Balram Tiwari @ Shiv Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Court No. - 12

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 463 of 2025

Applicant :- Balram Tiwari @ Shiv Kumar Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharm Raj Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama / Power has been filed by Shri R.P. Mishra, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA on behalf of the State-respondent and Shri R.P. Mishra on behalf of opposite party no.2 .

¶7

By means of the present writ petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now 528 of BNSS), the petitioner has challenged the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No.33432/2024, under Section 103 of the BNS, Police Station - Itiyathok, District - Gonda and the summoning order was challenged in a revision, which has also been rejected and both the orders dated 10.01.2025 as well as order dated 26.03.2025 have been assailed in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶8

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Sunita Devi at around 4:00 PM had gone to her field where the accused persons, including Balram @ Shivkumar, Ram Bahadur, Kabil @ Baijnath, Rambabu have murdered her by strangulating her. It was further stated that the act has been done due to old enmity. In support of the compliant, the statement of Anil Kumar and Ram Babu and Ram Nath Mishra were recorded.

¶9

The statement under Section 225 BNSS of the complainant was recorded. In support of his statement, the complainant has produced witnesses P.W.-1 Rajababu Tiwari and P.W.-2 Ram Nath Mishra.

¶10

P.W.1-Rajababu Tiwari has stated that on the date of the incident, he had gone to the Bazar to purchase fertilizer and in the meanwhile, the accused persons reached the fields where Sunita had gone and they started beating her, when he reached there, accused fled and he found Sunita dead. While P.W.-2, Ram Nath Mishra has stated that on hearing noises he reached

¶11

the water tank close to the place of the incident and saw four people assaulting Sunita and he had named the accused as persons, who were involved in the said incident.

¶12

On the basis of the aforesaid material, the Court was of the view that there were substantial material to summon the accused and accordingly, by means of the order dated 10.01.2025 has passed the summoning order.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire facts which are on record, including the complaint and the statements under Section 223 of the BNSS would indicate a highly improbable story has been made out and even the facts are concerned in the proper perspective, they do not make out any offence against the accused so as to summon them and to face a trial in the present case. He has submitted that firstly, the alleged incident is dated 18.08.2024 and the complaint in the present case was filed only on 23.11.2025 which is after more than two and half months and no reason for the delay has been explained; the second ground urged by the counsel for the petitioners is that the complainant themselves had cremated the body of the deceased Sunita and without performing any postmortem it cannot be ascertained as to whether she died a natural death or otherwise. He submits that in absence of any Panchayatnama and postmortem report, the allegation against the petitioners cannot be sustained, even if they have to face the trial for the offence of murdered.

¶14

Counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the petition. They have submitted that the complaint as well as the statement made under Section 223 of the BNSS clearly bring out the offence of murder against the petitioner and accordingly, no infirmity has been conducted by the trial court by summoning the accused. He submits that two witnesses, who had given the statement under Section 223 of BNSS have unequivocally stated that they had seen the accused assault the deceased Sunita when she had gone to tender her fields and the said fact is sufficient itself to indicate that the petitioner was involved in murdering the deceased and consequently, there is no infirmity in the summons issued against the petitioner. He further submits that it is at the stage of trial that evidence will be brought fourth indicating the role of the accused in the said incident and consequently, this Court would not interfere at this stage and quash the proceedings.

¶15

I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.

¶16

From the rival contentions, it is noticed that the petitioners

¶17

is accused of murdering Sunita. It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of the incident i.e. 19.08.2024 the deceased had gone to the fields where the four accused had assaulted her and strangulated her to death. There is no dispute that the body of the deceased was cremated by the complainant without any postmortem and accordingly, valuable and necessary piece of evidence was lost at the very inception. It seems that no first information report was lodged immediately after the incident, but in the complaint it has been mentioned that information was given to the police which did not register the first information report and subsequently, the complaint was sent to the Superintendent of Police by registered post. It is relevant to mention neither the date nor the copy of the information has been brought on record or annexed along with said complaint.

¶18

Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that even though the dead body was cremated by the side of the complainant themselves before any postmortem could be conducted and it is the submissions on behalf of the petitioners that in such situation, no conviction can be sustained.

¶19

This aspect of the matter has been subject matter of consideration by the Supreme Court in numerous cases including Mani Kumar Thapa v. State of Sikkim, (2002) 7 SCC 157 , where it has been consistent view of the Supreme Court that merely because the body (corpus) is not found cannot be a ground alone to drop the charges of murder against the accused. It was held that if there is other circumstantial evidence available pointing towards the acts of the accused resulting in the murder of the deceased and such evidence is clear and unequivocal, the charges can be proved in such a situation. It is noticed that in most of the cases where in absence of corpus delicti, conviction has been sustained the offence under Section 201 of the IPC was also included and the accused wherein were also charged with destruction of the evidence of the body. Relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as under :

¶20

" 4. ...... We do not find much force in this argument of Mr Lalit. It is a well-settled principle in law that in a trial for murder, it is neither an absolute necessity nor an essential ingredient to establish corpus delicti. The fact of the death of the deceased must be established like any other fact. Corpus delicti in some cases may not be possible to be traced or recovered. There are a number of possibilities where a dead body could be disposed of without a trace, therefore, if the recovery of the dead body is to be held to be mandatory to convict an accused, in may a case the accused would manage to see that the dead body is destroyed which would afford the accused complete immunity from being held guilty or from being punished. What is therefore required in law to base a conviction for an offence of murder is that there should be reliable and plausible

¶21

evidence that the offence of murder like any other factum of death was committed and it must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence albeit the dead body may not be traced. (See Sevaka Perumal v.State of TN, (1991) 3 SCC 471. Therefore, the argument that in the absence of corpus delicti the prosecution case should be rejected, cannot be accepted. "

¶22

Here, we are confronted with the facts where the body has been disposed of by the complainant themselves and there is no proper explanation as to why the complaint was lodged after an extraordinary delay of two and half months after the cremation of the deceased.

¶23

In the present case, to bring the charge of murder against the petitioner, first it has to be established that there was an unnatural death and that death was caused by the petitioner. Even according to the testimony of the witnesses, they have only stated that they had seen the accused assaulting the deceased in her fields. There is no explanation as to the fact that when they saw the accused assaulting the deceased, why he did not attempt to save her or create a hue and cry or called the villagers, their presence at the site of occurrence would also has to be established and all the circumstantial evidence and sequence of event leading to her death will have to be unequivocally proved. By disposing off the body without postmortem, a vital piece of evidence has been destroyed. Now the case rests only on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the witnesses. Whether in the present case it would be prudent to proceed specially when there is no plausible explanation or delay of over 2 months in lodging the complaint, and also for creation of the dead body without having a postmortem conducted, may be certain vital aspects pointing towards false implication.

¶24

Without delving further into the facts from the aforesaid, I find that the matter requires consideration.

¶25

Let counter affidavit be filed by the State within two weeks.

¶26

Connect this case along with APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 302 of 2025.

¶27

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Complaint Case No.33432 of 2024, under Section 103 BNS, Police Station - Itiyathok, District - Gonda shall be kept in abeyance.

¶28

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶29

Order Date :- 21.5.2025/Muk

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Balram Tiwari @ Shiv Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram Tiwari @ Shiv Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jeetu Alias Jitendra Sharma Alias Jitendra Kumar Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Thru. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ankit Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dr. Pushplata Kannojia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Law Secy. Civil Sectt. Lucknow and Anr.

Vertika Singh @ Vartika Singh ( Roli Singh ) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Sana Azam and 3 Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dr. Ashish Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. and Another