# Arman Khan v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 764
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 2020
- **Bench:** Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arman-khan-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46698
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Bail - Schedule Caste and
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 - Sections 3(2)(v) & 14-A(2) - Indian Penal
Code - Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 -Sections 161 & 439.

The learned trial judge while passing the
impugned order has discussed all the parameters
settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in multiple
number of cases and there is no wrong or fault in
passing the impugned order against the accused
person. Moreover, the offence with which the accusedappellant is arraigned is serious enough and punishable
u/s 302 I.P.C. in case the same is proved by cogent
evidence before the trial judge, capital punishment or life
imprisonment
is
warranted.
The
accused
and
witnesses are native of the same village,
therefore, possibility of tampering with the
evidence and adversely influencing the witnesses
cannot be ruled out. (Para 19, 20)

B. Individual liberty cannot be accentuated to
such an extent or elevated to such a high
pedestal which would bring in anarchy or
disorder in the society. The complainant and the
other witnesses in case of release of the accusedappellant shall always be in the danger of their life as
the accused with a view to save himself would have
cause to vanish the evidence and even witnesses against
him. (Para 21)

Appeal rejected. Criminal Misc. Application u/s
389, Cr.P.C. rejected. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

764 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
circumstances and it has been held that there is
no element of doubt that Exhibit -86 is a
manipulated
document
introduced
by
an
overzealous Investigating Officer to buttress the
prosecution case.

39. In view of the discussions held above,
we find that there is no merit in the contentions
raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
The prosecution proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt against the appellant and
nothing could be shown so as to call for
interference in the judgment of learned trial
court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
----------
(2021)11ILR A764
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 2020

Arman Khan ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Suhail Kashif, Nadeem Murtaza

Counsel for the Respondents:
Govt. Advocate, Ram Naresh Yadav, Vineet
Kumar Chaurasia

A. Criminal Law - Bail - Schedule Caste and
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 - Sections 3(2)(v) & 14-A(2) - Indian Penal
Code - Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 -Sections 161 & 439.

The learned trial judge while passing the
impugned order has discussed all the parameters
settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in multiple
number of cases and there is no wrong or fault in
passing the impugned order against the accused
person. Moreover, the offence with which the accusedappellant is arraigned is serious enough and punishable
u/s 302 I.P.C. in case the same is proved by cogent
evidence before the trial judge, capital punishment or life
imprisonment
is
warranted.
The
accused
and
witnesses are native of the same village,
therefore, possibility of tampering with the
evidence and adversely influencing the witnesses
cannot be ruled out. (Para 19, 20)

B. Individual liberty cannot be accentuated to
such an extent or elevated to such a high
pedestal which would bring in anarchy or
disorder in the society. The complainant and the
other witnesses in case of release of the accusedappellant shall always be in the danger of their life as
the accused with a view to save himself would have
cause to vanish the evidence and even witnesses against
him. (Para 21)

Appeal rejected. Criminal Misc. Application u/s
389, Cr.P.C. rejected. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs NCT Delhi & anr., (2001) 4
SCC 280 (Para 13)

2. Ranjit Singh Vs St. of M.P. & ors., (2013) 16 SCC 797
(Para 19)

3. Ash Mohammad Vs Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu &
anr., (2012) 9 SCC 446 (Para 21)

Present appeal challenged bail rejection order
dated 24.01.2020, passed by learned Special
Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge,
Barabanki.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.)

1. The present Criminal Appeal is moved
under Section 14-A(2) of the Schedule Caste and
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 against the bail rejection order dated
24.01.2020 passed by learned Special Judge
(S.C/S.T.
Act)/Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Barabanki in Case Crime No.09/2020, under
Section 302 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(v) of the
S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Loni Katra, District
Barabanki seeking bail.
11 All. Arman Khan Vs. State of U.P & Anr.
765

2. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri
Suhail Kashif, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for
the State Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan, Advocate
are present in the Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that the
informant/complainant of the case informed in
writing to the local police station i.e. Police
Station Loni Katra, District Barabanki that his
son, namely, Kuldeep aged about 18 years in the
evening of 05.01.2020, after having dinner, left
the house but did not return. He could not be
traced out despite immense search since night up
to next morning. His phone number 7390081077
did not response being switched off on repeated
dialing. In the morning of 06.01.2020 at about
09:00 A.M., a girl namely Sadhna D/o Sanjai
Rawat when went to graze the grass from the
grove of Mohd. Hanif, she found the dead body
of the Kuldeep fell face down on the earth. She
rushed up to the house of informant and told
about the dead body of the deceased-Kuldeep.
When the informant with his family members
reached on the said grove, they found the dead
body of the Kuldeep lying on earth and there
was a cut injury at the left side of the neck. The
informant suspected some unknown persons
who killed his son by cutting throat and
throwing the dead body in the grove of the
Mohd. Hanif.

5. The information was registered as Case
Crime No.09/2020, under Section 302 of I.P.C.
and Sections 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police
Station Loni Katra, District Barabanki, the
police started investigation and sent the body for
post mortem.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has filed
the counter affidavit and produced the case diary
before the Court, wherein, the statement
recorded by the Investigating Officer of
witnesses, namely, Ram Naresh (complainant /
father of the deceased) and Ms.Kumari Sarita
(Sister of the deceased) and some independent
witnesses, namely, Ram Kishore Rawat, Bablu
Rawat and etc.

7. From the statements of the witnesses
recorded by the Investigating Officer, it comes
out that prosecution has made up a case against
present accused-appellant on the basis of two
last seen witnesses connecting him from the
offence. The sister of the deceased stated to the
informant of the case after the cremation of the
deceased that in the night of 05.01.2020 at about
08:00 P.M. to 09:00 P.M., a phone call was
attended by the deceased, who respond the caller
that he is just coming and when he was
intercepted by the sister, not to go without
having dinner, he told, will come back soon as
Arman is calling him. This statement of father
was recorded on 08.01.2020 and supported by
the sister's statement that she was told by the
deceased that telephone call was of Arman, who
asked the deceased to come out of the home.

8. Another independent witness of last
seen, Ram Kishore Rawat stated that in the night
of 05.01.2020 at about 08:00 P.M. when he was
standing in front of his house he saw the
deceased-Kuldeep passing through the Roza
Road, talking on his mobile phone and the
accused-Arman was also going just behind him.
He has also stated that accused-Arman and
deceased-Kuldeep were swarm friends and used
to work together wiring work in four wheelers.
They used to be together mostly. This witness
suspected that Arman might have committed
murder of deceased-Kuldeep.

9. Independent witness, Bablu Rawat has
also affirmed the aforesaid statement, on the
basis whereof, the accused was arrested and on
his information and leading, the murder weapon
i.e. blood stained knife, rod of shocker of motor
766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cycle with stain of blood, broken mobile phone,
battery of the phone and a sim card, were
recovered and the same were identified by the
father of the deceased.

10. The prosecution has collected the call
record from the two phone numbers, one
belonging to the deceased bearing phone
number 7390081077 and another phone
number 9305896702 identified to be of
accused-Arman as it was attended by him on a
random call made to him by the Investigating
Officer.

11. Post mortem of the dead body of
deceased-Kuldeep was performed between
4:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. on 06.01.2020. On the
perusal of post mortem report, annexure no.3,
the possible time of death is reported before
one and half day approximately. It relates the
time between 08:00 P.M. to 09:00 P.M. in the
night of 05.01.2020 when the accused was last
seen with the deceased when he was alive.

12. Perused the order of the Court passed
over the bail application, moved on behalf of
accused-appellant-Arman Khan before the
trial
judge,
Special
Court
(S.C/S.T.
Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki,
who rejected the same vide his order dated
24.01.2020 giving rise to the filing of appeal
under Section 14-A(2) of the Schedule Caste
and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989.

13. The moot question in the appeal is
that whether learned trial court has passed the
impugned order wrongly and the accusedappellant had suitable cause for grant of bail
during the pendency of the trial. There is
principle of law established by Hon'ble the
Apex Court. In the case of Prahlad Singh
Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi and Another reported
in (2001) 4 SCC 280, Hon'ble the Apex Court
in para 8 has held as under:-

"8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to
be exercised on the basis of well settled
principles having regard to the circumstances of
each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While
granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind
the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence
in support thereof, the severity of the punishment
which conviction will entail, the character,
behaviour, means and standing of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, reasonable possibility of securing the
presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered
with, the larger interests of the public or State
and similar other considerations. It has also to
be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting
the bail the Legislature has used the words
"reasonable grounds for believing" instead of
"the evidence" which means the court dealing
with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to
whether there is a genuine case against the
accused and that the prosecution will be able to
produce prima facie evidence in support of the
charge. It is not excepted , at this stage, to have
the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt."

14. In view of the above, this is to be seen
that whether the prosecution has made out a
strong prima facie case against the accusedappellant which shows his complicity in the
commission of the offence satisfactorily. The
case before the trial judge and involved in this
appeal put forth by the prosecution is simply
based on statement of witnesses Ram Kishore
Rawat and Bablu Rawat recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. with regard to seeing the deceased
alongwith accused-appellant-Arman Khan in the
night of 05.01.2020 when he was alive. Just after
that the dead body of the deceased-Kuldeep was
discovered in the grove of Mohd. Hanif in the
village. The statement of this witness was
connected with the statement of sister of the
deceased, who stated that in the evening of
05.01.2020 at about 08:00 P.M., when her
11 All. Arman Khan Vs. State of U.P & Anr.
767
brother, the deceased-Kuldeep was on dinner, he
attended a call from Arman, calling him to come
at a place.

15. The dead body of the deceased was
found in the grove lying on the earth with cut
injury on the left side of the neck and the post
mortem report reveals the anti mortem injuries
which are being given hereunder:-

"1) A L.W. 6cm x 2.0cm around over
top of Head, scalp deep, 14 cm. above from
large of (Lt.) ear.

2) ALW 3.0cm x 1.0cm present over
top of Head scalp deep 2cm around 10cm. Injury
No.(1), larger & larches ent.

3) A lacerated wound 5.0cm x 2.0cm
present over frond of upper neck 5.0cm above
from sidetrack.

4) A lacerated wound 2.0 cm. x 1.0 cm
bone deep present over (Lt) shoulder rigor
7.0cm below from tie of (Lt.) shoulder joint.

5) A lacerated wound 2.0cm x 1.0 cm
present over (Lt) scapula rigor bone deep 5.0cm
medial to injury no. (4)

6) A lacerated wound 3.0cm x 1.00cm
present over (Lt) sidetrack Thorne cavity deep
below from injury no.(5)."

16. The articles stained with blood
recovered from the house of accused-appellant,
thus, prima facie found linked from the anti
mortem injuries found on the person of dead
body.

17. All the lacerated wounds are suggestive
of causing death due to hemorrhage. The arrest
and recovery memo made by the police after the
arrest of the accused on the prima facie evidence
of his complicity in the offence lead the
recovery of murder weapon i.e. blood stained
knife, rod of shocker of motor cycle with stain
of blood, broken mobile phone, battery of the
phone and a sim card, identified by the
complainant as of the deceased. The call details
from the telecom department, which is electronic
evidence to corroborate the statement made by
the sister of the deceased about receiving call
from Arman in the evening of 05.01.2020,
asking the deceased to come out and accompany
him is discussed in the impugned order.

18. Further, the statement of independent
witnesses Ram Kishore Rawat and Bablu Rawat
make possible and reliable the statement of sister
of the deceased namely Kumari Sarita given to
the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that call
from Arman was attended on phone by the
deceased as they were friends and work together
of wiring of four wheelers and thus used to
remain with each other mostly. Thus, there is no
impossibility in the statement of relative
witnesses and no contradiction with the
statement of independent witness, therefore,
prima facie case from statement against the
complicity of the accused was sufficiently
established by the prosecution. The motive, as
also sufficiently explained by the prosecution
that both i.e. the accused and the deceased were
liking a same girl, for the reason of which, the
accused thrashed against the deceased.

19. The parameters for grant of bail under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been settled by
Hon'ble the Apex Court in multiple number of
cases, one of them is Ranjit Singh Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2013)
16 SCC 797 relying on the other supreme court
cases on the subject. In para 20 and 21, it is
held:-

"20. In Chaman Lal v. State of
U.P.[1], this Court, while dealing with an
application for bail, has stated that certain
factors are to be borne in mind and they are: -

".... (i) the nature of accusation and
the severity of punishment in case of conviction
and the nature of supporting evidence,

(ii)
reasonable
apprehension
of
tampering with the witness or apprehension of
768 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
threat to the complainant, and (iii) prima facie
satisfaction of the court in support of the
charge."

21. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee[2], this Court, while emphasizing on
the exercise of discretionary power generally
has to be done in strict compliance with the
basic principles laid down in plethora of
decisions of this Court, has observed as follows:
-

"9... among other circumstances, the
factors which are to be borne in mind while
considering an application for bail are:

i) whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to be believed that the
accused had committed the offence;

ii)
nature
and
gravity
of
the
accusation;

iii) severity of the punishment in the
event of conviction;

iv) danger of the accused absconding
or fleeing, if released on bail;

v)
character,
behavior,
means,
position and standing of the accused;

vi) likelihood of the offence being
repeated;

vii) reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being influenced;

and

viii) danger, of course, of justice being
thwarted by grant of bail."

20. The learned trial judge while passing the
impugned order has discussed all these things and
there is no wrong or fault in passing the impugned
order against the accused person. Moreover, the
offence with which the accused-appellant is
arraigned is serious enough and punishable under
Section 302 I.P.C. in case of proving the same by
cogent evidence before the trial judge, capital
punishment or life imprisonment is warranted. The
accused and witnesses are native of the same
village, therefore, possibility of tampering with the
evidence and adversely influencing the witnesses
cannot be ruled out.

21. Moreover, the complainant and the other
witnesses in case of release of the accusedappellant shall always be in the danger of their life
as the accused with a view to save himself would
have cause to vanish the evidence and even
witnesses against him. Hon'ble the Supreme Court
in case of Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @
Lalla Babu and Another reported in (2012) 9
SCC 446 has held in para 18 and 19, which is
quoted below:-

"18. It is also to be kept in mind that
individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an
extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which
would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society.
The prospect of greater justice requires that law
and order should prevail in a civilized milieu. True
it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for
fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the
adjudication should express not only application of
mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted
and established norms. Law and order in a society
protect the established precepts and see to it that
contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an
organized society the concept of liberty basically
requires citizens to be responsible and not to
disturb the tranquility and safety which every wellmeaning person desires. Not for nothing J. Oerter
stated:

"Personal liberty is the right to act
without interference within the limits of the
law."

19. Thus analyzed, it is clear that
though liberty is a greatly cherished value in the
life of an individual, it is a controlled and
restricted one and no element in the society can
act in a manner by consequence of which the life
or liberty of others is jeopardized, for the
rational collective does not countenance an antisocial or anti-collective act."

22. On the basis of aforesaid discussions,
the Criminal Appeal arising out of impugned
order dated 24.01.2020 rejecting the appellant's
bail application, preferred under Section 14-A(2)
of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes
11 All. Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra Vs. State of U.P.
769
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for no force
to be allowed, hence, the appeal is rejected. The
Criminal Misc. Application No.20452 of 2020
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. shall also stands
rejected in view of the rejection of the appeal.

23. However, learned trial court is directed
to conclude the trial expeditiously, if possible,
within one year from the date certified copy of
the order is produced before it.
----------
(2021)11ILR A769
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 544 of 2010

Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Anupam Lahoriya, Sri Amit Tripathi, Sri
Prashant Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Rape - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 313 & 376 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 375 & 376 - The
courts shall be extremely careful in accepting
the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the
entire case is improbable and unlikely to
happen. It is true that in a rape case the accused
could be convicted on the sole testimony of the
prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring of confidence
in the mind of the court. If the version given by the
prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence
or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly
improbable and belie the case set up by the
prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary
evidence of the prosecutrix. (Para 9, 22)
B. For maintaining the conviction u/s 376
Cr.P.C.,
medical
evidence
has
to
be
in
conformity with the oral testimony. In our
finding, the medical evidence goes to show that
doctor did not find any sperm. The doctor opined that
no signs of forcible sexual intercourse were found.
This was also based on the finding that there were no
internal injuries on the girl who was minor girl. The
factual data also goes to show that there are several
contradictions in the examination-in-chief as well as
cross examination of the witnesses. (Para 23 to 28)

Hon'ble High Court examined the evidence of the
prosecutrix on which reliance is placed by trial court
and whether it inspires confidence or not so as to
sustain the conviction of accused. And held that the
chain of incident goes to show that the prosecutrix
was raped as would be clear from the provision of
S.375 read with S.376 of IPC. Learned Trial Judge has
given finding as to fact as to how commission of
offence u/s 376 IPC was made out in the present
case, but further has not put any question in the
statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 of the
accused relating to rape or statement which is against
him. The accused has been convicted for life. The
judgment and order impugned is reversed and the
accused is convicted for period undergone. (Para 22,
28, 29, 30)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe Vs St. of Mah., 2006 (10)
SCC 92 (Para 6, 8, 9)

2. Manne Siddaiah @ Siddiramulu Vs St. of A.P., 2000
(2) Alld (Cri) (Para 6, 8)

3. Rafiq Vs St. of U.P., AIR 1981 SC page 559 (Para 21)

4. Nawab Khan Vs State, 1990 Cri.L.J. Page 1179
(Para 21)

5. Bharvada Bhogin Bhai Hirji Bhai Vs St. of Guj., AIR
1983 SC page 753 (Para 21)

6. Ganesan Vs State Represented by its Inspector of
Police, Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 2020 (Arising from
S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4976 of 2020) (Para 22)

7. Bhaiyamiyan @ Jardar Khan & anr.r Vs St. of M.P.,
2011 SCW 3104 (Para 28)