HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD JAIL APPEAL No. - 25 of 2021 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the conviction and sentence recorded vide judgment and order dated 31.01.2020 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.3, in Session Trial No. 257 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 104 of 2015 under Sections 304-I I.P.C., Police Station- Swar, District- Rampur. 2. Heard Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of appellant and Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that the appellant assaulted his wife Gita with a Paatal, causing multiple grievous injuries. The injured was taken to the hospital where she was medically examined and received treatment. During treatment, she succumbed to her injuries. Medical evidence established that the deceased suffered multiple antemortem injuries which were sufficient to cause death. 4. Upon appreciation of the oral, medical and documentary evidences, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the act of accused amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within the ambit of Section 304 I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304-I I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 10 years of imprisonment and fine to the tune of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine 3 months additional imprisonment was awarded. 5. Aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appeal was admitted and remained pending before the Court for a long time. During the pendency of the appeal, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pankaj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A. Prem Pal .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) appellant had already undergone the entire sentence and had been released from the custody. At the time of final hearing, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant fairly submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on merits and does not seek reconsideration of either the conviction or the sentence. It was expressly stated that the appellant does not wish to urge any ground challenging the findings of trial court. This Court has carefully examined the evidenced on record. 6. A perusal of record transpires that First Information Report was lodged by Rahul S/o Sevaram who was working as a Chaukidar in the locality. It was stated that in his neighbourhood, at the house of Sher Singh S/o Gokul, a relative, Prempal, had come along with his wife Gita. Upon hearing the hue and cry from the said house, the informant rushed to the spot and witnessed that Prempal had assaulted his wife Gita with a Paatal, causing her serious injuries. 7. On receiving the information, several residents of the locality also assembled at the place of occurrence. The injured was immediately taken to the hospital, despite medical care, during treatment she succumbed to her injuries. On the basis of the written report, the case was registered. Chik FIR was prepared and G.D. entries were done. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected blood stained soil from the spot, prepared the site plan of place of occurrence at the instance of complainant, weapon (Paatal) used in the occurrence was recovered on pointing out of the accused and sent it to forensic laboratory for chemical examination. After investigation of the case, charge-sheet was submitted. Charges were framed and read over to the accused who denied the charges and claimed trial. 8. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses, namely, PW-1 informant- Rahul, PW-2 Smt. Babli, PW-3 - Ghanshyam, PW-4 Bhure, PW- 5 SI Firoz Khan, PW-6 H.C. Ajab Singh, PW-7 Dr. Ramesh Kumar, PW- witness Krishna Autar PW-9 Investigating Officer- Krishna Autar, PW-10 SI Rajeev Chaudhary, PW-11 Dr. Vinod Kumar, PW-12 Dr. Rajesh Kumar. 9. PW-1 Rahul corroborated the occurrence and supported the prosecution version regarding the assault. PW-2 Smt. Babli, the eye witness stated that upon hearing noise, she reached the spot and saw the accused holding a Paatal and his injured wife was lying in the pool of blood, however, in cross- JAPL No. 25 of 2021 2 examination, this witness has turned hostile and did not supported the case. PW-5 SI Firoz Khan proved the inquest proceedings by identifying his handwriting and signature on inquest report. PW-3 Ghanshyam, PW-4 Bhure and PW-8 H.C. Ajab Singh proved the chik FIR and G.D. entries as Ext. Ka- 9 and Ext. Ka-10. PW-7 Dr. Ramesh Kumar, who conducted the post- mortem examination proved that 5 vital antemortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased and the death was caused due to those injuries. PW-9 SI Jagdish Kumar Arora carried out initial investigation. PW-10 SI Rajeev Chaudhary prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-15 and recovered the Paatal and blood stained soil from the spot. Recovery memo Ext. Ka-13 has been placed on record. He also recovered the weapon Paatal used in the incident on pointing out of the accused and prepared the recovery memo Ext. Ka-14. PW-11 Dr. Vinod Kumar deposed that he medically examined the deceased in a grievously injured condition while she was alive and proved his signature on injury report and medical papers Ext. Ka-16, Ext. Ka-20 respectively. 11. Upon careful consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant assaulted his wife with a Paatal resulting in fatal injuries. The medical evidence fully corroborates the case. The presence of multiple antemortem injures and the nature of weapon used clearly establish that the appellant had the knowledge that the act was likely to cause death merely because one eye-witness turned hostile does not demolish the prosecution case, particularly when the remaining evidence, medical and ocular, remains consistent and trustworthy. 12. It is settled principle of law that conviction can be based on reliable medical and circumstantial evidence even in the absence of direct eye- witness testimony. This court does not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment, warranting interference. The findings recorded by the trial court are based on appreciation of evidence and settled principles of criminal law. The appeal lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the jail appeal is dismissed. 14. This court appreciates the assistance provided by Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned Amicus Curiae, who has assisted the Court and for the service JAPL No. 25 of 2021 3 rendered by him, an honorarium of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to him as per rules. February 3, 2026 P. Pandey JAPL No. 25 of 2021 4 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad