1

UPLL010000342018

In The Court of Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Lalitpur.
Present: Sri Nirbhay Prakash (Higher Judicial Service)
Judicial Officer Code:UP1687

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

........PROSECUTOR.

Versus

1. Chuche S/o Ghere Barar, R/o Paaraul, Police Station-Narahat,

District-Lalitpur.[DECEASED]

2. Rajkumar Barar S/o Naamalum, R/o Kherai, Khurai, Sagar,

Madhya Pradesh, India.
........ACCUSED.

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

Crime No.470 of 2017
Under Sections 302, 452, 504 of Indian Penal Code
Police Station-Narahat
District-Lalitpur.

JUDGMENT
1. This present Sessions Trial (hereinafter referred as S.T.) No.01 of
2018 has arisen out of the chargesheet submitted by Investigating Officer
in Crime No.470 of 2017 under Section 302, 452, 504 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.), Police Station-Narahat,
District-Lalitpur against accused Chuche [Deceased] S/o Ghere Barar
and Rajkumar S/o Naamalum.

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
% DSUnknown
q
1G
1g
0.1 0 0 0.1 9 0 cm
0 J 0 j 4 M []0 d
1i
0g
313 292 m
313 404 325 453 432 529 c
478 561 504 597 504 645 c
504 736 440 760 391 760 c
286 760 271 681 265 626 c
265 625 l
100 625 l
100 828 253 898 381 898 c
451 898 679 878 679 650 c
679 555 628 499 538 435 c
488 399 467 376 467 292 c
313 292 l
h
308 214 170 -164 re
f
0.44 G
1.2 w
1 1 0.4 rg
287 318 m
287 430 299 479 406 555 c
451 587 478 623 478 671 c
478 762 414 786 365 786 c
260 786 245 707 239 652 c
239 651 l
74 651 l
74 854 227 924 355 924 c
425 924 653 904 653 676 c
653 581 602 525 512 461 c
462 425 441 402 441 318 c
287 318 l
h
282 240 170 -164 re
B
Q

Digitally signed by Nirbhay Prakash

Date: 2021.04.07 14:01:20 IST
Reason: Document Owner
Location: District and Sessions Court
 2

2. In brief, prosecution story is that complainant Surendra S/o

Ramdayal Ahirwars lodged First Information Report (hereinafter
referred as F.I.R.) on dated 20.08.2017 stating that his brother Rajkumar
was sitting in front of his house on dated 12.08.2017 at that time Chuche
and his son-in-law Rajkumar came and started to abuse complainant’s
brother Rajkumar. Both the accused had previous enmity with the family
members of complainant. When complainant’s brother Rajkumar went
inside the house then both the accused entered into the house and caught
complainant’s brother and poured kerosene oil upon the complainant’s
brother Rajkumar and set him ablaze on fire and then both the accused
bolted the door from inside because the door was already broken from
few areas. At that time no family member was at home when
complainant’s brother Rajkumar shouted then Kallu S/o Dharmu Ahirwar
reached at the spot and extinguished the fire then Golu S/o Prahlad Singh
called the ambulance and Prahlad Singh S/o Chatrapal Singh had
recorded the shouting of complainant’s brother Rajkumar. Complainant
Surendra’ younger brother Bablu S/o Ramdayal Ahirwar and his mother
brought complainant’s injured brother to Lalitpur for treatment but
complainant’s injured brother Rajkumar succumbed to the burn injuries
and died.

On the basis of above allegation present F.I.R. was lodged under

Sections 302, 452, 504 of I.P.C. After collection of evidence Investigating
Officer submitted chargesheet against accused Chuche and Rajkumar on
dated 19.11.2017. Competent Court took cognizance on dated 22.11.2017
and committed the matter to Sessions Court for trial on dated
01.01.2018.

Sessions Court framed charges on dated 25.01.2018 against

accused Chuche and Rajkumar under Sections 302, 452, 504 of I.P.C. in
which they denied the charges and pleaded for trial.

During proceeding of this case accused Chuche died so case was

abated against Chuche on dated 23.09.2019.

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 3

3. Prosecution has produced following prosecution witnesses

(hereinafter referred as P.W.) to prove its case-----
(i). P.W.1 Surendra (deceased’s brother/complainant),
(ii). P.W.2 Smt. Ramrani (deceased’s mother),
(iii). P.W.3 Bhupendra (deceased’s brother),
(iv). P.W.4 Dr. Manish Kumar (Medical Officer),
(v). P.W.5 Sub-Inspector Mohd. Afzal (witness of panchayatnama),
(vi). P.W.6 Sub-Inspector A.K. Singh, (Investigating Officer),
(vii). P.W.7 Sub-Inspector M.C. Gautam (Investigating Officer),
(viii). P.W.8 Prahlad Singh (witness of fact),
(ix). P.W.9 Head Constable Siddha Gopal (F.I.R. Scribe).

4. Prosecution has produced and proved following documents to

prove its case----
(i). Exhibit A-1, [Original written complaint proved by P.W.1
Surendra (deceased’s brother/complainant)],
(ii). Exhibit A-2, [Postmortem Report proved by P.W.4 Dr. Manish
Kumar (Medical Officer)],
(iii). Exhibit A-3, [Panchayatnama],
(iv). Exhibit A-4, [letter written to CMO for postmortem proved by
P.W.5 Sub-Inspector Mohd. Afzal],
(v). Exhibit A-5, [Letter written to R.I. for postmortem proved by
P.W.5 Sub-Inspector Mohd. Afzal],
(vi). Exhibit A-6, [Sample seal],
(vii). Exhibit A-7, [Spot map],
(viii). Exhibit A-8, [Chargesheet],
(ix). Exhibit A-9, [Chik F.I.R.],
(x). Exhibit A-10, [Copy of GD].

It appears from perusal of record that though all the documents

have been proved by prosecution witnesses before the Court but
inadvertently the then Presiding Officer did not sign upon those proved
documents hence at the time of pronouncement of judgment all those
proved documents are being signed by the undersigned.

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 4

5. Statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

(hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.) was recorded in which accused denied
the deposition given by the prosecution witnesses and has stated that
deceased Rajkumar wanted to marry accused’s sister-in-law Ramkumari
but when Miss Ramkumari refused to come along with complainant’s
brother Rajkumar then victim Rajkumar committed suicide.

6. Defence has produced Vrindavan as Defence Witness (hereinafter

referred as D.W.) 1 and Kallu as D.W.2. It is also important to mention
the fact that Kallu S/o Dharmu Ahirwar is the eye witness as per the
written complaint filed by the complainant Surendra. Kallu as D.W.2 has
deposed before this Court that when Kallu/D.W.2 along with other people
reached at the spot he saw that the room in which deceased Rajkumar
was burned, was locked from inside and D.W.2 Kallu along with other
people had broken the door and then had brought deceased Rajkumar
from the burning room.

7. In view of Section 354(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. following points of

determination are hereby framed--
(i). whether prosecution has proved lodging of present F.I.R. without
unreasonable delay?
(ii). whether prosecution has proved that deceased Rajkumar died
unnaturally?
(iii). whether prosecution has proved that accused Rajkumar had
entered into the house of deceased Rajkumar and burned him by
pouring kerosene upon him and had abused the deceased Rajkumar?

8. Disposal of point of determination no.(i)-- whether prosecution

has proved lodging of present F.I.R. without unreasonable delay?

In present matter, complainant Surendra has lodged written

complaint (Tahrir) on dated 20.08.2017 alleging that alleged offence took
place on dated 12.08.2017 so clearly there is delay of around 8 days in
lodging present F.I.R. In written complaint, complainant Surendra has
nowhere mentioned as to why he took 8 days in lodging present F.I.R. So

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 5

clearly complainant Surendra has nowhere mentioned the reasons for

delay in lodging present F.I.R. which is more than 8 days delay. Though
complainant as P.W.1 had appeared before this Court and has proved
written complaint as exhibit A-1 so obviously when there was already
delay of 8 days in lodging F.I.R. it was the duty of complainant to explain
delay in lodging F.I.R. Though as P.W.1 Surendra has stated before this
Court that he was working outside and the whole family was in shock due
to the death of Rajkumar hence present F.I.R. has not been lodged within
time. P.W.1 has also deposed that due to trayodashi sanskar (Ritual)
present F.I.R. could not be lodged within time but here P.W.1 has
contradicted himself because trayodashi sanskar (Ritual) takes place
after 13 days from the date when any death occurs but in present matter,
if after death of Rajkumar after lapse of 8 days present F.I.R. was lodged
so clearly present F.I.R. was lodged before trayodashi sanskar (Rituals)
so this testimony of P.W.1 Surendra/complainant is found to be
misleading. P.W.1 Surendra in his examination in chief has deposed that
when his brother Rajkumar was seriously burned he was taken to the
hospital by complainant’s brother Bablu and his mother Smt. Ramrani.
Complainant Bablu is also witness in panchayatnama, proved as exhibit
A-3, in which Bablu S/o Late Ramdayal was the first panchan (witness of
panchayatnama). Panchayatnama was conducted on dated 13.08.2017 so
clearly complainant’s younger brother Bablu was present from inception
of story because Bablu had taken the injured deceased to the hospital and
he was the witness of panchayatnama which was conducted on dated
13.08.2017 still Bablu did not lodge the F.I.R. rather F.I.R. was lodged on
dated 20.08.2017 by deceased’s brother Surendra/complainant when he
came from Rajasthan State. It is also important to mention the fact that
deceased Rajkumar’s mother Smt. Ramkumari was also present from the
date when this alleged offence took place on dated 12.08.2017 but she
also did not lodge F.I.R. So clearly prosecution has failed to explain the
delay of 8 days in lodging present F.I.R. Delay gives time to the
prosecution to concoct the story as per its will and to fabricate the things
in such a way which is suitable to the story of the prosecution. Delay
gives time to the prosecution to mould its story as per its own
convenience and if delay is not explained delay will be fatal to the story

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 6

of the prosecution also. Though P.W.1 has tried to explain the delay that
due to trayodashi sanskar (Ritual) instant/prompt F.I.R. could not be
lodged but it is unbelievable because in Hindu Law trayodashi sanskar
(Ritual) takes place after 13 days from the date of any death occurs. In
present matter alleged death took place on dated 12.08.2017 so clearly
trayodashi sanskar would have taken place on dated 25.08.2017 in that
case this report would have been lodged after 25.08.2017 but present
F.I.R. has been lodged on dated 20.08.2017. So clearly present F.I.R. has
been lodged before conducting the trayodashi sanskar (Ritual) hence
explanation assigned by P.W.1 regarding delay is found to be false.
Hence this Court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed
to explain 8 days delay in lodging present F.I.R. considering that fact that
complainant’s brother Bablu and his mother Smt. Ramrani were present
from the date when alleged offence took place i.e. 12.08.2017.
Accordingly point of determination no.(i) is decided.

9. Disposal of point of determination no.(ii)-- whether prosecution

has proved that deceased Rajkumar died unnaturally?

P.W.1 Surendra, complainant/deceased Rajkumar’s brother has

lodged present F.I.R. alleging that his brother Rajkumar died due to
burned injuries.

P.W.2 Smt. Ramrani, mother of decease Rajkumar, has also

deposed before this Court that when she took his injured son Rajkumar to
hospital for treatment he died due to burn injuries. Same thing has been
reiterated by P.W.3 Bhupendra, who is complainant’s brother.

P.W.4 Dr. Manish Kumar, Medical Officer has deposed before this
Court that he had conducted the postmortem of deceased Rajkumar on
dated 13.08.2017 and had found 95% burned injuries on the dead body
of Rajkumar. In the opinion of P.W.4 Dr. Manish Kumar, deceased
Rajkumar died on dated 12.08.2017. P.W.4 has also opined that deceased
died due to shock due to antemortem burn injuries. So clearly P.W.4 Dr.
Manish Kumar, Medical Officer has found that Rajkumar died due to

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 7

burned injuries and mother of deceased Rajkumar, has proved before the
Court as P.W.2 that when she was taking his son to the hospital he was
severely injured due to burn injuries so this Court has come to the
conclusion that Rajkumar died unnaturally. Accordingly point of
determination no.(ii) is decided.

10. Disposal of point of determination no.(iii)-- whether prosecution

has proved that accused Rajkumar had entered into the house of
deceased Rajkumar and burned him by pouring kerosene upon him and
had abused the deceased Rajkumar?

Accused Rajkumar has been charged under Sections 302, 452, 504
of I.P.C.

Prosecution has produced total eight witnesses to prove its fact.

Out of them P.W.1 Surendra, P.W.2 Smt. Ramrani, P.W.3 Bhupendra and
P.W.8 Prahlad Singh are the witnesses of fact while other witnesses are of
formal nature whose evidence is not very necessary to prove the alleged
offence.

For proper appraisal of evidence it is important to mention the

important part of testimony given by the prosecution witnesses.

11. P.W.1 Surendra/complainant himself has admitted in his written

complaint lodged on dated 20.08.2017 that alleged offence took place on
dated 12.08.2017 and he was not present at the spot. P.W.1 Surendra has
reiterated the fact before this Court already stated in his written
complaint and has alleged that accused Rajkumar along with other
accused Chuche (deceased) had poured kerosene upon Rajkumar and
bolted the room from the inside due to which Rajkumar could not come
out of the room and died due to burn injuries. P.W.1 Surendra has also
deposed that when his injured brother Rajkumar shouted Kallu reached
at the spot and Golu had called ambulance while Prahlad/P.W.8 had
recorded in the mobile. P.W.1 has also deposed that his brother Bablu
and mother Smt. Ramrani/P.W.2 had taken the injured Rajkumar to the

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 8

hospital but Rajkumar died due to burn injuries. P.W.1 Surendra in his
examination in chief has admitted that he was not present at the spot.
P.W.1 has admitted that he had not seen the alleged offence and he was in
Rajasthan State on the date of commission of the crime. P.W.1 has
admitted that accused Rajkumar is Son-in-Law of Bihari. Bihari has
three daughters-First is Ramdevi, Second is Ramkumari and Third is
Prasanna. Ramdevi is married to accused Rajkumar. P.W.1 has admitted
that Ramkumari died after 8 days from the date of complainant’s brother
Rajkumar died. P.W.1 Surendra has admitted that Ramkumari had
committed suicide in her house. P.W.1 Surendra has also stated that the
room in which injured Rajkumar was burned cannot be bolted from
inside. P.W.1 Surendra has also admitted that his brother
Bhupendra/P.W.3 has informed him that bolt was not cut rather it was
already lying there. P.W.1 Surendra has admitted that his brother
Bhupendra/P.W.3 has narrated him the whole story and he himself had
not seen any offence.

12. P.W.2 Smt. Ramrani/deceased Rajkumar’s mother has deposed

before this Court that she has four sons Rajkumar, Surendra, Bhupendra
and Bablu. When her son Rajkumar was burned she was informed about
this incident by her son Bhupendra/P.W.3. Smt. Ramrani/P.W.2 has also
stated that accused Rajkumar and accused Chuche (deceased) had
burned her son Rajkumar. In cross-examination of P.W.3 Smt. Ramrani,
she has admitted that she had not seen the alleged offence and the whole
story was narrated to her by her son Bhupendra/P.W.3.

P.W.2 Smt. Ramrani has also admitted that accused rajkumar’s

sister-in-law Ramkumari had died afer 6 or 7 days from the date when
Rajkumar had died. P.W.2 has also admitted that when Ramkumari died
after that her sons Surendra/P.W.1 and Bhupendra/P.W.3 had returned
back from Rajasthan State. P.W.2 Smt. Ramrani has also admitted that
family members of accused had lodged F.I.R. against complainant’s
family members for the suicide of Ramkumari. P.W.2 has admitted that
deceased Rajkumar and Ramkumari used to have conversation in lonely
place and deceased Rajkumar and Ramkumari were in talkative terms.

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 9

P.W.2 Smt. Ramrani has also admitted that when she reached at the spot
her son Bhupendra/P.W.3 was already there. Nothing important material
things have emerged out from the cross-examination of P.W.2 Smt.
Ramrani.

13. P.W.3 Bhupendra has deposed before this Court that accused
Rajkumar and Chuche (deceased) had poured kerosene oil upon his
brother Rajkumar and had set ablaze on fire and his mother was sitting
in the mohalla but in his cross-examination P.W.3 Bhupendra has
admitted that he had gone to the school on alleged date and he studies in
Government School. P.W.3 has also admitted that he was not present at
the home on alleged date and he had come after the incident. P.W.3
Bhupendra has also admitted that he had told the true facts to the
Investigating Officer.

14. P.W.5 Sub-Inspector Mohammad Afzal had conducted

panchayatnama which has been proved as exhibit A-3 and he had sent
the letter to R.I. and C.M.O. for conducting postmortem which has been
proved by him. P.W.5 Sub-Inspector Mohd. Afzal has admitted that
witnesses of panchayatnama had not disclosed the names of the persons,
who had committed the crime. P.W.5 has also admitted that family
members of deceased Rajkumar were present during panchayatnama still
they did not name anyone as accused during the proceeding of
panchayatnama.

15. P.W.6 Sub-Inspector A.K. Singh has prepared spot map which has
been proved as exhibit A-7 in which by letter ‘X’ the place is shown
where deceased was set ablaze on fire. P.W.6 has admitted that he did not
find any eye witness, who could prove the fact that he himself had seen
the alleged offence. P.W.6 Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector A.K. Singh
has admitted that there was no sign of fire upon the door of the room in
which Rajkumar was set ablaze on fire.

16. P.W.7 Sub-Inspector M.C. Gautam, Investigating Officer has

proved that chargesheet was submitted by him which has been exhibited

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 10

as A-8. P.W.7 has admitted that complainant Surendra/P.W.1 had given

him DVD which was recorded by Prahlad Singh/P.W.8 through his
mobile. P.W.7 Investigating Officer has admitted that he did not conduct
the forensic authentication of concerned DVD from Forensic Science
Laboratory but he had seen the alleged DVD. P.W.7 has also admitted
that he cannot say whether it was original or duplicate. P.W.7 has also
admitted that the room in which deceased Rajkumar had died, was bolted
from the inside. P.W.7 has also admitted that witnesses had stated
themselves that they had gone into the room by breaking the door. P.W.7
has also admitted that he did not find any eye witness of alleged offence.
Nothing other material things have emerged out in his cross-examination.

17. P.W.8 Prahlad Singh has deposed before this Court that on dated
12.08.2017 at around 11.00 A.M. he heard the noise of injured Rajkumar
and when he along with other witnesses Kallu, Amar Singh and
Vrindavan reached at the spot, they saw that Rajkumar was shouting in
burning condition and was saying that Miss Ramkumari set him ablaze
on fire. Rajkumar was in dying state and was alleging the name of other
people also but P.W.8 had stated that he did not make any mobile
recording of the statement made by injured Rajkumar neither he had
given that recording in a chip to the complainant Surendra/P.W.1. P.W.8
Prahlad has admitted in his cross-examination that accused Rajkumar’s
sister-in-law Ramkumari had died. P.W.8 Prahlad had also admitted that
accused Rajkumar was not present in the village of alleged date. P.W.8
Prahlad has also admitted that when he reached at the spot victim
Rajkumar was seriously injured and was not in the condition to speak.
P.W.8 has also admitted that accused Rajkumar’s sister Ramkumari had a
love affair with the deceased Rajkumar and due to which Rajkumar had
committed suicide. P.W.8 has also admitted that he does not use any
android phone. P.W.8 has also admitted that Ramkumari, sister-in-law of
accused Rajkumar had committed suicide also.

18. Kallu has been arrayed as a witness by complainant in his written

complaint and has stated that he was present at the spot. Kallu S/o
Dharmu as D.W.2 has appeared before this Court and has not supported

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 11

the version of prosecution and has stated that when he reached at the
spot on alleged date and at alleged time he along with other people had
broken the door of the room in which rajkumar was burning. Injured
Rajkumar was taken out from that room. Kallu has also stated that
accused Rajkumar was not present in the village on alleged date. D.W.2
Kallu has also admitted that deceased Rajkumar had a love affair with
accused Rajkumar’s sister Ramkumari. D.W.2 Kallu has also admitted
that after the death of Rajkumar Ramkumari had also committed suicide
subsequently.

19. So from above discussion it has emerged out that P.W.1

complainant Surendra was not present on alleged date 12.08.2017 in the
village rather he was working in Rajasthan State. P.W.1
Surendra/complainant has admitted before this Court that he has lodged
present written complaint on dated 20.08.2017 upon information given to
him by complainant’s brother Bhupendra/P.W.3. So clearly testimony of
P.W.1 Surendra comes into the category of hearsay evidence and hearsay
evidence is not admissible as evidence as per Indian Evidence Act, 1872
because P.W.1 Surendra was not present at the spot and he has narrated
in his written complaint or in his deposition given before this Court those
facts have been narrated to him by his brother Bhupendra/P.W.3. Hence
the whole evidence of P.W.1 Surendra is hearsay evidence and is not
admissible evidence except the fact that he had lodged present written
complaint which is exhibited as A-1.

P.W.2 Smt. Ramrani has alleged that accused Rajkumar had set
Rajkumar ablaze on fire but she had also admitted that she had not seen
the alleged offence when she reached at the spot her son Rajkumar was
already severely burned and she had not seen anyone at the spot. P.W.2
Smt. Ramrani had also admitted that the whole story was narrated to her
by her son Bhupendra/P.W.3. P.W.2 Smt. Ramrani has admitted that
accused Rajkumar’s sister-in-law Ramkumari had committed suicide
after 6 to 7 days when injured Rajkumar had died. P.W.2 has also
admitted this fact that deceased Rajkumar and sister-in-law of accused
Rajkumar, used to talk in lonely places so clearly evidence of P.W.2

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 12

Ramrani is also hearsay evidence because she had not seen the alleged
offence and she has deposed whatever was told to her by her son
Bhupendra/P.W.3, but her testimony is important so far as it relates to
prove the fact that deceased Rajkumar had connection with accused
Rajkumar’s sister-in-law Ramkumari.

P.W.3 Bhupendra has stated before this Court that accused

Rajkumar and Chuche (deceased) had beaten his brother Rajkumar and
had set him ablaze on fire at that time his mother was sitting in mohalla
but in his cross-examination P.W.3 Bhupendra has admitted that he had
gone to his school on alleged date. P.W.3 has also admitted that he had
told to Sub-Inspector that he was not at his house on alleged date on
alleged time rather he had reached subsequently. So clearly if evidence of
P.W.3 Bhupendra is considered as the whole he has nowhere stated that
he had seen the alleged offence rather he has admitted that he also
reached at the spot subsequently and he had not seen the accused at the
spot.

P.W.8 Prahlad Singh has also admitted that when he reached at

the spot he did not see the accused at the spot rather he saw the injured
Rajkumar was shouting the name of Ramkumari and he was mentioning
the name of other people also but P.W.8 Prahlad has nowhere deposed
that injured Rajkumar was mentioning the name of accused Rajkumar.
P.W.8 Prahlad has admitted that deceased Rajkumar had love affair with
the Ramkumari, who is the sister-in-law of accused Rajkumar.

Here evidence of Investigating Officers P.W.6 and P.W.7 is also

very important because both the Investigating Officers have deposed
before this Court that they did not find any eye witness of alleged offence.

So clearly it is proved that P.W.1 Surendra/complainant was not

present at the spot on dated 12.08.2017 when the alleged offence took
place so his evidence falls under the evidence of hearsay evidence, which
is not admissible evidence. P.W.1 Surendra has also admitted before this
Court that he lodged present F.I.R. upon the narration given to him by his

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 13

brother Bhupendra/P.W.3. P.W.2 Smt. Ramrani, who is the mother of

deceased Rajkumar, has also admitted before this Court that she was not
present at the spot and she was told about this fact by her son Bhupendra
so testimony of P.W.2 Smt. Ramrani also comes under the category of
hearsay evidence which is not admissible as evidence. P.W.3 Bhupendra
has deposed that accused Rajkumar and Chuche (deceased) had beaten
the Rajkumar and set him ablaze on fire but P.W.3 Bhupendra has not
mentioned even in his examination in chief whether he saw the alleged
offence or not but P.W.3 Bhupendra in his cross-examination has
admitted that he was not present at the spot and he reached at the spot
subsequently. P.W.6 and P.W.7 Investigating Officers have also deposed
before this Court that they did not find any eye witness. P.W.3 in his
statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. On dated 29.10.2017,
has stated that he had gone to his school and he was not present at his
home when alleged offence took place. P.W.3 Bhupendra has admitted
that he came to his home subsequently and when he came at his home his
brother Rajkumar was already burned. So clearly P.W.3 Bhupendra had
also not seen the alleged offence.

Here one thing is also very important to mention that alleged

offence took place on dated 12.08.2017 and for that F.I.R. was lodged on
dated 20.08.2017 by complainant Surendra/P.W.1 but complainant P.W.1
has nowhere mentioned in his F.I.R. that his brother Bhupendra/P.W.3
had seen alleged offence though complainant as P.W.1 has deposed
before this Court that the whole story was narrated to him by his brother
Bhupendra/P.W.3 so in that case definitely complainant Surendra/P.W.1
would have mentioned the name of Bhupendra/P.W.3 as eye witness in
written complaint which was already filed after 8 days from the date of
alleged offence. P.W.1 Surendra/complainant has mentoned the names of
other eye witnesses Prahlad/P.W.8 and Kallu/D.W.2 in his written
complaint dated 20.08.2017 so clearly had complainant’s real brother
Bhupendra/P.W.3 seen the alleged offence, complainant would have
mentioned Bhupendra’s name also in written complaint dated
20.08.2017 which has not been done. So clearly Bhupendra/P.W.3 was
also not present at the spot because his name is not mentioned as eye

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 14

witness even in the F.I.R. which was lodged after 8 days from the date of
alleged offence and Bhupendra as P.W.3 has admitted that he had gone to
the school and he was not present at the spot at his home and he came
subsequently then he found that his brother Rajkumar was already
burned. Here testimony of P.W.8 Prahlad is also very important, who was
present at the spot because P.W.8 Prahlad has deposed that when he
reached upon hearing noise, deceased Rajkumar was shouting the name
of Ramkumari but deceased Rajkumar did not utter the name of accused
Rajkumar so clearly P.W.8 Prahlad had also not seen the alleged offence.
P.W.8 Prahlad had also deposed before this Court that deceased
Rajkumar was not in fit state of mind due to burn injuries. So not a single
witness had seen the alleged offence.

Though Investigating Officer has stated that DVD containing the

declaration made by deceased Rajkumar, was handed over to him which
is in Case-Diary dated 06.11.2017 in which Investigating Officer has
mentioned that when he saw the video he found that deceased Rajkumar
was mentioning the name of Ramkumari, Ramdevi and accused Chuche
(deceased) and saying that room was bolted from the inside.
Investigating Officer has also mentioned that in that DVD that statement
of injured Rajkumar was found to be contradictory. So clearly even in
that DVD deceased Rajkumar did not mention the name of accused
Rajkumar. Here it is also important fact to point out that Investigating
Officer did not get the DVD examined from Forensic Science Laboratory.
Though Hon’ble High Court had directed to decide this case in time
bound time manner because accused Rajkumar is under trial prisoner,
which had already expired still in search of quest of truth this Court tried
to fill up the lacuna committed by Investigating Officer by not
scientifically examined the compact disc, by sending the compact disk to
F.S.L. even at the stage of argument. Because it is expected from the
Court to do complete justice and in the opinion of Court scientific
evidence is the best evidence through which truth can be ascertained.
During the course of trial upon the application of prosecution original
compact disc was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for verification on
dated 13.01.2021 but F.S.L. had sent report that DVD was unplayable

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 15

and was sent back to this Court. So clearly it was duty of the
Investigating Officer during course of investigation to get examined
CD(compact disc)/DVD from F.S.L. which was not done which is major
fault committed by Investigating Officer during course of investigation.
From perusal of case diary it is also found that complainant has stated
that Prahlad/P.W.8 had recorded in his mobile the statement of injured
Rajkumar and that mobile recording was converted into DVD and which
was given to Investigating Officer but Investigating Officer did not
collect that primary evidence, that mobile by which the statement was
recorded during the course of investigation which is major fault
committed by Investigating Officer. For this act of negligence matter
must be sent to Higher Police Authorities for taking strict action against
Investigating Officer for not collecting scientific evidence (that mobile) in
a proper manner because scientific evidence is the best evidence and
Prahlad Singh/P.W.8, by which the alleged offence was recorded. has not
supported the version of prosecution during trial. Prahlad Singh as P.W.8
has deposed that he did not record the statement of deceased Rajkumar in
his mobile. So clearly Investigating Officer had committed gross
negligence while discharging his official duty.

In criminal trial prosecution has to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt. In criminal trial prosecution can prove its case either
by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence means
any evidence who has seen the alleged offence or by scientific evidence.
Circumstantial evidence means that there is no eye witness still
circumstances point towards the guilt of the accused.

In present matter prosecution has not produced any eye witness to

prove its case. P.W.1 Surendra/complainant himself has admitted that he
was in the state of Rajasthan on the alleged date 12.08.2017. P.W.2 Smt.
Ramrani, mother of deceased Rajkumar had also admitted that she was
informed about the alleged offence by her son Bhupendra/P.W.3.
Bhupendra as P.W.3 has also admitted that he had gone to the school and
he came subsequently and when he came he found that his brother was
aready burned. P.W.8 Prahlad has also admitted that he did not see

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 16

anyone pouring kerosene upon the body of Rajkumar and when he

reached at the spot he saw that injured Rajkumar was shuoting the name
of Ramkumari and other people but did not mention the name of accused
Rajkumar so clearly prosecution has failed to produce even a single eye
witness to prove its case by direct evidence. Investigating Officers P.W.6
Sub-Inspector, A.K. Singh and P.W.7 Sub-Inspector, M.C. Gautam have
also deposed that they did not find any eye witness of alleged offence.
The mobile in which the statement of injured Rajkumar was recorded,
was also not collected by Investigating Officer and the DVD in which
mobile recording was converted and was handed over to the
Investigating Officer, was not scientifically verified from F.S.L. during the
course of investigation and when the Court during trial sent it to F.S.L.
for verification it could not be played. P.W.8 Prahlad, who is mentioned
as the person, who had recorded the statement of injured Rajkumar in his
mobile, had also not supported the version of prosecution and had stated
that he did not record the statement of injured Rajkumar in his mobile. So
clearly no direct evidence produced by the prosecution to prove its case
which could prove the fact that they had seen the alleged offence, was
committed by the accused Rajkumar.

20. So far as ingredients of circumstantial evidence is concerned,

Hon’ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of
Maharashtra [AIR 1984 SC 1622] has laid down following principles
while appreciating evidence in cases based upon circumstantial
evidence--

(i) The circumstantial from which the conclusion of guilt is to be

drawn should be fully established.
(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they shold not be explainable on
any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(iii) The circumstantial should be of a conclusive nature,
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be
proved,

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 17

(v) 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.

21. So in view of above law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court,

prosecution has to prove that accused were lastly seen with the deceased
Rajkumar and they were seen immediately before the alleged time when
victim expired and also it must exclude the hypothesis that anyone was
also present at the spot when victim died but in present matter, even not a
single witness has been produced by the prosecution who could prove this
fact that accused Rajkumar was lastly seen with the deceased Rajkumar.
P.W.1 Surendra, complainant/deceased’s brother, has himself admitted
that he was not present at the spot and he came subsequently from
Rajasthan State and had lodged present F.I.R.

P.W.2 Smt. Ramrani had also admitted that she did not see the
alleged offence or she did not see her deceased son Rajkumar lastly with
the accused Rajkumar.

P.W.3 Bhupendra has admitted that his mother P.W.3 Smt.

Ramrani was sitting in the mohalla. P.W.3 has also admitted that he was
at his school when the alleged offence took place and when he came he
found that his brother, injured Rajkumar was suffering from burn
injuries. So clearly P.W.3 Bhupendra had not seen the accused Rajkumar
with the deceased Rajkumar on alleged date and time.

P.W.8 Prahlad, who reached at the spot when he heard the noise of
victim Rajkumar, has also nowhere mentioned that he found the accused
Rajkumar at the spot rather he has admitted that accused Rajkumar was
not in the village when the alleged offence took place.

So clearly not a single evidence has asserted this fact that accused
Rajkumar was last seen together with the victim Rajkumar. So
prosecution has failed to complete the chain, which is required in case of

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 18

circumstantial evidence. Here evidence of P.W.4 Dr. Manish Kumar is

also very important, who did not find any injury upon the body of
deceased Rajkumar except the burn injuries. P.W.4 Dr. Manish Kumar
has also deposed before this Court that if there is any homicidal death in
that case injury is probable upon the body of the deceased Rajkumar so
clearly in present matter, though there is unnatural death but
prosecution has failed to prove that it was homicidal death.

Here one thing is also very important from perusal of case

diary as well as evidence found on record during the course of trial
that the room in which deceased Rajkumar was burned, was bolted
from the inside so it is highly improbable for any person to set
anyone ablaze on fire and bolted it from inside so this fact also
creates doubt upon the story of the prosecution. Even P.W.1
Surendra/complainant has mentioned in his written complaint dated
20.08.2017 that room in which alleged offence took place was
bolted from inside.

22. D.W.2 Kallu has also deposed before this Court that he was
present at the spot and had cut the door because it was bolted from
inside and had brought out the victim/injured Rajkumar from the
room so bolting from inside has been proved which is against the
story of prosecution because it is improbable for any human being
to bolt himself from the inside after burning of anyone in the room.
Here P.W.2 Smt. Ramrani has admitted that deceased Rajkumar had
some connection with Miss Ramkumar, sister-in-law of accused
Rajkumar. P.W.8 Prahlad and D.W.2 Kallu have also deposed before
this Court that deceased Rajkumar had love affair with Ramkumar,
sister-in-law of accused Rajkumar and after death of injured
Rajkumar, Ramkumari had also committed suicide subsequently for
which F.I.R. No.17/18 under Section 306 of I.P.C. was lodged
against Surendra (complainant of present case), Bablu, Smt.
Draupdi, Smt. Laxmi and Smt. Kunwar Bai. Copy of that F.I.R. is

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 19

annexed in this file. It is also important here to mention the fact that
prosecution has failed to explain the 8 days delay in lodging present
F.I.R. P.W.1 Surendra has deposed that when he came from
Rajasthan he lodged F.I.R. but it is admitted fact that complainant’s
younger brother Bablu and mother Ramrani were present even on
the date of alleged offence i.e. 12.08.2017 and they had taken the
injured victim Rajkumar to the hospital where he died even Bablu
was the witness of panchayatnama which was conducted on
13.08.2017 still the F.I.R. was not lodged by Bablu or by deceased
Rajkumar’s mother Smt. Ramrani/P.W.2. Moreover, P.W.1 Surendra
has deposed that due to trayodashi sanskar F.I.R. could not be
lodged promptly and due to shock incident F.I.R. could not lodged
but trayodashi sanskar takes place after 13 days from the death of
any person but in present matter, present F.I.R. was lodged on dated
20.08.2017 while trayodashi sanskar would have taken place on
dated 25.08.2017 on that point also P.W.1 Surendra is found
misleading the Court. Here one thing is also important to mention
that though there was 8 days of unreasonable delay in lodging F.I.R.
still complainant Surendra, P.W.1 did not mention time in the F.I.R.
as to when the alleged offence took place. P.W.1 Surendra,
complainant has just mentioned the date in his complaint filed on
dated 20.08.2017 that alleged offence took place on dated
12.08.2017 but no time was mentioned in the F.I.R. so clearly in
criminal law prosecution has to prove the alleged date as well as
alleged time when any offence is committed which has not been
done so in present matter, P.W.1 Surendra, complainant has also not
mentioned that time in his deposition given before this Court during
trial. Other witnesses of fact P.W.2 Smt. Ramrani, P.W.3 Bhupendra
have not mentioned the time of alleged offence. Only P.W.8 Prahlad
has mentioned that on dated 12.08.2017 at around 11.00 A.M. when
he heard the noise of injured Rajkumar he reached at the spot so
clearly prosecution has also failed to prove the time when alleged
offence took place.
Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018
State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 20

From deposition given by P.W.2 Smt. Ramrani, mother of deceased

Rajkumar and P.W.8 Prahlad it has emerged out that deceased Rajkumar
had a love affair with the accused Rajkumar’s sister-in-law Ramkumari
and this may be the reason for the commission of suicide because
prosecution has failed to prove that it was the homicidal death.

23. P.W.4 Dr. Manish Kumar has deposed that there was no injury on
the body of deceased Rajkumar and it has also proved by the prosecution
witneses itself that room was locked from the inside in which deceased
Rajkumar received burn injuries. Here one thing is also important to
mention that P.W.2 Smt. Ramrani has admitted in her cross-examination
that when Rajkumar died after his death her sons Surendra/P.W.1 and
Bhupendra/P.W.3 had returned back from Rajasthan so P.W.2 Smt.
Ramrani herself has created doubt upon the presence of P.W.3 Bhupendra
and at the spot even after commission of the alleged offence because she
had deposed that even Bhupendra P.W.3 was also in the Rajasthan State
and Bhupendra/P.W.3 came after Ramkumari had committed suicide.
From perusal of panchayatnama exhibited as A-3 it is manifested that
witness of panchayatnama has just mentioned that deceased Rajkumar
had died due to burn injuries and none of the witnesses of
panchayatnama has alleged that accused Rajkumar had committed
alleged offence or accused Rajkumar was lastly seen with the deceased
Rajkumar just before the commission of alleged offence. Though Bablu,
who is the real brother of deceased Rajkumar, is also witness of that
panchayatnama. Panchayatnama was conducted on dated 13.08.2017 at
around 1.40 P.M. So had there been any involvement of accused
Rajkumar, witnesses of panchayatnama would have definitely mentioned
his name as alleged assailant, who had set Rajkumar ablaze on fire.

24. So from above discussion, this Court has come to the

conclusion that prosecution has failed to produce any eye witness,
who could prove that he had seen the alleged offence committed by
the accused Rajkumar. Prosecution has also failed to prove the
chain of circumstantial evidence which could point towards the guilt
Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018
State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 21

of accused Rajkumar. None of the witnesses from prosecution has

alleged that accused Rajkumar was seen near the place where
deceased Rajkumar was burned. No antemortem injury except
burned injuries was found on the body of deceased Rajkumar. It is
proved by F.I.R. itself that room, in which deceased Rajkumar was
burned, was locked from inside. Prosecution has failed to explain
the 8 days delay in lodging present F.I.R. inspite of fact that
deceased’s brother Bablu and deceased Rajkumar’s mother Smt.
Ramrani/P.W.2 were present even when deceased was taken to the
hospital and Bablu was the witness of panchayatnama. So
prosecution has failed to discharge its burden to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt against accused Rajkumar, rather
prosecution has failed to lead even a iota of evidence in support of
its story against accused Rajkumar. Accordingly this Court has
come to the conclusion that accused is entitled to get benefit of
doubt. Accordingly point of determination no.(iii) is decided that
prosecution has failed to prove that accused had committed the
alleged crime.

25. So from above discussion, this Court has come to the

conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the presence of
accused at the spot. Prosecution has failed to prove any direct
evidence to show the culpability of accused Rajkumar with the
alleged offence. Room was locked from inside in which deceased
Rajkumar received burned injuries. Medical report corroborates the
fact that deceased Rajkumar had not received any antemortem
injury except burn injuries. So this Court has come to the
conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case hence
accused is entitled to be acquitted in present S.T. No.01 of 2018
State vs Chuche and Others in Crime No.470 of 2017 under
Sections 302, 452, 504 of I.P.C. Police Station-Narahat, District-
Lalitpur.

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017
 22

ORDER
Rajkumar Barar S/o Naamalum, R/o Kherai, Khurai, Sagar,
Madhya Pradesh, India in S.T. No.01 of 2018 State vs Chuche and Others
in Crime No.470 of 2017 under Sections 302, 452, 504 of I.P.C. Police
Station-Narahat, District-Lalitpur is hereby acquitted. Sureties filed by
the accused Rajkumar under Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. shall be in force
for next six months. Since accused Rajkumar is in custody hence release
order be sent immediately.

(NIRBHAY PRAKASH)
Dated:05.04.2021 Additional District & Sessions Judge
Lalitpur.
Judgment is signed, dated and pronounced in the Open Court
today.

(NIRBHAY PRAKASH)
Dated:05.04.2021 Additional District & Sessions Judge
Lalitpur.

Sessions Trial No.01 of 2018

State vs Chuche and Others
Crime No.470 of 2017