# Anant Ram & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1068
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 801 of 2012
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anant-ram-anr-v-state-of-u-p-54356
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

1068 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
21. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off by upholding the conviction of the appellant
No. 3 and 5 and granting them the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. As a period of
almost four decades stands elapsed since the appellants were sentenced during which the appellants
have not said to have committed any other offence, there is no need to place them under probation
for any further period.
---------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1068
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 801 of 2012

Anant Ram & Anr. ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the conviction under Ss. 364, 307/34 and 323/34 IPC could be sustained when the
Trial Court proceeded on the basis that the accused was required to prove his innocence, discarded defence
evidence on conjectures, and whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the intention to
kill so as to attract Ss. 364 and 307 IPC.

Headnotes
Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Burden of Proof - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 364,
307/34 and 323/34 - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Prosecution required to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt and accused required only to create a doubt about the prosecution
case and the probability of its defence - Trial Court acted under an impression that it is the
accused who is required to prove his innocence rather than the prosecution being required to
prove the guilt of the accused and convicted on the basis that preponderance of probabilities
tilted against the accused - Such approach held unsustainable. (Paras 24-28)
Criminal Law - Defence Evidence - Appreciation of Defence Witnesses - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Ss. 364, 307/34 and 323/34 - Statements of defence witnesses regarding presence of accused
at workplace discarded on conjecture that employees tend to save co-employees - Trial Court
found no discrepancy in their statements and cross-examination - Conviction cannot be based on
conjectures - Rejection of defence evidence held manifestly erroneous. (Paras 22, 25, 26)
Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Non-examination of Material Witnesses - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Ss. 364, 307/34 and 323/34 - Informant stated that named witnesses had seen the
victim being taken away and had participated in search of victim - Such witnesses not examined
and no witness involved in search examined - Serious doubt raised against prosecution case.
(Paras 29, 30)
Criminal Law - Medical Evidence vis-a-vis Ocular Testimony - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 364,
307/34 and 323/34 - Victim stated that he had fallen unconscious and regained consciousness in
hospital - Medical records and doctor did not support such version - Trial Court supplied a
creative explanation and altered the meaning of testimony to sustain conviction - Liability of
guilt fastened on conjectures and surmises held impermissible under law. (Para 31)
4 All. Anant Ram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1069
Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder and Kidnapping or Abducting in Order to Murder - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Ss. 307 and 364 - Requirement of intention to kill - Presence of only two assailants
established though prosecution alleged four assailants - Numerous injuries caused but all simple
in nature and no lethal weapon alleged to have been used - Facts indicated that intention was
not to kill the victim and intention appeared to be to give a good beating - Offences under Ss.
364 and 307 not made out. (Paras 33-36)
Criminal Law - Abduction and Hurt - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 362 and 323 - When
prosecution failed to establish intention of killing the victim, allegations at the most made out
offence of abduction punishable under S. 365 and offence under S. 323 - Appellant No. 1 held
guilty for committing offences under Ss. 362 and 323 IPC and granted benefit of S. 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act - Appellant No. 2 acquitted of all charges. (Paras 37-40)
Held: The trial court was acting under an impression that it is the accused who is required to prove his
innocence rather than the prosecution being required to prove the guilt of the accused and after examination
of the defense evidence the trial Court concluded that the preponderance of probabilities tilted against the
accused and convicted the accused persons on this basis - the trial court committed a manifest error in
discarding the statements of defence witnesses even when it found no discrepancy in their statements and
even in their cross-examinations and its conclusion was based on mere conjecture - non-examination of
named witnesses and of any witness involved in carrying out a search for the victim raises a serious doubt
against the prosecution case - the trial court itself invited a creative explanation regarding the victim having
fallen unconscious and fastened the liability of guilt on the accused persons purely on conjectures and
surmises which is impermissible under law - in order to uphold a conviction under Ss. 307 and 364 it is
necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused persons intended to kill the victim and although
numerous injuries have been caused to the victim all the injuries are simple in nature and no lethal weapon is
alleged to have been used - the aforesaid facts indicate that the intention of the accused persons was not to
kill the victim and the intention appears to be to give a good beating to the victim - the offences under Ss.
364 and 307 IPC are not made out against the appellants - appellant no. 2 entitled to acquittal and appellant
no. 1 held guilty for committing offences under Ss. 362 and 323 IPC and granted benefit of S. 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act - Appeal partly allowed. (Paras 24-40) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala, (2019) 8 SCC 50; Vaibhav v. State of
Maharashtra, (2025) 8 SCC 315; Sivamani v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1581; State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554; Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366; State of Madhya Pradesh
v. Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.

List of Keywords
Burden of proof; prosecution case; reasonable doubt; preponderance of probabilities; defence evidence;
conjectures and surmises; appreciation of evidence; non-examination of witnesses; medical evidence; ocular
testimony; intention to kill; attempt to murder; kidnapping or abducting in order to murder; abduction;
voluntarily causing hurt; acquittal; benefit of probation.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal arising from the judgment and order dated 31.05.2012 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No. 741 of 2004 arising out of Case
Crime No. 176 of 2000 under Ss. 364, 324/34 and 307/34 IPC, Police Station Ram Nagar, District Barabanki.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Sri Farooq Ayoob.
1070 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sri Rajiv Kumar Verma, learned AGA-I for the State of U.P.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Farooq Ayoob, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Rajiv Kumar
Verma, the learned AGA-I for the State of U.P.

2. By means of the instant appeal, the appellants have challenged the validity of a judgment
and order dated 31.05.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Barabanki in
Sessions Trial number 741 of 2004, arising out of Case Crime Number 176 of 2000, under Sections
364, 324/34 & 307/34 IPC, Police Station Ram Nagar, District Barabanki.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on 30.07.2000 at 20:15
hours against the appellants and two unnamed persons for committing offences under Sections 342,
323 & 324 IPC, stating that while the complainant Ashok Kumar was going from Rani Bazar to
Chandpur along with his father Bhagauti Prasad and they had reached a culvert of village
Narainipur, the accused persons came there on a jeep number UGO 6158. They forcibly made the
informant?s father Bhagauti Prasad sit in the jeep and took him away towards Masauli. The
incident was witnessed by Hukum Chand, son of Sohan Lal and Shobha Lal, son of Vishesar,
residents of Village Chandpur, Police Station Ram Nagar, District Barabanki. The informant gave
this information to the persons present nearby and in his village. Several persons started searching
for the informant?s father and they came to know that the accused persons had beaten him up and
kept him in a jungle near Gurela village. When the first informant and other persons reached the
jungle, the accused persons ran away. The informant found his father in the jungle. There were
injuries on his body, he took his father to the police station and lodged the FIR.

4. The victim was medically examined on 00:30 hours on 31.07.2000. There were as many
as 12 injuries on his body, including a few burn injuries, but all the injuries were simple in nature
and the X-ray examination report did not reveal any fracture. Though some teeth were found to be
loose, the doctor opined that the teeth were loose naturally and the victim was suffering from
pyorrhea. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet for the offences
under Sections 364, 323/34, 307/34 against the appellants Anant Kumar and Awdhesh Kumar.

5. The trial court framed charges for offences under Sections 364, 323/34 and 307/34. After
examination of the injured and the informant, another person Munawwar was summoned under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial.

6. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied the
charges. The appellant no. 1-Anant Ram stated that persons from the accused side had killed his
sister. He had lodged an FIR in this regard. The appellant no. 2 Awadhesh Kumar stated that on
30/01/2000 i.e. the date of the incident, he was working as a daily wage labourer in Jaidpur Nursery
of Forest Department since 8 a.m. till 5 p.m. The co-accused Munnavar stated that he had been
falsely implicated.
4 All. Anant Ram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1071
7. The trial Court acquitted Munnavar but the appellants have been convicted.

8. Strangely, before dealing with the prosecution case, the trial court proceeded to examine
the defense. It is recorded in the judgment that the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted
that the prosecution story is false. Sister of the appellant no. 1-Anant Ram had been killed by her
husband and his family members for demanding dowry on 23.07.2000. Father of the appellant no. 1
had filed an FIR in Police Station Ram Nagar, District Barabanki on 26.07.2000 for offences under
Section 498A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and the injured victim Bhagauti
Prasad and his wife were also made accused in that case. In order to put undue pressure on the
informants, a false story had been cooked up and the FIR has been lodged on the basis thereof. It
was submitted on behalf of the appellants that FIR has been lodged after a considerable delay. It
does not disclose any motive for commission of the offense. The prosecution witnesses have stated
about a motive but there are contradictions in their statements. The informants have got a reason to
falsely implicate the appellants. There was no evidence to establish that Bhagauti had been
abducted with intent to kill him.

9. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellants that there are serious discrepancies in
the statements of PW-1-Bhagauti Prasad and PW-2-Ashok Kumar, the statement of the
Investigation Officer and the medical evidence, which creates doubt against the prosecution case.
As per the prosecution case, two other persons, Hukum Chand and Shobha Lal, were present at the
time of the incident and they have not been examined.

10. After narrating the defense case, the learned trial court proceeded to examine the
prosecution case as per which the appellants and two other persons Munnavar and Shamsher had
abducted Bhagauti Prasad with intention of committing his murder. They took him to a jungle.
They wanted to kill him by making him suffer a lot. They tied his hands, disrobed him and beat him
up with kicks, fists, and sticks. They collected dried leaves, etc., and put him on fire. Besides that
they burnt his eye. The appellant no. 1-Anant Ram suspected that his sister had been killed by the
family members of her husband for demanding dowry. Bhagauti Prasad was uncle of the
deceased?s husband and he was also an accused. While the accused persons were assaulting the
victim, they felt that the police was reaching the spot and, therefore, they fled.

11. The victim was examined as PW-1. He stated that while he and his son Ashok (the
informant) were going from Rani Bazar to village Chandpur, the accused persons forcibly took him
away in a Jeep, they gagged his mouth and took him towards Masauli. All four accused persons
were beating him saying that he should be killed in the same manner as the sister of the appellant
no. 1 was killed. He stated that they took him to Gurela jungle, disrobed him, tied his hands, beaten
him up with kicks, fists and sticks and burnt him after collecting dried leaves etc. They had burnt
his eye with a lighter. He stated that as his mouth was gagged, he had fallen unconscious. He
regained consciousness in District Hospital Barabanki.

12. The informant was examined as PW-2 and he reiterated the aforesaid version. He stated
that Hukum Chand and Shobha Lal were with them when the accused persons had taken away his
father. Those persons were also accompanying them when a search was being made for his father.
His father was found in Gurela jungle, from where he was taken to the police station.
1072 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13. The doctor who had examined the victim was examined as PW-5. He proved the
Medico Legal examination report which states that the victim had suffered 12 injuries and he stated
that the injuries were simple in nature. PW-7 was a dentist who stated that three upper teeth and
four lower teeth were fake. The rest of the teeth were weak. The victim was suffering from
Pyorrhea.

14. It is relevant to note that the victim was sent for Medico Legal Examination along with
a letter of SHO and it does not mention that the victim was unconscious. The Medico Legal
examination report mentions 12 simple injuries suffered by the victim and it also does not state that
the victim had been brought in an unconscious condition.

15. The trial court concluded that although the victim had not suffered any grievous hurt, 5
out of 12 injuries suffered by him were burn injuries. The trial court has held that although only the
appellants were named in the FIR and the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants only,
another person, Munnavar was summoned upon an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by
the prosecution, but his involvement in commission of the offence could not be proved and he has
been acquitted.

16. The trial court commenced the discussion by dealing with the submission advanced on
behalf of the accused persons that the incident took place on 30.07.2000 at about 2 p.m. whereas
the FIR had been lodged at about 08:15 p.m. In case the victim had been abducted for committing
his murder, the informant would have lodged the FIR without any delay. Instead of lodging the
FIR, the informant set on a search for the victim without involving the police and he found out the
victim and thereafter lodged the FIR, which raises doubt against the prosecution story. The trial
court turned down this submission by observing that it has generally been observed that police
avoids to register an FIR. In these circumstances, if the informant did not involve the police and
instead he set out to search his father with the help of other persons and became successful in it, it
does not create a doubt against the prosecution case and there is no unreasonable delay in lodging
the FIR.

17. Regarding the second submission raised on behalf of the defense that the FIR does not
disclose any motive for commission of the offense, the trial court held that in the statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim Bhagauti Prasad has stated that the accused persons were saying
that he had killed his sister and, therefore, he should be killed. This statement discloses the motive.

18. Next, the trial court dealt with the submission made on behalf of the defense that even
if it be assumed that Bhagauti Prasad was abducted, there is no evidence to establish that he had
been abducted with the intention of committing his murder. The trial court held that the mere fact
that Bhagauti Prasad did not suffer any grievous hurt, cannot lead to a conclusion that he had not
been abducted with the intention to kill him. Bhagauti Prasad has stated that the appellant no. 1 was
stating while beating him that the victim had to be killed. Bhagauti Prasad has also stated that when
the accused persons got information that the police was reaching at the spot, they escaped.
Although the police had not reached there, the victim?s son Ashok Kumar and the other persons
had reached there. The accused persons would have taken those persons as police officials and
would have escaped.
4 All. Anant Ram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1073
19. The trial court dealt with the submission of the victim that there were discrepancies in
the statements of the informant Ashok Kumar and the victim Bhagauti Prasad but the trial court
held that there were no serious discrepancies in their statements. The minor discrepancies like the
statement of the informant that doctor had given his father only powdered medicine whereas the
victim had stated that the doctor had given him tablets, tonic and mixture, do not affect their
testimony adversely.

20. Regarding the statement of the victim Bhagauti Prasad that he had fallen unconscious
and regained consciousness in the district hospital, the trial court held that it should not be taken
that Bhagauti Prasad had fallen unconscious with a medical point of view and the statement only
indicates that the manner in which Bhagauti Prasad had been assaulted, had frightened him to that
extent that he was not in a condition of understanding anything. He recovered from such a
condition only on the following day in the hospital.

21. Regarding non-examination by Hukum Chand and Shobha Lal, the trial court held that
nowadays a common man avoids appearing as a witness in criminal cases and, therefore, nonexamination of Hukum Chand and Shobha Lal does not create a doubt against the prosecution case.

22. After dealing with the submissions made on behalf of the defense, the trial court
proceeded to examine the defense evidence. It referred to the statement of DW-1-Gurudeen, who
had stated that the appellant no. 2-Awadhesh Kumar had worked in Jaidpur Nursery with him since
8:00 a.m. till 5:00 p.m. on 30.07.2000 and during the entire duty period on the aforesaid date he
had not gone away anywhere. A similar statement was given by DW-2, Premnath Tiwari, Forest
Daroga. The trial court disbelieved their statements on the ground that normally there is a tendency
in employees to save their co-employees and DW-1 and DW-2 had given evidence because of this
tendency. It is recorded in the judgment that in the court?s view, it is very easy that a daily wage
laborer may go anywhere without taking leave.

23. As per the trial court, the preponderance of probability tilted in favor of the fact that the
appellant no. 2 was involved in the incident and yet he showed his presence in Jaidpur Nursery.
The trial court held that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for holding the appellants guilty of the
offense under Sections 364, 307/34 and 323/34 I.P.C.

24. The judgment does not at all deal with the statements of prosecution witnesses and the
submissions of Public Prosecutor. The trial court has merely dealt with the submissions of the
defense counsel and has turned down all of them and has dealt with the defense evidence and has
discarded the same. It shows that the trial court was acting under an impression that it is the
accused who is required to prove his innocence rather than the prosecution being required to prove
the guilt of the accused. After examination of the defense evidence, the trial Court concluded that
the preponderance of probabilities tilted against the accused and convicted the accused persons on
this basis. This is not the manner in which a trial court should proceed to decide a case.

25. DW-1-Gurudeen and DW-2 Premnath had stated that the appellant no. 2-Awadhesh
Kumar had worked in Jaidpur Nursery with him since 8:00 a.m. till 5:00 p.m. on 30.07.2000 and
during the entire duty period on the aforesaid date he had not gone away anywhere. The trial court
1074 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has committed a manifest error in discarding their statements on the ground that normally there is a
tendency in employees to save their co-employees and DW-1 and DW-2 had given evidence
because of this tendency, even when it found no discrepancy in their statements and even in their
cross-examinations. The trial Court has held that it is very easy that a daily wage laborer may go
anywhere without taking leave but this is a mere conjecture and no conviction can be based on
conjectures.

26. The trial court has held that the preponderance of probability tilted in favor of the fact
that the appellant no. 2 was involved in the incident and yet he showed his presence in Jaidpur
Nursery. The trial court held that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for holding the appellants guilty
of the offense under Sections 364, 307/34 and 323/34 I.P.C.

27. In Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala, (2019) 8 SCC 50,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

 "10. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations beyond all reasonable
doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the accused has only to create a doubt about the
prosecution case and the probability of its defence. An accused is not required to establish or prove
his defence beyond all reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution. If the accused takes a defence,
which is not improbable and appears likely, there is material in support of such defence, the
accused is not required to prove anything further. The benefit of doubt must follow unless the
prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt."

28. In Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 8 SCC 315, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that: -

 "29. In criminal jurisprudence, it is a time-tested proposition that the primary burden
falls upon the shoulders of the prosecution and it is only if the prosecution succeeds in discharging
its burden beyond reasonable doubt that the burden shifts upon the accused to explain the evidence
against him or to present a defence. In the present case, the version of the prosecution suffers from
inherent inconsistencies and doubts, as discussed above, and in such a scenario, the inability of the
appellant to explain certain circumstances could not be made the basis to relieve the prosecution
from discharging its primary burden.

 30. The High Court fell in a grave error in doing so, as it placed greater reliance on the
loopholes in the appellant?s version without first determining whether the chain of circumstances
sought to be proved by the prosecution was complete or not. Pertinently, the inability of an accused
to offer plausible explanation on certain aspects would not automatically absolve the prosecution
of its evidentiary burden, which must be discharged first and beyond doubt.

 31. In law, there is a significant difference in the evidentiary burden to be discharged by
the prosecution and the accused. Whereas, the former is expected to discharge its burden beyond
reasonable doubt, the latter is only required to prove a defence on the anvil of preponderance of
probabilities. If the accused leads defence evidence in the course of a criminal trial, the same ought
to be tested as probable or improbable in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4 All. Anant Ram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
1075
29. Having referred to the prosecution evidence, it appears that the informant Ashok
Kumar had stated that Hukum Chand and Shobha Lal had seen the victim being taken away by the
accused persons and those persons were accompanying him while a search was made for the victim
and he was found in a jungle. The victim Bhagauti Prasad did not state that Hukum Chand and
Shobha Lal were accompanying him when he was abducted. This is not a minor discrepancy
regarding description of the incident. It shows that Hukum Chand and Shobha Lal had not
witnessed the incident and that is the reason that Hukum Chand and Shobha Lal have not been
examined by the trial court although their names were mentioned as witnesses in the charge sheet.

30. Although the informant has stated that several persons were involved in carrying out a
search for the victim, not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution who was involved
in carrying out a search for the victim. This also raises a serious doubt against the prosecution case.

31. The victim stated that he had fallen unconscious and he regained consciousness in the
district hospital on the following day. The letter sent by Station House Officer to the doctor for
conducting medical examination of the victim mentions some injuries suffered by the victim, but it
does not mention that the victim was unconscious. The medico-legal examination report also does
not state that the victim was unconscious. The doctor has been examined before the trial court as
PW5 and he has also not made any such statement. Strangely, the trial court itself invited a creative
explanation that the statement made by the victim that he had fallen unconscious and regained
consciousness the following day means that he had got frightened and he was not in a position to
understand the things. This depicts that the Trial Court has fastened the liability of guilt on the
accused persons purely on conjectures and surmises which is impermissible under law. The trial
court is not expected to twist and turn the testimony of a prosecution witness to such a great extent
as to change the statement altogether and override the medical evidence to the contrary in order to
anyhow convict an accused person.

32. The trial court has held the appellants guilty of commission of offenses under Sections
323/34, 307/34, and 364 IPC. As has already been discussed above, the appellant no. 2 has been
convicted merely on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and even the trial Court has not
held that the prosecution could prove his guilt beyond reaonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction of
the appellant no. 2 is not sustainable in law and he is entitled to be acquitted.

33. Sections 307 and 323, 364 IPC read as follows: -

 "307. Attempt to murder.-Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and
under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be
liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

 Attempts by Life Convicts.-When any person offending under this section is under
sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death. * * *
1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.-Whoever, except in the case provided for
by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or
with both. * * *

 364. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.-Whoever kidnaps or abducts any
person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger
of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 34. In Sivamani v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1581, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
discussed some precedents on the point of relevance of injuries while examining a case under
Section 307 IPC and held that: -

 "9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court held that to
sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily injury capable of
resulting in death should have been inflicted. As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on
the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. In the same
judgment, it was pointed out that ??The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result,
was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the
section.?"The position that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not dislodge
Section 307, IPC conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC
366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (supra) and
Kanha (supra), it was observed that while grievous or life-threatening injury was not necessary to
maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, The intention of the accused can be ascertained
from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things,
the nature of the weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer
intent."
(emphasis added)

35. In order to uphold a conviction under Sections 307 and 364, it is necessary for the
prosecution to prove that the accused persons intended to kill the victim. As per the prosecution
case, there were four assailants. They had the freedom to deal with the victim for a period of about
six hours. The presence of only two assailants could be established and the prosecution could not
prove the involvement of two other persons. Although numerous injuries have been caused to the
victim, all the injuries are simple in nature. No lethal weapon is alleged to have been used in
committing the offense. The aforesaid facts indicate that the intention of the accused persons was
not to kill the victim. There was an animosity between the parties and the intention appears to be to
give a good beating to the victim.

36. When the prosecution has failed to make out the intention of killing the victim, the
offenses under sections 364 IPC and 307 IPC are not made out. The allegations, at the most, make
out the offense of abduction, which is defined in Section 362 IPC and which is punishable under
Section 365 IPC for imprisonment which may extend to seven years. For the offense under Section
323 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
4 All. Manoj Kumar Vs. State of U.P.
1077
37. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the offenses under sections
364 and 307 IPC are not made out against the appellants. Instead, the appellant no. 1 is held guilty
for committing offenses under sections 362 and 323 IPC.

38. Although both the appellants have filed an application for giving them the benefit of
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, I have already held that the prosecution could not
prove the guilt of the appellant no. 2 beyond reasonable doubt and have acquitted him of all the
charges. The appellant no. 2 was accused in a case under section 307 IPC lodged from the victim?s
side, in which he already stands acquitted in that case. The learned AGA-I does not oppose the
request for grant of the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.

39. Accordingly, the application for benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to the
appellant no. 1 Anant Kumar is allowed and he is granted benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act. As the appellant no. 1 was convicted in the year 2012 and during the past about 14
years, he has not committed any offense, the good conduct of the appellant no. 1 during the
aforesaid period does not warrant keeping him on probation for any further period.

40. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
---------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1077
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 2012

Manoj Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether, after acquittal of the accused of the charges under Ss. 498-A, 304-B, 302/34 IPC
and Ss. 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, there was sufficient material to establish that the appellant had abetted his
wife to commit suicide so as to sustain conviction under S. 306 IPC and whether S. 106 of the Evidence Act
could be invoked to shift the burden upon the accused. (Paras 16, 25-38)

Headnotes
Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 306 and 107 - Ingredients of
abetment - Requirement of instigation, intentional aid, active act or direct act and clear mens
rea - Conviction under S. 306 IPC cannot be sustained without evidence that the accused had
abetted the deceased to commit suicide - In the present case, there was no allegation of
commission of any act which may amount to instigating the deceased to commit suicide and
there was no evidence that any incident took place in close proximity of time when the deceased
committed suicide or that the quarrels were intended to induce the victim to commit suicide -
Prosecution failed to establish that the appellant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide -