Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vivek Kumar Birla, Jitendra Kumar Sinha, JJ.
Sarvanarain Tewari and another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 328 of 1986, Criminal Appeal No. - 3328 of 1985
Decided On : 30-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Kirtikar Pandey, R. P. Singh, Rajesh Kumar Singh
For the Respondent: A.G.A.
Direct evidence in a criminal case, supported by consistent testimonies and motives, overrides discrepancies in circumstantial evidence, confirming the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 and 201/34 - Conviction for murder and destruction of evidence - The appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and three years respectively for murder and related crimes. The court found direct evidence of involvement in the murder and subsequent burning of the victim's body. (Paras 1, 6, 22)
(B) Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Court emphasized that direct evidence is more compelling; while circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain, the presence of eyewitness testimony brought clarity to the case. The existence of motive and corroboration from the eyewitnesses were key. (Paras 18, 23)
Facts of the case:
The case revolved around the murder of a woman, who was allegedly beaten by her in-laws and found dead in a burning state. Eyewitnesses reported the incident and indicated the involvement of the appellants. (Paras 4, 3)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's findings were supported by eyewitness accounts, corroborated by medical evidence and postmortem results, pointing to the involvement of the accused and eliminating reasonable doubt. (Paras 24, 34)
Issues: The main issue was establishing the guilt of the appellants based on direct evidence versus circumstantial evidence and whether the testimonies were consistent. (Paras 8, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded direct evidence sufficed where circumstantial evidence was strong and compelling; discrepancies in witness testimonies were minor and did not overshadow the direct involvement of the appellants. (Paras 30, 31)
Result: Appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals and trial court order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. factual background of the incident and evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments regarding circumstantial evidence. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. arguments presented by the appellants regarding circumstantial evidence. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. court's observations on evidence and testimonies. (Para 17 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 6. clarification of legal principles applied to evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 23 , 27) |
| 7. court's analysis of evidence and application of legal standards. (Para 25 , 26 , 30 , 32) |
| 8. key legal standards for circumstantial evidence and burden of proof. (Para 28 , 31) |
| 9. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
1. Both Criminal Appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.12.1985, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia in Sessions Trial No.249 of 1984, convicting and sentencing the appellants under section 302/34 and 201/34 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and three years imprisonment respectively.
2. Vide order dated 12.01.2024 leading appeal stood abated in respect of appellant no.2-Subh Narayan Tewari and vide order dated 06.03.2017 connected appeal stood abated in respect of appellant no.1-Sita Ram. Now, the leading appeal is surviving only in respect of appellant no.1- Sarvanarain Tewari and connected appeal is surviving only in respect of appellant no.2-Saraswati Devi alias Sursatiya.
3. We have heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the surviving-appellant no.1-Sarvanarain Tewari in leading Criminal Appeal No.328 of 1986 and surviving appellant no.2-Smt. Saraswati Devi alias Sursatiya, in connected appeal no.3328 of 1985 as well as Ms. Mayuri Mehrotra, learned State Law Officer for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
4. Prosecution version as per written information is that on 06.09.1984 an information was given to police station by Shree Ram Tewari that the daughter-in-law of his neighbour- Sita Ram Tewari was lying burnt dead in her house. He further informed that today, noon she was beaten by her dever-Subh Narain Tewari, while beating he said that go and drown yourself somewhere and there is no place for you in our house. The people from neighborhood, on seeing smoke coming from the house of the deceased, reached there and by that time she appeared to have died. It appeared that either due to having been beaten or due to any other reason not known to him, daughter-in-law of Sita Ram died because of burning. Sita Ram and his sons were not there in the house. On the basis of the said written information, case was registered in case crime no. 133/84, under sections 306, 498A and 323 IPC. Thereafter Postmortem was conducted on the next day i.e. 07.09.1984. The following ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased:
(1) Incised wound size 3 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep longitudinal direction on left side of face.
(2) Burn of 4th degree all over body except flue of right leg and dorsum of right foot. Body blackened all hair of head is burnt and charmed. Skin peeled off over body at many places.
5. Thereafter investigation was started by the Investigating Officer and after concluding the same a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons under section 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied to have murdered the deceased. They claim to have been falsely implicated due to enmity.
6. The prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses, namely, P.W.1-Shri Ram Tewari, P.W.2- Vyas Tewari, P.W.3- Shyam Lal Tewari P.W.4- Hridyanand Singh, P.W.5- Bhrigu Nath Singh, P.W.6- Nand Kumar Ray, P.W.7-Dr. G.P. Tripathi and P.W.8-Shiv Shankar Singh.
7. The prosecution has also submitted documentary evidence, which were marked as Exhibit Ka-1-FIR, Exhibit Ka-2-Chargesheet, Exhibit Ka-3- Panchayatnama, Exhibit Ka-4-Police Report No.13, Exhibit Ka-5-Photonash of deceased Sunaina, Exhibit
