# Aaram Khan v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 180
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-31
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2384 of 1986
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Pachori
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aaram-khan-v-state-of-u-p-52636
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Matter pertains to Appeal u/s 374 of Cr.P.C.
against
the
judgment
and
order
dated
30.08.1986 by which the Appellant has been
convicted u/s 412 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo 3 years and six month rigorous
imprisonment.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-sec.412- FIR lodged
against the arrested co-accused and 7 and 8
unknown dacoits- who caught hold by the
villagers at the spot after about 7 hours of the
incident-without any explanation-wherein the
police
reached
the
place
of
incident
immediately-appellant was arrested after 9 days
of the incident- recovery not been proved by the
prosecution - recovery of looted articles not
been proved-judgment and order of conviction
set aside-Appeal allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited

## Text

180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
155. The Reference is also, accordingly,
answered.

156. A copy of judgment along with Lower
Court Record be immediately sent to Court
concerned for necessary compliance.

157. For the hard work which has been put
in by the learned Amicus Curiae, we
quantify his fee as Rs.25,000/- which shall
be payable to him by the Legal Services
Authority forthwith. The payment be got
done under the supervision of the Registrar
General of this Court.

----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 180
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2384 of 1986

Aaram Khan ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:

Counsel for the Respondent:

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to Appeal u/s 374 of Cr.P.C.
against
the
judgment
and
order
dated
30.08.1986 by which the Appellant has been
convicted u/s 412 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo 3 years and six month rigorous
imprisonment.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-sec.412- FIR lodged
against the arrested co-accused and 7 and 8
unknown dacoits- who caught hold by the
villagers at the spot after about 7 hours of the
incident-without any explanation-wherein the
police
reached
the
place
of
incident
immediately-appellant was arrested after 9 days
of the incident- recovery not been proved by the
prosecution - recovery of looted articles not
been proved-judgment and order of conviction
set aside-Appeal allowed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana (2010) 3
SCC 746
2. Kalpnath Rai v. State (through CBI) (1997) 8
SCC 732
3. Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar, (1995) 4 SCC
255
4. Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh & Ors.,
(2017) 11 SCC 195

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code

List of Keywords
Recovery of looted articles- offence of dacoity-
recovery not been proved.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Appellant(s) : S. Kumar, Rupesh
Srivastav,
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Pachori, J.)

1. The Present Criminal Appeal has
been preferred under Section 374 of Code
of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred
to Cr.P.C.) against the judgment and order
dated 30.08.1986 passed by Ist Additional
Sessions Judge, Rampur in Session Trial
No. 157 of 1983, Session Trial No. 209 of
1983 and Session Trial No. 210 of 1983,
whereby the trial court convicted the
appellant Aaram Khan under Section 412
of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years
and six month rigorous imprisonment and
acquitted under Sections 395 read with
Section 397 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms
Act. However, co-accused Shahadat has
10 All. Aaram Khan Vs. State of U.P.
181
also been acquitted for the offence
punishable under Section 395 read with
Section 397 of I.P.C. and Section 25 of
Arms Act.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present
appeal are that the FIR dated 09.03.1983
(Ex. Ka-1) has been lodged with regard to
incident dated 09.03.1983, which had taken
place at 01.00 A.M. against the co-accused
Shahadat Khan and 7 to 8 unknown dacoits
under Sections 395, 397 of IPC alleging
that at about 01.00 A.M. the appellant and
07-08 unknown dacoits caught hold the
first informant Shyam Lal (P.W.-1) over
the roof of his house and snatched his
licensee gun .12 bore along with belt of
cartridge and thereafter they committed
offence of dacoity and made indiscriminate
firing. After hearing the firing villagers
came and the dacoits hide themselves
behind the wall of house of Tularam and
ablazed the garbage of maze. Thereafter
dacoits entered into the house of Pyare Lal
and Ghasi and dacoity has been committed
in both the houses. Constable Madan Lal
Sharma and Sheesh Ram Singh who
reached at the spot, they sustained injuries
of pellet, which had been fired by the
dacoits over the police party near the river
bank and police party caught hold Shahadat
Khan on the spot and list of articles had
been given by the first informant, which
was looted by the dacoits. As per physical
appearance of the dacoits and the language
they used, they seem to be member of
Muslim community.

3.
During
the
investigation,
Investigating Officer collected various
articles and prepared sketch plan of the
place of incident as place of recovery,
memo of recovery of cartridge, Lantern,
empty cartridge, licensee gun, torches and
after recording pre summoning evidence of
the witnesses, medical examination report
of the injured persons submitted charge
sheet against co-accused Shahadat Khan
and appellant.

4. On committal, after considering the
pre summoning evidence, charges had been
framed against the appellant and coaccused Shahadat Khan under Section 395
IPC read with Section 397, 412 of IPC and
Section 25 of Arms Act on 16.11.1983.

5. To substantiate the charges against
the
appellant
and
other
co-accused
Shahadat Khan prosecution examined as
may as 24 witnesses namely; Shyam Lal
(P.W.-1), Banke Lal (P.W.-2), Manohar
(P.W.-3), Bhagwan Das (P.W.-4), Mohan
Swaroop (P.W.-5), Chhatra Pal (P.W.-6),
Raja Ram (P.W.-7), Mohan Dei (P.W.-8),
Intkhab Hasan (P.W.-9), Madan Lal
Sharma (P.W.-10), Dulichand Vats (P.W.-
11), Bhanwar Singh (P.W.-12), B.K. Juaal
(P.W.-13), Dorilal (P.W.-14), Padam Singh
(P.W.-15),
Chandra
Singh
(P.W.-16),
Mahendrapal Singh (P.W.-17), Masi-ul
Hasan Nakvi (P.W.-18), Janardan Bhatt
(P.W.-19), Rajbir Singh (P.W.-20), Mahak
Singh (P.W.-21), V.S. Rana (P.W.-22),
M.C. Misra (P.W.-23) and Ramraj Singh
(P.W.-24).

6. After examination of prosecution
witnesses,
trial
court
recorded
the
statements of the appellant under Section
313, Cr.P.C. wherein he stated that the
prosecution has produced false evidence
due to enmity. The appellant had not
produced any documentary or oral evidence
in their defence.

7. It is surprising fact that after having
gone through the whole judgment of trial
court nothing has been found with regard to
182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
hearing of appellant as well as Government
Advocate.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the judgment and order dated
30.08.1986 has been passed without
appreciating
the
evidence
in
right
perspective. It is further submitted that
offence of dacoity has not been proved
against the appellant and he had been
acquitted under Section 395 read with
Section 397 of I.P.C., how the recovery of
looted articles can be proved. There is no
public or independent witness of the
locality from where the looted articles were
recovered at the instance of the present
appellant. Hence, the impugned judgment
and order is liable to be set-aside and the
appeal is liable to be allowed. No
identification parade was taken place to
identify the present appellant.

9. Learned A.G.A. vehemently refuted
the arguments of the appellant and
supported the judgment and order passed
by the trial court and submits that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt against the appellant.
Hence, the criminal appeal deserves no
merit and is liable to be dismissed.

10. Heard Shri Rupesh Srivastav,
learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.
Ladli Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the material available on
record.

11. As the trial court found the
prosecution evidence untrustworthy, for the
offence punishable under Sections 395, 397
of I.P.C. and Section 25 of Arms Act,
therefore, the trial court acquitted the
present appellant under Sections 395, 397
of I.P.C. and Section 25 of Arms Act. It is
not necessary to re-visit or consider the
prosecution
evidence
with
regard
to
aforesaid offence.

12. The trial court after considering
the evidence of PW-21 Inspector Mahak
Singh observed that it was not necessary
for the Investigating Officer to follow the
provision of Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C., the
search of the house of the appellant was not
taken by the police. It was accused himself,
who produced the alleged property from his
house. The trial court further observed that
the present appellant was arrested from
near village Lakhimpur Canal Patri and
from his possession one gun bearing no.
5052, belt of cartridges containing six live
cartridges, blanket and one HMT wrist
watch were recovered and on his pointing
out at the time of his arrest recovery of one
Shawl, one Dhoti Mardani and one ladies
Saree were recovered. It is further observed
that the testimony of Inspector Mahak
Singh, further corroborated the entries of
arrest of the appellant, the property
recovered from the possession of the
appellant belongs to PW-1 Shyam Lal, PW5 Mohan Swaroop, PW-6 Chhatra Pal, PW8
Mohan
Devi,
who
identified
the
recovered articles from the possession of
the appellant before S.D.M. on 13.06.1983,
(after about 3 months of the arrest of the
appellant).

13. Before considering the respective
submissions of the parties, it is apposite to
mention the position of law with regard to
presence of independent/public witness of
the locality to prove the recovery of articles
by the police party.

14. Sub-Section 4 of Section 100 of
Cr.P.C. provides as under:-

"100(4). Before making a search
under this Chapter, the officer or other
10 All. Aaram Khan Vs. State of U.P.
183
person about to make it shall call upon two
or more independent and respectable
inhabitants of the locality in which the
place to be searched is situate or of any
other locality if no such inhabitant of the
said locality is available or is willing to be
a witness to the search, to attend and
witness the search and may issue an order
in writing to them or any of them so to do."

15. The Supreme Court in Ajmer
Singh v. State of Haryana (2010) 3 SCC
746 observed that one can not forget that it
may not be possible to find independent
witness at all places at all times. The
obligation to take public witness is not an
absolute rule, if despite effort public
witness could not be associated with the
raid or arrest of the culprit, the arrest or the
recovery made would not be necessarily
vitiated.

16. The Apex Court in the case of
Kalpnath Rai v. State (through CBI)
(1997) 8 SCC 732, while interpreting
Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. observed that there
can be no legal proposition that evidence of
police officer is unworthy of acceptance in
case of absence of a witness during police
raid. At the most, It would cast a duty on
the court to adopt greater care while
scrutinizing the evidence of the police
officer. If the evidence of a police officer is
found acceptable, then it would be the
erroneous proposition that the court must
reject the prosecution version, solely on the
ground that no independent witness was
examined. In Paragraph No. 88 of the
above judgment Supreme court referred the
law laid down by the Supreme court of para
No. 11 in the case of Pradeep Narayan
Madgaonkar, (1995) 4 SCC 255, which is
quoted as under:-

"11.Indeed, the evidence of the
official
(police)
witnesses
cannot
be
discarded merely on the ground that they
belong to the police force and are, either
interested in the investigating or the
prosecuting agency but prudence dictates
that their evidence needs to be subjected to
strict scrutiny and as far as possible
corroboration of their evidence in material
particulars should be sought. Their desire
to see the success of the case based on their
investigation, requires greater care to
appreciate their testimony."

17. In Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer
Singh & Ors., (2017) 11 SCC 195, the
Supreme Court observed:-

"15. It is a cardinal principle of
criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the
accused must be proved beyond all
reasonable doubts. However, the burden on
the prosecution is only to establish its case
beyond all reasonable doubt and not all
doubts. Here, it is worthwhile to reproduce
the observations made by Venkatachaliah,
J., in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal,
(1988) 4 SCC 302: (SCC pp. 313-14, paras
25-26)

"25. ... Doubts would be called
reasonable if they are free from a zest for
abstract speculation. Law cannot afford
any favourite other than truth. To constitute
reasonable doubt, it must be free from an
overemotional response. Doubts must be
actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt
of the accused person arising from the
evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed
to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable
doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a
merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt
based upon reason and common sense. It
must grow out of the evidence in the case.

26. The concept of probability,
and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be
184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
expressed in terms of units to be
mathematically enumerated as to how
many of such units constitute proof beyond
reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable
subjective element in the evaluation of the
degrees of probability and the quantum of
proof. Forensic probability must, in the last
analysis, rest on a robust common sense
and, ultimately on the trained intuitions of
the judge. While the protection given by the
criminal process to the accused persons is
not to be eroded, at the same time,
uninformed legitimization of trivialities
would make a mockery of administration of
criminal justice."

[See also Krishnan v. State,
(2003) 7 SCC 56; Valson v. State of
Kerala, (2008) 12 SCC 24 and Bhaskar
Ramappa Madar and Ors. v. State of
Karnataka, (2009) 11 SCC 690].

16.Another golden thread which
runs through the web of the administration
of justice in criminal cases is that if two
views are possible on the evidence adduced
in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other to his innocence, the
view which is favourable to the accused
should be adopted. (Vide Kali Ram v. State
of H.P., (1973) 2 SCC 808; State of
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180;
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007)
4 SCC 415; Upendra Pradhan v. State of
Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124 and Golbar
Hussain v. State of Assam and Anr., (2015)
11 SCC 242).

17.However, the rule regarding
the benefit of doubt does not warrant
acquittal of the accused by resorting to
surmises,
conjectures
or
fanciful
considerations, as has been held by this
Court in the case of State of Punjab v.
Jagir Singh, (1974) 3 SCC 277: (SCC pp.
285-86, para 23)

"23. A criminal trial is not like a
fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight
to one's imagination and fantasy. It
concerns itself with the question as to
whether the accused arraigned at the trial
is guilty of the offence with which he is
charged. Crime is an event in real life and
is the product of interplay of different
human emotions. In arriving at the
conclusion about the guilt of the accused
charged with the commission of a crime,
the court has to judge, the evidence by the
yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic
worth and the animus of witnesses. Every
case in the final analysis would have to
depend upon its own facts. Although the
benefit of every reasonable doubt should be
given to the accused, the courts should not
at the same time reject evidence which is ex
facie trustworthy, on grounds which are
fanciful or in the nature of conjectures."

18. Similarly, in Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2
SCC 793, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., stated thus:
(SCC p. 799, para 6)

"6... The cherished principles or
golden thread of proof beyond reasonable
doubt which runs through the web of our
law should not be stretched morbidly to
embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree
of doubt. The excessive solicitude reflected
in the attitude that a thousand guilty men
may go but one innocent martyr shall not
suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable
doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise
any practical system of justice will then
break down and lose credibility with the
community."
10 All. Aaram Khan Vs. State of U.P.
185

18. After having gone through the
entire prosecution evidence, the following
facts clearly emerged:

(a) The first information report
has been lodged against the arrested coaccused Shahadat Khan and 7 and 8
unknown dacoits, who caught hold by the
villagers at the spot, after about 7 hours of
the incident without any explanation
wherein the police reached the place of
incident immediately;

(b) Appellant and co-accused
Shahadat Khan (who arrested before
lodging of the F.I.R.) has been acquitted for
the offence punishable under Sections 395,
397 of I.P.C.;

(c) After 9 days of the incident,
the present appellant was arrested on the
way and recovery which was allegedly
made did not prove by any public or
independent witness of locality;

(d) Further recovery was also
made from the house of the appellant on his
instance, which had also not been proved
by the prosecution by any public or
independent witness of locality;

(e) There is no evidence with
regard to fact that on what basis the name
of the appellant surfaced in the present
case.

(f) There is no evidence that the
appellant
having
knowledge
about
recovered articles were property of dacoity.

(g) Where offence of dacoity had
not been proved against the appellant or
any other person, how the offence under
Section 412 of I.P.C. was proved.

19. On the basis of the facts and
circumstances
discussed
above,
an
inference can easily be drawn that the
prosecution has not proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The contrary view taken
by the trial court is against the weight of
evidence.

20. For all the reasons recorded and
discussed above, I am of the considered
view that the prosecution has failed to
prove
the
charges
for
the
offence
punishable under Section 412 of I.P.C.
against the appellant Aaram Khan beyond
reasonable doubt as the evidence on record
does not bring home the guilt of the
appellant beyond the pale of doubt, the
appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Consequently, the appellant is entitled to be
acquitted of the charge for which he was
tried.

21. As a result, present criminal appeal
is allowed. The impugned judgment and
order of conviction dated 30.08.1986 as
well as sentence recorded by the trial court
is set aside. The appellant Aaram Khan, is
acquitted of the charge under section 412 of
I.P.C. for which he has been tried. The
appellant is on bail, therefore, his personal
bonds and sureties are, hereby, discharged.
The appellant will fulfill the requirement of
Section 437-A, Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction
of the trial court at the earliest.

22. The trial court records be returned
forthwith with a certified copy of this
judgment for compliance.
186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 186
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5041 of 2025

Sunil Tiwari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amar Singh, Dheeraj Awasthi, Piyush Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the competent authority has passed
the impugned order in violation of procedure
established by law and various principles laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the
premature release application of the petitioner
has not been decided timely in compliance of
the direction issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950- Article
226, The Uttar Pradesh Prisoners' Release
of Probation Act, 1938- Section 2- That
even if the case of the petitioner may or
may not be within the purview of standing
policy
as
amended
by
the
State
government, however, it was required on
the part of the competent authority to
record reasons about the conduct of the
petitioner while disposing his premature
release
application
and
passing
the
impugned order- Authority must pass a
reasoned order in case it refuses to grant
the benefit to the petitioner under the
scheme. In case, the authority has passed
the order rejecting the premature release
application without following the scheme,
then High Court may examine the same in
the context of parameter of scheme and
reach the conclusion whether the order
rejecting the premature release prayer
was justified or not and if no justified
reason for declining the release is found
then the Court may direct the authority to
give the benefit of the scheme to the
prisoner-Impugned
order
quashedPetition allowed. (E-15)

Held- The impugned order has been passed
summarily,
disregarding
the
fundamental
procedure of Section 2 of U.P. Prisoners'
Release of Probation Act, 1938
(Para 17, 18 & 19)

Case Law Cited
Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2016; Ganesh vs.
State of U.P.;Surendra @ Sunda vs. State of
U.P. in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary
No.(s) 28783 of 2023;Home Secretary (Prison)
and others vs. H. Nilofar Nisha (2020) 14 SCC
161;Rashidul Jafar @ Chota vs. State of U.P.
and Anr. 2022; Live Law (SC) 754

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950, The Uttar
Pradesh Prisoners' Release of Probation
Act, 1938

List of Keywords
Premature Release; U.P. Prisoners' Release of
Probation Act; Section 2; Impugned order
passed
summarily;
Without
following
the
scheme; Authority must pass a reasoned order;
in case it refuses to grant the benefit under the
scheme

Case Arising From
Order dated 24.02.2025 i.e. rejection of
premature release application and 21.04.2025
i.e. issuance of non bailable warrant against the
petitioner

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amar Singh, Dheeraj
Awasthi, Piyush Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Babita Rani,
J.)