Allahabad High Court
Sharafat vs State Of U.P. on 4 July, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:104300-DB
Reserved On:- 29.04.2025
Delivered On:- 04.07.2025
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 638 of 2014
Appellant :- Sharafat
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Avanish Tripathi,Seema Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.)
1. Heard Mrs. Seema Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, Sri Prem Shanker Prasad, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondent and perused the record of the trial Court.
2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Budaun in S.S.T. No. 26 of 2008, State vs. Sharafat, by which the trial court has convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 40,000/- and in default of payment fine to undergo ten months additional simple imprisonment; under Section 201 I.P.C sentencing him to undergo 3 years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment; 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for committing the offence under section 394 I.P.C and in default of payment of fine to undergo five month additional simple imprisonment; 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under section 420 I.P.C and in default of payment of fine three months additional simple imprisonment and three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under section 411 I.P.C. in default of payment of fine three months additional simple imprisonment. In S.S.T No. 27 of 2008 State Vs Sharafat, learned trial court has convicted the appellant under section 25 Arms Act sentencing him to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment fine to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment and in S.S.T No. 28 of 2008, State Vs Sharafat, learned trial court has convicted the appellant under section 4/25 Arms Act sentencing him to undergo 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment fine to undergo one month's additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case is that informant, Asharfi Lal, gave a written complaint at Police Station- Islamnagar, District Badaun informing that dead body of an unknown person is lying in the agricultural field of Sohan Lal. There are no injuries seen on the dead body. Police registered case under Sections- 302, 201, 394, 411, 420 of I.P.C. and Section 4/25 Arms Act and Section- 25 of Arms Act and charge sheet was accordingly submitted before the competent court.
4. The appellant was arrested and on the basis of his confessional statement recorded before the police, incriminating recoveries were made on his pointing out and after due investigation by the Investigating Officer of police, charge sheet was submitted against him before the competent court. He denied the charges and sought trial.
5. Prosecution produced P.W.-1, Munni Devi; P.W.-2, Noor Mohammad; P.W.-3, Smt. Asgari; P.W.-4, Navab Singh: P.W.-5, Harpal Singh,: P.W.-6, Dr.D.V.Shakya: P.W.-7, Asharfi Lal: P.W.-8, Chandra Pal Singh: P.W.-9, Suresh Kumar and P.W.-10, Suraj Pal Singh.
6. The statement of accused-appellant, Sharafat, was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
7. The trial court after considering the evidence on record convicted and sentenced the appellant under the charged sections and hence this Appeal before this Court.
8. P.W.-1, stated in her statement before the trial court that his son was ill and the appellant convinced her family members that he will treat him by exorcism and he took Rs. 200/-, Rs. 300/-, Rs. 100/- many times and lastly Rs. 251/- thereafter he demanded Rs. 50,000/- for treating her son. Her husband and daughter, Asha, went to the appellant on thursday after arranging Rs. 50,000/- on Bicycle but they did not returned till the next evening. Thereafter, their dead bodies were recover from the place where the applicant used to perform his rituals. The bicycle of her husband was later recovered from the house/shop of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3.
9. P.W.-2 stated before the trial court that he saw a bicycle parked at his house when he inquired from his wife, P.W.-3, regarding the same she informed that Subhash and his daughter have left it at his shop. People used to park their bicycles at his shop. He denied that Subhash and his daughter came to park their bicycles in his presence.
10. P.W.-3, wife of P.W.-2, Noor Mohammad, also testified to the fact that the bicycle of deceased, Subhash, was left the shop of her husband by daughter of P.W.-1 about the time of incident.
11. P.W.-4, testified that he met the appellant, Subhash and his daughter, on 03.01.2008 at 07:00 P.M. on the way and on his asking why they are standing Subhash informed that he is going to Lucknow via Bareilly for getting his daughter employed with the help of the appellant.
12. P.W.-5, the autopsy doctor, proved the post mortem report of the deceased daughter of the Subhash. She suffered one injury caused by sharp edged weapon 8cm.x3cm. on the neck; one fire arm injury 1.5x1.5cm. cavity deep on front side of her neck with blackening present around the wound in an area of 1cm. There was corresponding exit wound behind left chest of the deceased. .
13. P.W.-6, autopsy doctor of dead body of Subhash found one gun shot wound of entry 2cm.x1cm.x bone deep on the front side of neck in the middle. He found the trachea, oesophagus and aorta lacerated, besides other internal damages. One long metallic bullet was recovered by the doctor from the body of deceased.
14. P.W.-7, Asharfi Lal, who made report at Police Station regarding recovery of one dead body, proved that subsequently the Inspector informed that recovery of dead body of a woman was also made. Both the dead bodies were of Subhash and his daughter.
15. P.W.- 8, Inspector, proved the formalities of investigation. He further proved that from the place where dead body of Subhash was recovered, the material used by exorcist was recovered from the pit. The appellant admitted that he committed the murder of Subhash by firing on his neck at this place. He also identified the place where he cut the neck of Asha, daughter of Subhash. The appellant also got recovered the cartridge of the bullet fired in commission of the alleged crime. He also got a spade recovered wherefrom the appellant dug the pit for hiding the material used in exorcism. He also got the knife used in cutting the throat of Asha recovered on his pointing out.
16. P.W.-9, proved the registration of the case on the information of P.W.-7 and its G.D. Entry.
17. P.W.10. proved the signatures of the police officers, who earlier prepared the inquest report, etc.
18. Statement of appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the entire prosecution case and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in this account of enmity.
19. Ms. Seema Pandey, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellant has submitted that P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-7, who were examined before the trial court, were not the eye witnesses of the incident. They gave the evidence of last seen and it is a case of circumstantial evidence. Yogesh and Rakesh Kumar who recognized the two dead bodies were not produced as witnesses. The police falsely implicated the appellant by getting two unknown dead bodies recovered. After the deceased went missing no missing report was lodged by P.W.-1 or any other family members of the deceased. The F.S.L report of the recovered country made pistol and the live cartridge recovered did not matched. Further the dead body recovered was not of Subhash but of some muslim male as noted in the inquest report. She has finally submitted that it is a case of false implication and the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant without properly considering the material on record. She has relied upon the following judgments in support of her submissions :-
(i). Raja Khan Versus State of Chattisgarh, 2025 0 AIR (SC) 1254.
(ii). Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2024 0 AIR (SC) 627.
(iii). Abdul Nassar Versus State of Kerala and Another, 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 76.
(iv). Mohammad Anowar Hussain Versus State of Aasam, 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1047.
20. The learned A.G.A. appearing for State respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that although it is a case of circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances are complete. There is also motive of the crime alleged and proved against the appellant. He committed the double murder only to grab the amount of Rs.50,000/- taken by the deceased to him for getting treatment of the son of the deceased, Subhash, by way of exorcism. He has further submitted that the statement of P.W.-1 is duly corroborated from the statement of P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4. The prosecution has proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. No reason has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant as to why the appellant was falsely implicated. He has further submitted that the argument that the dead body of the deceased was not of Subhash because the dead body recovered was of some muslim man is not correct. Even some Hindu males are circumcised because of medical reasons. In cross examination of P.W.-1 no question was put regarding the aforesaid fact. He has further submitted that no benefit can be granted to the appellant because F.S.L Report of the weapon recovered did not matched. He has pointed out to the F.S.L Report regarding recovery of knife, which is positive and human blood was found thereon. From the clothes, jwellery, blood stained earth collected from the place of incident, human blood was also found in the F.S.L Report.
21. After hearing the rival submissions, we find that there is no eye witness of the incident. It is a case of circumstances evidence. The normal approach in such case is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established. They should be definite in pointing out to the guilt of the accused. The circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that in all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and there should not be any other explanation regarding the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.
22. First of all we are required to consider the motive of the crime committed by the appellant. P.W.-1 has stated in her statement that the applicant was exorcist and she took her ailing son, Manoj, for treatment to the appellant prior to the incident number of times. The appellant promised them that he will vanish the bad spirit from her house by chants of exorcism and believing him they paid, sometimes Rs.200/-, sometimes Rs. 300/-, some times Rs.100/- and lastly they paid Rs.251/-. Thereafter, the appellant asked them to arrange Rs.50,000/- for the purpose and thereafter appellant called them and stated that today is auspicious day of Thursday and evil spirit can be vanished from their house. Her husband and daughter took Rs.50,000/- consisting of currency notes of Rs.500/- in a bag and left their house on a bicycle. They informed P.W.-1 that in case someone asks about their whereabouts, tell them that Subhash has gone for getting employment for his daughter, Asha, at Lucknow. By the next evening when her husband and daughter did not returned, she got convinced that the appellant due to greed of money committed their murder. Dead body of her husband and daughter were recovered from the place where the appellant was performing the rituals of exorcism. The description of the clothes worn by her husband and her daughter were given by him in her statement. In her cross examination she stated that in the adjacent village of Karanpur, the appellant had treated daughter of Noor Mohammad, who got well. She further stated that her husband had an Atlas Bicycle which was later found on the shop of P.W.-2. P.W.-3 also testified before the Court that Subhash and his daughter, Asha, came on the bicycle and informed her that they are going to Bareilly along with appellant, Sarafat and from there they will go to Lucknow and it may take 4 days. Hence they are leaving their bicycle. P.W.-3 saw the appellant, Subhash and his daughter, Asha, going together. She admitted last seeing all of them together at her house. P.W.4, also stated
23. P.W.-4, saw appellant, Subhash and his daughter, Asha, standing with a bag when he was coming back from Hempur to his village Sonia Kheda. Subhash informed that they are going to Lucknow via Bareilly for getting employment for his daughter, Asha and appellant, Sharafat, is helping them since he has connections in Lucknow. Thereafter he came back to his village which was also the village of Subhash. He stated that the appellant and Subhash were good friends. His house and house of Subhash and their agricultural fields are close to each other.
24. Therefore, we find that the motive of crime was well established by the prosecution.
25. The next point of consideration is the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that no missing report of the deceased was lodged by the P.W.1 or any family member of the deceased. We find from the record that in the evening of 03.01.2008 the deceased left their house for going to the place of the appellant. On 04.01.2008 dead body of Subhash was found and subsequently on 05.01.2008 dead body of Asha was recovered. There does not appear to be any gross delay which could have been read against the prosecution. Therefore, the chain of circumstance is well connected in this case. The injuries found on the body of the deceased corresponded to the weapons recovered on the pointing out of the appellant.
26. The relationship of the appellant with Subhash and his family members was clearly established by P.W.-1 and P.W.-4. P.W.-4 proved before the court that he saw all the three together on 03.01.2008 at about 07:00 P.M. in the evening. The doctor has also opined that the murder of the deceased was committed on 03.01.2008. Therefore, the time of murder of the deceased is corroborated by the last seen evidence of P.W.-4.
27. Now coming to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the dead body of male recovered was not of Subhash because in the inquest report it was mentioned that from the circumcision of penis of the dead body it appeared to be of a muslim male. The dead body of the deceased was recovered on the very next day. It was month of January and quite cold. The dead body had not decomposed to such an extent that it could not have been correctly identified. The other factor which belies this argument is the recovery of the dead body of Asha near the dead body of Subhash on 05.01.2008 i.e., the next day, not far from the place where the dead body of Subhash was recovered. There was no reason for the prosecution to implicate innocent person, since P.W.-1 knew the appellant well and he was friend of Subhash and used to frequent the house of Subhash as testified by P.W.-4 in his statement before the Court.
28. The judgments cited by the counsel for the appellant also need consideration. In the case of Raja Khan (supra) the conviction of the accused was questioned on the ground of doubts raised regarding disclosure statements made by the accused-appellant and veracity of recovery made on its basis. The Apex Court accorded benefit of doubt to the accused on the ground of inconsistencies with respect to recoveries made by the police pursuant to alleged disclosure by accused appellant. In the present case there is no such issue involved nor raised before the Court.
29. The judgment in the case of Darshan Singh (supra) is also not relevant for deciding this Appeal. In the above noted case there was gap in the chain of circumstances; there were improvements in the statement of witnesses from their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was made sole basis of conviction of appellant.
30. Third case of Abdul Nassar (supra) is also of no help for the appellant. The above judgment lays down the principles for appreciating and evaluating circumstances evidence in paragraph no.30 of the same. This court has found from the trial court has adhered to the principles laid down by the Apex Court.
31. The last case of Md. Anowar Hussain (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the appellant also deserves consideration. In this case the Apex Court has held that in a case based on circumstances evidence, if accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers response which is not proved, such a response, in itself, would become and additional link in the chain of circumstances. In the present case the appellant has evaded reply to all the oral and documentary evidence and only stated that he has been falsely implicated due to rivalry and he is innocent. He has not specified the nature of rivalry and with whom and why, nor has given any reason why all the evidence against him was false.
32. The Apex Court has further held that if motive of the crime is proved, that would supply another link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but its absence would not be a ground to reject the prosecution case, though such an absence of motive would be a factor in favour of the accused. In the present case the additional link of motive was present and proved. Further from the evidence on record no other view of the case seems possible which can be read in favour of the appellant.
33. Consequently we are of the considered view that the trial court has rightly recorded the judgment and order of conviction against the appellant. After going through the evidence on record we find that there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court, therefore the judgment and order of the trial court is confirmed. The appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
34. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He is directed to surrender forthwith and carry out the remaining sentence award to him by the trial court.
35. Office is directed to return the trial court record within 10 days and report this judgment also to the trial court.
36. Learned Amicus Curiae is entitled to her professional fees which shall be paid to her within two weeks of raising of bill by her before High Court Legal Service Committee.
Order Date :- 04.07.2025 Rohit