this

witness, after visiting the spot, he learnt that the brother of the

appellant was staying in Shanti Kunj on 9th and 10th October, 2013.

Thereafter, he visited Shanti Kunj and received the slips from Shanti

Kunj which are Ex. A15 and Ex. A16. Ex. A15, which this witness has

proved is paper No. 49/21 in the original record. It is a slip of Shanti

Kunj dated 03.10.2013 to 06.10.2013 in the name of the appellant. As

stated, A15 has further been marked on another document which was

proved by the PW11 Bhupendra Singh stating that on 29.09.2013, the

appellant alongwith his daughter and wife had reached at Police

Station Laxman Jhula, District Pauri Garhwal, where the deceased

had given that text. It has already been discussed hereinbefore. Ex.

A16 is another slip of Shanti Kunj, in which it is recorded that from

09.10.2013 to 10.10.2013, Tilak Ram Vaish had stayed in Shanti Kunj

with three persons. According to PW10, upon inquiry having been

made, he was told by PW5 Annpurna Gupta that on 29.09.2013, the

appellant had telephoned her that they are at Police Station Laxman

Jhula. They may be saved. Thereafter, the appellant, his wife and

daughter were taken in his house. Subsequently, this witness PW10

Dilmohan Singh visited Police Station Laxman Jhula and took into

custody the text which was written by the deceased on 29.09.2013,

which was marked as Ex. A15. He has proved the recovery memo Ex.

A17. This witness has also taken into custody, the entry register of the

Dharamshala, which is Ex. A19. He has also arrested the appellant

and proved other documents.

23. PW11 Constable, Bhupendra Singh was In-charge, Police

Station Laxman Jhula, District Pauri Garhwal on 29.09.2013.

According to him, on that date, the deceased had given a text to him

that she was married in the month of February, 2013 in Lucknow, but

she had been divorced. She wanted to marry some other boy, but her

parents were objecting to it. In that text, according to this witness, the

deceased had stated that she is willing to go with her father, the

appellant and other family members. This witness has proved the text

Ex. A15 saying that the appellant and deceased had signed on it in

his presence. It is Ex. A15, which has already been referred to

hereinbefore. This witness has given this text to PW10 Dilmohan

Singh, of which recovery memo Ex. A17 was recorded.

24. PW12 is Dr. Sandeep Nigam. According to him, on

11.10.2013, he had conducted post-mortem of the deceased. The body

was decomposing. Trachea ring was fractured. There was a green

chunni around the neck of the deceased having a knot on the back

side of the neck. This witness has proved the post mortem report Ex.

A23. According to the post mortem report, following was also noted by

the doctor:-

"(i) 33 x 2 cm ligature mark around the neck.

(ii) On cutting the ligature mark white parchment like

glistening white tissue seen.

(iii) Ligature mark is 7 cm below right ear, 6 cm below

chin.

(iv) Ligature mark is horizontal."

25. According to PW12 Dr. Sandeep Nigam, before post

mortem, they could get a piece of paper from inside the brassiere of

the deceased. He has proved this document Ex. A24. This witness has

also proved certain other documents.

26. PW13 Mahendra Singh Negi is the Inspector, who has

prepared the site plan Ex. A25. He has proved Exs. A26, A27 and A28,

the recovery memo by which various articles were taken into custody.

He has also proved the charge sheet Ex. A29.

27. On the behalf of the appellant, in defence, three witnesses

have been examined. According to DW1 Radhey Shyam, he has not

given any information to the police about the appellant. DW2 Tilak

Ram is the brother of the appellant. According to him, the police never

interrogated him. He has not given any evidence to the police. DW3

Sushila is the wife of the appellant. She has denied that on

09.10.2013, she visited Dharamshala. According to her, the police had

never taken any statement of her.

28. First and foremost it is to be examined as to whether the

death of the deceased was homicidal or suicidal?

29. It is being argued on behalf of the appellant that at the

time of post mortem, according to PW12 Dr. Sandeep Nigam, a piece

of paper Ex. A24 was recovered from inside the brassiere of the

deceased on which it was written by her that for her death, the

appellant is responsible. It is argued that it indicates that the

deceased had committed suicide. On this line, it has been argued that

below the ligature mark, white parchment like glistening white tissue

is detected and ligature was 6 cm below from left ear and 7 cm below

the right ear. Therefore, it was not horizontal. It is argued that mere

ligature does not determine as to whether the death was homicidal or

suicidal.

30. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that

PW12 Dr. Sandeep Nigam has proved the post mortem report Ex. A23

and has stated that the death of the deceased was caused by

strangulation. She submits that it is not a suicidal death and recovery

of the piece of paper from inside the brassiere of the deceased does not

make it a case of suicide.

31. It is true that according to PW12 Dr. Sandeep Nigam, from

inside the brassiere of the deceased a text Ex. A24 was recovered in

which purportedly the deceased had recorded that her father is

responsible for her death because she was in relationship with a boy of

different religion and wanted to live with him, proof of which is a text

written at the Police Station Laxman Jhula. In this text, the deceased

seeks justice. Merely because this text has been recovered, it cannot

be said that it is a suicidal death.

32. It is being argued that the appellant cannot keep such

piece of paper holding himself responsible for the death of the

deceased. This argument sounds well, but merely on this basis also, it

cannot be concluded that the death of the deceased Upasna was

suicidal.

33. A few facts need attention. PW10 Dilmohan Singh, is the

first police officer who reached at the place of incident. He prepared

inquest report Ex. A9, in which it is recorded that when they reached

in the room they found the dead body below a double bed. On the bed,

there were spectacles without a glass. The glass was below the legs of

the deceased. The ceiling fan was running. This has been assailed by

the learned senior counsel on the ground that the factum that the

dead body below the bed has not been proved. The version in the

inquest is not the substantive evidence. Moreover, according to him,

PW7 Manoj Sharma in the first line of his cross examination has

stated that the dead body was taken below the room. Therefore, he

does not know about the room. Based on this argument, it is argued

that it cannot be said that when police reached at the spot, when dead

body was lying below the bed? This argument has, in fact, less merit

for acceptance.

34. PW10 Dilmohan Singh has proved the inquest report. It

records that the dead body was found below the double bed and a

ceiling fan was running. He has also stated about the photographs of

the dead body, which are on the trial court record, which reveals that

the dead body was below the bed. But, as such, these photographs

have not been exhibited and they are not proved. Therefore, they

cannot be read into evidence. PW10 Dilmohan Singh has also stated in

the first paragraph of the examination that the dead body was below

the bed. He was not given even a suggestion in his cross examination

that the dead body was not below the bed. The inquest report records

that the ceiling fan was running. P10 Dilmohan Singh is the author of

the inquest report, which he has proved as Ex. A9. He has not been

put even a single question about the running ceiling fan. PW9 Pradeep

Pandey is another witness of inquest. Though, he also tells that he has

signed the inquest report subsequently. He has also not been asked

that the dead body was not below the bed.

35. PW1 Jagdish Prasad Saxena is the first man, who had

reached at the place of incident. In page 2, opening line, he tells that

when he reached in the room, he found a woman lying on the floor

below the bed. This is what PW4 Rajeev Saxena has stated, who had

accompanied PW1 Jagdish Prasad Saxena in the room.

36. Merely because PW7 Manoj Sharma has stated, at a stage,

that the dead body was taken down from the room, it cannot be said

that the dead body was not lying below the double bed. PW1 Jagdish

Prasad Saxena, PW4 Rajeev Saxena, PW10 Dilmohan Singh have

stated about it in their examination-in-chief that the dead body of the

deceased was lying below the bed. They have not been cross examined

on this aspect. This is so recorded in the inquest report, which has

been proved by the witnesses.

37. Inquest report also records that the ceiling fan was

running. If the ceiling fan was running, how could there be hanging by

a woman all alone? If a person hangs himself, the dead body may not

lie below the double bed. This is one aspect of the matter.

38. It is true that mere ligature may not determine whether

the death is suicidal or homicidal. Various other factors need to be

examined.

39. In the Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology

by Modi 28th Edition at page 613 and 614 difference between hanging

and strangulation in a tabular form has been given. According to it,

following are signs of strangulation:-

Strangulation

• Ligature mark - Horizontal or transverse continuous, round the neck, low down in the neck below the thyroid, the base of the groove or furrow being soft and reddish.

• Fracture of the larynx trachea and hyoid bone.

40. In the instant case, the ligature was continuous below 6

cm from chin. The doctor says it is horizontal. Although, he writes that

the mark was 7 cm below right ear and 6 cm below left ear. This also

does not make the ligature mark oblique. These are signs of

strangulation as per medical jurisprudence also. PW12 Dr. Sandeep

Nigam has proved the post mortem report Ex. A23. According to

which, the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. He has

not been put even a single question that the cause of death was not

strangulation. He was not questioned about his opinion.

41. The dead body was found below the bed and the ceiling

fan was found running. According to the doctor, the trachea had

fractured and ligature mark was horizontal. These all conclusively

proves that the death was not suicidal, it was homicidal. It is not a

case of suicide.

42. The question is as to who killed the deceased? PW1

Jagdish Prasad Saxena has categorically stated that the appellant had

taken the room on 09.10.2013. He was given the key. The appellant

had received some visitors on that date and had told that those

visitors are staying in Shanti Kunj. They were his brother and his

family members. PW10 Dilmohan Singh has taken record from Shanti

Kunj, Haridwar, which is Ex. A16, which shows that on 09.10.2013 to

10.10.2013, Tilak Ram Vaish was given a room in Shanti Kunj,

Haridwar and they were three persons. The appellant was the occupier

of the room. The deceased was found in the room. It was homicidal

death. The deceased did not check out the room. The front door of the

room was locked from inside and the appellant did escape opening the

door of the balcony.

43. Learned State counsel has also argued that the

fingerprints also supports the prosecution case.

44. Learned State counsel submits that PW1 Dilmohan Singh

had taken fingerprint impressions Ex. P5 to Ex. P8 from the crime

scene, which were sent for forensic examination. She submits that in

addition to it, Ex. A15, the text written by the appellant and the

deceased on 29.09.2013 at Police Station Laxman Jhula, District Pauri

Garhwal, which has been proved by PW11 Bhupendra Singh and Ex.

A24, a piece of paper recovered from inside the brassiere of the

deceased at the time of the post mortem, report, as proved by PW12

Dr. Sandeep Nigam.

45. It is argued that the fingerprints examination report is on

the record of the trial court.

46. First and foremost, the question of fingerprints report is

to be seen. According to PW10 Dilmohan Singh, on 10.10.2013, when

he visited the Dharamshala, from the crime scene, he collected four

fingerprints, which are Ex. A5 to Ex. A8. The fingerprints examination

report is Paper No. 15A/15 to 15A/17 dated 24.05.2014 and a

handwriting expert report with regard to Ex. A15 and A24 is paper no.

15A/30 and 15A/31 dated 27.08.2014 on the record of the trial court.

It may be noted that since in the instant case, the case was committed

to the court of sessions for trial on 03.02.2014, which means that

cognizance was taken and subsequent to it, when the case was

committed for trial on 03.02.2014, till then, the finger print

examination report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow was

not before the court concerned. The order sheets of the original record

reveal that on 09.10.2014, an application was given by the prosecutor

for filing Forensic Science Laboratory Report with regard to finger

prints as well as Ex. A15 (the documents written at Police Station

Laxman Jhula, District Pauri Garhwal on 29.09.2013 by the deceased

and the appellant) and Ex. A24 (the text recovered from inside the

brassiere of the deceased at the time of post mortem). It does not

reveal that copy of it was ever given to the appellant.

47. It is important to note that at the time of argument, on

behalf of the appellant, an application 46 A was given in the trial court

on the ground that the appellant was not provided the Forensic

Science Laboratory Report. Therefore, PW13 Mahendra Singh Negi, the

Investigating Officer could not be cross-examined in detail on this

aspect. Hence, request was made for further cross examination of

PW13 Mahendra Singh Negi. This application was moved on

08.07.2016. The trial court by a detailed order dated 13.07.2016

rejected this application. But, the trial court did not record in its

order, as to whether copy of the Forensic Science Laboratory report

was ever given to the appellant or not. This is the back ground.

48. What is important to note is that in his examination

under Section 313 of the Code, the appellant was asked that PW10

Dilmohan Singh had collected fingerprints from the crime scene,

which are Ex. A5 to Ex. A8. In answer to this, the appellant replied

that it is false proceeding. Finally, in page 7 of the examination of the

appellant under Section 313 of the Code, in the last question, the

appellant was asked that the fingerprints as well as Ex. A15 and Ex.

A24 were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. In its answer, the

appellant replied that after wrong inquiry, false documents were

prepared and false charge sheet has been submitted.

49. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code, the

appellant was not even told that the Forensic Science Laboratory has

given report with regard to the fingerprint and Ex. A15 and Ex. A34.

50. Since, the Forensic Science Laboratory Report with regard

to the fingerprints that were obtained by the PW10 Dilmohan Singh

from the crime scene as well as Ex. A15 and Ex. A24 were not placed

to the appellant under Section 313 of the Code. Such Forensic Science

Laboratory Report may not be read into evidence as held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nar Singh Vs. State of Haryana,

(2015) 1 SCC 494. In the case of Nar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in para 30 observed as follows:-

"30. Whenever a plea of omission to put a question to the accused on vital piece of evidence is raised in the appellate court, courses available to the appellate court can be briefly summarised as under:

30.1. Whenever a plea of non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC is raised, it is within the powers of the appellate court to examine and further examine the convict or the counsel appearing for the accused and the said answers shall be taken into consideration for deciding the matter. If the accused is unable to offer the appellate

court any reasonable explanation of such circumstance, the court may assume that the accused has no acceptable explanation to offer.

30.2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the appellate court comes to the conclusion that no prejudice was caused or no failure of justice was occasioned, the appellate court will hear and decide the matter upon merits.

30.3. If the appellate court is of the opinion that non-

compliance with the provisions of Section 313 CrPC has occasioned or is likely to have occasioned prejudice to the accused, the appellate court may direct retrial from the stage of recording the statements of the accused from the point where the irregularity occurred, that is, from the stage of questioning the accused under Section 313 CrPC and the trial Judge may be directed to examine the accused afresh and defence witness, if any, and dispose of the matter afresh.

30.4. The appellate court may decline to remit the matter to the trial court for retrial on account of long time already spent in the trial of the case and the period of sentence already undergone by the convict and in the facts and circumstances of the case, may decide the appeal on its own merits, keeping in view the prejudice caused to the accused."

51. Without forensic Science Laboratory report to confirm that

the fingerprints obtained by PW10 Dilmohan Singh, Ex. A5 to Ex. A8

from the place of incident were that of the appellant, it cannot be said

that there were fingerprints of the appellant in the room, where the

dead body of the deceased was found. Similarly, the text which was

found on the piece of paper from inside the brassiere of the deceased

in absence of any expert opinion, cannot be said to have been written

by the deceased.

52. But, insofar as, Ex. A15 is concerned, it has been proved

by PW11 Bhupendra Singh. It is a document written on 29.09.2013 at

Police Station Laxman Jhula, District Pauri Garhwal. As stated, PW11

Bhupendra Singh has stated that the appellant and the deceased

Upasna Gupta had signed on it in his presence. It is sufficient to prove

that Ex. A15, the text, which was written on 29.09.2013 at Police

Station Laxman Jhula, District Pauri Garhwal was signed by the

deceased and the appellant. This document establishes motive. In this

text, the deceased has written that she had divorced from her first

marriage. She wanted to marry with another boy of different religion,

but her family members were not agreeable to it. PW2 Dileep Kumar

Porwal, who is a relative of the deceased and the appellant both, has

also stated about it. PW5 Smt. Annapurna Gupta has also stated that

the deceased had married second time with a boy of different religion.

She has also stated that on 29.09.2013, the deceased and the

appellant were at the Police Station Laxman Jhula. Thereafter, her

husband visited there and took them back in their house, where they

stayed on that date. It supports the statement of PW11 Bhupendra

Singh. The motive is proved. The statements of the witnesses are

supported by the documents Ex. A15. The deceased wanted to marry a

boy of different religion, due to which, the appellant was not happy.

They have some dispute. In fact, they had reached to Police Station

Laxman Jhula, District Pauri Garhwal on 29.09.2013, where then a

kind of settlement Ex A-15 was written.

53. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the

prosecution has not been able to prove that there was only the

appellant in the room, where the dead body was found. He referred to

the statement of PW1 Jagdish Prasad Saxena to argue that, in fact,

PW1 Jagdish Prasad Saxena has stated that there were other persons

also, who visited the room in the Dharamshala on 09.10.2013.

54. PW1 Jagdish Prasad Saxena has stated that when the

room was allotted to the appellant on 09.10.2013 in the Dharamshala

in the evening at about 4:00 p.m., he had seen some visitors in the

room of the appellant and when asked, the appellant replied that they

are his brother and other family members, who are staying in Shanti

Kunj. This is what this witness has stated in his cross examination.

55. PW10 Dilmohan Singh had visited Shanti Kunj, Haridwar

and obtained the slip Ex. A16 relating to Tilak Ram Vaish, who is

brother of the appellant, which establishes and proves that, in fact,

they had been allotted room in Shanti Kunj on that date. There were

three persons entered in the slip.

56. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of the

PW10 Dilmohan Singh, which may doubt the credibility of PW10

Dilmohan Singh with regard to Ex. A16.

57. It may be noted that in his defence DW2 Tilak Ram admits

the fact that the appellant is his brother. The evidence of DW2 Tilak

Ram does not, in any manner, doubts the testimony of PW1 Jagdish

Prasad Saxena and PW10 Dilmohan Singh. Other family members of

the appellant had visited him on 09.10.2013 at the Dharamshala, but

he had given the statement that they were staying in Shanti Kunj and

there is a record to prove it.

58. The appellant was allotted room in the Dharamshala on

09.10.2013. He had checked in. The extract of the entry register has

been proved. Of course, there is some cutting on it, but PW1 Jagdish

Prasad Saxena has stated that he had made entry in the Register. To

that extent, this extract of entry register Ex. A2 may not be doubted.

The appellant did not check out from the room allotted to him. The

door was locked from inside. The appellant had escaped from the door

of the balcony and the dead body of the deceased was found below the

double bed in the room. It only draws one inference that it is the

appellant and the appellant, who had committed the offence.

59. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant had also argued

that the police team had reached at the balcony with the help of

staircase. In such circumstances, it is impossible for the appellant to

escape from first floor without any help.

60. The death is homicidal. The deceased was killed by

strangulation. The appellant was allotted a room, who was occupant of

it. There are witnesses, who have established it. It is not impossible for

a person to come out from the first floor of the room. This argument

does not doubt the prosecution case.

61. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the

view that the prosecution, in fact, has been able to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The court below has

rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned

judgment and order, which calls for no interference. Accordingly, the

appeal deserves to be dismissed.

62. The appeal is dismissed.

(Alok Mahra, J.)                         (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
                       19.11.2025
Jitendra